Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 13

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. I couldn't understand why the image "Appassionatamente.jpg" was incorrectly loaded. Please, can you explain the right procedure? The image was created by Mr. Efrem Barrotta and its used as the logo of an Italian Association. Mr. Barrotta said to me that the image is free, never registered and can be used by everyone. Thanks--Pasciutoale (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrator has used commons admin position to coerce admin @ simplewiki

User:Maximr in IRC threatened to delete Gwib's images if Gwib did not protect Maximr's simplewiki talk. I've reposted the logs as a whistleblower. 

<Maximr> Gwib: either you reprotect my page
<Gwib> decide whether or not to leave, then stay away
<Yotcmdr> Maximr, calm down :)
<Maximr> or I start deleting your personal images from Commons

This was 14:40 MST. I don't like this on any project. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Note here. --Gwib (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not how I want to see an administrator act here or anywhere for that matter. Definitely not a cool move to make. Razorflame (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Maxim apologized for the incident. I don't think "rubbing" it in will be helpful. --Kanonkas(talk) 22:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No I'm not rubbing it in. I'm asking the community to remove his privileges. We simply can not ever have an administrator doing this, not even once. This activity is like poison to any project. He is a good contributor, but I fear, no longer the prime candidate for sysop. Coercion. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
NVS, use the deadminship process then. Majorly talk 22:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you link me to it? NonvocalScream (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Maxim made a silly mistake, and later apologized for it. About the deadminship process - I don't think you'll get far there, I've yet to see where one mistake/inappropriate conduct is the result of desysoppment. --Kanonkas(talk) 22:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Where is the process? NonvocalScream (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
On RFA, but requesting deadminship instead. Majorly talk 22:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we all take a deep breath here? What damage was actually done to the project (either project)? None that I'm aware of. Now, that doesn't make threats such as this OK, but it does mean we can try to be moderate in whatever resolution we take up. Instead of jumping on the desysop bandwagon, let's figure out if there are actually constructive courses of action we could be taking.

One constructive way forward might be for someone to talk with the two users involved and try to resolve their interpersonal issues.

Instead, I see only hyperbole and knee-jerk reactions. These are not helpful to the situation, those involved, nor the project more generally. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mike here. --Kanonkas(talk) 23:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I expect that if I ever used any position that I currently have as coercive, that my access would be revoked, very quickly. Please don't minimize the gravity of such threats. Using your buttons to get your way on this project, or any other project is absolutely incorrect. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You're right, it is completely unacceptable, but I agree with Mike. Let's talk to the people involved before we start the lynching. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I've asked for the DRFA to be deleted. But, I'll be honest. I don't know what else to do. I fear this happening, and I don't want it to recur. I'll have to consider Mike's suggestion, but how can we prevent this? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  Done. Deleted the page. --Kanonkas(talk) 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
That's such a grave event we have here. In my opinion, we first have to replace that part of the conversation within context; I doubt that threat just appeared from the ground up. →Diti the penguin — 23:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The context is that Maxim wanted to leave sewp, and desired to have his talk page there protected. He came into the chat and demanded that protection be reapplied. I can release the entire log with the participants permission. I only released the pertinent portions for concern of privacy. I would not have released any had I not considered the situation so grave as to blow the whistle. We simply can not have administrators, or anyone with special access, acting this way. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I royally fucked up. I apologized. I cannot change the past. I explained, maybe not to NVS, circumstances leading up to me flaming out like a horde of fireworks in a cramped warehouse. I'm not resigning over this incident. While we can't have administrators acting like this, I don't think I'm going to be the administrator to act like this again. Maxim(talk) 01:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's good to hear. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing more to see here. Giggy (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Image disappearance

Several images, including Image:Suikoden.jpg, Image:Somagahana Fuchiemon restored.jpg, and Image:Somagahana Fuchiemon.jpg have died on commons, and claim errors and won't display even at full res (on Firefox, anyway), but if I download it, they will display again. What's going on? Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The thumbnail urls are fairly informative: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Suikoden.jpg/411px-Suikoden.jpg. Hesperian 05:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
...Interesting. But what can be done to fix this? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
All those pictures do show at full resolution (on my Firefox, anyway), so only thumbnails are missing. I could not find a category for tracking images with missing thumbnails, so I created one Category:Images without thumbnails. It might be useful for people trying to fix those problems. --Jarekt (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For anyone with a Bugzilla account, perhaps it's best to keep a list of images affected at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17645. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant the category for any image with thumbnail problems. --Jarekt (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

coulf somebody check otrs-ticket

in the next page are some album covers where will be read OTRS-ticket number, could sombeody check them--Motopark (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My take on it is that the licensing is problematic, first because the free licenses are described to the creator as without a commercial purpose and secondly because he doesn't explicitly choose a specific license from the full list presented to him. I think we should better contact Xavier121 to re-contact the creator (or just delete them) - Badseed talk 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I know many of you, dear administrators, are good people
and are interested in fighting off racism, antisemitism and hate speech,
but before fighting something off it might be a good idea to know
what antisemitism is and what antisemitism is not.

I state that users Liftarn and Pieter Kuiper not only upload
hate propaganda, antisemitic images to Commons, but also spreading that hate and antisemitism
around Commons by adding bogus categories to the images.

Not only they add bogus categories to the images, but they
do not let other people to add the right categories, which
are antisemitism and racism.

Both users genuinely believe that the images have nothing to do with antisemitism.
Well, they are wrong.

Please do not take my words on it.
Here's WORKING DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM established by EU in 2005.
BTW EU hardly could be called a friend of Israel.

The document provides few samples in which antisemitism manifests itself:

  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Any fair minded person will see that almost all more than 100 images by latuff
that were uploaded by Liftarn, Pieter Kuiper and others do fell under these definitions.

You do not agree with me, dear administrators, do you?

But who are the judges, to tell me what is and what is not antisemitism?

Is it Mattbuck, who does not know the difference between Israel and Judaism?

Is it Pieter Kuiper, who added a category "antisemitic picture" to this image File:Burning Jews.jpg
that has nothing to do with antisemitic picture?

Or maybe the judges are you, dear administrators, you, who are looking for the racism,
where there is none while completely missing a real thing?

I was told that Commons is not censored. Well, if it not censored
to spread hate and antisemitism maybe it is also not censored to call these
images with their real names?

I was told that the images are within the scope of the project.
Well, if the project's scope allows antisemitism and racism,
let us have a bravery to say this clear and loud
by giving the right categories to the images.

I was told Commons is collaborative environment.
Well, remember that fairy tale w:The Emperor's New Clothes (Keiserens nye Klæder) by w:Hans Christian Andersen?
The Emperor in this tale was naked, but everybody around him collaboratively
"exclaimed: Indeed, the emperor's new suit is incomparable! What a long train he has! How well it fits him!"
Nobody wished to let others know he saw nothing, for then he would have been unfit for his office or too stupid.
Never emperor's clothes were more admired. "But he has nothing on at all," said a little child at last..."
I'll let you to figure out the meaning of the tale.

I admit I lost the battle here on Commons.
I am sure in the world the democracy and freedom will win the war against hate and racism.

While I was writing this post I was thinking about my relatives, who I never got
to know because they were murdered in the Holocaust much before I was born,
the Holocaust that started with hate propaganda and antisemitic caricatures in newspapers.
There were mostly good people in Germany back then (of course now too).
Every one of them simply thought that nothing bad
would happen, if I keep silent... So they kept silent as you do now, dear administrators.
Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


Just a quick comment, but why so many line breaks? Was that meant to be a poem? As for your accusation that I don't know the difference between Judaism and Israel, I admit I probably made a mistake with that category. I admitted that, and it was subsequently removed. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I made so many breaks because IMO it made it easier to read. You said "I do know the difference between judaism and israel, it's like the difference between stupidity and america". A strange admission, isn't it? :) Anyway, thank you for the comment. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
long text, i stopped at your reference on File:Burning Jews.jpg, this image clearly shows a part of the history of antisemitism, maybe the subcategorie is not correct. I cant follow your argumentation here, please review the context of the image in s:de:Die_Schedelsche_Weltchronik_(deutsch):221 --Martin H. (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I know it is long, I tried to make it shorter, but IMO it is way too important. I agree that the image does show the histiry of antisemitism, but is not an Antisemitic picture. I hope you see the difference.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, i agree with you. The image does not adopt a position like others. It is even difficult to discribe this in english for me, so i think you should not judge anyone on a maybe wrong translation/understanding of a category. --Martin H. (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Martin, you are absolutely right. I should not judge anyone and I do not. I understand that the lack of education, knoledge of history or a wrong translation could be a cause for such an error.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what you, Mbz1, are seeking to achieve here. If your intention is to educate the Commons community about antisemitism then that is perfectly honourable but to what end? Commons does and always will host a wide variety of material as part of our duty to provide freely licensed content. It is inevitable that some of this will offend some individuals. Whilst of course not wanting to host more material that is considered offensive than is necessary, we shouldn't be overly concerned about doing so since that would get in the way of providing useful educational content. Where an understanding of issues like antisemitism really become useful is when deciding on how to categorise images and anyone changing categories should take the time to ensure they understand the subject.
You "state that users Liftarn and Pieter Kuiper not only upload hate propaganda, antisemitic images to Commons, but also spreading that hate and antisemitism around Commons by adding bogus categories to the images". The only concern about the behaviour of users in that observation would be that users are deliberately adding inappropriate categories with the aim of offending more people. It might also be the case that users could be removing appropriate categories in order to reduce the awareness of particular images because they find them offensive. Users shouldn't be allowed to use the Commons category structure to try to offend people nor should those individuals who are offended by images use it to suppress those images. Both of these could be occurring and both are very wrong. It is important though that users with differing views don't resort to making accusations that either of these are going on and in so doing remove any possibility that reasonable discussions about categorisation leading to consensus can be achieved. The uploading of "hate propaganda, antisemitic images" is only an issue if they are beyond the scope of the project and if that was the case then the community might consider the users behaviour to be inappropriate.
So, Mbz1, what would you like to happen? Users who are involved in categorising images to understand the topic? Sounds like a good idea to me. Perhaps, as seems to be implied by some of your comments, you wish for Commons not to host images which you consider antisemitic? Well, I'm afraid, you're not going to achieve that since it would likely be decremental to our duty to provide educational content. Please outline in simple terms exactly what you want otherwise I might come to the conclusion that you a merely seeking to embroil other users in debates about religion or politics, something which would seem to be illustrated by this comment. It is welcomed however that you're choosing to discuss things rather than enforce your opinion and get involved in edit wars. Adambro (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
First of all I'd like to thank you ,Adambro, for reading my post and taking the time to respond!
Yes, I'd like to educate the Commons community about antisemitism. Not because I wanted to do it, but rather because I had no choice. Yes, I would like the users who are involved in categorising images to understand the topic. Yes, I would like at least some of latuff images get category Category:Antisemitic pictures. I'm not asking to remove the images that are here now, but you know my take on this issue. I believe that we've got more than enough images to show in the category Category:Antisemitic pictures. I would like to add the same template to the category for latuff images as this category has. IMO both these categories have more than enough images of "dubiously educational examples".


Yes, I do believe that Liftarn deliberately adding inappropriate categories and tries to execute the message by latuff that Liftarn adds to some of latuff images:
" Once again I beg you reader, my brothers and sisters-in-arts, to spread these cartoons. Reproduce them in posters, newspapers, magazines, zines, blogs, everywhere. Let's make the voice of the Gaza people to be heard all around the world. Thank you, in the name of the Palestinians of Gaza."
And this is exactly what Liftarn is doing here on Commons. How else could I call Liftarn adding category buses to this image File:IsraHellburningbuses.png except deliberately adding inappropriate categories, and it is only one example --Mbz1 (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Silly me. I thought adding Category:Buses to an image of buses would be quite uncontroversial. // Liftarn (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
So, you do believe you are silly. I guess it could provide at least some explanation of you adding the wrong categories to the images. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Adambro, I believe we both have changed to the better. I'm choosing to discuss things rather than enforce my opinion and get involved in edit wars, and you're choosing to talk to me instead of simply asking to keep me off Commons altogether :)--Mbz1 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Public domain in Canada

I'm not sure where to post (I'm not too skilled in determining this... :/), but I'll do it here as it seems to get frequent. According to Template:PD-Canada, any photograph created before in 1949 is in the public domain in Canada. However, to be PD in the US, it needs to have been either created or published (unsure) pre-1946. Can someone help me out? Does this mean one is free to upload all image created in Canada before 1946 to Commons? Maxim(talk) 02:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct - however note that the Jan 1 1948 date applies to photographs. Any Canadian photograph from before that date in PD in Canada, but must also meet requirements for being PD in the US in addition. IIRC, the date for that is Jan 1 1923.  — Mike.lifeguard 04:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


Tool server down again? No usage check possible

Tool server seems to be down again. Image usage check doesn't work since this morning. Instead of making admin work easier it's made more difficult. Strange Wikimedia world.--Túrelio (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is intentional. J.smith (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure. But it happens a little bit too often, despite the several millions of $ in donations until end of 2008.--Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
They have bought new servers[1], they install them this days[2].--Luxo 20:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on File:CaoBlueBackground.JPG

File:CaoBlueBackground.JPG Edit war going on. I would appreciate some third party consulation. It's getty silly. Thanks -Truckbest23098 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No permission tag removed, not to be reinstalled unless the OTRS ticket is found to be not valid. Further editwar will lead to administrative actions, protecting the page and/or blocking user(s) participating. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

faulty uploader message by fair-use-tag

There seems to be something wrong with the automatically produced message when somebody uploads an image and adds a {{Fair use}} tag. Take for example, File:OrangeRangeFirstContact.jpg. If you paste the resulting string {{subst:No fair use|File:OrangeRangeFirstContact.jpg}} --~~~~ onto the talkpage of the uploader (as I did), a fair use warning appears, but the name of the image/file does not appear, even though this name is contained in the above cited string. Any idea? --Túrelio (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Turelio, Joku Janne improved Template:Fair use, which is the target of many redirected fair use templates like Screenshots, Covers, etc., with the user notification Template:No fair use instead of the old Template:Copyvionote - thats the background. {{No fair use}} never had a propper headline, I fixed this but without paying attention to internationalization, the new headline is the Filename or No fair use at Commons if no filename is given. --Martin H. (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:PD-BrazilGov

This template was two years ago under discussion on its talk page and in a DR. The problem was that the referenced law section apparently considers trademark law only which lead to some confusion. Within the DR a consensus was reached to keep this license template but to reference another more appropriate law section. This was subsequently implemented (see here and here). Later, this was reverted without any further discussion (see here and here). I am inclined to revert this back again to the state which reflected the consensus of the DR. Any objections? --AFBorchert (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No objections from me. The user probably changed back to the article 124 in good faith without reading the DR discussion. Lugusto • ※ 16:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, Lugusto. And I indeed believe that the user acted in good faith as it is easy to miss the discussion in the DR. Both templates have now been updated as proposed. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploads of User:Biberbaer

Hey everyone, I came across User:Biberbaer who has uploaded a lot of files tagged as own work. However, there is metadata from at least 3 different cameras and some images are clearly scanned (and even contain the scanner's metadata). File:Berliner_Wasserstraßen.jpg and File:Skizze Kaffe.jpg have already been deleted due to unclear licensing (as stated by user) or copyright violation. Obviosly, this user cannot be trusted when it comes to own work claims, so I suggest deletion of the remaining images. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmh, and what kind of person are you? Did you already ask Biberbaer about this? He is an active user on deWP and you both could even speak the same language. Pls think about your good manners the next time you see such problems, you just increase the problems when the user gets angry if he´s treated this way..--D.W. (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Considering the discussion between D.W. and Biberbaer on Biberbaer's talk page, I still assume good faith in this case. The problem is, however, that Biberbaer appears to be unfamiliar with copyright law and Commons policies. Because of this, he has apparently stated himself as author on a set of uploads where he has just scanned them. Nearly all of his uploads seem to be his own works (photographs) or scans of various images out of his private collections. These scanned images are indeed a problem and I've filed them for deletion. I've also written some explaining text in German language on his talk page such that he is hopefully able to understand the problems we have with his uploads. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I didn't have the time for a personal notification when I wrote this. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Biberbaer gave today a comment. In my rough translation: Hi, I understand meanwhile the problem. To avoid any further damage to the project I ask for the deletion of the images that do not conform to Commons policies. Following this, I suggest that we close the DRs early that I opened for his images: DR #1, DR #2, DR #3, and DR #4. Given his comment, I do not see any hope that we can keep these images. Any objections? --AFBorchert (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did not you ask him to specify sources? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I asked him already on his talk page and I just got the response I've translated above. --AFBorchert (talk)

Thumbnailer not thumbnailing GIFs - huge waste of bandwidth!

 
Should we ban all GIFs on Commons?

There seems to be a serious problem with the thumbnailer. It is not thumbnailing GIF files when displaying categories. Instead, it is sending to the client the whole original file in original size! The client browser naturally only displays the image 120 pixels wide, but it downloads the whole full resolution file to display it. For a demonstartion see Category:Runestones in North America. On my 5 Mbps connection it takes several seconds to see the image of the Kensington Runestone. When saving the downloaded "120 px" thumbnail to hard disk, I get the whole 2,3 MB file.

