W?F	This Wikimedian opposes rebranding the WMF as Wikipedia.

This user opposes the Wikimedia Foundation's arbitrary, opaque, and dictatorial office-banning of administrators when the community and ArbCom are more than capable of handling the issue themselves.

Welcome!

Hello, Alexis Jazz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 1

Some of your images or media files have been listed for discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 January 1 if you are interested in preserving their usage.

• File:Semnan Damghan train collision.jpg
• File:Semnan Damghan train collision wreckage.jpg

Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 09:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Minister of defense Mohammad Hossein Jalali.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 09:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Wikiacc (¶) 09:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Second World War Memorial in San Marino.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 09:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Wikiacc (¶) 09:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you responded to my recent VMware image move request. Since this is a personalized request, and you know exactly what you need to do ;p, could you please move File:VMWare Fusion 7.0 Icon.png as well? Thanks. Silikonz (alternate account) (💬│🖋) 09:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Silikonz-alt:  Done — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a thank you to all contributors to Wikipedia, who are excellent at writing correct English. (After all, they are the ones who pick up much of the slack when others add content imperfectly.) Regards from a Scandinavian i.p. ! 89.8.71.4 (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns about me not filing enough rename media’s, however Alexis, I did nab both this & this today. I really do put in effort. Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was having the hardest time bringing that file into full compliance with all of the pertinent Wikipedia protocol, specifically the file data and display sizes, some red squiggly lines that were appearing in it (because I had imported it from the original PDF to Word, without also doing an edit check, and did a screen capture on it to be able to save it as an image that I could upload), and then that bot "chasing me" (as you said) because I hadn't specified the origin or creator (which I had, I just had forgotten that one bracket, as you noticed and corrected, earlier up the page which threw the code off for the rest of the page which apparently did not register with that bot), so Thank You. I am not the very greenest of Wikipedians, but I know I can always learn more, especially from one so obviously proficient and advanced as you. QuakerIlK (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adjusting the photo. There is a discussion on the talk page as to whether the photo should be reverted to the old one, and one editor feels that it is too dark and his facial features are not so clear. This is why I tried to adjust it. Amirah talk 14:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 15 § Orphaned files uploaded by Krise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

If an editor claims the right of an image has been transferred to them and the owner of he image has sent a mail to the OTRS to this effect, as non OTRS volunteers, Is there a way this claim can be verified? Celestina007 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Essentially no, we are supposed to trust OTRS and the permission templates added to file pages by OTRS volunteers. (OTRS doesn't always manage to sniff out copyvios, so on occasion this is problematic, but what are you gonna do?) Obviously, if the identity of the owner is publicly known and they can be contacted off-wiki, you could attempt that. Also if you have severe doubts you could report your findings to OTRS, it's possible they retract the permission if you can prove it to be fraudulent. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that does make sense. Thanks for taking your time to explain this. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alexis Jazz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for all the support and having faith on my contributions. Best wishes — Amkgp 💬 17:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Carlossuarez46 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Hog Farm _Talk 04:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Hog Farm _Talk 04:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really need to say "I'm sure responsabilidad isn't in your dictionary either."? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 05:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力: Yeah okay that could be shorter, changed it a bit. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Two questions:

1. Why do people want to be a party to the case? Is there some benefit (maybe glory) in being a party to the case? What about the drawbacks? Is it possible that users other than Carlos face sanctions in this particular case?
2. What does "resolving by motion" mean? How does it differ from a full case?

Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4nn1l2: He accused me pretty directly of conspiring in secret against him, I think that makes my statement relevant. Can't speak for others, I am unaware of benefits. But there is no community-based desysop vote process on enwiki (afaik), that might be why that ArbCom case kinda seems to turn into one.

