User talk:De728631/2019

Archives 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Re:

License it's in the permission, CCBYSA 4.0. This file it's in the same ticket with other two, but just one was deleted. See: [1]. If you want I can add the license. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: Yes, please add a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} and remove the file from Category:Media without a license: needs history check. After all, other users wouldn't know which licence to adhere to. De728631 (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Love help needed

Hello De728631, You helped us already with some translation(s) in the photo contest Wiki Loves Love. This photo contest starts on 1 February. To be able to make the photo contest more accessible and available to more people in the world, it needs translations of the upload wizard, templates and pages to your local language. Please help us! Go to Commons:Wiki Loves Love 2019/Translations to see how needs to be translated. (In some languages there are maybe already some translations available.) Thanks in advance!! For the international Wiki Loves Love organising team - Romaine (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I did all remaining templates. More pages might follow. De728631 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Some help required

How do I upload a deleted file locally? You suggested this as a solution when closing the RfD on File:Rembrandt van rijn-self portrait.jpg, but how can I access the deleted file to upload it on nl.wiktionary? --MarcoSwart (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@MarcoSwart: Erm, I didn't even comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rembrandt van rijn-self portrait.jpg?! But I remember a similar DR that I closed. Anyhow, it seems that Wiktionary doesn't have a local media repository at all. So I'm afraid this won't work. Local uploads do work though at Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@De728631: The situation is getting a little Kafkaesque. I know for sure that there are still some files stored locally on nl.wiktionary. My guess is that the upload tools have all been redirected to Commons. When the file in question was originally used, it probably was stored locally at the time. At a later date we decided it was more efficient to rely on Commons, because it would be unwise to have duplicates in case of a copyright violation. As the Commons policy states clearly "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough." it was reasonable to assume that our pictures would be safe. The deletion request is clearly based on a quality judgement that looks entirely valid for use in encyclopedic context, but is irrelevant for the use as a (small) illustration in a dictionary where enhancement of some colors can be considered an improvement. So what do we do now? Is it possible to undelete the file and rename it in such a way that it is unlikely to be accidentally used by projects where the alternative is more appropriate?

PS I meant: when you closed the Request for Undeletion. --MarcoSwart (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Meh. This is in fact complicated. Local uploading has been disabled at Wiktionary [2] and the Commons community has decided that it doesn't want any 'enhanced' version of this particular portrait – even more since there has been an issue about similar uploads by Jan Arkesteijn. So, regardless of the name, I don't see a possibility to undelete the file over here. De728631 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Fundamentally I guess somewhere something is not going the way it's supposed to be. But I'm grateful that you have tried your best. --MarcoSwart (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Please do not hurry

Could you please refrain from editing other people's uploads within at least the first couple minutes? Some people need to perform several steps (upload different versions, modify the descriptions (as there is no normal preview in the upload form), link files to each other...), and being interrupted in this process is quite disruptive. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting you. However, there was no need to upload the original and then overwrite it with the cropped version. It is preferrable to upload only the cropped part and then credit the original source. This will also prevent misunderstandings of the kind we experienced (aka duplicate files). De728631 (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware that the original PNG had already existed (there was no link from the JPEG file). I think, it would be better if you wrote me a message when you have noticed that it was a duplicate, instead of instantly deleting the file, then undeleting it and so on... — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Please indicate the law

Hello. Here you wrote: "At the time of his death the copyright term in Romania was 50 years pma". Can you say what law you considered (number and paragraph)? As an OTRS volunteer, I would like to get acquainted with her. --Turbojet (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Turbojet. Please see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Romania. The law in force at this time was decree no. 321 from June 18, 1956 (Art. 6b). De728631 (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Article 6 of D321 is obsolete. D321/1956 was valid until 24 June 1966, so the mentioned 50 years apply to works whose authors died by 1945 inclusive. Or, over the new law, L8/1996, till 2018 more than 20 years have passed; it frees the works of deceased authors until 1948 inclusive. So invoking the 50-year term is not the proper argument. The text here, although recently, is incomplete. We, on Wikipedia in Romanian, have a much more complete algorithm, which reflect much better the D321/1956 invoked by you. The text from Commons should also be completed.

