Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 22

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Main Page error

The caption on today's featured picture reads "Pure (99.97%+) iron chips, electrolytically refined, as well as comparison a high pure (99,9999% = 6N) 1cm3 iron cube." Please correct the punctuation error — it should either be "99.97%" and "99.9999%", or "99,97%" and "99,9999%". The wording may also need work; "as well as comparison a high..." doesn't sound right. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done It now reads: Nearly pure (99.97%+) iron chips, electrolytically refined, in comparison with a highly pure (99.9999% = 6N) 1cm3 iron cube. That ok?
The description page is still wrong though. –Tryphon☂ 11:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, now that the page is not protected anymore, I fixed the decimal separator in the English and French translations. –Tryphon☂ 09:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

de wp admin

Hi, could an administrator check de:File:Kayseri'de gece-Bürüngüz Camii,Kale ve Saat kulesi..JPG and complete/fix the description for File:Kaysere geceCngKale ve Saat kulesi..jpg already prepared here. Thanks.  Docu  at 09:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Archita Sahu.jpg

Please delete the latest, unsourced revision of File:Archita Sahu.jpg. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 09:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The uploader claims own work and the EXIF data is there and consistent with the image. If you think it is copyvio, please tag it {{Delete}} and we can discuss it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The uploader, Perkypink1 didn't claim anything; they just uploaded another revision on top of the existing one. It's already been handled by DieBuche before you commented, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Restored as a separate file here. Perkypink1 did indeed upload a new version (his only contribution) w/o any comment. I can't find the image via Tineye or Google. Usually when people upload {{Own}} but don't specify a license, we try to contact them, but have to delete if no suitable license is added.--DieBuche (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC). Edit: I'll now RfD the new image. --DieBuche (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Allow Commons admins to view deleted images on all wikipedias

On meta I proposed on allowing commons admins to view deleted images on all wikipedias. Please see this page for reasoning & post any feedback there. --DieBuche (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually this idea was discussed sometime ago. Sorry, don't remember details. Will be good idea to search Commons or Commons-l mailing list. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know when I put this up; This was discussed & voted on before in July 2008 & and has since been waiting to be implemented. meta:Global_deleted_image_review is the relevant page--DieBuche (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Privacy issues with File:House 12.jpg?

Summary info of File:House 12.jpg details the name of house owner, and together with the filename it seems to indicate its complete address. As far as I can gather, this is a private building, someone's home. Could you admins and experienced users check if this info should be edited out to not infringe on these people's privacy? Thanks --Santosga (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Particularly considering it's used as an example of "poverty in Barali" on En this could be libellous. I've taken the liberty of suppressing the owner's name and renaming the image, but not the name of the house, and re-uploading at File:House in Barali, Pakistan.jpg. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Dcoetzee. I went ahead and Oversighted the appropriate diffs. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Tiptoety talk 22:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User Goscentral

I'd like ask for a check of User:Goscentral, I think they are a sockpuppet of en:User:Nzhistorybuff.

Previously Nzhistorybuff had photos of members of the en:Henry Family of New Zealand repeatedly deleted from en wikipedia.

User:Goscentral later uploaded the same photos here, saying "My photo"

Nzhistorybuff had also lifted text from the DNZB, for example: this edit has

  • "Indifferent health prompted him to emigrate to New Zealand in 1907"
  • "Yet he was a fluent and persuasive speaker whose self-assurance, business acumen and tenacity were vital in enabling..."

verbatim from here.

Benchill (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits are too old from a CU perspective but I would share your concerns. The licensing looks questionable on the first one I looked at (trouble is I can't see the en wp version that was deleted. Might be useful if an en wp/commons admin looked? --Herby talk thyme 12:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gabbysidi.png

The image in that discussion is a possible hoax and, more to the point, is an unflattering image being used to vandalise an en.wiki article. If any Commons admin has the stones to zap it, it would be appreciated. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and gone, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