I'm not the best person to ask as I have little experience with ArbCom. But wikt:motion should clarify: A parliamentary action to propose something. A similar procedure in any official or business meeting. The way I see it, a proposal is made and voted on. Otherwise, there's a bunch of stuff with numbers and timetables and having tea with the queen. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @4nn1l2: Being a "party" mostly means that you're one of the people directly involved. Like a lot of what happens at ArbCom, it's quasi-legal language borrowed from English court/judicial terms. As far as I am aware, ArbCom can pretty much sanction anybody, as long as it's the English Wikipedia. Resolving something by motion means that the committee feels the problem is simple enough that they can hold a quick vote on what to do, rather than having a full case, which requires several long steps and could take several weeks to conclude. GMG^talk 16:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several motions have been proposed at the case request you are a party to. If you would like to comment on them, you may do so in your section at the case request. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A request for arbitration that you were a party to has been resolved by motion. A permanent link to the motion can be found here and the announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a suspended case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46. For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have been working on the Wikipedia:Licensing update on many wikis and I noticed that Category:Wikipedia license migration candidates still get new files. I thought that was just due to mistakes. Then I made User:MGA73/sandbox to look for orphan GFDL-files to see if they are still useful or if they should be deleted. And as you noticed I nominated many for deletion. But I found a few recent files so I found out that it was not due to mistakes that files are uploaded as GFDL. My guess is as pointed out that some users use GFDL as a way to avoid commercial-use or as a way to keep the files away from Commons. I know that not all like Commons so that I can't fix. But I think we can do something about the non-commercial trick. But perhaps there are any good reasons why someone prefer GFDL. I just don't get them. --MGA73 (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: Neither do I. I didn't notice any nominations for deletion beyond those two, I don't follow deletions regularly. I was on that page because I had nominated something myself that day. Users who dislike Commons or need local copy for any other reason can use {{Keep local}}. Do you have a list of recent GFDL files? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not have such a list. Should be possible to make one on https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ --MGA73 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But check this out Special:ListFiles/Jonathunder. --MGA73 (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: Yeah, that one's obvious. Though no reason to suspect that's using GFDL as a non-commercial backdoor as no CC-NC license is attached. I think some users use GFDL only to make a point. What that point would be is unclear. Something about all free licenses being equal or something. That was part of the opposition in the last proposal. The last proposal was poorly formulated anyway, it never had a chance. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think a new proposal need a better intro. I think that "lets do as Commons do" is the wrong start. It should be more like "WMF decided that ..... lets honor their wishes and make Wikipedia more free" or something like that. No need to mention Commons as a main argument. --MGA73 (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: I believe the WMF has some plan to phase out GFDL entirely sitting in the fridge. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oooo. I have spend many hours trying to end the license migration project. So I would love to see things getting more standardized. Right now I work on ja.wiki and uk.wiki. --MGA73 (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I started on a suggestion at User:MGA73/GFDL. You are welcome to comment/modify. --MGA73 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I posted it at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Restrict_uploads_of_GFDL. --MGA73 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, I was planning to look at this again but half forgot and half got caught up in some big abadi scandal. I'm slightly concerned with the "The content is licensed GFDL by someone else than the uploader on Wikipedia." exception. Two photographers could make a deal to upload each other's photos. Kinda disruptive, but technically allowed under these rules. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly removed the proposal from VPP so the wording can be tweaked. Sorry again for not responding sooner, but I'd hate to see the proposal fail because it needed a few tweaks and have to wait a year before it can be brought up again. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is not a guarantee but I think it is hard to make it bullit proof. But go ahead and give it a try. --MGA73 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Any further comments/suggestions or are we ready to go? --MGA73 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, I see Pandakekok9 also noticed the proposal, so it has been proofread by one more user. Yeah, I think it's good. I bumped the deadline as the voting/discussion could last beyond 1 June, also did some more copy editing. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted again Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Restricting_GFDL-licensed_uploads. Thank you for your help. --MGA73 (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Masem support to restrict GFDL for Wikipedians but not for third party sources. As you know it is not easy to implement because it is possible to get passed that by uploading to Flickr and then to Wikipedia.

How are the rules/practice for modifications of a suggestion in progress? If Masem (or any one else) knows a good third party source could we then add that to the exceptions list? I never heard of such a source but if it exist I'm not totally refusing to make an exception. --MGA73 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, don't modify a proposal in progress. It would invalidate all the votes. Masem, I added a note to remind users that if the need would actually arise (which is highly theoretical at this point), a new vote could establish consensus to make an exception for a specific source. Because many Wikipedians are active on various self-published sources, policy that only limits Wikipedians is difficult to write. (suggestions always welcome) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes it would be possible to make future exceptions so I think it is a good idea to mention that. --MGA73 (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did some checks: A single user upload most of the files licensed GFDL-only: 2019: 83%, 2020: 95% and 2021: 100% The files uploaded by other users can be seen at User:MGA73/sandbox. If we bothered to check all the files we might find some copyvios or files that should be relicensed. --MGA73 (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, I had already taken some to AfD. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great! --MGA73 (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had a new look on GFDL files and if we exclude those with GFDL-self or GFDL-user etc. there are not that many files: click here. And it seems that if you check the files from the bottom and up then most have a wrong license or can actually be moved to Commons because they are DW of existing files. I moved 2 files to Commons. I wonder if we should work a little on that because it seems that no new GFDL file have been uploaded in 2020 ans 2021 that is not bad or own and with a little work we can probably "push" the limit back to include 2019 too. --MGA73 (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Special:ListFiles/HilaireFernandes thinks that if the program is GPL (perhaps thinks it is ~GFDL) then the screendumps have to be that too. I wonder if it is even copyrighted. --MGA73 (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, {{GPL screenshot}}. Those screenshots (3 out of 4) are probably not eligible for copyright protection as they mostly represent math. Though it depends on the country of origin, but I'm not sure how to determine that for an open source program. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wrote to 2 users and will check out more files later. --MGA73 (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was thinking of adding some more information about the files:

"There have been questions about the number of files and some said that we should not say now to freely licensed files from external sources. So I checked a bit to find out more about the files.

