Talk:Non-free content

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Pre-2008 discussions moved to /archive.
Redirect page's talk page: Meta talk:Exemption doctrine policy


Jawiki's EDP[edit]

From what I know, Jawiki has an EDP w:ja:WP:FOP but is not mentioned on this list. Are there any prerequisitory criteria the policy must meet before getting on this list (like approval from some committee) or can I just go ahead and add it? --朝彦 (Asahiko) 10:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you should add it. After all, it's a wiki. If someone thinks otherwise, they could remove it. --Boivie 06:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And it's been done. Thanks for your kind reply! --朝彦 (Asahiko) 17:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Are uploads of Musikzitate allowed on -- 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • i think you will find your question addressed here. very best, oscar 21:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about wikipedia hungarian?[edit]

There is no information on the chart![edit]

So where's the EDP? Nemo 21:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt-100? It seems that German Wikipedia allows some unfree images if it can't be proven whether the image is free or not. --Stefan2 15:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please review: diff: "yes"->"custom".

The German-language Wikipedia has no formal EDP ("Die deutschsprachige Wikipedia verfügt über keine formelle EDP").
Instead old images and logos, that are unclear, whether free or not, are allowed:

— Aron M (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


See Requests for comment/Disable uploads on smaller wikis. --John Vandenberg (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit]

Dear all, we have now a EDP in Armenian wikipedia. Can you please note that into this list? --vacio 09:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to be added here. --MGA73 (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EDP on meta?[edit]

See Meta:Requests_for_deletion#All_fair_use_files_and_templates. --MGA73 (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can I add? We have an image policy at hu:WP:KÉPEK, and a non-free content policy under development at hu:WP:NEMSZABAD. Teemeah (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could add the non-free content policy when it is accepted by the community... this table doesn't list image policies. In the meantime you could make a note that the non-free content policy is under discussion/under development. This, that and the other (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


NonFreeWiki looks like a good solution for managing non-free content. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As of now some wikis here have opened/closed their upload pages very easy by editing MediaWiki:Licenses... --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scope of the page[edit]

The section named "Wikipedia" lists 78 projects, if one would list all, it would be expanded to 292 Wikipedias. I thought that would make the page too large, as it also includes other projects. Also, as it stands the section is not complete.

Accordingly I

  1. added "For a list of Wikipedias that have zero local media files, and therefore have no non-free content, see List of Wikipedias having zero local media files." [1]
  2. removed all that have 'local uploads = no', no non-free content and have no other copyright related data in the table. [2]

User:Nemo bis reverted both actions with the edit summary "Revert; this page is about policy status." [3]

The claim in the edit summary might be correct, but how does it justify the reversion? The removed Wikipedias have no non-free content, not even local media files. They also seem not to have a local copyright policy regarding non-free content, which is understandable if such content does not even exist. I propose to list all Wikipedias that have local media files and exclude all the others from the list. The claim "this page is about policy status" is true irrespective of this. 11:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revised: Exclude all zero-file, fully disabled, policyfree Wikipedias and make sure they are in List of Wikipedias having zero local media files. 00:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nemo bis: Thanks for the pointer to w:Vacuous truth en:Vacuous truth at User talk: The disjunction case renders the examination of the status of non-existing things useless, not? And the framed page intro says that the page is about status of non-free content. Apart from this technical consideration, a practical one: The zero-list contains 83 projects, the median is at 139,5 files (item 146/147 having 139/140 files [4]), if it reaches 146 "permanent" (permanence avoids short add-remove cycles), maybe even 146 without any written local policy, then for 50% of the items the list here would have no/no and empty cells. At least some users may prefer a more compact table. But others may like a complete table, especially since Robin's tool has all project-specific links broken and is not sortable by project family [5]. 00:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitions of columns[edit]

Definition of column named Local uploads[edit]

Field is filled with names of user groups and with yes/no. No link for verification is provided. 06:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The column means whether local uploads are enabled. Verification was performed against the PHP configuration files last time. Nemo 07:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then it would only have to store yes/no, not user groups. Where can one access the config file? Standard would be to link the source for each claim. 12:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moral Support Support, I think we should have another column to describe the user group limits, as usually one user can't just upload files when they just logged in. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definition of column named Non-free content[edit]

