User talk:Yann/archives 53

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


MOTD Notification
⭐ A file you uploaded is on the main page! ⭐

File:Happy new year 2023 from Tanzania.webm, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:ALDELONEPÍPOL

Do you think a block would be warranted? Trade (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May be not, unless this user creates more copyvios. Yann (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dont think the problem was with copyright Trade (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Oram with Downey Jr and Cheung 2005.jpg

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have sent an OTRS for the following File:Robert Downey Jr with Master Eric Oram.jpg is there anything further I need to do to have the image reinstated? I took the photo myself but it was deleted a second time. The first time I uploaded the name of the file was Oram with Downey Jr and Cheung 2005.jpg

Cheers, Australianblackbelt (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MOTD Notification
⭐ A file you uploaded is on the main page! ⭐

File:JFK Assassination, HSCA - Marina Oswald's testimony.ogg, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most memorable shot 2022 / Wikimania 2023

Dear member of the Commons Photographers User Group,

I wish you a Happy New Year! As it has been our tradition at the beginning of the new year for a while, we're sharing our most memorable shots of the past year with each other. I invite you to share a picture that is particular meaningful to you and to describe why that's the case. Also, as Wikimania 2023 will be here before we know it (August 16 to 19), please consider adding your thoughts on our planning page, where we gather ideas for how we can make Commons photography more visible than in the years before.

All the best to you, your family, and friends! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Public Domain Day

Hi Yann, I noticed you restored various images because on 1 January the copyright expired. Thank you for the work on that! I maintain a list of all restored files because of this Public Domain Day. Based on the undeletion summary for most other admins I can figure out the reason, yours were mostly empty and took me a lot of work to check. Can you please mention PDD or something that in the undeletion summary? Thanks! Romaine (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Romaine: Yes, all files I undeleted since Januart 1st are because they are now in the public domain. I usually check and fix the license afterwards. Yann (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iranian banknotes

Hi Yann, thank you for undeleting those files. I think File:10000ریالی (2).jpg and File:10000ریالی.jpg should be deleted again, because they are a new design which is still copyrighted (I could not see the files and only guessed by the names). What kind of list do you want me to make? Please explain and I will do my best. Thanks again, HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HeminKurdistan: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banknotes of Iran. Happy New Year! Yann (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy New Year to you too! From what I can figure out from the file names, I am 90% sure that the dates these files will fall into the public domain according to Iranian law is:
In the case of these files, the names are not accurate enough to guess. There may be free files among them, but I'm not sure. I can find the date when If I see them:
HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HeminKurdistan: I undeleted some. Should I do the rest? Yann (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I will check them and write the dates for you to delete them again in case needed. HeminKurdistan (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found the dates for the files you undeleted and moved them above. HeminKurdistan (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HeminKurdistan: The link you gave above doesn't work for me. I think all the files listed above show banknotes which are too recent to be out of copyright. OK? Yann (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, most them were released recently. HeminKurdistan (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Robert Francis St Clair-Erskine.jpg

Could you tell me if it matches this: https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/robert-francis-st-clair-erskine-18331890-4th-earl-of-rosslyn-pc-217708 or the Vanity Fair work that we already have File:Earl of Rosslyn Vanity Fair 12 November 1881.JPG Abzeronow (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, we also have the former as File:Francis Grant (1803-1878) (after) - Robert Francis St Clair-Erskine (1833–1890), 4th Earl of Rosslyn, PC - 429029 - National Trust.jpg Abzeronow (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: Yes, it is the same image as on artuk.org, but it is a crop of poor quality, apparently a shot of TV or computer screen with a Canon EOS 450D. Yann (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 冷床系 (nomination 2)

You closed this DR as ‘delete’.

I don’t see a consensus to delete any of these files. And some of them do have a clear educational use, as they are in use. So we can presume that similar files from the same set also have a clear educational use. They should only be deleted if a targeted DR establishes a consensus to delete them. Brianjd (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DRs are not vote. The decision is based on Commons policies. You certainly noted that I only deleted files not used. And in spite of what others say, these files are out of scope on Commons. You can request undeletion if you have valid arguments for educational use. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Files uploaded by 冷床系 (talk · contribs). Brianjd (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I should have mentioned this earlier.) Please check the footer at the DR. It looks like you misspelt ‘AI’ as ‘IA’. Brianjd (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah yes, IA is French. Fixed. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice of deletion of redundant image

Happy New Year, Yann! Remember on 29 May 2022, you opted for the Wikimedia Commons community to keep this image at its deletion request page. The file is currently residing in none of its targeted articles. Please consider deleting the file as there is a better quality (SVG) version of this image at Wikipedia. Direct link!! Thanks!! Intrisit (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Intrisit: It is still used in all articles listed at the bottom. Please replace all uses if you want it to be deleted. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frank Moss Bennett

Hello Yann

Sure, I have no problem. That US doesn't follow the rule of the shorter term is a pain. I had restored the first 26 images when I noticed the {{uRAA artist}} (sic) on Category:Frank Moss Bennett and realized that it (probably) failed the part about being PD in US too, so I grudgingly deleted them again. I'm not too happy with US legislation right now.

In the Frank Moss series both the flickr and youtube video are no longer available, but if you see how to investigate further, please go for it.

Not that other authors aren't free of this issue, either. Images were often deleted only of the grounds of 70 pma, without taking the US publication date into account. And people who died around 1952, they could both have made the works before and after 1928.