But... D321/1956 (which was valid between 1956 and 1995) has at Article 42 an express provision for architectural works: "The regulation of copyright on architectural works will be etablished by a Decision of the Council of Ministers (Romanian: Hotărâre a Consiliului de Miniștri – HCM) in accordance with the principles contained in this Decree and taking into account the specific conditions arising from the relations between the author, the builder and the beneficiary". This Decision of the Council of Ministers to regulate these rights has never appeared. Article 43 of the same Decree (D321/1956) states that: "The Law on the Literary and Artistic Property, of 28 June 1923, Law no. 596 of July 24, 1946, Decree no. 19 of February 16, 1951, Decree no. 428 of November 13, 1952, art. 5 and 7 of Decree no. 591 of December 24, 1955, as well as the provisions contrary to the present decree contained in any other normative acts related to copyright, are abrogated". So, between 1956 and 1995 the architects' copyrights remained unregulated, virtually no architects' copyright was recognized on the works created during this period. As a result, Romanian architects' copyrights may not be invoked on works made during the period of validity of D321/1956. --Turbojet (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, we're not talking about 1945, are we? The deletion request is for works by Petre Antonescu who died in 1965. So D321/1956 was still effective upon his death. I would also disagree with your interpretation of Art. 42. As long as there was no explicit exemption for architecture, it has to be treated as a work of art and would therefore be subject to the regular legal protection of 50 years. Moreover, with the introduction of Law No. 8 of March 14, 1996, the general copyright term was extended to 70 years (Art. 149/3): "The duration of the economic rights in works created by authors deceased before the entry into force of this Law and for which the term of protection, calculated according to the procedures of the prior legislation, has not expired shall be extended up to the limit of the term provided for in this Law." This leaves us with a protection term until 2026 for Antonescu's works. De728631 (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

If it were as you say, that "As long as there was no explicit exemption for architecture, it has to be treated as a work of art and would therefore be subject to the regular legal protection of 50 years", then Article 42 of D321/1956 might be missing. As it exists, it means that the legislator wanted to establish something different for the architects than the general case. In fact, during the period of validity of D321, architects were assimilated to industrial design engineers, whose projects did not offer copyright. Although it seems incredible, Article 43 also abrogate the legislative provisions on the recognition of Berne Convention. And Law 8/1996 could not prolong something that did not exist. It extended only the duration of protection that has not yet expired. --Turbojet (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you should raise your concerns in the deletion discussion. Article 42 does nothing but announce an obscure future ruling by the council of ministers, but since such a ruling did never occur, I'm afraid there was actually no special status for architecture in the IP law of Romania. De728631 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

But Article 43 has removed any other copyright-related legal texts and any general considerations. This is precisely what prevents the "addition to the law" of common sense interpretations.

Yes, this is the purpose of my discussion, the general solution at Commons of these issues, not just for one image or another. Where could this discussion be opened? --Turbojet (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

For a start you should join the debate at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dolj County Prefecture. Once this has been decided, you may want to open a new discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. De728631 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Post-RfC on music notation files

Hi. If you're interested, the discussion regarding music notation files on Commons has moved to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T208494, as the RfC was archived without a formal closure. Feel free to comment (if you've never used Phabricator before, you can log in with a MediaWiki account). Jc86035 (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. I might take a look, but I'm pretty busy off-wiki. De728631 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Amanita-Phalloides-Forest-2802335.jpg

Yours sincerely, Majora (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Horn1915ad fin.png

File:Horn1915ad fin.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Kzl55 (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

thank you

	thx
	Thanks for getting that Emanuel Kudela photo from de.wikipedia into Commons. Shearonink (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. De728631 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Lizenz für historische Zeitungsartikel