Wikipedia has suffered from serious performance problems in the last weeks. This may be related. I know this is not the right place discuss the technical issue. Most likely this is not limited to Commons. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

GIF scaling was disabled in November when it overloaded the thumbnailer servers. See bugzilla:13252 and bugzilla:16451. Nobody seems to want to deal with animated GIFs, so a solution would be to use ogg for animation, or pre-scaled gifs if they're really needed somewhere. --Para (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
There is was a discussion going on at bugzilla:16451, but nobody seems to take the issue seriously. They did point out some nice test categories you should avoid looking at:
-- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My browser (FireFox) is protected from that kind of problems: I added "http://upload.wikimedia.org/*.gif" to the list of "AdBlocked" items. N.B.: I can still click on any link to view a GIF image (in full size). :-) - Erik Baas (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you pointed out the other side of the problem. This is not only affecting Wikimedia servers but also user with limited bandwidth or memory. If users have to block Commons content like spam, then something is seriously wrong. Anyway, I have created a hidden category Category:Very large GIF files. Some of the stuff there would be better served in other formats. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Deficiencies with current software downsizing of PNGs

It would be nice if they would treat animated GIFs differently from non-animated gifs. In many cases, non-animated GIFs were used in preference to PNGs because the Wikimedia software's thumbnailing of PNGs really sucks a lot of the time, while the GIF thumbnailing was actually a whole lot better in most respects (as long as you didn't use a transparent background). In the current situation, there's no reasonably good general Wikimedia thumbnailing of any lossless raster image format which can be uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia. So if you don't want to upload a JPEG or convert to SVG (or your image isn't really appropriate for those two formats), then you're pretty much screwed right now (unless your image is pretty small, or you only want to use small-sized thumbnails of it). AnonMoos (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If I understood the bugzilla discussion correctly, there does not seem to be an efficent algoritm to distinguish between animated and non-animated GIFs, sounds strange though. I am not sure that scaling animated GIFs is a good idea in the first place. What we could see instead is the first frame with some small icon indicating animation (like "alias" icons on Windows), or some kind of play button on it like on embedded YouTube videos.
In the mean time, I do not think GIF files should be served at all. The simple algoritm.
  1. If scaling is less than 50% serve original file.
  2. If scaling is more than 50% serve "GIF - click to view" - icon.
-- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes GIF format is strange since the image header does not tell you about number of frames to expect. You read the first image and if you did not found end-of-file character than you look for new-image-character than you know you have at least 2 frames, etc. I understand that some machine might not have enough memory for creating thumbnails for large PNG's or large Gif's. The algorithm might have to apply the same size threshold PNG files have: if the file is over some size than no thumbnail. But what happens to the thumbnails already calculated? Are they kept, or are they being lost? No thumbnails on new images is less of a problem than no thumbnails for all images. Can users upload thumbnails to the images without them? --Jarekt (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The 12.5 megapixel limit has always applied to both PNGs and GIFs since it was imposed around late 2005. The real problem is that the Wikimedia software PNG downsizing algorithm employs a rigid one-size-fits-all approach (often generating an alpha channel, whether or not an alpha channel is of any use for a particular image, for example), and does not pay attention to information in the input PNG which could help it to do a more efficient job of downsizing in some cases. If PNG downsizing were better, then probably fewer people would bother to upload non-animated GIFs... AnonMoos (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
For a concrete example, see Image:WWII.png which (as recently pointed out on Commons:Graphics village pump) has an original size of 1357x628 pixels, 16,137 bytes, while the automatically-generated 800x370 pixel preview on the image description page is 102,332 bytes! It was to avoid situations like this that some people uploaded GIFs (which actually worked better under Wikimedia downsizing), but now they're pretty much screwed whether they upload a PNG or a GIF... AnonMoos (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The crappy scaling software alone should not make people use GIF instead of PNG. There are a dozen reasons to choose PNG over GIF (especially quality- and compression-related), but once we get a GIF file we are stuck with that. Maybe the image scaler will be improved in the future, then the PNG files will render to a smaller preview, but the GIF files cannot be helped. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You think that it shouldn't make people upload GIFs, but in the past it has in fact sometimes had this effect. Not sure what "quality" means -- since PNG and GIF are both lossless formats, therefore for the type of data which can be stored in both formats (e.g. images with a maximum of 256 colors, with one color possibly marked as transparent), the "quality" will be exactly the same between the two. AnonMoos (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding PNG scaling, would it be that hard to have the scaler check the before and after file sizes, so that in the case of the WWII map, it would just serve the full image instead of a overly bloated resized thumbnail? -Andrew c (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
However, if the server software doesn't scale the image down before sending it, then the user's browser will scale it down on-the-fly while displaying it, generally by simply omitting rows and columns of pixels (the same thing that happens with GIFs now), which does not give very good visual results... AnonMoos (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

PNG optimizations

There is a also a related discussion at Wikipedia:WP:Bot_requests#Lossless_Image_Optimization_and_Compression_Bot and Wikipedia:WP:VPT#Smaller_Wikipedia_Logo_files.Smallman12q (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have losslessly compressed the background image by 2kb and the logo by 260bytes...could someone please replace File:Commons-bg.png with File:Commons-bg1.png and File:Wiki-commons.png with File:Wiki-commons.png(I would appreciate if I was given credit). I would like to point out that a 15kb background is a bit large...but since its cached, its not that bad.Smallman12q (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
What's the obsession with getting credit? You want your name on the commons logo? Should we issue a press release? --Dschwen (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WP:CALM. I believe obsession is overreacting. I simply wanted to be acknowledged should a Commons admin choose to update the pics. Seeing as this will derail the current conversation, I have redacted the request.Smallman12q (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Category move request

If there's a better place to make this request, please let me know. I couldn't a reference to this on the community portal.

Category:Sky divers should be moved to "Skydivers". The term "skydiver" is used almost exclusively within the community. Indeed, a search of the United States Parachute Association's website[3] shows this terms being used exclusively within the site, and these guys should know what they're doing. Rklawton (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You can use the {{Move}} template to request this. If no one objects on the discussion page of the category, then it will me renamed. See Commons:Rename a category. --Tryphon (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! Rklawton (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Calvinturbo

This user keeps trying to contend that the logo of the Firefox web browser is free content, when it is actually not. Could you keep an eye on him please? ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Heavy-handed bot

If a picture is deleted from Commons, I can see no justification for User:CommonsDelinker to do this edit on en.Wikipedia. If the picture has been deleted from Commons, then the picture can simply appear as a broken red-link in its caption block, as shown here (scroll down a little). By leaving pages alone that have the now-broken link, at least editors can more easily see the affected area and deal with it accordingly. It is much more difficult to tell when the picture and it’s associated caption have been removed. Greg A L (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a service provided by Commons because most wiki's don't like broken links. Find consensus at enwp that the community wants red links. If you happen to succeed i'm sure the operator of CommonsDelinker is willing to shut the bot down at the English Wikipedia. Multichill (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Derek Coburn

Derek Coburn's contributions have consisted of uploading fair use files and recreating same after they have been deleted. They last contributed more than a month ago, so I don't know if a block is warranted at this date, but all messages and warnings were previously ignored. --BrokenSphere 23:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's too late for a block, but I'll take care of his last dubious files and watch the user. --Eusebius (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

German-speaking admin needed

Hi, could a German-speaking admin help this user? I guess it will be about OTRS authorizations or the lack thereof. --Eusebius (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of.--Túrelio (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete discussion not closed for over 2 months

Commons:Deletion requests/File:5-dead-goebbels.jpg

Is this going to get closed or just remain open forever? Not sure what the policy is on deletion requests, sorry if I'm out of line. Raeky (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your not out of line. I did take a look on the deletion request and I am afraid you will not like the result. It took me more than a hour reading, thinking, checking but I closed it as a delete. There is no proof given that the author died before 1951 so there is no proof this image is PD. my pda won't edit big pages if somebody will copy paste my reason to the dr it would make me happy. Or else I will do it next thing tomorow on the office. Abigor talk 21:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
(You removed my earlier comment somehow) I was about to close as kept, but it was deleted in the mean time. I really felt like the consensus was on the keep side... --Tryphon (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
To elaborate a bit, it seems to me that the copyright issues were worked on, and that we can reasonably assume that the author is not known (you will never have definite proof of that, we have to accept some uncertainty). The discussion then went about how disgusting these images are, which doesn't have anything to do with anything. Maybe two months was not enough for this DR. --Tryphon (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get a editconflict notice so I don't know how your comment was removed. I have to say that the discussion in the Deletion request was a strong keep and normally I would had kept the image but in this case I believe we should have seen proof that the image was PD because it isn't that long ago and there is still small chance that the author is still alive and that the image isn't free. Without knowing the author there is no way to know if the license is correct or if it still copyrighted. So I would say we have to stay on the safe side and count 70 years on 1945 and consider the image free in 2016. And I am pretty sure I didn't make a lot of friends with my closing and overrulling the communety opinion in this DR but images does still have to be free to use on Commons. Abigor talk 21:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it was sensible to delete given the information we had about the copyright status (even if we consider the picture anonymous). Decision looks clean to me, even though we lose a valuable pic. --Eusebius (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It's from a video by a Russian military member... not sure how that equates to PD or not. Whichever decision, it needed one it's been MONTHS. I just fear the deletionists will use this as "policy" to get more pictures of dead people deleted. Raeky (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so, subject of the picture was not involved in the deletion decision. --Eusebius (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind acting against consensus at all, if the consensus is not well informed and goes against our copyright policies. I was recently involved in a deletion debate like this where the overwhelming majority of uninformed users were for keeping an image because "Commons is not censored" but they totally failed to consider the copyright issues. I sure am glad we do not vote. Samulili (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
About Abigor's comment, even if the author is still alive, it doesn't change anything if he didn't reveal his identity. The same will be true in 2016 if we consider the author is hypothetically known: we have to count 70 years from the author's death. So the only question we have to ask ourselves is if the author is anonymous or not; and I believe it's reasonable to assume the image was published anonymously. But I agree it's a tough decision, and I'm not surprised by the result of the DR. --Tryphon (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes Tryphon that is correct but my point is if the author is not known we can't know if he died before 1951 something that is needed for the copyright tag on the image. So we just have to wait till 2016 and undelete the image by that time. Abigor talk 22:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Reacky please note that the deletion has nothing to do with dead body's if it was a cute bunny on the image I would have made the same descission. Abigor talk 22:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the time to close: controversial cases tend to be precisely the ones that stay open for a long time, because they involved long and complex discussions that take time to review and still often leave the admin feeling undecided. They also may want to avoid the inevitable drama and backlash of closing against a more vocal party. I'm not sure what the best way to deal with this is, other than to emphasize that the oldest backlogs are most important to handle first. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The {{PD-Ukraine}} specifically says something about when the creator is not known. In that case it is sufficient that the photo was published before 1951. I think this photo was relatively well sourced, compared to a lot of others. It would be quite reasonable to assume that there was a contemporary anonymous publication; the photo was known in 1962, this is not something that was dug up recently. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
That's right, it's exactly what I was trying to say; PD-Ukraine states: It was published before January 1, 1951, and the creator (if known) died before that date, so if the author is not known, the only condition left is published before January 1, 1951. --Tryphon (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but PD-Ukraine seems here to have been chosen arbitrarily just because of this clause, independently of the (unstated) source country. --Eusebius (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This probably calls for a more general discussion, but what I get from the template is that PD-Ukraine applies to works published in the whole Soviet Union, not only works published in Ukrainian SSR. Maybe I'm wrong, but the template should clarify this point then. --Tryphon (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
We've been over this already. PD-Ukraine applies within the Ukraine to works from anywhere. But that's rather irrelevant for us. Outside of the Ukraine, PD-Ukraine is applicable only if the Ukraine is considered the source country of the work. Which, unfortunately, is likely not be the case for most Soviet works. The most recent discussion about this that I am aware of was here. I think the position Carl expressed there is quite reasonable: accept PD-Ukraine for Soviet works only if there is some clear connection between either the photographer or the subject of the photo to the Ukraine. Lupo 14:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the link, I didn't know it had been discussed already. It would be great if that precision could be included in the template though, to avoid debating it over and over again. Right now, the second part of the template is mostly confusing: A Ukrainian or Soviet work that is in the public domain in Ukraine according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Ukraine before January 1, 1996, e.g. if it was published before January 1, 1946. It leads to the conclusion that Soviet work considered public domain in Ukraine is also public domain in the U.S. if published (where?) before 1946, thus acceptable on Commons; which is apparently not true according to the previous discussion. --Tryphon (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Sm sjdm proposed 2012.jpg

I don't know how to report violations here guys. But I believe that the image linked is a violation of the copyright at [4].I'm at en:User:Lenticel if you wish to contact me.--Lenticel (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Requested updates to protected images

Hey all. Following some discussion at Commons:Village_pump#The_UNwiki, I noticed that the error message for uploading updates to protected files kind of sucks, so I've created a new process for this. The page is Commons:Requested updates to protected images and I updated MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext to link to it. If you guys don't think is too bold, could I get it linked from some appropriate project page so that some more admins will watchlist it? Thanks. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Article without image

Why has the bot deleted this image? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukha&curid=4216014&diff=276051944&oldid=267163617

It was not unnown, it was illustrating a Russian soup article and looked exactly like it should.

If you can’t get that back, can you fix this one instead? You left an article without any image.

Warrington (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned in the edit summary, the picture was in category:Unknown as of 11 February 2009 because it had no permission. It came from [5], but we had no way of knowing whether the photographer has released his picture under a free licence. As far as we were concerned, this picture was a copyvio and thus was deleted by Shizhao. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Warrington, I'm afraid that you're not quite understanding the deletion reason here. "Unknown as of..." just means that it was marked as missing vital information (source, author, licence or permission - in this case permission). Such images generally have a week or so's grace before they are deleted by an administrator. If the required information is filled in before the 7 days are up then it won't be deleted.
The image in question had a source (http://rings66.ru), but no proof that the source allowed the image to be used under a free licence. In the absence of such evidence, we delete the image as a possible copyright violation.
As for the article itself, that is not really our problem, and there's nothing we can do about it, as that image should probably not have been on commons to begin with. I suggest going out and taking a photo of the soup yourself and uploading that. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion frenzy

On March 7th, User Odder deleted a 1000+ images in over five hours, at a rate of about 5 or 6 pictures a minute. I was under the impression that an administrator was responsible for his/her actions and would therefore make sure that the files they are deleting do in fact deserve to be removed. Yet I simple cannot fathom how anyone can review images at this speed. It was by pure coincidence that I noticed File:MigrantMotherColorized.jpg has been deleted (I noticed it a few days earlier and wanted to show it to my husband). Trying to relocate it in the admin's deletion log (to nominate it for undeletion) I was quite shocked to see the number of images deleted at this rate by one person. Surely this can't be the allowed way of doing things? And if it is, Commons definitely needs to scrutinize its way of doing things! How many other images were unfairly deleted? How will we know? There's no way of reviewing them now - that should have been done by the deleting admin! But he/she obviously didn't bother... Anrie (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,
It is very good possible that images are deleted with such a high speed level. Images that are marked for no source no permission, duplicate, copyvio or no license we have a tool. The tool open all images and you get a preview from the images, if you checked them all it is very good possible to deleted them very fast. That the images are deleted with a high speedy doesn't mean the images aren't checked. But your impression is completely right, a administrator is responsible for his actions and there is no rule against deleting a lot of images in a short time period using tools. The file that you linked is restored and a mistake from two people. The user that placed no source on it, and the fault of the deleting Administrator. But I want to point you on the fact that Commons administrators are also humans, and humans can make mistakes. Abigor talk 21:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I restored the file, because it was appropriately sourced to File:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg (a featured picture). About the other deleted files, I noticed a big decrease in the huge Category:Unknown - February 2009 backlog, so I guess Odder was working on that. --Tryphon (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
@Abigor. Uhm... no: a mistake from "one" person. When the file was deleted it did have a source. I know admins are only people and that people make mistakes, which is why I'm surprised that so little care is taken. Shouldn't you guys be more careful, precisely because we're accident prone, not less? (Yes, deleting 1000+ images consecutively at that rate is being "less careful".) BTW, thanks for the undeletion, Tryphon. Anrie (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
To add: taking roughly 10 seconds to review an image simply is not adequate. Perhaps one or two that're really obvious, but definitely not 1000+ in a row! Anrie (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Anrie I don't say its okay to make mistake, but there is like really no proof that he didn't check the images before he deleted it. I will continue AGF and I am sure it was just a mistake and the rest of the images are deleted correctly. There is no way to proof he didn't check before he deleted, or proof that he did a roughly 10 seconds check before deletion. Abigor talk 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh no, you got to be kidding me. See this. Dozens of duplicate images deleted without including the new name! How are people going to find the new images? Multichill (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Now i remember you! You were the admin who started deleting my uploads. Multichill (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
That is one of the most interesting DRs I have ever seen. It's amazing how some people interpret our scope. Rocket000(talk) 16:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not think it is possible to be a god admin and never make mistakes. But I think it is a good idea to take it easy and be careful before deleting. I would not be able to check the page in 10 seconds, check history, check user page if author was warned or replied on the user page. But maybe when I have been here longer and am more experienced.
I checked a few of the deleted files and found this one File:MerseysidePoliceCar.jpg. May I ask what is missing here? --MGA73 (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
A little supplement: I agree that the other 5 I checked should be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I restored it; it had been tagged with {{No license}} by a bot, even though there was indeed a license. --Tryphon (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(reset) Since nobody actually bothered to talk to Odder about this before, I warned him about this discussion. What happened to try to talk to people before starting topics on the AN? Patrícia msg 12:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi odder. Sorry if you didn't know. I saw that they tried to reach you in IRC yesterday before I left :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear odder, do you think it would be possible to start including a link to the replacement image in the edit summary when you delete duplicates? I think there's some script that can make this easy for you. I'm also concerned with your preemptive protection of many images (if there was any community discussion beforehand, I apologize - I've been a away for awhile). Please keep in mind that even images that probably shouldn't be uploaded over can undergo lots of useful edits to the their pages (translations, recategorization, etc.). IMO, unless there's a reason like vandalism or edit-warring you shouldn't be needlessly protecting stuff. I don't know if most people would consider 350 pages throughout all wikis "high-risk". Even that's extremely low if it was a template (which has a greater effect if wrongly edited). As an admin, you should be applying protection because the community thinks it's a good idea, not you. Sorry for bringing this up here, but this is the third time in a few days I've seen complaints over your admin actions. I don't wish to get in to it now, but you seem like your willing to work with those of us who have concerns and that's all I ask. Thank you. Rocket000(talk) 16:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Odder, i'm the first to admit i hate admins who delete properly licenced in scope images and don't stick to Commons:Deletion policy. Unfortunatly you're not the only admin (see below). About the dupes. What Rocket000 said. I don't mind you deleting them (please do), but please include a link to the new location! Multichill (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dencey (talk · contribs)

