Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/11

Problematic MOTD of today (3 November)

Hello, the MOTD file of today (Template:Motd/2023-11-03), File:Naked News anchor Marina Valmont speaking about German ePetition 157928 to remove social media apps from app shops in Germany if the social media company does not remove anti semitic posts in a timely manner.webm, seems problematic to me. It concerns a call to action to sign a petition (about banning certain social media from German app stores if they don't act on anti-semitism, which in the light of the current Israel/Palestine conflict does unfortunately have a political connotation) and has been authored, uploaded and made MOTD by the same user, User:C.Suthorn. The current file replaced the previous file, File:National Anthem of Dominica by US Navy Band.ogg (made MOTD by User:Q28), in this template yesterday night, with as argumentation a link to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_106#Q28, which indeed touches MOTD uploads, but, given the small time window between upload, template change and today, this seems more like an excuse to bring this petition to light on the homepage than anything else. I can't revert this change, as it is currently included on the main page, but I do find this problematic and needs attention as soon as possible, as I'm sure this isn't the way these things are supposed to go, and this file is along Commons also shown on many other wikis. Pennenetui3000 (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I've also just posted this on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Pennenetui3000 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

And I responded there. Please don't scatter a discussion like this. In extreme cases (I don't even think it is one) it is appropriate to post on one project page like this pointing to discussion you have opened on another page. It is simply not appropriate to open the same discussion in two places. It almost guarantees unnecessary chaos. - Jmabel ! talk 04:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I am closing this as a duplicated discussion. Editors may wish to respond at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#MAIN PAGE: Problematic MOTD of today (3 November). From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

blacklist sanity checking...

I just tried uploading an image from the flickr pages of the The GPA Photo Archive. Which asserts it "is maintained by the Bureau of Global Public Affairs of the United States Department of State, and comprises public-access photos intended for use by U.S. Missions overseas and other State Department entities."

How does a flickr user like this make the blacklist?

Here is the photo I tried to upload... https://www.flickr.com/photos/iip-photo-archive/49531802096/ Geo Swan (talk) 06:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Quoting completely for convenience:

The GPA Photo Archive is maintained by the Bureau of Global Public Affairs of the United States Department of State, and comprises public-access photos intended for use by U.S. Missions overseas and other State Department entities.

Photos may be used by staff of the Bureau of Global Public Affairs (GPA), U.S. embassies, consulates, American Spaces, and other U.S. mission offices, and distributed as warranted for use by non-USG organizations sanctioned by the embassy.

Only non-commercial use is permitted. Credit line should read: GPA Photo Archive / photographer's name / original source. Example: GPA Photo Archive / Carol M. Highsmith / Library of Congress

--Achim55 (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AQuestionable_Flickr_images%2FUsers&diff=prev&oldid=388937558 added by User:Pi.1415926535. RZuo (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Only non-commercial use" would certainly qualify for the blacklist. - Jmabel ! talk 17:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This account grabs (usually free) files from other sources and reuploads them. Very often the license on flickr is incorrect; I have seen some of my CC-BY-SA files on the account listed as PD. Any file on this account should be uploaded from the original source instead. For example, the file that Geo Swan linked above is actually from the State Department - and is already on Commons from the original source. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

13 of the MOTD of November and 18 of the MOTD of December are OGG files without description text of anthems of small countries

I am only mentioning that, because I nominated two of my own files as MOTD for november and only now found out, that i had made the entrys for November 2024 in error. When I tried to correct that, I stumbled about this crowd of anthems. I really would like to have at least my webm file early in November this year and it would also be fine to have the flac file sooner than 1st of january. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2023-11

• Currently, there are 186 sysops.
• Overwriting other users' uploads is now limited to autopatrollers.

---

Edited by RZuo (talk).