Platonides (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found a date for one of them, File:Frank Moss Bennett 004 (38485015895).jpg it's from 1921. @Platonides: https://rehs.com/Frank_Moss_Bennett_A_Matter_for_Consideration.html Abzeronow (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Frank Moss Bennett 003 (38485016715).jpg is from 1931. signed and dated by the artist per http://goldenagepaintings.blogspot.com/2010/07/frank-moss-bennett-friendly-discussion.html Abzeronow (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Frank Moss Bennett 005 (39362357211).jpg is titled His Best Work and is from 1933. https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2004/19th-century-european-art-n07984/lot.60.html Abzeronow (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's nice, Abzeronow, although I'm afraid we should delete for a few more years those from 1928 or later. I can undelete more of them for your review if you are going to check them. Platonides (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'm willing to help find information on them. Abzeronow (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: I undeleted more, but it is late now, the rest will be tomorrow unless someone else do it first. Yann (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll edit this as I go and I'll probably focus more on this tomorrow File:Frank Moss Bennett 006 (39362355421).jpg is titled The Landlord's Story. Undated, and frequently reproduced. File:Frank Moss Bennett 007 (39362353771).jpg is from 1946. https://rehs.com/Frank_Moss_Bennett_Drs_Johnson_Bogwell_&_Garrick_in_Fleet_Street.html Last one I will look at today was File:Frank Moss Bennett 008 (39362352341).jpg, it's from 1936 https://www.artnet.com/artists/frank-moss-bennett/huntsmen-resting-at-an-inn-7b0XHC4SaUm8U0hebzMrgg2 Abzeronow. (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They have all been restored now. I undeleted a bunch of them, and Rosenzweig has been undeleting and checking these images as well (he seems to have been filling Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Frank Moss Bennett). Platonides (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I've been working on these for a while now. The artist did hundreds of them apparently, every help to identify and date the ones we have is welcome :-) --Rosenzweig τ 23:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow, Platonides, and Rosenzweig: IMO these files should also be renamed. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I renamed all those which have a name in the description. Some still don't have date or a name. Now either, we create a DR (or a DR for each year), or we add the files in "Category:Undelete in 20..". What do you think? Yann (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A DR for each year might be the best option. Of course, some paintings are undated so from an URAA standpoint that probably puts them in 1952 unless info can be provided when they first became available to the public. Abzeronow (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking we could reuse Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Frank_Moss_Bennett (are there more Frank files not listed?) adding it on all "Undelete in" categories needed, and restore the now-free ones each year.
I will probably have a look at deleting the not-yet ones en-masse after they are all determined.
Platonides (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can add the title to some more and rename them. I'll write here when I'm done. --Rosenzweig τ 23:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, File:Frank Moss Bennett A study.jpg is not in the main DR. Yann (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also the first 7 files in the category (the ones with the file names starting with '). --Rosenzweig τ 10:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm done going through them. I could not identify or give a title to File:Frank Moss Bennett 021 (39332792092).jpg, but it is dated 1915, so we can keep it. Numerous of them are not dated, and no web site will give them a date, so the only way to perhaps date them would be (I guess) to go through literature, old auction catalogs and such. Unless someone does that, we should assume they're from 1952 and delete them until 2048.
The years are all in the original DR, though it's a bit more complicated after they were all renamed except the one. It would probably be best to add the files showing paintings after 1927 (and undated paintings) to the respective undeletion category pages. I have uploaded numerous files of Bennett paintings over the last few days, if we already had a file, as a new version of those (because the ones we had were a bit blurry or quite small), else as new files. I have also uploaded new files of paintings created after 1927 or undated; I've immediately deleted those and added them to the pages Category:Undelete in 2025 to Category:Undelete in 2048. It would probably be easiest to just delete all the undated/after 1927 files from the original DR (as not restored after all) and add them to the category pages. The first 7 files in the category (file names starting with ') were uploaded in 2022 though, there would have to be a deletion request for those (IMO) like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frank Moss Bennett A study.jpg. Except for File:'Nearing the end'. Oil on canvas. Signed and dated 'FM Bennett 1922' (lower right).jpg, dated 1922. --Rosenzweig τ 01:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Platonides: Do you want to go ahead or should I? --Rosenzweig τ 11:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rosenzweig: I have expanded the DR with the new names. I have also edited the description pages with question marks that still listed a 2017 date. I can proceed deleting the files. I don't mind if you prefer to do so, but let's not do the work twice. Platonides (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go ahead :-) --Rosenzweig τ 14:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Books by Daniel Radočaj

Hi Yann, thanks for finding and restoring the images. Now that I can see them, I see that all but one show book covers with graphics or photographies. The copyright for such work is usually not with the author who wrote the book, but with the artist who created the cover design, or with the publishing house. Hence i did not add the permission tag (yet), but wrote back to the author to provide evidence on behalf of the publishing company. – Just to keep you informed; no need for you to do anything. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC) P.S.: For correspondence in general, do you prefer English or French?Reply[reply]

@Mussklprozz: Thanks for your message. For the language, I am fine with both. Yann (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lucien Mahin, Bruno Picard - Bruno d’Aurvaye tchante Louline Vôye, 1993 (in Les Cahiers Wallons, num. 10, p. 145-163).djvu

Bonjour, et bonne année 2023.

Je ne connais pas trop la procédure habituelle, mais pourrais-tu (ou m'indiquer où faire la demande) restaurer ce fichier afin que @Lucyin (auteur du texte) puisse envoyer son autorisation de réutilisation ? Il m'avait demandé d'importer le fichier djvu, mais a oublié d'envoyer le mail.

Un tout grand merci. Reptilien.19831209BE1 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Reptilien.19831209BE1: Le fichier n'a besoin d'être restauré maintenant. Il suffit de citer le nom du fichier dans l'autorisation. Le fichier sera restauré quand l'autorisation sera validée. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
D'accord, je laisse Lucyin se manifester. Reptilien.19831209BE1 (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
J'envoie l'autorisation de suite.
--Lucyin (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mins, response (Ticket#2023010710007015): Votre message ne nous a malheureusement pas permis d'identifier l'article ou le fichier multimédia dont il est question.
Dji ri-respond: Le fichier File:Lucien Mahin, Bruno Picard - Bruno d’Aurvaye tchante Louline Vôye, 1993 (in Les Cahiers Wallons, num. 10, p. 145-163).djvu avait été supprimé car j'avais oublié de faire suivre mon autorisation pour les textes après celle de Mr Bruno Picard pour la musique, et sachant que c'était une tierce personne (Reptilien.19831209BE1) qui l'avait téléversé.
On a reçu ce massage auprès de l'équipe de support. Le Ticket:2023010710007015 est en cours de traitement. --Mussklprozz (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Reptilien.19831209BE1, Lucyin, and Mussklprozz: Undeleted. Yann (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merci @Yann: Il y a encore une question ouverte : la permission vient de Lucien Mahin seul, mais il y a un deuxième auteur, Bruno Picard. Salutations, Mussklprozz (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mussklprozz, Bruno Picard est crédité car il a écrit les partitions musicales qui accompagnent les textes de Lucyin, avec son accord. Faut-il également l'accord de Bruno Picard ? Cdlt, Reptilien.19831209BE1 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Reptilien.19831209BE1 Oui, puis-ce que les partitions musicales bénéficient d'un droit d'auteur aussi comme les textes. Mussklprozz (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done On a bien reçu les autorisation des deux personnes maintenant et on a fait les changements necessaires dans la page de description du fichier. Merci à tous! --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More than one sock

Orodow (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  also appears to be a Mazum24 sock as they have done the exact same type of reverts. I know I should be taking this to requests for CheckUser but this is an obivous one. CutlassCiera 15:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's another one: Monogalies (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  who has just reverted the sock reverts I did. Maybe this is the time to take this for RfC? Thanks. CutlassCiera 19:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, please do. ✓ Done Blocked, file deleted. Yann (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation notification: Commons:Wiki Loves Folklore 2023

Hello Yann,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to French on Wikimedia Commons. The page Commons:Wiki Loves Folklore 2023 is available for translation. You can translate it here:



Wiki Loves Folklore starts on 1st of February and we need your help in translation of the main page in your local language.