Lots of his uploaded files on the Hungarian wikipedia were copyrighted, therefore needed to be deleted. As I see, the same thing stands here as well, for example File:Turul sólyom.jpg is copyrigthed, and is NOT the product of Dencey. Please, check ALL his uploaded pics and delete which are not clearly free pics. --VinceB (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I nominated File:Turul sólyom.jpg for deletion. VinceB is right, it is a very likely copyvio. But as far as I can tell the other uploads look fine. --Jarekt (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Appears File:Hongrie.gif is licensed in correctly. I'm not sure, but would {{PD-Coa-Hungary}} apply? File:Fradi pálya.jpg is suspect due to web resolution, lack of meta data, and why would this user have access to an empty football pitch. And finally, File:Fülöpszállás.jpg is a little iffy, in that it looks professional, and if this user uploaded copyrighted works on hu.wiki, it may also be suspect, but really other than suspicion, this image is plausibly Dencey's. The rest of the user's uploads are tagged PD-Old, CoA, or similar license, and appear to be correctly licensed at that. -Andrew c (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User requested deletions

Hi all. Just have a quick question about the procedure for user requested deletions. Got a request from an uploader to delete some of his uploaded images since there might be a case for the source ( a museum) to claim that they are unfree. Basically whether the images are free or not depends on a specific interpretation of "originality" for which there is no clear legal precedence in Sweden. Since some museums have complained about similar images the uploader would prefer the images not to be kept since he would be the one bearing the legal responsibility for them. So my question is basically how to best deal with such a deletion. /Lokal_Profil 16:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Open a regular deletion request. Multichill (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, will do./Lokal_Profil 17:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

{{Duplicate}}, point #4

The instruction says: 4. Redirect this filename to the other image. (diff) - I ruefully admit that I never noticed this instruction. Is it helpful? I'm glad to see that im not the only person who never did this, otherwise the File namespace would be a pandemonium of redirects. Of course redirects might be helpful, I was instructed that they work for crosswiki embedding, but a redirect is not needed if all uses are replaced. Remove the line? --Martin H. (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirects are needed to avoid breaking links. Reusers of Commons images should be able to rely on the links they use as source for the files. Commons has often had similar problems with source links for images from other site. Redirecting also avoids broken image links for users of permalinks to Wikipedia articles (and other Wikimedia wikis). /Ö 17:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought that the link to the duplicate file was a way to let the deleting administrator know where the duplicate was so they could with confidence delete it. If the remaining image has been replaced where it was used on all the other wiki's and categorized correctly there should be no problem. A "redirect" has a different function and does different things. -- carol (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Martin that this line should be removed from the template. Most of the dupes that are deleted are cases of bad name (or at least the kept duplicate having a better name), and #1 specifically says "Do not delete this page until all uses have been replaced!". Redir is useful if it for some reason (protected pages, file within templates, etc) is difficult to be sure that all uses has been replaced. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Martin H. too, I don't think anyone currently complies with this requirement, and it doesn't seem a good practice to encourage. The use of CommonsDelinker renders it useless in almost all cases. –Tryphon☂ 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
If all use could not be replaced we should either NOT delete or we should make a redirect. Then the line should be changed accordingly.
When CheckUsage is used a warning says "S3 is missing a copy of the toolserver database. This means that tools that rely on Commons will return wrong results for many wikis." In that case I doubt we can be sure that all use has been changed even if the result is "xxx is not used anywhere!" So if no redirects are made we risk messing up some wikies somewhere. --MGA73 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Ooopsie, S3 is working again but the message haven't been updated. CheckUsage should be working for *all* projects now. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry, strike that. Seems this might take a while. Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It's true, but I'm not sure that creating redirects is the best way to go (unless we have a bot to clean them up once they're not needed anymore). And if CheckUsage cannot be relied upon, we're screwed anyway, because we wouldn't know wether a redirect is needed or not (and systematically creating redirects doesn't make sense for bad names). So I really don't think 4. should be the general rule, but we could still leave a small note about special cases where a redirect might be in order. –Tryphon☂ 21:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

  Comment I feel what Ö posted above has been overlooked. For clarity here is what {{Duplicate}} has.

For administrators
Follow the directions on Commons:Deletion guidelines
  1. Do not delete this page until all uses have been replaced!
  2. Add {{universal replace|Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 13|Example|reason=exact, or scaled-down duplicate}} to CommonsDelinker's commands (only use for images that are exact duplicates)
  3. Delete this image only if it is an exact or scaled-down duplicate. (Non-exact duplicates should be requested for deletion on Commons:Deletion requests)
  4. Redirect this filename to the other image.

And here is Ö's post in the template discussion (still valid in my opinion).

There should be a fouth step: "Redirect the deleted image page to the kept file". This is an improvement in many ways
  • Most importantly it will make it possible for reusers of Commons content to have reliable source links for the images they use.
  • It will stop old page versions on Wikimedia projects to have broken image links just because an image is renamed or duplicated.
  • It will not break image links if Commonsdelinking for some reason misses some use of an image.

"reusers of Commons" applies not only to wikimedia sites, I think. 84user (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirects are evil because they really break CheckUsage. Thus they should only be used in really special cases (I can't imagine any right now) where they cannot be avoided. All the other arguments by Ö are pretty weak. 1. is invalid because reusers can just check the deletion log and find the new image (provided the deleting admin includes the name of the duplicate, which is strongly encouraged). 2. is not really important, who needs old page versions to look nice? They're just an archive and if you really feel you need to look at the images, check the deletion log and find the new names. 3. is invalid, because it shouldn't happen. CommonsDelinker posts a delink report on the image description page and lists all uses, which couldn't be replaced. Those should be taken care of by the deleting admin. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Redirects are evil. (And so is trivial renaming.) They should only be used if they really need to be, like if all the uses can't be replaced for some reason or another. We even prefer duplicates over them (e.g. Category:Commons prohibited file names and files like File:Dictionnaire page 1.gif). Rocket000(talk) 17:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

File:MichaelBloomfieldItsNotKillingMeFRONT.jpg

Could someone delete this from here; there's no way it is a free image, and the original has a Fair Use Rationale on en:wiki. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  Done Rocket000(talk) 01:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio gallery

All images here are copyvios: http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&img_user_text=Elmejorjedi FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed they are. All deleted and I left a note with the user. Thanks for letting us know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Aleksei Eremenko.jpg

There's an edit war going on at File:Aleksei Eremenko.jpg with user BanRay, and I don't want to be involved this time.. :-( - Erik Baas (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not again.. I am going to wait untill a other administrator takes a action. (I am involved). Erik Baas could I ask you to not revert, a administrator will handle this. Abigor talk 12:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Asking as a total bystander: As we also have File:A-Eremenko-2.jpg, couldn't the (bad) darker version of the above mentioned file stay? --Túrelio (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't the (bad) darker version of the above mentioned file be deleted ? - Erik Baas (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course, but if this is going to result in an edit war now, why should we? --Túrelio (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that File:A-Eremenko-2.jpg is the best version. However, if we are going to keep other versions, I suggest we at least keep the original (the darker) and not the lighter one. Samulili (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the original (dark) version should stay. And in this kind of revert-war, the only thing to do is keeping two separate versions. It is obvious some people like the light version, and some other prefer the dark one; good news: we can have both. –Tryphon☂ 15:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem with keeping both? Let's let our sister projects pick the one they think is best. Let them edit war. :) Rocket000(talk) 15:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I just uploaded a third version of the images, Let local wikis now editwar. Abigor talk 15:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hehe.. some might be lead to believe we're even doing it on purpose. ;) Rocket000(talk) 16:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Cascading template protection and documentation pages

I just noticed we are now applying cascading protection to high-use templates. This makes sense with the auto-translation thing, but it kinda defeats the purpose of /doc pages, doesn't? Rocket000(talk) 05:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought cascading protection was only protecting one of the languages, and should be avoided on autotranslated templates (at least)? --Eusebius (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't cascade protect autotranslated templates, it doesn't work properly! Multichill (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think it should be avoided completely unless there's a consensus for it (like the main page), but no pays attention to COM:P anymore. Cascading is crazy. You never know what it may effect. You put it on a high use template, it protects the /doc page. It protects all the templates and images used in that documentation. With all the translation going on and so little vandalism, I don't quite see the point. It's just laziness. Instead of going around and protecting the important parts they just protect everything. Rocket000(talk) 01:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It's even worse: Cascading protection doesn't protect everything, and also doesn't protect the important parts. Cascading protection, when used on autotranslated templates, is a bad idea. Always.  — Mike.lifeguard 13:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please delete some of my photos

I had ask for speedy deletion of some of my picture. Please delete this photo. Since there might be a case for the source ( a museum) to claim that they are unfree. Basically whether the images are free or not depends on a specific interpretation of "originality" for which there is no clear legal precedence in Sweden. Since some museums have complained about similar images I would prefer the images not to be kept since I would be the one bearing the legal responsibility for them.--Ankara (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you tell us which pictures you are talking about? You can link to a picture this way: [[:File:Example.jpg]] (note the colon at the beginning of the link) Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. File:Villaadolfsberg.jpg File:Sparvag2.jpg File:Länssparbanken.jpg File:Hoteldesuede6.jpg File:Hoteldesuede5.jpg File:Hoteldesuede4.jpg File:Hoteldesuede3.jpg File:Hoteldesuede2.jpg File:Landstingshuset.jpg File:Strömgatan20a.jpg File:Strömgatan20b.jpg File:Rosenbad.jpg File:Klarabergsgatan.jpg File:Hasselbystrand.jpg File:Hasselbygard1.jpg File:Hasselbygard.jpg File:Råsundaanläggningen1.jpg File:Trygghuset.jpg File:Sparvagen.jpg --Ankara (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So, this "For photographic pictures (fotografiska bilder), such as images of the press, the image is public domain if created before January 1, 1969" does not apply here? (copied from Swedish PD rationale) --Túrelio (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is always a matter of interpretation, but I would argue that these images cannot be regarded as photographs "with artistic or scientific value", but that they are "photographic images in general" (fotografiska bilder i allmänhet). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The owner of the picture have asked me to remove it, and I would be the one bearing the legal responsibility for them. Please remove the picture. The picture are not used any more on wikipedia.--Ankara (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
@Ankara, we will surely do that to protect you. However, if we come to the conclusion that they should really be PD, someone else could upload them again anonymously. --Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyright has expired before 1994, the owner only posesses a copy (and possibly the original negative). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Its not clear, because its is no clear legal precedence in Sweden. They might even have scientific value, for both the swedish tram museum and for city museum of stockholm. If u want Pieter, u can upload the picture in your name. I dont want to be the one bearing the legal responsibility for them. --Ankara (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very mutch Túrelio--Ankara (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I will stick my neck out for stuff that I am interested in (right now I am uploading pictures of Nobel prize winners with the PD-Sweden-1969 licence), and I have no interest in these Stockholm streets images. But claims that an image like File:Landstingshuset.jpg is not a very ordinary photograph has no basis in Swedish law. In the US one would call this en:copyfraud. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Túrelio's deleting them now. I think they are fine to keep, but I understand the uploader's concern. Someone else can upload them if they want. Rocket000(talk) 15:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion we really have to think whether many images in Category:Lennart af Petersens will have to go. This swedish photographer died only in 2004 and many of his images to me look as "photographic work (fotografiska verk)" and not simply as a "photographic picture (fotografiska bilder)", such as images of the press. Thereby, they would not be PD as the photographer didn't die before January 1, 1944.--Túrelio (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. you may be right about that. I'm not familiar enough with Sweden's law. I think it would be difficult to judge the difference between "photographic pictures" and "photographic works". Living in a part of the world that has a very low standard of what passes as "art" makes it even more so for me. (That would be the US. But we go by originality, not creativity, so normally we never have to get into it.) Rocket000(talk) 16:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Following the discussion with Pieter on File talk:Hoteldesuede6.jpg, probably most of the images may stay as not being artistic enough. The most artistic one (File:Lennart af Petersens 1935.jpg) is from 1935, but its legal status is unclear to me.--Túrelio (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Turelio is right about the 1935 photo. Most likely photographs with artistic value were protected until 50 years after death (not after creation), but I will check it. And that photo clearly has artistic ambitions, and was made by a highly regarded photographer. It is a pity, but it should be put up for deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It is still a few picture (see above) left. Please remove the last ones to. The link to the museum dosnt work because the museum have removed all picture from the internet. Thank you.--Ankara (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have saved the tram-related images (none from photographer Lennart af Petersens) and the description data on my harddisk. So anybody who wnats to re-upload them, can contact me.--Túrelio (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Auto expire otrs pending

A discussion on the automatic expiring of {{otrs pending}} items is Here. Please come and comment. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Set of neutral eyes

Would someone not involved with Current requests#Rocky Steps of the Art Museum please weigh in. I feel that the debate is being short-circuited. Evrik (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The debate has now been closed ... Evrik (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I did the (last) closure, I had not been involved in the previous discussion.Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      • It saddens me to see this kind of behavior on the part of the admins, who use bullying and misinformation to get their way. For months now, I have been an active participant on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. I'm not unaware of the issues there. There was no consensus, unless you start counting votes (6-3). It should be obvious that if the restoration of an image has sparked a wider discussion, then maybe that image should be restored.
File:Dali on the Rocky Steps.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I disagree that reopening the debate was disruptive. Just so you know ... that debate was closed the first time on February 22. I went and got an authoritative opinion to support my assertion that the image in question was acceptable. Instead of accepting the fact that the policy was being implemented may have been incorrect, and that the image should be restored - a new discussion on policy was started (Commons talk:De minimis/Public scenes). This is important because too often admins act as if their word is law and they don’t suffer ANY disagreement. Being an admin doesn't mean that a user is exempted from reason, courtesy or disruptive editing.
Since both User:Tryphon and User:Avraham were equally involved in driving that edit war, I would appreciate it if you would remind them that they too were disruptive editing, and of the Commons:Blocking policy. Thanks. Evrik (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You have some nerve, you know. I only intervened once to close the request that you had re-opened after Avi's closing, and I specifically refrained from closing it again after you reverted me (I only left a comment asking you to stop this non-sense). How is it edit warring? How many times did you revert other peoples edits? –Tryphon☂ 20:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

@Evrik, there is nothing to be achieved by repeating your disagreement about the deletion of this image on multiple pages. Please leave it now, and post any comments you have on the policy (not this image) at the ongoing discussion at Commons talk:De minimis/Public scenes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC) @Tryphon - The policy says that "When it is established that a debate is settled, you can close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted"." I didn't feel the debate was settled, especially since their was a current debate on the policy going on. @MM - Had the debate on the issue not been closed I would have kept the discussion there, however since three different admins commented on my page, I had to comment there as well. Enough for now. Evrik (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

All kind of stamps

User:Anizotropia has been uploading his complete stamp-collection onto Commons. If they where free, this would be beautiful of course, but I'm afraid they are not (though I'm no expert on the laws in Burundi, Nicaragua, San Marino, Cuba, etc). I asked him if he knew on his talkpage, but I'm afraid his English isn't good enough. What to do with a case like this? Ciell (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Romanov tells it to him already in Russian, I think he don't want to understand it.. "Own work by uploader" is surely wrong.--Luxo 17:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Superseding

Superseded or low quality is not a reason for speedy deletion according to our Commons:Deletion policy, but unfortunatly some admins are still deleting images as superseded or low quality. Imho this is very bad for Commons. See the examples at User talk:Leyo#Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded and User talk:Leit#Your deletions. Should we allow this to happen? Multichill (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In defense of the first case, chemical structures like those have been somewhat an exception to the superseded rule. The multi-wiki chemist community works very well together seems to support this. In fact, I remember they came out to support Leyo in his RfA specifically for this type of cleanup. They were understandably disappointed with the current team of Commons admins, lacking a knowledge in their mutual interest, to manage this area of Commons. I myself am guilty of keeping crappy replaced chemical structures in light of Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. I didn't feel like I was benefiting Commons by dong this. I went through all the history of COM:DR/Superseded and realized the final solution of "No more" was almost entirely because admins were replacing perfectly good PNGs with inferior SVGs (we still have some users misunderstanding the benefits of SVG). In most cases, it's not up to admins to decide what should replace what (I'm strongly against that, especially anything related to politics/religion/ethnicity), but it's different in for things like chemical structures. The mess you pointed out is actually pretty common. It's not Leyo's fault. Would you go to each and every use of an image all through out Wikimedia making sure there was a size set for each thumbnail? Sometimes users leave them out if the image is the size they want. As for the second case, I didn't look into it yet. Rocket000(talk) 02:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that the “mess” was caused by uploading improved versions over existing poor quality/resolution images (i.e. this was not an action restricted to admins). I have fixed sizes the day after the uploads, because I was too tired to do that type of work at that time. --Leyo 16:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I actually had Edgar181's RFA in mind, but same could be said of Leyo's now that I've seen it. (Sorry for confusing you two; I've been gone too long :). Rocket000(talk) 02:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
If it is an exception to the superseded rule I believe it should be in writing. If it really is a whish from the users on the wikies around the world it is ok by me. But I prefer that there is an open discussion on Commons and that notices are placed on wikies around the world to inform and encourage the users to participate in the debate. --MGA73 (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
These two admins are just the unfortunate examples i happened to come across. This kind of behaviour is very bad for the reputation of Commons. We're an image archive. People should have a damn good reason to delete properly licenced in scope images. That's why regular deletion requests are mandatory, see Commons:Deletion_policy#Redundant/bad_quality. If the chemical people want images deleted, they should just do a regular nomination, inform the uploader and wait for a response just like all other people. Multichill (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
They used to nominate them instead (before they got their two admins). I remember seeing many of them.. usually they would sit for weeks without comment and almost always closed as "Kept. Superseded images are not deleted" (like I use to do). I don't think they liked that. Rocket000(talk) 13:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
They don't have to like our deletion policy, just follow it. Multichill (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
A drive-by comment here: Wouldn't it be possible to mark the images, formally or informally, as deprecated in favor of better/more accurate ones? That would caution users to avoid the images unless they had specific reasons to use them, and also preserve the deletion policy.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
{{Deprecated}}, {{Superseded}}. --Eusebius (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course we can do that, we already have {{Vector version available}} ({{SupersededSVG}} redirects here). The chemical people could make a similair template (or just alter their current template). Multichill (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It is nice to observe that there is an on-going discussion on me, of which I have not been informed. Please have a look at this older discussion. --Leyo 14:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't thinking this was about you specifically, but more about the practice in general. Like Multichill said, you just happen to be one the examples he happened to come across. And this is the Administrators' noticeboard, administrator. :P Rocket000(talk) 15:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I only had Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism on my watchlist, but I have now added it. --Leyo 15:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment to this statement from above:

“This kind of behaviour is very bad for the reputation of Commons. We're an image archive.”

