Wikia Uploading Photo an Unknown Error Occurred

This is an annal of by discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If yous wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do then on the current talk page.

Annal 1

←

Archive iii

Annal 4

Archive 5

Archive half dozen

Archive 7

Annal 8

I have been trying for over an hour to upload a slightly modified version of File:Eritrean family.png, which is "a hypothetical Eritrean family tree", because the version currently used on Habesha name (the only use of this file) contradicts the text on that page. To be specific, I'm changing the starting time name of the family member in the lower right box from Ammanuel (which is the same as the lower-left first name) to Afwerki to suit with the text, which says that "Information technology is against the customs to proper noun a child after a living family member".

So I've filled in everything, well-nigh three times over:

• This is a free piece of work.
• This file is from a free published source. (namely, Wikipedia)
  • Writer/possessor: Merhawie Woldezion (copied from current File page)
  • Appointment of creation: 2006-11-17 (ditto)
  • Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eritrean_family.png
  • License: (NONE OF THESE, Information technology'S "other", Run across Next)
  • Other: cc-past-sa-ii.5 (that's every bit far equally they'd gotten in 2006)
  • Evidence: (leaving blank. The page says "Provide a link to where the writer explicitly says that the file is released nether a free license. (if not visible on the source page itself).)
  • Whatsoever further relevant information about this file?: I changed the first name of right-hand descendant in third generation from Ammanuel to Afwerki. The article says of this example: "The first who had a child would name their kid Ammanuel. The next sibling to accept a child would give their child a unlike first name. Information technology is against the community to proper noun a child after a living family member. Ammanuel and his cousin would each get their father'southward first name for their last." Having these first cousins share the first name Ammanuel directly contradicts this statement.

AND NOW I Can'T Practise A BLOODY Matter WITH It! The merely buttons are

• Upload on Commons (GRAYED OUT)
• Upload (GRAYED OUT)
• Reset form (NO!!!!!!)

—— Yes, I sound pretty damn upset. Wouldn't y'all be? WTF am I supposed to do hither? At least, if I EVER go the form to work, I hope I won't have to type it all in again, considering I've gotit here. To discuss this, delight {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC) [answer]

Pitiful well-nigh that. I can run across how that phrase "if not visible on the source folio itself" may have been disruptive. Simply the "Evidence" field is in fact obligatory, as indicated past the cherry asterisk, then you lot'll have to fill in something there. In this case, where the original license can trivially be establish on the source page itself, just say "see in a higher place", "see source folio", or only repeat the source link. The upload push should become active once you have something in that field (and click somewhere else after you've entered information technology). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:thirteen, 5 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Thank you. I'1000 going to endeavour this now, together with Crow's communication. --Thnidu (talk) 03:10, half-dozen June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

@Futurity Perfect at Sunrise: So, I did get the image up there, several days ago. Only that scarlet asterisk is plainly inadequate for conveying the message "Distressing, simply this isn't going to work until you put something in the 'Evidence' field." I don't touch page code like that; can you or someone make this less obscure than "Was it non obvious?" (C.J. Cherryh allusion, in which the unspoken respond is "No, it was not.") --Thnidu (talk) 04:x, 11 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I keep on pressing the bottom, but information technology puts me back on the aforementioned page. Djcudiitemple (talk) fifteen:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I'm afraid it'southward non quite clear from your description what the trouble is you encountered. Which push button exactly are you pressing, and which folio practise you keep seeing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

When you click on "Click here to beginning the Upload Wizard", it doesn't let you lot upload annihilation and it just stays on the aforementioned page. Unreal7 (talk) nineteen:fifty, 23 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Oh. That's bad. I can actually replicate this on my machine. I tin narrow information technology down to a line in the code that is throwing an fault message, simply I can't figure out why that code is no longer working. I've asked at WP:VP/T for help. Fut.Perf. ☼ xx:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I've clicked perchance 20 times to outset the sorcerer, just it doesn't start. I thought information technology was my tablet, I run across it'south non just me. Inkwell765 (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Having this aforementioned exact problem. No thing how many times you click first it takes you nowhere. Funkatastic (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, please see the thread above. The script is currently broken due to an unexpected modify in MediaWiki's Javascript support. A fix will hopefully be institute soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The Wikipedia cavalcade should be before the Eatables column, because the option for new users should go before the option for gratuitous files. "Former form" nether Commons should be "Onetime guided course", for consistency and more contrast with "Obviously form". "Files for upload wizard" should exist "Files for Upload Wizard", because using italics in that location feels nonstandard. Another thing is that I call back "Click here to start the Upload Wizard" should be replaced with "Start the Upload Magician", because I think "click hither" is generally advised against. Enervation (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