There is no easy way to find information about deleted files so the numbers above does not include deleted files.

There are 1,350 files in Category:Wikipedia license migration not eligible that have no creative commons license. It is fewer than the 1380 I mentioned earlier but some have been deleted as copyvios, some was licensed wrong and a few users relicensed. 1,004 files are own work (have the templates GFDL-self, GFDL-user or self) and 346 files are not marked clearly as own work.

After the change of license in 2009 there were still many uploads but the number dropped and in 2017 there was only 13 uploads. When Commons restricted use of GFDL in 15 October 2018 the number increased. 395 files are uploaded after that date (some are an edited version of an older upload).

• Of the 395 files 365 is uploaded by 1 user and all uploads in 2021 is made by that user.
• Of the 395 files only 3 are not marked as own work. 1 of the files is a copyvio now nominated for deletion and 2 files that are derivated from files licensed bot GFDL and cc-by-sa-3.0 so they should be relicensed.

So the numbers show that it is only wikipedians that still use GFDL and it is primary one user."

What do you think of that? --MGA73 (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated numbers a bit. A user relicensed a few files. It makes it tricky to give the correct numbers. --MGA73 (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch Special:Diff/1025162718. I was actually wondering why someone used that. So my plan was to go look for it but I forgot. It makes no sense why totally new users should upload with GFDL and send a permission to OTRS suggesting GFDL. I wonder if there is other things like this... --MGA73 (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, from some file histories I found Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Header, {{Permission from license selector}} and {{Non-commercial from license selector}}. Who knows, there might be more out there. 2020 will likely get cleared completely. (not counting Jonathunder) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I found Template:File source and Template:UploaderHints that needs to be fixed too. --MGA73 (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol got an EC on template 2... Perhaps PD-self should be changed to Cc-zero instead but thats another task. --MGA73 (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, I thought I added both. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did but I mean in general. Hopefully removing GFDL will help. --MGA73 (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps change Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags#For_image_creators and write "not recommended" next to GFDL? --MGA73 (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, I'll do you one better. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, it appears you didn't ask UNC2 about licensing. Was there a reason I don't know about why you didn't ask? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only reason is that last edit was 1 year ago. But go ahead and give it a try! :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en-ownwork and MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en-withpermission suggest GFDL too. MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en-internet also mention GFDL. Wanna suggest a fix? --MGA73 (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Donating_your_photographs? --MGA73 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_China/Cartography#Licensing, Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Transportation task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Japan/Photo_task_force#Scope_and_goals, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Players#GFDL_Images etc. --MGA73 (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, you ping me I ping you back. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I think if we search the Wikipedia pages we will probably be able to find other cases. I'm not sure about Wikipedia_talk:Basic_copyright_issues#GFDL_is_outdated but I think that now we found out that the reason someone use GFDL may be old templates, wikipedia pages etc. then we can do something about it. I think you found the main problem allready!!! --MGA73 (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few more: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/copyright#Rationalising_fair_use, Wikipedia:Did you know/Image, Wikipedia:Use_rationale_examples#Historical_photographs, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_districts#Licence, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_states#Licence, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_cities#Licence. It will take forever to find all places GFDL is mentioned. I wonder if there is a better way. Other than restrict use of GFDL ^_^ --MGA73 (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Above we have been talking about GFDL on English Wikipedia. But I think that it would also be good to discuss GFDL Wiki-wide. In m:User:MGA73/Media per wiki I have been making notes about GFDL for some Wikis. But I think there are several things that should be discussed/checked:

1. Smaller wikis should consider to direct all free files to Commons.
2. If they allow local upload they should at least remove GFDL as a suggested license on MediaWiki:Licenses and all other pages (clean up like we started to do here on English Wikipedia).
3. They should also consider to restrict uploads with GFDL.
4. Have the implemented the license update of existing files? For example (|migration=relicense) if the file is old.
5. If they have many GFDL-only files perhaps they should write to the top uploaders and ask for a relicense.

Some may say sure lets ban it but other wikis may say no. But at least they should be asked to decide. It will take some time to reach out for all wikis and help them check and fix. But if we make a good standard text in English it should be easier. I do not know if the global mass message system will be a good way or it is better to check before we make a post? --MGA73 (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a user on another project and user had not been active for 3 years (only 7 users used GFDL so I wrote to all). Then I got a reply next day that user had not been active on xxwiki for a long time but he would have a look. If you know how mass messages work you could send a standard letter to user asking if they would relicense. Just make sure to exclude those that allready said clear no ;-) Personally I'm not sure I would like to spend the time on it. I would rather focus on other wikis.

