User talk:P199

Archives /Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:P199.

This is the user talk page of P199, where you can send messages and comments to P199.

• Be polite.
• Be friendly.
• Assume good faith.
• No personal attacks.

• Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
• Put new text under old text.
• New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
• Click here to start a new topic.

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Adityagaikwad2912006

I believe that the note marked in red to not delete the files yet were clear enough. Now there isn't a live example. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Forgotten deletion

Hello!

There was another file added to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gianginny audiovisuales.png by the nominator which you forgot to delete.Jonteemil (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: Thanks for letting me know. Deletion done. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Unprocessed file

The link to the file File:Kemaliye, Karanlık Kanyon.jpg was moved special:diff/618001101 in the list, because of this it became unclear that this file is also part of the request. But it also needs to be deleted as a file having the same attribution to another person. --Сунприат (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Сунприат: done. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shalamar garden burhan.JPG

Thank you for attending to this request. Please could you also delete the second file in the request? 2A02:C7C:1018:6E00:D1E4:7DB6:9589:EC2E 12:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Deletion done. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Very grateful for your prompt action. 2A04:4A43:517F:2E5B:2177:90CB:894:F7DF 14:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Skyline Cagayan de Oro.JPG

Hello P199. I may need some clarification on this, as I cannot see deleted files (as a non-admin). What caused this file to be deleted as copyvio? The user's photos are decent, per my inspection of images at Special:ListFiles/R136a1_Star. The file in question was once used at w:en:List of cities in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @JWilz12345: If you click the red link, you can still see when and why it was deleted: 00:27, 15 May 2013 INeverCry deleted page File:Skyline Cagayan de Oro.JPG (Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing)
Additionally, the final revision was marked as "Marking as possible copyvio because Retouch of http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=88532919&postcount=1232". Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing" is vague for me (though I assume that admin tools were limited at that time, so the nominator's reason could not be incorporated at that time). Any way thanks P199 for your response. Stay safe amidst the pandemic; our situation isn't looking good and seems worsening day by day. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Facade of San Fernando Church in Cebu province.jpg

File:Facade of San Fernando Church in Cebu province.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!

Ox1997cow (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

DR closed as delete but not deleted

Hello. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MoTx-Brevard was closed by you as delete, but File:Jim & Jeanne with Dolly.jpg is still active with a DR tag. This is the only image in the DR that's bluelinked. Did this picture get missed? If so, no worries! :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Thanks for letting me know. Deletion done. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 04:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

With regard to...

With regard to... your closure of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Chris_Hunkeler_at_Fort_Rodney_(26008793417).jpg.

I took a closer look at the original flickr page... https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrishunkeler/26008793417/

At the time I uploaded I presumed Chris Hunkeler had put his camera on its 10 second timer, pressed the button, and posed in front of the cannon.

At the very bottom the description says "Photo credit: RB SLU_6557" Who is RB? Did Chris Hunkeler get RB to sign a formal release of his IP rights, before he posted this picture they took, on flickr? Should it have been necessary for CH to do that?

You say the flickr description say "author unknown, 1975". I think that applies to the four paragraph description, in Italics. I think the 4 paragraphs in italic is text copied off a history plaque.

I think we should assume RB is Hunkeler's wife, or best travel buddy, and that it was understood that when he or she gave Hunkeler the image he had tacitly agreed he could put it on flickr under a free license.

I am not going to appeal. I just went back to the image discussion, since it shows up in red on my user talk, and I wanted figure out what happened, and leave a note, there, describing the discussion.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Geo Swan: I totally agree that if you ask a bystander/travel buddy to take a picture for you, hand him your camera, and takes the picture according to your instructions, hands back the camera – in a case like that, it is implied that the bystander/travel buddy is not claiming any rights to the picture he took (especially if it is a stranger). Even WMF preliminary perspective on this legal issue agrees but this was never adopted on Commons as policy (because we don't know all the circumstances how the photo was taken and therefore don't know true authorship status). --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That is very interesting. A couple of years ago I started an article about a woman who wrote a book on American food. The book was different, extraordinary. I am forgetting the details, but the first image of her, sitting at a table full of her books, at a book fair, was taken just that way. She handed her camera to a freindly looking passwerby, and asked them to snap a photo.