I have had to listen to chemist colleagues and students making jokes about Commons being an archive of incorrect and crap structural formulae several times (e.g. if you google a chemical structure and among the results, there is an incorrect one, you can be sure, it's from Commons). I do not think, that it is good for the reputation of Commons keeping every chemical image, because it's correctly licensed or other reasons. AFAIK, chemical images have never been deleted without looking for an existing or newly uploading a correct image or an image with an acceptable quality. --Leyo 15:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Tag the image with a template to indicate something better is available or use the regular deletion process. Next thing you know the map people, heraldry people, Tree of Life people, etc etc, all have their own policies. No, thank you. I changed Category:Disputed chemical diagrams, Category:Disputed chemical diagrams/expired, Category:Low quality chemical diagrams & Category:Low quality chemical diagrams/expired to reflect our deletion policy. Multichill (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for calling me a liar. It is not my fault, if you do not see that you can't compare chemical structures with flags and similar things. --Leyo 16:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, where did i call you a liar? Multichill (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I understood “Next thing you know [..] etc etc” in that way. I might have chosen a more precise (and less strong) word than “liar”, but I am not a native speaker. --Leyo 17:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There's some misunderstanding here. That wasn't a remark about you or anything to do with lying, he meant that those people who argue over flags and borders will start doing the same as you're doing with chemical structures. It's a slippery slope. This was my concern when I first encountered the "disputed" template. But those fears went away after I saw the purpose behind it and how there really wasn't any controversy. So far, it hasn't caused any trouble in that regard. Rocket000(talk) 17:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and the Tree of Life people do have their own policies. Rocket000(talk) 17:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems some admins on this project have some misunderstandings about what their role is on this project

  1. Is this project solely about you? No.
  2. Does this project has a community that decides what should be done and what shouldn't be done? Yes.
  3. Does the community of this project has set rules? Yes.
  4. Do the rules tell you that you may freely delete what you like? No.
  5. Do the rules tell you to follow the guidelines when you want something to delete? Yes.
  6. Do the rules tell you to delete only when it matches certain criteria? Yes.
  7. Are you elected as admin to do everything you like the way you wanted werther or not the community agrees with it? No.
  8. Is this project similar to Wikipedia (or any other project)? No.


For those admins who have missed the point with their elections: You are elected and chosen for a certain function which is called an administrator. Administrators are chosen because there is a need to clean the stuff other users mess up. The community chose you because you are considered trusted to use the tools. (Are you worth to be trusted?) You aren't chosen to do anything you like outside the guidelines set by the community, because they want a fair judgement. Probably that is difficult to understand and some admins have not understood why they got their tools. An admin is elected to be a cleaner and servant for the community. If you can't handle your tools, just give them back and go do something you are capable of.
In the past weeks I have seen several admins deleting several files which had no reason for a speedy deletion, or a deletion at all. Lucky other admins did correct that. If you know how much effort people put into creating new files, which are in scope, that thos admins should be ashamed for themselves. Besides admins which aren't capable of using their tools we have many others doing their work very well: thanks, please continue! Greetings - Romaine (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As I don't feel guilty concerning these points, I won't comment on that. However, I do not speak for other admins. --Leyo 06:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Participants in the chemistry wikiprojects on several wikipedia languages have long been concerned about the quality of chemical structure images hosted on Commons. There have been a surprisingly high number of these images that are simply incorrect. Commons should not host such images and they have been routinely nominated for deletion by the standard process. Unfortunately, due to the technical nature of these images, only someone with a strong background in chemistry will be able to judge whether the images are truly incorrect or not. These deletion requests have been non-controverial; however, many of these nominations simply languished without closure because of their technical nature. Therefore, with the cooperation of multiple chemistry wikiprojects, the process involving Category:Disputed chemical diagrams was devised. It consists of marking images as disputed, notification of uploaders, a one month opportunity for discussion and finally after review by a knowledgable chemist admin, deletion if there has been no objection along the way. This has reduced the load at Commons:Deletion requests and has resulted in the non-controversial deletion of literally hundreds of unusable chemical structure images. In my request for adminship here on Commons (Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Edgar181), I made it clear that I was doing so for the very purpose of maintaining this process, and my RFA was supported unanimously. I therefore feel the process has support of the Commons community. Though both Leyo and I have deleted some images using the word "superceded" in the deletion summary, that was just poorly worded shorthand for the non-controversial deletion of images of such poor quality that they are unusable and for which there are far superior alternatives. We don't delete images solely for being superceded. Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded is respected. Edgar181 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There was a time when people thought the Earth was flat. Shall we burn books and pictures suggesting that the Earth is flat? Of course not. That is a part of our history. The same thing does however not apply to chemical structures (unless the mistake was made by a famous person). But we have to be absolutely sure that everyone agrees that the new image is better than the old one and the old one could be deleted or replaced.
If I upload a file and 2 minutes after correct an error there should be no problems. But if it is an old file or if it is not the author that request the deletion, then how do we know that it really is ok to delete? Maybe someone uses this image to tell the difference between right and wrong? Do you check all uses before deletion? Do you ask on all wikis if everyone agree? Placing an image in a category on Commons is not enough. Users on Wikipedia are not properly warned in that way.
If a picture is wrong then put a sign on telling it is wrong and why and put a link to the correct one. Then warn on all wikis that it is wrong and start a deletion request. --MGA73 (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I do certainly always check, if an image is used in any project. Most of the incorrect and poor quality chemical images are old (2004–2006), the uploader has not been active any more for a long time and the images are not in use in any project. I have uploaded many corrected images (most recent examples here and here). From the discussion above, you might have the inappropriate impression, that all we do here is pressing the delete button. However, Edgar181 and me are both among the “top ten uploaders” of chemical structures. --Leyo 09:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a regular uploader of chemical structures and user of the "Low quality chemical diagram" and "Disputed chemical diagram" templates. I have noticed in the past that many Commoners do not appreciate the difference between photos and (chemical) diagrams - the latter are more comparable to simple text. Like for text changes on a wiki, less stringent change/deletion rules should apply to diagrams in order to prevent the buildup of factually wrong content. We simply do not have the time to go through a regular deletion process for every wrong or poor structure we tag and the usual deletion process usually lacks chemical expertise. That said, it is always beneficial to hear a second opinion before deleting content. What about submitting tagged structures in chunks to the regular deletion process every one or two months and invite the Wikipedia chemists for review. Cacycle (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I present my credentials. I don't know where I stand, but the overwhelming majority of my 400+ files uploaded/edited on my watchlist are chemical drawings. I find the accusations hurled by some here ridiculous. It is nothing to do with burning books. It is all about correcting mistakes. This whole problem occurs because: Commons does not have a strong fact-checking policy (do images need to be referenced?), and that images are considered "works" rather than the "truth" (anything properly licensed can be uploaded and kept). I quote my original support for Ed's RFA (and I note that nobody disagreed with me or the 31 other supports):

Support Commons has become a dumping ground of sorts for chemical images (I'm not familiar with other areas). While I can fully appreciate that there is no single way to draw an image, the low quality images should be weeded out. It's a big task and (with all due respect to other users) only a chemist can do it. I'm glad Ed's stepped up. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it serve Commons to have 40 different, yet alike, images of a benzene ring? Differing only in perhaps font, bond length and resolution? There are only a few ways to draw a benzene ring in a 2-D format: two alternating bond formats (which are exactly the same, rotated by 60 degrees), and one with a delocalized ring. All that multiplied by two - with or without explicit hydrogens. A total of six possible structures.

Having incorrect or poor quality images frustrates effort at curation, which is difficult enough. If Commons wishes to blindly implement a policy, without regard for the consequences, and literally without understanding the chemistry, then perhaps the other wikiprojects need to find another way to share reliable chemical images. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I upload plenty of chemical structures, and I'm happy with the current 30-day probationary period. A small proportion of my uploads are marked as disputed, and the one-month time frame is more than enough time for me to notice the dispute and act on it (either by uploading a better image or by stating that I wish the image to be deleted).
If there's a problem with this process clashing with some bureaucratic Commons policy, then change Commons policy! Commons' most important purpose is to serve Wikipedia.
Any deletion policy (and practice) for chemical images on Commons needs to achieve, amongst other things, the following:
  • Protecting good quality PNGs from being deleted because an SVG equivalent exists (particularly important if the SVG "replacement" is of poor quality)
  • Making it easy to navigate and find chemical images in Commons - having bloated categories full of similar-looking structures, many of which are wrong, is really annoying to those who want to find a correct, high-quality image.
Ben (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
(p.s. am I allowed to post here? I know this is the admins noticeboard, but I have an opinion)
I think so, especially regarding the number of uploads. :-) --Leyo 17:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion in this discussion between factually wrong and low quality chemical diagrams/images. The former should be deleted to avoid confusing newbies; the automatic deletion after 30-days for an incorrect structure seems fine to me (I've accidentally upload one I think). Quality on the other hand is subjective, so I don't think a structure should be deleted because someone else uploaded one that's using a prettier font, just like PNGs don't get deleted when SVGs get uploaded. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Search for instance for anandamide or AM404 for some examples where the "best" image isn't obvious. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As an example of a low quality chemical image, see the drawing of methane on the left. There are several versions of a better quality. There are worse images than the example shown above. --Leyo 22:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that bot uploads a bunch of crap. But don't you see? How else can we illustrate "low quality chemical images" without these wonderful works of art? Rocket000(talk) 23:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, there will always be enough illustrative “low quality chemical images”. :-) --Leyo 03:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Category:Low quality chemical diagrams contains some images that shouldn't be deleted in my view. For instance the two on the left are marked "low quality" because they miss stereochemistry info, but for a molecule like that you really need a 3d view (ball and stick etc.) for a realistic stereochemsitry info, just the wedge and broken line representation (on the right, marked as superseding the other) isn't a whole lot better than no info. There may be a reason to prefer a less realistic representation (e.g. discuss the macrocycles).

Xasodfuih (talk)

Xasodfuih: Stereochemistry does not mean 3D structure, it simply means using wedged bonds. Cacycle (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think everybody agrees that low quality structures should not be automatically deleted. What about the following criteria:

  1. Grace period for improvement is over (2 months?)
  2. Either:
    • An equivalent image of obviously better and article-relevant quality is available
    • The structure image is clearly not of any serious use (e.g. original research, tests, extremely bad quality...)
  3. Wikipedia articles no longer use them

While wrong structures should always be deleted after a certain grace period, low quality structures clearly need some more discussion. Extending my proposal from above, I suggest the following:

  1. Formal deletion requests for wrong and low quality images are submitted in chunks every two months or so and Wikipedia chemists from the different projects are invited over for review
  2. Structures in Category:Disputed_chemical_diagrams/expired are submitted and discussed together as a link to the category (under one single deletion entry as we do not expect much discussion here.
3. At the same time, structures deemed worth of deletion and which have been moved from Category:Low quality chemical diagrams to Category:Low quality chemical diagrams/expired using the above criteria are submitted as individual entries in a mass deletion request.

Cacycle (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Cacycle (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

After checking the current images in Category:Disputed_chemical_diagrams/expired I do not expect much if any controversy about deleting these structures. I have therefore simplified my above proposal to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. I actually have no problems with the current process of deleting these images, the proposal is meant as a compromise to the Commoners who felt the need to change an established and working process. Cacycle (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hang on with Duplicates

(Related to the discussion above). As there is currently problems with both Checkusage and (probably) CommonsDelinker related to S3 missing a copy of the toolserver database, we should wait until this is solved before we delink/delete duplicates. The backlog will grow for sure, but that's better than deleteting files that haven't been replaced at the projects. The problem will (hopefully) be solved in a matter of days. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian soup article is left without image

Why has the bot deleted this image? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukha&curid=4216014&diff=276051944&oldid=267163617

It was not unnown, it was illustrating a Russian soup article and looked exactly like it should. If you can’t get that back, can you fix this one instead? You left an article without any image.

Warrington (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that was a 450px-large picture randomly picked up on http://rings66.ru and uploaded without proper permission. →Diti the penguin — 23:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Bots don't delete images - they merely clean up the left over code after an image was deleted. J.smith (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Javascript

Our current setup with Javascripts has the problem that errors in one script may prevent other scripts from working. Most of our scripts (gadgets and others) work by registering a function that is to be executed once the main part of the page has been loaded. If there are several scripts (gadgets or others) active, they each will register their own function. These functions will then be run in the order they were registered once the page is ready.

The problem with this is that if one of these registered functions has an error and crashes (raises an exception), those functions that were registered later won't be run at all. That can have hard to track and usually unwanted effects. Two recent examples: User talk:Lupo#Hot cat at upload form (also Commons:Village pump#Dynamic variables broken in translated upload forms), and MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js#HotCat is offline.

I'm about to fix that in MediaWiki:Common.js by making sure that exceptions from these "onload" functions get caught. See the sample code at the very top of my monobook.js. That code catches such exceptions and logs them, thereby making sure that all registered functions get called even if some of them fail. The question now is where to log these errors, and who should see them. My sample code tries to log them to the browser's "error console", if there is such a thing, and displays the errors on the page only if that fails or if the user viewing the page is a sysop. (That's based on the assumption that sysops are typically the only ones who can do something about JS errors, since most of our scripts reside in protected pages anyway.) Non-sysop users would see these errors only if their browser had no "error console". But I could just as well suppress error messages for non-sysop users completely, or suppress them for anyone by default and show them only for users who put a certain flag in their monobook.js.

What do you think makes most sense? Lupo 19:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares? Fine, I'll just implement something. Just remember that changes take 30 days to reach anyone. (Javascripts are cached that long in the viewer's browser...) Lupo 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. Tested on IE6 (alas, no source info), FF3.0.7 with Firebug 1.3.3, Safari 3.2.2 (Webkit 525.28.1), Opera 9.6.3. When people complain about strange things that might be connected with our JavaScript (such as gadgets not working or not having a category bar on the upload form), tell them to look at the top of the page whether there's some error message there. Lupo 10:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work, Lupo. Is this something that could be added to wikibits.js for use everywhere? It seems sensible to me that this should be standard operating procedure & it would certainly be easier to do that than copy the script to hundreds of other wikis.  — Mike.lifeguard 13:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, ideally, one would fix this in wikibits.js directly. They should have written the onload hook handling from the very beginning such that it doesn't break when one hook fails. Wikibits could also give us a better jsMsg, and addPortletLink could be written such that it also works on the old skins (see e.g. function addToolLink in MediaWiki:Utilities.js). It could also offer a very minimal set of common JavaScript enhancements (such as String.trim or Function.bind, and other simple commonly used and often re-implemented stuff). But frankly said, I have no patience. Getting a change into wikibits means opening a bugzilla "enhancement" bug report, and these get low priority. If something like this ever goes into wikibits, great. But I wanted it now. Lupo 13:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, well I will open a bug & link to this discussion. Anyone who wants to provide a patch is welcome to :)  — Mike.lifeguard 19:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hrrmph. I get a hint as well as any other guy ;-). bugzilla:18039 now has a patch. Lupo 21:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"own work" and files imported from other projects

If I understand things well, we on Commons require that the uploader/photographer of an "own work" file state it explicitly on the image page, for we do not rely on the automatic wording of self-like license templates. On the English Wikipedia (and possibly many other, I guess), on the contrary, "own work" can be assumed quite easily. It poses a problem when files are moved from there to here. At manual review, we should, if what I've said is right, consider that the "own work" files without "own work" (or an equivalent) written on them by the uploader are missing a source. So we have to find the uploader on the source project and ask her for a confirmation. I can see at least four issues here:

  1. We're bothering people who have complied with the guidelines of their home project at upload time, saying that we question the authorship of their files;
  2. The original uploader may not be active anymore;
  3. We need to work cross-project and lose a lot of time;
  4. The cross-project thing may be a language issue as well.