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

You can change your notification preferences.

Thank you!

Wikimedia Commons translation coordinators‎, 05:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Problème à propos de copyright et du jeu EVE Online

Salut ! Je suis content de trouver un administrateur français 😄 J'aimerais que tu m'aides à dénouer un problème de droit d'auteur à propos d'un projet sur Wikipédia (EVE Online).

Si tu es d'accord, je rassemblerai toute les informations que j'ai pour savoir si des images sont sous droits d'auteur ou non.

Merci Dr.Snip3rFR (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

suppression de plusieurs images de l'article Lützerath

Salut, comme c'est la première fois que j'upload des images sur wikipedia, j'ai fait pas mal d'erreur. J'ai upload plusieurs images en meme temps alors qu'elles n'étaient pas toutes du meme auteur ni de la meme licence creative commons. Du coup, alors que la plupart étaient OK (je crois, c'était des photos AFP), elles étaient toutes annotées "reuters" alors qu'une seule leur appartenait vraiment. Encore desolé pour ca. Gandalfosaurus (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gandalfosaurus: Les photos de l'AFP ou de Reuters ne sont pas sous une licence libre, et donc non acceptables sur Commons. Yann (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK je ne savais pas du tout. Je referais plus la meme erreur du coup Gandalfosaurus (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The GODL-India Backlog

I've noticed the huge {{GODL-India}} backlog (over 12K) and I want to help reduce that backlog, but I'm not familiar with the license and given that you know quite a bit about India, I figured I'd ask you how to find if a particular Indian ministry uses that license (which I think does include images since digital images are data). I've also noticed that there are quite a few Indian Navy images in the backlog, which would have had the license of {{Indian Navy}} and given the intent of the Indian Navy to produce free licensed images for Wikimedia pages in the past, it would appear important to try to keep images that the Navy uses on their pages. Should I double license the Indian Navy files or should I treat Indian Navy as being completely GODL-India? Abzeronow (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abzeronow: Several people from India told me that the GODL purpose is a wider use, much larger that what is suggested on the template talk page. I requested a formal legal inquiry by a lawyer, which never came. I still think such an inquiry would be useful to settle the issue. @Titodutta: Any news? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've only started on stamps since the COM:India guidance on that seems clearest. File:1472-Dr.-Yellapragada-Subbarow-India-Stamp-1995.jpg has a source that seems like a deadlink (it wasn't a government site). Should I try to find another source before I do anything with the file? (EDIT: TinEye gave me this as another source http://stampsofandhra.blogspot.com/2010/04/blog-post.html ) Abzeronow (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: This is a derivative work of a picture in the public domain in India, so it would probably be OK. BTW there is also a copy at File:Yellapragada Subbarow 1995.jpg. And according to Yellapragada Subbarow, he made his career in USA, where the original picture was probably taken. Here is the source. And here is a larger and better picture probably taken at the same time. Yann (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass copyright violations by User:Xunks

At present there is a large copyright violation group of nominations by User:Xunks whom I notice you have cautioned before. Thought you might like to look before someone hits delete on these files. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ellin Beltz: Link please? Yann (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On Xunxs, the editor has caused quite some discussions by several editors who have questioned and opposed his deletions. They usually do not answer. Some discussions are here, here and here. They are very likely not applying official commons guidelines regarding new users or copyright. I have added a license to most of my files and yet they were tagged for deletion anyway. They reverted the wrong nominations of two flies depicting landscapes, but the others were left in place. Tags to files of works from before 1850...or others with a FOP license, come on add a license or assume good faith. Here one of a work from 1642. This for a work of an artist who died in 1852. This with a FOP license, this one as well etc. This was dated between 1400-1430. This tag was directed at a new editor for an Italian painting of 1480... threatening another editor with a block. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I let a message a message to Xunks, but some of these files have had issues. Missing license, wrong author and date, no or incomplete source, etc. Yann (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of them? Are we playing the lottery, while tagging articles for deletion? I prefer one who adds a license than one who randomly tags articles for deletion. Each of my files was able to be fixed, some didn't even need a fix as they had a license. I did the same thing as others as well. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems like others may have answered your question while my power was off for another 3 days (earthquake damage repairs). If not, please ping me again. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocking policy

COM:BP requires "Before granting a request to lift a block placed by another administrator, the reviewing administrator should consult with the blocking administrator, except in obvious, uncontroversial cases." (bold in original (!!!') You did not consult with me. This is not an "obvious, uncontroversial case". Wasiul Bahar had talk page access with no reason for private email. Эlcobbola talk 21:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elcobbola: I am sorry for not consulting you, but I feel your block stigmatized newbies acting in good faith. Wasiul Bahar explained in his talk page, and in the RFCU the situation. He repeated this by email to me with more details, and said he feel the block was not justified, and was afraid to be blocked again and further. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It did no such thing, and I don't see a reference to policy supporting your position. Admins are required to follow policy, not personal whims. You are now aware of the policy; if you continue to disregard it in the future, you may be blocked. Эlcobbola talk 22:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You fail to understand the situation, and that is the problem. You didn't block them when you did the CU, so why did you block after they offered some information? They shouldn't vote for each other's nominations, but at this stage, before any warning, I don't think it required a block. IMO they understood the situation, and I believe they don't do it again. And threatening me with a block when I fixed your error of judgement is not very smart. Yann (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your message on my talk

You told me that an edit I made was a test. I know I can use the sandbox, but I don't know if you can test making autoconfirmed changes. Visit my talk page for more info. WPchanger2011 (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your last "actions"

The behaviour of you, User:Jeff G. and User:Pi.1415926535.

I thought for a long time how to put it into words.

But I came to the conclusion: words will not be able to describe it.

I also thought about reporting it to AN for a long time, but I let it go. It's a waste of nerves.

