User talk:Jeff G.
 | This user page was nominated for deletion on 29 December 2023 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
| Babel user information | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Users by language |
Welcome to my user talk page!
[edit]
| Current Monthly Archive (redlinked the first week  |
Newly registered and IP editors may leave messages at the bottom of this page.
File:Pnau Sir Stewart Bovell Park January 2012.jpg
[edit]Hi Jeff G. Could you take a look at File:Pnau Sir Stewart Bovell Park January 2012.jpg? Its licensing was verified by FlickreviewR shortly after it was uploaded, but the source (at least the current incarnation of the source) provided for the states "All rights reserved". Of course, the photo's licensing could have been subsequently changed to a more restrictive one, but I'm not too sure on how to determine that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Hi. A the bottom of the source page, I see "Additional info" and below that "License (History)", where "History" opens a popup that reads in part:
- Date February 10, 2014 at 6:55:54 AM EST
- Old License Attribution (CC BY 2.0)
- New License All rights reserved
- and the same thing five seconds later. I tagged the file {{Change-of-license}} for you. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for checking on this. I didn't know about the "License history" feature. Is that something all Flickr files automatically get when there's a license change? -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Yes, and maybe if there hasn't been a license change. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for checking on this. I didn't know about the "License history" feature. Is that something all Flickr files automatically get when there's a license change? -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Commons abuse filter doesn't seem to be working right
[edit]Earlier today you did a revert for me which I couldn't do; thanks. It appears to me that this same check should have prevented the change I was reverting (that editor's account was literally created today), but it had no effect. Am I missing something? Let me know if there's some place else I should report this. Thanks, Danbloch (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Danbloch: You're welcome. Pinging @GPSLeo as author of filters 303 and 313. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- The filter was triggered as the edit triggered a bug resulting in the removal of the content the filter intends to protect. GPSLeo (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- @GPSLeo: I'm not asking about my edit now. I'm asking about the preceding edit. Why was Rahmi Zeki able to make this change? Thanks, Danbloch (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- The first edit was a simple edit were there is no way to detect the vandalism. Then your revert triggered a bug that in some cases reverts do not revert the edit but result in a total replacement of the file page with nonsense text. GPSLeo (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Got it, the filter issue only affects reverts. Thanks! Danbloch (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- The first edit was a simple edit were there is no way to detect the vandalism. Then your revert triggered a bug that in some cases reverts do not revert the edit but result in a total replacement of the file page with nonsense text. GPSLeo (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- @GPSLeo: I'm not asking about my edit now. I'm asking about the preceding edit. Why was Rahmi Zeki able to make this change? Thanks, Danbloch (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- The filter was triggered as the edit triggered a bug resulting in the removal of the content the filter intends to protect. GPSLeo (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