What does the yes/no mean? Allowed or present or anything else? In the table for Wikisource the statement "no non-free files present (as of 2013-01-21)" is found in the EDP summary field. 12:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definition of column named EDP summary[edit]

For Wikisource it contains "no non-free files present (as of 2013-01-21)". So what does that field mean, summary of written EDP or summary of EDP handling, or something else? 12:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ladino Wikipedia[edit]

Need help with an EDP[edit]

I need help creating an EDP for Ladino Wikipedia. The full explanation, which I have been writing on my Meta talk page, is pasted below. Thanks in advance for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Begin paste
@Nemo bis: I could use some assistance, but wanted to run the discussion on my page instead of yours for (a) a little more privacy and (b) so we can handle this in a measured way and not precipitously.

I am admin and 'crat on Ladino Wikipedia, and I've been cleaning things up recently. Among other things, I went into the File: namespace to see what was there. I found about 60 picture files all told, and was able to delete about half—usually in favor of images on Commons—without losing any content whatsoever.

I need some help on handling the remainder of the files. There are now 33 files in that namespace. Of these:

  • 23 are logos of one kind or another, usually taken from another Wikipedia project; under US copyright law these are probably allowable under the fair use doctrine.
  • 2 are photos, again taken from other Wikipedia projects. Both original files indicate there is copyright protection, but again I suspect these may be allowable under the fair use doctrine. See item #2 in update below.
  • 2 are original work that have been tagged as being released to the public domain in some way or another. These should probably be moved to Commons. See item #1 in update below.
  • 1 is actually a soft redirect (at Wiki.png) to the new logo just created for our project and hosted on Commons.
  • 5 others are photographs or drawings uploaded by a now-mostly-inactive sysop in 2008-9. I suspect they are his own work, but there is no particular tag to that effect on them. I may or may not be able to reach him to try to find out. All five of these files are far superior for their purposes to anything parallel available on Commons—if there is even anything parallel available on Commons. See item #3 in update below.

Of the files remaining:

  • I uploaded 8, all since last August. In three cases, I was fixing red picture links that existed when I first became a sysop here. In the other five cases, I replaced files that were already on the wiki with versions that were newer and/or less copyright-intrusive.
  • Three others date to 2010-2013.
  • The remainder all date to 2009 or earlier.

The fact is that we don't have an Exemption Doctrine Policy formally in place, and I do not write Ladino well enough to write one. I don't know what the admins from before were thinking, but personally and informally, I'm trying to guide myself by enwiki's policy and my understanding of US copyright law. (In principle, we should probably incorporate any strictures from Israeli law on this project, too.)

Please understand: I'm not looking to expand upload rights to the community at large, and I'm not even really looking to start going out of my way to upload lots of new files myself. What I would like to do is (a) try to bring the few files we have within guidelines, and (b) be able to upload the occasional logo if and when someone should create some new content and need a logo not available in the public domain. Otherwise, we don't really want to host media files on ladwiki.

I have been writing notices to the community in English on our Village Pump, and have put through some wiki configuration changes on that basis. So I could probably get away with putting an announcement there that we would be guided by the EDP of enwiki (or enwiki and hewiki). But I would still need some help putting all this in place.

Thanks in advance for any help or advice you can give me. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update of 18 May 2016[edit]

@ Thank you for coming by at Ladino Wikipedia and helping us out. Let me give you an update on our progress there. I'd also like to ask you a couple of questions.

  1. Based on what you and User:CommonSupporter did, the two files that were marked as original work released to the public domain were made available on Commons, so I deleted the local copies.
  2. You replaced one photograph that had been copied over from Turkish Wikipedia with one available from Commons. I deleted the local copy. (The other "photograph" in this category was a movie poster copied from Hebrew Wikipedia. I believe that file is allowable under fair use.)
  3. With respect to the five files that were uploaded by a now-mostly-inactive sysop:
    • I replaced one photo that was an interior shot of an Istanbul synagogue with a file on Commons that is an exterior shot of the same synagogue. I don't really prefer the exterior shot, but I could live with it. So I substituted the exterior shot in the article, and then deleted the local file.
    • I discovered that another of the photographs was involved in a mass deletion on enwiki back in 2011 because of possible copyvios. The copyvios were not proved, I really did like that picture, and I don't think an alternative will be so readily obtained. But I decided I couldn't really justify keeping it, so I deleted the local copy.
    • The diagram turns out to be derivative of one available on Commons, just with the addition of Ladino subtitles. I don't know who actually did the subtitle work, but I am confident that at minimum that file can legally be used at ladwiki. If some of the experts on this topic believe it can be copied into Commons I would welcome that.
    • That leaves two other photos, both of Jewish facilities in Marrakech. One is an interior shot of the synagogue; substitutes are available at Commons, but I think inferior to the current shot. So I'd like to avoid deleting it. There is no substitute for the cemetary shot on Commons, and while it's very nice to quote dogma on deletion templates ("where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose"), I really don't think that a different shot of a Jewish cemetary in an Arab Muslim country is actually going to be so very readily available to us. So I'd like to hold on to this photograph, too.