But I find it hard to get out of my deep embarrassment.
... Matlin (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Matlin: Can you explain what's the issue exactly instead of making general unpleasant comments? Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:State_Ceremonial_Flag_of_Kelantan.svg

Hi there. I just noticed that about a year ago you removed my upload File:State_Ceremonial_Flag_of_Kelantan.svg. May I know why you deleted the file? For your information, the file was an image of the state ceremonial flag of Kelantan, as illustrated from File:Flag_chart_of_Kelantan.png. The flag was made and used long before the formation of the Federation of Malaya, and is now in the public domain. I don't see any reason as to why the file should be deleted, as there were no reasons specified. Thanks. EmpAhmadK (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EmpAhmadK: I undeleted it, and created a DR instead. Please note that File:Flag_chart_of_Kelantan.png lacks a source and a proper license, and may therefore be deleted for that reason. Yann (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, thank you 👍 EmpAhmadK (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jorge Royan FP

Hello Yann,

I write to you because you have nominated photos by Jorge Royan as FPs in the past and because you are an admin. I think it would be a good idea to add a notice about the last FP promotion to Jorge’s talk page, just for the record and because the honour belongs to him, but the page is locked. Can you, as an admin, please add the following to Jorge’s talk page? 

== FP Promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:Havana - Cuba - Man giving a V sign - 1326.jpg}} /[[User:FPCBot|FPCBot]] ([[User talk:FPCBot|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

People still delete some of Jorge’s photos and the deletion notices are added to his talk page; so IMHO it is just fair to add also the FP promotion notice to the talk page. Thank you very much! --Aristeas (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Sure! Yann (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music

Hi Yann,

I don't think, in my opinion, this was a particularly good close. Only one participant (KoH) was arguing for de minimis (that is, that the lyrics were protected by copyright but that we used so little of them and so incidentally that a court would not bother finding us to be infringing). The uploader was arguing some kind of magical process by which the Court was suddenly author of the lyrics and that therefore they were not protected by copyright at all. Carl—who we know is among our best authorities on copyright issues—was arguing that the inclusion of the lyrics was fair use, due to being in the context of a US Supreme Court opinion, and that we should keep it despite Commons policy not permitting fair use content (that is, it was an argument in favour of an exception to the policy: the lyrics are protected by copyright, but our use would not be found to be an infringing use due to successfully passing the four-part test). On the other side of the issue, myself, Felix QW, Prosfilaes, Elizium23, and Liuxinyu970226 all argued for delete on more or less the same reasoning (the lyrics are protected by copyright and policy does not permit us to host it). Neither weight of argument (i.e. !vote) nor simple majority (i.e. 3 vs. 5) support closing as keep.

In addition, it's just four days since you posted to COM:VP/C asking for "opinions from people understanding complex US copyright issues". Closing it after a mere four days when it is an acknowledged "complex issue" does not seem particularly productive or necessary. Even straightforward issues are routinely left open for at least two months longer than this had been open (and for most of that time it garnered no participation from contributors beyond those originally involved).

I am not active enough on Commons that I am going to challenge this at DR, but I do think you made a mistake on this one; and it places enWS (which does not permit fair use content) in a difficult position because now we'll have to explain why we can't host it or even link to it even though Commons hosts it. That's not Commons' problem of course, but it illustrates the immediate negative effects of employing such novel reasoning to make ad hoc exceptions to the fair use policy. Xover (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xover: KoH and Carl L. have valid points. You can call the copyrighted part fair use or de minimis, but it is the same argument. You can check other similar DRs on Commons which have the same issue (which I mention with links): some content under a copyright in a picture overall acceptable. They were mostly closed as Kept. This DR was open since last November, so I don't see the point to go on arguing. Carl has a very good point for WS (which I already suggested there BTW): the public domain part can be transcribed in WS, but not the part which is still under a copyright. I don't see any issue with such a solution, which is benefit for everybody. Yann (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, as mentioned, I'm not going to relitigate the issue here. Carl's argument is good and well reasoned, but it's arguing against policy (fair use is explicitly not permitted on Commons). KoH's argument is built on a faulty premise, and cites a precedent that was also incorrect (I linked to the COM:VP/C discussion about that in this deletion discussion). De minimis and fair use are very much distinct issues, and only the latter applies to this situation. But in any case... I just wanted to let you know I found the close to be too hasty and the problems it's going to create. I'll save the long version for if the issue comes up on COM:DR again at some point. Xover (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Flag of Statesville, North Carolina"

A file you recently deleted was re-uploaded with a sock account (edit by the same user on Statesville, North Carolina). DiscoA340 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MOTD Notification
⭐ A file you uploaded is on the main page! ⭐

File:20000lieues 1 01 verne.mp3, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MOTD Notification
⭐ A file you uploaded is on the main page! ⭐

File:Earth Views from the International Space Station.webm, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Getty Flickr CC Undeletions

Hey Yann, back in 2019, you restored a bunch of images that were tagged CC on Flickr but wrongly deleted because of Getty metadata. Can you also undelete these ones as well? Thanks.

Opencooper (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Opencooper: ✓ Done for the first 3, but the last one is a different case, + the file was removed on Flickr, + the account didn't exist anymore on Flickr. Yann (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, the last one wasn't for TechCrunch, but found it while looking at the user's deletion noms around that period, so thought I might as well include it. Thanks! Opencooper (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your revert of my complain

Hey Yann,

in response to your warning: You've warned me, that I should not modify a DR after the decision. But reason for my edit was not the decision or the DR itself, but the personal attack posted against me by the user Xunks.

Am I not allowed to complain about comments which the Code Of Conducts lists as "Unacceptable behavior" on the page on which they've been made?

If so, please provide guidance how otherwise communicate with the user in question, as you also reverted my comment on his talk page.