How exercise y'all upload an image with exclusively of Wikipedia and not of anywhere else, such as an image for WP:TWINKLE? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 07:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

What does "with exclusively of Wikipedia" mean? I can't brand sense of it; the grammar doesn't work. --Thnidu (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

It means upload images to Wikipedia rather than to Commons. Personally, I'd just use Special:Upload rather than the sorcerer if I needed to do that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Cheers, Jackmcbarn. I'd've said "How do you upload an image only for Wikipedia and not for anywhere else...?". I can't see how Kltpzyxm Qwertyxp2000 came up with that wording. ... (Visits userpage.) Hm, New Zealander, maybe that's it, a dialect I'g not familiar with.

Dorsum on topic: Qwertyxp2000, why not take Jackmcbarn'south proffer? --Thnidu (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Qwertyxp2000: if y'all mean an image with a license legally limiting its use to Wikipedia simply, the answer is there's no manner to exercise that, because all licenses on Wikipedia demand to allow re-use elsewhere. If you lot simply hateful an prototype that'south intended for Wikipedia-internal employ just, you tin can use this sorcerer simply as any other upload method, choose the options for "complimentary work" and the advisable license and upload it locally. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Tin can someone please tell me what this means? I have never gotten this error before, but now I am unable to upload an image considering of it - even though I am doing everything correctly.--Madotsuki the Dreamer (talk) sixteen:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, tin can't say almost this one. It might just be some server-side result similar to the "loss of session information" error one sometimes gets during normal editing; in that case your best bet is to but try again after reloading the folio. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I tried over and over again and kept getting the same error message.--Madotsuki the Dreamer (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Please meet WP:Village pump (proposals)#Set the File Upload Magician. BethNaught (talk) 14:19, nineteen August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Uploading is an unpleasant experience. It is fourth dimension-consuming and any fault gives cryptic messages. I attempted the upload to Artistic Commons but the file was rejected for having "consecutive commas" or some such.

Terms and weather condition aside, information technology takes three clicks to upload a photograph onto a forum website. I must have spent 25 minutes trying to put the photo here, and I have, equally still, no certainty that it has reached the right page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGMason (talk • contribs) 23:fifty, 29 October 2015 (UTC) [respond]

GaryGMason: Yep, it'south awkward, and not every bit clear as information technology should be. To quote the higher up, "Delight run across WP:Village pump (proposals)#Set up the File Upload Wizard."

But forums don't by and large intendance well-nigh copyright considerations, and Wikipedia has to, near scrupulously, in order to survive.

By the manner, please remember to sign your talk page comments with four tildes: ~~~~

Thnidu (talk) 00:09, 31 Oct 2015 (UTC) [answer]

Is there whatsoever way we could go the "Mistake: yous have been blocked from editing" message/hard stop to happen before in the procedure than at the final stage (afterward striking the "Upload file" button)? Information technology'due south annoying to accept everything prepare to upload a file and and so have to re-do it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:20, v Dec 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Might be possible; I don't think it's currently among the things that the script checks. On the other hand, we ordinarily expect blocked editors to know they are blocked once they log in, so why would somebody yet attempt to upload a file, knowing thy tin't do it and aren't supposed to? BTW, how and when did you experience this trouble? You don't seem to have been blocked on this account before? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 5 Dec 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I employ a VPN a lot, and it's blocked. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC) [answer]

Ah, so it was an autoblock yous got? I'one thousand afraid that might non be possible to fix then, since I don't remember the API has a function to query in accelerate whether your account is currently on an IP that would be subject to autoblocking. Those autoblocks only occur once y'all actually attempt to brand an edit, and then the script probably can't foresee it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Yikes, haha. Could yous program in some sort of function to cheque the IP besides? Maybe by telling the system that y'all're trying to edit as presently equally you click on the file upload wizard? Or would that increase the load on the organisation past too much? Faceless Enemy (talk) xiv:23, v December 2015 (UTC) [answer]