Hi, sorry, ich hatte nicht gesehen, dass Du die Lizenz geändert hast. Ich dachte, ich hätte die falsche Lizenz gesetzt und ich würde meinen eigenen Fehler korrigieren. Zur eigentlichen Frage ob PD weil alt oder weil Behörde: gefühlsmäßig hätte ich beim Reichsanzeiger zwischen amtlichen Meldungen (typischerweise im amtlichen Teil) und sonstigen Artikeln unterschieden. Was war Deine Überlegung zur Lizenzwahl? --Stefan Weil (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Stefan Weil: Soweit ich weiß, gab es im Reichsanzeiger nur amtliche Meldungen und keine sonstigen Artikel. Das war sowas wie der Bundesanzeiger heutzutage. Daher auch meine Auswahl für die Lizenz. De728631 (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Das könnte man meinen, war aber nicht so. Er enthält amtliche Nachrichten (vergleichbar dem Bundesanzeiger), Beilagen (Warenzeichen, Patente, Handelsregister, ...) und einen ausführlichen nichtamtlichen Teil, teilweise mit Agenturmeldungen, wie sie jede Zeitung hat, aber auch Wetterberichte, Vorträge u. v. m. Einfach mal reinschauen, dann bekommst Du selbst einen Eindruck. Seit diesem Monat ist der Zugriff komplett freigegeben. --Stefan Weil (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Ja, Du hast recht, diese Meldung kommt tatsächlich aus der Rubrik "Nichtamtliches". Dennoch würde ich nicht wieder auf PD-old zurückgehen, sondern lieber auf "anonym" plädieren: {{PD-EU-anonymous}}. Dann ist man auf der sicheren Seite. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Noch besser wäre Public Domain Mark 1.0. Das wird aber leider nicht angeboten. Anonym sind die Autoren der Artikel nicht immer. Es gibt auch viele zugesandte Artikel mit Nennung des Autors, beispielsweise Reiseberichte von Forschungsreisenden. --Stefan Weil (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

In diesem Fall wird aber kein Autor genannt, ich habe ja extra nachgeschaut: (einmal umblättern). De728631 (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Das stimmt. Ich habe jetzt die Lizenz wie von Dir vorgeschlagen geändert. --Stefan Weil (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Danke dafür. Ich habe noch den Baustein für die USA eingesetzt, dann sollte jetzt alles im grünen Bereich sein. De728631 (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Donna e Bimbo. Elisa Maria Boglino. Olie på lærred. 1930. Museo GAM Palermo.jpg

Hi. You have deleted the file : Donna e Bimbo. I have tried before to get a photo of this painting into the article about the artist Elisa Maria Boglino. Before I used a photo found on Flickr, and I have not been able to find the photografer...meanwhile the photo has dissapeared from Flickr and the internet, it was there for at least 10 years.. I have discussed this with Jcb at OTRS, he asked me to find the URL , and that has not been possible. This photo is taken by my uncle , who is the son to Elisa Maria Boglino. He, and I and my sister own the copyright together to the works af Elisa Maria Boglino, and this photo was taken by ourselves. I would have liked very much to use the photo found on Flickr, because it is better, but I have not until now been able to find the photografer/URL. I have written to Flickr about it and they cannot help me. The guys at OTRS (Arthur Crbz) who have helped me , with all the other photos in the article , knows about the copyright, papers and all that stuff. Hope you can help me get this photo into the article, I would be very thankfull. Thank youCiopone. (diskussion) 20:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Replied at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donna e Bimbo. Elisa Maria Boglino. Olie på lærred. 1930. Museo GAM Palermo.jpg. --De728631 (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Milton Morrison En Television.jpg

Hello. You deleted the photo I uploaded, taken by me. And also gave me a last warning without letting me prove my side of the story. What is this about? --OGfromtheGut (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello. File:Milton Morrison Programa de Television.jpg was obviously a screenshot taken from a copyrighted and non-free TV show. You are not allowed to upload such images without permission by the TV network or the copyright holder in general. Your talk page is also full of previous warnings about copyrights violations, so you should have known not to upload any more copyright infringements at Commons. Likewise you have had plenty of time to make yourself familiar with the upload procedures if you really have a permission from third parties (COM:OTRS). This is why I gave you a final warning. De728631 (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank!

