User talk:~riley/Archive 10

Translation notification: Commons:Moving files to Commons

Hello ~riley,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to Canadian English, Spanish and French on Wikimedia Commons. The page Commons:Moving files to Commons is available for translation. You can translate it here:

• translate to Canadian English
• translate to Spanish
• translate to French

The priority of this page is low.

Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Wikimedia Commons to function as a truly multilingual community.

You can change your notification preferences.

Thank you!

Wikimedia Commons translation coordinators‎, 09:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Images

@~ riley: Please approve these images https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alfonso_Obreg%C3%B3n_Incl%C3%A1n.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jes%C3%BAs_Barrero.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jerry_Vel%C3%A1zquez.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kalimba_2.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kalimba_1.jpg --Xoaw (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

New mailing list for Wikimedia Canada

Good day, this message is to inform you that Wikimedia Canada has created a new mailing list operated by Mailman. This mailing list is for all discussions related to the Wikimedia movement in Canada, in both English and French. Announcements from Wikimedia Canada will always be bilingual, but you are welcomed to discuss in any language of your choice. The old google group will be abandoned. To join this mailing list, please go to [1]. To send messages to the list, write to general(at)discussions.wikimedia.ca. Also, please forward this message to anybody who may be interested. Thank you and do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. JP Béland (WMCA) (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

User page nitpick

Hi, ~riley. JFYI: your user page transcludes User:~riley/u through a redirect User:Riley Huntley/u. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for accept my file mover right. Wish you all the best. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 03:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem! ~riley (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

adminwatch.js

Hello! your tool User:~riley/adminwatch.js keep saying that there are a lot (150) more copyvio files in Category:Copyright violations than there actually is. Is this a bug? (welcome back btw!) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Josve05a: Hey my Swedish friend.. You are quite correct; I am not sure why {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Copyright violations|files}} is saying 256 right now when the category is showing 106.. Interesting enough, the category is displaying it's backlog warning which should only appear after 150 files are in the category.. @Steinsplitter: Any ideas what's going on here? It's your tool, I just added on to it. ~riley (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kenneth Slotterøy Elvebakk

Hello, is it on purpose you did not delete one of the three? Cheers, — Racconish ^💬 07:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Likely got an error or missed clicking it. Thanks! ~riley (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Vicbuk

Vicbuk was struck as a false positive on 7 October 2019. Yet you blocked them on 24 October 2019. Could you please explain this? Эlcobbola _talk 18:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Mistake was made, unblocked accordingly - I imagine you are wanting more rationale than that but I'm not going to waste my time or yours making excuses for mixing a false positive into the batch. As said on the unblock request, my apologies to the user that was briefly impacted. ~riley (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Files uploaded by JPS68 requiring review

Could you delete the upscaled garbage? As the images need to be viewed full screen, 1000 would take long, so a post at COM:AN for help might be the way to go?--BevinKacon (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Spammer

They've hopped again 178.247.150.55. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done 1 more and I'll do a rangeblock. Saw your global block request. ~riley (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Vitor Oliveira

I got this in my watchlist: «RileyBot moved page Category:Files from Portuguese eyes / Vitor Oliveira Flickr stream to Category:Photographs by Vitor Oliveira» — twenty thousand done, fifteen thousand to go. Besides flooding my watchlist, what’s the result of this rename? To make identification of this guy’s photos slightly less easy? He’s known in Flickr as “Portuguese eyes”, anyhow, and it surely is not for orthographic correction, for while "Vítor" is the correct spelling and "Victor" is the pre-1911 but still somewhat popular form, "Vitor" is just a typo, soon in use in thirty five thousand Commons files… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Sorry for flooding your watchlist - If you find bots flooding your watchlist, you can adjust that easily in your preferences. As you will note, the desired category name is Photographs by xxx - this harmonization is consistent with categories in Category:Photographs by Flickr photographer, Category:Photographs by photographer, etc. Unless an organization, the styling has also been using the photographer's first and last name. I have created Category:Photographs by Portuguese eyes as a category redirect so that he is still found in a search by that name. I am not going to comment on "Vítor", "Victor" and "Vitor" and I don't think it is inappropriate to insinuate that I am behind a typo across files. "Vitor" was already on all of these files per the source; the photographer has chosen for his profile name across platforms to be Vitor and the previous category name was already Vitor. ~riley (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Notification would be welcome

Hi Riley. You deleted a photo of oysters in Bouzigues, citing copyright concerns. As you may have noticed, this photo was used on Wikivoyage, on our voy:Bouzigues article, which is a star article (as the name suggests, this means it's deemed one of our best articles).

