Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
|
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
| Archives | |||
127, 126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
| ||
Note
- Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (
~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp. - Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s).
{{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~is available for this. - Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
Asking about making a new category
[edit]Hello everyone,
Could it be possible to create two new categories for audio files of speakers from the Liège Walloon dialect and for recording of extracts of books (whose author died more than 70 years ago and thus free of rights) ?
This is my proposition :
- Category:Walloon language pronunciation by speakers of Liège Walloon dialect
- Category:Walloon language pronunciation of texts in Liège Walloon dialect
I you have another formulation that may seem more convenient to you, please feel free to change it. Scribus electronicus (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that's fine, and as a relative beginner don't worry too much about getting a category name perfect, they are not particularly hard to change. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Tank you for your response.
- I read somewhere that I needed the permission of someone else to create new categories.
- Could you do it yourself or direct me to someone who could do it ?
- Truly yours Scribus electronicus (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- As far as I know, there are normally no special rights needed to create new categories. No idea where you read that. Could you please try, and come back here if there is actually a problem? - Jmabel ! talk 21:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- The cats are not created yet:
- Category:Walloon language pronunciation
- Category:Walloon language pronunciation by speakers of Liège Walloon dialect
- Category:Walloon language pronunciation of texts in Liège Walloon dialect
- Still I am skeptical about the need of such. Wouldn't Category:Liège Walloon dialect pronunciation do the job? The dialect does NOT have a Q-id, there is only d:Q34219. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Please close PNG->SVG
[edit]Please close User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Replace_images_with_.svg_version and forward to maintainers if deemed as successful. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Coms problems with VRT (ticket 2025121610008447)
[edit]I have 128k edits on Commons since 2009, hence it would be fair to assume that by now, I know my way around the project and copyright. Having been elected to Tasman District Council, I thought it would be useful to get my hands onto official photos taken for this local authority. When those photos were taken, I checked with the photographer whether he has a contract in place that transfers the copyright to his client, which he said was indeed the case. Next, I checked with council staff whether they'd be happy to release the photos under a free license, which they were willing to do. I asked the council's legal counsel (Leith Townshend) whether he'd be the right person to sign off on the release of rights to the photos, which he agreed to. I then thought it's about time that I learned how use OpenRefine. Probably useful when you are dealing with 240 or so files, and I thought it's useful to have all the structured data defined, too. But that's beside the point.
Timeline of events is roughly like this:
- Dec 2025: finished uploading everything
- 9 Dec: I sent the release of rights email to TDC's legal counsel for him to forward this to VRT
- 17 Dec: TDC's legal counsel forwards the release of rights email to VRT
- 19 Dec: The VRT response comes back stating: "Unfortunately, we cannot use your content on the basis of statements such as "I allow Wikipedia to use my photos"."
- 19 Dec: My reply to that email was: "Well, that's not what Leith said. It was a cover note where he mentioned his "approval for the photos to be uploaded to Wikipedia" - that's a nicety rather than a legal description. The full release text was below that."
- 20 Dec: Email from VRT addressed to me: "The problem is that you were advised, improperly, to forward an email releasing the image under a specific licence. For legal reasons we don't accept forwarded permission statements, besides which it is not clear who is the copyright holder of the image and/or the photographer. First, can you clarify that and then have that person email a release permission statement so the image can be verified.
- How did you become the exclusive copyright holder of this image <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moko_Tepania_official_council_portrait.jpg>? I ask this because normally this is the photographer unless their contract specifies release of the copyright. Mostly photographer's give usage rights which is not sufficient to the Wikimedia Commons.
- I've added detail below for the copyright holder to complete and they should email it from their verifiable email DIRECTLY to this thicket number.
- For the copyright holder, they can use the template found on this page: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates/Consent> or another way of producing a permission statement is through the Wikimedia Permission Release Generator, which can be accessed here: <https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/>.
- This tool will guide you through the process of creating a release statement which we will be able to readily accept, and is the preferred method of releasing the rights to your media for use on Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia.
- Whatever method you choose to make the permission statement, once completed please send the resulting text in an email reply from your own email address and please MAKE SURE the following "[Ticket#:2025121610008447]" is included in the subject line of the email as reference in the reply otherwise it will not be connected to this ticket."