FPC

Please see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hadako-tan.png. I've attempted to apply {{Hidden image}} to allow people to access FPC without having porn put in their face, Niabot has reverted (x2). I think the image should be evaluated against the criteria, but I cannot see benefit in having the image visible on a page you really would not expect to see porn?--Nilfanion (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As i already stated. There is no rule that would forbid an nomination of such an image. It is in scope and used in different language wikis. Why should it be hidden, if its legal to display this image in articles? --Niabot (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Its not about legality. Its about a courtesy to editors, FPC is a page that editors expect to be work-safe. If you had a look at hentai you would "expect" to see examples of it, there's no surprise there. By the way, giving them that courtesy will actually make it more likely that they will review the image and not just go "oppose I hate porn".--Nilfanion (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Do as you please, but im not convinced or happy about it. Just to keep the conversations cool, that are hot enough this days. --Niabot (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I'd have suggested waiting for the QIC to resolve itself first (why rush?) Note I've added a comment on the page to try and get considered votes and not just more "oppose I hate porn" "support I love it".--Nilfanion (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
On of the things that came to mind was, that you always see the same faces (users) in this discussion. Anyone is repeating the same arguments, and i doubt there will be a solution insight. Maybe it gives a fresh wind to the discussions. Im not running to get all my pictures promoted or something, but i guess this pictures are good examples on the borderline. --Niabot (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Well not sure "good" examples so much, as there's more than just the explicit nature causing problems (the artwork portion is problematic too, and the criteria as they stand as just not set up to properly review things like this). I would point out that an image that fails QI typically doesn't have much chance at FPC - the exceptions are ones where the exceptional nature of the image (and difficult to redo) outweighs the flaws, obviously not the case with an artwork like this. And scattering strongly related discussion over multiple places never helps :(
On basis of your comment I've replaced the template, as its less harmful to use the template on and debate if its needed than to not use the template and debate. (If consensus is for it and its not used, then the problem the template is attempting to limit isn't tackled; whilst if consensus goes the other way the thing can then be deleted in due course, a one off use isn't damaging to the project).--Nilfanion (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The image has been withdrawn, so the issue is not relevant now imo.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone please view a deleted image

Tjbeel01 has uploaded two images: Downtown Chillicothe.jpg, which was deleted as a copyvio, and Downtown Chillicothe.png, which (1) was uploaded very soon after the jpg was deleted, and (2) has never had a permissions template. I've tagged the png with {{Nld}}, but could an admin please check the jpg to see if they're the same image? Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

They are two different files. Tiptoety talk 01:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking for advice on Template:PD-CERN-CMS

Quick note that I am looking for advice on what to do about Template:PD-CERN-CMS, which no longer appears to be valid. Please leave comments at CT:L#Template:PD-CERN-CMS still valid?. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 01:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Geagea's RfA

  ResolvedFurther discussions should be carried out at the RfA itself. Tiptoety talk 18:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering: how can Geagea be nominated in an RfA and have people vote for him here when he has not even formally accepted the RfA process? Something is extremely wrong with this specific RfA. He should not be made an Admin until he has said that he wants to be an Admin, I should think. This RfA is strange because there is thus far no feedback from Geagea either even though the nominator told him about this RfA. If Geagea becomes a good Admin, that's great, but he must accept the nomination and explain how he would use the Admin tools. Is this not reasonable? Thank You. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I notified him. I believe he will soon decide whether to accept this nomination. – Kwj2772 (msg) 12:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
He or she had already been notified before, though in a somewhat "hidden" manner. --Túrelio (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
They accepted. Tiptoety talk 17:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker & rename template

Add DelinkerSave = "True"; to your vector.js or monobook.js to enable automatic saving when using the quick adding links in the rename template. Obviously you need to be more careful than with the normal link--DieBuche (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Block needed

Please block the IP User:202.45.119.18 that keeps vandalizing a Formula 1 Map. Thank you. Diego Grez return fire 01:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done. --Martin H. (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Diego Grez return fire 01:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack uploads

Please, block and nuke files by User:Manuel Alonso Velez, uploaded to attack someone on his userpage here and in Spanish Wikipedia, also looks like User:Sulcayauri and User:Manuel Velez are sockpuppets of him --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  Deleted. Additionally, it is   Confirmed that the following accounts are socks:
All blocked. Tiptoety talk 03:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 04:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take part in ProD

This Aalto vase ProD is not moving, and as it's now a confirmed copyvio case, it should be dealt with speedily. Pitke (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

File:DH4066693970 4e6ceda5f1 o.jpg

This image was recently re-posted (by a new user). It was formerly deleted [2] (and I believe the initial poster was blocked) Can someone follow up as appropriate? Active Banana (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done and thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