Overall, then, of the seven files that have been stored locally on ladwiki and are not clearly "logos", three were deleted, one (the movie poster) I freshly assert is fair use, and another (the diagram) I freshly assert can either legitimately remain on the wiki or might even be movable to Commons. So we're down to two "questionable" files.

  1. With respect to the flag and seal of Athens, for the time being I rolled back your edit. (I didn't recognize your IP address at first, and you did not see fit to include an edit summary when you made that edit. I don't appreciate that point, in any event.) I can appreciate that a city's flag and seal could be copyright-protected, but tell me why you think that they would not be eligible for fair use on a page about that city.
  2. Is there someone who can help me establish a written EDP for ladwiki?

Thank you for your assistance. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
end paste

Update of 24 May 2016[edit]

Just to clarify, we now have 27 files locally stored at ladwiki right now:

  • 23 logos that should be allowable in principle under fair use on their subject pages
  • 1 movie poster that should be allowable in principle under fair use on its subject page
  • 1 diagram that can probably be moved to Commons
  • 2 photographs of uncertain provenance—one of which I might be able to replace with a file from Commons, though not well, and one of which I am unlikely to be able to replace with a known free file any time soon.

In addition, the File: (Dosya:) namespace includes one soft redirect to the current logo of the wiki, which is stored at Commons.

I would like help (a) in creating an EDP to regularize the status of the first 24 of those files, (b) in confirming that the diagram in question can in fact be moved to Commons, and then to move it there, and (c) in regularizing the status of the last two files one way or the other. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update of 15 August 2016[edit]

We now have 26 files locally stored at ladwiki right now:

  • 23 logos that should be allowable in principle under fair use on their subject pages
  • 1 movie poster that should be allowable in principle under fair use on its subject page
  • 2 photographs of uncertain provenance—one of which I might be able to replace with a file from Commons, though not well, and one of which I am unlikely to be able to replace with a known free file any time soon.

In addition, the File: (Dosya:) namespace includes one soft redirect to the current logo of the wiki, which is stored at Commons.

I have continued to try to get help in creating an EDP, but have not had any takers. In the meanwhile Ladino Wikipedia is effectively using the EDP of English Wikipedia. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would add that I think the tables at List of Wikipedias having local media files and List of Wikipedias having zero local media files are incorrect. To the best of my knowledge, only sysops can upload files, not "everyone". Certainly nobody who is not a sysop has uploaded a file there in years. But I have only been able to test as an IP user (i.e., logged off) or as myself (sysop), not as a regular "autoconfirmed" user. Perhaps someone can check that out and correct the tables. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2 photographs[edit]

  1. used on
  2. used on (article about town, not the synagogue)

Also, 9, I think the characterization on your chart that we ignored two requests to delete copyvios is not correct, or at least not fair. My edit summaries, in both cases, indicated (a) the pictures in both cases were of unknown provenance, (b) we did not think that suitable alternatives were likely to appear, and (c) that I needed to engage with someone (you) to discuss these issues. If you can show me that these pictures are probably copyvios, I will delete them immediately. As far as I know, they are just pictures that the photographer uploaded in an era where we were a little looser about documentation. But until you (or someone) engages me on the topic, I'm leaving them alone. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

