User talk:INeverCry/Archive 23

← Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24 →

Email

Hello, INeverCry. Check your email—you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 06:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Problem

Hi dear INeverCry; Today one of users emailed me about an uploading problem, I had temporary solved it but I'm not sure about the main reason. I said maybe you could tell me about it more. Main uploader tried to upload This photo like what it is right now but photo had been changed! (Look at previous versions of photo) I thought it could be because of the format of the file(CMYK) but still I'm not sure. Do you know what was the problem? --Freshman404^Talk 17:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty strange. I don't know what would cause that. If it happens again, you could ask at Commons:Help desk. INeverCry 20:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No source/permission/license

I will no longer handle deletions from any of these categories. I consider this issue resolved. Thanks. INeverCry 23:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. Cheers! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I read your statement I will no longer delete any of *these* images (paraphrase) to mean "They're already deleted, I won't have to delete them again". There's no reason at all to abstain from clearing the backlog in the no source/permission/license. I won't say nonsense like Hedwig, but balderdash. HUGS! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Mjrmtg

He's been creating a set of categories, "City halls in X" (where X is various U.S. states), which are of course synonymous to the established "Town halls in X" categories for the same states; some of these categories already existed, I've discovered, but he's been aggressively populating them by moving lots of files out of the Town halls categories. It's obviously not a matter of merely conforming to legal municipal statuses; in Idaho, where all municipalities are cities, he moved some, but not all, of the "Town halls in Idaho" contents to "City halls in Idaho", and I'm thoroughly unclear how he decided which ones to move, since there's no difference whatsoever between the ones he moved and the ones he didn't.

I've been restoring the established form, both putting the files back and deleting the duplicate categories, but he's recreated some of the categories and used rollback to repopulate the new categories. I warned him to stop, reminding him that all of these are subsets of the Category:Town halls tree that's covered the same topic as en:Seat of municipal government since 2004, and also reminding him that I'm enforcing the category tree and that I don't particularly care whether everything's at City or at Town, but stating that we can't be creating parallel trees. I don't know whether he's re-reverted me, since I've been working on a separate project and have no desire to go against en:WP:HOUND by following his every edit, but I'll guess that he did, based on his response to you. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm still wondering what me and my UDEL closes had to do with it. One of the strangest things I've seen in quite a while. INeverCry 02:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"his response to you" I meant what he said after the block. I can't imagine how this is relevant to COM:UNDEL or to you. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This is especially strange because I've been working alongside him for years at DR and he's always been very calm and stable. I see that he mentions Auntof6 at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Nyttend. I don't know a more calm and mature editor here than she is. I've only blocked him for a day, but strange or not, I can't sit by and allow him to revert-war, especially at UDEL, where the image uploaders are often representatives of schools and companies and are confused enough as it is. I hope he sleeps on it and comes back his old self when the block is up tomorrow evening. INeverCry 02:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

What about Category:City halls? Should it go away too? --Ebyabe (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Drama

Can I remind you of your Commons:Administrators/Requests/INeverCry (readmin) where you promised to stay away from (and not create) drama, and concentrate on DR backlog. Instead, you have created an Admin page claiming A.Savin's block was "unfair" and have worked towards bypassing it with a fudge. The consensus is that the block is not unfair (though the length is debatable). And the consensus is that your suggestion of an interaction ban is also not acceptable. You cannot unilaterally unblock Livio because (a) you have not got consensus as required by policy and (b) you are the one in dispute with A.Savin so this looks like wheel warring.

Your comment "I don't know you too well Code, but A.Savin has had plenty of uncivil moments of his own. He once opposed a user's RFA simply because that user was German and active at de.wiki. Do you agree with that?" is an ad hominem personal attack on A.Savin. It is unrelated to our consideration of this block and simply an attempt to discredit him. I strongly advise you to strike those comments and apologise to A.Savin.

Please restore the block and leave it to others to decide if your complaint about the "unfair" block and you suggested solution, have any merit. Currently, they don't. -- Colin (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I've replied on AN. My intention has been to try to find a solution and help Livio change his behavior so he doesn't get blocked indefinitely. Maybe I've messed up here, but I really didn't mean it to turn out that way. I've probably been too impulsive and impatient in this situation. I do hope a solution can be found that allows Livio to stay at Commons. Almost 2:30 now, so I've really got to get to bed. My brain is shutting down on me. INeverCry 09:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please re-block Livio at this time. Colin's assessment of the situation is accurate and fair. Nick (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: , @Nick: I've put A.Savin's block back in place. Having some time to think things over this morning made a big difference. I'll leave this to be decided by community consensus, which is what I should've done from the start. INeverCry 18:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Need your intervention

One user has been uploading many images, of one subject, en:Abhinay Banker and he has uploaded a lot of copyrighted images, which have been deleted in the past. Seeking your help in discussion here. Coderzombie (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Based on his edits in English Wikipedia, it also seems en:WP:SPA and en:WP:COI. Coderzombie (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning about the copyvios. The SPA/COI issue is more on the Wikipedia side, unless he starts using Commons for direct self-promotion. INeverCry 18:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Проверка фотографии

Здравствуйте. Проверьте пожалуйста загруженные мной фотографии. В друг группы или профили закроют. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

 Сделано INeverCry 21:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

И вот это пожалуйста. Авторстве загрузчика не вызывает сомнении. Общался с ним. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

 Сделано INeverCry 04:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Restore deleted images

Hi! Please restore deleted images File:Buchach Shevchenko monument.jpg and rename → File:Buchach Shevchenko monument.jpg. This file was renamed the Ukrainian Wikipedia by exact name. :) Thank. --Mykola Vasylechko 04:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 04:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ask for a comment!

Hello! Here I ask for a request. Your concentration will be helpful. Thanks in advance! ~ Moheen ^(talk) 06:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I've commented. We need more active reviewers, so I hope the pass you. It looks good so far. INeverCry 09:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! ~ Moheen ^(talk) 10:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Checking a picture

Can you please check File:Stemmacalangianus.png? We received an OTRS request, but I am afraid that it's a logo and the customer is not the rightful owner of the rights. NB: it can be an amatorial team: in this case, the request can be legit, but out of scope. Thanks! --Ruthven (msg) 08:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a shield-style 1905 football logo. It might actually be simple enough for PD-Textlogo. Let me know on the scope issue. INeverCry 20:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Really similar uploads

These two seem too similar to be unrelated:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&user=Hajodddd&ilshowall=1
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&user=Bmlzsss&ilshowall=1

Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Welcome to the world of image spambots/spam services! Herbythyme and I have been zapping these left and right lately. These started a couple years ago with moving company spam coming from big dirty ranges in India. This is a way of getting by filters that stop userpage spambots. I would recommend nuking the spam and blocking the accts for spamming - or you can report them to me if you want. The MO of these is two or three generic workplace images or logos with spam in the description, and mostly pattern names like Bmlzsss that don't look like what a human would choose for their name. I've blocked a couple hundred of these if not a bit more, and I'm sure Herby has gotten rid of just as many himself. INeverCry 20:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Your comment at Livio's talk made me sad. On the other side, I'm happy to see you using your difficulties in a very productive way. Keep up your good works. I'm sure a lot of friends here do support you. Hugs from India. Jee 03:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks old friend. I hope you're doing OK after your recent loss. I've been dealing with my illnesses for over 30 years now, since I was in high school in the 80s. It can be heavy at times, but look at the little children who have cancer and fight through chemo-therapy and radiation. They can be strong and so can I. Hugs from Nevada. INeverCry 04:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. My wife had gone through those struggles (cut, burn and chemo) on her twenty. She fought 13 more years with a smile. I'm glad I gave her a company in her last years. (BTW, we're celebrating Nativity of Mary today. So wishing you a very wonderful day/night!) Jee 04:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I wish you the same brother. It's almost 2:30 in the morning here. Just a few more duplicates to process and I'm off to bed. INeverCry 09:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: Your wife was a very special person. It helps me to hear about her strength. It won't be too long before you return to God and join her. Most people don't realize just how fleeting life really is. But your wife didn't live in fear, she lived in love. INeverCry 21:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Same here. I felt a bit down when reading your comments, so just a little word to share a bit of sympathy. These are only words, but I know how they can bring comfort sometime :-) I've been having my share of family members ill and passing away. I don't think we've been as nice to them as your family seems to be with you. Whatever my health condition, I only hope it will always be with close friends or family :) - Benh (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I've had problems and disagreements with friends and family members in the past too of course, and we still anger each other now and then. But when I stop and think of what they mean to me, I know without a doubt that I would be willing to die for them and they would be willing to die for me. We love each other, and that's all that really counts. Love is more powerful than anger because anger comes from passing thoughts, while love comes from the heart. You just do your best and don't worry about it too much. Dying isn't something terrible or something to fear. It's as natural as birth. I've been on this planet for 48 years, and I don't think I'd want to go much more than 70 or 80 at most. My nieces and nephews and their children will carry on with it all. INeverCry 21:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Sir Alfred Herbert's Car.jpg