While I completely understand and support the efforts to clamp down on copyright violations, I would like to convey that a notification of this particular deletion, on the talk page of the Wikivoyage article (and I guess on the talk page of any other article that used the file) would have been much appreciated.

As you continue your important work improving Wikimedia Commons, please keep in mind those of us on your sister projects who also make use of the files on this excellent repository.

Best wishes, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@ThunderingTyphoons!: Thank you for taking the time to share that feedback. Unfortunately, we only notify the uploader of the image and we only make notifications on Commons, not other projects - even for high use images. CommonsDelinker removes the image from use and anyone watching the page will see on their watchlist that the image hsa been deleted. I realize why you would request this but I hope you can appreciate that over 150,000 images are deleted per year. ~riley (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @ThunderingTyphoons!: Commons deletion notification bot is a thing ;) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

What happened to my page?

A did my daily watchlist check and noticed that you hid a revision "Deletion log; 23:19 ~riley (A) talk contribs changed visibility of a revision on page User:PlanespotterA320: content hidden ‎(Purely disruptive material)"

What happened? What user(s) was/were involved? What did it say?

--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@PlanespotterA320: The revdev was for an older revision (at least 2018) involving a sock master that made death threats and defamatory remarks across user pages. It was never revdeleted originally, so my apology for the watchlist notification. ~riley (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for any inconvenience/a question

I understand that you deleted the image “SmallvilleGreenArrow.jpg” as Commons does not allow fair use rationale. I realize my error in uploading it, and you were completely in the right to delete it under the circumstances.

I was wondering what the necessary licensing tags would need to be if I want to upload a replacement image? The file “Green Arrow (Stephen Amell).png” is also featured on those pages, and similarly is a publicity photo uploaded with a fair use rationale.

I'm assuming the uploader of that image included information that I forgot to add with the one I uploaded myself? or are these things decided on a case by case basis?

No worries if the image is reverted, I just hoped to replace the image that had been used previously representing the Smallville incarnation of the character, as it was a fan made png file that had a big hole in the character’s torso, in the area between the bow strings.

I'll also be leaving a similar messgae on the article talk pages on wiki in case anyone else can provide answers, so no pressure for a speedy response. You were just doing your job as an admin to delete a flagged file, I understand. --Tr114 (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tr114: Please read COM:FAIRUSE. Fair use images can only be uploaded to the English Wikipedia, not Wikimedia Commons. Try en:Special:Upload instead. ~riley (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. --Tr114 (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for Autopatrol rights... I think :)

Hello Riley:

I had to look up what "Autopatrol rights" means but thank you for the vote of confidence. I work in Wikipedia and Commons. I strongly feel that if an image is going to last over time, it has to be well-documented and described. In my wanderings, I just try to clean up captions and stuff.

Best,

Gordon Leggett Northern Virginia USA (but I used to live in Vancouver in my misspent youth - go Canucks!)

:)

So glad to see you active again. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Can only agree with Ellin Beltz! --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of duplicate uploads

Hi ~riley, you recently temp-banned the user Jicco123 for copyvios. This user has been indef'd on enwiki, and I was notified to check their uploads here. It appears as though the user has uploaded several files several times, with slight resolution or quality variations (such as File:UplayPlus.png and File:Uplay Plus.png). Some of them (e.g. File:EAAccess2014.png and the two aforementioned ones if you look closely at the swirl) might also be copyvios. Would it be possible for you to delete the images of lesser quality (including both for Apple Arcade, which already has a suitable version) and those that are copyvios? Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 08:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lordtobi, I have deleted one copyvio and two or three duplicates. The EA ones stayed as they are older versions, not duplicates. Although he claimed these as own work, they are {{PD-logo}} and get to stay. Thanks for catching this, thought I went through his uploads. ~riley (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I also think File:EAAccess.png and File:EA Access.png are duplicates of another, with the prior just painted white. The latter can probably be kept but should be renamed to align it with File:EAAccess2014.png (preferably to "EA Access 2016.png" and "EA Access 2014.png", respectively). Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 23:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Normally we do not delete versions on the basis of duplicates if they are a different colour (it is preferable to have other colour options), however, the white one is so small that it is less than useful. ~riley (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Question

