Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Requests and votes

This project page in other languages:

This is the requests and votes page, a centralized place where you can keep track of ongoing user requests, and where you can comment and leave your vote. Any user is welcome to comment on these requests, and any logged in user is welcome to vote.

When requesting rights that do not need the support of the community (e.g. filemover) please go to Commons:Requests for rights!

How and where to apply for additional user rights on CommonsEdit

How to comment and voteEdit

Any logged-in user is welcome to vote and to comment on the requests below. Votes from unregistered users are not counted, but comments may still be made. If the nomination is successful, a bureaucrat will grant the relevant rights. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers. Among other things, the closing bureaucrat may take into account the strength of any arguments presented and the experience and knowledge of the commenting users. For example, the comments and votes of users who have zero or few contributions on Commons may at the bureaucrat's discretion be discounted.

It is preferable if you give reasons both for   


votes or   


ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.

Purge the cache. Use the edit link below to edit the transcluded page.

Requests for Oversight rightsEdit

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Oversighters/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Oversighters before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

No current requests.

Requests for CheckUser rightsEdit

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Checkusers/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Checkusers before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

No current requests.

Requests for bureaucratshipEdit

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bureaucrats/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Bureaucrats before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

No current requests.

Requests for adminshipEdit

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Administrators/Archive.

  • Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

No current requests.

Requests for license reviewer rightsEdit

No current requests.

Requests for permission to run a botEdit

Before making a bot request, please read the new version of the Commons:Bots page. Read Commons:Bots#Information on bots and make sure you have added the required details to the bot's page. A good example can be found here.

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bots/Archive.

Any user may comment on the merits of the request to run a bot. Please give reasons, as that makes it easier for the closing bureaucrat. Read Commons:Bots before commenting.

FinnaUploadBot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Zache (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Uploads images from (2016 press release) which is online catalog and API for Finnish museums, libraries and archives and part of the Finlands national digital library service. Finna aggregates its data from organizations own databases so that there is a single endpoint. It also relays data to downstream partners like to Europeana. The basic operation is that users give a finna-id as a parameter and then the tool will read CC0 licensed metadata for the photo and checks if the license of the photo is licensed as CC0, CC-BY OR CC-BY-SA. If everything is ok then the tool will upload the photo.

The request is for larger uploads like thousands of photos and for keeping tool available for single uploads. Here are Example uploads and There is a discussion about the tool in COM:AN/U FinnaUploadBot where it was said that it will need a bot permission.

Automatic or manually assisted:

Automatic, user need to manually tell what to upload but there is no confirmation for each diff.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): on demand

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 3 edits per minute

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): PHP, currently logic is built top of the Zache (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


From a technological point of view, it is quite easy to handle. If we don't like to automatically upload images which are old enough to be in public domain and they are licensed to other than PD or cc0 then you can just add a test for it and if the test fails then do not to upload the image.
From a legal point of view, eg is Majora's concern about license valid, it is fuzzier because it is a valid argument that GLAMs have rights related to their digital reproductions of out-of-copyright works based on Finland's copyright law. So one can't just say that city of Helsinki or ministry of education and culture of Finland is fraudulently slapping restricted licenses on PD content when they are opening it at all. It is, however, unclear if the GLAM's argument for the rights would hold if it would be tested in court. The GLAMs which we are currently speaking about are in the front line of opening data in Finland. en:Finnish National Board of Antiquities (part of the ministry of education) have opened 200000 photos and are doing Wiki Loving Monuments with WMFI. Helsinki city museum which photos I was uploading opened 50000 hi-res photos and city as whole is doing a lot of open source work with OpenStreetMap, data, and API. So the position is that the opensource community in Finland are pointing out current problems and giving them reasons to do the right thing and seeing how far we can get. Last february National gallery of Finland opened their digital reproductions of out-of-copyright works under CC0 ( after years work ) which is kind of a test for other museums to see if it is good idea or not. --Zache (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Pinging Zhuyifei1999 and Fae for insights. Regards. T Cells (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I asked the Helsinki City Museum yesterday why their license is CC-BY for digital reproductions of out-of-copyright works and not public domain / CC0. I haven't yet got an answer. However, the relevant pieces from Copyright Act of Finland as far as I know are in Chapter 5 - Rights related to copyright and under the Section 49 - Producer of a catalogue and a database (607/2015) and Section 49a - Photographer. Section 49 protects the amount of work which is used to make the database but not single items in it. One can copy some photos manually, but downloading significant parts of the database using bots is prohibited. Section 49a protects photographs that are not works of art and requirement for getting the protection is that the photograph has been taken. For this argument (which I copied to COM: AN/U for Majora) is that digital reproductions of out-of-copyright are new photographs and thus they are covered by 49a. Currently, there are no decisions related to this argument for 49a by copyright council of Finland or a court. Kuvasto's opinion when it was asked by fiwiki was that museum can make and sell copies of the photographs but making digital reproductions doesn't extend the original protection. --Zache (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Wcdo-bot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: --Marcmiquel (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