Sorry, I was waiting for a response from Carl Lindberg. Will establish from source (have just written again) whether or not photographer i.d. is provided on original print and having established that will request undeletion supplying that information. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That's the process I was thinking of when I closed that DR. I'll be ready to restore it when you get it sorted. INeverCry 04:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Herry Lawford has responded "Sorry Dai, the photo is buried in a box somewhere. I don't know when I'll get at it." This being so, at least for the moment, please would you undelete the image giving it a licence of {{Licensed-PD-Art-two|PD-UK-unknown|PD-1923|cc-by-2.0}} as suggested by Carl Lindberg (it is a form of licence I am unfamiliar with or is it a list of alternatives? Sorry, I don't know but I feel certain you will. If you decide you can't undelete I will be only moderately upset, its been on display for something like 18 months now so anyone interested will have had a good chance to see it. Many thanks, Eddaido (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Having deleted it for want of info, I can't restore it while that info is still lacking. INeverCry 19:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought I was being downright punctilious, quite unnecessarily going and trying to discover any clue to the i.d. of the photographer to show the intensity of my willingness to be obliging. Seems I was wrong. Eddaido (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Eddaido: Or maybe I was wrong. It happens...rarely... I've restored it with the suggested license. INeverCry 03:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Good Heavens! Thank you Very much. kind regards, Eddaido (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio reuploaded

Here. The first one. Thanks.--Fixertool (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted both files. Is this a sock account? Did another account upload these same images previously? INeverCry 22:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Israel Lepelevsky 2013-06-27 07-26.jpg

Hello! Would you please delete one more duplication of the same file? Thank You very much! --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Already done by Wdwd. INeverCry 19:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Nasim is not tasnim

Hi dear. Please check this category and related pages.--Mehdi^Talk 15:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That's new to me. I know it took us a long time to get the whole Tasnim setup figured out, and now they have another branch? @Czar: Are we handling this the same as Tasnim? INeverCry 21:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Oy vey. Well the site isn't loading for me right now. Not sure what the deal is. I'm also not finding much in English about the org, if indeed it is separate. Google thinks I mean "Tasnim". Happy to help with the templates as needed—I put them together last time and they seemed to work out well czar 23:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User rights

Haha!! I see that you have executed another step in your cunning plan to get me to work more on the site. Thanks! The file moving will come in very handy since I often come across files with really bad names, and even if it annoyed me I usually didn't want to pile on the work load for those who could fix it. Now I can just do it myself. Not sure if the rollback is something I'll use very often, we'll see. If I don't need it I'll get back to you. Best, cart-Talk 10:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've tested the rollback and while it is effective, it is also a bit dangerous. I frequently check what's going on at the wikis I'm active on with my cellphone and since the rollback is immediate as soon as you hit the tab, chances are great that I'll accidentally roll back an edit that is listed on my watchlist. If I want to remove any vandalism or my own stupid mistakes, I prefer to do this the old-fashioned way with 'undo' or even editing, rather than have accidents happen. I looked to see if there was a way to disable this function temporarily, same as I do with some other scripts and functions at en-wiki for similar reasons, but found none. So while I appreciate the confidence to letting me have this tool, I'd like you to take me off that list for now. I hope it is not in some way connected to the move privilege because that I very much want to keep! Please let me know. cart-Talk 15:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Rollback removed. I'm glad you like filemover, otherwise I wouldn't be feeling very cunning at the moment... INeverCry 19:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Scherer Péter, Mucsi Zoltán and Grunwalsky Ferenc.jpg

Hello!

Please restore the File:Scherer Péter, Mucsi Zoltán and Grunwalsky Ferenc.jpg image. There is a license, but you forgot to expose him permission to OTRS acting manager. I signaled to him (Pallerti) to fill the gap. Thanks for your help! ( Machine translated text). Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

OTRS number: Ticket#2016030310022202. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hungarikusz Firkász: I don't know why you say I forgot. I didn't delete this file. I've restored it. Please fix the OTRS ticket. INeverCry 23:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and thanks for restoring, it was my mistake, I forget the OTRS ticket! --Pallerti (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No permission ?

Hello INeverCry, I am surprised of your deletion of the File:Faber M. LHomme.jpg: a Commons:OTRS has been sent by mail, to the french address permissions-commons-fr. Perhaps you couldn't see it ? Thanks for your answer, Topfive (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I missed it. I've restored the file. INeverCry 20:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Currency of Zimbabwe

Please see the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#File%3AZimbabwe_.241_billion_2008_Obverse.jpg where Wikipedia template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-ZW-currency is listed as a reference for copyright status of Zimbabwean banknotes. I did not find a similar/same template here on Commons and I don't see that it's listed at COM:CUR; the last entry is Zambia. Pinging (thank you Jo-Jo_Eumerus so you see we are working on this. There are hundreds of banknotes which would be affected by the ability to apply a similar template and to have the information added to the Currency page would be very helpful too, I think. Any suggestions? Thanking everyone for their understanding of my slowness of response - and response limited to here - in the hope that we can just go to en:wiki and say "solved, no worries." I'm in day 3 of internet outage, they say it will be turned on soon, perhaps this afternoon. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ellin Beltz: Template:PD-ZW-currency is the template in question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Jo-Jo_Eumerus The Category:Banknotes of Zimbabwe without source contains a pile of these banknotes without source or author, what would you suggest be added in those fields? Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if source information is relevant for such images, a banknote is a banknote and it doesn't matter much if it's a screenshot, a faithful digital reconstruction or a cropped photo of the note so as long as it's an unmodified reproduction (per the logic expressed ad {{PD-Art}}). If it's a modified reproduction, what the modification is should be indicated and a license/copyright statement in case the modification is copyrigh relevant. For author, that'd be the group that creates these banknotes I'd imagine - not sure how the Zimbabwean monetary institutions work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

All files require source information. That "some files do not have source" exist is not a valid argument for not sourcing images. How about we all wait a while and see what INC has for us on this? Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's the link on demonetization from WP: [1]. Source/author would be something like Treasury of Zimbabwe or whatever gov department that prints these. It may be advisable to open a discussion about this at COM:VP/C since it applies to numerous files. INeverCry 19:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody was making a "other bad sourcing exists" argument. That said, INeverCry's idea seems fine for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Russian!

Greetings INC: Please take a look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C_%D0%AF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2. It looks like a collection, not own work, but rather than translate each image, I thought I'd ask you!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a Ukrainian collection. Might be better if @NickK: or @Antanana: can have a look if they're around. INeverCry 23:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Those are works by a certain sculptor Hamal (Гамаль) and photos from various events where he participated. I don't know what is the exact relation between the uploader and the sculptor: they are most likely relatives, but he might also be a heir, for example. Sorry, but I am on holiday now and can't spend a lot of time on this — NickK (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

That's OK. Enjoy your holiday. Maybe @Krassotkin: can take a look? INeverCry 20:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• I will talk to him. --sasha (krassotkin) 20:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Deleted file but OTRS now received and registered

Could you please restore:

The Author says the OTRS was registered as: [Ticket#: 2016091410016894] Thanks in advance. Jeanloujustine (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an OTRS member, so I can't check that ticket. If an OTRS email has been sent, an OTRS member will restore the image or ask for it to be restored once the permission has been processed and confirmed. You can ask about progress at COM:OTRS/N. INeverCry 20:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Last warning

Dear Sir/Mam, I just saw recent post on my discussion page where it says that it will be the last warning.

In return, I want to clarify that those all copyright issues and uploads were of before 6 months and it's removal shouldn't affect me at present. I do agree that were not having proper copyright tags but now have understood it.