--RubenKelevra (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RubenKelevra: The DR is the wrong place to complain, specially if the complain is about someone's behaviour. Complains should be posted to COM:ANU. But IMHO the DR was closed according to Commons and copyright law. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: I really don't care about the DR process: My comment was ignored and my word that the source - which was the same as the other files source - showed it as PD seems to count nothing as well. At the time of the complaint the source was no longer available due to political reasons. So I could not provide any further evidence, despite me trying for a couple of hours to locate something.
So if that's your opinion on that matter, I won't even try to argue with you on that.
What matters for me is that my name is no longer associated with deflations in form of personal attacks:
On my talk page Xunks posted a template which make it appear that I made "personal attacks and disruptive comments", the text continues to threatens me of "actions" if I'm continue to be not "civil", and asks me to "keep a cool head".
No idea in which this text is regarded useful, but I did nothing what the text claims.
Sure I was frustrated, that my work is handled differently than basically a different picture from the same stack of images published. But I did not attack anyone personally nor was my comment not civil.
The only thing I did was to call the idea to find something substantial regarding the PD status of these pictures laughable, as I just tired for hours.
The reason to post on this DR was *not* to alter the decision, but at least do a DR for the other images as well. They are either all PD or all of them are not.
I also wanted to not let that personal attack of calling me "arrogant", "personal attacking", "adding disruptive comments", not "civil", and not having a "cool head" while also threatening me with "actions" against my account stand there and on my talk page.I
I just want to discuss the personal attack with the user, to make him stop and have him revert his accusations. Which are publicly available for everyone to read - and I don't seems to have even the right to add a response this page, calling it out as false accusations.
So what are my other options here? Can I add a comment to his talk page, or would this be deleted again? RubenKelevra (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In one point, I think similarly like RubenKelevra. Either all files with the same or similar content are wrong or none are wrong, if it's just the one file that gets tagged but the other with the same or very similar content of someone else is not tagged, it is selective treatment and this leads to frustration and lengthy edits. I was about to make another lengthy edit but now refrain. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Chaya geet.png

This looks like a netcopyvio with a rather obvious watermark from a website. Is the logo above the ToO in India? Abzeronow (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Deleted. Yann (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Violazioni di copyright

Ciao Yann, scusa non volevo fare qualcosa di sbagliato per la comunità, credevo che le foto fosse caricabili, soprattutto l'ultima che avevo provato a rimettere solo dopo averla caricata sul sito Flickr e specificando che era libera da diritti. Ma sicuramente devo, involontariamente, aver fatto qualcosa di sbagliato. Ora chiederò direttamente al titolare del sito Giuseppe Ferlito di scrivere nel sito stesso che le foto sono con licenza libera per cosi non violare il copyright. Per caso sai aiutarmi e dirmi correttamente cosa devo far scrivere per non commettere ulteriori errori? Grazie e scusami per gli errori in buona fede commessi. --Valentina Tretti (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ciao Yann, la foto in questione è pubblicata in maniera libera da qualsiasi diritto su Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/197701059@N02/52691584810/in/photolist-2ohb9qb risulta infatti di dominio pubblico. Se cortesemente mi spieghi dove sto sbagliando tento di risolvere il problema. Grazie --Valentina Tretti (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Valentina Tretti: Don't do that again, and please read COM:LL. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright issue I found

Hey Yann, I hope you don't mind me posting this here for your attention, but we've interacted before both here and on enwiki and you seem both knowledgeable and skilled at navigating commons. While browsing around articles I was surprised to see the Cascadian flag hosted on commons at File:Flag of Cascadia.svg. It's expressly noted on the page that it's not under a free license and that any use requires the express consent of the flags creator, which is true. It's been up since 2007 and there's going to be extensive collateral damage, it's used all over the place on wikis of every language. I'm not sure how it's gone so long without being noticed. I wanted to pass this along to someone much more equipped then I to handle it. Apologies for dumping it on you. --127(point)0(point)0(point)1 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:CONGRESS 1942.jpg

This matches a photograph from Alamy https://www.alamy.com/stock-image-mohandas-gandhi-1869-1948-was-driven-to-gowalia-tank-maidan-mumbai-165991589.html?irclickid=VZMUVSW75xyNWl5V3Sz9P1sNUkAyir3xRTJg3w0&utm_source=77643&utm_campaign=Shop%20Royalty%20Free%20at%20Alamy&utm_medium=impact&irgwc=1 but a 1942 photograph would be public domain in India. I wonder if this is a dupe of something we already have. If it's not a dupe, I'll fix the description and licensing later. Abzeronow (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abzeronow: Thanks for checking this. I don't remember seeing this on Commons. Seeing the low quality and small resolution, it may be better to delete it in favour of a better copy, if possible. Yann (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also found a copy at Bridgeman as well. https://www.bridgemanimages.com/en-US/noartistknown/mohandas-gandhi-was-driven-to-gowalia-tank-maidan-1940/nomedium/asset/3507932 Abzeronow (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: Ah this is good, as it makes it free of URAA copyright issue. Yann (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: Actually, the picture is from August 1942. I uploaded a better version, and fixed the license and the description. Yann (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Smoke from the 2023 Ohio train derailment taken during the night, February 3.jpg

Could i convince you to review my file? Please Trade (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done already. Yann (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Asking for the second and last time --Trade (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Yann (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ce soir, -paris s'est mobilisée lors de -EarthHour en éteignant -LaTourEiffel -Cities4Climate (25913677225).jpg

The license to this file was changed in August 2022 to "all rights reserved" after it was kept by you in a DR. I had followed the guidance on license review but I don't know the policy on files like this where you can see the license history. @A1Cafel: Abzeronow (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By good luck, the free license could be tracked in Internet Archive. License reviewed. Yann (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK thanks. I guess I'll check for Wayback Machine links the next time something like this comes up. Abzeronow (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: Also the Flickr now has a function of License History, which can check whether a file has a license change or not. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:NEO•GEO CD Logo.png

Hello. Is it possible to reactivate this image?

This is Neo Geo CD’s(SNK Corporation's video game console) logo. All the same SNK's console logos are registered in Wikicommons.

•Neo Geo…File:Neo_Geo_logo.png

•Hyper Neo Geo 64…File:Logo_of_Hyper_Neo_Geo_64.png

•Neo Geo Pocket…File:SNK_NeoGeo_Pocket_logo.png

•Neo Geo Pocket Color…File:Neo_Geo_Pocket_Color_logo.svg

but only the Neo Geo CD’s logo disabled on Wikicommons. Please reactivate this image.