---

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing! --RZuo (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Woman on Spokane, Nov. 1929.jpg

Hi, Another detective work needed here. May be the geolocation can be added? It seems there is a "Heath Ave" in Spokane, but no "Hath Ave". Or is it an abbreviation for Hatheway? Yann (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• What is the basis to say that what appears to be a family photo "was published in the United States between 1928 and 1977"? Is there any evidence it was ever published before the Flickr upload (if not, then it won't be in the public domain until 2050). - Jmabel ! talk 17:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Fully agreed. Solid proof of actual publication is needed for these photos, and it is lacking so far. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Seeing the written text, this was sent to someone, which constituted publication at the time. See also COM:L#Old orphan works. Practically, there is zero chance that this is still under a copyright. Yann (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Text is not Hath but 818 E 26th Ave, Spokane, WA. Looks like both houses are still there. Window pattern of next door seems to match. Glrx (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Good. Thanks a lot! Yann (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe someone in WA could send the current residents a postcard with the short URL of the image? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Photographs prohibited - or not?

I found the following article, that illustrates a quite ominous case: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/signs-banning-phones-cameras-public-8869080

In short, it is a report about signs that prohibit taking photographs at Temple Quay in Bristol. But the signs were erected by mistake. Only commercial photography shall be prohibited, they stated afterwards. The reason that this rather public area is owned by a private company. It also raises the question whether it is good that a private company owns that land, and can decide who can enter or not, and is a potential threat to the freedom of panorama in the UK, and limiting rights of the public. I wanted to share this, because it might be interesting for the readers here --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a freedom of panorama issue. Freedom of panorama is about copyright. Even if the property owner can set rules which restrict people from taking photographs there (and even that seems to be in doubt), they don't gain any copyright in photos which get taken there in disregard of those rules. The situation is analogous to museums with house rules which prohibit photography; compare COM:CSM#MUSEUM. Omphalographer (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

See also Category:Photography prohibition signs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I was prevented from photographing the fountain in Trafalgar Square in England because commercial photography was prohibited there. On the same day and at the same location, I took pictures of a demonstration demanding the release of "Tommy Robinson". These images have been used by many websites around the world because it was a spontaneous demo that was almost not photographed by journalists, but it was very important because it was about essential things with grooming gangs, Facebook and streaming in courts. My pictures almost didn't exist. The fact that this is not a problem with copyright and FoP is irrelevant if such bans mean that pictures can't be taken in the first place. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Part of the problem is that places where people spend their time are moving into private possession. The photography could be made an inviolable right (at least in some circumstances), but the tendency has other consequences too, such as people not likely to do shopping not being allowed entrance to places where people meet. I don't know what to do about it, but there should be some more awareness. –LPfi (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Files allowed to be overwritten by everyone

Can anyone explain; the use of this, on the face of it, spurious cat. Should it not be deleted along with its template? Broichmore (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's the result of a very recent development on Commons, whereby user rights for overwriting files that the user themselves haven't uploaded have been limited to autopatrollers and admins in an attempt to curb vandalism. It used to be that all (non-protected) files could be overwritten by anyone, but (at least for now) that's no longer the case. See this discussion at the Village Pump. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

What's so special about those files that they can be overwritten by anyone while other files can't be? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

They're not really special, they're just files an autopatroller or admin has looked at and agreed to let a user overwrite it after filing a request at COM:OWR. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hhhmm, maybe I'm misunderstanding something here but it sounds like a request is only meant to allow the person making it to overwrite the file, not everyone. So it seems like files from requests made on COM:OWR shouldn't be included in Category:Files allowed to be overwritten by everyone. Since again, the user making the request isn't "everyone" and their the one being given the permission. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the template should be removed from files after it's been overwritten, though I haven't seen other editors do that (yet?). I'll shoot GPSLeo a question about it on his talk page, since he files so many of those requests. I don't think it's currently possible to give permission to just one person for just one file, though. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: You have seen the template removed from a file after it's been overwritten, right here where I over wrote the file, and you promptly put back the template. Why? If there is any file that should not carry this template, then it's the specific one we are talking about.