Is there any script to mass-patrol edits by users? RTRC has an option to mass-patrol but it seems it doesn't run in background. Masum Reza^📞 10:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

On-wiki? Don't think so. It's either by RTRC or by bot. ~riley (talk) 18:45, 23 November 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)

Destructive Admin

This guy deleting nc cong map without reason. Another addmin abuse his power. Langholz8 (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You have no existing or deleted contributions involving files. If there is a file you are referring to, please link to it. ~riley (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Question about File:Tiny Dawn nude with dildo 2017.jpg & File:TinyDawn anal and vaginal fingering.jpg‎

Hi, you addressed that the pictures on Flickr have CC-By-2.0 tags. However, there are copyright tags in the images that you did not address in your comments. Can we be assured that these are in fact not copyrighted? Even though the Flickr user name & copyright owner's name in the tag are similar, can we rightfully assume that they are the same?

I have had an image deleted from Commons that had CC licenses because it turned out the uploader did not have copyright ownership. I would expect that having a copyright tag in the photo would at least require OTRS.

Peaceray (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I have already responded at here, please maintain the discussion there. If you have questions after reading my explanation, please comment there and I will address it. ~riley (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Australian fires at sunset from ISS (edited).jpeg.jpg

I have the picture of the ESA, as I have stated. Why then the deletion? --Killarnee (T•R•P) 11:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's because of the license. I did not know that the template {{ESA}} exists. Please undelete the picture. --Killarnee (T•R•P) 11:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

~riley, please give me an answer. --Killarnee (T•R•P) 18:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Killarnee: Please use patience. Commons and Wikipedia editors are volunteers, expecting a response within 7 hours is not realistic. There was no license template anywhere on the page for over 7 days, that is why it was deleted. I see you have gone around the undeletion process and re-uploaded with an actual template; as it appears, you no longer need my assistance. ~riley (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit-War regarding American vs. British English

Hi ~riley, I noticed the edit-war at Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag where you twice replaced British English variants by their American English counterparts ([2], [3]). Please don't do that. We have talk pages or project pages to settle such debates. And I would like to refer you to Commons:Language policy where no preference for American or British English (or any other variant of English) has been given. This is handled similarly in other projects as well, see MOS:ENGVAR or de:Wikipedia:Schweizbezogen/de:Wikipedia:Österreichbezogen for example. And this kind of tolerance has been introduced for good reasons as any attempt to enforce a consistent style or language across an entire project generates conflicts we do not need. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hi AFBorchert, thanks for the message. I invite you to take a step back here and reconsider your language and approach. How do you think it feels for an experienced user to have an "edit war" section added to their talk page after 1 revert followed by a "please don't do that" and education on how to use talk pages? Are you aware of the negative connotation associated with "edit war", a blockable offense? At one revert, this would be considered a difference of opinion. While I appreciate your friendly reminder about use of talk pages, however, I encourage you to recognize that with only 1 revert - this would fall short of being a clear dispute. My strategy to avoid edit wars is actually described on en:WP:AVOIDEDITWAR by "limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute, they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse".
• Thank you for linking to that Commons policy, I appreciate you sharing this - I was under the understanding that when the translation tool launched, this changed as it is no longer logical for an American to be forced to read British or Canadian English when translation versions are available for those users. I am unsure the point of the addition of British or Canadian translation abilities if the normal source will not be American English - essentially forcing American users to read the page in a different version of English when it is available to other users. To clarify, is there a certain part of Commons:Language policy that you are referring to? Unlike MOS:ENGVAR (which does not have our translation capabilities), our policy does not say "There is no preference for version of English used" etc. Thanks and look forward to your message! ~riley (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi ~riley, I think that the be bold, revert discuss cycle is the correct approach in most cases. In my opinion, edit-warring starts in the moment where the discuss phase is skipped and instead the next revert is applied. Such reverts appear rude to me. This holds even more in this case where you reverted against the main author who created this policy page (and many others). I simply do not like to see such unhelpful reverts against users who are investing so much of their expertise for a better Commons. He deserves to be treated with respect and in this case this is done by opening a discussion if there is an obvious disagreement.