(Sorry, I use google translate system.) Le pierrot triste (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Le pierrot triste: The formal written permission from the copyright holder for a free license is needed. If you have such a permission, please see COM:VRT for the procedure. File:Neo_Geo_logo.png is complex enough to have a copyright. Also do not use special characters (such as •) for file names. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:FrindoID

Helo! I will tell to you that User:FrindoID and User:NotFrindo has nothing to do with me. And I don't know these user altough we're from same country, but they aren't my account or thing to do with me. Thank you. Elfath1421 (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

page deletion

Hello - The picture I provided for the page which has been deleted was provided by the subject to use on the it not copywrited. Please can the page be reinstated. thanks Afs080 (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Afs080: Everything is under a copyright by default. Please read what was written on your talk page, and in the undeletion request, and follow the instructions on COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bollywood Hungama

Hello @Yann I hope you're doing well. I have been uploading files from BH, some of my upload you reviewed example. And you moved the permission Template:BollywoodHungama from the file description to licensing section. I have a curiosity, am I doing something wrong, or you're facing difficulty in reviewing the files. Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 04:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@C1K98V: Yes, I prefer to separate the licensing information from the rest. That's how the information is usually shown. Yann (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay glad I thought I was doing something wrong. Thanks for the quick response. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 11:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Henriette Beukers 03.jpg

Bonsoir Yann,

Tu as répondu à ma demande dans les Undeletion Requests comme not done, mais le fichier est tout de même restauré. Maintenant, je suis confus. L'autorisation des héritiers est à mon avis en ordre, et j'ai inscrit la note de validation. Est-ce qu'il faut la retirer, à ton avis? Mussklprozz (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mussklprozz: OOPS, désolé, je suis fatigué... Corrigé. Yann (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pas grave. :-) Amitiés, Mussklprozz (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: COM:AN

@Yann: I think OS or RevDel (you actually can RevDel) isn't necessary. Also, It's better to make a private os request to local os. Btw, that IP is a LTA GRP. Thanks in advance! Tryvix1509 (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I revdelled the edits (and the on-wiki oversight request) and emailed the oversighters list. I noted in the email that it may not need oversight, but it is at least "Purely disruptive material", so it's definitely revdellable. I agree that, in the future, it's better to make a private request: either to a particular oversighter or to the email list (oversight-commons@lists.wikimedia.org). Best, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the policy on Creative Commons Attribution licenses when no version number is specified?

Going to fix File:Amy Coney Barrett.jpg and license review it but I would like to know what the policy is when a site doesn't specify which version. Abzeronow (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abzeronow: Actually I don't know. Better to ask on COM:VPC. Yann (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Usual practice would be to assume the current CC version, at the time it was added. Or in this case, when it was placed on SmugMug. As it's a 2018 photo, that's clearly into the 4.0 era.
But (as always!) check the file version history first. Which reveals this disruptive edit. To remove the versioned licence, and simultaneously tag it for stealthy deletion as being unversioned? This isn't much better either. Nor is a personality rights warning appropriate on a posed portrait.
I'd ask @ZI Jony: for their input as uploader, but given the age I'd think that CC-by 4.0 is the most appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Andy. CC-BY 4 was what I was thinking to put as it would have been the most recent version and it would be the best one for our reusers. Abzeronow (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm really sorry for the late response. I believe Andy is right, it’s supposed to be CC-by 4.0. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 00:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your input. The file's license has been fixed and I license reviewed it. Abzeronow (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pandit_Nehru_lighting_up.jpg

The deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pandit Nehru lighting up.jpg found it to be a 1960 Indian photograph (nobody put a 2021 undeletion category on it). Do you think it can be restored? Abzeronow (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Post 1957 images may not be in the public domain in India, and are covered by URAA anyway, so no. If it was first published in 1964, it will be in the public domain in India in 2025. Yann (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added Undelete in 2025 to DR. Abzeronow (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

admin quick action

Hi, please protect my talk page from abusing and personal attack by this user

delete and hid all edit by this user

all message of this user are contains abuse and personal attack in Farsi

also user name is personal attack in farsi

thanks

Luckie Luke (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright Warning

Salut ,
J'arrive pas à comprendre honnetement cette decision et comme par hasard c'est juste parceque je me suis embrouié avec un admin ici. c'est plus un acte de vengeance je pense.
par example ce fichier File:شعار-60-سنة-من-الاستقلال-الجزائر.svg est libre de droit par le ministère même le fichier source à était partager avec les gens voici le lien
la mêmechoose pour cette image File:مؤتمر القمة العربية 2022 الجزائر.svg c'est une Logo fait à partir de cette image File:Emblem of the Arab League.svg plus du texte est un drapeau d'algerie Libre de droit.
Pour les postères c'est un ami qui à fait un énorme travaille à travers des années et il à reussi à trouver des versions rare et les a scaner et il sont diponible nul part que ici les œuvres créatives du gouvernement telles que les écrits ou les images sont libres de droits.
Pour ce Logo File:الجمارك الجزائرية شعار.png la source est Seeklogo il y'a au mois 500 logo sur wikimedia common importé de cette platfrome par example File:Logo botola.png
voici un autre File:Thebeautyandthebeast-logo.svg.

Riad Salih (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Riad Salih: Bonjour,
Ne supposez jamais ce que vous ne savez pas. Il n'y a aucun acte de vengeance, mais des accusations mal placées peuvent vous attirer des ennuis.
Il n'y a aucune preuve que les documents que vous avez importés soient sous une licence libre ou dans le domaine public, et c'est à vous de fournir cette preuve. Les documents du gouvernement algérien ne sont pas libres ni dans le domaine public. Merci de lire Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria. Par ailleurs, le site https://m-moudjahidine.dz/ donne un avertissement sur la sécurité. Vous pouvez demander des conseils sur les droits d'auteur, en anglais sur COM:VPC, ou en français sur COM:Bistro.
Cordialement, Yann (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"mais des accusations mal placées peuvent vous attirer des ennuis" Quelle type d'ennuis vous voulez dire par là?
Évitez de parler aux gens de manière offensante simplement parce que vous êtes un responsable ici.
"Ne supposez jamais ce que vous ne savez pas. Il n'y a aucun acte de vengeance" comme par hasard je me reveille le matin est 11 fichier sont nominé ou bien supprimer direct, non c'est pas un Hasard, c'est un act de vengeance déguisée. Riad Salih (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Riad Salih: Il y a des problèmes avec vos images, et si vous ne voulez pas être bloqué, vous devez changer d'attitude. Yann (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Miley Cyrus for T-Mobile 2022.jpg

Hey Yann, I have a question about the copyright on File:Miley Cyrus for T-Mobile 2022.jpg. Since it's a T-Mobile commercial, Wouldn't the copyright normally rest with T-Mobile, not the "editorial, color and finishing" company who've uploaded it. Cakelot1 (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cakelot1: I don't know. May be you can create a deletion request about it. Yann (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dean SBE BOB wheeler .jpg and others

This appears to be from a university in Lahore, Pakistan. Metadata says UMT Social Media, TinEye doesn't show any hits. The uploader has a name of UMT Social. Should they be requested to contact COM:VRT for verification? Abzeronow (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EXIF data is consistent for this user, and with no hit from the Internet, IMO it is OK. Yann (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block user

Charlie Chan 1974 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

 Duck of AXXXXK, see this WhatsApp group, Cyberpunk2077JohnnySilverhand (是麗瑤邨網紅演說家力臣黃 不是網紅演說家車志健, 麗瑤邨網紅力臣黃) is also in this group 202.75.86.158 03:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tarbes eq foch.jpg

Can you undelete this file? The sculptor died in 1951 and it's one of the Category:Equestrian statue of Maréchal Foch (Tarbes) files that got missed with undeletion last year. Abzeronow (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MOTD Notification
⭐ A file you uploaded is on the main page! ⭐

File:KSC-20221216-MH-AJN01-0001-SpaceX SWOT ISO Broll String-3319238.webm, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GODL-India license on images of judges of Supreme Court & High Courts

Dear Yann,

I found your discussion [9] at User talk:Adithya harish pergade.

