User talk:Yann/archives 60

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Here is a permission for the note that Piotr Lenartowicz wrote to me which I uploaded.

From: Curia PMA <curiapma@jezuici.pl> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 07:39:54 +0200 Subject:Re: Piotr Lenartowicz, SJ To: xxx

Szanowny Panie Profesorze,

Wszelkie listy, czy notatki skierowane przez o. Piotra do Pana, są własnością adresata, a my, jako Prowincja Wielkopolsko-Mazowiecka Towarzystwa Jezusowego, nie mamy żadnych zastrzeżeń do ich publikowania.

Bardzo dziękuję za zajęcie się umieszczeniem informacji o ojcu Piotrze na Wikipedii. W najbliższych dniach przejrzę je dokładnie i ewentualnie odezwę się.

Z poważaniem, Wojciech Żmudziński SJ

Here is my translation to English

From: Curia PMA <curiapma@jezuici.pl> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 07:39:54 +0200 Subject: Re: Piotr Lenartowicz, SJ To: xxx

Dear Professor,

All letters or notes sent by Father Piotr to you are the property of the recipient, and we, as the Greater Poland-Mazovia Province of the Society of Jesus, have no objections to their publication.

Thank you very much for taking the time to include information about Father Piotr on Wikipedia. In the coming days, I will review it thoroughly and will possibly get back to you.

Sincerely, Wojciech Żmudziński SJ Puncinus (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Puncinus: Hi, Please send the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and see COM:VRT for other details. Yann (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I emailed this permission from the Catholic Jesuit order and my translation into English. Why was this file deleted within a day or two? Is this really the case that letters and notes copyright belong to the sender? Thanks. Puncinus (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Puncinus: Yes, the copyright belongs to the author. Do you have the ticket of the permission ? If not, please be patient. The file will be undeleted when the permission is validated by one of the volunteers. Yann (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,

Merci pour vos précisions, j'ai modifié les informations en conséquence. L'image est désormais publiée en CC-BY-NC-ND. J'ai mis mon pseudo en nom d'auteur, mais la mention source ne laisse aucun doute quant au fait que c'est le travail de mon père. S ijamais ça ne convient toujours pas, merci de bien vouloir indiquer les modifications à effectuer pour être dans les règles.

Bien cordialement,
FSTH000 (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FSTH000: Bonjour, Les licences non commerciales ne sont pas autorisées sur Commons. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

أعتذر عن رفع الصور بطريقة خاطئة الرجاء العفو عني Radhy365 (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:A tornado funnel is shown moving through Xenia.jpg 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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Rlandmann (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you deleted File:Dirk Hoke MSC 2019.jpg because the license stated at https://securityconference.org/impressum/ is not compatible. However, this statement has been changed after the file was published. In 2019, the file was licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Germany License as you can see here: https://web.archive.org/web/20191009142132/https://securityconference.org/en/imprint/. Thus, I think it should be restored. D3rT!m (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done License reviewed. Yann (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. D3rT!m (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello. on this date you deleted some copyrighted files I uploaded. Sorry for that, however these 4 files were my own work: File:Stazione di Piraineto.jpg, File:Stazione Isola delle Femmine Entrata.jpg, File:Stazione Isola delle Femmine.png, File:Carini Torre Ciachea.jpg. Is there anyway to bring them back, and if not, could I upload them back? Simoxan (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simoxan: Hi, Why so small? Please upload the original files with EXIF data. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was wondering why on earth delete a top category that might contain obviously historical images of Milan that are not traceable, as far as we know, to any recognized photographer. I also think that if you ever wanted to move images to the History of Milan category IMO it is a mistake because it should only contain categories related to precise historical events and not generic images that are considered historical. I also confess that I don't know exactly from what year it can be considered a historical photograph, do you have a guideline on this? Thank you for your attention. :-) Threecharlie (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Threecharlie: Hi, I only deleted this category because it was empty. I don't have a strong opinion about the content. Please discuss this on the Village Pump. Yann (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As i mentioned before, the original file is a fanmade reconstruction of the general release version i created and uploaded to the Internet Archive back in 2016. It was assembled, alongside footage from the 1999 reconstrucion (already uploaded in Commons by a third party), in SD so to keep the quality of the VHS main source.

I suggest to overwrite the windowboxed file with the original IA video file which is under a Public Domain Mark. --Mayimbú (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayimbú: Hi, Which version do you suggest to overwrite? Most of the time, overwriting such files doesn't have any benefit. And if they are different by length or content, they should be kept separate. Yann (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the YouTube source for the file linked before is different from the one the talk page was linking to (a 4K upscaling of the original IA version). The original IA video file came with a watermark at the "Metro Goldwyn Picture" ending card, which the 4k upscaled upload keeps but the YouTube source file omits (hence the small but significant difference in length).

Considering that, my conclusion is that the IA "remastered" file should take its place until an upgraded transfer of the film were to be made.--Mayimbú (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Ferret has previously blocked this /32 range (Special:Contributions/2001:4452:0:0:0:0:0:0/32) on the English Wikipedia as the LTA en:User:SwissArmyGuy. The same IP range is now targeting my edits and making nonsensical comments/edits. A portion of the IP range has already been blocked (Special:Contributions/2001:4452:1B2:1F00:0:0:0:0/64) here on Commons, but I think the whole /32 needs to be blocked. Freedom4U (talk) 06:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Blocked for a week. Yann (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the past days I received a notification telling that the file was going to be deleted. Although the file is now been deleted, I want to know why, because I uploaded it specificating it was another's person work. I also want to know how to upload works from other Internet users correctly. The Sammirs (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Sammirs: Hi,

