User talk:Mifter

STOP! If your question regards things like Copyvio, License and Something-like-that, please read this!. Please also note that I'm using a Bot to put the messages in your talk page so excuse it if it makes errors. Usually, if you are the author of the picture it can be enough to add only {{PD-Self}} otherwise search the license here! And all will be ok. If the problem regards Bot-Problems (for example, if it's too fast or something like that..) or something else, don't be shy and notify me ASAP. Thanks and All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

“	Criticism is something you can avoid by saying nothing, doing nothing, and being nothing.	”
—Aristotle

English: Welcome to the Commons, Mifter!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--SieBot 20:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

CrusaderGandhy

Your bot found my uploaded file without a licence tag. The Upload was a mistake, could you please help me to delete the file. I already made a delete request to WikiCommons but I'm not sure if I did it correctly. Would be very nice, if you can help me delete the file [[1]]. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrusaderGandhy (talk • contribs) 12:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your message. It looks like the file has been deleted. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ripped off your user page

I didn't think you would mind and I also wanted to thank you. I do a decent amount of PD reviews and the The Flickr review tags on your user page will save me so much time rather then going to notepad. And to make it better the date changes automatically. I love it. It's barnstar worthy. Thank you, -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you find it useful! I tweaked the version you copied to your userpage (you accidentally added a double || which would cause the template to fail upon use) but cannot take full credit as I was given the template by another reviewer many years ago. Cheers, Mifter (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Well the thanks is still earned. You just saved me a lot of trouble with that bit! Thanks again. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

permisson includes license, bot not notices it?

i am a little unsure, i used video2commons to upload File:180522-alpaca-spinnen-gotthard-passhöhe-silent.webm, and put a license into "permissions". the bot does not take it there, i misspelled it or i misunderstood the field? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello ThurnerRupert! The bot tagged your file because it did not have a file copyright tag on the image. In this case based on the permission information you have provided in text I have added the tag to the image. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wanda_Janina_Pazio.jpg

Hello. A new version of a file you were previously involved in deleting is in current deletion discussion. Here's the link if you wish to comment. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wanda_Janina_Pazio.jpg Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

File:DC3-Air France F-BCYV - Collection Air France.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Suzy1919#File:DC3-Air_France_F-BCYV_-_Collection_Air_France.jpg Hello @MifterBot: How should I enter the right license corresponding to the stamp behind the picture allowing free use of the image under mentionning "Collection Air France"?. I wish to get better but reading all processes did not give me the answer. I loaded bottom side the picture to give sufficient information to guide me to enter the proper license to display( (it's a free use under mentionning "Collection Air France").

File:DC3-Air_France-Droits.jpg

Kind regards

--Suzy1919 (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Suzy1919, thank you for your note. From what you have said, it sounds like {{Attribution}} is the license for the work as it allows unrestricted use but requires you credit the author/copyright holder. Please free free to let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Mifter (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The Institute of Heraldry

(Crossposted on the bot's talk page)

You have tagged several images as "not having licensing inormation" including:

File:560 Flying Training Sq emblem.png

File:Vermont Air National Guard emblem.png

File:542 Logistic Support Sq emblem.png

Your notice states that the entry is "a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license." While technically true, it strikes me that this is a bit of Wikilawyering. The template:

This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia produced by the United States Army Institute of Heraldry. It is in the public domain but its use is restricted by Title 18, United States Code, Section 704 [2] and the Code of Federal Regulations (32 CFR, Part 507) [3], [4]. Permission to use these images in the USA for most commercial purposes must be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry prior to their use.

Establishes that these images are in the public domain and is used for over 13,000 images. I believe you should, therefore, remove your notices. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your message. As you may have gathered, I personally did not post the notices on your talk page, rather a robot script did. This script is designed to ensure that all uploads have a license template and to tag for further review those that do not (subject to various fail-safes, etc.) Looking at the examples you have provided, when you uploaded them (here and here) the template you listed was {{PD- -Military-Army-USAIOH}} which is not a valid license, rather an (understandable) typo. Therefore, the bot performed as designed by tagging the images as without a valid license and per the page histories you, minutes later, fixed the template with edit summaries that said as much. This appears to have occurred for two of the images over a month ago while you did not correct a third and it was later deleted. You are correct that {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH}} is a valid license which is widely used, however your images did not originally contain that template and they were tagged with an invalid license. While I am sorry you did not correct one of the typos, the image was deleted, and you had to re-upload it, you should feel free to delete the now-resolved notices as their purpose was served and the bot performed as designed in catching the typo-template. Please feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Mifter (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