When is it time to close this proposal and who usually does that? --MGA73 (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, good questions but I don't actually know the answer. I have limited wiki-time right now, please ask again in a few days. The last vote was two days ago so no rush. Mass message is unlikely to be of any use. (under 20 messages you might as well deliver by hand anyway) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, automatic archiving (if no further votes or comments are added) would happen in 5 days or so. If more comments or votes are added in the next days, I say let it continue. If not, I'd suggest adding {{Do not archive until}} or a comment and making a request at Wikipedia:Closure requests. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a new vote so we have a few more days before it will be archived. I have been trying to remove GFDL on wikis worldwide. I found out that if I follow the Wikidata link on the pages where enwiki mentioned GFDL there might be GFDL on other wikis too. I have also asked users on a few wikis if they would relicense their files on their own. It is not easy on wikis that do not use latin letters and especially not if they write right-to-left. --MGA73 (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The proposal was made more than 30 days ago so I think it would be possible to ask for closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests. If that is needed. Or perhaps I/you/someone could just close it? If you are not sure do you know anyone we could ask? --MGA73 (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If not perhaps Fastily knows? --MGA73 (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, you sure you want to rush this? Votes are still dripping in and the most recent ones are supportive, probably partly because of the information provided in the discussion. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see it as rushing. The proposal is that it should have effect on July 1 so it should be closed before that date. Otherwise we will have a situation where files can be uploaded as GFDL according to existing standards but suddenly are judged illegal.

But yes I noticed that there was a few more "support". My latest count is 21 support (including me) and 9 oppose (including 2 ip-users). If we exclude the ip users then it is 75 % support. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, this is why in the Commons proposal I had worded that as "one month after the proposal passes". I see now on Wikipedia:Closure requests that "it takes two or three weeks after a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor". I guess the request has to be made about now in that case. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I originally made the proposal there were a loooong time to that date... :-D The first point say that if there is a clear concensus then it does not need a formal closure on that page. It also says "When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.". So perhaps I should just ask Fastily or someone else for advice? --MGA73 (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, I suppose so. The consensus seems reasonably clear to you and to me but we're biased. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we are. That is why I think we should look for someone uninvolved. Do you have someone in mind? --MGA73 (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, well, you named Fastily and Fastily didn't vote.. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I asked for advice. Lets see what happens. --MGA73 (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The advice was to ask at Wikipedia:Closure requests. So lets do that if no more votes/comments pop in soon. --MGA73 (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made the request now. Lets see what happens. --MGA73 (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Hope you are doing fine! The proposal was archived so I moved it back and added a 30 day "do not archive...". We are now past 1 July 2021 so I made a comment about it at the "Closure request". I hope someone will close it soon and that there are no problems. Once it is closed I imagine that some policy have to be changed (if approved that is). Do you know what needs to be fixed? --MGA73 (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS A MILLION!!! For your help with GFDL. --MGA73 (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, you're most welcome! — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I prepared a proposal on Commons: c:User:MGA73/GFDLproposal. My idea is that we change the cutoff date on Commons to match the one on enwiki. That will make it possible to move all GFDL-only files from all wikis to Commons. It will not make it possible for users to upload new GFDL-only files. It will not make a big difference for enwiki because enwiki has thousands of files but other wikis can move their files to Commons. Provided they do not upload more files with GFDL-only of course. But I made many wikis remove GFDL from the list of suggested licenses and I also removed it from various templates and pages like the you/we did here on enwiki. So I hope there will be no more GFDL-only uploaded to any wiki. Do you have any suggestions? --MGA73 (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, I'm not sure if this is actually a good idea. At least you should take stock of exactly which files would be affected. Based on User:Alexis Reggae/GFDL file list not many I guess, especially if Jonathunder could be convinced to change license. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to estimate the number based on the files on English Wikipedia and the files in the other language versions of the sub categories of Category:Wikipedia license migration. The task is to find GFDL-only files that are uploaded after 15 October 2018 not copied from other wikis. The problem problem is that not all wikis finished the license migration and some GFDL files are not eligible for relicense but are licensed cc-by-2.5 for example so they are not GFDL-only. That means we can't assume that all files in Category:Wikipedia license migration not eligible (and Category:Wikipedia license migration candidates) are GFDL-only. Also on some wikis many of the GFDL-files are copyvios and they should be deleted and not included in the number. Do you have a good way to find the number of files? --MGA73 (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, not really, but perhaps it's more interesting to focus on those categories. As you note that on some wikis many GFDL-files are copyvios, I doubt this would end well. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I think old GFDL files are more likely to be copyvios than new GFDL files. Anyway I will check again to see if 2000 files is realistic or not. I think if I check random wikis to see how many GFDL files they have. --MGA73 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Based on the wording are files uploaded today acceptable or not? See Special:ListFiles/Jonathunder. --MGA73 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, I noticed, and no, files uploaded today are not acceptable. Wikipedia:Image use policy: not permitted if "The content was licensed on or after 1 August 2021". Jonathunder either forgot or this is the result of timezone confusion. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I counted the number of files on the top 50 wikis and the total number is about 3300 files. Many have FOP issues or are copyvios. I think it would also be possible to persuade uploader to relicense. So my guess is still 2000 files. I updated the page with some info.