Das ist ja fantastisch, was du gemacht hast! Ich bin total geplättet. DANKE SCHÖN! LG, --Gyanda (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gyanda: Gern geschehen. Der Baustein {{Art Photo}} ist ziemlich praktisch für solche Zwecke, und die Kategorie für Frau Desgranges habe ich auch gleich richtig eingerichtet. Hast Du eigentlich auch ein Foto von der Künstlerin selbst? De728631 (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Ich hatte ihr geschrieben, dass ich eins in einem Katalog gesehen hatte, aber sie wollte das nicht preisgeben, leider. Eventuell kommen noch zwei Fotos, ich hab die Fotografen angeschrieben mit der Info über die Lizenz etc - aber manche wollen das ja nicht machen, abwarten. Das mit dem Baustein hab ich noch nicht verstanden, beim nächsten Künstler schau ich mir das mal genauer an. Ich trage es zumindest in mein Vademecum ein. Danke nochmals! --Gyanda (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Ja, dass ich die Kategorien bei ihrer Kategorie vergessen hab, wurmt mich. Ich versuch immer alles richtig zu machen, aber es ist sehr anstrengend, nichts zu vergessen. Danke auch dafür! --Gyanda (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

File moving nicht mehr möglich

Guten Abend. Seit kurzem ist bei mir File moving nicht mehr möglich; das "More" neben dem Stern oben ist verschwunden.

In der File mover-Liste stehe ich ebenso noch drin wie in meinen individuellen "Preferences".

Hast Du irgedeine Erklärung dafür und vielleicht sogar Abhilfe?

Viele Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Uli Elch: Guten Abend, Uli. Das ist ein globales Pro^^blem, was alle Benutzer betrifft. Die Bastler sind bereits dabei, den Fehler zu beheben, aber es wird wohl noch ein wenig dauern, bis das repariert ist. De728631 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank für die schnelle Antwort. Das beruhigt mich dann doch, denn ich dachte schon, ich hätte mir womöglich aus Versehen irgendwas in meinen Einstellungen zerschossen. Nochmal Danke und viele Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Valor9999999

усё гэта парушэнне аўтарскіх правоў -- Lolsoly (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Porto Mineiro

усё гэта парушэнне аўтарскіх правоў Lolsoly (talk)

Context question

I was looking at using File:KAS-Politischer Gegner, SPD-Bild-1146-1.jpg in an article, but I was hoping as one of our resident German speakers you could provide a little bit of context. I get that its an ad for en:Young Union, but the machine translation of the text (I do not come to Potte with the Reds) doesn't seem top make much sense. GMG^talk 13:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Heh, "zu Potte kommen" is a slang phrase that means something like "to finish your business" or "to get something done". So basically, the baby in the poster says: "I can't finish my business with the reds... But when I'm grown up, I'll know what to do." So "zu Potte kommen" in this context and the toddler on a red potty makes this hint at the social democratic (red) party (SPD) twice as funny. A true "potshot"! De728631 (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah. I figured it was probably some type of slang. Thank you for clarifying. GMG^talk 19:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

File:World metrication.svg

Can you update File:World metrication.svg where numerous countries are left as uncategorized and blank, and possibly more corrections are needed for countries that are already colored, but incorrectly?

File:Metrication by year map.svg which is complete (except for Greenland and Turkey), can be used to complete File:World metrication.svg.

Matricatria (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think an update would be worth the effort. The legend here is not clear-cut, and the map has been marked as superseded anyway. De728631 (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand. I wanted to give it a try, because the map looks worthwhile (to an SVG illiterate person like me) and doesn't have many countries left blank, and also is used by various Wikipedias. This map has already been added by another user for corrections and updates in Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Thank you again for the other map. Matricatria (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Metrication by year map.svg

Turkey and Greenland need to be colored in File:Metrication by year map.svg according to their dates of metrication. Turkey was colored in the previous edition, but has been colored white in the last edition, and Greenland has never been colored.