This template and category are completely useless, it's just not the way to do it. Are you now going to insert the template into 99,365,416 (and counting) files, or do the right thing and have the global rights changed, in line with our false pledge of Wikimedia Commons, a collection of 99,365,416 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute.? Broichmore (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Vuccala requested to overwrite that file at COM:OWR, asked for permission, and GPSLeo granted it. I put the template back because I thought it was removed by mistake. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that I was not made privy to this conversation. I take it, that this is a temporary fix solution? Broichmore (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If you mean the template itself, then yes. I asked GPSLeo about this yesterday and he thinks 2 weeks is a good time frame for the template to be applied to files before being removed (gives the requester ample time to do the overwriting and fix any mistakes they'd made in the process). If you mean the new way of doing things in general, then I honestly don't know. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

On the question why every user can overwrite these files despite only one user requested the right: This is simply because there is currently no possibility to do this in a different way. It might be possible to add the username to the template, but I think this is not needed as the person who did the requested overwrite would complain about and revert the bad overwrite done by other users. The template is also a workaround as there is no MediaWiki protection level for this. GPSLeo (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: That's a difficult statement to chew on. I doubt anyone has specifically requested overwrite of any one of the 97 files in this spuriuos category. Why have you singled them out for attention. Why the file, that's come to my attention? Who are these people requesting overwrite? As I said earlier, the fix required here is a global fix, not this!

Your the only person that seems to be assigning these values. Please tell me why, you took it upon yourself to create this template in the first place? This is a problem you have invented, in order for you to solve. Broichmore (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I have now read this conversation. Broichmore (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Every file there was requested here or though other channels. If we would wait for new MediaWiki features solving this problem we might have to wait many years. Until we have the new feature we would continue getting many hundred bad overwrites they would need to be cleaned up every week. GPSLeo (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. This blew up in my mind, firstly because I was unaware of the change, and second because I failed to realize what was being protected here; which is the image as opposed to it's accompanying description.

Perhaps the statement in the cat header, that The files in this category have the 'Allow Overwriting' template allowing users without autopatrol to overwrite them. This template can be placed by every user with patrol rights. Should be changed to The files in this category have the 'Allow Overwriting' template allowing users without autopatrol to overwrite the images within them. This template can be placed by every user with patrol rights. or some such?

Overall, I actually support this strategy. Broichmore (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I understand your intention with that rewording, but I think there's a problem of vocabulary. It already says "file", not "file page" (the latter would include the wikitext and structured data). The file is not necessarily an image (it could be audio or video). Also, even for an image file, one of the likely reasons to want to overwrite it is to correct EXIF data, etc., which is not part of the image. More likely, keep the wording as it is, but add a link to a page where the whole situation is explained, including why we need this workaround. - Jmabel ! talk 20:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you experienced rotated upload previews ?

I'm looking for some experiences with rotated images. In Special:Upload and Special:UploadWizard we have some code that displays thumbnails before the upload is completed. When an image has a non-standard orientation (as indicated by EXIF), we have some Javascript which flips the thumbnail you see in this preview, so that it will match the proper orientation that you will also see after you complete the upload.

This was needed, because by default, browsers would NOT apply the orientation of the image, but the thumbnail engine of Wikimedia WOULD apply the correct orientation after upload. It turns out that somewhere in mid 2020 however, all browsers allegedly FLIPPED their default. Since that time they DO apply the EXIF orientation. If I understand things correctly, this would have led to the rotation being applied TWICE in these previews. For instance, you would see an upside down image in the upload preview, and then when the upload completes it would be right side up, or vice versa.

Have people been experiencing this ? There has been a report in phab:T338086, but considering how many cameras use this whenever you have images on the side, and how few complaints there have been so far, for something that essentially has been broken for most people since 2021, I'm wondering if I'm overlooking something. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Definitely seen something like this in the crop tool, not sure I've seen it here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I have seen this in the UploadWizard with the preview being wrong. Antti T. Leppänen (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Requesting opinions about a file comment

Hello,

I posted a message in the talk page of File:World marriage-equality laws.svg about the following comment:

Even though Nepal is an overcrowded and unhygienic country. It's not tiny Andorra.

However, apparently, I am off-topic, making a mountain out of a molehill, and acting against freedom of speech. I am still trying to work out how I tried to silence dissenters, though. I certainly don’t want to stop freedom of speech champions from spreading the truth, so I would welcome a few extra opinions.