File was there on Monday, but shows 'failed upload' today

Please check File:Demolition of Pichilemu post office.jpg. I could see it on Monday, but it is invisible today. It is used in a current article at English Wikinews. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure that it did show? If yes we got a serious problem --DieBuche (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Upload log doesn't show anything.  Docu  at 12:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes: it once showed. The picture was used on our main page on Monday [3]. Perhaps it was accidentally oversighted? Should I ask the photographer to reupload under the same name, or a new name? --InfantGorilla (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Choose a new one, otherwise it could make it harder to find out what happended--DieBuche (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what happened, but the image is back at File:Pichilemu post office demolition.jpg. The picture was being uploaded when the servers crashed on Sunday. Diego Grez return fire 18:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Any progress in the investigation? Any other images affected? --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No other cases have been reported and there isn't much administrators can do about it. You might want to file a bug at Bugzilla:.  Docu  at 13:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the filepage of the 'failed upload', commons admins cant realy help you here. --Martin H. (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
'The picture was being uploaded when the servers crashed on Sunday'; did you start the upload & the server wen't down immidiatley afterwords? In that it's probably nothing to worry about--DieBuche (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget that the image was visible on Monday (the day after the crash) and disappeared some time after that.
I don't want to file a bugzilla bug if we don't think it really is a bug. Is there a noticeboard where I can contact the Commons devs informally?
--InfantGorilla (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
There are no devs specifically for commons. I'd try the #wikimedia-tech channel on irc.freenode.net. It certainly looks worrying--DieBuche (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
It might be linked to the power failure. The main question is if it was the only one.  Docu  at 08:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you tried to purge the cache before deleting the page? --AVRS (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, helped with most, but not this one--DieBuche (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I spoke with the wikimedia-tech guys: He didn't know why it disappeared, but it is still on the server: [4] So if we find more, they'll not be completely gone, but recoverable--DieBuche (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a reassuring discovery. Thanks for investigating, admins. --InfantGorilla (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting find. It's still not visible from the file description page.  Docu  at 19:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Verification of no copyright violation

Hello, I recently uploaded a drawing from an ancient greek vase here. I made it modifying a picture from this page, as also stated in the picture description. I assumed that no copyright violation has occurred, since I copied a >2000 years drawing, whose copyright has expired. Is it the case, even if I made the picture from another web image? An administrator's advise would be of help to me. --Guarracino (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove Metadata / EXIF

I uploaded a photo of a musician with her permission. Now the musician would like to have the metadata/EXIF removed. What do I need to do to achieve this? Can I replace the photo with a new one that has no EXIF info and somehow tag the previous one for deletion by an admin? Would this remove the metadata that is currently displayed on Commons? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweebee (talk • contribs) 00:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Download the image, remove the EXIF and upload the modifcated file again as a new version over the old file. On how that works see the COM:FAQ#How can I upload a new version of a file?. However, regarding File:Diane Arkenstone.jpg, it appears to me that the date provided in the information data is wrong. The date in the EXIF is maybe wrong too, I dont know, but the given date of creation 24 June 2010 is wrong obviously. --Martin H. (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
We can remove any particular piece of private metadata you're concerned about for you (such as location or date/time), just let us know what to remove. There is no need to remove all of it, it's valuable information regarding how the image was created. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new version of the file. What tag do I use to tag the old file for deletion? Thanks. Tweebee (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

New User:AT

Hi there, I used to have this account, but in April I decided to create a SUL account User:Millbart and had my commons account renamed. Now it seems that another person registered this nick again and uploaded files. The user and talk pages are redirecting to my new username, where I was informed of a deletion request and noticed it just now. Could you please rename this user and then block User:AT? Cheers --Millbart (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like your old userid should have been recreated at the time of the rename. At one point that was standard practice, I can't speak to what happened here. But I'm not clear why just deleting the redirects to you wouldn't suffice, you've given up AT, right? blocking a user or doing a forced rename are rather strong steps to take. I'd like to see more clarity here before taking any action. ++Lar: t/c 13:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar, Thanks for replying. According to this the account should have been blocked if I understand it correctly. The redirects are there to inform users who follow old signatures that this user has a new name. I don't see why renaming the current User:AT to something else (I would of course ask him or her for a new name) would be problematic. I could ask the user myself, but I think it would be less confusing if the acting bureaucrat has the complete picture, gets the new name and does his magic. --Millbart (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, when I did a lot of renames I would often give the old userid to the newly renamed user by recreating it, setting the password, and mailing that to the newly renamed user. That is an alternative to blocking. Neither of those happened in this case. But that's history. For now, I think you need to contact AT, and try to explain why you want them to give up their name. If they concur with the rename, easy peasy. If they do not, I think removing the redirects is about the best we can do, since you did give the name up. ++Lar: t/c 12:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrator User:Foroa seek a desist order

I am here to report User:Foroa for bullying behavior. User:DieBuche notified Foroa that he found his threats inappropriate and unneeded. Yet the behavior and attitude continue. I have been following Commons talk:File renaming#example on policy page, consensus is against him yet he will not listen or be reasoned with.