Yeah timezones may be the problem. I will leave a message. --MGA73 (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, I already had. And I'd suggest cleaning up the copyvios, tagging the files with FoP issues, tagging personal user files that shouldn't be moved to Commons and persuading uploaders to change license first. Chances are next to nothing will be left afterwards, little that's worth moving to Commons. Jonathunder's photos are an exception, but policy for one user is always bad policy. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not suggest the change to get the files moved from English Wikipedia. I try to move free files from all wikis to Commons and sadly many wikis have not fixed MediaWiki:Licenses and other pages before I started to mention it. I would like to kick start a global efford to update licenses and clean up files and Commons have users from many coutries so I hope we can fix many problems by asking users of Commons to help out globally. I bet only a few users WANT to use GFDL. Many just did it because it was recommended or they used it earlier. I hope that now English Wikipedia banned GFDL it will be easier to get the other wikis to do the same. It is hard to clean up wikis when categories do not have a interwiki links. For example "ജി.എഫ്.ഡി.എൽ ചിത്രങ്ങൾ" is not something I understand. Some wikis does not even categorize files by license. And many wikis have lots of files without a license. Once the licenses and categories are set up and they have categories like "All free files" and "All non-free files" then it is easy to find files without a license. So I have tried to stop new files from being uploaded as GFDL and by changing policy on Commons wikis have a chance to move all free files to Commons. Basicly the task is to check all files from A to Z and move good files to Commons and nominate bad files for deletion. --MGA73 (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A dude on hr.wiki with 700+ GFDL-only files. Sadly he is blocked. But I decided to send him a mail to try to persuade him to relicense. I was thinking that if there are any users with big amounts of files then it might be worth it to send a mail. Even if they are no longer active. --MGA73 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, hrwiki is a hornets' nest. You should consult with a native speaker (I don't know any), but assuming this is about Andrija1234567 it doesn't look good. They were asked on their talk page to start uploading to Commons, more than once. And they said Hvala na pomoći, imam još dosta svjetlopisa koje bih postavljao. Nisu mi stvari baš najjasnije oko licenci jer ih ima dosta, dosta sam sam uradio, ali neke planiram da svjetlopišem i iz knjiga, pa ne znam koliko je to dopušteno, uglavnom portrete osoba. I želim da se stavlja tako da druge Wikipedije, sem hr ne mogu koristiti svjetlopise. Ne znam ni koju licencu da koristim najbolje.. Machine translation says "And I want it put in so that other Wikipedia, other than hr, can't use photos." You'll need a native speaker to confirm this is accurate. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh.... Well yes that was him. As I understand it it is because of fair use that discussion. But I will ask a local user for help. I have talked to two extremy helpful users and they seems very interessted in getting things fixed. --MGA73 (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made the proposal now at c:Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Change_the_cutoff_date_for_files_licensed_GFDL-only. I hope you will support because it is not made for English Wikipedia but to make it easier to empty smaller Wikipedias by moving all free files to Commons. As written in the proposal most wikis have removed GFDL from the list of licenses to choose during upload so hopefylly users will not upload new files with GFDL-only. --MGA73 (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, I know that technically speaking I'm no longer blocked, but it's not quite that simple. Also, I quite possibly would have never found your proposal if you hadn't told me about it, so in a sense this might be considered canvassing by some. Any controversy wouldn't help your proposal. I'm impressed by m:User:MGA73/Media per wiki, maybe I can contribute somehow there. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have worked together on en.wiki and I mentioned you in my proposal so I doubt anyone would finde it strange that I tell you about it. :-)

Earlier I used to pick a wiki and work on that but it can take forever to fix a wiki so I made my list on meta and started to check a more wikis at the same time and try to kick start a cleanup by local users.

I have some quaries like vi:Thành_viên:MGA73/Status#Ideas_and_things_to_work_on I find useful. It does not take long to make a copy and modify it for a new wiki. I care most about free files and files without a license. Latest list resulted in hr:Kategorija:Neodgovarajući sadržaj 31. prosinca 2021. - slike bez licencija.

Usually I begin with finding out if they have categories like Category:All free media and similar for non-free media. If not I set them up so I can make lists of files without a license. I also try to add interwiki on license templates and categories for licenses. It makes it much easier to find out what a license is when we can see the English version. On hr.wiki they only had GFDL with disclaimers so I made them create one without disclaimers and asked users if they would remove the disclaimers and add cc-license too. If a wiki have not started the license migration I set that up too. Once all templates and categories are okay then a post to admins or village pump with a notice that they should cleanup. Sometimes I help out with my bot too. Also setting up FileImporter so it works and converts templates correctly during transfer to Commons. The latest few months I have focused on GFDL and trying to get wikis to stop using that.