I was cross when it was deleted.

Luckily, she was a good sport about it, and the article was illustrated with a similar image, this time taken by a friend, who was able to correspond with OTRS.

Sometimes I despair, because I see people argue for carrying the precautionary principle to ridiculous lengths, lengths I think expose us to ridicule from outsiders.

Over on en.wiki there are a small group of people who will challenge just about every use of a non-free image, even when it is not "reasonably replaceable" by a free image. Actual "fair use" generally protects the rights of those who own the intellectual property rights. The underlying theory beneath granting patents, copyrights, trademarks, is that these all, ultimately, benefit the general public.

It is my understanding that US fair use law, and similar laws elsewhere were passed by legislators who ALSO thought the fair use provisions they passed, that superceded the IP rights of photographers, were also intended to benefit the public good. It is my understanding that, it is seen as more important for the public good, to view an image that quailifies for a fair use usage, than it is for the photographer to get a royalty for each and every single use of their photo.

One day I tried to figure out the history of en.wiki's WP:NFCC. I wanted to read the discussion where good faith contributors had debated the pros and cons of the NFCC policy, as we see it today, and a more generous policy, more in line with the legal requirements of US fair use law.

There doesn't seem to have been a debate. The WMF decided every wiki needed to have some kind of policy over the use of non-free images, and a small group of people very dedicated to the very narrow restrictions we see, seem to have drafted it without the broad discussion of pros and cons that I was hoping to find and read.

It is annoying.

About a dozen years ago I realized how terribly vulnerable en.wiki's policies are. Commons too, I suspect. The policies are not locked down. Anyone can edit them. So, a dozen years ago a very unpleasant person thundered at me, "how dare you! Don't you know BLP says XYZ?" No, I did not know it said that, but sure enough, when I checked, it did say "XYZ". I was sure it hadn't said XYZ when I had first read through the entire thing, five years earlier. I checked. It had not. It hadn't said it 2.5 years prior to that day either. Nor had it said it a year, or a bit more than a year previously. Maybe there is a tool that can figure out who first added a specific passage to an article or a policy? If so I don't know that tool.

There were over 1000 edits to BLP, between when it did not contain the XYZ passage, and when it did contain the passage. There was nothing on Talk:BLP, showing there had been a discussion to add that major revision. Well what about the edit summaries of those 1000 edits? Did any of them contain a clue that someone felt authorized to make that major revision? Nope.

What I found, when I looked at the edit summaries, and a couple dozen of the actual edits, is that they gave the surface appearance of a bunch of people discovering what they regarded relatively minor errors to the spelling, punctuation or sentence structure of the policy, who had gone in, on their sole judgment, to correct what they represented as errors. Sadly, some wikipedians are barely literate, and their notion of what is a error in grammar that needs correction is highly unreliable.

I had, by that time, realized that there were some deep vandals on en.wiki - individuals who were prepared to make thousands of innocuous policy compliant edits, so the could apply to be administrators, or just be trusted, so they could occasionally stick their oar in, cause chaos. I know of at least two en.wiki administrators who used sockpuppetry to apply for administratorships under two separate wiki-IDs. One got away with it, two wiki-IDs granted administratorships.

A small clique of POV pushers could plot out a policy change, and agree that each of them would make one of a series of tiny edits to BLP, each of which looked like someone making an apparently good faith tiny fix to what they saw as bad grammar, but which, taken as a whole, did make a significant change to policy. And, in a case like this, what you would get was a stealth policy change, from a small group of vandals, or a small group of zealots.