I have encountered more rudeness on Commons than in five years on the en:Wikipedia. en:Wikipedia is at least usually pleasant, but it is a chore to deal with Commons, I only come here because I have to, there is a greater selection of source material than at any of the individual Wikipedias. What User:Foroa did to me was what I have come to expect from working here. Someone who says, "I will rename them but the pictures will be removed from all projects that use them" is the most mean-spirited vindictive thing I have encountered in five years in Wikimedia projects. I am not a vandal or a troll, and I should not be talked down to in a first contact from an administrator. I should not be made an example of just because an admin feels burdened. If a request is incorrect, undo one, not undo another editor's edits all the way back like that editor is a common vandal. Administrators should not be free from accountability or censure-this is abuse and harassment, and it is continuing. The good editors on Commons suffer because of such bullying, and I responded with my much-too-straightforward thoughts.

I was blocked for my outburst and rightfully so; it won't happen again. However, the behavior that caused the outburst is still evident in User:Foroa's actions.

Examples include:

  1. Foroa's threatens that he will delete used redirects, i.e. File:Scouts Canada Boy Scout in uniform 1976.jpg and he indeed does. This is a link to the log which shows how through his actions a perfectly fine image was removed from a number of pages: http://toolserver.org/~delinker/index.php?image=Boyscout3.jpg
  2. retaliatorily undoing all my rename requests, to include those not specifically dealing with Scouting, while I was blocked and defenseless to stop it.
  3. intentionally mis-renamed File:Scout girl of Poland.jpg (and with incorrect English) after two requests by users for more specific wording-there are 14 Scout associations in Poland, not all are unisex.

There is at least some sense of accountability on the en:Wikipedia, and administrators do not threaten long-term editors needlessly. Check my edit history. My edits on Commons are useful and productive; I do not stalk other users and I do not undo others' productive edits. I treated no one with hostility or rudeness until I was treated thus, and I have been treated with hostility much too often on Commons. Rename edits are no more difficult on Commons than they are on Wikipedia, the process has been streamlined and there is no need to treat a rename request as a crime. I am an educator, speak multiple languages and have been a student of Scouting history (the exact edits User:Foroa stalked me about) for 31 years now. Should I be treated as stupid or bothersome? Am I really more trouble than good? If so, I do not belong here and wish I could undo the positive things I have done for all. This is not the Foroapedia, but it will only be if User:Foroa chases off productive editors. This behavior harms the whole project and retaliation is generally a bad idea.

I request that 1) Someone have a talk with this user about his attitude with other editors. 2) Someone review his edits, specifically the unnecessary malicious deletion of redirects. There is no need or excuse for that. 3) Someone please review the requests that I made which User:Foroa undid. Some of my requests I now understand to be cosmetic, others are absolutely useful, they help the en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting (and sister German, French, Italian and Swedish projects) catalog what is available to interested users. Surely, "Scouts Canada Boy Scout in uniform 1976 retouched.jpg" is more descriptive and informative than "Boyscout2.JPG"?

If I did not have this black-mark, I would be happy to help with the backlog. Wikipedia is something I care about deeply, my friends say it is my "real job"; I am here almost every day.

I have no doubt that Foroa is passionate and wants what's best-we all do and Foroa needs to understand that.