I have been facing a similar issue where an administrator has nominated images from the websites of Supreme Court of India and Uttarakhand High Court for deletion. He is adamant that these images cannot be licensed under GODL-India and that the Supreme Court's website does not state any 'free license'. There has been a discussion with him at two pages - Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Justice Prafulla Chandra_Pant and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pcpant.jpg. Kindly help in clarification. Thanking you, MildGovernor (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MildGovernor: Unfortunately there is still some uncertainty about application of the GODL. I requested some people in India to get a in touch with a lawyer, and to get some legal advise, but this was never done. Yann (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have e-mailed Supreme Court. Let's see MildGovernor (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, I think I have that image for undeletion review, the earlier one, whose name is now replaced by a later image uploaded by me, at my house in a photo frame. Can I click its Pic and upload it on Commons with CC 4.0 license and own work? MildGovernor (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MildGovernor: Who is the photographer of the picture in the frame? Yann (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image

Question why did you change the name title on this? [10] Nocturnal781 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nocturnal781: The title should be as precise as possible, and the original one is proved to be wrong. Yann (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Promo_shot.jpg

Dear Yann,

thanks for restoring. I agree with your opinion that it is too small to be useful. Can you please delete it again? I will answer the client in that sense. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot! Mussklprozz (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

188.147.12.36

This IP is ban evading as 186.172.98.173 Trade (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. Yann (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block sock puppet request

Sock puppet of AXXXXK, see this 202.75.86.158 (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please post this on COM:RFCU. Yann (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yann, 202.75.86.158: reported, Allocato is already blocked by Talvo Hydo Wheels of To The Rescue Mater (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image copyright infringement historian128

Hello Yann, sorry if some of the image files I sent violate copyright rules, To be honest, I'm still new to being a Wiki admin and haven't mastered many Wiki rules or regulations, My intention is only to help while gathering information, not intending to steal copyright. Please give me a chance and don't block my account I promise I will send a self-generated file next time. I hope you are in good health with your family greetings from historian128. Sejarawan128 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sejarawan128: Do not upload any content copied from the Internet, unless you have a written permission for a free license. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah ok next time I won't post internet results unless the account has got a free license pass, I'll be careful next time. Thank You Sejarawan128 (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the deletion of my drawings in the South China Sea dispute

What have you done!, you claim that the picture was taken from another site?, Did you know it took me 2 hours to make it on the piscart app, and now you're guessing that I took it from something else. I've marked it mine via the History watermark. I don't know what to do if I can report this to wikimedia that you accuse me of stealing my own work Historian128 (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Congo.svg

Hi, why do you deleted the redirect? It's in use more than 50 times [11]. Please restore the redirect. Thx •2003:DE:729:BA4D:3C86:1D3E:12D8:1E0F 21:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done It was erroneously tagged for speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommonsDelinker has been removing references to this file: [12]. I undid that edit, but presumably there are others on other wikis. Do you know if it's possible to restore them all? Matma Rex (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Matma Rex: Sorry, no. But the articles should use the real name isn't? Yann (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nguyen_Ngoc_Bich_1933_Ecole_Polytechnique_(X31).png

@Yann: I requested the undeletion of this file, which has the same license as the c:File:Nguyen Ngoc Bich 1931 Ecole Polytechnique 2.png, which you already checked today (see my talk page on this image). The difference between two photos is the year: One was in 1931 and the other in 1933 (for which the undeletion was requested). I don't know why the request was archived with the note "Not done". See my request at Undeletion request, Revision as of 11:15, 2 April 2023 by Jameslwoodward (talk | contribs) (→‎File:Nguyen Ngoc Bich 1933 Ecole Polytechnique (X31).png: closing request as not done). Since you wrote in that page "No file by that name. Yann (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)", I will upload the image again with the same license, and will inform you when done for you to look at. Thank you. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: I just uploaded the image at c:File:Nguyen_Ngoc_Bich_1933_X.png. Please check. Thank you. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: I just added to the summary the following: " Ecole-Polytechnique student Bich, who attended the school from 1931 to 1933, wore the school uniform for the yearbook photo." I also added to the licenses notice: "These two images satisfy the 2nd criterion of {{PD-France}}, i.e., "It is an anonymous or pseudonymous work (the identity of the author has never been disclosed) or a collective work[2] and more than 70 years have passed since its publication (CPI art. L123-3)." Egm4313.s12 (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)." •—• Egm4313.s12 (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MD.C.C - Relief Gheorghe Asachi pe fațada Liceului omonim - oct 2022.jpg

Oh wow, what in the world happened here? Got no clues in the automatic notice and neither in your deletion description. Gikü (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Johnj1995 Maybe you'd remember? Gikü (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image was not uploaded properly and was deleted as an exact duplicate of File:MD.C.C - Relief Gheorghe Asachi pe fațada liceului omonim - oct 2022.jpg. Johnj1995 (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You had me scared for a moment 😅 Thank you very much! Gikü (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date of undelete

[13] Please do not change the date of undelete of the photos. {{PD-old-assumed}} – for works assumed to be public domain because they were created over 120 years ago and the author's date of death is unknown. The picture will are in the public domain only in 120 years. The picture will only be in the public domain 120 years after its creation. In some cases, I've noticed that you even set a year such that the photo will be set back in less than 100 years after creation. please pay attention when the photo was created or or check until when the locomotive existed. Uoijm77 (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is still covered by the URAA, so I don't argue against deletion, but for such old works, we usually assume that it was published as the time of creation, unless otherwise proved. Yann (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No obvious evidence that the photo was published earlier. in this case, a protection period of 120 years from creation should apply. The photo was taken in 1930s. This is indicated by the numbers of German railways. It didn't have them before. No justification for a 100-year protection period. Uoijm77 (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's only your opinion. Yann (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do you assume 2031 for undo delete? Uoijm77 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say “Come back in 2031, and we will discuss about the case”. Yann (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:37, 5 April 2023 Deletion Notice

Hello Yann,

I replied on the notice page. Thank you for your next instructions.