StevenJ81 - what do you mean by "your chart"? The user that uploaded the two photographs is still active and could maybe explain where the files are from. "era where we were a little looser" - several years to fix. 16:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant the table at Non-free content/taking_stock#Wikipedia. I have tried to get that user (who is a sysop) to respond, but he's not around very often any more, and he has not responded. That said, (a) I've only been active on that wiki a little over a year, and (b) I have not seen any evidence that this is actually a copyvio, or even that there's a good chance that it's a copyvio. Until then, I assume good faith. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The change you made ("licensing policy violations") is better. However, this still suggests that we are flouting the policy, as opposed to challenging whether it applies in this case. There is a "double doubt": Perhaps these are free media, and if not, perhaps they qualify as fair use. (That is especially true of the cemetery shot. If the person who uploaded these pictures cannot justify the synagogue shot, I probably have to replace it with one available on Commons, though it does not show the synagogue as well.)
That said, I put another request to the user (see lad:Messaje de Usador:Maor X#Photographs you uploaded). He was around recently editing articles on the Olympics, but otherwise hasn't been around ladwiki in a while. I'm going to ask you in good faith to give me three weeks to get a response from him–mainly because after this week I will have to be away for a couple of weeks. If I get no response from him after that, I will replace the picture of the synagogue with one available from Commons. I will further mark the picture of the cemetery as being of unknown provenance, but believed to be either free or fair-use. And, of course, if anyone ever sends evidence that it is in fact neither free nor fair-use, I will delete it. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
StevenJ81, thanks a lot. I interprete the LP that there are two kind of files: 1) Free files 2) EDP files. And free means uploadable to Commons (e.g. transfer with I don't see how that is possible if the author is unknown. So what remains is 2). I contested EDPness since the places look as if several people have access to them (~public) and if photos can be taken there. I cannot prove copyvio but LP does not require that for deletion. Thanks for asking the uploader anew. 21:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, "9". The uploader responded here: lad:User talk:StevenJ81#Photographs you uploaded. As you see, I asked him for a further clarification, and never got one. But I take his comment here as being that he took the pictures and uploaded them himself. If so, then based on the general licensing rules associated with editing and file uploads, he made the pictures freely available. So I think we could safely keep the pictures in place. Now, if you think it that's a little too shaky for moving the photos to Commons, I can understand that. But I think the comment is strong enough to allow them at minimum to remain locally on ladwiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ladwiki upload config[edit]

Please check: I'm pretty sure only sysops/'crats can upload to ladwiki. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nemo bis: By the way, you suggested to me back in May to try to get help with an EDP on this page. So far, I have received no help. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checked the linked evidence at Non-free content/taking stock and confirm correctness. For me as anon it says "log in" while on WPs that have it restricted it lists the permission groups. 15:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

StevenJ81, could you make a proposal in ladwiki to restrict upload to admins and after maybe a week, if adopted, file a request in phabricator to make the change? 11:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

9, you're quite right. My apologies. I created a second account to check this, and it's allowing me to upload. (The link in the left menu bar goes to Commons Upload Wizard, but if one knows enough to go to :lad:Special:Upload manually, it's allowed.) So I'll put a proposal on our version of the VP and let you know how it progresses.
As far as it goes, can somebody please help me create an EDP? I'm functionally using enwiki's right now, but we really need our own, and we need to make sure we're not flouting something in Israeli law, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See lad:Vikipedya:La Kavané#File Uploads. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
StevenJ81, thanks a lot! The current number of files is 26 not 27. 16:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
StevenJ81 "The link in the left menu bar goes to Commons Upload Wizard" - thanks! That might have been a reason for your assumption before. Useful info when having to talk with other WPs. I had only tested via Special:Upload. 21:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Back from my Wikibreak. Nobody commented at all on my proposal, so I will take it as "community does not object", and will file at phabricator. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See phabricator:T145090. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conclusion and Comment[edit]

EDP has been put in place. All free files were moved to Commons, all files known (or highly presumed) to be under copyright were marked with non-free use rationale, and a couple of files of unknown provenance were deleted. I have to say to anyone watching this page that despite numerous requests for help on this and two other pages on Meta, I got no help here in actually establishing the EDP. I had to go to enwiki to find help. If people (the Foundation) really want projects to comply with this, then somebody needs to be available to help. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Split page due to size even in this incomplete state[edit]