What sort of actions do I demand to do if I were to upload an paradigm of features of Wikipedia? Well, I know I can say it is in the Free Piece of work category, only I don't know what sort of testify to put in to images of Wikipedia. Where is the link virtually Wikipedia screenshots being freely licensed? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:24, xiii December 2015 (UTC) [respond]

I have found a comment past some user about one of my previous questions: "If y'all mean an image with a license legally limiting its use to Wikipedia only, the respond is there'southward no way to practice that, because all licenses on Wikipedia demand to permit re-use elsewhere. If you simply mean an image that'southward intended for Wikipedia-internal use only, you can employ this wizard just equally any other upload method, choose the options for "free work" and the advisable license and upload it locally". However, I am nonetheless non sure about what sort of evidence to put in. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:27, 13 Dec 2015 (UTC) [respond]

Oh, from now, Wikipedia-content-only images use {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:fourteen, 14 Dec 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Should all licensing-related templates transcluded in MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js, the "gears" behind Wikipedia:File Upload Magician, have cascading protection? I ask considering after realizing Template:Non-free biog-picture was transcluded there ... later on realizing that there was an edit request fulfilled in that location to remove "parameter 1", just then afterwards plant out personally that parameter 1 is nevertheless utilized in the file upload wizard, and thus reverted the related edits (all of this tin be found on the template'due south edit history), I at present worry that editing these templates could have a negative consequence on the upload wizard if not performed correctly. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC) [answer]

(Pinging Sfan00 IMG and Paine Ellsworth to make them aware of this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:xiv, 18 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• It's just confusing when software lawmaking shows upwardly in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Some template or random categories. Some time agone, User:B changed the script so that the software wouldn't think that OTRS permission is needed for pages like this. Later, User:Redrose64 removed some other transclusions. Can't the script but go nowiki tags at the pinnacle and bottom? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:35, 18 Nov 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• @Steel1943 and Stefan2: I don't run into how cascading protection would solve the trouble. The real problem is that people with the technical means of doing so shouldn't be editing protected templates without knowing that they are doing. There are but 118 people with the template editor privilege and then it'south non as though disallowing template editors from editing these templates is going to solve a problem. (Yes, it would take stopped this i person from making the edit, only in that location'due south 1332 admins who would have notwithstanding been able to.) Maybe the solution is to take a (withal another) big alert box on the talk page of the templates included hither that admonishes you strongly to make sure your edits don't intermission MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js? --B (talk) 03:08, 18 Nov 2015 (UTC) [respond]

• To Steel1943 and Stefan2: B is correct, and I have full responsibleness for the removal of the parameter without first seeking a consensus for the modify. There should exist no demand for cascade protection, nor for whatsoever new alarm box, considering there is already a large alert box on all template-protected edit pages that links to the "use" section of Wikipedia:Template editor. This type of edit and what should be done is expressly covered on that project page. I was wrong and consider this a good lesson, and I will certainly exercise more than intendance in the future. Paine 02:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Well, if you lot follow my suggestion and add nowiki tags to MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js, so MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js would no longer exist transcluding whatever templates, so any cascading protection wouldn't actually protect any templates. --Stefan2 (talk) xix:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• @Stefan2: That proffer really masks the problem: the fact that a page uses in a MediaWiki namespace folio was edited in a fashion that potentially could have caused harm to the upload magician, and the link on the MediaWiki immune the template to have the MediaWiki page on its "What links here" lists. The trouble is that the template had a "mis-edit", not the fact that it'south transcluded here. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC) [respond]
  • The page MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js currently transcludes some of the templates which the upload sorcerer may insert while other templates are not transcluded, which is inconsistent. The appropriate way would seem to exist to create a template like {{Twinkle standard installation}} and add that to the documentation folio of all templates used by the upload wizard. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC) [respond]

• (Super delayed response) @Stefan2: This idea definitely has some merit, and should be implemented. Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Notation that applying cascading protection to the templates themselves would be incorrect; you'd want to transclude the templates onto a cascade-protected page (e.thou. Wikipedia:Pour-protected items‎), or apply cascading protection to some folio on which they're already transcluded, or just protect them manually. Anomie⚔ 12:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The page says

Files for upload magician

(recommended for new users)

but doesn't actually link to a Files for upload magician. Information technology links to a page that links back to this page (that is, WP:File_Upload_Wizard).