PD-GallicaScan

Today I've started getting 'invalid license' for uploads that I've been doing using

This file might NOT be in the public domain. It was previously considered to be in the public domain because it is a scan (or similar) by the Bibliotheque Nationale de France, but not everything scanned by the BNF is automatically in the public domain. It is possible that this file is in the public domain for other reasons, for example because it was published a long time ago (anything before ca. 1900 is most likely ok) or because its author / artist / photographer died over 70 years ago and it was published over 95 years ago. In such cases, a new rationale should be applied, and a different license tag (see Commons:Licensing and valid license tags at Commons:Copyright tags) should be used. If the file is not found to be in the public domain, it might be nominated for deletion (NOT by any automatic process, but manually). See below for the previous rationale (not applicable anymore).

Previous public domain rationale, no longer applicable
This image from the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) is a reproduction by scanning of a bidimensional work that is now in the public domain ({{PD-scan}}). For this reason, it is in the public domain.

Although it's a template, my understanding is that if it's from Gallica Scan, it is in the public domain so I don't understand what else is required. I've been uploading thousands of images using PD-GallicaScan since April of this year and this is the first time this has been an issue. Can you clarify please?

Here's one of the images that generated an alert: File:Lockheed Vega 5 L'Air December 15,1928.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuffy Carrot (talk • contribs)

Some of your uploads had a typo (PD_GallicaScan). That's why the alerts were generated. Abzeronow (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Abzeronow for replying and rectifying the typo. Best, Mifter (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Mifterbot …

… is telling me that {{PD-shape}} is “not a valid license”. Useddenim (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Useddenim. My bot tagged your file because when you uploaded the images, you forgot one "{" on the template. As "{PD-shape}}" is not a license template (though clearly a typo), they were tagged by my bot and you were notified. It looks like you corrected the mistake and that the bot functioned as designed. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Eric Garcetti in Suit and Tie (cropped).jpg

Okay this image was created by CropTool using a FLICKR APPROVED photo -> File:Eric Garcetti in Suit and Tie.jpg So if the cropped version is nominated for "speedy deletion" why isn't the original one that was flickr approved? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your note. After the speedy tag on the crop, I went over and was going to tag the main image for deletion until I saw that it was verified at the time of upload to be CC-BY. It appears the Flickr user changed to a more restrictive license (though I did not know that when I looked only at your upload) which is why I initially tagged your image for deletion. I reverted my tags after seeing the original image was verified as CC-BY because Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable and your crop is under the original license. I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience this may have caused. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Louis_Shotridge_in_Cape_Fox_Village,_1924.jpg license has been added but the lack of license warning is still there.

Hi there, when I first uploaded the picture of Louis Shotridge, I got a warning saying that it didn't have a license on it. I have since fixed it by adding a proper license to it but the warning is still there. I'm pretty sure I've done it right so I'm wondering why the warning is still there? Thanks in advance for your time and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TahamiTsunami (talk • contribs) 21:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi there TahamiTsunami, thank you for your note and adding a license. I have removed the tag from the image. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Seyi Shay 2.jpg

Hi Mifter, I received a message from your bot regarding the image linked above. Can you please delete said image. I cropped it from another image that is licensed under the creative commons license. I no longer need the image. Versace1608 (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Versace1608, thanks for the note. Per your request I have tagged the image for deletion. Best, Mifter (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Photos with permissions already requested

Hi Mifter, I'm writing about 5 photos (two with Vito Bongiorno: Vito Bongiorno 02.jpg, Vito Bongiorno 01.jpg (file)) which I took from Facebook with th authorization by him (AT https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10211176239140613&set=a.1422190793573&type=3&theater and AT https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204973529436747&set=a.1422190793573&type=3&theater) and sent the mail to Luca Grasso and later to Permissions Wikipedia but with no answer. The other three photos were shot by Vito Bongiorno himself and sent to me: I had his permission to load them on Wikimedia and sent his mail to your Permissions for getting the OTRS, but until now it is not written on them. These are the photos: Oltre, by Vito Bongiorno.jpg ------Linea d'ombra, by Vito Lombardo.jpg ------Handle with care, by Vito Bongiorno.jpg

Can you please do something in order to solve the problem? Thank you.--Pugliesig (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your note. While I know it has been a long time, I would recommend you continue to follow-up with OTRS to the extent you have not already heard from them. Generally an image with a pending OTRS query is (if appropriately tagged) not deleted pending OTRS review so to the extent review takes a while the images should remain. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Georgiana Goddard King - Bryn Mawr College Yearbook of 1934 dedication.png

Hi, there:

I've upload the picture with the advices and indicatios about the source. I don't understand well your message. My english is not good. But with the legal language is worst. Learn by example help me so much and is faster (wikier) than read many help, manual and other text support.