You are very welcome to help out. If you have ideas to do it smarter feel free to let me know. --MGA73 (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do you think aglobal ban suggestion on meta would work? See discussion on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)--MGA73 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive332#Large_batch_deletion_probably_needed has been archived.

Xeno pinged me yesterday in their talk page, but I just don't understand what they say at User_talk:Xeno#Iranian_abadis and I don't want to pester them with my deletion requests. What is exactly the stumbling block? Could you perhaps provide a "for dummies" version? Is manpower needed? If yes, then I can provide it. I just want to finish this project on Iranian abadis as soon as possible, because I have been dealing with them for at least two months in at least two projects and I don't want to see anymore of it. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4nn1l2: I think Xeno wants to create redirects where appropriate, but it's unclear to me exactly which articles/redirects they want to create redirects for. So I can't really help either beyond the creation of {{subst:ABADI}} which I hope might speed up whatever Xeno wants to do. Btw, there is a similar mass deletion request for Azerbaijan articles created by Carlossuarrez46: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Azerbaijan articles created by Carlossuarrez46. You had actually voted on the original request but that was archived. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Majidabad-e Ardalan redirect to Majidabad? 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These have the same condition, i.e. a very specific place name goes to a general disambiguation page. I think dab pages should redirect readers from general pages to specific ones, not vice versa.

• Amirabad, Ilam to Amirabad?
• Mokhtarabad, Jiroft to Mokhtarabad?
• Mohammadabad, Qanavat to Mohammadabad?
• Karimabad-e Kaffeh to Karimabad?
• Amirabad, Kashan to Amirabad?
• Soltanabad, Sarbisheh to Soltanabad?
• Mohammadabad-e Tabatbayi to Mohammadabad?
• Mehdiabad, Shahdad to Mehdiabad, Iran?
• Do Ab, Khuzestan to Do Ab?
• Do Ab-e Alishahi to Do Ab?
• Aliabad Zare to Aliabad?
• Hoseynabad-e Kachali to Hoseynabad?
• Akbarabad-e Do to Akbarabad?
• Soltanabad-e Tanbali to Soltanabad?
• Hasanabad-e Gudarz to Hasanabad?
• Mazraeh-ye Gorgan-e Bitaraf to Gorgan (disambiguation)?

This one may be correct, but not necessarily:

• Why does Zazul mention the Iranian abadi at all? Y

These are definitely wrong:

• Baba Adam (Iran) to Baba Adam Shahid (Bengal) N
• Tang-e Shur to Tang-e Shur-e Olya by you N

These are correct and understandable:

• Chubdar Y
• Akbarabad-e Olya Y
• Sarsari Y

I'm still trying to understand what Xeno had in mind. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4nn1l2, Ymblanter made these, I don't think they are needed either. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong ones have been created by you :)

Let's ping @Ymblanter: and know what they think about these redirects. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to nominate these for XfD. For the time being, I am creating these redirects because I do not think there is community consensus on whether they are needed or not.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail. Regards, Heiro 21:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It gives me a chuckle. I want it. jp×g 00:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, go ahead! I actually stole it from User talk:MjolnirPants. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Google Book page preview, here are few other tricks I learned over the years: 1) Amazon will sometimes offer a preview just like Google Books, usually for newer books 2) rarely, a copy of a book can be found on Internet Archive - usually for older works 3) then there are the 'shadow libraries' like Library Genesis or Z-Library. Those are very useful indeed, although there are 'minor ethical issues to consider :> Oh, and books aside, check out the Wikipedia:Library. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, thanks! I'll be trying these. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this thread I filed. TAXIDICAE💰 21:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, I am, thank you. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 11:37 Qala‎ diffhist −16‎ Alexis Jazz talk contribs Rm links from disambig pages to Abadi and Azerbaijan stubs per request, report errors if you spot any rollback
• m 11:25 Kambu (disambiguation)‎ diffhist −78‎ Alexis Jazz talk contribs Rm links from disambig pages to Abadi and Azerbaijan stubs per request, report errors if you spot any rollback
• m 11:25 Kaleh‎ diffhist −24‎ Alexis Jazz talk contribs Rm links from disambig pages to Abadi and Azerbaijan stubs per request, report errors if you spot any rollback