Regarding the other point: In my opinion it is not helpful to misuse our multi-language capabilities to introduce language variants like American/British/Canadian English or German/Swiss German/Austrian German. Multi-language capability is helpful to enable the understanding of a text which would otherwise not be understood. But every added language needs to be kept in sync with the original text which is maintenance work where we have significant backlogs. FuzzyBot tries to mitigate this with the result that fundamental policy pages like Commons:Licensering are mostly written by FuzzyBot but not by Swedish-speaking users. In addition, you are enforcing a British native speaker who is the main author of that policy page to write or edit American English in case of necessary updates. This is not helpful. The most important point is here that the original author continues to be invited to update this policy and to add more such texts when the need arises.

And regarding your last question: I am refering to the last point of the language policy: Policies and guidelines are written in English and translated to other languages. The English version of the policy or guideline is the authoritative version on which other language versions are based. The policy refers to English in general but not to American English or any other variant. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

! Please wait before supress !

the author asked me to publish these photos under CC license BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.fr>). He will send you permission these evening by mail at the adresse permissions-fr@wikimedia.org

the author asked me to publish these photos under CC license BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.fr>). He will send you permission this evening by mail at the address permissions-fr@wikimedia.org (Misplaced text put here, Hansmuller (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC))

About my autopatrol right

• Question 1:
  

If I want to get myself autopatrolled, how should I avoid "drama"?

• Question 2:
  

My autopatroller status was revoked because Zhuyifei1999 didn't believe what I said. He thinks I don't know what "autopatrolled" means, but I explained my understanding is that the patrol is to check a user that their edits are likely to be good, my edits are generally good and have been trusted by the community and a patroller, so I know that "autopatrolled" is a user right to automatically mark my edits as patrolled. If I want everyone to believe me, I must "convince" them why I chose to refuse the autopatrol right in the past. The problem is: I don't know how to convince them to accept the mistakes that I've made?--Kai3952 (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Question 1 - Answer: I think you are doing the right thing by admitting you previously made a mistake - this is a very drama-free approach you have taken. One thing that is not drama free is the notices on the top of your user page. I would highly recommend you remove these. If you are not doing work, we would not be corresponding.

  Question 2 - Answer: I have corresponded with Zhuyifei1999 off-wiki - while you have clearly demonstrated an understanding of autopatrol and the patrol function above, I think it is a fair statement that it was not as clear before. He is indifferent if I re-assign you the permission.

  The most important thing is that we are respecting everyone's time. Your time, administrator's time and patroller's time. The lengthy discussions that have been ongoing, instead of working on content that benefits others, have not been respecting that time. I am happy to re-assign autopatroller if everyone can get back to work. Thank you Kai. :) ~riley (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You say: "If you are not doing work, we would not be corresponding." Can you give me time to think about it?--Kai3952 (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kai3952: Yes, you have time to think about it. :) ~riley (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

! Please reinstall Angeline van Achterberg Collection!

Dear Riley,

You deleted a lot of files which were legally on Commons. Permission CC-BY-SA-4.0 has been given and sent to OTRS-NL weeks ago - please put those images back, it was a lot of work uploading them: 80 MB .tif files. Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

PS. OTRS-nl asked me, NOT to put the license on the files: they wanted to do that, but they didn't. Now i have tried to put the license on the remaining files. Please reinstate these files you deleted, thank you! Hansmuller (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, restore is probably the correct English word. Hansmuller (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Hansmuller: Hi there, it makes no sense that OTRS-nl would advise you not to put a license on these files, OTRS pending or not. Please also know that files marked as missing permission, even with OTRS pending, are deleted after 15 days. Can you please give me the OTRS ticket number? Perhaps I can speed this up - I cannot undelete them at this time but they will definitely be undeleted if OTRS permission is granted. ~riley (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Hansmuller: Hi there, did some digging, found your ticket (#2019100210006561). In your original email, you only obtained permission for 1 file, not for all files in the Angeline van Achterberg Collection. That is why only File:Hans Hubenet, Hans Rosenberg en Mart de Groot - Sterrenwacht Sonnenborgh, Servaasbolwerk, Utrecht 1968-1969.jpg has not been deleted and the others have. ~riley (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@~riley: @Ellywa: Thanks for your reaction. (The above File:Hans Hubenet... was an unconnected case, thanks for that too.) Thank you for agreeing on the need to put the license CC-BY-SA-4.0 before OTRS has granted permission. Angeline van Achterberg granted permission with this email below in Dutch (Google Translate got much better, if you would take the trouble, thank you):

Extended content

Onderwerp: Re: toestemming? Van: achterberg <!-- email addresses abbreviated to avoid harvesting by spam bots?, by muller --> Datum: Do, 10 oktober, 2019 6:39 pm Aan: muller CC: permissions-, "Damen, J.C.M." Prioriteit: Normaal Mailprogramma: iPad Mail (16G114) Status: answered Opties: Bekijk volledige berichtinformatie | Print | Download dit als een bestand | Weergeven als platte tekst > Verklaring > -------------------------------------------- > Hierbij verklaar ik de auteur en/of de enige eigenaar van de > exclusieve auteursrechten te zijn van foto's van Afrika. Ik > verklaar hierbij deze werken te publiceren onder de > CC-BY-SA- en GFDL-licenties > ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.nl ). Ik verleen > iedereen het recht om deze werken te gebruiken in elk mogelijk product > (ook commercieel) en het te wijzigen naar behoefte, zoals de CC-BY-SA > en GFDL voorschrijven. > > Ik ben me ervan bewust dat ik altijd de rechten van mijn werk behoud > en het recht behoud om met mijn naam vermeld te worden volgens > CC-BY-SA of GFDL. Ik ben me ervan bewust dat ik deze verklaring niet > kan intrekken, en dat het werk permanent kan worden bewaard op een > Wikimedia-project. > > Angeline A. van Achterberg, 10 oktober 2019, Amsterdam >

I hope this helps to restore her deleted files, thanks a lot! Hansmuller (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hansmuller: I have been bold and collapsed the email you pasted. Emails are rarely shared on-wiki if it can be avoided. Keep in mind that such posts stay forever in the wiki archives, and instead you can easily link to sites like justpaste.it where once used it may be deleted as a courtesy, so the link left on-wiki becomes irrelevant. --Fæ (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

A tangent about the process, @~riley: you mention 15 days for {{OTRS pending}}, but the agreed period documented in the template, and that has been my understanding for several years, is 30 days. Where do the 15 days come from? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: Good catch. Thought one number, wrote another. 30 days is correct; the files were deleted after 30 days.

@Hansmuller: Your email dated December 2, 2019 was received by the OTRS team, let's wait and follow the OTRS process. ~riley (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother Riley with this..., I was pinged here. @Hansmuller: , can you please reply to OTRS mail with the permission of Achterberg, you now responded to another permission thread. This makes it difficult for the OTRS team to find the original thread. We (the small but loyal OTRS team) will come back to it, no need to hurry. Elly (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries Ellywa. Give me a shout for undeletion if and when that's the appropriate step once the permission is received and verified. :) ~riley (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Riley, I'll come back. Elly (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Ellywa just sent me the ticket number of the OTRS permission for Achterberg: Ticket#2019100210006561. Hope this helps, thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not sent this ticket#. I meanwhile did find the correct ticket ticket:2019101010004977. I will sent you another mail from OTRS because the permission text was not sufficient. Elly (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@~riley @Ellywa: Sorry to bother you, but is there a simple deletion log of the Achterberg files you deleted? I uploaded them with various Excel files, some uploads failed, so unfortunately i don't have a simple list of files that once made it to Commons. Deletions were from Category:A. A. van Achterberg Collection, i think Category:A. A. van Achterberg Collection Achterberg 1 suffered the most. Thanks a lot! Hansmuller (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@~riley O, Ellywa asked for this list of deleted files, but now i see you offered to undelete them anyway, thanks. Hansmuller (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Hansmuller: List is as follows. Yes, I have offered to undelete them once permission is verified. ~riley (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ellywa ~riley , Thanks for this beautiful list! Hansmuller (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Putin, Shtepo and Bugakov 2004-03-11.jpg

Why have you deleted this file? This photo posts on {{Kremlin.ru}}, which allowed the use of its files on the terms of CC-BY 4.0 and CC-BY 3.0.— Redboston 15:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Redboston: Image restored, my apologies - in the future, remove the deletion tag to prevent this from happening. ~riley (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! I have thought this tag can remove only administrators. Please restore one more foto: File:Shtepo VI.jpg (derivative work).— Redboston 21:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Done @Redboston: Thank you :) ~riley (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!— Redboston 23:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Potential copyvio and request

Hello. I believe this upload of mine is a potential copyvio. Could you confirm and, in case it is, delete the file?
Moreover, could you check if the latest files I uploaded recently, i.e. from 23 November 2019 to today, are copyvios? Thanks. Veverve (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Veverve: That one would be considered a copyvio. My concern is your uploads that include copyrighted text and/or images that are too recent to be PD. For example:

File:La Bible - Traduction du monde nouveau (1995) - Luc et Jean.jpg

File:Third Millenium Bible without paper cover - some psalms.jpg

File:Third Millenium Bible without paper cover - Genesis 1.jpg

File:Right side of the inside of the paper cover of the Third Millenium Bible.jpg

File:Bible Segong 21 - psaumes.jpg

File:Bible de Jérusalem 1.jpg

File:Bible de Jérusalem 2.jpg

File:Bible de Jérusalem 3.jpg

I would like to take these to COM:DR if it's okay with you. ~riley (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer. I believe the following do not meet the TOO:

File:Bible de Jérusalem 1.jpg

File:Bible de Jérusalem 2.jpg

File:Bible de Jérusalem 3.jpg

File:Right side of the inside of the paper cover of the Third Millenium Bible.jpg

As for File:Third Millenium Bible without paper cover - some psalms.jpg and File:Third Millenium Bible without paper cover - Genesis 1.jpg, I will try to check whenever I can if those pages use the text of the King James Bible. However, the cross-references would still be the TMB's copyrighted work so please tell me if I have to go through the hassle of checking. Veverve (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Veverve: For files 1-3, the text would meet TOO but the art itself is my concern. File 4 is probably fine, yes. ~riley (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The art is PD since it is this. Veverve (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Veverve: Super - the files just need to be tagged to reflect the art is PD then. ~riley (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I tried to do so by adding {{PD-Art-100-1923}}, please tell me if I did right. Veverve (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ~riley (talk) 09:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so now which files could be potential copyvios? Veverve (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Franz Ludwig Von Erthal.png

hi mr. riley, I am writing to ask if you could kindly restore this 1753 portrait to me, executed by Ludovico Stern (1709-1777)--37.182.21.247 16:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

If you are able to login to your account and request this, I am happy to restore the image. That said, looking at the history of long term abuse and the uploaders being blocked, I am going to assume that you are unable to login to an account. If you have grounds for undeletion, you can request so at COM:Undelete. ~riley (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

yes, but if I try to apply, the Angry user cancels the request, it is not a behavior worthy of an administrator. then, having said that, I would like to take advantage of this moment, to submit an old request to restore some PD license files that I made a few days ago, related to the kind of PD license where the cpyright is well expired for centuries since the death of the author--37.182.21.247 20:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Krd: Pinging as previous deleting admins. Were these files deleted for copyright concerns or were they deleted because they were uploaded by a LTA account? ~riley (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

unfortunately this is the second hypothesis--37.182.21.247 10:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

LTA blocked. Good evening --Ruthven (msg) 22:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)