To upload, rename and delete on a weekly basis multiple files (images with data visualizations) related to the project WCDO.

Automatic or manually assisted:

Automatic, based on prepared hand-reviewed batches of up to several hundred at a time.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):

In batches - one with the data generated for each language edition. Once a week or every two weeks.

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute):

12 per minute (I would adapt it to the Commons requirements).

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):


Programming language(s):

Python (pywikibot)

Marcmiquel (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


  • Please create account, its user and talk pages and perform test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

JeffGBot (talk · contribs) 5Edit

Operator: Jeff G. (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

  • Use COM:AWB, COM:JWB, or COM:VFC to do mundane non-controversial maintenance things at higher speeds than humans are expected to perform, while not clogging up recent changes. Specifically, substitute templates that must be substituted in the intended namespaces. There are 212 such templates which transclude {{Must be substituted}} in their descriptions and are therefore listed here per this count, but some of the templates may not be transcluded at present. Of course, VFC can only be used in filespace. I have already made 309 such edits (listed here) to subst Template:PD-Trademark-Text-Logo using JWB and my main account, without enhanced speed and edit summary, but the process would be more efficient if I were allowed to go faster using my bot account and flag.

Automatic or manually assisted: Manually assisted for AWB and JWB, automatic for VFC

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time runs at the discretion of the operator, one template at a time

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 60 edits per minute for semiautomatic AWB and JWB or as fast as VFC can go

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N (already have it)

Programming language(s): AWB, JWB, or VFC (Compiled C++, JavaScript)

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


OK with me as long as detailed edit summaries are used. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: My initial summary is "Bot: Substing Template:TEMPLATENAMEHERE. (Task 5)", but I am open to suggestions.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Please perform some test edits on the bot account. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Schlurcher: Here are 21 test edits substing Template:Flickr author with JWB. I need help in telling VFC how to select such files, if that is even possible.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Try mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Hastemplate --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Thanks, I will.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm generally very supportive of this task. There are some comments I have regarding the test edits and the task in general.
  • To some extent this task should also be educational to the user adding the template in the first place. It would be good to have subst: somewhere in the edit summary. Something like: Bot: Applying subst: to Template:TEMPLATENAMEHERE. (Task 5)"
  • For {{Flickr author}} a recursive subst is necessary: {{subst:Flickr author|nsid=XXXX|name=John Doe|subst=subst:}}. Otherwise, the #if are not resolved leading to ugly code. See: [1] for an example and [2] for an explanation.
  • I'm not sure if templates should be substed outside of their intended namespace. Discussion-worthy example from the test edits is: [3]. Another examples might be the template {{Npd}}. This template is intended to be used in the file namespace. I'm not sure if it should be, for example, substed in the user namespace. Users may place it there just as a template for further use.
--Schlurcher (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Recursive subst is now done automatically on the template code side without needing |subst=subst, using a documented workaround --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Schlurcher, Zhuyifei1999: Thank you for your comments. I can certainly use that summary and check for the need to recursively subst. An enabled template like {{Npd}} could lead to deletion in seven days if the enabler is not careful, no matter what I do.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, no further comments. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Schlurcher: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you please describe why in Special:Diff/294948008 the subst should have been done? To be honest, I don't get that.
    In any case I'd advise to double check if the templates in question are marked as subst-only for good reason, as it may be difficult to undo that later without knowing who did the substs. --Krd 06:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Krd: I'm sorry, I should have considered the need for double subst. You would have to ask User:Jean-Frédéric why the template should be substed in the first place per this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    I'd say it would be your job as bot operator to make sure in any way that the substs are reasonable, because as said it is way more difficult as normal to detect and undo mistakes. --Krd 07:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Krd: Point taken. In this case, both substs looked reasonable in HTML, the single subst not so much in wikitext.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    I'd still say this should be undone, the wikitext of the file page is unreadable now. --Krd 05:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Krd: @Zhuyifei1999 undid what I saw as the unreadability 01:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC) in this edit. Do you think "[[flickruser:aljazeeraenglish|Al Jazeera English]]" is unreadable? I don't.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Krd: I have fixed the rest in these edits.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G.: I don't support nor see the grounds for approval of "Use COM:AWB, COM:JWB, or COM:VFC to do mundane non-controversial maintenance things at higher speeds than humans are expected to perform, while not clogging up recent changes", I think you should strike that section and focus on approval for the specific task at hand. "Mundane" and "non-controversial" is very subjective and at this point in time, I do not think you are an experienced enough operator for such approval. Best, ~riley (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    @~riley: I struck it out.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