- 21 Dec: My response to that: "Firstly, it wasn't me who forwarded the email. The permissions email came from Leith Townsend; see the 16/12/2025 20:22 (CET) email below. I wrote the permissions statement for Leith. As a lawyer (he is Tasman District Council’s legal counsel), he will have no trouble understanding it.
- Secondly, when the photographer took photos (including of me, e.g. this one), I asked him whether his contract with Tasman District Council deals with copyright. He said that yes, he transfers copyright to the council when he works for them, and that is stated in their contract.
- Thirdly, regarding the Moko Tepania image, I think you are confused. I have nothing to do with that image. The upload history shows us that TheLoyalOrder put it on Commons."
- 4 Jan 2026: Email from me to VRT: "Happy new year from New Zealand. Can you please let me know what’s happening with this ticket?"
- 4 Jan: User:Krd starts deleting the photos with rationale "no ticket permission since..."
- 6 Jan: Email from VRT to Leith Townshend: "Please advise who is the creator (photographer) of the image(s), and by which reason Tasman District Council became holder of the full and exclusive copyright."
- At this point, I'm getting a bit frustrated. Each photo has the photographer specified in the structured data (d:Q136889058). And I've already explained that the photographer transfers copyright to TDC when he works for them.
- 6 Jan: I thought I'd check in with Krd whether they can resolve this stalemate. Not sure why the conversation isn't archived as they appear to archive everything else; from the talk page history, the conversation is here. Most of that conversation was in German. Krd had a few issues with the ticked: unclear who the photographer is, why the client is the license holder, and the list of files submitted in an Excel spreadsheet without clickable links.
- 7 Jan: I've sent a list to VRT with clickable links for the files, along with an apology that I didn't know that this was the expectation.
- 7 Jan: Leith responds to the photographer query: "The Council contracts a photographer called James Mills from Think Visual to take pictures at some official events. I have just confirmed with James’ business partner that the copyright is owned by Council."
- 7 Jan: Query from VRT to Leith: "is James Mills the photographer who created the images we are discussing?"
- 8 Jan: Reply from Leith to VRT: "Yes"
- 14 Jan: I follow up with VRT: "Greetings from New Zealand. I was wondering what the status is of this ticket. All the questions that were asked of us have been answered. User:Krd deleted some 200 photos from this upload on 7 and 8 January. Nothing has been restored yet. Is there anything that’s outstanding?"
- 21 Jan: Follow up from me: "Would somebody from VRT please be so kind and let me know what the status is of this ticket? All the questions that were asked of us have been answered. However, the files that have been deleted have not be reinstated. Is there anything else left to resolve?"
How is this reasonable treatment of somebody trying to do the right thing all along? Why am I not being told what the outstanding issue is? Schwede66 08:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: I think it would help matters if VRT had contact from James Mills or Think Visual confirming what happened, along with a copy of the contract with the Council and comment as to where to find the copyright transfer in that contract (citation of chapter and verse, as it were). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Why am I being put through this? The whole rights transfer is based on the copyright holder releasing the photos under a free license. To now have to run after the photographer and talk him into releasing his contract with TDC seems a steep task. I’m getting the impression that the VRT system is fundamentally broken and I shall stay away from them in future. Schwede66 16:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Something also the VRT is unaware of is that under NZ copyright law, the copyright of commissioned photos is by default owned by the employer, which is not the standard elsewhere. So there is no need for @Schwede66 to get a release or confirmation in writing from the photographer, as the copyright transfer to TDC was automatic. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- I certainly didn't know that, Mike. Thanks for that! Schwede66 03:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Anyone got any thoughts on that input? Schwede66 07:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think you should not have gotten this kind of response, but I do not have access to Commons VRT, so I am not sure I can help you here. Thanks for trying to transfer the photos to the PD and uploading them on Commons. Ymblanter (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Something also the VRT is unaware of is that under NZ copyright law, the copyright of commissioned photos is by default owned by the employer, which is not the standard elsewhere. So there is no need for @Schwede66 to get a release or confirmation in writing from the photographer, as the copyright transfer to TDC was automatic. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Why am I being put through this? The whole rights transfer is based on the copyright holder releasing the photos under a free license. To now have to run after the photographer and talk him into releasing his contract with TDC seems a steep task. I’m getting the impression that the VRT system is fundamentally broken and I shall stay away from them in future. Schwede66 16:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
a mod is kind of targeting me
[edit]the full thread is here ( en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Some people know nothing about space image processing ) but i will also paste it down here.