The metric system was adopted in Denmark and its territories of Iceland, Greenland and Faroe Islands at the same time on 4 May 1907. Thus they need to be all colored in the same color. See: en:Danish units of measurement, en:Metrication, [3], [4] and other sources.

The metric system was adopted in Turkey on 1 January 1934. Thus it needs to be colored accordingly. See: en:Ottoman units of measurement, en:Metrication, [5], [6] and other sources.

(The corrections and updates made in File:Metrication by year map.svg must also be applied to File:World metrication.svg where numerous countries are left as uncategorized and blank, and possibly more corrections are needed for countries that are already colored, but incorrectly.)

Matricatria (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done By the way, Turkey adopted the metric system in 1933 according to the sources above. De728631 (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Matricatria (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Request

May Commons:Deletion requests/Template:The Stand News be closed? Σανμοσα^{The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies} 13:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sanmosa: I'm sorry, but I'll better not close this one since I am involved in the case by the statement I made here. De728631 (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I see. Σανμοσα^{The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies} 14:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Re

If it's not notable enough to restore the file, should we keep this one? --Ganímedes (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

File:行政院人事行政總處中興新村辦公室.JPG

Hi there. I noticed your edits to File:行政院人事行政總處中興新村辦公室.JPG. I just found that uploaded 20 images by User:Fcuk1203 has violated the "OVERWRITE" policy. I have all reverted to status quo(the original version), but the question is how I can most constructively deal with it. To split?--Kai3952 (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kai3952: Hello, and thank you for notifying me. I think we should first of all determine the copyright status of all these new uploads. The file you mentioned above was affected by a copyright infringement by Fcuk1203, and I wouldn't be surprised if their other overwritings were likewise taken from non-free sources. So I'm going to have a look at this. De728631 (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In related news, I just noticed that Fcuk1203 has been blocked indefinitely for constantly overwriting files. De728631 (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems that all these uploads were taken by Fcuk1203, so your requests to split the file histories was totally ok. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reported to COM:HISTMERGE. By the way, I also found out that the same thing also happened to another user 寺人孟子. I hope you can make he change his opinion about overwriting files(or, say, to understand which ones are suitable for overwriting), since I have told him on his talk page(see: User talk:寺人孟子#You uploaded a new version and overwrite the original file). I do have a lot of work to do and I can't always spend time on him.--Kai3952 (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that Jeff G. also left them a message about this some time later, and it doesn't seem that 寺人孟子 reacted to this notice nor to yours. However, they seem to have stopped overwriting files since then. De728631 (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Stopped overwriting? He has continued to do this after my last report(see here). You take a look at these files:

• File:新莊廣福宮石獅.jpg
• File:重修慈祐宮碑記（1873）.jpg
• File:新莊武聖廟石獅.jpg
• File:新莊武聖廟廟門.jpg
• File:台灣水泥股份有限公司股票.jpg
• File:西華飯店內展示環孔雀十六瓣八重表菊紋壁毯.jpg
• File:臺北府城城牆基石.jpg
• File:德意志國駐臺灣大稻埕領事館模型.jpg
• File:三井物產株式會社倉庫.jpg
• File:高石組.jpg
• File:桃園景福宮石獅.jpg
• File:和平島公園海蝕崖.jpg
• File:和平島公園犀牛望月與海蝕溝.jpg
• File:和平島公園千疊敷.jpg
• File:和平島公園海兔岩.jpg
• File:和平島公園豬腳岩.jpg
• File:三峽老街成和染坊、林榮祥染坊與老元吉附近.jpg
• File:中港慈裕宮近照.jpg
• File:中港慈裕宮三川殿虎邊對看堵石雕.jpg
• File:中港慈裕宮三川殿龍邊對看堵石雕.jpg
• File:中港慈裕宮井井泉.jpg