Delight fix it so it accurately describes what it links to. Specifically, alter the wording from

Files for upload wizard

dorsum to

Files For Upload process

TIA.

(If it were to link like this: Files for Upload Sorcerer and then it would be authentic too.)

(If it were to link similar this: Files for Upload Wizard then it would be authentic too, once in place.)

--Elvey^(t•c) 20:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

@Elvey:, I a piffling confused on exactly what you want it to exist changed to, would you lot delight yous make the edit at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard/sandbox then reactivate the edit request tag to a higher place? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:59, v Jan 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I agree, it is a confusing link! — xaosflux ^Talk 21:00, five January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/west/alphabetize.php?championship=Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard&diff=622580540&oldid=613371561 This is the edit that made the link confusing. Information technology (in addition to making the page less maintainable) changed the wording

to

Files for upload magician

from

Files For Upload procedure

.

I think my (revised) request is at present very clear: Change the link text back. Sandbox edited. --Elvey^(t•c) 21:xi, v January 2016 (UTC) [respond]

Done — xaosflux ^Talk 21:35, 5 Jan 2016 (UTC) [respond]

Thanks.--Elvey^(t•c) 23:05, v Jan 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Did the principal downloads as your Wikimedia Foundation. But it does not piece of work. Please tell me what I did wrong? --Дагиров Умар (talk) xiv:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Hi. It seems like your version of the script at ce:MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js may have been copied off an older version of our script hither, from before these [1] bugfix edits this summer. These were necessary to remove some role calls that are no longer supported by our standard jQuery library. Your version on ce-wp seems to choke on the first lines of code that telephone call the "$.isDomElement()" office. Fut.Perf. ☼ xv:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Thank helped. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Again. I made a screenprint from Wikipedia, and fabricated adjustments (annotations). I uploaded it, but I could not go how to draw the licence correctly. I just made some guesses.

What is missing is the straightforward copyright selection: "This is a screenprint of a wikipedia page so the copyright situation is obvious" + url. -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 25 Feb 2016 (UTC) [reply]

@DePiep: please upload it to Wikimedia Commons instead and use the license {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} there. Though if y'all want to keep it locally here on Wikipedia, we accept {{Wikipedia-screenshot}}. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC) [answer]

Cheers, dandy. (This one is local because information technology's just a talkpage illustration). -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

In that location is a dreadful Catch-22 in this sorcerer. If you are beingness a 'good boy' and using the typhoon page wizard instead of creating an article directly, y'all will notice that:

This wizard demands that the image be assigned to an existing page.

You cannot comply, because the wizard does non recognise typhoon pages as existing.

Seems you have no selection simply to publish directly if a folio needs to comprise an epitome. Request for a review of the page with a missing image would seem like a bad idea. --Anteaus (talk) 11:59, iv March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The reason behind this might be that non-free images are not immune in drafts, and complimentary images should (almost always) exist uploaded to Wikimedia Eatables instead. Equally for the lack of images in drafts under review: images are not an inclusion criteria so information technology won't prevent an article from beingness accepted. "Supporting materials" is a B-grade commodity criteria, nonetheless, so it might bear on cess. I would suggest notifying the reviewer that an image will be uploaded upon beingness reviewed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Please likewise allow New users to upload files. Nihal Takar (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

(I am re-adding [and re-titling] this recent section, which IMO is a legitimate add-on to this folio but which has been caught upwardly in the edit-warring over Siwarsaab's vandalistic insertion of Standard arabic text virtually global warming. And ISTM that this page may need semi-protection. --Thnidu (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)) [reply]

It might exist a legitimate add-on to the page, but Nihal Takar is blocked for vandalism, and he may not be the same as Siwarsaab. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Really blocked as sock of Becambuisness not Siwarsaab. DMacks (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC) [respond]

@Arthur Rubin and DMacks: Ah, that makes sense. I had no idea. --Thnidu (talk) 08:07, ix March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Please notation that JavaScript support for IE8 had been dropped and there is some upload handling in MediaWiki's JS libraries now. It'd be nice if the script could be updated accordingly; Bartosz Dziewoński is eager to remove the SAMEORIGIN exception. -- Rillke (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC) [answer]

Hi, tin can anyone please inform me about license permission type which should be used through which someone tin can publish their image on Wikipedia but not for commercial purpose? Mr RD 17:50, xxx March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I'm afraid there is no such permission option. It's part of Wikipedia's policy that we take only images licensed in such a way that they can be re-used freely, for all purposes, including commercial ones. The only exceptions are those described in the WP:NFC policy, which is unlikely to apply in your case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

this folio is so difficult to upload photos - it took me twnety minutes jsut to upload one photograph!