The file was copied from Facebook, and the author is said to be unknown. 1. Do not copy files from Facebook. Anybody can copy anything to Facebook, so it is not a reliable source. Rather ask the author to upload the original image. 2. Do not upload recent works from the Internet, specially if you do not know the author. The author must provide a free license, so if you do not who are they, a free license can be provided. 3. More generally do not upload documents from the Internet, unless you have evidence that it is in the public domain or under a free license. Yann (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann. You've already warned this user about uploading copyvios and they haven't uploaded anything since then; so, perhaps they have decided to be more careful. However, it seems they've been scouring "Find a Grave" for photos they can add to en:List of unusual deaths, and pretty much uploaded them to Commons regardless of there being very little or perhaps no information about their copyright status, and almost always without even a url. Find a Grave isn't really a good source for photo because the ones they host can seemingly be uploaded without any vetting and without verification of copyright status. It seems to be basically a free-for-all, and photos are probably only removed when someone complains. I'm kind of surprised it's not listed at COM:PRS, but perhaps it should be. Anyway, there are probably some more problem files buried in this user's uploads which need to be assessed because it seems there just picking a license that "feels" right like they've done with File:Fearful scene women torn to pieces by cats.jpg, File:Abu Nasr al-Jawhari.webp, File:Paris Green.webp, File:Oliver Dolphis Durpe.jpg and File:Mary Sutton.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi,

Yes, Find a Grave is not a valid reference for recent pictures. However it should be OK for old pictures. I tagged one of the files with "no permission". Yann (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yann,

I have gotten it all wrong again so, as you have been very kind in the past, you might be able to help again.

This commons file - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sgt._Robert_Carrington_Middleton_(1875-1916)_Leeds_Special_Constabulary.png

needs to have all of the writing - except the name and Leeds and Yorkshire reference underneath it - REMOVED.

Please help if you can and sorry Srbernadette (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Srbernadette: Hi, It seems it was fixed. Yann (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restorable? ★ 13:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yann.

In my watchlist, I noticed that a number of files have been deleted. So I checked your contributions and found that user Daeva Trạc has been blocked and all the files uploaded by him have been deleted. First, I've seen many sockpuppets of Đăng Đàn Cung, and in my opinion user Daeva Trạc's editing activity as well as his uploads are different from Đăng Đàn Cung. Here is an example from which you can see his reflection on his work: He requested that some of the inaccurate maps he had previously created and uploaded be removed. Also if I remember correctly Daeva Trạc usually included sources in his files while Đăng Đàn Cung always doesn't bother to do so.

Then, even if he is Đăng Đàn Cung, most of these documents are educational and not violating copyright. For example, he uploaded many South Vietnamese propaganda materials, which were made by the Government of South Vietnam and the US (thus in PD in both countries). Another example is File:External marquis Cường Để at Japan.jpg, a portrait photo of a famous person; It had been used in many articles and it has entered PD in both Japan and the US.

Could you kindly restore all these files so that we are able to check them? Also, I'm wondering where we can discuss about this user's activity so that we could determine whether it's a sockpuppet or not. 源義信 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Trung you have been dealing with Đăng Đàn Cung for a long time, I'm wondering if you have seen this user Daeva Trạc and what are your thoughts. 源義信 (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@源義信: , User "Daeva Trạc" is certainly not a sock of "Musée Annam", they simply share similar interests, but the files uploaded by user "Daeva Trạc" often contained fictional flags to debunk the bullshit claimed by "Musée Annam" for years, several of their uploads were nominated for deletion several times already but they were within scope, they only uploaded attested fantasy flags (which were all within scope as they were used with external sources on Wikipedia to illustrate that these are popularly misattributed as real historical flags) to debunk their historicity. User "Daeva Trạc" is a good faith user who has simply been mistakenly tagged as a sock of "Musée Annam" by people at the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia for displaying similar interests, but "Musée Annam" immediately attacks anyone the moment he gets discovered, user "Daeva Trạc" has been politely pleading his innocence for years. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many similar cases exist, for example, at the English-language Wikipedia user "Solomon203" as a sock of the Nipponese Dog Calvero since 2017, despite the fact that they are completely unrelated people simply because he has similar interests and is from the same country (the Chinese Republic, also known as "Taiwan"). Unfortunately, once an accusation has been accepted it is nearly impossible to overturn it, user "Solomon203" literally went to the office of Wikimedia Taiwan in person to confirm that he was someone else and the administrators at the English-language Wikipedia still ignored the Mandarin Chinese-language Wikipedia's admins who were affiliated with the local chapter, so I don't think that it is realistic for user "Daeva Trạc" to be unblocked at the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia and people elsewhere we will see the block and just assume that their assessment was correct. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, user "Daeva Trạc" lives in Canada, user "Musée Annam" lives in either Nam Định or Hanoi. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is really weird, I just checked the Meta-Wiki and the global lock 🔐 was requested by user "Nguyentrongphu" who had blocked him at the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia on June 6th (sixth) 2023, yet he seemed to have waited more than a year to request this. This seems more like a petty move than anything else, here is the question, did the Steward in question actually compare the accounts or did they just take the admin's word at face value? There has literally never been a sock puppet investigation, people were literally just insulting him, calling him bad news names (admins and rollbackers), some of these people even came here to the Wikimedia Commons to insult him. The admin who requested him to be globally locked also wanted to request a local block at the English-language Wikipedia last year when there was a discussion there, but because he himself is blocked there for "WP:NOTHERE" he likely just used the Meta-Wiki to circumvent local wiki's and unilaterally globally ban him based on his own hatred for him. All the fake flags he uploaded were both properly sourced (as in they were used in real life festivals and have been misused by pop historians) and whenever inserted in Wikipedia were used to debunk misinformation. But Vietnamese users simply saw fake flags and wanted to immediately ban him. This begs the question how many other users simply interested in Vietnamese history are blocked because of careless actions, user "Yann" clearly acted in good faith as from the timeline this user appeared to have been globally locked as a known copyright ©️ violator and spreader of misinformation, but the fault was ultimately at the stewards for not investigating. @源義信: , maybe it would be wise for you to request a global unlock 🔓 and also let this user do his own story. He is clearly not "Musée Annam", also a simple CheckUser investigation will easily find that they are not even in the same continent. @Yann, would it be wise for me to open a CU request to prove his innocence or are these requests only to try to connect guilty users? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@源義信 and Donald Trung: Hi, I restored all the files. I indeed got confused by the global lock. Yann (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour @Yann,

Je me permets de vous contacter concernant la suppression de la photo de Mme Sylvie BONNET, Députée de la 4ème circonscription de la Loire.

Pourriez-vous, s'il vous plaît, m'expliquer la raison de cette suppression et m'indiquer comment la rétablir ?

Merci par avance, Ferroti-Evan (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferroti-Evan: Bonjour, Pour toutes les photos dont vous n'êtes pas le photographe, il faut une autorisation écrite formelle de celui-ci. Voyez COM:VRT/fr pour la procédure. Il n'est pas nécessaire de réimporter les photos. Elles seront restaurées quand l'autorisation sera validée par l'équipe de volontaires. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yann. I noticed that you deleted the file 'Speech1,jpg' covered in this log, for copyvio. I'm sure the deletion was justified, but I was confused as to the exact reasoning for your conclusion, and was hoping you could clarify, if only so I could understand the process of the determination a little better (I am not a very frequent commons user, but rather an en.Wikipedia regular). I note that the file was uploaded under a self-work claim by the uploader. Was your determination to delete it due to the fact that an express permission/free-use license had not been provided at the time of upload, or did you simply find there was reason to doubt the claim of ownership? Thanks in advance for any education you can provide here. To explain my interest: I was using the image in question on my user page, and if it is going to disappear into the aether, I was hoping I could at least use this as an opportunity to understand commons a little better. Snow (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: Hi, This image was copied from the Internet without a permission or a free license, so it is a copyright violation. Therefore the policy explained at COM:NETCOPYVIO applies. Yann (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yann. Thank you for your message where you brought to my attention the Copyright status: File:Kapitänleutnant Otto Weddigen and his Wife.jpg. The photo in question was taken a very long time ago back in 1914 and the author is unknown. I have marked that it is not my own work and provided a link to the source where I found the said photo. If this is not enough, what more should I do? Please note that I am a brand new editor and i'm still learning. Benzekre (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Benzekre: Hi, You didn't provide a license. I added one, for Europe and the USA. Yann (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why are the four files restored? --Krd 02:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redeleted. This user was wrongly globally blocked, and I got confused because of that. Thanks for the note. Yann (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Yann, Vous avez supprimé l'illustration que constitue le logo de l'association des Panthères roses (Paris) alors que celui-ci est placé par son auteur sous licence Creative Commons (confirmé personnellement après recherche du contact de l'auteur). Le seul motif que j'ai trouvé sur la page de suppression est "Non-free character animation" et il me semble qu'il est le résultat d'une confusion entre ce logo qui est une œuvre indépendante et la série d'animation "La Panthère rose" qui est probablement sous Copyright. Pouvez-vous me le confirmer et m'indiquer la marche à suivre pour rétablir, ou m'expliquer à quel titre cette suppression est légitime ? Merci. RiggsUltraOmni (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RiggsUltraOmni: Bonjour,

Un représentant légal de l'association doit confirmer le licence via COM:VRT/fr, comme c'est le cas pour tout document publié auparavant. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup de votre réponse. Cordialement, RiggsUltraOmni (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yan. Would you unlock blocking? I already change my mind and rename file strictly name. ウィ貴公子 (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo has unblocked this user. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann. Is it possible to know who nominated File:Dragn.gif for deletion? Jeraxmoira (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira: There is no such file. Yann (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was one at File:Dragn.gif before you deleted it. Regarding File:Nikhil Nagesh Bhat.jpg, I thought Bollywood Hungama pictures were allowed on Commons? Jeraxmoira (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging you in case you missed my reply above. Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to ping me on my own talk page. Only some of Bollywood images are allowed, in the "News and parties" section. OK, I created a DR for File:Dragn.gif. Yann (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These should not have been deleted, and certainly not as speedies with no explanation left in the deletion log.

As I've just posted to a relatively new editor:

== Renaming well-established categories ==

When moving categories like Category:RAF Transport Command, please leave a redirect behind. Or if moving them with a cut-and-paste move, don't delete the original; instead convert it to a redirect.

Whatever your opinion of the original name, if it is a reasonable name (not necessarily the best name or the formally correct name) and has been around a long time, then there are likely to be inbound links to that page. It's not good practice to then break those links. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed to have to point any of this out to an admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: I don't disagree with you, but it was speedy nominated as empty categories by User:Militum professio scriniarii. Yann (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what?

No, seriously, so what? If they nominated the main page, would you delete that? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to assume a bit more good faith. How do I supposed to know which categories require a redirect? As I said, I didn't move the categories, I only deleted it as it was empty, and tagged as such. Yann (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No-one should action a speedy unless it's clear. Otherwise knock it back to a CfD. This is fundamental in our speedy processes (any of them).

We do not even have a 'speedy' deletion process. COM:SPEEDY alone is not a valid reason or explanation. We have about thirty of them, and the relevant one should always be noted (and its conditions met). If this was claimd to be C2 then that has a seven day window before deletion, because of situations just like this.

We have good policies in place to prevent this sort of issue happening. Please try and follow them, rather than ignoring them for 'short cuts' that cause even more trouble and wasted time. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you don't know what you are talking about. And since there are redirects now, you should Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Yann (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all uploads by user Yousef_kazemi are copyright violation. Non of them are user works. I tags them, Please delete and block account temporaly, thanks.[[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Modern Sciences: Hi, If you nominate files for speedy deletion, please provide an evidence (source, watermark, EXIF data, etc.). Otherwise, just a create a mass regular DR. You can also warn the users. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Kazemi1991 Sockpuppet of Yousef_kazemi. please block account and delete all uploads, thanks. [[User:Modern Sciences|MSes]] (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann. You just deleted this category: Category:Paintings by Christian Aigens in Arbejdermuseet. I tried to avoid the deletion by opening a discussion about the deletion. It did not work. What would be a better procedure? Cheers Rsteen (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsteen: It was, and it is still empty. It can be undeleted or recreated if it is not empty. Yann (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your swift answer. It only became empty because another user moved the file it contained, and then asked for a speedy deletion. Where I come from, you would discuss a deletion with the user who had originally created the category (me), and that is what I had hoped would happen. So again, what would the best procedure be to avoid a speedy deletion in cases like this? Cheers Rsteen (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsteen: Please discuss this with the user, and/or on the Village Pump. Yann (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yann.... At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Me at the zoo.webm, the sole !vote cast was to Delete, on the grounds that the claimed author Jawed Karim was not in fact the videographer and therefore not the copyright owner. It was asserted that Karim had designated the video as Creative Commons Attribution at one point in the past (it isn't any longer)... but that's completely irrelevant. The video is not his to release under such a licence. Until and unless it's determined that the videographer has assented to release it under those terms, it should not be hosted on Commons, and the discussion should have closed as delete. Cheers Amakuru (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like Template:Created with GIMP, is it possible to create a {{Created with Canva}}? ★ 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArionStar: Sure, go ahead! Yann (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me? How do I do it? ★ 23:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArionStar: Start at Template:Created with Canva. Copy the code from Template:Created with GIMP. Replace GIMP by Canva, then you will see what needs to be fixed. Yann (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done! Thank you so much! ★ 21:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Marcello Canino. --Krd 07:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you removed files, on which public-domain were almost certainly applied for. It were PD-Czech File:Českomoravská unie středu.gif and File:Czechoslovak Social Democracy.png. You removed it there after User:Grandmaster Huon started massivelly nominating files for speedy-deletion. Multiple users now indicated on his talk page that speedy-deletion nominations were not adequate, only normal type deletion requests. This is because he nominates also files previously decided as not adequate to deletion. I ask you to change all this speedy-nominations to normal nominations and restore those files. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done OK, restored. Yann (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yann, the works I upload here are directly mine and duly photographed by me, kindly provide evidence of copyright if I really did violated one and assistance on how to dispute all these will go a long way. Thank you. Benbaahi (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Benbaahi: Hi, If the pictures were previously published elsewhere, please confirm the license via COM:VRT. Or you can upload the original images with EXIF data. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you restore the file File:City_Emblem_of_Bogor.svg? That logo is in the public domain according to Article 42 of Indonesia's 2014 Copyright Act No. 28. See File:Coat_of_arms_of_West_Java.svg as an example. Rtnf (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Rtnf: Please fix the source. Yann (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Protest against Kolkata rape-murder.jpg 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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

It have been proven that File:Samira Sitaïl.jpg is a copyvio. So should be speedy deleted? Also such file have been already deleted after being uploaded twice by the same user under the name File:Samira_Sitail.jpg. Also, the user have been already warned and blocked. Panam2014 (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I also reblocked this user for 6 months. Yann (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you deleted Category:Flags of provinces of Indonesia under speedy deletion. However, there was a previous discussion about deleting this category, and the result was to keep it, as the nominator was eventually convinced. Despite that, it seems the category was still deleted under speedy deletion. It appears that a user has systematically emptied this category to make it eligible for deletion. I plan to restore the content of this category, so could you please recreate or undelete it? Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckfasdf: The category was, and is still empty. It can be undeleted if it is used again. Yann (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, but the flags in the category were and still are fictional. So I moved them to Fictional flags of Indonesia. Ergo why the category was deleted. From what I understand of previous conversations and my own research, there are no provincial flags in Indonesia. I actually research these flags pretty extensively and there's zero authoritative sources from what I can find with images of the flags. The only places seem to exist is on user generated cites like this one. So I'd like to see actual evidence from @Ckfasdf: that the flags are real before they re-populate the category and restore it. Otherwise I'm just going to revert them. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 simply didn't conduct enough research and overlooked the facts that were mentioned. You may refer to my talk page or Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fictional flags of Indonesia for the full discussion. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did spend quit a lot of time researching this before I nominated the images for deletion and you've linked to absolutely nothing from an official source that has images of the flags. All you did is link to document on a random Google Drive account that looks half put together and anyone could have edited. Then in the DR your "evidence" was a bunch of links to unsourced user created symbols on Commons and some dead links. BTW, you also edit warred me on File:Flag of North Kalimantan.svg to restore a category that doesn't even exist. You should have at least waited to revert me until the DR was done or the conversation was at least over. Since there's a chance the file will just be deleted anyway. So there's really no point in reverting me restoring the category right now. You can't just repeatedly revert someone when their middle talk to you about it though. That's not a collaborative way to interact with people. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I’m a newbie here. I am the creator of File:Nazan_Şoray.jpg and would like some help deleting the personal information (name and username) stored in the file history comments. Could you please assist me with this?

Previously, I requested deletion of this file to get rid of the file history (I am OK with keeping the file, but not the history), but my requests were rejected. Should I request a revision deletion instead?

Thank you very much in advance! Osx (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Osx: I have hidden your name from the upload history. Is it OK like this? Yann (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is OK. Thank you very much! Osx (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SignBot need a __NEWSECTIONLINK__ magic word to work if target page is not a talk page. I've added that to COM:UDR and it should work now. Stang^★ 00:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stang: Great! Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a misunderstanding. All those images i uploaded are not violations. I've already emailed the permissions at wiki commons to straighten it out. i'm here to make wiki better so uploading a non-copyrighted work would be nonsensical. i've gotten executor of wills and family who are owners of the work of all those photos to email them and straighten it out Gregorcollins (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregorcollins: Hi, OK, but you need to write better sources, authors, etc., and if you are not the author, we need evidence that the pictures are in the public domain. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying my library of images - which many are just sitting there not being used - is perfect, BUT, the pictures in question - the 80 year old ones attributed to Maria Altmann and her family (Adele Bloch-Bauer etc) are indeed owned by the owners who have emailed Wiki commons. Again, I'm not trying to ruffle feathers here but I will be more cognizant in uploading pics now Gregorcollins (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing all your files, it is clear that you copied images from the Internet, and wrongly attributed authors to you. Do not do that again, or you will be blocked. Yann (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking; since you warned me not to ping you and also condemned my practice of pinging other administrators. What should I do when I suspect that a file that has already been DRed meets the criteria for speedy deletion?

I had been pinging administrators because I was trying to run it through the proper channels to the best of my ability. I felt in my opinion it was better for me to be rebuked in the discussion and be told it didn’t meet speedy criteria there; than to unilaterally put a tag on it and it be reverted and me possibly get a warning template and/of block over it.

Please reply to this on my talk page. Thank you. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yann, I wanted to ask you, after seeing your messages on Hurricane Clyde's page, should I strike out/remove my comments on discussions on where I was pinged, and does that constitute canvassing/canvassed votes? If so, I can strike out or remove the comments that I have made on them and refrain from commenting on further discussions where I'm pinged, and have advised him to refrain from pinging me on other discussions until I hear from you. I do apologize if I have violated any policies in doing this, and thank you. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 23:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC) (edited 23:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]

• Honestly I’m going to ask the same question. I would like some clarification as to what the canvassing policy actually means. Because I was accused recently by ChessEric on it. And I’m not upset at @ChrisWx for coming to you; I’m not going to defend myself. I just want clarification as to what the proper way is to facilitate discussions if this isn’t it. And I want that clarification that way I don’t make the same (or similar) mistake again.
• I will add that my intent was to quickly facilitate a discussion. I’ll add that my pings are to people that I know for a fact have differing opinions. So I want to clarify that if I was indeed canvassing; I wasn’t knowingly or intentionally doing so.
• Please post a copy of your reply to my talk page that way I can have it for future reference. And I want to say that if I did violate any policies; I am sorry, I didn’t mean to, and I will try my best not to do it again.

Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why did you revert the CSD F7 in the above file? At least provide a reason for that instead of not saying anything. I'm the uploader and it's quite clearly a broken file. S5A-0043^Talk 09:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S5A-0043: Hi, Sorry but it is not broken for me. It looks perfectly OK. Are you sure it is not a cache issue? Yann (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. I cleared my cache 10 times and this is what it shows: [1]. Anyways, if it isn't broken for you, please just consider this as a G7 request since it's only been 2 days after upload. S5A-0043^Talk 23:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, File:Pseudohedron with no vertex visible from center1396@.jpg, which you deleted as copyvio, has been reploaded as File:Sajidul@d10.jpg. I just wondered what made you think it was a copyvio? To me it seems like own work and qualifies for {{User page image}}, unless w:User:Mdsajidulislamd were to be deleted. Jonteemil (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not a selfie, so formally we need the photographer's permission. But I redeleted it as per COM:WEBHOST, and blocked the uploader for a week: no useful edit anywhere, except self-promotion. Yann (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Jonteemil (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.. It seems that User:AWAW0262 has continued to upload copyrighted images despite your last warning on his talk page. Could you please look into this issue? Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Blocked, copyvios deleted. @Ckfasdf: Please inform the uploader when you tag files. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. I have a question, I initially submitted a DR because I was unsure of the file's origin. However, now that I have found the source, should I apply for a speedy deletion under {{Copyvio}}, or is it better to wait for the deletion request to be resolved. Ckfasdf (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also searched for the source. Thanks for finding it. Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann, I hope you're fine. Since you're an active admin and editor here, I wanted to flag a potentially interesting discussion at the Village Pump, started by Selena Deckelmann about finding a better way of supporting Commons. Maybe you can consider, if you have time, to share your thoughts? Thanks in advance! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I missed it but I don’t remember CC BY being one of the options when I uploaded from One World In Data Chidgk1 (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: Hi, Then you have to edit the license manually. I did it for you this time. Also the author is not unknown. "One World in Data" is the author. Yann (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this picture deleted from the system. I had the picture in my files for many years. (I only kept it for reference purposes.) A copy of a copy; hence, the quality wasn't even that great. I uploaded it from my home scanner to my computer. Nonetheless, it is likely the only picture of the advertising item that exists, and can't be replaced. A tiny spec of history will be lost. JimPercy (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JimPercy: OK. In fact this doesn't really meet the speedy deletion criteria, so I restored it, and created a regular DR instead. If you are the photographer, it should be OK, but this is not clear in the description. Otherwise... Yann (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to dispute this picture being deleted from the system. I no longer had the original item, but a picture of it was saved in one of my folders. I then, after some time, scanned it to my computer and uploaded it to Commons. It's an important picture to back up a key credit by the artist Paul Martin (1883–1932). I wrote most of the Wikipedia article on him.

A Wikipedia editor put these exact words in the description or permission box of a very similar upload of mine, featuring the exact same character: "This image has not been used in advertisements since 1935. Its copyright was not renewed in the then-required 28th year, in order to be granted an extension and avoid falling into the public domain. It was confirmed by searching the copyright records from 1957 to 59. This image is also not listed in the trademark database." So that was verified by a WP editor (not myself). It took me some time to upload the picture of that ashtray and describe it properly, and I just would at least prefer it receive a regular DR instead. No warning was given. I even uploaded many years ago (as recalled). Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JimPercy: OK, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:FiskAshtray.jpg. This is not a 2D item, so the photographer has a copyright. Yann (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please rename https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Typhlocybinae_P9120401.jpg to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arboridia pusilla_(Ribaut 1936)_♀.jpg Elena Regina (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elena Regina: Please use {{Rename}}. Yann (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colleague @Yann: I am the author of the upload of this image and I want to delete it due to an error when checking the file for validity. After deleting, I will upload it with the correct code under the same name. I don't see any obstacles. — ArtSmir (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArtSmir: It doesn't work that way. If the file is in use, it won't be deleted. Yann (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: That is, it all comes down to the fact that this file is used in 6 articles? — ArtSmir (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the validity of an image overridden by how many pages the file is in use? VihirLak007 (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VihirLak007: More or less, yes. In brief, if an image is used, it can only be deleted if it is a copyright violation. Yann (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks VihirLak007 (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yann, I hope you're doing well. Would you mind closing the DR. Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 10:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Deleted. Yann (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, saw that you did a lot of the deletions on commons, and I am wondering what you workflow is. I am trying to learn more as I apply for Adminiship, Sadads (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads: Hi, I start from the backlog, and I mostly delete speedy deletion requests, selfies, and copyright violations. I also regularly tag and delete Media uploaded without a license, which are mostly copyright violations. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I also just found Help:Gadget-DelReqHandler -- I am kindof suprised its not available to other trusted users who could close or relist requests, Sadads (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed and found that some of the user's edits you just reverted is not a vandalism so I restored some of it. But all other edits of this user does. Anyways thanks for your cooperation -- Nvdtn19 (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes thanks. I reverted everything, not knowing if they were OK or not. Yann (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning (here) Yann: Why did you do this? It seems to me that the request by Bấy bi cute, while problematic, should stand. I don't see why we should accept its deletion by Cherry Cotton Candy, who is a new user whose only action is the deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe you actually restored the original request but confused me with your explanation? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: Hi Jim, Actually I restored the request added by Băng Tỏa and removed by Bấy bi cute. It seems clear to me that Bấy bi cute is a VOA, probably a sock. Yann (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can you put this back. I mad it myself so no copyright vio. Greetings. Vdkdaan (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And free of use for everybody if they use the same therems of use (also free)Vdkdaan (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vdkdaan: You didn't provide a license, and this may be a derivative work of the performance. Yann (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can provid the license. I mad it mayself. I can only put it when it is back on wikimedia. So iu repaet my qution. Can you put it back please so i can put the licens. Vdkdaan (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vdkdaan: Please read what I wrote above, and COM:DW. I won't restore this. You can ask on COM:UDR, but I doubt it will be restored. Yann (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: , ok i read it. I understand now. I tought if i made the video it can put it here. No problems. Thanks for the effort and time. Vdkdaan (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same for this one. Vdkdaan (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vdkdaan: Here also, you didn't provide a license. Yann (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vdkdaan: OK done here. Yann (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, Vdkdaan (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I don't know about how closing practices on commons differ from those on enwiki, but this smells like a supervote to me. Would you consider re-opening? Cremastra (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra: Opinions in deletion requests are not votes. There has been an extensive discussion on COM:VPC about this, and there is no doubt that this is in the public domain, both in France and in USA. Yann (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

w:File:C.I.D. (1956).webm

w:File:Madhumati (1958) poster.jpg

Yours sincerely, GaiusAugustine (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann:Hi,Regarding the too simple in Venezuela my answer: it does not say clearly in the COM:Venezuela but Bedivere is right in this DR there are complex logos than simple ones, in some cases it is necessary to add PD-textlogo but can publish complex logos rather than simple ones if they were created by public sectors ({{PD-VenezuelaGov}}) (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann,

You know, I would rather assume that these actions were taken by another user (I won't make any guesses since the city of the IP address don't match the one I thought it was). User:TolyastarRUSSIAz is hardly experienced enough to make COM:AN requests. If you know more than me, just ignore my opinion. Thanks! Quick1984 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 day block of the IP in this case is fine by me. Abzeronow (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What bothers me is that [2] was probably said to the wrong person. Quick1984 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I reverted that. Yann (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I changed https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/New_York_Tribune/1869/A_Lottery_Case the name of the file, it looks like it wasn't replaced automatically at Wikisource. Can you see if it is replaced when you look at it, so I can see if a problem with the move function or with my cache. Thanks. RAN (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC) I added in the new file name it is missing in several browsers, but you can see it did not replace properly: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Tribune/1869/A_Lottery_Case&oldid=13365643 --RAN (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you deleted several gallery pages with template {{SD|GA1}} and more than one image (2-6), that were nominated for deletion by Adamant1. Is there no check before an administrator deletes a gallery page whether the template has been used properly? I thought this template is only for gallery pages with zero or one image. Is that not true? Can the template also be used for other numbers of images? It is at least about:

• Rosa 'Charlotte'
• Rosa 'Celsiana'
• Rosa 'Carefree Delight'
• Rosa 'Carefree Beauty'
• Rosa 'Amber Flush'
• Rosa 'Alberta'
• Rosa 'Condesa de Barcelona'
• Rosa 'Blue Ribbon'
• Rosa 'Borderer'

JopkeB (talk) 04:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to highjack the discussion, but @JopkeB: Is there a reason your not willing to take it to requests for undeletion like @Alachuckthebuck: suggested on the ANU board? That seems like the more appropriate venue. Really to repeat what they said, this really just comes off like IDONTLIKEIT. You filed opened two ANU requests, both of which didn't seem go anywhere except for multiple people essentially telling you it's not an issue. So now your lobbying individual admins. Your clearly refusing to listen. Regardless, why not do this through a requests for undeletion like everyone else? I'm more then willing to lay my case out in an undeletion request about why I don't think the galleries are useful. Your kind of getting in the way of that or there being a consensus about it one or another by not going through the proper channels though. I'm certainly willing to not nominate galleries with multiple images for deletion again if there's a consensus that there should be a hard and fast rule on it. From what I've seen your the only one who has that opinion and at least IMO there's no point in restoring the galleries if nominating them for deletion isn't actually an issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB, You are talking your way into a 1-way IBAN. I'm not trying to threaten you, but that is where this is going. You might want to read the harassment policy, if you haven't already. @Adamant1 and myself both said these claims will be heard and addressed with civility and in good faith at requests for undeletion. Considering this is your 3rd post (and second noticeboard) about this one incident, this might my your last chance to drop the stick without sanctions. No one is out to get you, and we know we aren't perfect, but there is the right place to ask for a mistake to be fixed, and a lot of wrong places. Admin's talk pages are the worst place to complain about an editor. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 04:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. This post is not about a complaint about Adamant1, but about how administrators handle speedy deletions that perhaps should have been deletions requests.
2. And if it was: the first line in Commons:Undeletion_requests#Appealing_a_deletion is that you may discuss the deletion with the administrator who deleted the pages. So what is wrong with this post?

JopkeB (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think if multiple people asks someone several times to do it through an undeletion request then probably they should do it that way regardless of what the page says. Otherwise its just Wikilawyer. BTW, as I mentioned to JopkeB on her talk page there's multiple reasons to think the galleries were created as part of a paid editing campaign around roses. Assuming I'm correct then I think its worth deleting the galleries anyway regardless of how many images they have. Although I'm not advocating for just deleting all of them, but the ones with only a few images and mainly, if not exclusively, serve as promotional spam should be. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB, Alachuckthebuck, and Adamant1: Did you get an agreement about these pages in one way, or another? Yann (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the single image galleries are fine to delete. It's still up in the air about the multiple image ones with images of the children though. So you might want to hold of on those for now until a DR having to do with them is finished. I think everyone agrees that single image galleries can be speedy deleted though. I'm not sure how that relates to the galleries JopkeB wants you to restore since I don't remember how many images they had or what the circumstances were. But you can probably at least deal with the back log in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann I wasn't involved in the content dispute, but my take is that whatver @JopkeB was appealing, should go into a requests for undeletion, and everything else stands as is, DR pending. @Adamant1 , please let me know if I'm missing somthing. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 00:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB and Adamant1: Then please remove the SD tag when it is not warranted, and tell me when it is done. It is very cumbersome to check hundreds of pages. Yann (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on doing it. I just haven't been around my computer. I'll let you know when I'm done though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I went through them and I think it's just single image galleries now. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann,

You have sent me a warning w.r.t copyright violations, however I have uploaded majority of photos that are owned by me. The rest were publicly available to which I responded to the editors. Since they have refused, I now only upload those pieces of work owned by me. I have also sent an email to permissions wiki permissions-commons@wikimedia.org w.r.t the relevant photos which I have released permission to wikipedia. It would be unfortunate for me to be put on the watchlist and blocked for donating items from my family library for usage. Please rectify the same. ChangeDavid (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChangeDavid: "Owned by you" and "publicly available" do not make you the copyright owner, who is usually the photographer. Please read COM:L and COM:DW. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann,

I understood and are not uploading any publicly available items anymore. However w.r.t Dr Jaime Valfredo Rangel, I have given the email confirmation to Wikipedia. This was published through his publishing Tipografia Rangel prior to his death where he was the copyright owner. He passed away in 1959. While his possessions are transferred, the copyright effectively becomes of free use. Therefore I continue to upload documents of his. Trust this confirms the matters and these ones can be corrected. You may check for emails from davidspinto@gmail.com ChangeDavid (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the publishing and documentation is transferred to me and I have provided a legal confirmation for the same to Wikipedia ChangeDavid (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, I am willing to give confirmation in whatever way required that no copyright impediments will be there, and I have liability for the same. ChangeDavid (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yann, Does COM:FOP India apply to this File:GQ x FOSSILS with Shruti Hassan.webm under "any other work of artistic craftsmanship"..? --Gpkp (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gpkp: Hi, I don't think there is anything under a copyright in the content. I see only ordinary fashion items. Artistic craftsmanship concerns folk art and the like (ceramics, embroidery, etc.). Yann (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Yann.. Can you please see this..?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpkp (talk • contribs) 15:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC+05:30)

Hello Yann, I hope you're doing well. Would you mind closing the DR. Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 05:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@C1K98V: Hi, Actually, I don't know what to do with this file. I don't see what educational use it could have, but some other people want to keep it. Yann (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, maybe you forgot to close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mai Vu Minh Forbes.jpg? --Tmv (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am having trouble with the File:里湯昔話 雄山荘.jpg file, which has been deleted repeatedly. This image is on our computer and I created it. I looked at the license page, but I cannot figure out what exactly we are supposed to do. Please tell us how to upload the image in a way that is easy to understand. 佐藤３５ (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@佐藤３５: Hi, Being in your computer doesn't give the copyright to you. It seems to have been copied from the Internet, so who is the photographer? Yann (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. 佐藤３５ (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Do you have an opinion for this photo ? Panam2014 (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Harini Amarasuriya. Yann (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Trump cutout (53932101541).jpg - Here is a second Deletion Request on this same file. In my original DR regarding this file I wrote, "likely copyrighted photograph from unknown photographer." I failed to note that my DR comment was related to the cutout image within the photograph itself. This file should have been deleted under COM:DW and COM:PCP. Thank you for your continuing good works, -- Ooligan (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinging @Yann. Your response would be appreciated. Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2023 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighteenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2023) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and top 5% of most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 14 October 2024, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2022 Picture of the Year contest.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FP suggestion. ★ 02:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you give User:Tuválkin a temporary (rather than indefinite) block? As a completely uninvolved user who’s never met them, their history looks both serious and intractable (especially for a veteran user who should seriously know better). Dronebogus (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: Hi, I am not opposed to an indefinite block, but I think that requires more opinions. If you want to request one, please be my guest. Yann (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you do me a huge favor and procedurally close Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monuments and memorials to Mikhail Frunze as keep since I opened it based on false information about where the relief was located? Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Abzeronow (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mind reviewing the licenses of this category? Trade (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann, I had recently requested the speedy deletion of 5 files and one of them, File:Stamp of India - 2002 - Colnect 158286 - Dhirubhai H Ambani Industrialist.jpeg, was deleted by you. The other files were rejected and simply tagged with {{Otherversions}} by Wdwd. So, I was thinking maybe you could restore this deleted file and use {{Otherversions}} too? Ratekreel (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see the point to have several versions, especially when they are so small and identical. Yann (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Yann this needs to looked. Skratata69 continues to mark his uploads and review GODL-India files as license review passed. See File:Narendra Modi during the Quad Summit, 2024 - 2.png or File:Narendra Modi addressing to people of Maharashtra - 2.jpg or File:Narendra Modi addressing to people of Maharashtra - 3.jpg. This is not the first instance. He has been told previously at his talk page not to do so by a reviewer after I brought it to their attention. He promised not to do it in future. But he seems to be not understanding. This time it might need an admin intervention so I am telling you. Thank you. ShaanSengupta^Talk 16:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Indeed this is a problem. Blocked for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing this Yann. One question. You marked a GODL file uploaded by him as missing permission. How can he send the Permission when the source is the X account of PMO. It means it is a work of GoI. Also are images taken from PMO India's X account also under GODL. A few weeks ago I nominated a chunk of these types taken from X for SD. But I was asked to file a DR if I thought that those aren't included. Can you please clear the air. Or shall we start a discussion over this. Bcoz I am not confirm about status of images on GoI social media accounts. ShaanSengupta^Talk 18:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaan Sengupta: I have asked a few years back that an Indian lawyer reviews the scope of the GODL. Some people in India said they will look after it. I was never done. So it is still unclear to which files the GODL applies. We certainly shouldn't apply it to files from X, unless we have a copy from a government website. Missing permission means there is one-week delay before the file to be deleted. That should be sufficient for finding a copy elsewhere. Yann (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say that we shouldn't apply it files from X unless we have a copy from a gov web.. I agree. I was referring to a message by @King of Hearts at my talk page when I filed in bulk SD's. I belive there is a need to start a discussion. But again as you say, you couldn't get a clear response last time. So is there a way this can be brought to attention of the WMF so that they can officially get a clarity on it. Something like an office action. Bcoz this needs to be clarified. We can't keep using files that (if it) violates the rules. ShaanSengupta^Talk 18:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaan Sengupta: It may be better not to create a speedy deletion request, unless the image was obviously not created by the Indian government. So a regular deletion request is appropriate. Yann (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that part is understood. I should definitely have gone for the DR. But the big question still remains unanswered. ShaanSengupta^Talk 18:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann One small request. Please remove all the previous versions of File:Ruling Alliances in India.jpg. That's my work and the previous versions are no longer needed. Also I want some of the mistake in uploads get removed from its history. Thank you in advance. ShaanSengupta^Talk 13:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The one which are still there, are they kept or failed to delete? --Krd 12:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yann? Krd 19:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: I kept a few files which were used on user pages. Any issue with that? I mean I don't mind if you delete them. Yann (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only asking because the DR was still in the files… Krd 04:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that I didn't see Pppery's comment at the time they left it at the UDR; but FYI, one of the deleted files (File:Conference Dashboard - ConventionExtension.png) was in use in a Signpost article at the time it was deleted as a copyvio - see w:en:Special:Diff/1232983562. My understanding is that it would therefore be in scope per COM:INUSE; however, if not, please can it be temp-undeleted to allow for transferring to enwiki? (cc. @Pppery)

All the best, A smart kitten (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A smart kitten:  Done Yann (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yann, sorry for the inconvenience. I'm writing to you since now that they are visible, I noticed that the three images that I asked to be undeleted, have a deprecated license as license for the image itself: Template:Custom license marker (see for example File:Benghazi Town Hall Bellotto Chandelier.jpg). I've no idea if they must be deleted again or not, I write to you only to point that out, just to be on the safe side. Friniate (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Friniate: Hi, Yes, since this template doesn't exist anymore, you can just remove that. Yann (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but that would leave me without any copyright license about the image... What is in PD is the building, I've no idea about the images... Friniate (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Friniate: {{PD-Libya}} + {{PD-1996}} also apply to the picture. We need a date, at least approximative. Actually, there never was a US copyright for this building, so we don't need a template for it. Yann (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right sorry, I see now that the stated source is "Italian colonial postcards and imagery", so I think that is safe to assume that the picture was taken before 1943, thanks! Friniate (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Friniate: "before 1943" is fine for the date. I also added a license for Italy, as it may have been first published there. Yann (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Friniate (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yann. Side discussion. Also notifying @Cmao20, Aristeas, Zzzs, SHB2000, and W.carter: if they want to join. Other participants are not excluded. Some activities are sometimes much more interesting than others. All of you might know what I'm talking about :-) I have owned a new camera for 45 days, and no time yet to test it! My work was broadcast on TV in a major program, last Saturday prime time (after dinner) on the France 2 channel (3 millions viewers), and my name is credited in the credits (Wikimedia Commons). Some interesting screen shots may be uploaded here. I just came back from a month-long stay in France last month (hence my silence during this period), and a gigantic pile of photos from South Korea are still waiting to be sorted / described / imported here. I'm also working (financially speaking) and have a (loving / lovely) family to take care of. I love reviewing the new pictures at COM:FPC and had no time to do so recently. There is a sun right now above my head (this is not a picture, there is real sun shining outside in the middle of a blue sky 🌞 :-)). So... Believe me, seeking personal conflict and childish fights is the last thing I'm dreaming of right now. Perhaps some of you meet / understand this situation. Frankly, the only reason for me to spend more time than usual at a specific section of this site last days is only because I feel we can really win something. You are a regular admin here, that's why I wanted to share this with you. Thanks for your attention. I wish everybody a very nice day. -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, congrats on the new camera, Basile Morin! And another congrats for making it to France 2 (that was my source of afternoon entertainment when I was visiting 6 years back) – that's fricken amazing man. Sucks that we're all in this together with a rather shitty childish fight with a certain someone who is well in their twenties, but it is what it is. I guess shit happens. Pardon my excessive swearing, but honestly at this rate I'm fed up for the same reasons you are Basile. Still, you've got plenty to be proud of, Basile. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your truly comforting words, SHB2000! Really appreciating the moral support and solidarity. I pardon your words, but it's not my talk page :-) Oops (close this thread, Yann, if you want :-)) -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, he's been blocked for 12 months now – cheers for that, Yann! --SHB2000 (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmao20, Aristeas, Zzzs, SHB2000, W.carter, and Basile Morin: What do you think of RealPhotoManiac (talk · contribs)? I don't know if they are right or wrong about Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Church of light.jpg, but I can't believe that a real new user started a delist nomination as their first edit. Yann (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is perhaps a slightly strange thing to do but I don't think this user is a sockpuppet of ArionStar, the new user's English is a lot better and they seem to know something about photography. Whether it is someone else, I don't know to judge. I do think they seem to have a good point about this picture particularly if I look at the join between the land and the sky on the left hand side of the image. Btw, thank you so much for dealing with the ArionStar situation for us, Yann. It will make FPC a healthier and better place. Cmao20 (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Yeah, I call bullshit that they're a new user. The timing of it is far too coincidental. I'll file in a CU request. SHB2000 (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway,  Done – see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ArionStar. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick but surprising. I guess really is pure coincidence. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that looks like someone is making a comeback. Of course that photo is a combination of two photos, but I think not in a sinister way. It's simply an HDR. If we are to ban all photos that are not just one photo as in raw, we should get rid of all stacked, HDR and panoramas too. Selecting different settings for the same scene at the same time is not against the rules. I don't think this is an Arion sock (that might still pop up), the language is different in this post. --Cart (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be a user who uses a WP:VALIDALT to avoid hassles with the photographer or the nominator, etc. Suspicious start, though. Thanks for the notification. -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, Yann – thank you for the ping! I have commented this on the checkuser request page. – Aristeas (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huge thanks, yes, Yann! Really a breath of oxygen. Time suddenly gained allowed me to admire your last uploads, and I really enjoy almost all of Edward Weston's works. Maybe this shell could become a FP. I can see 3 people hugging in this pepper :-) Nice nude and composition with this cat. A pleasure for the eyes! -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]