This vulnerability chills me, when I think about it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that policy pages should be locked. But my biggest annoyance with the copyright issues here on Commons is that policy for that should actually be set by WMF Legal, not by a consensus of a small group of laymen or even "POV pushers" (no matter how well meaning). Considering the potential legal ramifications for WMF, I am often very surprised that WMF Legal hardly ever comments on copyright discussions or set legal/policy precedents. As for deleting images per precautionary principle, there is of course a big grey area. But if we get it wrong and don't delete a questionable image, there could be bad consequences down the road... --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nikolaidisa

Hello, could you please kindly check the status of the undeleted files ? Not sure what your intention was. Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 10:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Same with Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Takomabibelot. — Racconish ^💬 17:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Racconish: Looks like the mass delete button was not working properly. Now deleted. Thanks for letting me know. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Redact revision request

Hello P199. Please hide my edit at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Divimart Pulilan (specific edit: [1]). This is a courtesy request from my FB friend. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. BTW, will you withdraw the DR again? If so, I'll close it right away. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I withdraw. The building is not artistic enough to warrant designer's protection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raghuveeran.P.jpg

Hi P199, please note my repeated delition request. Keeping this image does not comply to Commons:Deletion policy. Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ies: thanks for helping clean up Commons. This image was in use in 2016, so that makes it automatically in scope. Now that it is no longer used, I completely agree with your DR. It will have to go through the normal process though (no need to specially inform me). Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Image

Hi P199, Just wondering what categories was File:Roksana Rahman Poly.jpg in prior to nomination/, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 00:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Davey2010: . Category:Female models from Bangladesh and Category:Rahman (surname). Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi P199, Ah okay many thanks for that, IMHO I believe the file's inscope however just because I do doesn't mean everyone else does - Would you possibly undelete the file and I'll recat it or failing that would you object to me going to UDR to seek different opinions ?, Although the person is non-notable the image imho was taken in a way that imho could make it usable, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 14:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Davey2010: this person is not notable - no article on any WP, nor item in Wikidata. No objection against UDR (that is after all the right process). Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey P199, In all fairness we do have and accept images of non-notable people providing the image can be of use but ofcourse I agree with your sentiments, Okay no worries I'll head to UDR, Many thanks for replying :), Take care P199, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 19:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Categories on File:Untitled -- Addshore, Twitter, 2022-01-08.png

Hi P199, thanks for closing the deletion discussion.

I saw you also removed the 2 categories that were previously on the file. I believe both of these should still be on the file?

Regarding Wikidata art, you'll notice the Wikidata logo featuring on the left hand side of the image (as a flag). Also this is most definitely a digital drawing. These 2 categories also keep the file in line with the prior file which is also in these categories.

Let me know what you link. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 08:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Addshore: In general, we consider such private art as out of scope, therefore it is not suitable to add other categories (Wikidata art is rather incidental on top of that). Since it is used on your userpage, the current category is sufficient (just like personal photos that are out of scope but used on a userpage - they are not categorized elsewhere). Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Pictures taken by Mendozamori

Hello P199, I miss the pictures taken by Mendozamori listed on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mendozamori used in several Wikipedia articles (es, en, de, qu). User:Mendozamori confirmed that he himself took those pictures, so they are his own work. Please restore them, for they are not copyrighted. Thanks in advance -- PhJ (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@PhJ: Can't take their statement at face value. There is more than sufficient doubt to question ownership here, so unfortunately, uploader needs to prove copyright ownership via VRT. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

File is my own work

I took all the photos in collage by my self and these places not exclusive.Success think (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@P199: All photos are take by myself with the phone camera. Its my own work. Success think (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't leave your comments here, but at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Success think. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you undelete File:Wudu Istiqlal Mosque.JPG?