JhealdBot (talk · contribs) (5)Edit

Operator: Jheald (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

To rename multiple files, uploaded here from the British Library "Mechanical Curator" set on Flickr.

Automatic or manually assisted:

Automatic, based on prepared hand-reviewed batches of up to several hundred at a time.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):

In batches, with review after each batch.

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute):

60 12

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):

JhealdBot already has the bot flag. But I think it would need the file-mover flag.

Programming language(s):

Perl, using MediaWiki::Bot

More detailed explanation:

For some time I have been working towards an upload of images identified as maps, found in the 1 million images extracted from old books that were uploaded by the British Library to Flickr.
These uploads would include categorisation based on locations inferred from the georferencing campaign here, and meaningful file names based on map titles input as part of the georeferencing process. Here's a page showing some typical intended filenames:
Commons:British Library/MC maps batch 01 (GB counties)
(See also further pages in Category:MC_upload_prep_pages. These filenames would also be similar to those used for many many of the BL books (over 20,000 images in all) by User:Metilsteiner, as per those in eg: Category:Finska_kriget_och_Finlands_krigare_1808-1809_(1897)_by_DANIELSON
However, I took too long about it, and recently User:Artix Kreiger has uploaded just over 20,000 of the images (about 40% of the maps total) using Flickr2Commons, giving standard F2C filenames like these:
User:Jheald/Kreiger/UK IE/MC maps batch 01 (counties)
-- ie the book name (at some length) and page number, but not eg the date or what the file is actually about.
Rather than these, I believe that when eg reviewing thumbnails in a category, or adding further categorisation with Cat-a-lot, that file names indicating what the map itself actually contains, along with book author, date, and volume / page number, would be more useful.
Therefore I would like permission to work through batch-by-batch to re-write these filenames per my original intended scheme. That would also mean they would harmonise better with the remaining majority of files, that are still to upload.

Jheald (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


since I was pinged, i wanted to say that the maps were already given the names by the British Library as is. None of the names were given by me. (although I removed the part "Image taken from" while uploading.) This invariably also uploaded several dups, those that were actually rotated, but was not flagged as duplicate by the auto detecting software. JuTa, since you dealt with some of these pics, do you have any opinion? Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Will it invoke delinker for each file move, or will do the delinking on its own? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I was literally just going to use the move call in MediaWiki::Bot (if it still works), which in turn calls the MediaWiki mw:API:Move. I haven't used the Move function before, so hadn't considered Commons:Delinker. I presumed the old file pages would be turned into redirects, and was going to be content to leave it at that. But I am happy to do more, if more is required. Jheald (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I think a filemove should get the files delinked, either through delinker or by the bot itself (I recommend the former). You can add the requests in batches if you want. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Okay, that looks straightforward enough, if it's really not a problem dropping a couple of hundred requests there in one go. Though they were only uploaded quite recently, and not advertised, so I think file usage so far is pretty minimal. Just having a look with PetScan to see. Jheald (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
        There is currently one file being used externally from Artix Kreiger's "Set of Maps" upload. But older files that others have uploaded may have accumulated more uses, so I acknowledge that it's important to check this. Jheald (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
File mover rights requested for User:JhealdBot Jheald (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Please explain the edit rate of 60 per minutes. All your other tasks are with 12 per minutes (one every 5 seconds). Based on the quantity of changes suggested here, there seem to be no need for a higher rate. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Schlurcher: Changed to 12. Don't know where the 60 came from. Completely agree, no need for anything faster. Jheald (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
No further comments and no concerns regarding this request. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you intend to use suppress_redirect when moving the files? --Krd 20:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Krd: I had thought to keep the redirects, just in case somebody has externally linked to one of these files. Redirects are cheap. And leaving the old pages may also help flag possible duplication to any future uploaders from Flickr, if some of these files have been cropped or adjusted in the meantime.
BTW, I do hope to do a demonstration run really soon now. I'm just finishing some work preparing for book & author wikidata links & categories for the files that will be in the first set, per JhealdBot (4) Jheald (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The bot already has file mover rights, when ready please continue and make a small test run. --Krd 06:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: Please advise when ready to test. Thank you. --Krd 05:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