It also seems a bit weird to me that this user should remove contents from that same talk page, even though there is no personal attack in it that I can see.

Thanks. Huñvreüs (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

1. @Huñvreüs: wording this in a passive aggressive manner does no one any favors.
2. I assume you are referring to User:Cyanmax. You should have notified them when making a complaint about them, either by pinging them or informing them on their talk page.
3. If you have similar complaints to make about someone's conduct in the future, please bring it to COM:ANU, not the Village pump.
4. I will warn them appropriately about their conduct. The substance of what you appear to be saying (minus the unnecessary ironic mode) seems to be on the mark.

Jmabel ! talk 05:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

A second "Deletion requests/Files uploaded by XYZ"

Several hours ago I noticed files uploaded by a certain user that, rightly or wrongly, I thought were problematic in terms of copyright. And therefore I clicked "Perform batch task" and thereby launched Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roferbia. If there was a warning that Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roferbia already existed (and was closed four years ago), then I sleepily failed to notice it. Anyone seeing the page Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roferbia will be told "This deletion discussion is now closed" and is unlikely to scroll down in search of a possible sequel. Now I could rename the page Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roferbia 2 or similar; but if I did, I'd then have to edit dozens of examples of "This media file has been nominated for deletion since 5 November 2023. To discuss it, please visit the nomination page" -- please no! Far easier would be to invert the order of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roferbia, simply switching its two halves around. But I suspect that there's an established way of fixing the page (and that unauthorized alternatives may trigger problems elsewhere). Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary: From what I've seen, the normal thing is simply to leave the closed DRs at the top of the page and expect people to scroll down to the current one. That's probably not ideal, as you point out, but it seems to be tolerated. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cloud Gate for a particularly large example. In one case (but apparently not the Cloud Gate one as I thought), I've made some effort at archiving closed requests on a page. I think I just wrapped them in {{Collapse top}}/{{Collapse bottom}} which seemed unlikely to affect any automated processes analysing DRs. --bjh21 (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That was very helpful, bjh21, as somebody (or somebot) editing Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cloud Gate had the bright idea of forcing a TOC (and making subtle edits to subheaders). And therefore I've done the same. "My" list is now Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Roferbia#Files_uploaded_by_Roferbia_(talk_·_contribs)_2, and its existence is advertised by the TOC. -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Armenia as a Client State of the Roman Empire

Hello. You may know the, by now famous, map made by Tataryn of the Roman Empire at its maximal extent. Well.. I believe to have discovered a mistake, in said map. Armenia, if you look at the corresponding articles on en.wiki (and almost all other wikis), seems to have been a Roman province from 114 to 117. Well, no! All of the statements claiming this, at least those I could find, are unsourced, and all I read on the subject (not on websites, though), if it delved a little into detail, always told me that Trajan, after shortly making it a Roman province, made Armenia a client state under his lifetime. This means, that, while the map still (roughly) shows the Empire at its greatest extent, Mesopotamia wasn’t under Roman (military) Control, when Armenia was. Now of course Armenia was in all but name a Roman Province, the problem being that the map decides to show the Vassals in a different colour. And here comes the problem. If you show the Vassals in a different colour, then I bet there is a lot more to fix then just Armenia. But I do not have sources specifying that to me, so for now it’s just Armenia. I’ve contacted Tataryn, but I just think this is important enough to be mentioned here. I’m sorry if this isn’t where it belongs, but I’m just going to assume that the Village Pump here is no different to the Village Pump on en.wiki or fr.wiki. Cheers.

PS: There are a bunch of maps showing Armenia as Roman, which it was, the problem is that those maps also show the other Vassal states (those which on Tataryn’s map are shown as vassals) as roman, with no distinction made. Essentially, if your going to make the distinction between regions under direct roman control and vassals, Armenia needs to be shown as a Vassal, in the year of 117. La pléiade 2eme degré (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Please, discuss this on the talk page of that image. Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I did. Tataryn isn’t actif since December last year. Sooo… best go here, right? Anyway, I just wanted to raise awareness of the problem (plus: I could be wrong, so discussing it won’t be too bad of a choice). Cheers. La pléiade 2eme degré (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You can also address this on the corresponding talk pages where this map is used within the Wikipedia projects. A discussion at COM:VP is useless, in particular if not even a link to the map in question is provided. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. After searching a bit I already found out that it was Mesopotamia which was the (under full military control) client state. Il start a discussion there. Just please don’t move this. I do believe that maybe someone acknowledged of the subject could provide info, cheers. La pléiade 2eme degré (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Parts of Armenia being under supposed Mesopotamian control. La pléiade 2eme degré (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Gift - Tove Ditlevsen.jpg