o, i was minding my own buisiness, setting a file for deletion because it was from a copyrighted source, but then people defended it! even though the file had many operations done of it (like the artifact dots removed, stitched together and colour- adjusted) people thought that the copyright was bogus! even if the changes were even less, copyright is still copyright and it should be respected. (the thread is here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Valhalla crater on Callisto.jpg ) also, yann randomly tried to add an "invalid source" tag to one of my files (not the previous one) even though the source was RIGHT THERE!!! https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Valhalla_Callisto_VGR1.png&diff=prev&oldid=1154750838 also, he randomly changed the tag for this file File:Triton True Color.png from cc by 4.0 to nasa file!!! i made adjustments!!! THIS IS VANDALISM!!! (kind of) and because he is an admin on wikimedia commons, he is getting no punishment! sorry im just mad ok bye
another thing User talk:Anonymsiy#File source is not properly indicated: File:Valhalla Callisto VGR1.png
Update: when i tried to revert the triton file to before (because it is my file, not to mention that i removed the lines out of the original nasa image so the og nasa image technically is mine too) yann reverted it back and warned me for an "edit war" you started it!!! god i love mod abuse!!! User talk:Anonymsiy#c-Yann-20260128162400-Please do not edit war. Anonymsiy (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, No, File:Triton True Color.png is not your file. It is a file by NASA edited by you. Trivial changes do not create a new copyright. By your repeated claims of copyright when there is none, it is clear that you do not understand the concept. Yann (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- well for the titania file i do have rights due to me manually adjusting individual color channels and adjusting them. Anonymsiy (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- No, that's a trivial change. It doesn't create a new copyright. Yann (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- it isnt trivial -_- Anonymsiy (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Well, it may require skills and competence, and some work, but the result is trivial in terms of copyright. Yann (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- it isnt trivial -_- Anonymsiy (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- No, that's a trivial change. It doesn't create a new copyright. Yann (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- well for the titania file i do have rights due to me manually adjusting individual color channels and adjusting them. Anonymsiy (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Question @Anonymsiy are you familiar with the concept of threshold of originality? If your changes to the original image are above the threshold of originality, then you can claim copyright on them, but if they are below the threshold of originality then you can't claim copyright for them. The threshold of originality in the US is quite high (see COM:TOO US for a list of images that are below the threshold of originality and thus don't qualify for copyright). Nakonana (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- how does this apply to the images i uploaded? Anonymsiy (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Anonymsiy: Yes, this concept concerns the files you uploaded. I suggest you read that page before claiming a copyright on files by NASA. Yann (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- As far as I understood you took public domain images from NASA and then modified them, and your claim of copyright is based on the fact that you modified them and that they are therefore your own work. However, if the modifications you made are below the threshold of originality, then the images do not qualify for copyright. Like for the Triton file — adjusting color channels might not be enough to get above the threshold of originality. In fact the page on the threshold of originality in the US lists an example where someone took a map, which was in the public domain, and then colored it and added labels etc., however that kind of modification was found to be below the threshold of originality and thus did not qualify for copyright protection. Nakonana (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- fair, but yann is going too far with this. Anonymsiy (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- I guess Yann maybe could have tried to explain the problem more thoroughly to you but aside from that any admin on Commons would have likely made the same or similar decisions regarding your uploads if the images are below the threshold of originality. Nakonana (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- fair, but yann is going too far with this. Anonymsiy (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- how does this apply to the images i uploaded? Anonymsiy (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Info I just noticed that there's a discussion at VP related to this case (regarding the TOO question) Commons:Village_pump#c-SevenSpheres-20260128001700-NASA_images_processed_by_third_parties. Nakonana (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Move needed
[edit]File:20260131 January drive snapshot – Screenshot 2026-01-31 at 4.00.03 PM.png was accidentally uploaded here instead of to enWP. Would someone please move it where it belongs? Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 02:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Miniapolis: cross-wiki moves aren't possible. I have fixed the licensing parameters but if you still want to keep the file on en-wiki, you'd need to upload it there and the file here will have to be deleted. signed, Aafi (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)