If the photos are completely different, then he should not overwrite the original version. I can't stand him! He always likes to upload files in his own way because he does not care about the "OVERWRITE" policy. I suspect that he deliberately overwritten files. Also, his Chinese better and more regularly than English, so I have found him on Chinese Wikipedia and told him in Chinese what "overwriting existing files" is(see here). You look at my message time carefully, I posted on 8 August 2018. Regrettably until today he haven't stop overwriting files. If I want to report him again, then I have to spend my time checking which files are in violation of COM:OVERWRITE. That is means I need to stop the work i am doing. Therefore, I need admin attention on this issue.--Kai3952 (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you warn him to stop overwriting files?--Kai3952 (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kai3952: I see what you mean, although most of the files you listed above were last uploaded several monts ago. Anyhow, I have reverted many of them and left 寺人孟子 a warning that he might get blocked if this pattern continues. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Kepa Altonaga Armand Daviden liburua Egunkaria2001.png

Dear De728631, I see that the file was deleted. I had argumented about it in my user talk, the following: "Sorry, I gave the wrong link. I replaced it with the rigth link with license information: https://www.berria.eus/hemeroteka/egunkaria/?zbilatu=kepa+altonaga&h_u=1990&h_h=12&h_e=06&b_u=2003&b_h=02&b_e=20&bilatu=Bilatu&orridata=20011006&ikusi=039". Please could you please examine it againr? The license is CC-BY-SA. Thanks,Ksarasola (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ksarasola: Thank you for notifying me and for providing the link to Berria's licence declaration. I have been quite busy off-wiki, so I wasn't able to react anytime sooner. While the licence is now alright, I still don't see a reason for undeleting the entire copy of this news article. We don't usually keep copies of recent pieces of text, unless the exact test is used at Wikiquote or Wikisource. But e.g. for use at Wikipedia, we would not copy the entire news article but rather extract the image to have a portrait of the person. De728631 (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@De728631: Thanks for your answer. I understand that your criterion is a general one for deleting images coming from journals or newspapers. But let me explain you that this is a not a typical case. It is not a typical case, this newspaper disappeared because it was shut down in 2003 by the police and justice administration, but in 2010, the final and unanimous sentence by the Criminal Court of the Audiencia Nacional stated that there was no grounds to have the newspaper closed. When later all the contents of the newspaper were recovered and published again in 2018 by the local administration with CC-BY-SA license, whenever you search for any content (for instance Search for "Kepa Altonaga" as I did) the interface provides you a list of image files with whole pages in the newspaper. In the case of this image in discussion I think that the whole page is a better contribution than just the sum of the photograph and the plain text, I like the whole page composition built with titles, the photograph and text, I think that it is much more that just a single composition. And I understand that the whole composition of the page was published with CC-BY-SA license. Thanks Ksarasola (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I think this makes sense, so let's ask the deleting admin. @JuTa: Would you mind undeleting the file in light of this recent information? De728631 (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The file is back. I marked as "licensereview" to get another pair of eyes on it. --JuTa 14:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! De728631 (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! And now, please, could you reconsider the deletion of the other image that I had uploaded in Kepa Altonaga's article from the same newspaper? Please, see your notice and my answer in my page of discussion. That second (and last) combination of an image and text was very clear to illustrate the work Kepa Altonaga did when he was the director of the Basque Summer University. This will be my last request  ;-) Ksarasola (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I have undeleted this one. I've also put a "license review" request on it, along with a clear link to the "Lizentzia" subpage. De728631 (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again.Ksarasola (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

UDR

Could you handle this request, please? I would like to avoid taking a decission here as I was involved in earlier discussion with the deleting admin. Maybe, the deleting admin and DR nominator should be notified: it is up to you. Ankry (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Ankry: I didn't see a need to notify either of them since you didn't ask me to close the UDR in a certain way. Involvement at UDRs just recently took a nasty turn, so I appreciate your neutral request to an uninvolved admin in order to handle this situation. De728631 (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