Hello! Is this file really copyright-free? It seems to be a book cover from 1971, and I can barely imagine that there is no copyright on it? 80.71.142.166 04:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no claim that it is copyright-free, but the uploader, User:Guldmann1, claimed to be the copyright-holder and to offer a free license. Since they have no other contributions to Commons, their only other contribution to a WMF project was to add this picture to an article on da-wiki, and they have never given any proper indication of who they are or even provided an email address where they can be reached, that seems quite unlikely and the image has now been nominated for deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 06:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Rename requests that replace hyphen-minus with en dash

occasionally i see requests like https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Vatican_City_(2001-2023).svg&diff=prev&oldid=818300992 asking to replace hyphen-minus with en dash.

what is the community's view on such requests? move or not move?

Commons talk:File renaming/Archive/2019#Questionable harmonization seems to be the only prior discussion related to this concern.

another remotely related discussion is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/01#Dashes in file names. RZuo (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that this is a valid ground for a move if this is not coming from the uploader and if this is not an attempt to get uniform filenames within a specific group of related media (i.e. criteria 1 and 4). I do not see how this fulfills criterion 3 in the given example. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of proper typography but in a file name that needs to be type-able, then I think it's fair to have hyphens in place of en dashes. At the very least, if they are moved, the hyphen redirect needs to remain. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

For me that definitely does not fall under criterion 3. Indeed it's covered by COM:FRNOT #1 (Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better). I might accept a request under criterion 1 within 7 days of creation, or if technically necessary under criterion 4 (but most criterion 4 requests are invalid anyway). --bjh21 (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I uploaded the wrong file.

File talk:Mary White Ovington.jpg - I accidentally added Mary Jackson to the revisions of the file. Completely different image, completely different licensing (PD-USGov vs. Ovington's PD-US-expired). Help?

I am sorry. I suppose it's inevitable if you do enough work on here, and at least it's been a few years since last it happened. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Ezarateesteban 23:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Office of Naval Intelligence

I am writing to ask about files from the US Office of Naval Intelligence, in particular the ship silhouettes in this guide that seem to be created by Office of Naval Intelligence. Can I upload them? Chenophile (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• If it's from Office of Naval Intelligence, then it's almost certainly {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. It's usually easier to tell for sure if we have the page that linked to the PDF, rather than just the PDF itself. - Jmabel ! talk 03:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Here’s the link. Unfortunately I cannot access the website. Chenophile (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's just another link to the same PDF, at a different URL, so the only further thing that confirms is that it's on ONI's site. As I said above, almost certainly {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. - Jmabel ! talk 04:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, thanks a lot! Chenophile (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Technical#Bad changes to the upload wizard

 You are invited to join the discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Technical#Bad changes to the upload wizard. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Cannot log in

Once you log out of Commons, can you log back in? I can't, and I know of another user with the same issue (she was automatically logged out). The message I'm getting now is "There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking." —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.199.122.141 (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably the same issue a German user is experiencing at the moment? [1] -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

same. i had it this afternoon.

i was using firefox. i opened my history, viewed it "by site" and chose to "forget about this site" for commons.wikimedia.org. then i could log in again. RZuo (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Banknote image from 1881

Hello, is a crop of this banknote image public domain? Because the banknote with Empress Jingu was published in 1881. Another question: this ukiyo-e of Empress Jingu was made by Utagawa Kunisada (I) in the 19th century, so it should be public domain. -Artanisen (talk)

I can't see any way an 1881 banknote could now have a copyright. There might be some non-copyright restrictions. - Jmabel ! talk 14:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)