Many thanks

Jaydev Pala (talk)

As long as you don't upload any more copyright violations, you'll be fine. INeverCry 20:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Jhony Jhony socks

He'll never stop. AngryGoodMan (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. (please delete his uploads too)Indopug (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 20:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Disney Land (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user —SpacemanSpiff 06:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 23:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion pre-request

Hi INeverCry! I'd like to ask you (I'm following COM:UNDEL instructions) if it may be suitable one massive undeletion request. The files are those: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013.
They were deleted because they had an obsolete template ({{PD-UN}}) or a wrong one ({{PD-US-no notice-UN}}). I think those documents fit in {{PD-UN-doc}}, and I believe that the files in question were neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope. In fact some of them are being used in broken books in es.source (e.g. s:es:Index:Resolución 1921 del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas (2010).pdf) and that's why I'm interested.
Some users have argued in the past that UN resolutions post-1987 are copyrighted. E.g. in Wikisource it was asked a massive deletion of UN resolutions post-1987, but it was later canceled because of the UN resolutions in the public domain. In fact, there are a lot in Category:PD-UN-doc and a lot more in Wikisources.
So, if you think that such a massive undeletion request may be succesful, I'll next make a formal one in COM:DEL. Thanks for reading! -Aleator (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest posting this at COM:VP/C instead. INeverCry 22:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

I'd like to know which tag do I have to include in the text to ask deletion of a image. I have tried {{deletion} but it doesn't work like when adding {{speedy deletion}. Woovee (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It's best to do this with automated tools. Go to Preferences/Gadgets/Maintenance tools and tick the boxes next to AjaxQuickDelete and Quick Delete. These will add deletion nomination links on the left side of your screen. These automatically tag images for deletion, list deletion requests on the daily DR page, and notify the uploader of the file. INeverCry 01:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Johnston diagrams

Hi, may I ask you to look at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Johnston diagrams to check if it can be closed? I think, it can, since there was no reaction on my last comment 3 weeks ago. However, being the discussion initiator, I don't dare to close it myself. Many thanks in advance. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I've only ever closed CFDs that required simple deletion. The above discussion is beyond my experience level. Perhaps someone like Achim55, Jmabel, or Rimshot could look at this. INeverCry 20:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Done. - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hi INeverCry, You removed file: 2016 Summer Paralympics opening ceremony 139506180943243538597264.jpg because of copyvio. This file is one of other files of the opening ceremony of Paralympic Games which were saved after discussion. I ask to restore the file. Regards --KSK (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Image restored and license review passed. INeverCry 20:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the tools upgrade. I noticed in the process that you removed the "autopatrolled" designation -- is that rolled into one of the new permissions I have been given or was that an accident? Just wondering. Thanks again for the new toys and tools, I will try very hard not to misuse them! Montanabw (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The Patroller right contains Autopatrolled. INeverCry 02:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It is useful to be able to have a bit more flexibility here! Montanabw (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

User:PBA Lille

Bonjour Je vous ai notifié à propos de la suppression de cette page utilisateur ainsi que pour le message que je ne trouve pas très accueillant sur User_talk:PBA_Lille. Au cas où la notification ne fonctionnerait pas, je viens vous en informer ici. J'espère que par le dialogue, nous arriverons à rétablir une situation plus contributive. S'il y a des modifications à apporter à ladite PU, merci de le signaler. Cordialement --Cbyd (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add a detail about the GLAM project if possible. INeverCry 19:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Done, it was missing and I understand why you deleted. Thank you for restoring.--Cbyd (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi INeverCry, Just a quick question - Is it worth keeping this redirect?, The only reason the redirect (and the file) existed was because the Flickr2Commons tool didn't pick up on the other image and instead just uploaded a duplicate, Nothing links to the image and as far as I'm aware the image isn't being used on any site or project so the redirect is kinda pointless?,
, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Deleted. INeverCry 00:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

INC - I bloody love you! , Thanks for deleting it, Have a great week. –Davey2010^Talk 01:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Bro !

"File:2016 Dia Festival Food Zoon in MC Teko & Honeykki.jpg" show us whole appearance of "2016 Dia Festival Food Zoon" and this is a picture that "MC Teko & Honeykki"are progressing the festival. A fluorescent plate is just a part of "Dia Festival Food Zoon"a nd there isn't content that violates copyrights and something special contents on a fluorescent plate so there is no reason to be deleted.

Note : I am awkward in English.--고려 (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This image shows a video screen that is very prominent. This is a violation of COM:DW, which is why I deleted it. INeverCry 22:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

in this picture electronic video screen are be of little importance. this picture is purposed to this woman so electronic video screen behind is not related.--고려 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

you can see Part of Honeykki's cook in that video screen. This means the woman on screen is Honeykki. that video screen is part of Food Zoon and can't be apart. That also included the figure of 2016 "Dia Festival Food Zoon" rather than just two people ("MC Teko & Honeykki."). So, that is why the title named [File:2016 "Dia Festival Food Zoon" in MC Teko & Honeykki.jpg]. Both location and character are important information.--고려 (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: could be the image considered De minimis (Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject, but is not essential to the subject (blacking it out would not make the file useless))? --Puramyun31 (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The screen isn't DM, and the video feed isn't owned by an attendee of the festival who took a photo of it. The screen was easily avoidable by zooming in on the women. The small size of the image would make any crop low quality. INeverCry 19:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@INeverCry: you can see that the bigger the picture is, the clearer look of MC Teko & Honeykki. Then is it still subject to delete?--고려 (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You were warned by Jcb not to re-upload copyvios. I told you clearly that the pictured screen is a copyvio per COM:DW. Please take some time to review COM:DW, because you seem to have a problem in this area. You've uploaded quite a few derivative works. When the video screen is the biggest thing in the photograph, it's not COM:DM, it's a copyvio. INeverCry 21:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Abhinay_banker_Writer_shot.jpg

Dear Sir/Mam,

The photo had been uploaded by the creator named Gaurang Anand and he had given all right from his account+computer that the image is free to use.

I do not have any idea about the user named 'coderzombie' but he/she had requested many times deletation of the page+photos and every-time it had been resulted in KEEP. He/she must be having personal benefits if this page won't be on Wikipedia. This must be checked even.

In the comments when the photo got deleted from your end, it says "The same image from the user has already been deleted previously. There's still no proof that author has allowed this image to be used on required license."

But this time I have not uploaded it!!! I request you to check the facts before deleting anything as this is completely unfair step taken from your end as well. The photo had been uploaded from 'The Gaurang Ananad' where he had clearly mentioned that its free use and also in the photo description/properties, it clearly indicates that 'copyright' is belonging to him. So where was the problem?

thanks

Jaydev Pala (talk)

Refer to the discussion here. Coderzombie (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Hadley-Dean Glass Company Building - Corner.jpg

Hey,

You recently deleted File:Hadley-Dean Glass Company Building - Corner.jpg due to source concerns. The source concerns were however only relevant to a book cover uploaded to the same file name before it was renamed to its current title. There was a split media request on the file but a user decided to tag it with "no-source" in an attempt to have the book cover revisions deleted. Can you please restore the file revisions relating to the Hadley-Dean Glass Company Building and leave the revisions relating to the book cover as deleted. Salavat (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 00:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

Why did you delete File:RobertUpton.jpg? I put a source into the description last week. Don't know what else you expect. --Poliglott (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I've restored it and removed the no source tag. My apologies for the mistake. INeverCry 21:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Identical and non-identical duplicates

Hi, I notice you have deleted File:Peter de Grote (1672-1725), tsaar van Rusland Rijksmuseum SK-A-116.jpeg. I cannot now see the original, but I believe this was one of my uploads which would have been the archive version from the Rijksmuseum database. The file it has been directed to is a "colour enhanced" version rather than the original archive version, presumably using a standard saturation increase to make the skin colour look like living skin according to default settings. This means that the original photograph from the archive is not available for inclusion in Wikipedia articles about the painting, or for Wikidata to reference as a standard image.

The generally applied norm on commons is to only delete truly identical images of paintings, and to keep all derivatives or alternate prints or photographs, even though they are visually very similar. For a now classic example, see Category:Girl with a Pearl Earring by Johannes Vermeer. Can you please revisit your deletion and consider reversing your action?

By the way, please leave me a courtesy note on my talk page if you are deleting any other files from my upload projects. I am otherwise quite likely to not notice these on my exceptionally large watchlist, and in fact most of my uploaded files are not on my watchlist, so I have no idea if I have missed other deletions.