• Bulleted list item

Warum gibt es keine Version File Upload Wizard? (Why is there no German version of File Upload Magician?) I am just asking this in curiosity. Gamingforfun ^{3 6 5} (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Are you lot request about uploads on sister projects such as the German language Wikipedia, or about uploads hither on the English Wikipedia when using a German user interface? As for the kickoff question, the wizard was written specifically for the English Wikipedia and is taylored to our needs here. I believe a few other projects have in the meantime copied information technology over and translated information technology for their own purposes, but that's entirely upward to each local project. The German language Wikipedia has image policies very dissimilar from ours here (no non-free images etc.), so I dubiety they'd take much of a use for it. As for the second, since the wizard is written equally a mere local Javascript program, it's exterior the telescopic of Wikimedia's normal interface localization machinery, and I'm afraid no localization of its letters in all the many user languages have been attempted so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:27, 17 Apr 2016 (UTC) [reply]

"Are you lot asking about uploads on sister projects such every bit the German language Wikipedia..." Yes.

"...or nearly uploads here on the English Wikipedia when using a German user interface?" No. Gamingforfun ^{iii 6 5} (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

In the meantime, I will be using Duolingo (because I am simply 44% fluent in German) so that I could actually study their Policen (policies) and would non have to pull up Oxford German Dictionary on my iPod Touch for every High german discussion which I do non yet know, which is doubtless tiresome, and possibly ask questions on English Wikipedia. Gamingforfun ^{3 half-dozen v} (talk) 18:32, 17 Apr 2016 (UTC) [answer]

Every bit for copyrighted material on Deutsch Wikipedia, I estimate that it does non matter because, even if I were to take lived in Deutschland, I can yet always switch from Deutsch Wikipedia to English Wikipedia just to report the copyrighted material tagged under the "Fair Use" rationale; therefore, in that location is no need for me to "beg" for such media on Deutsch Wikipedia when I can still gain admission to the media on (English) Wikipedia anyhow. Gamingforfun ^{3 6 5} (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC) [respond]

http://russia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Lets_get_married_from_youtube_2008_show.png

It is from: https://www.youtube.com/picket?5=5tXAXPkzL4g

Thank you lot

(This comment was written by Moscowamerican on 17 Apr 2016 at 02:21 CTZ.) Gamingforfun ^{3 6 v} (talk) twenty:xiv, 17 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

It's a copyrighted image, so it could only be uploaded under the rules for "non-costless" items, if at all. Choose the section "This is an excerpt from a copyrighted work", and then follow the instructions on what further information to provide. Please exist enlightened that there cannot be a guarantee that you volition cease up with an acceptable upload. The sorcerer is as complicated equally it is because it has to exist: most images out at that place on the web just aren't useable in Wikipedia, and if this wizard doesn't seem to show you an easy and straightforward way of uploading it, the nearly likely reason is that your picture show really doesn't fit in any of the legitimate use cases. In the instance of a TV screenshot similar this, y'all will have to provide a convincing reason why a reader would need this detail screenshot to fairly understand the content of the article. This volition merely be possible if the specific scene shown in the motion-picture show is the object of substantial discussion in the article. Since you lot already have another picture about the show as a whole, an upload would otherwise be difficult to justify.