YOu are probably running twinkle or some other automation. Please be careful with edit summaries. Wron summaries create confusion and waste of time for other wikipedianss. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lembit Staan, what's wrong about it? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it is that it's not literally 100% exactly the problem that was initially reported on Ymblanter's user page, well this evolved from trying to solve that and the solution is the same. The general request was "clean up after yourselves" and that's what I'm doing. The articles either are or will be deleted and shouldn't be redlinked either. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your edit summaries create confusion. If you are cleaning after yourself, do it in proper order: first delete the page, then delink it. By the way, Kalleh, Kermanshah is not your article, so you cannot possibly do a "clean up after yourselves" . Lembit Staan (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for article deletion, please follow the procedure: prod or AfD. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Oh, I looked at Ymblanter's. OK never mind. If nobody notices what you are doing, in means nobody cares about these thousands of villages. My solution would be merge/redirect (I did this several times), but I agree it would be huge waste of time for nonnotable things. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lembit Staan, no problem! I'm not an admin, so I can't delete first but the admins are working on it and they have their hands full so I try to help out a little. And it's a little safer to delink before some unrelated article gets created/moved with the same title as one of these stubs. The deletion has already been approved, otherwise I wouldn't delink. You are so far the only one to have noticed these links to thousands of villages going away. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you opened the can of worms, Alexis Jazz and now you are tired :) While Carlos was not good at Persian, cleaning up the mess he left behind should be done by those who seem to have absolutely no clues about Persian or Iranian languages. What a sad story is happening on the English Wikipeida with all these misinformation about Iran :( Special:Permalink/1021087860 was a funny mishmash of Persian, Mazandarani, Arabic, and who knows[?] maybe other Middle Eastern things. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Thanks for moving the files I requested. I have a question though, why was File:Psycho-Cybernetics book cover (fair use).jpg renamed with (fair use) in the filename?Jonteemil (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto File:Love Tracks (Gloria Gaynor album) (fair use).jpg.Jonteemil (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonteemil, I've been meaning to start a discussion about that on a village pump. I generally add that to avoid (future) conflict with Commons. Since Commons doesn't allow fair use, adding that guarantees it'll never end up in Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons. In the case of that book cover, someone might upload it to Commons as PD-ineligible. Discussion may or may not follow and in the meantime it would sit in Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons. It can also happen that Commons fails to notice/delete the upload (example, local PD-USonly copy, DR for the same logo, see also c:Category:Sky logos) while enwiki decides it should remain local. In that case, the file would have to be moved again and that's what I want to avoid. For the Gloria Gaynor album, my idea is that someone may take a photo of the vinyl or CD (or perhaps a localized cover or re-release that might be PD-ineligible) for use on a Wikipedia without fair use and name it the same. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I mean, I get your thinking, however I'm not sure how clever it is to do something which hasn't been decided on. Then maybe it is better to first ask, then decide and thirdly apply the newly decided-upon policy. But then we both now that deciding something like this doesn't really get much attention so a decision often takes quite some time, and I guess being bold then isn't such a bad idea, if one's intentions are good. I was afterall the one who asked you to be just that earlier... and yes I know my critique might seem a bit hypocritical...Jonteemil (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonteemil, np, I get it. Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Recommendation for file (re)naming. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been courteous to notify me that my uploads were being discussed above. Jonathunder (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathunder, assuming you are talking about Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Restricting GFDL-licensed uploads, an example was asked for. You were the first search result. Per WP:CANVAS I couldn't ping you. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are still working on {{Not public domain/LangSwitch}} and related templates, so I won't modify them yet, but that template is calling three nonexistent templates that may need to be created or removed from the new templates (they may not be needed in this single-language wiki). Note that at least one of those was already deleted, so proceed with care and make sure you justify the recreation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, I see, thank you for reporting this. The main template {{Not public domain}} was working fine, so I hadn't noticed. After testing it turned out that the LangSwitch wasn't even working and just always returning English. (which is fine locally anyway) So I replaced {{Not public domain/LangSwitch}} with a dummy that always returns English, this should resolve the problem. I want to keep the dummy so the main template could be synchronized with the Commons template and vice versa with relative ease. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. The only remaining page with transclusions of these templates is User:Alexis Jazz/sandbox3. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, oh, I had used that in preview when I was creating the template. It's gone. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is done.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NeoBatfreak, Thank you! — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Aiel and Shara map is here. All the maps are there at the Wiki Wheel of Time. I didn't know the issues to especially delete them, but ok. Can we keep the Randland map? Can you contribute to more resources to the World of the Wheel? It's one of the best Fantasy worlds in all high fantasy fiction. We can improve it further. it's also a D&D 3,5 companion book, but it's not that great. Can we improve it? Regards: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Elan Morin Tedronai, one fair use image per article is generally acceptable (Randland is the one in the top infobox, right?), though this map could get replaced with a logo or book cover if that's more appropriate. Don't link/upload anything from Fandom, we can't verify the authenticity of anything you find there. I know nothing about the World of the Wheel, just passing by. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For making me laugh with your comment about an automatic article link bot. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry but I couldn't understand how can I do it. I didn't see any conversion option from zim to txt or an option to download only text in the wiki DUMP site.