Page has 80+ KB, this is hard to edit. But worse, there are not even half of all Wikipedias. Too big already now, and no sign of relief. CommonSupporter (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you that this got too big. I'd rather reduce the size by removing the wikis which have no EDP and no known unfree content (or no local files at all). These were added without discussion, IIRC, and don't seem to help much. Nemo 07:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot. OK. So for Wikipedias, exclude all that have zero local media files, except if they have an EDP? Maybe in List of Wikipedias having zero local media files the ones having an EDP should get a note in the comment column. CommonSupporter (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Section Wikipedia: OLD 133 rows, NEW 70 rows. As of today around 160 WPs have local media files [6]. Some of these, e.g. glwiki (Gallipedia) delibaretely host duplicate files, even when freely available on Commons. That makes checking for copyright violation harder. CommonSupporter (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it OK for us to translate?[edit]

Dear @CommonSupporter: and a number of 91.9.*.* IP users, for some personal reasons (I don't wanna say here), I would love to have a translation of this page, to help non-English users to understand the differents between policies of these projects. Can you help me on that? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-free content/taking stock and List of Wikipedias having zero local media files are ditto here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who can help me? It shows

<translate> Language code</translate> directly now. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: I had to revert a lot of the translation changes. The table themselves should not be translated unless it's a large text comment. There is still one very major problem that the table row template is not something that is kept consistent, shows as non-existant in translations, and I'm still trying to figure out a solution for that if possible. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A number of items say, "No non-free files present (as of 2013-01-21)". Does anyone have any interest in updating this information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploading to nlwiki[edit]

All files on nlwiki.

I'm not entirely sure if uploads are still enabled.. It would seem I could upload a file, but I'd rather not try. At any rate, I wouldn't say uploading is open to anyone, even if it technically might be. All regular links point to Commons. Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s technically possible for all autoconfirmed users, while the upload link points to Commons at least since 2012 (when the configuration became publicly available). It might be worth disabling upload for everyone except sysops (as is the case in many wikis)—as I see, 85 files were uploaded this year, all of them has already been deleted. This change requires, of course, some sort of community decision. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, please open a discussion locally and then ask for upload to be disabled. It was probably only kept enabled to allow reupload on the few local files (the wiki logo?) but such a right doesn't need to be widely available. --Nemo 15:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would guess it was just forgotten when other wikis were set to upload to Commons, as this wiki had its upload redirected way earlier. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tacsipacsi and Nemo bis: I've actually found a valid reason to leave local uploads enabled. I don't know if this is why nlwiki does it, but if a user has been banned from Commons for any reason, they can still contribute images by uploading them to the local wiki. Dr. Bernd Gross (banned by oversighters, so I have no idea why) makes heavy use of this on dewiki. Alexis Jazz (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think if someone’s blocked on Commons for a longer time, it’s almost certainly because of bad file uploads, so that user should not be able to upload elsewhere, either. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tacsipacsi: not quite. I know another user who goes by the name of a Pokemon who had seven administrators supporting an indefblock some time ago. His uploads had nothing to do with it. A good user who especially did a lot of categorization has been indefblocked based on information from fawiki CU, something I still don't have a good feeling about. A French (I think) user was indefblocked for incivility. While that user wasn't always civil, their usual target isn't really flawless either. And I've been warned myself for refusing to accept an unacceptable practice. It's true most blocks are probably copyvio related, but it's not the only reason. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know a handful of counterexamples. This is roughly the number of Commons users blocked in the past hour. And none of them uploaded to nlwiki (at least you haven’t said the opposite), which is the project we’re speaking about. The nlwiki upload possibility is only misused, not used. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't matter how many users get blocked correctly on Commons. It's a fact people get blocked for things unrelated to file uploads and not becoming fully dependent on Commons is a valid argument to leave uploads enabled. I see no obvious "misuse", only 8 files have gone to ffd this year and those were generally no cases of severe misuse either. If a few (the upload form isn't easily found) people prefer to upload to nlwiki for any reason and those who move eligible files to Commons aren't complaining, there is no actual problem. Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t know where ffd is, but I see that 88 files were uploaded this year, all of them have been deleted. I haven’t checked all of them one by one, but the majority of them seems to be copyright violation (which haven’t gone through a formal deletion process, just got speedily deleted), while the minority consists of files that have already been moved to Commons by now. (The uploaders of such files that I checked are not blocked on Commons.) I still see that this feature is misused in most cases, but I personally don’t have the right to disable it (and won’t open a ticket for disabling without community support), and neither will I start a discussion without Dutch knowledge. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at some uploads, several appear to be WP0 abuse which shouldn't even be a thing because close to zero WP0 users speak Dutch. Also common on Commons. Disable local uploads and those abusers will just go to other wikis or Commons and not actually stop abusing. Also, when you say the majority is copyright violations, don't make the mistake of thinking it's all that much better on Commons. Commons has essentially given up on even trying to be "clean" from copyvios because it's proven impossible. Take a look at c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 69#Spam declaration ... "Cross-wiki upload from" or just go straight to the copyvios. Seriously, I just clicked that link and there it is: copyvio, copyvio almost certainly copyvio, permission needed, possibly copyvio, wrong license, Commons is not for text, also maybe copyvio/spam, copyvio.. I once took a fine comb to that crap. About 70% of cross-wiki uploads is bad, but absolutely nobody wants to check that all the time. And even if all the regulars would give up sleep and food and just check copyvios 24 hours a day, they could barely if at all keep up. So Commons has given up. Less than a hundred files this year on nlwiki total, I couldn't complain, cross-wiki uploads produce that every 4 hours without providing any benefit that can ever outweigh the crap it produces.
..I've gone offtopic haven't I? Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Upload file' on Irish gawiki[edit]