Addendum; Checking dates, the saturated version may have been uploaded after your deletion, it may be worth you looking this over in more detail before deciding the best course of action. --Fæ (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I've restored it. File:Anonymous (Russia) Peter the Great (SK-A-116).jpg was uploaded a month or so before your version. The color change was done recently, which looks to have been why Vincent Steenberg tagged your version as a duplicate, though I can't speak for him of course. Most duplicates I process are much more simple than this thankfully. I can decline processing images of yours that're dupe tagged (not a big number I would guess - I don't remember seeing any others). Other admins may process tagged dupes when I'm not around though, but they mostly leave them to me... INeverCry 21:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no issue with digitally identical files, deleting whichever has the less useful information makes sense. For images of old artworks, it's probably worth using deletion requests to avoid doubt. As an example, the fact that we defer to keeping multiple apparently identical lithographs that happen to be different prints, or even different quality images of the same print, are especially confusing for most contributors. --Fæ (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I can't believe the twists and turns the conversation sometimes takes on talk pages!! cart-Talk 09:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That's what happens when we remember that Commons is supposed to be enjoyable and we don't have to be serious all the time. INeverCry 21:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Delia Gonzalez & Gavin Russom at Kosmische.jpg

Hi, this file was released as CC BY 2.0, see [2]. The flickrreviewer (newbie?) changed the given license to NC and then speedydeleted it. Possibly (well, he didn't care to communicate anything to me), because he clicked on the link to the website given in the flickr account and jumped to conclusions. This is a genuine flickr account, so the license CC-BY-2.0 is valid. Had the same kind of incident with other files from this flickr account: File:Hood (1995).jpg, File:Hood play the Sausage Machine.jpg and File:Iggy & the Stooges (2005).jpg, that were restored afterwards. Thanks in advance for looking into this. Tekstman (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't work for me yet. Why is the seated man with the camera said to be Cat Stevens? The photo is dated 2005. The man has long black hair, and yet Cat Stevens hasn't had long black hair since the 80s or earlier, and he hasn't been called Cat Stevens since then. In 2005 he would've had short gray hair and a beard and he would've been called Yusuf Islam. INeverCry 20:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, that is an interesting approach. As far as I can see the person with the camera is surely not Cat Stevens the singer. Extremely likely that it is the (female) photographer Cat Stevens. See her website and for instance "Cat Stevens (not that one) takes ace portraits of cool musicians". See also the comment below the Flickr-entry from Greg Neate, who seems to see her as a colleague. Rest to say she was cut out by me in my upload. Hope this says something about the integrity of the Flickr account. I believe that was the purpose of your remark? Kind regards, Tekstman (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 07:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Review please

Hiya, could you take a look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22%D0%97_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC_%D0%BC%D1%96%D1%81%D1%8F%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BC%22.JPG, it seems to be all artwork, but I can't read the templates. I felt more confident withCommons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Березовий for all obvious reasons. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Гамаль Ярослав. INeverCry 20:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Rafa sock

Thanks for taking care of the Rafa Figueiredo sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have time, you can post new socks here when you find them. That way I can easily nuke the copyvios. INeverCry 20:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of a donated image

Hello! I'm Andy, currently the Wikipedian in Residence at Museo Soumaya in Mexico City. I was wondering about the deletion of File:63 Máscara-de-llorona-3.jpg, donated by the museum. Unfortunately I didn't notice your message on the official account on time; I've been having trouble logging in to it and don't use it often. My records tell me it had, at the very least, an {{Artwork}} template, so it was supposed to have a copyright notice. However, I admit I never checked directly, as it was uploaded before my tenure. Is is possible to undelete it? I'll make sure it gets an appropriate copyright tag.

Thank you for your time.--Andycyca (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done You've got another week to fix this up. INeverCry 23:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'm on it --Andycyca (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Jack Thibeau Headshot

Hello!

My apologies in advance, I'm a novice user of Wikipedia and am hoping this message gets to you. I am currently having some trouble with IMDB and was attempting to update some incorrect information on that site. I mistakenly uploaded an incorrect photo to my Wiki page - which was a copyrighted image (jackthibeaualc.jpg) - which is what IMDB uses. That one was correctly deleted, but my headshot File:jackthibeau.jpg which I scanned and uploaded (and has been on my wikisite for some time is mine and free to use. Could you please undelete this one so it re-appears on my page?

Thank you for your time! Mtheeb (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC) mtheeb

You scanned it? This looks like a still from a movie. Why is this free? INeverCry 21:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, This was taken in the early 80's while on set. I have a few different shots - but these are all mine. I would be happy to send you a picture showing these are actually photographs if you would like to see me an email address. I would just like my image restored. Thank you again for your time. Mtheeb (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC) mtheeb

Who took the photographs? As Jim states over at COM:UDEL, though, this kind of request is handled through email to OTRS. INeverCry 02:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

My assistant with my camera. I've had these photos for years now. They belong to me. I have sent the email and hopefully we can get this rectified. Thank you again Mtheeb (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC) mtheeb

Undeletion requests

I'd say this didn't work as intended. De728631 (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@De728631: Thanks for noticing that. I wonder if the Reply subheader confused UdelReqHandler? I've fixed it. INeverCry 23:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Jhonny Jhonny

1920London (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user.—Indopug (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

New flickrwashing account too: https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/147341006@N05/29562631810/

 Done Sock blocked, uploads deleted, Flickr acct blacklisted. INeverCry 07:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Skrivervik Data SCSI Periferiutstyr.jpg

Please undelete this image. All required info has been submitted - if anything is still missing, please contact me. Hskrivervik (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Information about permission goes through OTRS. I'm not an OTRS member, so I can't access any of that info. You'll have to wait for OTRS to process and confirm the email you sent and restore the image or request restoration. You can ask about progress at COM:OTRS/N. OTRS is busy, so it can take time for emails to be processed. INeverCry 07:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Distribution_of_Average_Income_Growth.PNG

Two questions. I am working on an SVG of this and can not find it anywhere. Can you please undelete it so I can make a copy? There are similar images on the web[3] but where is this one? Delphi234 (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

You can get a copy from the source: http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/9/25/6843509/income-distribution-recoveries-pavlina-tcherneva. INeverCry 20:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Audi-Logo 2016.svg

Hi INeverCry. Were you distracted when you deleted this inappropriately tagged logo? --Leyo 12:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a complete mistake on my part. Thanks for noticing that and restoring it. INeverCry 21:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Shit happens. ;-) Thanks for your positive reaction. --Leyo 15:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello how are you?. Is it possibile to upload files from here, and here.

The files are from Algeria, The file here citted Two Christian sisters. Kabylie, Algeria. ca. 1905 - 1920 || Vintage postcard; publisher Mission of the White Fathers, the other file do not mention the year is only mention Famille chrétienne de Grande Kabylie, but the picture is very old more than 70 year. It might be {{PD-Algeria-photo-except}}?.--Jobas (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This isn't something I'm at all familiar with (I mostly stick to the low-hanging fruit). You'd get a more certain answer if you posted this at COM:VP/C. INeverCry 20:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for answer.--Jobas (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This was quick

Already reuploaded 17 minutes after you deleted it. Ww2censor (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Re-deleted and user warned. INeverCry 23:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Your deletions

Could you please explain, why you have deleted the images File:Der Student von Bochum - Plakat.jpg, File:Der Student von Bochum - Andy Georg Bill Balduin und Detektiv Morpheus.png, File:Der Student von Bochum - Andy Georg Bill Balduin und Aufseher Henry.png and File:Der Student von Bochum - Andy Georg Bill Balduin.png? You deleted the files because of "No permission since 11 September 2016". This is simply untrue. There was a permission ticket. I put it on the site. The person who sent the Mail ist completely trustworthy and part of the team that made the movie. So why YOU think, you can delete this and produce big frustration for an author of our project? Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Why did you add OTRS permission, but leave the {{OTRS pending}} tag in place? If OTRS has been confirmed, you as an OTRS member should add the ticket and remove the pending tag. I'll go ahead and fix both of our mistakes Marcus. INeverCry 20:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Files restored, delinker reverted. INeverCry 20:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete this images?

Hi! Could you tell me about this deletion requests. Why did you delete this images?