JarBot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: جار_الله (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: ( Upload from Arabic projects (mainly Wikipedia and Wikisource) files that are in the copy to Commons category. They'll be uploaded in a maintenance category so that we can review them [4] [5])

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): once in month

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 1

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): python

جار الله (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


  •    Info This bot will be usefull to move files from here [6] and here [7]. And avoid problems related to templates [8]. --Helmoony (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  •    Question Will the bot's actions be supervised? What would be the Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute)? After the one time run, will this never need to happen again? If so, why?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The discussion related to this bot task on Arabic Wikipedia (permenant link). --Meno25 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G.: We are discussing the technical details about the work of this bot on arwiki currently and will update you shortly. (As this is a coordinated task between Commons and arwiki.) --Meno25 (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Who will review candidates for move? Commons has only two administrators who are native Arabic speakers and only one seems to be active. Proper reviews will reduce number of possible conflicts. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: as per categories in Category:Files moved to Commons requiring review by source, files will be reviewed by Commons reviewers but also by Arabic projects users who are already aware about that since there is an ongoing discussion about exporting files in our local village pump. As you can see in my contributions for example, I'm already preparing the import by redirecting from templates like Arabic WP PD template to the one in Commons, so that even if you don't understand Arabic you will inderstand the license.--Helmoony (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Question is not only linguistic. Different Wikipedias have different attitude toward copyrights and its enforcement. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: In addition to our regular maintenance related to files (bots/reviewers), we have restricted the upload feature for new editors. To ask that feature [9] if you are not a reviewer you need to have already asked for uploading some pictures [10]. That way we can evaluate the quality of proposed pictures and how new users handle files. As you can see, the list of allowed users is quite restrive [11]. --Helmoony (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Can anybody please summarize if there are unaddressed questions? If there is nothing remaining, I'd say this can be approved. --Krd 06:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be an overall lack of consensus on Arabian Wikipedia about the process for how this bot would work. One commented that they don't trust Commons because there files got deleted for no convincing reason, another mentioned copyright issues and perhaps images not being transferable due to licenses. Jeff G's valid questions remain unanswered and no test run has been attempted. I'd like to see this thing actually edit before we move forward here. ~riley (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@جار الله: is it possible to make a test (20 edits for example) as per @~riley: and reply to @Jeff G.: regarding edits per minute ? After the first run, we can upload pictures 1 time per month. It's engough for us in Arabic Wikipedia/Sister projects to review new free lisence pictures. If there is issues with some pictures we can review them by following Jarbot discussion page. --Helmoony (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Krd: For the record, all my questions remain unanswered. I am wary of unfilled required fields, one time runs with no logical explanation of why they will never need to run again, and people who won't answer simple questions. COM:PRP prevails.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
For the record, it was already noted twice above that your questions remain unanswered and the bot operator was pinged to respond. Give them some time. ~riley (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
My main concern is who will clean up problematic files after transfer, since there are too little native Arabic speakers administrators. It's also hard to tell how good Arabic Wikipedia in copyrights issues. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @جار الله: This request requires open dialogue if you wish for it to be approved, please communicate answering the above questions and addressing the above concerns otherwise it will be closed as unsuccesful. In addition, a bot trial of (20-50 edits or uploads) is requested. ~riley (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @~riley: Thanks for reminding me, i will make (20-50 edits or uploads) this week.--جار الله (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Bot operators need to be responsive to the community's concerns.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @~riley: That file first transfer, is there anything need to fix or can i continue the a bot trial?.--جار الله (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • My concerns are: 1) Category incorrectly inputted (Category:Category), license issues, file history comment needs to say "Bot: Transferred from ar.wikipedia" rather than outputting messy wikitext and Template:Copy to Commons (Template:نقل إلى كومنز) needs to be automatically removed by the bot. Plese sort those out and upload an additional 5 images for us to review before continuing the trial. ~riley (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I would say that thumbnail size images without EXIF are always suspicious and uploader history should be examined. If such preparations are not made in Arabic Wikipedia, I would vote against automatic transfers. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

