Warning about File:Mapa de situación da parroquia no seu concello cos nomes dos concellos - Salcidos, A Guarda.png

I received a message from you about a problem with no license in this image and two others. The {{template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-es}} can be seen below the box with the usual "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Spain license". I don't understand, tell me what's wrong (with this and other hundreds images marked the same way). Edit: I moved the template to the section "permission" of the Infobox. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 13:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sobreira The location of the template in the page doesn't matter. Sometimes MediaWiki doesn't update the templates and categories correctly, and the bot can't detect that. I don't see anything wrong with the file now. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but you deleted File:Mapa de situación da parroquia no seu concello cos nomes dos concellos - A Guarda, A Guarda.png and File:Mapa de situación da parroquia no seu concello cos nomes dos concellos - Camposancos, A Guarda.png. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 16:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

And now I'm confused: you claim you deleted the files in my talk page but @User:Krd is the one mentioned in the files log history (not for the restored image). ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 16:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Warning about File:ASTERACEAE Tilesia baccata (L.) Pruski, MPEG (MG031342).pdf and many others

I've been receiving many messages from you about files with no license, it was a problem with the licence template tag that is already fixed. There is something more that I need to do to stop bot messages? HGodinho (WMB) (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@HGodinho (WMB) It seems that MediaWiki was not updating the files very quickly after the template was fixed. I have updated the bot so it now purges the file pages before reviewing them, which should prevent this error. I have removed the no license tag from the files. Please let me know if it happens again. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! HGodinho (WMB) (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

no license tags

Hello. Please see for example: File:InFlames (27833873426).jpg. It appears to be community consensus to keep files from Flickr which are with the public domain mark. While I personally don't agree with that, I try to comply as far as possible. Usually I convert them to deletion requests, but this is much work and also controversial, and creates lots of deletion request which are also heavily backlogged. I tried to just remove the no-license tag as {{Remove this line and insert a public domain copyright tag instead}} should be sufficient to track them, but your bot taggs them again. So my suggestion: Please don't tag files by your bot that have the latter mentioned template. Please let me know what you think. --Krd 06:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Krd Last I checked, consensus is only to keep PDM files uploaded by the copyright holder, and that is indicated with {{PDMark-owner}}/{{PD-author-FlickrPDM}}. Files with only {{Flickr-public domain mark}} do not have a valid license until someone confirms whether it's an owner upload or not. The whole point of AntiCompositeBot's NoLicense task is to prevent files with no license from languishing in backlogs indefinitely, which is what happens with un-dated templates like {{Flickr-public domain mark}}. It's the uploader's responsibility to apply the correct tag as far as I'm concerned, not admins' responsibility to chase them down for it. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Understood. I will continue to delete such files then. Thx. Krd 10:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Warning about File:EB FL 26; Old Route 26 East Leg to US 301 in Orange Heights.jpg

Regarding the image File:EB FL 26; Old Route 26 East Leg to US 301 in Orange Heights.jpg; The copyright tag was inadvertently blanked out as I was preparing a future image description replacement. I corrected this error. Another image with a future image description replacement caused its categories to be blanked out, and I fixed this problem as well. You have no reason to tag it for deletion anymore. --DanTD (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)