Rodrigolopes says "Content that can not be adaptation and commercial use of translation and deformation". But his word is the lie. Then Tohoku Regional Agricultural Administration Office (the copyright holder) says "クリエイティブ・コモンズ・ライセンスの表示4.0国際（https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.ja〔外部リンク〕に規定される著作権利用許諾条件。以下「CC BY」といいます。）と互換性があり、本利用ルールが適用されるコンテンツはCC BYに従うことでも利用することができます". (In English, Tohoku Regional Agricultural Administration Office says "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International.")

Why did you delete this images? ...... INeverCry was deceived by Rodrigolopes. Please tell me the reason. I asked you on August 28, 2016. But you did not explain the reason. Why?

See also, this page and this deletion requests. --空駆ける天馬の閃き (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the main factor here is that we don't have enough active admins and image reviewers, and especially not ones who understand Japanese. What tends to happen is that active reviewers like my self or Rodrigo try to help out, but we just don't have the full ability to do so in some cases. I can assure you that Rodrigo and I are honest men, and that the above mentioned deletion request and deletion were mistakes with no malice of any kind behind them, but simply a lack of understanding. This is why I've avoided these Japanese files ever since - I want to help, but I recognize that I just don't have the qualification needed to work with these images. I apologize again for any inconvenience this has caused you, and I assure you Rodrigo and I had good intentions in this case. INeverCry 20:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Jamaica Inn courtyard

Hi. I note you originally felt that File:Jamaica Inn courtyard (crop).jpg had an inappropriate licence, then changed your mind. It was a cropped copy of File:Jamaica Inn courtyard.jpg which I assumed to be OK because it had been accepted after review. However, on looking into it, I note, like you, that the licence has a commercial use restriction which I understand is not allowed on Commons. Where are we now? Is the non-commercial licence now acceptable, or it is that it pre-dates the time when non-commercial licence were disallowed? I'm not on Comons enough to know what the situation is. In the meantime I think I'll find another image to use in the Jamaica Inn article, in case this one is later deleted. SilkTork (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Fae's 2010 review confirmed a CC-BY-2.0 license. The license has been changed to NC in the meantime, but that has no bearing on the file's status here. Fae's review was what I missed and why I reverted myself quickly after seeing it. We have the license review process partly to protect Commons against license changes like this. Free licenses are irrevocable. This file won't be deleted. INeverCry 08:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes sense, though in the circumstance I'm OK using the alternative image so I've tagged my cropped upload CSD G7. SilkTork (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing "undone" discussions before even awaiting an reply

Hello, NeverCrying one.

It would have been nice if you hadn't marked this discussion and have them archived, before I even had the time to read, what people wrote there.

Plus apparently some people involved did not read what I actually wrote, as I am the original creator of the file and thereby the copyright holder of all the occurences on the web. So I can of course also send a permission to OTRS, but I had to dig through history of the discussion just to find where it had gone and see the actual reasoning there.

It would have been nice as well if the request (paragraph) got the time it needs (i.e. time for an e-mail) before it was closed and I have to reopen another one to discuss what requirements there are for the e-mail to be accepted as by the original creator.

Thanks for your input, watching your page for a reply. Regards --chris 論 10:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussions are archived by a bot. If we waited for OTRS to be sent and processed before closing discussions, COM:UDEL would soon become unmanageable because there would be 50+ or maybe even 100+ discussions open. OTRS can take weeks sometimes, and there are many times when extra time is needed to clarify permission, or when permission is insufficient. INeverCry 20:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of the bot, but the bot needs a trigger and that came from you, too early, in my opinion. I still needed the information what criteria the e-mail has to meet for making credible that I am the original author. And that would have belonged to the original request and - I think - not on your personal talk page. I wasn't speaking of weeks but maybe two days would have been nice. Not everybody spends their days watching commons pages change, so -some- time is necessary to allow communication to happen. And version history is not my idea of efficient communication. Of course I do see your point about the ticket system not being processed fast enough to wait for the final resolution. So maybe a compromise in terms of time??

Back to authenticity and credibility ... Of course there are the mail templates but they're mere words. What other things do your volunteers use to assess credibility. Would it be enough to use a sender address under the same domain as one of the official pages (the university language centre's website that you mention for example?) Plus, I don't want to reveal my real name, also not to OTRS, so I will refer to my WM-Login in the respective mail. Acceptable? Thanks for any further insights. --chris 論 09:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

An email from an official domain email address and an indication of what your position is (to make sure you have the ability to release the image/s under the chosen free license) should be enough. You don't have to say exactly what your position is, as that could be identifiable information, but just a general assurance that you have the appropriate authority regarding copyright. As for the quick close, there's a method to my madness in that. It often helps to close simple undeletion requests quickly and get them archived in order to shine light on the more complex cases and make them more noticeable. Some of us are a bit anal about clutter of any kind too... INeverCry 09:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and a *lol* for the last remark that evaporated the last of my grudges towards the speedy riddance. ;-) --chris 論 12:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please explain this deletion

Deletion request for the image Sanki_King_portrait.jpg was posted by User: Ruff tuff cream (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sanki_King_portrait.jpg) and his comment was that the metadata shows the author as "Taha" and copyright holder as "amr and trk photography". The photographer Taha signs all of his emails as "Taha Rizwan Khan https://www.facebook.com/photography.taha.mohsee", where TRK stands for Taha Rizwan Khan, it should be no riddle. I have also taken a copy of the email that was sent to wikimedia from the photographer himself and the email clearly shows the photographer's signature there. I previously uploaded this image, taken with permission from Mr. Sanki King's team, whose managing team emailed wikimedia with the permission but some Robert Bruce insisted that the photographer and Sanki King email wikimedia commons personally, even though Sanki's managing team clearly explained that the portrait was a part of a paid photoshoot and Sanki King had the rights of all those images and since the team who represents Sanki King had given permission for the image to be used, why were personal permissions required?

Robert Bruce still insisted for personal permissions but the photographers and Mr. Sanki couldn't email wikimedia commons in time and the portrait, along with another image of Sanki King and his work, were deleted. After that I took permission from Sanki King's team, and the photographers of both the images a few days ago and I re-uploaded the images as my own work. Emails of transfer of copyrights of these images have already been sent to wikimedia commons by both photographers & myself. The other image is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solitude_WIP.jpg. Now please tell me why was the image deleted in such a hurry and with no research when a signed email by the photographer was sent to wikimedia commons? Ticket numbers of the emails: Ticket#2016092310000866 and Ticket#2016092310000866.

The photographer is a part of a duo, AMR & TRK, first person is Mohsee, second is Taha. The name of the author on the image was Taha, as Ruff puff said, and the copyright holder was AMR & TRK Photography, please pay attention to the facebook link of their page if you will "www.facebook.com/photography.taha.mohsee". His full name was in the email and first name is in the link of their page.

Most importantly, the file was deleted without any discussion with the uploader. It was nominated for deletion and you deleted it just like that. Now tell me if I will have to reupload the image on wikimedia or will you undo the deletion? Looking forward to your reply. Cheers

SameStruggle (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Here on Commons, we have a thousand or more copyright violations uploaded every day, and we're short on administrators who're willing to work on deletions, so mistakes will sometimes creep in. You mention OTRS communication and tickets, but none of this was present on the file pages. I'm not an OTRS member, so I can't access the tickets. I would suggest you either email OTRS again or post about these images at COM:OTRS/N, so OTRS members can check this out. Re-uploading them out of process could get you in trouble, so I wouldn't recommend that. I apologize for the difficulties. I wish we had more volunteers here like me who were willing to spend some time reviewing deletion requests. That would allow more time to be taken and a more detailed check to be done. INeverCry 20:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

redirect at File:2016 Mercedes-AMG GT S (C190) 2-door coupe (2016-03-05) 02.jpg

Yes, if I restore ones that were indeed 'brief locations', and thus not needed, please feel free to make them go away again.... as I just said over at the thread about this, there are 'so' many, and the vast majority are indeed names where the file was located for long periods, that it's rather impractical to check the history of every single file (when looking at each redirect) to see if it was actually unneeded.... many of these files were moved by him 3 or 4 times, over years, so it would increase the (already ridiculous) amount of time needed to address this to an impractical degree... instead more efficient to restore them all, and then look at the file histories and re-nuke the leakers, I think. Revent^talk 19:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please check, however... in the case of File:2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee (WK2) Laredo CRD 4WD wagon (2012-10-26) 02.jpg (another redirect for the same file) the file was actually at the location for well over six months, so the redirect actually is needed... ToAru should have reverted the speedy tag when he restored it. Revent^talk 19:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This is certainly a tiresome mess isn't it? I'll help with some restorations of these. INeverCry 20:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: I restored some of these, but then I took a look at how many need to be restored. I had to look through his last 1000 deleted edits just to get back to 19 September! Restoring all of these could take hours and hours of work. Is this a game that's worth the candle? Are these redirects worth hours and hours of mind-numbing drudgery? How far back do we go? Just 1 month could be 1000+ restorations at this rate! INeverCry 21:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I was just intending to do the ones from the last couple of days, and it's still tedious, but I'm watching TV while doing it.... and I might just say screw it at some point. Revent^talk 00:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