Is there anything we can do here to make the issue simpler? I could think of having looser regulations for imported images, but it would open an opportunity for the "wikipedia washing" of unfree images. Also, deciding to loosen our "own work" policy here would be a pretty severe change. Other projects (transparently?) redirecting freely licensed file uploads to Commons would be great, but I'm not sure we're here already. Please tell me if I'm wrong in my hypotheses, or if there's something intelligent to do. --Eusebius (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Silene

Ok, not sure if this is in the right spot or not.. I have a question about category Category:Silene. I noticed that there is a large gallery on this category page and i was told a while back that we were not supposed to put galleries on category pages? So now i am cofused as to why it is allowed here. This category already has a gallery page as well here [[6]]. Shouldn't that be enough? Thanks --Ltshears (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, tagged with "This gallery is ONLY to show one example of each subcategory to facilitate searching a specific species." Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)\
except that some of the same images are duplicated on the page because one is in the gallery at the top and they are also in the media at the bottom.. So is it ok to do that on every genus page? I am just confused and when it is allowed and when it isn't. --Ltshears (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec)The purpose of the gallery is stated, "This gallery is ONLY to show one example of each subcategory to facilitate searching a specific species." I remember a discussion of a similar suggestion a year or two ago on Commons_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life, I think. At that time it came to naught. Anyhow, it is a project of Lycaon (talk · contribs) and Wouterhagens (talk · contribs) and a polite enquery may glean more information if you are interested.[7] Established editors are generally given wide latitude to experiment with ideas as long as they are not disruptive. A post to Commons_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life or a similar forum to advertise and discuss the experiment would be welcome when the editors are ready. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I suppose if most of the media within that category were recategorized to a more specific species category then it shouldn't be an issue with images being duplicated..Thank You --Ltshears (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving to different file types

Is it possible for admins to rename an image that has an inappropriate file type (e.g. JPG for diagrams or other images in Category:Images with inappropriate JPEG compression) to a more appropriate one (e.g. PNG)? After that, an improved version in an appropriate file file type could be uploaded over the existing file (e.g. this one). In that way, the old (bad) image is kept in the history, but does not show up itself in categories. -- 84.75.157.28 07:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In theory yes, but renaming of images was disabled due to a bug in the software. Raymond Disc. 08:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It is bugzilla:18033, which I found when I broke 6 images at enwiki. MBisanz talk 08:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Like renaming a png file to svg and than uploading a svg version? That would make the original inaccessible. Don't think people will like that. Multichill (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No, more like renaming JPG or GIF to PNG and then uploading a PNG version. Yes, it would make the original inaccessible, but this would be intended (it avoids bad images to show up in categories). It would be sufficient to keep the old bad version in the history, in order to attribute it to the original uploader ("attribution path"). -- 84.75.157.28 20:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you need PNGs, maybe other people, for other purpose, need JPG or GIF. Both can remain on Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I am speaking of really bad images in JPG or GIF format (see example above). Nobody would want to use them, as soon as a (good quality) PNG file is available. -- 84.75.157.28 22:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
This should be discussed individually in deletion requests I think. In some obvious cases it would be ok to delete the JPG, of course. --Eusebius (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
When the new image renaming system is re-enabled, you'll see that requires image moves to be matched to the file's MIME type. So moving File:Example.jpg to File:Example.png is impossible, but renaming the improper File:Example.npg to File:Example.png (in the old days you could upload to improper MIME extensions) is possible. MBisanz talk 21:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

very very old deletion requests

Why are there so much open deletion requests? For exemple on Commons:Deletion_requests/2008/11/23 the most deletion request are still open. And that is four month ago. --Jodo (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

By far not the oldest log [8]. Ok, only 28 of 67 deletion requests from this day are open. The reasons? Not enough community participation, not enough active administrators, no admin can know every detail of 1. the subject (fanart or not?) 2. copyright 3. image background (source, uploader). --Martin H. (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

NC restrictions

I found at least three files (coming from en:WP) with the following statement (made by the same user): "The GFDL applies, but I request that you do not use this image for commercial purposes." The GFDL tag is added to the image page. Do we consider there is a non-compatible NC restriction, or do we consider it's like multiple licensing (GFDL + something with NC)? Or do I file a DR? I'd tend to consider the statement incompatible with our license requirements and delete them. The files: File:Haystack rock 00022.jpg File:Haystack rock 00050.jpg File:Haystack rock 00054.jpg --Eusebius (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To me, it's clearly a restriction over the GFDL (GFDL _and_ nc), not a multiple choice. So I'd go for the DR. --Tryphon (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It is just a request, GFDL applies, no reason to worry about it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. I request that you do not use this image for commercial purposes. - if a copyright holder/photographer adds such a request, that contradicts the license, he (sort of) invalidates the original license or, at least, leaves any re-user in doubt which statement is valid, the license or the restriction. Such a situation of doubt is not in the interest of Commons as a reliable repository. So, the uploader should either do without this restriction or put the image under GFDL and a CC-NC license (that is o.k. on Commons) or retract the image. The other addition I'd appreciate it if you'd contact me if you intend to reuse this image elsewhere. is o.k. as it is not a request.--Túrelio (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
My personal view on this is that we should delete the pictures. It is clear that the uploader didn't accept their images to be used commercial, and they didn't get the GFDL allows commercial use. →Diti the penguin — 13:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hmm, Pieter Kuiper's comment made me realize that there is a difference between request and require that wasn't obvious to me. So from a strictly legal point of view, the license is probably okay; it's still confusing though, and should at least be rephrased or clarified. --Tryphon (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
As only 1 of the 3 images is used on any Wikimedia project (on 2 :en pages), a deletion wouldn't be a big deal. However, first asking the uploader (en:User:Jkl sem) for re-wording might be more appropriate.--Túrelio (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be best, but he doesn't seem active anymore; his last answer on his talk page dates back to June 2007... --Tryphon (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
If the images are useful keep them, as the language does not clearly indicate a requirement; otherwise delete them under the principle of avoiding unnecessary conflict. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I've sent an e-mail to the user. --Eusebius (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
No answer, nominated for deletion. --Eusebius (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Image renaming

Brion just enabled image moving for admins. I currently operate Commons:MediaMoveBot I would prefer to use the built in method for image renaming as it makes things nicer for all parties, histories are kept, and the bot saves bandwidth as it does not have to download/re-upload tag for deletion. what are the current thoughts of giving BCBot +admin for this task? Betacommand 00:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons needs more admins, and this couldn't hurt. I'd wait for more comments, though. Perhaps you could contact a 'crat for feedback? Ceranthor 00:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Having missed this thread, I updated the Rename template with the help of MZMcBride via IRC to enable link to move the page with the reason given (if none, default to "Requested"), although the admin would still need to rv the addition of the rename template. Maxim(talk) 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yeah, sure, why not. As long as an admin signs off on the moves, it's fine by me. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    • its an admin or someone who has been approved on the checkpage by an admin. the method is very similar to AWB approval. this allows those who dont want the drama of admins to still help. but lets admins control who can and cannot use this tool. there have been no real issues so far using the current method. Betacommand 01:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support seems reasonable to me. Easy to do, and easy to correct if there is a mistake. J.smith (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Sure. I'm not sure of the process for Adminbots here on commons though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be requested at COM:A/RV. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

  •   Comment I'm not really sure why we really need an image moving bot with this new feature. My understanding is that the bot requires moves to be approved by an admin or a trusted user. As such, an admin, who can simply go ahead and perform the rename, will probably be checking the image before approving it just for the bot to do it. Surely it would be simpler just to add the rename image right to a "rename file user" group or similar, like the rollback right on enwikip which can be added by admins for those who don't have admin rights. Adambro (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd give it to all people who can move an "article", so long as the protection applies to images as well. Maybe latter once the feature has been tested out a bit more. J.smith (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi everybody,

Some time ago, I had an exchange of emails with a photographer from the French ministry of foreign affairs, over the use of photos they had published. I later created a page in my userspace (User:Raoulduke47/Correspondence), so that their answer would be available to other commons users. However the person who answered me now requests that the page be deleted because, he says, it infringes on his privacy. I have no problem with that, so, could an admin please delete this page? Thanks. Raoulduke47 (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  Done It could be useful, though, to keep a notice somewhere saying that their work cannot be freely used. --Eusebius (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The former template {{FrenchMinistryOfForeignAffairs}} is linked in Commons:Copyright_tags#Unfree licenses, in other language versions with weblink to www.france.diplomatie.fr. I noticed, that the site is still listed in Commons:Free_media_resources/Photography#People, thats not ok. I think a collection on the Template talkpage would be a good idea, will create it. --Martin H. (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  Done, see Template talk:FrenchMinistryOfForeignAffairs. With the weblink search i found File:Mostar.jpg and File:QaboosOfOman.jpg, I dont want to be the bad guy who always deleted heavily used images. The reason is obvious per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FrenchMinistryOfForeignAffairs. --Martin H. (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Lycaon's active attempts to disenfranchise voters

Here, Lycaon is actively attempting to disenfranchise voters, and is making accusations of bad faith and POV-pushing simply because I disagreed with him. Evidently, supporting something he dislikes is POV pushing. Nor is this the first time: previously, Lycaon simply deleted my vote, claiming I should be ineligible because I had previously said I liked the image. This is gross misbehaviour on his part, and I would ask that he be at least strongly cautioned.

The first one also had the active effect of causing a legitimately opposed FPX to go through anyway. I asked him about it at the time, [9] but my message was simply ignored.

Here are some quotes from both:

“
Not required, but it would be a great courtesy to the reviewers. -- carol (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Invalid request This new file is not the same and was never given a FP stamp so cannot be a replacement of an established FP. Lycaon (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace. Let's not create bureaucracy where it's not needed. This process is ample for the replacement of a lower-resolution photo with a higher-resolution one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe you could follow some simple rules instead of trying to circumvent them to push your POV? Lycaon (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, Lycaon, but disagreeing with you is not POV-pushing, particularly when four other people have voted that way. Please stop the random accusations of bad faith. Note that this alsio isn't the first time: You actively disenfranchised me in the past, in order to make a FPX go through, saying I shouldn't be allowed to vote in support because I had previously stated that I liked the image. Now, it seems, you want to disenfranchise not just me, but four other people as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
        • It was not a random accusation Adam. It is something I noticed. And My statement was valid, Durova's delisting attempt not. Just facts. Lycaon (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
          • You noticed that I supported things I have said I like? Quel horreur! That does not justify any of your actions, in either case. You shut down a legitimate challenge to an FPX, as per the instructions written on the FPX template, causing it to be closed, and now you want to shut down a vote simply because you don't like it, and want more bureaucracy instead. And both times, your attempts to force first one vote, to prematurely shut down a discussion; and now a whole group of votes to shut down a decision to be declared invalid - clear POV-pushing on your part - were justified by hypocritically accusing others of POV-pushing. Extremely bad form, sir! Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
”

As can be seen, Lycaon tries to get FIVE DIFFERNET VOTES declared invalid, but opposition to his actions is grounds for attacking the person who made such opposition as a POV-pusher. Because trying to force your opinion to be the only one considered, despite a 5-to-1 majority being against you is clearly not pushing your POV.

Likewise, in the 8-cell.gif vote:

“
 
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: another version of this animation is already a FP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
”

As can be seen, he simply deletes my vote, and restores the FPX. Because it would be far too hard to, you know, cross out the "delist old" and let the support stand.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Votes or comments should not be removed unless it is vandalism. I don't know enough about the FP process to comment further. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Votes were not removed. It is common practice on FPC to strike invalid votes. --Dschwen (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
How is a support vote invalid, and able to be disqualified on the whim of another user, placing an FPX back in place and shutting down discussion? Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that you should familiarize yourself with the policies at FPC (in particular the FPX template). These policies are a result of community consensus and were created to streamline an already difficult process and avoid lengthy arguments like this one. --Dschwen (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Read what the template itself says: "Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If no contrary views are expressed within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed." I was not the nominator, so why would I not be allowed to follow the clearly-stated instructions? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
low level rule lawyering but not I think riseing to the level where much can or should be done about it.Geni (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Just unnecessary drama for COM:AN. Please try to resolve this at COM:FPC and use big words as disenfranchise sparingly. --Dschwen (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
And what word would you use for him crossing out my vote in the second example? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I would refer you to my comment from 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC). --Dschwen (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah nothing is changing in this world. Adam likes to shout while I like rules to be followed (not removing/deleting anything in the end, BTW). I don't particularly care either way, I just prefer what Adam calls bureaucracy to chaos. Lycaon (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
What I see is a disagreement between two editors as to the proper procedure for replacing one FP picture with another. It seems to me that if relevant guidelines and policies do not support either the process that you favor, or the one supported by Lycaon, that the place to discuss this is the talk page of the relevant guideline or policy. In that way, the process can be clarified so as to avoid conflicts of the sort you document. A 5-to-1 majority is meaningless if the process is not correct and Lycaon seems to think that is the case in this instance. It appears that this disagreement is longstanding. Please try to resolve it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
As nominator on one of the two candidacies under discussion here, it comes as an unpleasant surprise to discover this thread in passing on my watchlist. It was neither discussed with me in advance, nor was I notified after it had opened. Nor, for that matter, did Lycaon attempt to interface proactively about his ideas regarding delisting and replacing an old restoration, before attempting to disqualify the existing votes that were already on the page. Let's remember that mellowness is a key ingredient of Commons culture. The Wright brothers' first airplane flight is an important historic photograph that receives 300,000-400,000 views a month across dozens of language editions of Wikipedia. Our goal as a project is to present the best version possible to those readers. Let's refocus on that common goal and move forward productively. Durova (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Lycaon massively escalated the dispute, accusing me of bad faith and POV-pushing (words that do not mean what he thinks they do), instead of politely explaining his position or any constructive action. I don't seek active sanctions, but I think we do need to clearly tell Lycaon that this is unacceptable behaviour, or he'll just do it again later. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The actual issue here is quite simple: part of our project mission is to highlight the site's best content by featuring it. A very important photograph was had been featured in a poorly-restored version, and a higher resolution source file had become available during the four years since that earlier restoration. So I worked from the higher resolution source file to provide a new restoration, and submitted it to the community for consideration. Most of the people who reviewed it understood the purpose of that, but one individual did not. It does not improve the situation when a second person loses perspective also. The people who view the Wright brothers' first flight are interested in aeronautics history; let's put our best foot forward by keeping that end goal in mind. Durova (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Lycaon is formally right in stating that delist and replace is an Invalid request, as the FPC delisting procedure do not mention anywhere that you can also replace with a version which is perceived better in the same process. So, I think you are stirring up unnecessary drama over this. I think there are pretty good reasons for us not allowing delist and replace. The delist region does not attract as many reviewers as the nomination section, so for a promotion to be given on equal terms as any other FPC, it has to go in the normal nominations section. Assuming it passes the nomination, it is then a trivial issue to delist the older one. So with current procedures, you should really nominate the newly restored version as any other FPC, of course mention that we already have one and that you think it is better for this and that reason. Alternatively you can initiate a discussion about extending the delist section to also allow delist and replace, and if consensus is agreed, it will be incorporated in the guidelines and it would be OK at a later time. By treating a new version as any other nomination you also avoid accusations that you are trying to game the system by sneaking in a nomination via another route. You may perceive the procedure as bureacratic, but it avoid a mixup between a delit procedure and a nomination procedure. --Slaunger (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
What would you recommend to normalize the current situation, Slaunger? Assume that I applied a solution that is customary at a sister project in an area where local policy is silent, and that only one vocal individual objected. I attempted to engage him in dialog and he failed to reply.[10] The important thing here is the end result: featuring the site's best material. What is the path of least drama right now, with this nomination in its current state, to achieve our site mission in the most sensible way? Durova (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I recommend to follow procedures as they are now in order to hinder that anyones uses the deviations from procedures as an excuse to claim that it is POV pushing to make an all-in-one delist and replace. To do that
  1. Change the delist and replace request of the present FP to a pure delist request.
  2. Nominate the newly restored alternative version as an ordinary FPC on equal terms as any other FPC. As an informative note refer to the FP nominated for delisting under delist
  3. Stop posting in this thread
  4. If you find that the COM:FPC procedures could be improved by allowing delist and replace as a separate process: Initiate a discussion about it on the COM:FPC talk case and see if there is consensus for implementing that
  5. Assuming consensus can be reached, adjust the delisting procedures accordingly.
That there is only voice there is maybe because delisting candidates do not have the same attention as FPCs. I will join the one-vioced choir now such that there are two. I will try to do that in a less hostile tone though, as I tend to AGF (or maybe I am just very naive). --Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It has been called to my attention that my mentioning to stop posting in this thread could be interpreted as order to stop posting at the notice board. That was not my intention with that line. First, I am not entitled to order anyone here to stop posting. My only intention is to try and mediate a conflict such that we can all move along and get back to work. Second, my statement does not reflect a frustration that I am directing at anyone. It is my most honest answer and recommendation to Durovas question regarding (quote) What is the path of least drama right now, with this nomination in its current state, to achieve our site mission in the most sensible way?. I am sorry if this was not clear in my previous post and if this could be understood as an attempt to undermine Durovas credibility. --Slaunger (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have followed Slaunger's suggestions regarding the delist and listing. Durova (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

High use image

Flappy (talk · contribs) has nominated but not listed several high use images for deletion. Since he tagged some of them as lacking permissions, they might be deleted automatically and will trigger problems for several other wikis. He seems like a new and inexperienced user, so could someone look into his claims? MBisanz talk 01:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like a vandal than an inexperienced user.. And don't worry, images don't get deleted automatically here (even though it may seem like it sometimes). Rocket000(talk) 01:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Rocket000 has indef'd Flappy for vandalism. --PaterMcFly (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Search default passed - what happened?