I’m pretty sure this one was de minimis as it showed people taking/doing/whatever wudu and didn’t feature the mosque in any prominence. Dronebogus (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It showed enough architectural elements of the interior wash place that I deemed this image just over DM. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Deleted with link to wrong discussion

You deleted File:Eila HILTUNEN Sibeliusdenkmal - 1967 - Helsinki - 1969 - 143.09.jpg "per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tim Dodd with SpaceX Falcon Heavy at Launch Complex 39A.jpg", which is very confusing. Could you do something to make the file history point at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eila HILTUNEN Sibeliusdenkmal - 1967 - Helsinki - 1969 - 143.09.jpg, which seems to be the correct one. You also deleted the talk page. Is that practice? At Swedish Wikipedia talk pages are retained when articles are deleted, for future reference. –LPfi (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @LPfi: Thanks for letting me know. This is very strange, because that step of the deletion process is automated. In any case, I restored it and manually deleted it to add the correct link. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Error in closing a DR

Hello. I think you made an error when you closed this DR. You deleted the file, but you closed the DR as "kept". Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @BrightRaven: for letting me know. That was indeed an error (not paying attention), and corrected now. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Avikanyar

Hello P199,

it looks like you missed to delete one file which is part of this DR. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 22:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: Done. Thanks for letting me know. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 00:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello

I did nothing wrong.Your don't see license it free image pixabay.Why your blocked mẹ. PeaceAndGood (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I allowed to upload free image cmon. PeaceAndGood (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@PeaceAndGood: I didn't block you, I warned you because you have uploaded numerous non-free images in the past. And no, if you don't see a license, you can NOT assume it is free. Not all images on Pixabay have licenses compatible with Commons. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask me. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maradona_cebollita.jpg

How does your close mesh with the instruction at Template:Not-PD-US-URAA? Hekerui (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I see, you refered to this close by User:Ruthven and User:Jcb, which is so wrong! Jcb was removed as an admin, not sure was Ruthven was thinking, these files are all new and not legacy stuff predating the court decision. Hekerui (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Someone uploads knowing copyright violations after the date of the discussion when the discussion is about earlier and you close as keep. No response to my question? Hekerui (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The conclusion of COM:DIU was that "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion", which is exactly the case for this DR. You can nominate the file again, this time adding the other reasons you give above. WMF Legal gave the following direction in this regard: "The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice. To date, no such notice has been received under the URAA. We are not recommending that community members undertake mass deletion of existing content on URAA grounds, without such actual knowledge of infringement or takedown notices." If I missed anything else, I welcome any education on this. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe you missed that this not approval to upload copyright violation at will going forward since the conclusion of the underlying judgment from the legal case. Your interpretation is used to upload verifyable copyright violations currently. The uploader of File:Maradona cebollita.jpg acknowledges by adding Template:Not-PD-US-URAA that the picture is in the copyright in the US (the template states since 2014 "New files should not be uploaded with this tag"). Please participate at Commons talk:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review to help resolve this. Hekerui (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jahirul film

Hello P199,

it seems this is another one where a file you wanted to delete got away. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 08:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Rosenzweig: Mass Deletion doesn't always work correctly. Thanks for letting me know. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Or the DR has a confusing layout :-) Here's another one: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jkubler1. --Rosenzweig τ 19:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Photos from Fujisan Winery

You deleted photos Koshu_grapes.jpg and Fujisan_winery_vineyard.jpg for copyright violation.

I have permission from Fujisan Winery to post these on Wikipedia on a page about them. How should I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceThomson (talk • contribs) 09:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC) BruceThomson (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@BruceThomson: see the instructions at COM:VRT. Regards, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! BruceThomson (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Sound Logo

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Protestas en contra de Pedro Castillo en Lima Perú. Registro 5 de abril, 2022..webm

I was not attentive to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Protestas en contra de Pedro Castillo en Lima Perú. Registro 5 de abril, 2022..webmand I considered that the licensing was clear, but unfortunately its author changed it, so I request that you restore the video. MONUMENTA Talk 00:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@MONUMENTA:  Done. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks you very much P199.Althair Talk 16:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Hello. I have renominated a file for deletion you previously kept. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eunice Foote - bizilabe.png. Cheers --Animalparty (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)