That's one of the best answers I've ever gotten here at Commons! I may be able to stick with you till the 19th. Any further back and you and I will quickly be #1 and #2 on the log actions list for restorations... INeverCry 01:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Some copyvios

Here. Thanks.--Fixertool (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Uploads nuked, user warned. INeverCry 22:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio warning

Hello INeverCry,

These actually are not happening repeatedly, I uploaded a bunch of Public Domain images from the FDA, people are finding these and singling them out a little at a time. I haven't continued to upload files of the type that cause debate, they are indeed free and open domain because they were recalled products and these images including brand marks do not hold copyright status due to their recalled status. But I only uploaded once and these seem to be singled out bit by bit. So please understand I am not a continual copyright violator. I intend to only upload free and public domain files. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. INeverCry 03:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, too fast

Just minutes ago, you deleted the files at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bajateraho, which was created just a hour ago. I know we have COM:UDEL for undeletions of files with OTRS permission confirmed, but there is no need for a rush. DRs like this should last for 7 days for discussion, and you just prevented it from happening (for example, for the uploader to explain that it is their own work). Unless they are blatant copyvios, I would like to say to wait for 7 days before deleting them. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and you also closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:LawsonHeadshot.jpg as kept (reason was "no valid reason for deletion"), but the only article that is using that image is tagged yesterday for speedy deletion (A7). The same too with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lê Phúc Cảnh.jpg, which was closed as kept with the same reason as above. The person depicted in that picture is non-notable, and if you closed it because of its category, the category, when translated to English, means "picture". That doesn't show notability. So I am asking you to reopen those DRs and slow down a little bit. Thank you, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion policy allows speedy deletion of copyvios at any time. The above looked clearly enough like copyvios to me, especially considering the user's history of copyvio uploads. As for the two others, I've fixed those. I'm pretty sure I mistakenly pushed the close keep button while dealing with a problem that concerned over 200 spurious DRs, which I took the time to deal with: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Dd1495. I don't appreciate you showing up here and treating me with a complete lack of respect, like I'm some schmuck you can push around, and who deserves that kind of treatment. INeverCry 10:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

If it seems that I treated you with a lack of respect, I apologize. I did not meant that. And thanks for reopening the two DRs that you have mistakenly closed. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It's alright. Maybe I need a little vacation... INeverCry 11:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Delating content from Wikimania Esino Lario

Dear INeverCry, why did you delate content from Wikimania Esino Lario? the event is a Wikimedia project managed by an organization using the cc by-sa on all its content since 2006. Wikimedia is a project of this organization and the organization has already a ticket i provided multiple times. [Ticket#2008120210020401]. Do you need other information? can you please contact me if you need them. Can you please undo the delation? please note that you just removed a campaign about free knowledge using content under cc by-sa and public domain. so, pretty unusual don't you think? thanks, --iopensa (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• File:Volantino eventi wikimania.pdf
• File:Liberiamo la bellezza 01.jpg and all

I've restored these two above. Let me know if there are any others. My apologies for the mistake/confusion. If you have OTRS tickets that apply to this material, it might be a good idea to work out a template that you can tag all related uploads with to show source/authorship more clearly, or to link/mention the OTRS tickets. INeverCry 20:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For some reason, no one has put an explanation or OTRS on any of these pages, they all show author (NAME) and uploader (DIFFERENT NAME) and it would be of great benefit if the wikimania projects followed the upload rules to Commons that everyone else does. They're not special because they have "wiki" in their name. Anyone else uploading this with no source, and different author would expect their materials deleted. INC, I think it's important that everyone adhere to same rules which is why I nominated those in the first place. We have no permission from the author, only a claim that they're doing anything with Wikimania. I think at the very least OTRS would be required for retention. Otherwise we open the floodgates to people claiming to be Wikimaniasts and uploading anything they feel like with a claim that "it's free." There's no proof at all on these files that we have the creator's permissions or that they're licensed correctly. On the first image, meta reads "Author imac_paolo", Template reads "Source Wikimania Esino Lario Author Serena Nasazzi" and uploader of course is Iopensa. Please tell me how on earth we're supposed to figure out that is ok without a valid source or an OTRS from the actual author? Again, no special exceptions for people claiming Wiki-anything. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: I was going on the mention of the OTRS ticket above ([Ticket#2008120210020401]). But you're right that that should be confirmed and the images above tagged. @Jameslwoodward: , @Natuur12: , @Steinsplitter: Can one of you guys check the ticket and see if everything is alright with these? INeverCry 22:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Ticket is partly in Italian making it a bit unclear for me so I won't be off much help regarding this specific ticket. Natuur12 (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. You wouldn't happen to know any Italian OTRS members off hand would you? INeverCry 08:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I, too, am stopped by the Italian. Google translate can mostly hepl, but I think the question here is whether the contributors to the site are in fact freely licensing their images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear all, sorry for the delay in explaining more and please add user:iopensa to your messages so i get a notification and i can answer you quicker. Dear INeverCry and Ellin Beltz, Wikimania is a conference managed in 2016 by an association called Associazione Amici del Museo delle Grigne Onlus which has a grant and a trademark agreement with Wikimedia Foundation to manage the event (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bids/Esino_Lario/Procedures), which has a cc by-sa license on all its content since 2006 (you find it here http://amicimuseodellegrigne.it and in all its related websites and it is a decision made by the general assembly of the association) and a related ticket to even signalize it to the Wikimedia community ([Ticket#2008120210020401]). The association is the legal responsible for Wikimania 2016 Esino Lario, a wikimedia project with all its content under cc by-sa (I personally think all wikimedia project should indeed adhere to the cc by-sa license, furthermore since they are described on meta under that license and they are supported by the Wikimedia Foundation which has introduced a request for open content on project it funds). Volunteers who joint the project signed an agreement with the association to accept that their contribution is released under cc by-sa; we sent some of the forms to OTRS but it is not necessary since the association is the legal responsible for it and we respond for any claim. I have added a statement about licenses on meta on Wikimania Esino Lario page (in the session documentation) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bids/Esino_Lario. To upload content by an author i need to have an authorization or an institution responding for it: Associazione Amici del Museo delle Grigne Onlus is the organization responding for it and managing Wikimania Esino Lario, which is the source of that content (and the statement on meta should clarify licenses). Please let me know if you need any other information. --iopensa (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Iopensa: I disgree with the statement we sent some of the forms to OTRS but it is not necessary since the association is the legal responsible for it and we respond for any claim. The OTRS number/template should be placed on all images affected by the OTRS, otherwise the volunteers here at Commons have no way to know the OTRS even exists. Just because your organization is doing something with the foundation doesn't mean you're exempt from following the policies and guidelines of the site. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Another copyvio/promo sock farm

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jschauhan
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jschauhan
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jschauhan

I've nominated some images for deletion but I guess a lot more socks need checking. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Looks like I've nuked and blocked the lot. Let me know if I missed anything or if a new sock pops up. Here's the Commons cat: Category:Sockpuppets of Jschauhan. INeverCry 09:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome signs

I don't understand why you deleted some welcome signs such as File:Tofield - Welcome Sign.JPG and File:Ryley - Welcome Sign.JPG. Those are outside and thus fall under the freedom of panorama, as 3D items no different than sculptures. I took those pictures myself. Can you explain please? Thanks, Amqui (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Canada, which doesn't cover 2D works outside or inside: "These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place". INeverCry 05:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Licenses

Hello.

Please, be so nice and confirm the licenses: File:Beata Szydło (2016).JPG and File:Kopalnia Węgla Kamiennego Andaluzja (2013).jpg.

The second matter are two pictures that in my opinion are completely correct to be kept in the Commons, but I can see there is some problem with them: File:Bartłomiej Misiewicz (2014).JPG and File:Popek.JPG.

Thank You.

Artur Andrzej (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I've reviewed the building image, but I'm not sure how {{PD-Polishsymbol}} covers a picture of a person. INeverCry 06:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Maarten Larmuseau.jpg

You may want to look at this, which is the same as a differently named one you deleted a bit earlier. Ww2censor (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 06:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Continuing

Since the last two files have been removed, here are the sources (respectevely): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-txwsWCdm0s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocwxsi0xd-8.

Thank you

Artur Andrzej (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You should consult the deleting administrator about those. INeverCry 06:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Restored and reviewed. INeverCry 04:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Уңыш.jpeg

Hi. Why have you deleted File:Уңыш.jpeg? After deletion request the author has put information that this file was pictured by herself. --Visem (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops! I missed that. I've restored the file. INeverCry 10:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Veerabhadra Temple in Monochrome, Lepakshi.jpg

I don't think a black and white image, titled as 'in monochrome', is a duplicate of a color version. Revent^talk 00:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I wondered about that one. I figured they might be getting rid of the B&W version because the color version is all that's needed for the WLM submission. Do you think this should be restored and converted to DR? INeverCry 00:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I had not noticed the request was by the original uploader... I guess we can just call it an 'uploader requested deletion of a new unused file', and leave it at that. Revent^talk 22:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Popek (raper).JPG

I am confused about deletion of File:Popek (raper).JPG. The source video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocwxsi0xd-8 is tagged as CC-BY-3.0 and the uploader used {{YouTube CC-BY}} to indicate that. What is the issue? --Jarekt (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that User:Artur Andrzej asked you already about that file in User_talk:INeverCry#Licenses and User_talk:INeverCry#Continuing but was told that he "should consult the deleting administrator". But you are the one that deleted the file. I am even more confused. --Jarekt (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought he was referring to File:Bartłomiej Misiewicz (2014).JPG and File:Popek.JPG, which were deleted by Jcb. I've restored File:Popek (raper).JPG and reviewed it. It looks like I missed this unexplained CSD tagging. INeverCry 04:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This might be a misunderstanding based on File:Popek.JPG and File:Popek (raper).JPG being duplicates. I've dupe-tagged File:Popek.JPG. INeverCry 04:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You are right about File:Popek.JPG / File:Popek (raper).JPG confusion. I did not notice it. I never used and I guess I do not know the procedures related to {{Copyvio}} templates. It looks to me like people add them to the files that do not meet any of the Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion and without any explanation why. Than admins delete the files immediately without checking their copyright status, or giving uploaders time to respond, and in the end there is no explanation by anybody on why the file was deleted. I just had the same discussion with User:Jcb, but I noticed similar unexplained deletion by other admins. I was just browsing through Special:DeletedContributions/Miesiąc who nominated Popek file and a lot of nominated files do not meet in my mind the "Apparent copyright violation" standard or the requirement to "include a link to the original file, or to explain why the image is a copyright violation.". It seems to me that something is not working right in this processing pipeline and maybe we should revisit the way how files in Category:Copyright violations are treated. I will check on this more and maybe start broader discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult to find the right balance between the huge working load, in which only very few people take part, and a low error rate. I promise that I will try to prevent these mistakes and I hope you will feel free to contact me again if I make such a mistake. Jcb (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I realize that me or other users that are not very active in the deletion process are in weak position to be criticizing people that are doing this very important work (I am much more active at the other end of the pipeline - finding and tagging files without license templates). I felt the same way, in case of User:Fastily. There is not my intention here to single out anybody, but I do not think processing of files tagged with {{Copyvio}} is correct. Unless there is a "a link to the original file, or to expla[tion] why the image is a copyright violation" (as requested by the template), I would dismiss {{Copyvio}} tags or convert them to "no source", "no permission" or DR tags. That way uploaders have a chance to respond. I realize it is easy to undelete, but it is a very rare event and does not restore the file to all the places it was used at. Oh, another example: File:Piotr Pniak.jpg deleted by User:Elcobbola. I do not see any reason to doubt that the photograph was taken by the uploader as stated, We host the file for 7 years and than delete it hours after someone tags it as {{Copyvio}}, without any explanation why we stop believing that it is "own" work or leaving any note on photographers talk page. --Jarekt (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I just declined an unexplaned nomination by Miesiąc and left a message at his talk page. Jcb (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Piotr Pniak.jpg was deleted because it appeared here, Pniak's official site, prior to upload to the Commons. "We host the file for 7 years and than delete it hours after someone tags it as {{Copyvio}}": that an issue has gone unnoticed for seven years does not mean it does not exist. Images tagged as copyvios are reviewed on their merits, not on tenure. Further, as corroborating evidence, every last image uploaded by Jugopolis, that image's uploader, has been an unambiguous copyvio with a bogus self authorship claim and deleted (not by me) for that reason. Эlcobbola _talk 16:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

User:elcobbola Your link does not show any images but I trust you are right, but why deleting with no explanation of where was previous publication, so it is easier for others to follow it? --Jarekt (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Because I have a talk page if people have questions. ("If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion." COM:UR) Эlcobbola _talk 20:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment The way deletions are done now is the only way we avoid a backlog of thousands of copyvios, as Jameslwoodward can attest, and often has. By going much slower, we would save maybe a few % of deleted files at the expense of leaving the other 90%+ on Commons for longer periods of time. I think the mistake ratio is actually very good. We also have a tool called Commons Delinquent that can be used to replace de-linked usages of mistakenly deleted files pretty easily.

  The big issues are these: for the last 4 years or more, we've lost an average of 10 admins per year. I was admin #272 when my RFA passed in mid-2012; we now have 234 admins; we only have roughly 30 or 40 admins who do more than 100 log actions per month; the top ten most active admins do 50% or more of all log actions.

  If it becomes a hassle to do deletions, and active admins like me and Jcb have problems about how we do it, then we'll likely cut down drastically on doing deletions. No volunteer wants to have to jump through hoops to do free work. I personally would focus more on VI for my Flickr transfers, license reviews, and category work for uncategorized images, if deletion becomes slow and full of red tape. I know that my own mistake ratio is excellent. I do thousands of deletions per week, and perhaps 10 errors or less occur, which I fix as quickly as I can. We really don't have the man-power to slow things down and examine each and every file before deleting it; it's logistically impossible. INeverCry 21:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

If INC is too polite to mention it, I will: there's a certain hubris in critiquing others when one does not substantively participate in the relevant area and, worse, when then that critique is based on mere personal opinion, not policy. I doubt it was the intention, but the underlying implication of the commentary here is that we are unthinking automatons who see {{Copyvio}} and delete without question. My process actually contradicts INC ("We really don't have the man-power to slow things down an examine each and every file before deleting it"), but he is orders of magnitude more prolific than I. When I come across these "bare" speedy templates, I do my own investigation and delete iff I find the file to be something I would have tagged as a copyvio myself. This is perfectly in line with COM:D (e.g. "There are certain instances [...] under which an administrator can delete pages, images and other files on sight.") and COM:CSD. Remember that "bare" copyvio templates are generally added by new or inexperienced users who do not know how to use template conditions to add a link or explanation; that does not make them any less valid. Having a personal preference for how these circumstances ought to be handled is all well and good, but not incumbent on others to adopt. Эlcobbola _talk 22:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Jarekt, INC has invited my rant on this subject which many have heard before -- we delete around 1,700 images a day. 10 people do half of that, and a total of 25 do 90%. We work fast. After allowing for changed circumstances between the deletion and the UnDR -- the arrival of a free license at OTRS or new information which changes the image's status, only a handful of the UnDrs are restored because the deletion was erroneous. Although it is certainly true that not all deleted images that actually should have been kept go to UnDR, I think we should be happy with an apparent error rate of well under 1%.

I note that the filename of the image includes the word "raper". I think it should be "rapper". Although the word "rapist" is far more common, "raper" means the same thing and I doubt that the uploader intended to accuse Popek of rape. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I thought the name was a problem at first too, but that's the word for rapper in Polish. His home article is pl:Popek (raper)... Polish is like Russian in that their spelling is more closely phonetic. There are quite a few instances where English uses two letters but Polish or Russian use just the one letter that represents the sound. Funny enough, both our names get an extra letter in Russian. Yours would be Джим (Jim) and mine is Джефф (Jeff). They have no J. INeverCry 02:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound like I am critical of the work admins active in deletions are doing. As I mentioned in my post above (16:04, 29 September 2016) I agree with User:elcobbola statement that people who not substantively participate in deletion process should not criticize it. However, I was asked to look at 3 deleted files and was very confused on why where they deleted. All went from being fine to being deleted as copyvio with no discussion, no explanation and no communication with the uploader. Maybe that is the only way to be deleting 1,700 images per day, which is needed to keep up, but it is very non-transparent and confusing to the people trying to figure out why there are images disappearing from their articles. (Jameslwoodward) "raper" is polish word for rapper. I assume the uploader did not know that it means something else in English. --Jarekt (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In English, the word raper isn't used much. The only significant use I can think of is the slang term "baby-raper" which indicates a child sexual predator. Rapist is common usage. INeverCry 02:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I understand. There is a way out of this, since File:Popek.JPG redirects to the name with the unfortunate English meaning, we could simply move this file to File:Popek.JPG. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done and the redirect deleted since this was uploaded only 3 days ago. INeverCry 14:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Some files to check

Here. Thanks.--Fixertool (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

These look like properly tagged crops. The map is the only questionable image IMO. INeverCry 04:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello my friend

I've been interdict I can contribute to the Wikimedia Commons because of the lifting of some pictures of the offense in the view of some individuals, I objected and protested on the ban because of Perceptive that some of the pictures you've lifted a violation of the rules and conditions, and there are some images that Reviewed by through competition (wiki loves the land of Syria) and competition (wiki loves monuments) did not have enough time to make sure the violation of those photos that were provided to me by some of the contestants, I hope that you remove the ban on me, and I will ensure in the coming of the images that will lift it to the Wikimedia Commons times Thank you very much. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ahmad.aea.99%5CSignature (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ahmad. Your block was only for 2 weeks. Your block was over 3 weeks ago. You're free to edit as you wish, just be careful with copyright. INeverCry 02:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

File:160717-F-NK612-009.jpg

Regarding this deletion, could you please undelete it. First, Resolute Support Mission is primarily composed of U.S. military [4], so it is very likely the photo was created by the U.S. military, i.e., U.S. Air Force (that's what the "F" in the file's name refers to). It would be very bizarre to see a non-U.S. military photographer accompanying these top U.S. military people. [5] NATO soldiers stay among each other, they are not mixed around. Second, the source clearly allowed that image to be used here.[6] [7] That is what matters. Btw, I've been uploading images here for 10 years, I know what is free and what is not allowed.--Officer (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that you post an undeletion request. INeverCry 14:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Officer: You flagged the image as 'both' PD, and CC-by, but the source does not say it's PD, and there are images released with VIRINs that are not PD. The flickr account was blacklisted on Commons because its profile states that commercial use is not allowed (which is, itself, inconsistent with their stated CC-by license), which is why it failed review by the bot. When I looked at it, I searched several different places (DVIDS, etc) for the image, or it's VIRIN, and could not find it anywhere but that single 'questionable' Flickr account. The images in that set actually seem to violate the accounts own rules by, for instance, using a VIRIN as a photo title.

With all that, I don't think it's status was clear, and I was rather hoping that people would discuss it. I still don't think it's clear, to be honest. Revent^talk 15:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

COM:UDEL would probably be better than DR for discussion in this case. Discussions at UDEL tend to stay open longer and get attention from people like Jim and Carl who have more copyright expertise. With no discussion at DR, this might've made it a few more hours (or minutes) before someone else deleted it had I let it alone. INeverCry 15:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll start an undeletion request but just want to say that this image is PD as a matter of law, i.e., all images created by U.S. military personnel during their official duty are PD as a matter of law. This is a clearly established law. The licenses or statements provided in Flickr accounts have no effect and are not controlling here. I also want to note that Flickr is a U.S. based website. The image was first published in the U.S. It is 100% PD.--Officer (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "there are images released with VIRINs that are not PD". That's true but not that many, and the U.S. military often credit the original source when it comes to that. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this one was created by an employee of the U.S. Air Force during his/her official duty.--Officer (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Odd similiarities

I found two recent uploaders who seem to be pulling from same pool of photos... even have the same overlain caption habit. If you could take a glance at Special:Contributions/Shailendramithila and Special:Contributions/Vikrammaithil. Their contributions end up in same category too! And such stylish hats! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC) P.S. all the individual and group hats alone pictures were copied from some blog.

 Done Both accounts blocked, and uploads nuked. INeverCry 15:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Explain the removal of the photo

You delite photo File:Recep Tayyip Erdogan.jpg but we are still discussing this is here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Recep_Tayyip_Erdogan.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl dili (talk • contribs) 16:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I deleted it per Kumkum. Discussion about restoring it might be better done at COM:UDEL. INeverCry 17:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I see you've already filed an undeletion request. INeverCry 17:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

VOA files

Regarding this discussion. There's no Terms of Use/Privacy Policy >> PERMISSIONS of English version ! --Mhhossein ^talk 06:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This topic was discussed by the community and hundreds of files were undeleted. Further discussion would have to take place at COM:VP/C. INeverCry 14:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

VFC wierd!

I found a gallery of images which don't seem to belong to the uploader [8] but I cannot get VFC to call them up? Any clues? It would be uber-tedius to nominate these onesies. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I've had the same problem a few times lately. You can try a different browser or reload the page until it works in the browser your currently using. I've had a lot of other problems getting scripts to load properly. 15:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please cool down

Please take a wikibreak for a few days. I would be happy to block your account to help you enforce it. That's not a threat, it's an offer. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Magog, but I think this is for the best. I just hope a block isn't thought necessary at AN/U. I really just want to return to the image work I enjoy and reduce my stress and tension. INeverCry 23:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Look, we all screw up every now and then but we shouldn't feel upset about it. It's just one of the experiences of human life. We can choose to suffer (I know you like doing admin work) or we can held our head high, adress the concerns and move on. There is nothing wrong with screwin it up every now and than. I would start to worry when people don't make mistakes since that would mean they are either evil Reptilians or they don't do any work at all. Have a good night rest, think about it and if you want someone to talk with I'm right here. I'm sure the community still supports you and we have always forgiven past mistakes. That won't change :). Natuur12 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Natuur12: @Magog the Ogre: I can't even resign at BN without being taunted by Savin and Ferrer. I'm wondering if disabled people are welcome here at all. Savin jokes about my disabilities and Ferrer says I'm using them as an excuse of some kind. INeverCry 23:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

That was to convince/motive you to stay, it was awkward from me but because I am sad that you give up. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 23:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

A.Savin was completely out of line at BN. Revent^talk 23:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Revent. But please realise that Christian Ferrer is too much of a gentlemen to mean you any harm ever INC. His choice of words may be unfortunate but he means well and wants to help you. Disabled people are more than welcome. Everyone is welcome as long as they support our mission and aren’t incompetent. You support our mission and most defiantly are competent so you are more than welcome. Believe me, I do know how severe your conditions are but they don't make you incompetent. You still are a proud Wikimedian supporting our project. Natuur12 (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes indeed Jeff, I'm so sorry, but all goes so quickly... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 23:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact I said you were wrong on the rfa don't mean you're a bad administrators. You're a far better one than me. And I so trust in you and in your capacity to do well that I'm sad, I panicked Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 23:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

and I find it unfortunate that you give up on failure, I have a better picture of you, that's all Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 23:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

to me you can go back and do lie Alexander. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 23:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

because I agree with many thing with Alexander but not on all. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 00:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

the decision is yours Jeff, not to Alexander this is why I tried to bite you a little. If you are disappointed about something, you must not give up. You should give up only when you're not disappointed. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 00:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Revent Why? --A.Savin 23:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

We have disabled contributors and they are very welcome (Jacek Halicki, and others). --A.Savin 00:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you A.Savin. You've convinced me to stay on as an admin. INeverCry 00:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: I understand. Having Alexander on me all day just got me a bit flustered. I don't know how to get him to leave me alone and let the issue be settled. I admitted I was wrong, and promised to avoid him in future. I just want to go my way and let him go his way so that we have no more problems. With bi-polar, if someone won't let something go and keeps on you about it, it gets difficult to handle. INeverCry 00:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• great, thank you Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 00:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)