Defaulting our search box to "Search" instead of "Go" has passed unanimously. Does anyone know the next step to institute the change? --David Shankbone (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I placed the bug on Bugzilla. Abigor talk 21:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You rock. That is what you do. --David Shankbone (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It has been over a month, yet the search box parameter defaulting to "Search" instead of "Go" has yet to be changed - anyone know how we can get this done? This proposal passed unaninmously. --David Shankbone (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The request has been posted at bugzilla - not much we can do but wait I'm afraid. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
We can only wait for the developers to make the change. Don't be overly excited, it may take a pretty long time to get it done. For comparison: It took 4 years to rename images to files, 5 months to enable image renaming and the Global deleted image review has been awaiting implementation for over 8 months already. There is a lot of stuff to do and a huge backlog, so don't expect this to happen in the next few weeks. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  Info I just wrote a gadget to implement this (check your preferences). Please test. That feature has been discussed, so if it works I will enable it globaly. One quirk is that the gadget does not seem to work while your are on the preferences page, so go to any other page after enabling it to test. --Dschwen (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I regret to say that it didn't work here. -- carol (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh no! What browser? Did you purge your cache? What happens? Nothing? The Go button should be unbolded and the Search button bolded. Do you see that? --Dschwen (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hm, works in FF3 and Konqueror. IE6 throws an unrelated error in the global Javascript. Do you see an error box in the top portion of the page? --Dschwen (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Javascript becomes enabled. Then I go to a page here which is not my Preferences. I type a word into the search boxen. Hit (or lightly engage) the search button and I get a gallery or disambiguation page. Javascript enabled is toggled off. I report about it here. -- carol (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Hold on, did you make a check mark next to Change the default on the searchbox from Go to Search in the Gadgets tab of your preferences? --Dschwen (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Should work now also in IE 6 (the error wasn't unrelated at all). It doesn't work on Special:Preferences because MediaWiki does not load any gadgets or user JS on the preferences page, you only get the site-wide stuff from /skins-1.5/ plus MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Skin.js, plus whatever these latter two import directly. It doesn't even load your own skin-specific JS (User:Foo/monobook.js). Presumably gadgets are not loaded to ensure that the preference page itself works and you can disable a broken gadget... Lupo 12:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Further disruption by Lycaon

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gasshukoku suishi teitoku kōjōgaki (Oral statement by the American Navy admiral).png This appears to be over Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Commons:Meet_our_restorationistsrestorers, which I have not participated in since the 14th. I object to this attempt to pull a dispute into nominations on the FPC page, in an attempt to belittle and harass the person publicly. If it wasn't for the above, I probably wouldn't have reported it, but it does feel rather like he's pushing the boundaries now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, this is clear as mud. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion request

I screwed up today, uploading File:V de Valencia.jpg from Flickr - it was only when I checked the license that I realized my mistake. (Sorry if this seems a bit rushed, I'm editing from an Internet cafe/public terminal today, so am on the move!) It's my first time here; so apologies if I've made a copyvio error, I'll get used to it in time. I hope I can get on here and avoid repeating the same mistakes! --Holnwham (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Gone. --Túrelio (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Is it bad that I admitted I screwed up? --Holnwham (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
No, to the contrary. It's bad when people claim "own work" for something they have just copied from somewhere on the net, and it's worse when they even know it's an image from a professional agency such as Getty Images who like to sue anybody who uses their images without paying the license fees. Of course, we often "smell" that sort of images, but nevertheless it takes much time to find or proof the copyvio.--Túrelio (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another category move request

It looks like at Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/07/Category:Negro we have consensus (albeit slightly reluctantly on the part of one participant) to move Category:Negro to Category:People of Black African descent. Given that there was some controversy and that I was the person who originally suggested the move, I'm reluctant to be the one who executes the move. Could we get an admin either to sign this off and request the move, or to say that, to the contrary, it needs further discussion? - Jmabel ! talk 02:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Several days have passed since I made this request. Could someone please either act on it or tell me how to proceed? - Jmabel ! talk 23:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, hello? As I said, I'm reluctant to be the one who asks for a bot to do this, but if no one else acts, I guess I will do it myself. - Jmabel ! talk 18:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Did something change in the way we delete copyvios?

Hi,

I reckon that I'm not the most active backlog cleaner in the project by far, so I've been trying to work a bit on that area. I recently encountered some files where admins tagged them as copyvios and left them to be deleted by others. Now, when I first started, we could just delete copyvios straight away, without additional tagging. Did something in this procedure change or are there over-zealous people on Commons? :) I mean, come on, there's already enough work, just shoot the darn things on sight :) Patrícia msg 21:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just tagging the images gives the uploader the opportunity to react and to send an OTRS email or to give a comment. The problem is that not everything is indeed a copyvio which looks like one. It is not uncommon that notable people or their heirs upload images, that a permission has been granted (without documenting it), or that images get copied from Commons without attribution. I think that is more welcoming to newcomers who aren't familiar with the OTRS process to get a chance to save their images before they get deleted. We know very well that deleted images can be restored but new users are easily bounced off when their first uploads are suddenly gone. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Obvious copyvios I just delete. Ones I suspect I DR. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
AFBorchert, I agree with your reasoning, but then tagging the image with copyvio isn't going to do any good either, because it's going to disappear pretty fast, and the uploader isn't going to have much chance to act on it. If we suspect such a case, of a file that might be usable with an OTRS permission, then the file should be tagged with {{Npd}}. Otherwise, obvious stuff should be deleted, as mattbuck said. Patrícia msg 10:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - there are processes for uploads you're not sure about (DR) and those where permission might be forthcoming ({{npd}}) - the remaining copyvios should be nuked on-sight be the first admin to come across them.  — Mike.lifeguard 11:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
And please notify the uploader! (a lot of people seem to forget this). Multichill (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Flickr review bot

Dear Admins,

  • Is the Flickr review bot having another of its periodic problems again? I notice there is a backlog of 100+ images for 2 straight days now in the flickr review needed category It seems the bot only marks a few images and stops functioning again as this indicates . If something isn't done, I predict the backlog will be perhaps 200+ in maybe 3-4 days. As an aside, I am surprised there are only c.200 Admins on Commons. That's a very small number to govern this web site and cope with all the issues here. I think you need more preferably good Admins here. (Well, its just an idea!) Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Image question

File:Crucified skin.gif comes from http://www.stencilpunks.org/. In the site's disclaimer page, it says "None of these graphics are to be used for sale purposes. They are protected by law and will be handled as any criminal matter.". My question here is, if they are protected by law, aka copyrighted, shouldn't they be deleted from Commons? Also see File:Skinsmall.jpeg which is the same copyrighted image uploaded by the same user, only a smaller version, being used in a userbox on en:WP by the same user proclaming he is a skinhead. I could care less about the skinhead part but if the images are indeed copyrighted, they should be deleted from Commons. Thoughts? Opinions? Deletions? ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 07:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted both; they were tagged as {{PD-ineligible}}, but that's clearly wrong. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 09:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we get rid of a vandal image in history?

Horologium kindly reverted vandalism to File:Seattle - P-I Building 01.jpg. Is there any way to get that vandalism out of the history? I'm a bit concerned about someone possibly stumbling across that if they go to access my photo. - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Gone & checking - thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Japan Prefectures flags

User Knua removed licences from descriptons of Japan flags [11] consider them as copyrighted. What should we do? Should we remove all that flags and derivative SVGs as no licenced or copyrighted?--Anatoliy (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wheel and edit war at File:Dömitz Wappen.png

Apparently, the conflict arose around the question whether it is justified to delete unused PNG files if an equivalent SVG file is available (see here). The corresponding policy suggests that superseded images shall not be deleted automatically without serious consideration. Given this, it seems more reasonable to file a DR for it and to seek some consensus for this particular case instead of deleting a contested image without discussion. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I would just add, for those involved involved, that the deletion log is not the best way to communicate. The whole conversation would have been perfectly fine in a DR. –Tryphon☂ 22:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Tryphon is right. The deletion log is not the place to communicate or discuss this matter. And let me say regarding Odder words: "Please note that this particular file is not used anywhere in the Wikimedia projects and as such may be deleted." that the unused file argument is not enough for speedy deletion. And as you should know, the deletion policy states that "Redundant or bad quality files never get speedily deleted. They have to be listed the usual way at Commons:Deletion requests and will only be deleted on a case by case basis." and the speedy deletion policy doesn't say anything about unused files being speedy deleted. KveD (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with KveD. For this reason I restored File:Dömitz Wappen.png. The "argument" that unused PNG files may be deleted is very silly. The question isn't whether SVG files or PNG files should be used in the articles on Wikipedia and other projects. Of course we use SVG if the SVG file is better than the other one. But for other reasons (f.e. to keep the "attribution path") we don't delete the original or the PNG file.--Leit (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Leit, I don't think your decision to restore the file for a third time without discussion is any better than Odder's decision to delete it for the third time. I find it extremely disappointing that there is no discussion between you on either of your talkpages or the file's talkpage. Where there is this sort of deadlock between sysops, repeatedly using your tools is not the way to go about reaching agreement. Either of you could have brought the matter here. Alternatively, Odder could have listed the image for a normal deletion discussion and you could have filed an undeletion request. But repeatedly reversing another sysop's actions without (a) discussion with them or (b) seeking to establish a consensus by raising the issue for further input isn't the way to go about things. WJBscribe (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. It has been a wheel war, so far. But I wouldn't have done all this if there hadn't been this strict policy rules. Odder has yet talked to other people who wanted him to stop the deletions of superseded images – but he didn't react.--Leit (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We have Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded and Commons:Deletion policy#Redundant/bad quality which clearly disallows admins to do this. Looks like he doesn't understand our policies or is not willing to follow them. Which is it odder? Are you going to promise the community you're going to stick to our policies now? Multichill (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here - Odder's repeated deletions of the image against settled policy (though it's more of a stalemate than an agreement as I recall from previous discussions regarding replacing png with svg), and the unhelpful way that Leit responded to the situation by repeatedly reversing Odder's actions rather than raising the matter for discussion. Neither "side" has behaved very well in this situation unfortunately. WJBscribe (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's completely right. So I do apologize for that mistake herewith. But it should be dinstinct now that Odder has to stop all PNG deletions immediately and otherwise he has to bear the consequences.--Leit (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Language problem

[12] Do we have anyone speaking vietnamese?? --Eusebius (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, user contacted for help on his home wiki. --Eusebius (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-sa-all

I thought about creating a new CC template here in GFDL style: CC-BY-SA 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 or any later version. I thought that this would might be a good idea, in case that there will appeare CC-BY-SA-3.5 or 4.0 to avoid problems as there were with the GFDL-with-discalimers and GFDL-no-discalimers. Some changing the redirecdt would violate copyright, because the uploaders only agreed to publish it under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} so far. The last Verison by Väsk was "This file is licensed under all Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike Licenses including version 1.0, 2.0, 2.5 and all future versions issued by the Creative Commons." before Dbenbenn made this page a redirect to {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}. CC-BY-SA-all was created in 2005 and was a redirect to cc-by-sa-1.0-2.5 on 2005-07-28. On 2007-08-11 Siebrand changed the redirect so that it ends in CC-BY-SA-1.0-3.0. I fully agree with Bryan's reverting comment: "Back to 2.5, we cannot relicense existing images.". I don't know if the licence for all cc-by-sa-all images got changed at that time. However Those who want to use cc-by-sa-1.0-3.0 should use the corresponding licence and those who want to release their images under all cc-by-sa-licences (also under those which don't exist for now) should be able to use {{Cc-by-sa-all}}. I'm not sure if we could tell CommonsDelinker to replace the templates. For those who don't wont to type in "3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0" or search for it, copy and paste it {{Cc-by-sa-t3}} can be created. "t3" stands for Till Version 3.0. The only problem there may will be is that version 4.0 includes something some user don't like so they change the licence (the same problem as there is with GFDL 1.2+ and the change to 1.2-only). Of course all goes the same for Template:Cc-by-all.
--D-Kuru (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No comments, ideas, something eles?
--D-Kuru (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a good idea to me, and we should strongly encourage users to use this kind of licenses (like most open-source projects encourage contributors to use the GPL v2 or later; in case they want to upgrade the license, they don't have to track every contributor down). However, I would personally prefer a type of license that only allows higher version numbers, something like cc-by-sa-3.0+. Older versions usually have some flaws that made a newer version necessary, so it doesn't make sense to me to allow previous versions. --Tryphon (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
If there will be 3.5 or 4.0, 3.0 would be the same old stuff like yet 1.0-2.5 are. May you can tell me what is so bad about 1.0-2.5 that you think it shouldn't be included.
add: Now the CC-BY-SA-all is a redirect to CC-BY-SA-1.0-3.0. So why should a new template not include older versions. If somebody prefers 3.0+ there could be an additional template which says "version 3.0 and any later version"
--D-Kuru (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, we can have both an "all" and a "+" version. I don't know of anything specifically bad with 1.0-2.5, and of course 3.0 will become old compared to 3.5. But I cannot tell now that I want to license my image as 3.5 only before it even exists; the best I can do is pick the latest version that exists, and leave the door open for newer versions. Do you see what I mean? –Tryphon☂ 20:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Why shouldn't you be able to licnece your work under a licence before that licence exist? {{GFDL}} says "under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version". So you licenced your work under GFDL 1.3 and (if there will ever be) 1.4 (and 1.5 ... 2.0 ...) before that licences even exist. I would say that if you "leave the door open for newer versions" you use "or any version later". You can't create a licence template with "I licence my work under CC-BY-SA-1.0-3.0 and maybe some later versions". But maybe that wasn't what you wanted to say. Please corret me if you thought about something different. --D-Kuru (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

↵ Yeah that's not what I meant, I guess I didn't make myself clear. Let me try again. To me, there are three possibilities:

  1. You license your work under a specific version number (for example cc-by-sa-3.0, that would be the "only" kind);
  2. You license your work under any version number of a specific license (past, present or future, that would be the "all" kind);
  3. You license your work under a specific version number or any future version (which means you don't want to allow the use of "obsolete" versions of the license, that would be the "+" kind).

You were suggesting to create #2, and I'm saying that I usually prefer using #3. –Tryphon☂ 23:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If I got that right you suggest that you would only allow the use of your file under latest version available. If that was what you thought about I have to mention that you can't retrieve CC licences. If you have once licenced your work under (for example) 3.0 you can't forbid it if there will be 3.5. If I'm right you can't retrieve any licence which is allowed on Commons (Which is one of our problems now because there is GFDL 1.3 and some user (try to) switch from 1.2+ to 1.2-only even that is not possible). Before there was {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-at}} I used {{Cc-by-sa-2.0-at}} to licence my own work. When I switched from 2.0 to 3.0 I relicenced my old 2.0 images under 3.0. If I would just had superseded the template you would still be able to use my images under 2.0.
However, if you create a temple which tells you that you are allowed to use that image under the latest version you would have to tell the people (per CC webside) what the licence requires: "For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page." So cc-by-sa-latest (for example) would turn into cc-by-sa-3.0 now and if there will be 3.5 or 4.0 you would have to change the weblink. Because you can't retrieve the licence you would have to include the information that people are allowed to use the image under the terms of that older version (in that example it would be 3.0)
May you correct me if I still got it wrong.
--D-Kuru (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
However, we should include a notice that the author has noticed and agreed that if he includes this licence he can't retrieve it so that we avoid a second GFDL 1.2+
--D-Kuru (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, not exactly what I meant. Let me take an example. Suppose we have the three kind of templates I mentioned above available right now. Then:
  1. cc-by-sa-3.0 allows to use version 3.0 only;
  2. cc-by-sa-all allows to use versions 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and any future version;
  3. cc-by-sa-3.0+ (what I'm suggesting instead of the "all" template) allows to use version 3.0 and any future version (but _not_ 1.0 or 2.0, just like GFDL 1.2+ in fact).
–Tryphon☂ 07:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


Anybody else some comments? --D-Kuru (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion requests need attention !

The number of open Deletion Requests has been building up for months, and help is now urgently needed. There is even one request that is almost a year old. If you've been put off because of the high proportion that were done but not archived, please check again as the lists are once again clean and are just bursting with requests awaiting your attention. Not all are complicated: many can be closed pretty quickly and easily.

Please consider helping by closing say 10, even if this is an area you do not normally visit. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I did a couple, but what should be done when a request is 6 months old and no one has responded to it? Assume delete? Default to keep? MBisanz talk 04:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I've done a few as well. I also have the same question as MBisanz. Bidgee (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I would say neither: use your best judgement, but remembering COM:PRP. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur with MichaelMaggs as someone who started his admin career by working through old DRs. In some cases the age makes decisions even simpler. You do not need to wait any longer for OTRS permissions or any other essential informations that are missing. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Cecils indignities. I need help

It must be possible to delete indignities. Cecil affronts me and I have no chance to delete this, because of Cecils self importance as administrator.User_talk:Cecil#images_Markus_Roscher_and_Friederike_Meinel Please help. --Schnuffelwuffy (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you think should have been deleted, Cecils talk page?? From what I can understand from the link you provided you argued to keep some images that didn't have a valid permission (hopefully now sorted through OTRS), so: what seems to be the problem here? Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I mean the whole dialog, but defenitely this sentence: "Und weil ich solche Leute wie dich (Verschwender der Zeit von Freiwilligen) so absolut null ausstehen kann, herrscht für dich auf meiner Seite Hausverbot.", because this is an indignity.--Schnuffelwuffy (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
My best suggestion is for you not to waste anymore of the volunteers time, pushing this really harmless issue is really not very dignified. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) That's no indignity. To those who do not understand German in my rough translation: As I cannot stand people like you (wasting the time of volunteers), you are no longer welcomed on my page. BTW, could someone please look for OTRS permissions for the two uploaded images by Schuffelwuffy File:Friederike Meinel.jpg and File:MarkusRoscher.jpg? --AFBorchert (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Just as background information: there is this PR-team of Roscher ans his clients. Each time this team gets active at German Wikipedia or now at Commons they create a lot of work for other people who have each time to explain them about OTRS, about how to format an article, about how they have to present the relevance of a person in the article itself. First time I noticed this PR-team was in 2006, where I informed them about OTRS already. That was 2,5 years ago. -- Cecil (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong preview at File:Loganiaceae spp EP-IV2-024.png

Hello, subject says it: due to an upload problem, this file is stuck with the wrong preview. Can you please recreate the preview from the file? --Ayacop (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ayacop, the servers recreate previews periodically. It may take a few hours or days for you to see the corret preview, try clearing your browser cache to speed this up. It works fine for me, so it should work fine for you soon. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A reminder

Just as another reminder that any image on Commons related to Getty Images should be shot on sight; now the agency is suing website owners in Germany that only used a preformed website template that allegedly contained material from Getty Images.[13] (news report in german).--Túrelio (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Any images I see with Getty Images in the source, EXIF data or on the image is deleted on sight but a good reminder for those who may have forgotten. Bidgee (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
As this is a serious issue, and to be extra-cautious, from now on I will delete on sight every image that has the words Getty or Images anywhere on the page. –Tryphon☂ 13:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hehe Tryphon, april 1st was yesterday. Images showing the Getty museum are surely no problem.--Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

same name for DIFFERENT pictures

may someone FULLY separate File:Husarz.jpg and File:Husarz1.jpg ?
in history File:Husarz.jpg has the same picture as File:Husarz1.jpg - so I'm afraid that some one will revert File:Husarz.jpg to its older version :-( both pictures are important just one picture is the first quarter of 17th century (File:Husarz.jpg - new version), and the second is the third quarter of the same century (File:Husarz.jpg - old version)
please, solve the trouble! (82.115.54.150 01:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Attention#same_name_for_DIFFERENT_pictures to keep the conversation in one place.-Andrew c (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

how to find correct copyright/photo credits on 3 images

Help! I've never done this before. What are the copyright/photo credits for:

File:Anne Hathaways Cottage and gardens 15g2006.jpg

File:Delphinium elatum hybride 002.jpg

and

File:Henryi1a.UME.jpg

???

Need for my new Associated Content article. Thankyou.

Cathy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.144.130 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 3. Apr. 2009 (UTC)

For the 1st image: Photo by Richard Peat, licensed creative-commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0.
For the 2nd image: Photo by Commons-User:Valérie75, licensed creative-commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5.
For the 3rd image: Photo by Ulf Eliasson, licensed creative-commons Attribution 2.5.
While I've provided underlying links for both photographer name and license deed, in your credit you should at least provide a link to the license deed. In cases of double-licensing I've choosen the CC license, as the GFDL license require a local copy of the full license text.--Túrelio (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

need to change my username

hello,

i would like to know how can i get my username changed ,here in commons please?--Gionataconti (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Changing username. --Leyo 09:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

Hi.

I look that category: Category:Zallascht Sadat and believe that all images (or most of them) are protect by copyrigth. Besides all images in that category come from Flickr, the photos are so phofesional (like that) whem s imposible that are made for the Flickr user. But, I don't have the source of that images, so i can't make whit {{Copyvio}}.

Best regards, Béria Lima Msg 20:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I note the Flickr user claims to be Zallascht Sadat. Looking at what is said to be her official website, I also note that the about page is a copy of the Wikipedia article or vice versa. An email to the address listed on that website, info [at] zallascht.com could probably clear up both the issue with the images on Flickr and the copied content on Wikipedia. Are you prepared to do that Beria? Adambro (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm just send the e-mail. Béria Lima Msg 16:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
We have a problem. The e-mail in site is not valid. Béria Lima Msg 17:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Cecil

Some chapters above (see #BSicons to be deleted), several of you already talked about BSicons {{Duplicate}}, {{Bad name}} and {{Speedydelete}}. And you all will surely know that I have already eliminated at least a hundred BSicons with funny names by uploading complete sets of icons and changing any occurrance of those bad named icons worldwide.

And now Cecil insults me such as "over 200 duplicates which you caused by simply putting a template in the file, but not doing the rest of the work. Do you really expect people to now do your work". Could please someone tell her how to find this page, how to use the toolserver tools and to stop insulting hard working editors? You may understand that I'm quite mad at her at the moment!! axpdeHello! 00:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned up several hundred duplicates in the last two days so don't tell me about work. And I still remember that a few people who are known as railway experts cleaned up the whole icons about a year ago. And now suddenly you claim that they all have incorrect naming (but instead of just renaming them you upload them again with your name as author). Then checking through them with the Dupes-tool I noticed that for most of those over 200 icons in the Duplicate-category no work at all was done except putting a template into them to fill them into the dupes-category. The new ones are mostly unused while the old ones are used several hundred times in the projects. So if you want to erase the work of others start doing it, but not by loading the work on others. -- Cecil (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Again:
  • I don't care at all what you've done the "last two days", remember it wasn't me blaming you, it was the other way 'round!
  • I care about the work I did the last six months:
    • I recreated more than 100 BSicons, correcting errors and reducing size by up to more than 80%!
    • I created more than 1000 BSicons completely new, with {{validSVG}} and correct and consistent names!
    • I tagged more than 300 BSicons {{bad name}}, I already eliminated 139 of those completely and I'm still working on another 150 ones simultaneously (actual count of my filter list).
I really don't know which crystal ball you consulted telling you that "no work at all was done" but it badly needs a repair, hopefully you kept the receipt!
So finally stop your silly insults and bark at another moon, this one's the wrong target!!! axpdeHello! 01:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, actually I just contacted Erik Baas about what to do with all those images. You were the one who started giving your unwanted opinion on a talk page that was neither yours nor was the request to you. Oh, and you also reverted an admins decision not to fullfill a speedy deletion which should have clued you in on doing it as a normal deletion request if you really wanted something gone that obviously was not a duplicate. And if I were you I would be carefull about what you are writing because the last part of your previous statement borders on a personal attack. On the other side it does not really matter for me what you will do. I still will wait for Erik (that is not you) and his opinion to all the dupes and what to do about them. If the CheckUsage-tool shows them as replaced an admin will do the deletion of the unused one. Let's see on which side of the dupes-tool the deletion-button will be clicked because of the missing usage (yours or the old one). -- Cecil (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
You're blaming me my "previous statement borders on a personal attack"??
This complete edit was a single personal attack!! axpdeHello! 08:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The question to Erik was angled, I only answered to what was written "between the lines", the one who overreacted was you!
To everyone else listening:
I made several thousand edits in the last few months, I'm working hard to achieve my goal of a completely consistent system of BSicons and some already people talked to me about that, but noone blamed and insulted me the way Cecil obviously thinks to have the right to do so!
Could please someone stop her crusade on me? axpdeHello! 08:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think you should be ashamed of yourself and the way you just slamed on thousands of dead people by comparing their fate to a simple disagreement on the speedy deletion of images. Guess who is overreacting by comparing himself to a crusader. -- Cecil (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a question: have you thought about the feelings of the people who contributed icons with names that differed from the naming scheme that you want? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If the file name begins with “File:BSicon”, images must fit in the defined naming scheme. On the other hand, other users are free to upload any railway icon, if the file name does not begin with “File:BSicon”. Otherwise it would be complicated to maintain the “BSicon” naming scheme in a consistent way. --Leyo 08:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Naming schemes such as this are a bad idea in general, but if people insist upon it then making more work for others sounds like an even worse idea. That said, Cecil could do with modifying her approach on this and similar issues.  — Mike.lifeguard 22:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
In this case a naming scheme seems to be helpful in the context of templates which select these images in dependence of some of their parameters (example: this template showing Shanghai Metro Line 10 uses this template). I am not really familiar with these diagrams but these images are apparently rarely used outside of specialized templates. There exists some documentation about this naming scheme at de-wp and a legend at Commons. The conflict apparently arose when myriads of speedy deletions were filed for the outphased diagrams as this requires the admin to look where this image is used, to submit appropriate replacement commands to the delinker and/or to do things manually if they are deeply hidden in some templates. I had today a lengthy discussion with Axpde. In summary, Axpde told me that he takes himself care of all the replacements through all projects. Axpde was apparently not aware which load these speedy deletions may generate. I've suggested an alternative to him and I hope that this issue can be resolved this way. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to clearify, my last edit below refers to what Mike said before!
@AFBorchert, thanks again for you for the convenient conversation this afternoon, esp. for your efforts to understand the highly sophisticated railroad template "system" and its special deeds and needs, and of course for your help to calm down the whole situation! Good night everyone! axpdeHello! 23:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
(with edit conflict) Mais o contraire!My French is a bit rusty, sorry if it's spelled wrong :-}
As said before, the BS-system badly relays on consistent names! We have ...
  • tracks (STR), stations (BHF), stops (HST), freight stations (DST), flag stops (BST), junctions (ABZ), crossings (KRZ) and many more!
  • All of those can be ...
    • in full use (without prefix), partly in use (x), partly off use (e), completely off use (ex),
    • heavy rail (without prefix), light rail (u) or even mixed (m),
    • plain (without prefix), tunnel (t), elevated (h),
  • and conc. orientation ...
    • forward (without suffix), opposite/straight (g), across (q), starting (a), ending (e), facing left (l), facing right (r),
    • running plain (without suffix), overhead (o) or underneath (u), crossing line in tunnel (t) or elevated (h)
    • and several suffixes more!
... and now you tell me, that a naming scheme is "a bad idea in general"?? Do you really think it's ok to upload let's say a picture of a horse and name it "BSicon ..." (... whatever name not yet has been claimed, but may be needed for "future expansion")??
Ok, becoming serious again, take File:BSicon utexKRZ.svg: First of all the sequence of prefixes is wrong, the original {{Template:BSue}}-template expects "ue" to come first, secondly have a look at it, as said before "ex" denotes a picture completely off use, but in this icon the track across is in use. Just one example among hundreds!
As said before, I never asked any admin for more than deleting the obsolete icons after I finished my work. A propos:
  1. File:BSicon HELEV.svg
  2. File:BSicon HKRZo-ELEV.svg
  3. File:BSicon KRZo-ELEV.svg
  4. File:BSicon KRZt-ELEV.svg
  5. File:BSicon WBRÜCKE-ELEV.svg
  6. File:BSicon eGRENZE legende.svg
  7. File:BSicon eKRZ-ELEV.svg
  8. File:BSicon eKRZo-ELEV.svg
  9. File:BSicon exHELEV.svg
  10. File:BSicon tWASSER.svg
  11. File:BSicon uHELEV.svg
  12. File:BSicon uHKRZo-ELEV.svg
  13. File:BSicon uKBFe2.svg
  14. File:BSicon uKRZo-ELEV.svg
  15. File:BSicon uKRZut.svg
  16. File:BSicon uUKRZ.svg
  17. File:BSicon ueHELEV.svg
  18. File:BSicon ueKRZ-ELEV.svg
  19. File:BSicon utHKRZo-ELEV.svg
  20. File:BSicon utKBFe2.svg
  21. File:BSicon utKRZu.svg
  22. File:BSicon utexHSTR.svg
  23. File:BSicon utexKRZ.svg
  24. File:BSicon uxKRZu.svg
  25. File:BSicon xHKRZo-ELEV.svg
All those icons are cleared for deletion, I have checked and change any occurrance of all of these icons (far more than 600 edits today). You see, the only one I'm "making more work for" is me! All I ask for is please verify that all those icons are correctly substituted and delete them afterwards! axpdeHello! 23:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Axpde, it might be a good idea, to show some sample articles, where these icons are in use and where incorrectly named icons (potentially) cause problems. Like that, it would be easier for everyone to understand the need of consistency (as the author of Vorlage:BS/Texte, I know how this naming scheme works). --Leyo 06:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
As you know, there's actually no problem once the BS-box is created - as long as you haven't finished your work of automated mouseover explanations to each BSicon. At the moment there are more than 4000 BSicons around, it doesn't make sense to have a switch with 4000 entries! To make this work we need a consistent naming scheme to reduce the amount of code ...
Back to the BS-boxes itself, even with consistent named icons it's a shipload of work and still getting worse, if you have to check for each single icon, whether it shows what you expect to. Not speaking of what happens when trying to alter an existing BS-box!
Asking for examples, look at this table:
name completely
in use 		partially
in use 		partially
off use 		completely
off use 		site modifier
– x e ex
ABZld File:BSicon ABZld.svg File:BSicon xABZld.svg File:BSicon eABZld.svg File:BSicon exABZld.svg some triangle junctions to the left
ABZ_ld File:BSicon ABZ ld.svg File:BSicon xABZ ld.svg File:BSicon eABZ ld.svg File:BSicon exABZ ld.svg even more triangle junctions to the left


ABZlf and exABZld are easy to understand, but can anyone explain, what the uploader of the other icons had in mind when giving those names? xABZ_ld is "partially in use" but shows less red lines than eABZ_ld which is "partially off use"! And what the heck about this exABZ_ld?!? Should be "completely off use" but in fact it's the exact opposite of xABZld!?!
When I started creating BS-boxes the number of inconsistent named BSicons was a lot larger. Each time I wasn't sure I had to load the complete list of icons, you can imagine the waste of bandwidth and server load!
We always say wikipedia should be accessible for everyone, easy to understand, not only for readers but contributors as well. That's my motivation! axpdeHello! 09:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Small change for MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning

As a consequence of what I suggested in this village pump talk, I provide the new code for the suggested change : User:Teofilo/Copyrightwarning. I have tested it in a user talk page and in a non-user talk page and it switches to the shorter message or the longer message accordingly.

Could an admin implement it ?

Teofilo (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Done Looks okay to me. Adambro (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. It seems to be working fine. Teofilo (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Kinouya

Someone - probably someone who speaks Japanese - should get hold of User:Kinouya and try to clarify what is going on with rights to the images he is uploading. A few are old enough that they are probably legitimately public domain, but on the whole the license tags don't seem to suggest any understanding of copyright law. For example, File:Ete1001.jpg, a postcard of a film director (probably from the mid-1920s, judging by appearance) is tagged as cc-by-sa-3.0, which can't be right. His home page links to a website (presumably his) of old postcards. - Jmabel ! talk 21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests edit

I would like to add the following after "and clicking on "Nominate for deletion" in the toolbox on the left."

(this will open several new tabs or windows and may require disabling the popup blocking tool in your browser if you have one)

Teofilo (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

GFDL-1.3-only

I don't know if you guys want it, but I've created {{GFDL-1.3-only}}. We had two images on EN that had OTRS for GFDL 1.3 only, so someone made the tag there. I then moved the images here. I'd personally like to see this tag completely disallowed before it gets started, but whatever. Someone said that we can't disallow a valid free image, but I think this is probably even less "free" than CC-NC, because of the annoying restrictions on reuse (can you imagine adding the full text of the GFDL license to a reused ogg audio sample?). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 13:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  Comment See {{GFDL-1.3}}. →Diti the penguin — 14:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that one says "Version 1.3 or any later version". This is the problem. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 17:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I understand then. :) →Diti the penguin — 18:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
So... Is this a tag that you guys actually want? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 18:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on GFDL 1.3, but wouldn't "GFDL 1.3 only" be a contradiction of terms? J.smith (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I asked the same question on EN but I don't think anyone knew. It might not be a valid license. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 05:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
GFDL 1.3 and no other versions of the GFDL is a valid statement. One can't prohibit the CC-BY-SA migration clauses though. Dragons flight (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Right, but CC-BY-SA does not permit restrictions like that, so it would make it incompatible with CC-BY-SA and thus a violation of its-self... maybe? Or could you effectively "strip" that restriction by converting to CC-By-SA and then to GFDL2.0? In either case, we shouldn't be using a license like that. J.smith (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I would be exceedingly happy if Commons were to decide to invalidate this tag, and completely disallow its use. Only two images use it so far, and one is dual anyways. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 01:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey we've accepted GFDL 1.2 only, what's the big deal? ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
That's justifying one mistake with another. --Dschwen (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Because "1.2 Only" was a stupid tag, but it didn't necessarily contradict itself. J.smith (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've reviewed the OTRS tickets for both of those images and one of them explicitly says "GFDL 1.3 or later" and the other just says "GFDL 1.3" and was originally uploaded by the copyright holder with a {{GFDL}} tag. I've thus retagged both of those images with {{GFDL-1.3}} and deleted the unused {{GFDL-1.3-only}} tag. Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Awesome. Can we agree that this tag is not a valid or desired tag, and should not be re-created, here or on any of the projects? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 07:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion backlog

Is there anything that can be done to start working on the humongous backlog at Commons:Deletion requests? As a non-admin, is there anything I can do to make the admins' job easier on this? Powers (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As a nonadmin you can give "votes", arguments and relevant links that could help admins. closing open requests. You can also keep reminding us here ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Or an even better idea - as a non admin you could become an admin and help close the requests. :-) Rjd0060 (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Easier said than done. Majorly talk 16:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Some only need to ask to get their rights back :) --Herby talk thyme 17:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Flag of United Kingdom.svg

Would it be the correct procedure to delete this duplicate of File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg and to create a redirect afterwards? --Leyo 12:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is so difficult to answer that? :-) --Leyo 13:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  Done --Leyo 08:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Amalia Rodrigues by Bottelho.jpg

I'm not sure what to do with this image. It is a modern work of art coming from Flickr. It would pass Flickr review because the license is ok, but usually for such a file we'd require an OTRS authorization. I don't think it's Flickr washing, the Flickr is probably the artist. Wouldn't it be odd to ask an OTRS authorization to the Flickr user?? --Eusebius (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem, see Category:Carlos Botelho and uploads by User:Bott. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure the picture is not problematic, but we rely on mere trust here. That's not a real problem for me, but that's not so consistent with our processing of other recent works of art. --Eusebius (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Debraactress (talk · contribs)

I have some doubt whether the rather professionally looking images of an actress called Debra uploaded and all claimed to be "Own work by uploader" by this new user, are clean. According to EXIF data, most are made by professional camera models such as Canon EOS 40D and Canon EOS 5D. However, quick searches on Google and TinEye weren't sucessful.--Túrelio (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Russian speaking person needed

Perhaps I should have posted this on the Russian speaking village pump, but it does not seem very active, while I am quite sure a few administrators speak russian.

I made a picture deletion request, and the uploader seems to need explanations in Russian. If you speak Russian, please go to the bottom of the page User talk:Schekinov Alexey Victorovich and provide him some help in Russian.

He wrote "RU. please"

Teofilo (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

CU page to delete?