i upload two file and i work to fix issues but now i can't upload any file i get abusefilter-warning-copyv2, any help to get rid of abusefilter-warning-copyv2, 1, 2.--جار الله (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This is Filter 156. The bot will continue getting that warning for uploading small jpg files until it has reached 25 edits.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G., ~riley: Thanks, now i transferred more than 5 file, is there anything need to fix?.--جار الله (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@جار الله: I started with the first of the new files, File:Toyota Bus-Train 01.jpg. It had "Permission=CC-BY-SA-2.0." That should just have been "Permission=", unless you wanted to move the actual license template into the Permission field. Also, the Flickr source disappeared in the transfer, and that source is now licensed CC-BY-ND 2.0, which we can't accept due to the ND (NoDerivs) clause, thus the file was deleted here. In fact, nothing from Flickr survived in the summary sections. The problems with File:Toyota Bus-Train 02.jpg were identical. File:Waaba6.jpg is different, I can see no upload logs for @Daif or en:User:Daif.en on enwp or arwp. Can you explain any of this?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: About File:Waaba6.jpg i am an administrator at arwiki and i can see the deleted version the user upload the file in arwiki
  • Daif.en the log does not appear in the url but it show there is a file upload.
  • Daif the log does not appear in the url but it show there is a file upload.
Do I understand your words CC-BY-SA-2.0 license is not acceptable in the Comens?.--جار الله (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@جار الله: "CC-BY-SA-2.0" license is acceptable here. "CC-BY-ND-2.0" license is not acceptable here. The characters "CC-BY-SA-2.0" in the Permission field are superfluous if there is a license in the license section.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Helmoony, Jeff G., ~riley: is there any tips else?.--جار الله (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@جار الله: is not specific enough as a source for File:رئيس وزراء مصر مصطفى النحاس وهو يوقع على معاهدة 1936.jpg and File:السادات قبل اغتيالة.jpg. Also, the latter file is cut off at the bottom. Was it cut off at ar.wikipedia? Can you find a complete version? Who is "we"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: the point of this request is to see if the bot can transfer the images, after the approval, we can discuss what image can be transfer and what image can not transfer. now is there any issues with the bot work (not with image)? if there anything you want to fix please tell me, Thank you.--جار الله (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@جار الله: I have issues with whoever is selecting these files for transfer, and that person's attention to detail (or lack thereof).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: How much does a picture with issues is able to stay in categories like Category:Files moved from ar.wikipedia to Commons requiring review without being deleted? After uploding them, just give us (Arabic projects community) a month or something like and we can review them with Commons tools and after bots review. An other thing, we can start uploding PDFs and pictures from Arabic Wikisource since they are in public domain and have less issues. We finish reviweing them and we can fix Arabic Wikipedia later. --Helmoony (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Helmoony: We have enough copyvios, thank you. What tools for reviewing uploads do we have on Commons that you don't have on Arabic projects? What can we do to make such tools available on Arabic projects?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Please fill out the requested edit rate and address the comments above. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
    @جار الله: ? --Krd 19:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Krd: all I can do fix the code issues if there any, and we will check files copyrights before transportation, and all this files will be in Category:Files moved from ar.wikipedia to Commons requiring review and you can check them and if there any problem you can give us some time before deleting them.--جار الله (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It appears there is still no consensus if the suggested way of file selection for the transfer is acceptable for the Commons community. Additional comments welcome. --Krd 05:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Requests for commentEdit

  Centralized discussion

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch