User talk:Multichill
|
Always busy.
|
GeographBot adding SDC twice
[edit]Hi, looks like GeographBot is currently processing each image twice with SDC e.g. File:Towthorpe Cottages - geograph.org.uk - 6451165.jpg. Can you take a look at it? Thanks! --Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 20:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Nintendofan885: thanks for your report. You assumption that it appears to each image seems to be incorrect because in that case we would see three edits for every file, which is not the case. I do see it happen more often. It only retries when the API doesn't return correctly so might be slightly more unstable? Anyway, these files end up in Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland with broken templates and I just removed the cases with duplicate statements. See also Category talk:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland with broken templates.
- I figured this is a general problem and expanded the bot to process the latest dump file. It's cleaning up quite a few files. Multichill (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
PD or not PD
[edit]Hello Multichill,
I have created the new Category:Featured pictures in the public domain to replace some old outdated gallery page with the same scope because people seem to be interested specifically in FPs which are in the PD. When creating the new category, I tried to make it as useful as possible for the users interested in such stuff, and this means that the new category should contain only plain vanilla PD files – no controversial cases, no files with unclear or contradictory licenses, etc. I have also explained this at the top of the new category page. This is the reason why I have removed File:Egon Schiele - Eduard Kosmack - 4702 - Österreichische Galerie Belvedere.jpg again from the new category. I agree that according to the Wikimedia Foundation’s position this file should be PD, but the creator of the digital reproduction has claimed rights on the reproduction (releasing it under a CC BY SA license), and indeed German and Austrian law courts sometimes take the view that even creating a simple photograph of a PD artwork gives the photographer or institution a new “Urheberrecht” for the digital reproduction. Therefore I conclude that the legal situation of this file is at least unclear, and hence I think it does not belong to the new PD FP category.
Yes, the file is “in the PD” from an US point of view. Yes, the Wikimedia Foundation thinks that there should be no copyright on simple digital reproductions of artworks which are in the PD (and I agree with that). But the Austrians just claim that they hold some rights on this digital reproduction. Therefore an Austrian user who would use that image just like a PD image could run into serious difficulties, being taken to court. And the same could happen to a German user, because German law courts take similar positions. Therefore it would be dangerous to put this image into a category with PD files: we could encourage people to use the image in a way which would be illegal in their jurisdiction.
If you think that the CC BY-SA template on the image description page of File:Egon Schiele - Eduard Kosmack - 4702 - Österreichische Galerie Belvedere.jpg is nonsense, then please go forward and delete it. It’s your responsibility then. If the CC BY-SA template would be deleted, the file would be again a clear case for the Category:Featured pictures in the public domain category.
Best, – Aristeas (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Aristeas: you are misreading the template. It's just a fallback. This is why we always advice institutions to use CC0 to cover all cases (example 1 & 2). People generally don't bother to add the fallback license (example) so you are just giving a false sense of security because in countries that don't have PD-art, people would still be breaching copyright. If you want to be overly strict, you should remove all files that have a relation to another country than the USA from that category unless they have a CC0 fallback. I wouldn't do that and just include all PD-art files. Multichill (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Multichill (and CCing W.carter because she is the other maintainer of the FP galleries),
- thank you very much for your detailed answer! Ah, when we read the {{Licensed-PD-Art}} template as a kind of fallback, things look indeed differently. The whole PD-Art thing seems be a can of worms, and I really regret that I have created the new category – I just did this in order to help people, but it will be impossible to handle it in a way that everybody will be happy, just because PD and especially PD-Art is such an ambiguous and complex matter.
- Indeed the good old {{PD-Art}} template (and its variants) does not guarantee more security to users than the {{Licensed-PD-Art}} template; and your reading of the latter as a fallback is intriguing. But then the wording of that template is really unfortunate. Right now the {{Licensed-PD-Art}} template presents first the special license for the digital reproduction and then mentions (in fine print) that “[i]n many jurisdictions, faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are not copyrightable”. This gives the impression that the use of files with this template is much more restricted/dangerous than the use of files with the {{PD-Art}} template. In the light of your fallback reading this is totally wrong. This means that the {{Licensed-PD-Art}} template should be rephrased to make clear that it is not more restrictive than {{PD-Art}} etc., but just gives more detailed information. Is this the correct interpretation?
- Personally I would never handle a file like File:Egon Schiele - Eduard Kosmack - 4702 - Österreichische Galerie Belvedere.jpg as a PD image, regardless of all legal questions. There is a CC BY-SA template, so I would always use it just like any other CC BY-SA image, i.e. with full credits, link to the license, etc.; not because of legal considerations, but because of moral ones – the author(s) of the digital reproduction want(s) credit, OK, so they should get credit. This means for me this is not a PD file, but effectively just a CC BY-SA file, and to me it seems totally odd to put it into a PD category. But I understand that people may see this differently, and, above all, you are right that if we exclude this kind of files from our PD category, we would have at least to check every single {{PD-Art}} image thoroughly and remove many of them, too. That’s too much work.
- @W.carter: This means that we need a new, different and very clear explanation in the header of the Category:Featured pictures in the public domain page – explaining, similar to the text in the {{PD-Art}} template, that there is no plain vanilla PD when it comes to reproductions of artworks, that simple reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art can be used like PD images in many jurisdictions, but that people should check both the description page of an image and the legal situation in their jurisdiction carefully before they use an image like a PD image. What do you think, Cart?
- Thank you (both) and all the best, – Aristeas (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Aristeas Thanks for the 'ping'. I'll need to look at all this more carefully so I understand the finer interpretations of the different licenses. At first glance, it looks like the way that causes least mess and is clearest, is to create one/two subcategories for images of art and other images with those "fallback licenses". Tacking on an explanation for this at the top of the general category is risky. People don't read things when texts become too long. Better to keep such files in their own box(es) with their own heading. --Cart (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Dear Cart, I would be happy if we could clarify the legal situation of the images by several distinct subcategories. Right now I am not sure whether this is feasible, given the endless variants of PD-related license templates and all the ways to use and misuse them. But as this anything but urgent, I propose you and me continue with important things now and check (over the next weeks) a random sample of FPs which could be considered to be in the PD. When we find a clear arrangement which allows to do without long explanations, all the better. And if we nevertheless need the warning, you are certainly right that it must be short and clear. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Aristeas and W.carter: it's complicated indeed. Some things to take into account:
- The original work has to be in the public domain. The two main thresholds (but of course more extensive):
- Data of publication longer than 95 years
- Creator died more than 70 years ago
- The reproduction should really be covered by PD-art. You enter a grey area when frame or more context is included (CC0 is also an excellent way to cover this grey area)
- Copyright and licensing template
- {{Licensed-PD-Art}} + CC0 is the best because it covers all: PD for countries that have PD-art, fallback to CC0 for others (or when PD-art is not sure) which is PD in practice.
- {{Licensed-PD-Art}} + free license is better than nothing. Some might call it copyfraud, I'm just happy the intent to share is there.
- {{PD-Art}} and possibly copyrighted at the source. That's good old content liberation.
- The original work has to be in the public domain. The two main thresholds (but of course more extensive):
- The logic described at d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Automated image uploads is about the same. Plenty of examples at Special:ListFiles/BotMultichillT. Multichill (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Aristeas and Multichill, I don't see why we need to make this so overly complicated at this stage with many PD-categories for each special license. I would simply suggest two new categories: 'Category:Featured pictures in public domain with some restrictions' and 'Category:Featured photographs in public domain with some restrictions'. Add a shorter version of the explanations/warnings that have been mentioned here, to explain what might be problematic with the files in those new categories. We just need to get the complicated cases out of the general PD categories. Later it might be up to some other people to sort these further, but I don't think it's necessary now.
- I also think we should skip the "the" in the category titels. While it is correct to say that something is in "the public domain" when writing about such files, a more compact language is normally used for category descriptions. The two original categories could be moved. Sorry that I didn't spot this earlier, but it's been a busy week for me IRL. --Cart (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Aristeas and W.carter: it's complicated indeed. Some things to take into account:
- Dear Cart, I would be happy if we could clarify the legal situation of the images by several distinct subcategories. Right now I am not sure whether this is feasible, given the endless variants of PD-related license templates and all the ways to use and misuse them. But as this anything but urgent, I propose you and me continue with important things now and check (over the next weeks) a random sample of FPs which could be considered to be in the PD. When we find a clear arrangement which allows to do without long explanations, all the better. And if we nevertheless need the warning, you are certainly right that it must be short and clear. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Aristeas Thanks for the 'ping'. I'll need to look at all this more carefully so I understand the finer interpretations of the different licenses. At first glance, it looks like the way that causes least mess and is clearest, is to create one/two subcategories for images of art and other images with those "fallback licenses". Tacking on an explanation for this at the top of the general category is risky. People don't read things when texts become too long. Better to keep such files in their own box(es) with their own heading. --Cart (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The US is hardly the only country that does not recognize a new copyright in a faithful copy of a 2D work. In my rough estimation, most countries don't recognize the potential of copyright in such faithful reproductions, and this group now definitively includes all EU countries (see below). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Aristeas The 2019 EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market definitively placed all faithful reproductions of public domain 2D art in the public domain in EU countries, including Germany and Austria. "Member States shall provide that, when the term of protection of a work of visual art has expired, any material resulting
- from an act of reproduction of that work is not subject to copyright or related rights, unless the material resulting from
- that act of reproduction is original in the sense that it is the author's own intellectual creation." D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your input, Multichill and D. Benjamin Miller. In this light I understand even less why museums, but also some Commons users again and again claim a copyright on simple photographs of two-dimensional artworks with are in the PD – but that’s not what we have to discuss here. IMHO this means that we can go the simple way suggested by Cart: create two variants of the categories, put the ones with additional copyright claims into the “with some restrictions” one and most other ones into the category without that. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not to get too deeply into it, but the reason why museums have claimed copyrights in such photos is not that confusing; they would like to own a copyright in the reproductions, so they can charge people to use digital copies of public domain paintings in their collection. And even if this is almost never justified by the law, people/organizations make claims of exclusive rights that go far beyond what the law provides all the time; after all, they don't need everyone to pay the bogus licensing fees for the plan to work — just to scare someone into doing it.
- The reason why users on Wikimedia do it tends to be as a response to this overreach by museums; usually, it's to explicitly disclaim this right "just in case," just to make it as clear as possible. There are also probably some users who, for whatever reason, would like to make their own personal claims (although on Wikimedia, the access is free, of course). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- As for the "with some restrictions"/no restrictions category separation... I don't think this is too wise. For one, I think that the scope and validity of the potential recognition of new copyright in reproductions around the world is wildly overestimated.
- But even if you think this is a real concern, you still can't actually make the split that @W.carter suggests, because there is no reliable way in which a machine can between the definitely free and the potentially "encumbered" files as you have put them, seeing as PD-Art and PD-scan and the like are, in essence, optional, and for good reason. Relatedly, I'd like to refer to a point I made in VPC about the potential of (supposed) new copyright in digitizations and when and how they're worth acknowledging — and how this sort of calls into question the entire idea of a digital public domain, which I don't think we should do a categorization system. Additionally, bifurcating these categories would make the categorization system less useful, especially in light of the limited actual restrictiveness of PD-Art.
- If you were going to do something like this, though, I think it makes much more sense to go based on the presence of {{Copyright claims}} rather than putting all {{PD-Art}} in the "encumbered" category. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your input, Multichill and D. Benjamin Miller. In this light I understand even less why museums, but also some Commons users again and again claim a copyright on simple photographs of two-dimensional artworks with are in the PD – but that’s not what we have to discuss here. IMHO this means that we can go the simple way suggested by Cart: create two variants of the categories, put the ones with additional copyright claims into the “with some restrictions” one and most other ones into the category without that. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
@D. Benjamin Miller, Aristeas, and W.carter: I'm sure you can appreciate this :-) Multichill (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Over het categoriseren van door GeographBot ge-uploade foto's
[edit]Ongetwijfeld allemaal goed bedoeld en nuttig voor Commons om zoveel mooie foto's uit UK en Ierland te hebben, maar wie gaat ze beter categoriseren? Want meer dan 900 files in bijvoorbeeld Category:Sandford, Devon is echt teveel van het goede. Is daar een plan voor? JopkeB (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Relevante data staat in de gestructureerd data, de locatie categorie is puur omdat vele gebruikers erg ongelukkig worden als er helemaal geen categorie op zit. Dus dit is het. Iemand kan nog tijd steken in de categoriestructuur, maar ik vind dat verspilde moeite. Multichill (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Dan constateer ik dat we op dit punt van mening verschillen en ik niet de indruk heb dat we elkaar van mening kunnen doen veranderen, kortom: verder discussiëren heeft geen zin. JopkeB (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Artworks without Wikidata item - shall we try to reach consensus on data modeling?
[edit]Hey @Multichill - drawing your attention to this talk page message. It would be so great if we can come to a solution for this! Thanks, Spinster (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Improving link to author in Commons structured data
[edit]Hi, thanks for your work on recently uploaded files on Commons. I noticed that you add 'unknown' value to creator (P170) to files on Commons. Is there a simple way to change this to a proper QID of the uploader? And is this even desirable? I searched for a dedicated tool, but there seems to be none suited to this purpose. Any tips would be really appreciated :). Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Vojtěch Dostál: the problem is that people are creating vanity items for non-notable Wikimedians.
- I want to discourage that behavior so that's why I use "some value" for the creator. Multichill (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand that and there's no easy solution to that. On the other hand, connecting the files to already existing items would be nice. A tool is too easy to abuse, then, but maybe a bot could read from a preapproved list of username-QID pairs. People would be able to nominate new lines to that list. I would volunteer to go through each suggested username-QID pair and consider if the uploader is notable and deserves an item. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleting category
[edit]Your User:BotMultichillThas been deleted the categories of File:OOjs UI icon Wikidata Echo lightcolors.svg and File:OOjs UI icon Wikidata Echo lightcolors en.svg, files that I recently uploaded. I have already re-categorized these files. You should check your bot. Thank you very much. Jmarchn (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmarchn: the bot doesn't delete categories so it doesn't need any checking. According to the history, you didn't add any categories at upload.
- If you really think the bot removed it, can you please provide a link to the diff where the bot removes the category? Multichill (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
|
File:Fruit-bar-pic-Web - Flickr - USDAgov.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. |
Missvain (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleting my historical edits
[edit]Delete the 81.248.177.61 00:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Actually I would like you to delete my historical edits
[edit]Because they contain threatening and unfair words in some histories of vikidia and wikipedia merxi 81.248.177.61 00:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have no clue what you're talking about and can't help you with this. Multichill (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
yifeibot
[edit]Hi Multichill! It looks like yifeibot (which you are listed as a maintainer on) seems to be needing frequent Toolforge admin restarts (2 this month, per SAL and an IRC message today). If you would like any assistance, I'd be happy to be added as a co-maintainer and troubleshoot (or just restart) as needed. Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Coordinates tool
[edit]Hi Multichill, Akoopal, and TheDJ, I'm a big fan of the coordinates tool that the three of you maintain. I'm thinking of privately forking it to make some changes to suit my personal preferences (size of the map, available templates, etc). Would you object to this? It would be only for my personal use, but if I made any modifications that I think would be useful for other users, I would be happy to contribute them. If you'd be okay with me doing this, I have a few questions:
- Is the code available (github etc)? If not, would you have any recommendations for making a local copy?
- I see that several additional tile sets, including Google satellite imagery which I greatly miss from now-defunct GeoLocator, are commented out in the code. Would these be possible for me to enable in my private version, or are there additional complications?
Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Pi.1415926535, you mean https://locator.toolforge.org/coordinates.php ? I don't believe there is actually a repository, however i could make one if desired. Things like Google are commented out, as linking to external sources such as Google is not allowed from Wikimedia services as they might compromise the privacy of the users. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TheDJ: Thanks for the reply. Yes, the tool that you linked to. If it would be a quick job to make a repository that would be wonderful, but certainly don't waste tons of time on it. If I'm running it locally (ie without the privacy protections of Wikimedia sites), will the additional tile sets need any work besides uncommenting them? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Pi.1415926535: as DJ mentioned, we disabled external sources a couple years ago due to privacy concerns.
- If you have a Toolforge account, you can see the source in /data/project/locator/public_html . Multichill (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- @TheDJ: Thanks for the reply. Yes, the tool that you linked to. If it would be a quick job to make a repository that would be wonderful, but certainly don't waste tons of time on it. If I'm running it locally (ie without the privacy protections of Wikimedia sites), will the additional tile sets need any work besides uncommenting them? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
User request
[edit]Hello Multichill, Greetings!
I've a request. Please ‘extended-confirmed’ protect my userpage and talkpage.
--Gpkp (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gpkp: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections is a better place to ask for these kind of things. I see it has already been done. Multichill (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
|
Towns and villages in County Wicklow has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! |
Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
PR contributions for toollabs repo
[edit]Hi. Are you open for any sort of PRs on GitHub for https://github.com/multichill/toollabs. Do you have any priority lists that I can contribute to? -- DaxServer (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @DaxServer: it's basically a backup of my own stuff so I can easily share it around. I generally try to move generic stuff to Pywikibot or a shared repo with shared toolforge project (like for example User:ErfgoedBot).
- Say something like Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Add_P1651_YouTube_video_ID_structured_data_from_"source"_attribute_of_Filedesc_template: I would probably write some code under my own account and test it. If it works and more people are interested, I would fork it to another bot account and code repo running on Toolforge.
- Anything in particular you're interested in? Multichill (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing in particular. I'm just looking around to see if there's something that I can do as I've few more weeks of free time -- DaxServer (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
|
|
File:US Army 52179 USAMU PAO.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. |
Yao3103 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Letter from Selena at the Village Pump
[edit]Hi Multichill, I hope you're fine. Since you participated at the Commons meeting at Wikimania, 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) 14:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
File:US Navy 110928-N-IC287-002 The littoral combat ship Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Fort Worth (LCS 3) transits through the Menekaunee Bridge in Green.jpg
[edit]|
|
File:US Navy 110928-N-IC287-002 The littoral combat ship Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Fort Worth (LCS 3) transits through the Menekaunee Bridge in Green.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. |
Consigned (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
[edit]|
|
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. |
Affected:
Yours sincerely, Consigned (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Notification about possible deletion
[edit]|
|
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. |
Affected:
And also:
- File:US Navy 100708-O-0000S-081 Master Seaman Shawn Zweers troubleshoots the Close-In Weapons System aboard HMCS Algonquin (DD 283).jpg
- File:US Navy 100719-O-0000S-100 Leading Seaman Michael Critch stands watch during a replenishment at sea.jpg
- File:US Navy 100718-N-0000H-033 Able Seaman Daniel Graham, from Abbotsford, British Columbia, a marine engineer mechanic aboard the Canadian navy multi-role patrol frigate HMCS Calgary monitors the ship's reverse osmosis desalinatio.jpg
- File:US Navy 100630-O-0000H-002 Cpl. Renel Gaudet, from Claire, Nova Scotia, an Infanteer assigned to 2nd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment.jpg
- File:US Navy 100630-O-0000H-004 Lt. Kayne Carr, from Chatham completes shallow water egress training in preparation for Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2010 exercise.jpg
- File:US Navy 100630-O-0000H-008 Cpl. Thomas Squires performs a sight zeroing exercise with his rifle on the range at Marine Corp Base Kaneohe Bay.jpg
- File:US Navy 100721-O-2028S-005 Members of the bridge team, including Cmdr. Angus Topshee, commanding officer of the Canadian navy destroyer HMCS Algonquin, R17), observe a replenishment at sea.jpg
- File:US Navy 100706-O-XXXXX-018 Leading Seaman Shawn Smalldridge, left, and Leading Seaman Randy Melanson load rounds into the close-in-weapon system aboard HMCS Calgary (FFH 335).jpg
- File:US Navy 100725-O-2032S-009 Master Corporal Luke Watson, from Calgary, a cook aboard the Canadian navy destroyer HMCS Algonquin (R17), brings a case of vegetables into the vegetable locker during replenishment at sea.jpg
- File:US Navy 100709-O-0000S-003 Cpl. Dale Sinclair, left, and Cpl. Alex Noel stand by to recover a CH-124 Sea King helicopter aboard the Canadian Navy estroyer (HMCS) Algonquin (DDG 283).jpg
Yours sincerely, Consigned (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that license migration does not work with this template. See File:Badia fiorentina, nardo di cione (attribuzione), cappella di san bernardo 3.JPG for example. Do you know how to fix? --MGA73 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I thought we had do make it like {{Self}}. Your fix is much easier than messing with the template.
- Anyway I have been trying to complete the license migration on all wikis and there are only a few left. One did not like that and started m:Requests for comment/GFDL to CC License Migration of files. Another wiki made this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Material.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
AI/U
[edit]Could use intervention again on the same topic. It’s starting to feel surreal. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 00:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Gotsource
[edit]Hi! At Category:License migration needs review there is a link to one of your old tools (toolserver.org/~multichill/gotsource.php). Is it totally dead or is it moved? MGA73 (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Cagancho picture
[edit]Has your bot got this right? I think that the licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 that this image bears is not an acceptable one for Commons because the image is not made available for commercial use. Please reinstate the "speedy" request if this is so. Kelisi (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Custom P170 statement for BotMultichillT
[edit]Hi @Multichill, Thank you so much for creating and maintainig this bot adding SDC. It saves us so much manual work. However, I have a request to customize the P170 statements. For some Commons photographers (including myself), Mxxxx creator (P170) unknown value is't quite correct. Specific QIDs do exist and could be used instead. Is it possible to modify the P170 statement for these. For personality rights reasons it could be opt-in. @Poco a poco, Mike Peel, XRay, Alexander-93, and Celestinesucess: What are your thoughts on this? MB-one (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
template bMA / template Bmz
[edit]Hoi Multichill. Het genoemde template plaatste twee gebroken koppelingen op pagina's en ik heb de links aangepast naar de huidige situatie. Wellicht kunnen alle voormalige bMA bestanden in een eigen cat geplaatst worden met tekst en uitleg. Omdat dan eigenlijk ook de zinsnede met twee gebroken links 'De foto stond hier en werd gebruikt op deze pagina gebruikt." zou moeten worden opgeruimd. Bijvoorbeeld verwijderen met een batch script. Of vervangen door "Bron: bureau Monumenten & Archeologie, gemeente Amsterdam (bMA)". Het gaat hier om citrca 500 bestanden. Ga je akkoord die zin te verwijderen? En eigenlijk vind ik de in het Engels vertaalde naam overbodig, verwarrend en heel vaag zonder de Nederlandse vertaling of link, zoals het net nog was, en nmm zou de oude Nederlandse naam met afkorting eigenlijk volstaan. Dit is dus een soort 'botverzoek' en het gaat vooral om het opruimen van de regels met de twee defecte links 'hier' en 'deze', die nu betekenisloos en irritant zijn geworden. Bedankt.
PS en dan staat daaronder ook nog eens het verzoek dingen te sturen naar een oud adres want ik lees op nl.wp: "Op 12 juli 2005 besloot het college van burgemeester en wethouders dat Bureau Monumenten & Archeologie moest verhuizen naar "De Bazel", het voormalig kantoor van de Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij. Deze verhuizing vond plaats in 2007." dus dat oude adres is nu ook verouderde / onjuiste en irrelevante info op deze manier. Zou ook aangepast moeten worden, of gewoon verwijderen?. Naschrift: Het adres heb ik net verwijderd en ook het engelstalige label verwijderd en de onderste tekst ontkoppeld en alles in de betreffende cat geplaatst. Dat bleek een subcategorie van Stadsarchief Amsterdam te zijn, gevestigd in gebouw De Bazel. Groet. Peli (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
License template in metadata
[edit]Hi! File:Vereister zweig.jpg seems to have the license template in the metadata. Have you ever seen that before? MGA73 (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @MGA73: oh, that's annoying. I don't think I've ever seen the wikitext getting rendered. Not sure if that should even happen. Multichill (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Lol there is a first thing for everything :-) I asked at phab:T380231. --MGA73 (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate claims in structured data
[edit]Hello, I noticed that your bot is designed to remove duplicate claims from structured data, which is a valuable contribution—thank you for this important work! However, I came across a file where not all duplicates were removed. Specifically, for this image File:Campus_Arena_Kallerud_(front).jpg#P170, the property creator (P170) still contains duplicates. I just wanted to bring this to your attention. Wishing you a great day ahead! - Premeditated (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I need assistance in changing a wrongly named file
[edit]I need your assistance in correcting a name of this file File:David Chalk 01.jpg which I uploaded and mistakenly named it David Chalk instead of Dave Chalk. Thank you. Jeor33e (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Rouwadvertentie op prikbord met de Nederlandse naam Bartels - Cape Coast - 20373108 - RCE.jpg
[edit]
|
| This file may be deleted. |
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Rouwadvertentie op prikbord met de Nederlandse naam Bartels - Cape Coast - 20373108 - RCE.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you! |
Didym (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
|
|
File:Kelly Pfaff.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. |