By the fashion, delight learn to sign your postings on talkpages, by putting the code "~~~~" at the finish of your posts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 17 Apr 2016 (UTC) [reply]

...since I was here last. Xaosflux, Was any beta testing done on this tool? The initial page loads up with some incomprehensible gibberish below the "Click hither to start the upload wizard" button, and why does information technology non allow users to license their piece of work via CC-By-SA 4.0? Specifically, the page I go looks like this:

One more thing: wouldn't it make sense to tell uploaders that this upload tool should only be used for images that are going to get a fair use argument, and that otherwise all media should be uploaded through Commons instead of Wikipedia? Because the vast majority of Wikipedia media uploads become shifted in that location anyhow. KDS4444 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Cheers for flagging up the display problem in the links. Those are evidently due to a contempo change in a template used [ii]. The CC 4.0 versions aren't there however considering nobody got around to updating the form since they were introduced. As for the question of how to treat or discourage local free uploads, that'south been discussed repeatedly hither on talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Tin can I ask a question Carlostench (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

@Carlostench: Have you looked into Assist: Files? You may find the answer in that location. See especially the section Help: Files#Uploading files. --Thnidu (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I merely used this tool to upload a logo for a university, and it worked very well! Wikipedian Sign Language Paine 04:18, v July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The template is non at all clear and is much more than complex than the old class. I take a moving picture of a magazine cover. Does that make me the Writer? If and so, how do I sign - by tildes or what? or is that the pattern artist, or is information technology the publisher? This is a common plenty category to require something similar a boilerplate or at least help with what is supposed to go into the categories. Chemic Engineer (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC) [respond]

No, you're non the author, the publisher of the magazine would be. (You lot're making a true-blue/slavish reproduction of a copyrighted work, which is not considered to create a new copyright via United states law). --MASEM (t) xix:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I did non want the answer, I desire it made articulate in the uploader. I run into that once y'all have uploaded it, some moderately helpful information appears, which would accept been useful before. If anyone else is having problem, encounter Template:Non-complimentary apply rationale series publication. Chemical Engineer (talk) nineteen:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Concord with User:Chemical Engineer. It'south much more clear how it's supposed to exist done after you upload the image and see what you did incorrectly. There should exist a "show preview" button or something. I'm almost tempted to fill out the required fields with gibberish and upload it so that I can edit the file page straight. Cadger (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

What tin I put something on I have on my IPhone to put information technology on this. Cheers Hayes Runner (talk) 04:59, fifteen September 2016 (UTC) [respond]

I'm fairly WP savvy but usually get confused past the ambiguity and vagueness of file upload instructions. Information technology's a lot clearer now. Thank you. (May yet exist a chip of a claiming for newbies - don't know - but at least this ten-yr veteran isn't left scratching his head any more.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · e-mail) 05:46, nineteen September 2016 (UTC) [respond]

Can we please disable the ability to upload files with this option?

I haven't got the bear witness correct at present, but I will provide some if requested to practice so.

Files uploaded under this option are immediately eligible for speedy deletion in 7 days under F11. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:11, 26 Dec 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Any input you may take on improving the bot, or whether the bot should run at all, would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ramaksoud2000Bot. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC) [respond]

Has anyone been experiencing upload problems? I'm getting the fault message "An unknown mistake occurred in storage backend "local-swift-eqiad"." -O.R. ^Comms 17:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC) [answer]

The backlog of files to re-create to Commons is huge on the English Wikipedia. It tin very easily exist explained by the fact that users aren't forced to upload their files to Eatables. It's just a proffer fabricated to them during the upload process. On the French Wikipedia, information technology'southward mandatory to import complimentary files to Commons since the end of 2006, so in that location'south no backlog since at least 2013. Why not do the same here? The RedBurn (ϕ) 09:xviii, iv December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This has been discussed hither repeatedly. Come across, for instance, Wikipedia talk:File Upload Magician/Archive iii#New upload diction, Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard/Archive 2#Commons arrow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC) [respond]

• !Vote for Commons

Otherwise, alter the text at Wikipedia:File Upload Magician which tells new users, "Sorry, in order to upload files on the English Wikipedia, you need to have a confirmed business relationship". If we practise non automatically directly people to Commons, then we should at least exist more direct in telling them that probably they should be at Commons. Almost no new users can upload a Wikipedia-compliant non-free file. Almost all new users with a Commons-compatible file should put it at Commons.