Thank you! רן כהן (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFemale_genital_mutilation&type=revision&diff=1026725254&oldid=1026720859

That summary's a personal attack and you should know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.8.90 (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You erased it because you know I'm right, you sanctimonious hypocrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.8.90 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were eaten by WikiJaguars, twice. You said It's also discriminatory and hypocritical that this article has no before/after photo but the male version of the article does.. Did it ever occur to you that maybe there simply isn't a freely licensed image available? And for the male variant there are medical justifications, some health benefits and limited downsides. For the female variant, there is absolutely no health benefit and no medical justification but the downsides are massive. That's why they are named differently. I'm all for gender equality, except for the situations in which men and women are actually different. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing what I forgot. To not notify the uploaders was intentional, sine the bot does this for you, but to tag each file was not. If you would've contacted me I would of course have righted my wrong but because of you I didn't have to :).Jonteemil (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ABADI has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. (I didn't nominate the template, someone else did, and they didn't notify you) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery, thank you. This was a temporary template that was substed in a number of places. It's no longer needed so I tagged it for G7. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexis Jazz. I didn't realize until after I pinged you from Commons that you're no longer able to edit there. My apologies for that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly, no problem. I think the photos on Amazon are more likely to be PD. I've already taken a look to see if they are salvagable (as the scan is too bright) and I have a good version now. But I defer to Clindberg when it comes to copyright status, so I'm not uploading yet. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That set of three photos might be a possibility. None of them are exactly the same as the one that was being discussed at FFD, but they do seem capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose as that non-free one. FWIW, I wasn't trying to be curt with you about NFCC#1 and images of still-living people, but there are quite a lot of threads buried in the WT:NFCC going way way back in which sthe subject has been discussed and none of them ever seem to have gotten very far. There's actually a discussion currently ongoing started by someone who feels an exemption should be made, but it's not gaining much tranction. Perhaps the only way to achieve such a change would be a well-participated RFC in which the question would simply be "Should non-free images of still living persons be allowed in the main infoboxes of BLP articles?" Of course, things aren't going to be that simple but starting out simple might make it easier to reach a consenus one way or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly, thanks, I'll have a look at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 39#Exemption proposal. Now, looking at the high resolution image I restored from Amazon, I fear Clindberg is right: the horizontal lines seem to suggest it would be a wirephoto. It could in theory be the result of the scanner the Amazon seller used, but that feels like grasping at straws. Atsme, thanks for improving the source information. It's important for verifiability if nothing else. The FfD is closed so I couldn't comment there anymore. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharif Sheikh Ahmed leadpic was replaced, which was a good idea. So I went to Commons and cropped it [1]. Now it looks weird (for me at least) on WP but not here [2]. I'm hoping this may be some sort of "hiccup" that will resolve itself sooner or later, but if you have any helpful wisdom. Pinging AmirahBreen if you also wonder. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, cache issue? I don't see a problem? And why didn't I think of PD-Somalia? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. And actually, I also just wondered why you didn't think of PD-Somalia. It could have saved a byte or two. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:LuckyRename.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 23:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mifter, the file has a license, why is the bot bugging me? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your script User:Alexis Jazz/LuckyRename.js apparently transcludes {{Db-r4}} and hence shows up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Could you try to make it not come up in the category please? —Kusma (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma,  Done — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: Why is the contents tilted and how can I make it that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Master of Hedgehogs (talk • contribs) 14:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Master of Hedgehogs, put

<div style="-moz-transform:rotate(2deg);-webkit-transform:rotate(2deg); transform:rotate(2deg);position:relative;margin:3em 0 3em 0;">__TOC__</div>

at or near the top of your talk page. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Master of Hedgehogs, I forgot to answer the "why" question. The answer is "because reasons." — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

better images

Thank you for quality articles such as Clodagh McKenna and Capitol Hill's mystery soda machine, for uploading images and using them well, for renaming images, for having Kitty navigate, for missing SlimVirgin, - Alexis, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2630 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 6, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 18:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you move File:International Chopin Piano Competition of 1932 poster.jpg to File:Poster of the 2nd Chopin Competition.jpg please? That would be in line with all the other posters (File:Poster of the 1st Chopin Competition.jpg, File:Poster of the 4th Chopin Competition.jpg, ..., File:Poster of the 17th Chopin Competition.jpg). Not sure why you chose to deviate from the rename request. Thanks. intforce (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intforce, because the article title is "II International Chopin Piano Competition" (not using "2nd" or "3rd" etc), but English language sources don't seem to follow the roman numerals either. The year was the only thing that was consistent in style, it seemed a slightly better option than the request. I was unaware you uploaded these as a set though, so I moved it again. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The naming is like that because I started with File:Poster of the 18th Chopin Competition.png, which had "18th Chopin Competition" on the poster, and after that I wanted to keep it consistent. Could you fix the typo in File:Poster of the 3th Chopin Competition.jpg as well? Much appreciated. intforce (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]