YouTube screenshots

Hi, can you please review this files from YouTube? Thank you! --Patriccck (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Patriccck: Next time you upload YouTube videos or screenshots, please put {{licence review}} on the file page just after the licence template. This will mark the file for review and place it in a special maintenance category, so any authorised reviewer can check it. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests

hi De728631, recently I ask the Commons: Undeletion requests the restoration of some scanned files concerning the pd license, could it go to see if by chance they can be restored?--Carlös de Schlüchers (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I won't touch any files related to A3cb1. If they are in fact PD, you're free to upload such scans yourself. De728631 (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Obviously it was just a1cb3 with yet another sock. Cheers! --Ruthven (msg) 15:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure. That's exactly why I let him wait as long as possible. De728631 (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Flickr files from Varaine

File:Zurracapote en cours de préparation.jpg

I am about to overwrite a bunch, please stop reviewing. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'm working on something else anyway. De728631 (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Many of these files are oversaturated or have other problems (you know, Varaine..), I'm overwriting them with the originals. Afterwards I'll just have the bot review them. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. The originals shouldn't cause any troubles with automatic reviewing. De728631 (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm done. Only a few duplicates in Category:Files uploaded by Varaine from Flickr with issues left, after those have been deleted the "issues" category can be deleted as well. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Re:

I've just limited myself to tag the file with the number of ticket received. Anything else. I'm not working in the case, so be free to proceed as you think it's best. Thank you. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:CCPI world map.svg

Copyright status: File:CCPI world map.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:CCPI world map.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Masum Reza^📞 18:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: What's wrong with this file in your opinion? I provided a licence for the whole file and a source link for the base map. De728631 (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, you forgot to add a copyrignt tag to the file page. Masum Reza^📞 18:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: Meh, I must have been blind! Thank you for notifying me. I have a now added a licence, so you might want to remove the datet deletion tag. De728631 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. No worries, we human make mistakes. Thanks for adding the license tag and recreating the file using vector graphics! Masum Reza^📞 18:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

RFA Support

Hi. Since I cannot edit on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fitindia anymore, I wanted to thank you for your support on my recent successful RFA, Your trust and faith in my candidature is much appreciated and I could not have done it without your support. Warm regards FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 15:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fitindia: Thank you, and welcome to the admin crew! Your support to our daily work will be much appreciated. De728631 (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Just want to say thanks

	Best helper today for me :-)
	Thanks for all the good help! The boxes are just working fine! 999Vic999 (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Aw, thank you. You're welcome. De728631 (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi. I saw you procedurally closed the F10 SD on File:ShyamWuppuluri2018.jpg. However I have tagged it as a copyvio as I found it online before the upload date. And the file has no exif. Thought you might want to know Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gbawden: Alright, thank you for dealing with this. At first I was a bit sceptical too and did a TinEye search, but I couldn't find anything. De728631 (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for excellent help

Star Helper

Thanks for your very good help once again :-) It was the help you gave me, that inspired me to make this drawing :-) I just want to say what I like with your way of helping. You do answer the question exactly, and then again you point to further solutions. You don't do everything for the asker, but shows how to grow and learn. That's a great way of helping! 999Vic999 (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

UDR closure

Why you are talking of a logo here? I see no logo on the photo... Ankry (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry: Oops. I think I mixed something up there. I have left a note at the uploader's talk page explaining the general reason for "not done" which remains valid imo. [7] De728631 (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at Wikimedia Commons.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

File duplications.

Perhaps you are new when it comes to this particular form of maintainence, but I've been doing this for 10 years. Format is considered irrelevant, when the file is a lower quality copy (whether PNG, JPEG, or GIF) of an existing SVG file, and is not in use, we delete it. Fry1989 ^eh?

Thank you, but I'm not new to this particular business, and I use to keep these files by default. Format does matter since we do not only serve Wikipedia where it is in fact irrelevant, but provide a repository for everyone. E.g. SVGs cannot be included into older versions of the MS Office suite, and there are other applications where you might want to have raster images instead of vectors. COM:Dupe also tells us that "A bitmap (PNG, JPEG or GIF) file superseded by a vector graphic is not considered to be an exact enough duplicate. Such files ought to be listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that they may be decided upon, case by case." De728631 (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Indicative (Saudi Aarbia Road Sign).png. De728631 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)