--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no time today to reply correctly, but anyway, some parts of the reply:
  • user submitted plenty of rename requests without good reason, several of his rename requests have been declined by other administrators too.
  • Part of the rationale/context can be found here: User_talk:Foroa#Rename_requests
  • I am tired of the substantial work generated by making file names more descriptive: we can improve 5 million file names if we want, while many requesters don't even bother to improve the description field.
  • I admit that I was tired and overreacted too violently against the what I perceived as arrogant reverts of the user. I apologize for that.
  • As you can see, I did not further respond on the gentle warning of user in User_talk:Foroa#Fuck_you_and_the_horse_you_rode_in_on. because I was partly responsible for it.
--Foroa (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The backlog on Category:Media requiring renaming is still 950 images. --Foroa (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
User_talk:Foroa#Renaming maps and User_talk:WOSlinker#Series_of_image_renames shows that I am working hard on finding structural solutions. --Foroa (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, Foroa, here's a proposal that (i think) should be fine for all: If a user continously places rename request on images where it is not needed, and reverts your edits: Inspect the requests case by case, not decline the whole of them, but only the ones you feel are really uneeded. If the user then continues to readd the request, instead of harming the project by doing a wrong rename, just full protect the page for a week, if you wan't to send out a message. Is that acceptable? --DieBuche (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Renames are very rarely necessary. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
As I acknowledged at the outset, I was blocked for my outburst, there is no need to revisit that. Further I said "Some of my requests I now understand to be cosmetic," so there is no need for Docu to use present tense regarding me, everyone has a learning curve. We're all tired, I spend maybe 80% of my time on the en:wp undoing vandalism, and I get edgy from time to time too. I just ask that Foroa not look at my edits as automatically troublesome. I've offered to help with the backlog if you'll let me. Boil it down, all I'm asking is not to be treated as a vandal myself, can we move on and work on the same Commons peacefully? I would prefer that and I am willing to do so.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem. This seems to be a short thunderstorm without lasting impact on normal operation. All workalcoholics get carried away from time to time. Back to work.
Of course, the problem will reappear as there are hundred ways of interpreting the rename rules and there are about 100 editors that rename files, each with their own interpretation of the rules, and very often using their own "more flexible" rules. --Foroa (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Abendstimmung an der Nordsee.JPG and File:Wattwanderer Juist.JPG

To save {{published |author=Keith Jackson |date=2010-06-14 |url=http://germany-travel.suite101.com/article.cfm/northwestern-germany-a-vacation-without-the-stereotypes |title=Northwestern Germany: A Vacation Without the Stereotypes |org= }} is blocked. Maybe an Admin can do it. Thanks, --4028mdk09 (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't think an admin can change that, because it's our (sometimes nasty, stupid) spam-blocker. Just leave out the "http://" portion. --Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Media of the day

Media of the day on main page is broken for several days... --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I made an edit request at Talk:Main_Page#.22No_media_of_the_day_today.22_.282010-07-17.29. This avoids that it appears on the main page.  Docu  at 09:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Puppetcluster

I just caught Heartbreaker21 (talk, contribs) recreating a previously deleted file that was uploaded by Heartbreaker84 (talk, contribs) in the past. Unsurprisingly, they're part of a puppetcluster, which includes at least the following accounts:

Please block. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing obviously there but the original account is too old in CU terms. --Herby talk thyme 12:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Per File:Tribal Houses Malasag Eco-Village.jpg (some IP added Heartbreaker84 to the description) its the small posibility that there are older accounts. Compare File:Tobacco Monopoly Tower Laoag City Ilocos Norte.jpg, File:Tobacco Monopoly Tower Laoag City Ilocos Norte (closeup.jpg - do the weather (and the photographers ability) changes so quickly in that area of the world?? The scope is relatively limited and related to some cities only, en:Cagayan de Oro City Category:Cagayan de Oro City, en:Zamboanga City Category:Zamboanga City, en:Davao City Category:Davao City and a few other cities. Thats manageable, additional some of the files in that categories realy worth some cleanup with information templates, descriptions and so on. --Martin H. (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the uploader of those is related. There's a more varied and long-standing edit pattern on English Wikipedia (with current activity). There's no talk page blanking. The user page is more informative, and contains complete sentences of correct English on English Wikipedia, unlike the blanked-out version of Heartbreaker84's user page here. The file description pages are more consistent and somewhat more coherent.
I've reverted the change in attribution on File:Tribal Houses Malasag Eco-Village.jpg; IP addresses should not be messing about with the legal information of other people's uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

← Just in the future for ease of documentation, I might recommend taking up the sock issue at COM:RFCU. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Images in Wikipedia article