Best regards Geerolamo Frescobaldi (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Town Hall, Yarmouth, England-LCCN2002708291 - Restoration.jpg

Just a note that I spotted a few more specks to remove after you voted, and uploaded the fix. Cheers! Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files by Vichycombo

Hey Yann, I just wanted to bring to something to your attention since you deleted File:Kingdom of France (Bourbon Restoration) Le Retour des Princes français à Paris.ogg, that the user who uploaded that file, User:Vichycombo, has a bunch of other uploads that didn't have permissions (and seem to me like copyvio), which I tagged accordingly. (You can see the list in this Old revision of their user talk page ). They have removed all these request without actually providing the necessary permissions (e.g. [14], [15], [16]) calling it "prejudice". They also left a wall of text on my talk page which was difficult for me to understand (User talk:Cakelot1#Differentiation and responsibility for information provided). I have tried to explain why you can't just upload videos from YouTube and claim them to be under CC, but would like it if you could look over the situation for me. Many thanks, Cakelot1 (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done I reverted the removal of warnings, and added one last warning to the talk page. A block will follow if they do it again. Yann (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review Request

Hi Yann (talk · contribs), I hope you are doing good. Can you please review these files uploaded by me.

File:Nussrat Jahan Official portrait Lok Sabha.jpg

File:Lok Sabha Official Portrait Mimi Chakraborty.jpg

File:Arvind Dharmapuri.jpg

Thank you. 456legend (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@456legend: How do you know that these images are under the GODL? Yann (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GODL doc as per the template says that Open data images by Government of India constitute under GODL. Since Lok Sabha is a body of the Government of India and the copyright on Lok Sabha says cannot be published without permission and I believed that the licence template is a permission granting to publish docs under GODL as per the template, I belive it is under GODL. To further confirm about it I have approached you since I have found you to be active on Wikimedia review drive. 456legend (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that not all images from the Government of India are under the GODL, but only some where the GODL is mentioned. I don't see any mention of the GODL on the source page. Yann (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oh so does that mean GODL should be expressly mentioned and all the government files do not fall under GODL?
Anyways I will self nominate for deletion. Thank you for the clarification and your time. 456legend (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos have been deleted - reasons and help

Hi Yann, I uploaded photos of bloggers and famous people for their pages several times, but they were deleted, I even got a warning. I would like to upload and use a blogger's photo, but I don't quite understand the rules. If the photo is taken from open sources and there is a link to the media where it was taken – how to do it correctly? Алексей Удовиченко (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Алексей Удовиченко: Hi,
We need a free license for all content uploaded to Commons. This license can only be given by the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure how the copyright holder can send this permission via email. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent File:Ejaculation female.webm DR

Regarding this file's deletion request dated 16th April 2023, I wonder why you reverted this deletion request as it seemed legitimate to me (although I would have been in favor of keeping the file anyway) instead of closing it as "keep".

Since the procedure is still listed in the recent archive without the applied outcome I would like to add a box request with maintained result on the DR page Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ejaculation female.webm to keep the applied outcome, something like the following:

So whoever names the file next time for deletion will also see this deletion attempt with the related discussion. -- ZandDev (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This DR was reopen by a vandal, who is now blocked. There is no need to discuss again a DR without valid argument which was already closed. Yann (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I'll remove also the {{Kept}} template from the talk page. -- ZandDev (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lord Mayor of Leeds Hugh Lupton photo from 1927

Here is a photo of the page (7) photo in question which appeared in the UK Daily Telegraph - IMG_20230421_131412.jpg. I will try to upload it onto commons - but I find this very hard to do. Thanks for your patience. Srbernadette (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC) I've done it! File:Lord Harewood (right) with Leeds Lord Mayor Hugh Lupton in far right b&w photo.jpg

File:Lord Harewood (right) with Leeds Lord Mayor Hugh Lupton in far right b&w photo.jpg
Lord Harewood (right) with Leeds Lord Mayor Hugh Lupton in far right b&w photo

I understand that this commons photo of the newspaper article is "incorrect" and will be removed, but I hope by my taking the photo, you might be able to sort out the copyright issue. Srbernadette (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please help me with this file: File:1927 - Lord Mayor Hugh Lupton (in Mayoral chains) at a luncheon in Leeds with Lord Harewood (left).jpg

I cannot answer the questions being asked in relation to its possible deletion. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Allen Street and Elmwood Avenue, Allentown, Buffalo, NY - 52640157942.jpg

Hi Yann. I noticed you undeleted File:Allen Street and Elmwood Avenue, Allentown, Buffalo, NY - 52640157942.jpg recently. I was just about to delete it again per G7, but don't want to wheel-war. Was it undeleted in error? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mdaniels5757: Ah yes, this was while trying to fix COM:ANU#User:Andre Carrotflower. I suppose the deletion request was because of the board, so I cropped it out. Yann (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reason for deletion of File:Azadi_Ka_Amrit_Mahotsav_(English)_logo.svg

As I have seen that you have deleted the file of File:Azadi_Ka_Amrit_Mahotsav_(English)_logo.svg, without informing me. Can I know why the file has been deleted ? VNC200 (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@VNC200: This is a copyright violation. Is the account User4edits (talk · contribs) belongs to you? Yann (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, User4edits account does not belong to me. VNC200 (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is wrong with that particular file? I have added all the sources from where I got the image. Please clear the reasons. VNC200 (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GODL should be explicitly stated to be valid. And logos are not covered by GODL. Yann (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question

Hello. I noticed this File:Tanner Keener.jpg image early when looking through files related to Idaho. Apparently it's a personal upload of a teenager that reveals private information. So considering the context I was wondering if it could just be deleted without me having to nominate it for deletion. Since the quicker it's deleted and involving the less tracks the better IMO. I know we don't usually just delete images of people on privacy grounds alone, but I think it's warranted considering it's an image of a child, has personally identifying information, and was clearly uploaded for HOST purposes. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, there's also this image of the same person. You might want to go through their uploads and make sure there aren't others if you decide to delete them. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done All deleted. Not a notable person. The family name seems to be quite common, so there are quite a number of hits with this name. Yann (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yann/archives_53&oldid=762243120"