I know this has been discussed before. I am not persuaded by these raised arguments from the archives:

• "information technology'southward also objectively more hard to go much of the editing context on Commons"
• "this could cause problems for people with SUL conflicts on Eatables"
• "where many of us who accept admin rights here lack them"

I came hither because the electric current process rejected a new user who wished to share a free file. The current process imagines that new users conceptualize that in that location is a divide media repository at Commons, merely in fact, near no new users expect this. I exercise non recollect it is reasonable for a new user to read, "Lamentable, in order to upload files on the English Wikipedia, you demand to take a confirmed business relationship" and to sympathise that they accept an pick to upload on Commons. New users should exist more than strongly directed to Eatables. Bluish Rasberry (talk) 17:52, 20 Jan 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I do non know where to send the email from an image copyright owner giving permission to use that image. Tin someone please help me locate where to send that email ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:51, x February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@Carroll F. Grey: In this case, you would ship it to permissions-enwikimedia.org. If y'all were uploading to Commons, you would ship it to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. --AntiCompositeNumber (Go out a bulletin) 01:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

If 1 selects an image as nonfree, there is a "This file will exist used in the following article:" box. Entering various non-"article" pagenames here has some magic, for example, converting the name of a redirect to its actual target. Merely it looks like at least one of the standard additional templates placed on redirect pages tin break this feature. If I enter "Taxol", where Taxol is:

#REDIRECT [[Paclitaxel]] {{R from trade proper noun}}

the text field becomes "International nonproprietary name", which is a link in the expansion of {{R from trade name}}, rather than "Paclitaxel". Is it pulling "final link in the template-expanded file" rather than "link following 'REDIRECT'", or something like that? DMacks (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Once again: why can non I say that I edited a Wikipedia commons file? -DePiep (talk) 20:46, four April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

One affair is sure: my last upload will have a incorrect clearance considering of this. Exercise you know the Wikipedia eatables source file does not even mention the licence text as this upload folio optionises (asks for, drib down listed)? That is: Upload asks for a licence that is not mentioned on the source's page while that is a Wikipedia page. -DePiep (talk) 20:58, four April 2017 (UTC) [respond]

Ṁąḧạɖḭ ḦḁŠáñ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahadi Official (talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

If one selects an prototype as nonfree, at that place is a "Special source and license conditions (optional)" popup that has an entry "Denver Public Library". By patently-language, that means images from this source have some special licensing arrangement, only there is no further detail there and I don't see a style to have this (or any of these) bill of fare items link to more specific information. Does Denver Public Library have some special collection, for which this option facilitates bulk uploading? Selecting this selection tags the paradigm with {{Non-free Denver Public Library}}. At a minimum that needs to become blue with something like {tl|Non-free ESA media} and others in that menu. DMacks (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. The template link was wrong; it was meant to bespeak to {{Non-free Denver Public Library image}} (at present redirected). It's a rarely-used template, but it existed every bit office of Category:Wikipedia not-free file copyright tags when this script was created, that'south why it got included. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 19 Apr 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I was logged in with my username and tried to upload a new image to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joomla. I was not able to upload a new paradigm using "embedded file".

And when I attempt to upload information technology using the Visual Editor (via Insert > Media), the Media Settings screen displays the error: apierror-permissiondenied. How can I solve that? Pe7er (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

the file upload Wizard was awesome i beloved it very much, thank you(BirialaGday (talk) 19:eleven, 23 Apr 2017 (UTC)) [reply]

i similar it

shamsuddin sheikh xi:12, six May 2017 (UTC)          — Preceding unsigned annotate added by Shamsuddinsk97 (talk • contribs)                  

Was wondering if it would be possible to add together something to the upload wizard specifically most uploading non-free images of living people? I understand that at that place is a fleck virtually not-gratis content in "Step 3", merely I imagine that most editors do not carp to stop and accept the time to go a read WP:NFC or WP:NFCCP before continuing on with the magician. Maybe a check box which says something similar "Is this a photo of a living person or persons?" could be added somewhere to the wizard that when checked would provide information like what's found in the note given in Template:WikiProject Biography when the |needs-photo= is marked every bit "yeah" in BLP articles. This might stop some people from uploading such images and reduce the fourth dimension and try spent finding them and deleting them. At that place are some certain cases where such an image might exist considered adequate per WP:NFCC#ane as explained in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI, but most of the time the files are conspicuously replaceable fair use which only terminate up being deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, eighteen May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

bainhied1960.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:File_Upload_Wizard/Archive_5

Share this post