Best regards Jialxv (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your note. My apologies for the long delayed response, fortunatley it looks like you have solved the issue here and the image remains on the Commons. For future reference, templates on Commons generally have links to the text of the template in other languages to assist non-English speakers. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Banner of Agency for Cultural Affairs.jpg

I added the proper licence to the file.Check it up.I wish you don't delete the file.--RSSFSO (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your note. It looks like the tag was removed by a patrolling admin, in the future, once you add a license tag, you should feel free to remove the "no-license tag". Best, Mifter (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Ore saleka Ore maleka.jpg

Dear Mifter, File:Ore saleka Ore maleka.jpg is missing from wikimedia commons. I uploaded this file few days ago. It was an image of gramophone record published from an extinct company of Bangladesh. I also provide the source of the image. Please help.FaysaLBinDaruL (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your note. It looks like your images/files were deleted as being outside our scope and for having insufficient information as to their license. While you note that you provided a source for the images, images and files must be useful for an educational purpose as well as be freely licensed. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No licence file

. :-) ciao! I'm Mimidellaboheme (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC). I see the message, thankyou, but the licence i give is thrue, the files are my work. The originals are in itWikipedia. Sorry my english is... bleah!

Hello and thank you for your note. It looks like you had forgotten to input a license template rather than just plain text (since rectified) which is why my bot tagged your files. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Blank pages

Hi, could you amend your MifterBot routine which identifies file pages with missing licenses to ignore blank pages? This is confusing and has effectively been hiding old bad files from being recognized as being blanks.

Example diff

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Fae, I will see about updating the bot to avoid fully blank pages. Best, Mifter (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please only tag new files after about 60s?

Hi Mifter,

Your bot is very useful, but also extremely zealous and fast. This sometimes causes trouble for my bot which uploads new files in two stages. First the image, then the description. A normal example is here. The only trouble is, that if your bot edits the page in between (to add a tag), mine can't do the normal description replacement, so misses its chance to do the usual process.

Would it be ok to add a 60s delay in running your bot, so that it only tested files that were 60 seconds old?

Thanks for your consideration. --99of9 (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your note. The bot runs every half hour but I have been looking into updating it to explicitly skip files that are less than 60 seconds (or some other short length) old. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

MifterBot is too harsh

Hello!

I am a Pikiwikisrael developer, we have a website where users can upload images - and we send all our images to wikimedia for public usage. Lately we got some errors while updating images description and so:

   {
       "error": {
           "code": "editconflict",
           "info": "Edit conflict.",
           "*": "See https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php for API usage. Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-api-announce> for notice of API deprecations and breaking changes."
       },
       "servedby": "mw1383"
   }

while investigating this error I found that MifterBot was editing the file right after the upload (Marking newly uploaded untagged file) not leaving my scripts the opportunity to update the image description and so.

I can just try again in case of such error - but I don't think this is the right solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohad.cohen (talk • contribs) 09:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This happened again ohad (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your note. The bot is set to run every half hour but I have been looking into updating it to explicitly skip files that are less than a certain length of time old, which should resolve your issue. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

MOTD Notification

⭐ A file you uploaded is on the main page! ⭐ File:The Final Days (Clinton film).webm, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Notifications by Bot

Hi, could you change your script that it waits a few minutes before putting the message? I often upload a file and immediately afterwords add the license and other information. Your bot has already twice interfered with the process. Regards Draco flavus (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your note. The bot runs every half hour but I have been looking into updating it to explicitly skip files that are less than a certain time old (60 seconds, 3 minutes, etc.). However, I would note that, the upload form states "If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your upload will be deleted without further notice. Thank you for your understanding." and it is our policy to have a license tag added prior to an image being uploaded. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

File:AflagforIraq.svg

File:AflagforIraq.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

GPinkerton (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

File:AflagforIraq.svg

File:AflagforIraq.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

GPinkerton (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Nuclear power stations 2008 2.png

File:Nuclear power stations 2008 2.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Leonel Sohns 12:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

File:X-33633.jpg

File:X-33633.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: Unused redirect) Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Wow.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

File:X-33633.jpg

File:X-33633.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Wow (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)