As I've no experience with old CU requests, can this page Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sharadtriyama from 2008 be deleted as requested by the related user? --Túrelio (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've undeleted that as there's no reason to delete it. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard 21:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"bad source" Flickr account

What's the way of recording a Flickr account as a dubious source, so that automatic Flickr review fails? --Eusebius (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A first point of entry might be here: Commons:Questionable Flickr images. --Túrelio (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. --Eusebius (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations

After spotting File:Photograph of wallchart in chiropractor's office.JPG, I've just been through the other uploads by William Vroman. I've tagged another blatant false claim to ownership. The U.S. government image appears to legitimately be a work of the U.S. government. My remaining biggest concern is File:Chakra Colors Reference Chart.JPG. It, like several others, is marked as "William Vroman's PC" as its source. It has all of the appearance of a copyrighted artwork that is part of a computer program installed on that PC. Notice the description field. Also notice the description of File:7 Chakras.JPG. A quick check reveals that William Vroman is not the copyright owner of AuraStar2000. Xe is simply someone who has bought a copy of the program. So xe almost certainly doesn't own the copyright in the program's artwork, including its reference charts. I leave this in your hands. Uncle G (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on William Vroman's talk page. You can use the procedure described at Commons:Deletion policy to nominate files for deletion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-existent pages in new pages log

Has anyone noticed recently that some links on Special:NewPages go to non-existent pages? I really can't figure it out. First, there was VARAPODIO which didn't exist, but I found it at Varapodio. Then there was User archive:Macfip, which I moved and deleted but for some reason it's still in the log (unpatrolled). What's going on? Rocket000 (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You should search in bugzilla for this. I think it was reported & fixed (so just waiting for the fix to be pushed live).  — Mike.lifeguard 04:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a known flaw (as of last week), that if you move a page before deleting it, the link stays in the patrol log as unpatrolled. MBisanz talk 06:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Template editing request

What I wrote on Commons:Village_pump#Help_editing_Commons:Deletion_requests.2FMass_deletion_request requires the help of admins because these are edit-protected templates. So, please help. In the past I used to edit all these templates myself. Now they're all protected, so I can't help but ask for help from admins. Teofilo (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

BSicons to be deleted

Hello, again some "bad named" BSicons are kindly waiting to be deleted:

  1. File:BSicon INT legende oval.svg
  2. File:BSicon STR2.svg → changed to normal deletion procedure!
  3. File:BSicon eABZlfg2.svg
  4. File:BSicon eABZlfg3.svg
  5. File:BSicon ttABZa.svg
  6. File:BSicon xABZam.svg

Thanks in advance! axpdeHello! 19:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,
I deleted the last ones but the first one is still in use. I made a normal deletion request for that one. Abigor talk 19:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so far, I added my comment on the deletion request ... doesn't seem to be a big topic ;-)
And now, some more "bad named" icons can safely be deleted:
  1. File:BSicon KBFe2.svg
  2. File:BSicon SKBFr.svg
  3. File:BSicon LPL.svg
  4. File:BSicon LPLa.svg
  5. File:BSicon LPLe.svg
  6. File:BSicon LPLl.svg
  7. File:BSicon LPLr.svg
  8. File:BSicon xUKRZ.svg
  9. File:BSicon uxUKRZ.svg
  10. File:BSicon ueUKRZ.svg
  11. File:BSicon teUKRZ.svg
  12. File:BSicon texKRZut.svg
  13. File:BSicon xKRZut.svg
  14. File:BSicon KRZut.svg
  15. File:BSicon uKRZt.svg replaced by icon showing correct content axpdeHello! 15:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  16. File:BSicon UTKRZ.svg
  17. File:BSicon uHTUNNEL.svg
Thanks in advance! axpdeHello! 04:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Next bunch of icons:
  1. File:BSicon UKRZ.svg
  2. File:BSicon tUKRZ.svg
  3. File:BSicon exUKRZ.svg
  4. File:BSicon uexUKRZ.svg
  5. File:BSicon muKRZ.svg
  6. File:BSicon meueKRZ.svg
  7. File:BSicon utexKRZu.svg
  8. File:BSicon tKRZout.svg
  9. File:BSicon exSTB3lg.svg
  10. File:BSicon exSTB3rg.svg
  11. File:BSicon tABZa.svg
  12. File:BSicon tABZe.svg
  13. File:BSicon ABZ a.svg
  14. File:BSicon extWASSER.svg
  15. File:BSicon texWASSER.svg
Thank you for your help cleaning up! axpdeHello! 23:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: Please delete soon to avoid new usage! axpdeHello! 15:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  Oppose - you started with four images to delete, now we are coming close to 100. I oppose to this way of deletion. We have DR and the should be handled that way. Please use the normal way and don't try to get them deleted without following the normal way's. Huib talk 16:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
They are all tagged as {{Duplicate}} or {{Bad name}}, I think the proper procedure has been followed. There is nothing wrong with notifying admins to speed things up (with apparently the sole motive of not having the images getting used in the meantime). –Tryphon☂ 16:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No the are not tagged as {{Duplicat}} or {{Bad name}}, the are tagged with {{Speedy}}. If it would be a duplicate or badname there should be a duplicate on Commons and the are no exact duplicates so those templates will not count. In one of the started deletion request you can find this the reason there given isn't bad name or duplicate but is regulations on BSicons. There isn't actually any other BSicon available that fits this one! but now we are deleting a lot images just like them.
I believe that a Commons administrator isn't allowed to make a decision about this without asking the community first, because there are no speedy delete reasons. We are trying to create a host for free material, We need people that will make photos, movies, sounds or other material and are willing to place it under a free license. When we just start deleting stuff that doesn't have valid speedy reasons we will lose the trust of all Wikimedia users and more and more people will upload there material on local wikipedias, or the will not even upload it at all.
Instead of deleting this files we should make a deletion request and ask for community input. Huib talk 18:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, we probably didn't look at the same sample, because in the list above, File:BSicon KRZl.svg and File:BSicon KRZr.svg are the only two files which don't have a duplicate and should probably go through a regular DR. All the others actually have a duplicate on Commons, and as such are candidates for speedy deletion. Or did I miss something else? –Tryphon☂ 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

To bring light into this topic:
The BSicons have been invented by de:Benutzer:Bernina to illustrate railroad tracks (in German "Bahnstrecken"). The de-WP community set up a bunch of rules how those icons should be named in order to have a consistent set of icons. Those icons have been transferred to commons to serve all projects. But here on commons noone cares for namings, some people create new icons with quite funny names. Some of those should have another name according to naming convention, sometimes they use names for icons which should show something else according naming convention.

Meanwhile I have uploaded more than 1000 new icons, some replacing others using only a fractional amount of space, others use corrected names, too. And I'm replacing all icons using "bad names" by those with name according the naming convention, one by one. Some admins help by using the CommonsDelinker. And I always tag them {{bad name}} when starting the replacement and additionally {{speedydelete}} to indicate they're done and safely to be deleted, to clean up the "garbage".

Very few icons are pure inventions of single users, not compatible with any other BSicon (as File:BSicon STR2.svg or using reserved names but showing something impossible for railroads as File:BSicon KRZr.svg and File:BSicon KRZl.svg (or did you ever see any track with a 90° angle?). On the one hand, everyone is allowed to upload files with any name not used yet, but on the other hand we should consider some limitations regarding files named "BSicon ..." in order to keep this railroad template system running.

I'm trying hard to bring back some order in the actual chaos of icons named starting with "BSicon ...", and I have supporters from Germany, Netherlands and Japan. And hopefully I have your support, too! Thanks for reading! axpdeHello! 00:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Abigor. Someone contributes with an icon, but then someone else decides that the icon has a "bad name" and deletes it. But the bad name template is for one's own mistakes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is there are icons showing exactly the same using up to four different names! There is a naming convention but if noone cares, we'll have thousands of duplicates! axpdeHello! 13:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, {{Duplicate}} would be more appropriate, but the result is the same: we have two identical files, one of them should go. Then it's up to the admin to check if the file is in use, which one has the best name, if the licenses are equivalent, etc. before deleting, and turn the speedy deletion into a regular DR if necessary. So I don't think the use of speedy tags was abusive, it just doesn't mean that admins should delete the images blindly.
In this case, I wouldn't delete before changing the license; many of the files up for deletions are {{PD-self}}, but Axpde's license of choice is cc-by-sa (despite the fact that the icons are ineligible anyway), which is more restrictive. I would not delete a PD file to be replaced by a more restrictive one. –Tryphon☂ 11:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The selected license shouldn't be a problem, all icons can be used freely, and if someone reuses one of my icons, changing just colors or so, I know that the product is ok. There are tons of BSicons that are a waste of space, using six or eight times the space of my icons! axpdeHello! 13:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The license _is_ a problem compared to the more permissive one of the image up for deletion. By creating the same icon with a more restrictive license, and then asking for deletion of the other one, you're basically changing a PD license to cc-by-sa; but free licenses are irrevocable, and you have no right to impose more restriction. But like I said, the icons are ineligible for copyright anyway, so I don't have a problem with changing it myself to {{PD-ineligible}}. –Tryphon☂ 13:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand the "duplicate" or "bad name" templates, there shouldn't be multiple icons showing exactly the same. So now what's the problem to correct former mistakes? All those icons I nominated for deleting are unused duplicates, please delete them to reduce the chaos brought up by multiple uploads with different names! axpdeHello! 23:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

even more BSicons to be deleted

The next head of bad named duplicated, any of those already checked and changed worldwide (aside those unavoidable userspace automated lists of everything ...):

  1. File:BSicon ABZa.svg
  2. File:BSicon ABZe.svg
  3. File:BSicon HELEV.svg
  4. File:BSicon HKRZo-ELEV.svg
  5. File:BSicon HSTl.svg
  6. File:BSicon HSTr.svg
  7. File:BSicon KRZo-ELEV.svg
  8. File:BSicon WBRÜCKE-ELEV.svg
  9. File:BSicon eABZa.svg
  10. File:BSicon eABZe.svg
  11. File:BSicon eGRENZE legende.svg
  12. File:BSicon eKRZ-ELEV.svg
  13. File:BSicon eKRZo-ELEV.svg
  14. File:BSicon exABZa.svg
  15. File:BSicon exABZe.svg
  16. File:BSicon exHELEV.svg
  17. File:BSicon exHSTl.svg
  18. File:BSicon exHSTr.svg
  19. File:BSicon texBHFa.svg
  20. File:BSicon tWASSER.svg
  21. File:BSicon uHELEV.svg
  22. File:BSicon uHKRZo-ELEV.svg
  23. File:BSicon uKRZo-ELEV.svg
  24. File:BSicon uKRZo.svg replaced by icon showing correct content axpdeHello! 15:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  25. File:BSicon uKRZu.svg replaced by icon showing correct content axpdeHello! 15:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  26. File:BSicon ueHELEV.svg
  27. File:BSicon uexKBFa2.svg
  28. File:BSicon uexKBFe2.svg
  29. File:BSicon utHKRZo-ELEV.svg
  30. File:BSicon utKRZu.svg
  31. File:BSicon utexHSTR.svg
  32. File:BSicon utexKRZ.svg
  33. File:BSicon uxKRZu.svg replaced by icon showing correct content axpdeHello! 15:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  34. File:BSicon xABZa.svg
  35. File:BSicon xABZe.svg
  36. File:BSicon xHKRZo-ELEV.svg
Update, next heap:
  1. File:BSicon xSKBFa.svg
  2. File:BSicon xSKBFe.svg
  3. File:BSicon xSKBF1a.svg
  4. File:BSicon xSKBF1e.svg

Again, please & if time allows, delete soon to inhibit anew usage, thanks alot! axpdeHello! 15:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot :) axpdeHello! 15:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

next heap of BSicons replaced

The work of two days ...

  1. File:BSicon SKBF1a.svg
  2. File:BSicon SKBF1e.svg
  3. File:BSicon SKBFa.svg
  4. File:BSicon SKBFe.svg
  5. File:BSicon eBHFa.svg
  6. File:BSicon eBHFe.svg
  7. File:BSicon eSKBF1a.svg
  8. File:BSicon eSKBF1e.svg
  9. File:BSicon eUKRZ.svg
  10. File:BSicon eUKRZo.svg
  11. File:BSicon eUKRZu.svg
  12. File:BSicon exSKBF1a.svg
  13. File:BSicon exSKBF1e.svg
  14. File:BSicon exSKBFa.svg
  15. File:BSicon exSKBFe.svg
  16. File:BSicon exUKRZo.svg
  17. File:BSicon exUKRZu.svg
  18. File:BSicon tHSTa.svg
  19. File:BSicon tHSTe.svg
  20. File:BSicon tKDSa.svg
  21. File:BSicon tKDSe.svg
  22. File:BSicon tKDSl.svg
  23. File:BSicon tKDSr.svg
  24. File:BSicon tSKBF1a.svg
  25. File:BSicon tSKBF1e.svg
  26. File:BSicon tSKBFa.svg
  27. File:BSicon tSKBFe.svg
  28. File:BSicon teBHFl.svg
  29. File:BSicon teBHFr.svg
  30. File:BSicon texBHFl.svg
  31. File:BSicon texBHFr.svg
  32. File:BSicon txKBFa.svg
  33. File:BSicon txKBFe.svg
  34. File:BSicon uteBHF.svg
  35. File:BSicon xBHFl.svg
  36. File:BSicon xBHFr.svg
  37. File:BSicon xUKRZo.svg
  38. File:BSicon xUKRZu.svg

Thanks & good night! axpdeHello! 01:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Toolserver replication is extremely lagging, nearly six hours at the moment, who knows when CheckUsage is up to date again :-} axpdeHello! 01:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The are all still in use...
Why do you say that you have replaced them, when you don't. I checked 4 and the are all still in use...
Huib talk 04:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Depends on what you call "in use", I think we already had this discussion, all those five pages you have found listing those icons ...
  1. commons:User:AlisonW/Rail Icons
  2. en:User:AlisonW/Rail Icons2
  3. en:User:AlisonW/Rail grp14
  4. en:User:LeheckaG/BSicon/RR
  5. en:User:Renxu350/S-Bahn
(and alike) ... are unmaintained, automated lists in userspace of every icon that has been uploaded ever! Those lists are partly that big, that trying so save causes errors as this one:
Example

Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LeheckaG/BSicon/RR&action=submit, from 88.77.186.138 via knsq7.knams.wikimedia.org (squid/2.7.STABLE6) to 91.198.174.33 (91.198.174.33) Error: ERR_READ_TIMEOUT, errno [No Error] at Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:03:46 GMT

 
And I never understood for which reason we need up to nine different lists in the userspace of five different users, all showing the same. All those lists list icons just for the sake of listing them, and that's no sensible reason to reject deleting those. Esp. User:AlisonW reverts all my edits exchanging those icons, first of all because it's her userspace, and since she uses css to suppress those non-existing icons she says the duplicates will vanish once the are deleted.
You see it'd be a draw situation: AlisonW doesn't want to unlist them as long as the exist, you don't want to delete them as long as the are listed!
Trying to fix all other lists, but AlisonW's list must be ignored in order to keep the system working! axpdeHello! 08:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Today only few, but changed dozens of templates, now I have to wait some days (Easter! :) for changes to take effect ...
  1. File:BSicon extKBFa.svg
  2. File:BSicon extKBFe.svg
  3. File:BSicon tBHFl.svg
  4. File:BSicon tBHFr.svg
  5. File:BSicon vSTRer2.svg
  6. File:BSicon vSTRlgflip.svg
  7. File:BSicon vSTRrgflip.svg
  8. File:BSicon xKDSl.svg
  9. File:BSicon xKDSr.svg
  10. File:BSicon ÜWclru.svg
With those above I erased more than 130 obsolete icons during the last days (and several hundred in total!), that definetly should be enough for the moment! Although there still are 110 icons in Category:Icons for railway descriptions/obsolete, only 80 of those are about to exchanged, the other 30 icons aren't tagged, neither {{bad name}} nor {{duplicate}} ... and I desperately need a break :(
Thanks for the moment, I'll be back! axpdeHello! 13:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Rollback

Does anyone knows what happens to Rollback, the discussions stopped since 9 March.   ■ MMXXtalk  11:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It was enabled a few minutes ago. Admins can now grant and revoke the rollback right to any user. Raymond Disc. 14:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Lx 121

I am starting to have concerns about this person, all he does is yell about our policies. Could somebody keep an eye on him? ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

wrong file deleted

User:Shizhao deleted File:Beech T-34C Turbo Mentor - GPN-2000-001989.jpg which was 2,972 × 2,363 pixels, file size: 8.1 MB and kept File:Beech T-34C Turbo Mentor NASA GPN-2000-001989.jpg which is only 1,486 × 1,182 pixels, file size: 1.75 MB. Please restore the larger file and delete the smaller file. -- Common Good (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Same for File:Atlas Agena Launch - GPN-2000-001019.jpg (2,338 × 3,000 pixels, file size: 8.1 MB) and File:Atlas Agena launches GATV 11 satellite.jpg (1,169 × 1,500 pixels, file size: 2.09 MB) -- Common Good (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Restored the two files. Not deleted the low res ones yet as need to wait for delinker to replace them. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Common Good (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, rename

Hello, I've just uploaded a picture to which I gave the wrong name -> that's Image:Bustehradska halda 1.jpg and should be called Tuchlovicka halda.jpg or (better, for English concerns) Tuchlovice heap.jpg. Please, rename, thank you. --Kriplozoik (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Done and will be processed by a bot. Alternatively, since you just uploaded it, you could re-upload under the other title and put the 1st file up for speedy. Cheers, Badseed talk 07:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Help on table

A table on File:Ship diagram-numbers.svg is horizontal and not suited to add more languages. Can somebody change the table from horizontal to vertical? I am not experienced enough to start work on a table and risk loosing a lot of valuable work. --Stunteltje (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Done --Common Good (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!! One other problem is caused now by the long description in Myanmasa. I took the description of the funnel and put it in Google. Google only found Wiki. So the question now is, is the language description in Myanmasa Correct? --Stunteltje (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
AGF! I think we can trust Zawthet (talk · contributions · Statistics). He is admin on my.wp and the image is used there.
If you are still suspicious:
Go to Multilingual Online Bible Burmese (Myanmar) and search for "ကျောက်ဆူး". Afterwards you can read the same text in your own language and you will probably find the word anchor (nl:anker). --Common Good (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

force to reread a template after this was changed

Is there any possibility to force all pages to reread the template I just changed?

On en-WP it works from time to time without any force, i.e. when I use Checkusage after I changed a certain template all pages using this template-link vanish as well, on ru-WP I made the same experience today. But normally I have to load each templated page and do an "empty edit", after this Checkusage removes this page from it's list.

But now ... I just changed a template that is very heavily used ... in all articles on stations etc. ... about 5.000 in total!! As you can easy guess, I don't want to load/save all those 5.000 articles, and that's why I'm asking whether there is another way ... Thanks in advance! axpdeHello! 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand such changes are put into a working queue. In dependence of server load etc it might take some time until this is completed. Please be patient :) --AFBorchert (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup, that's right. Depending on the number of inclusions, changes might take up to several days to be visible on all pages. Null-editing speeds this process up, but is disrecommended as it increases server load. Please only use it in urgent cases. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Does it speed it up, or does it just move the null-edited page to the head of the queue? Regards, Ben Aveling 00:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Null editing is bad for the job queue as it makes the servers purge the page twice (when you null edit, and when the servers preform the queue work), and things further down the queue then take longer to update. Betacommand 01:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_13&oldid=264577664"