Hi all. The Irish language / gawiki community have discussed on Zoom and online and now request an 'Upload file' button, below the wiki logo (approved unanimously). The discussion is here, Non-free content criteria + Exemption Doctrine Policy is here and their Notablility polisi (Vicipéid:Suntasacht) here. @Nemo bis, SeoMac, Ériugena, and Alison:

Secondly, they would also like a link to their Community area (Vicipéid:Halla baile) from the same place (under the WP lol). Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: The sidebar can be edited by any local admin at ga:MediaWiki:Sidebar (guidance at mw:Manual:Interface/Sidebar). To actually enable uploads for anyone but admins, you have to request allowing uploads as laid out in Requesting wiki configuration changes. You may put another upload link just below the logo, but there’s already a link in the toolbox, which will automatically point to the local upload page once non-admin uploads are re-enabled. (I suggest you not to add any links pointing to the local upload page before the re-enabling request is fulfilled, as users clicking on it will just land on a permission error page.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tacsipacsi: many thanks for your quick reply! I've now asked the community on ga-wiki and shall return here once discussions have happened. Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tacsipacsi: The gawiki users have discussed and agreed to having two new buttons in the sidebar (top left, below the WP logo):
A link to Halla baile, so that new editors know where the discussions are
A link saying Upload file - which then allows ga-wiki editors to upload images on a fair use licence (eg book, DVD, record covers).

as you can see here. Please advise if anything else is needed from our side, or can you please enable? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! I have no special rights that would allow me to do anything you’re technically unable to do. All I could do is creating a ticket to request enabling local uploads. However, I could not figure out in which discussion you decided to allow local uploads, so please add a link to the discussion by clicking Edit Task on the right-hand toolbar of the ticket.
For the sidebar links, I can’t do anything – local admins can and should configure the sidebar. You should point a local admin to the documentation about sidebar configuration. – Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need help for EDP in[edit]

Hi @Nintendofan885, Dcljr, and Nemo bis:, as long as i know, balinese wikimedia community already created consensus to use fair use image in The EDP table also already included, but when we try to used it, the list of images seems still not active yet. Can we know what must we do to get the fair use image to this wiki. Thanks in advance. Any respons will be appreciated. Joseagush (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but I have no idea. - dcljr (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Angayubagia (formerly Joseagush) Pardon, is banwiki uploading function really enabled for all users? When I visit that page it says only administrators are allowed to upload?! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since some years ago, mswiki shutted down their ms:Special:Upload, and deleted ms:MediaWiki:License, but I'm unclear the details about this disable, is that EDP still running? If not, what will happen for their ms:Special:listfiles? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Applying for EDP on Min Dong Wikipedia[edit]

The Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) is unclear on Min Dong Chinese (cdo) Wikipedia. Now we need it. How can we open local upload page to everybody? --Yejianfei (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yejianfei Based on so lower access counts, I'm afraid that enabling it would be unlikely happened as too hard to establish an EDP for your wiki. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]