I have just come across en:Mismatch loss in which all the images have been deleted from commons with the edit summary "Was in Category:Unknown as of 4 May 2008 and the required information is still not given". Can someone take a look and see what information exactly was missing and whether this is fixable. If not, can the images be e-mailed to me so that new svg diagrams can be created for the article? SpinningSpark 15:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted as it didn't have a license and the uploader was Bartoje. Sorry I don't feel comfortable with emailing the image. Bidgee (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Id says that the files (File:T line img.jpg, File:T line img2.jpg and File:T line img3.jpg to make it easier) are pd-ineligible. The quality of the description (=nothing) compared to the quality of description in en.wp once again show me how badly and carelessly people use our media repository :((( --Martin H. (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It shows how carelessly Commons admins delete files confided to this repository. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I was going to undelete but just didn't feel comfortable, but I support the undeletion. As an Admin you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Bidgee (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It is just this kind of uphill struggle which I repeatedly have with Commons which has caused me to upload all my diagrams to Wikipedia instead of Commons. What exactly are you afraid I am going to do with the images? Upload them again against copyright? Please credit a little good faith: I am an editor in good standing for several years and an admin on en.wiki; I know the the rules on copyright. SpinningSpark 20:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
@ Pieter Kuiper and Spinningspark. Well in this case I do not think we can blame an admin for deleting the images in the first place. There was no license and unless it is obvious that a file is PD-ineligible we can not "demand" that admins add a license themselves. Uploader was informed but did not respond. Same thing could have happend on Wikipedia. --MGA73 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Spinningspark, I suggest to open an undeletion request for these images on the ground that they are not eligible for copyright (i.e. {{PD-text}} applies – I agree with Martin here). This request would be eased if you would offer to add meaningful descriptions to these diagrams and to categorize them. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I am restoring since three people (including me) think they should be restored. People are allowed to contest no-source speedy deletes, so I am doing post-deletion. They can be brought to COM:DR if someone feels strongly enough. Wknight94 talk 21:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I am happy to help with descriptions and other improvements, but I need to see the image first before I can do that. Likewise, I am not in a position to open an undeletion request, having never seen the images, I cannot even assess if that would be worthwile. An admin here on Commons who can view the images needs to open the request. SpinningSpark 21:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
See above - they're restored. The letters are a bit fuzzy so hopefully someone can make nicer versions. Wknight94 talk 21:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I'm doing the descriptions. I take it that a formal request to undelete is now superfluous? SpinningSpark 21:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. You might want to watch them in case someone brings them to COM:DR. Wknight94 talk 22:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please correct

please change this title http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kinuhariyama-Hakone_2010-7-18.JPG from Kinuhariyama-Hakone 2010-7-18.JPG to Kinuhariyama-Kamakura 2010-7-18.JPG

and this title http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hohohuji_Temple_(%E5%A0%B1%E5%9B%BD%E5%AF%BA%EF%BC%89-_Kamakura_(%E9%8E%8C%E5%80%89%EF%BC%89.JPG from hohohuji Temple (報国寺）- Kamakura (鎌倉） to hokokuji Temple (報国寺）- Kamakura (鎌倉）Thank You Arashiyama (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


On a side note, Template:Welcome/ja doesn't link to {{Rename}}. Maybe it's buried somewhere in the text. Otherwise it might be worth updating it.  Docu  at 12:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User Kalon macau's uploads

Hello, I think that the uploads by this user need a review. All images have 3 hugly watermarks, so there are quite useless as encyclopedic images. He added a note on the original website [5]. Is this sufficient to clear the copyright issue? Yann (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have left him a message on his talk page. Diego Grez return fire 17:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Glitch with movefile user right and request

When a user moves a file, they are asked to note their action at User:CommonsDelinker/commands. This is all well and good, but a non-admin with the file mover right cannot edit that page since it is protected. Maybe I'm just in a lazy mood today, but I don't think it's fair that non-admins who move files on Commons have to do the work of replacing images manually, while admins can do it by proxy with a single edit. I'm particularly concerned about this because I've just had to move some relatively heavily-used files, and in most cases, the original filenames were downright misleading. Keeping this in mind:

  • Can someone ask CommonsDelinker to replace all the files in my move log with their new names?
  • Once all the relevant instances are replaced, can someone delete the leftover redirects of all files in my move log besides the latest one? The "Queen of Sheba" redirect would be harmless; the other five are misleading.
  • Is there any progress on implementing an automated trigger to CommonsDelinker when it detects a file move, as suggested in this thread? Thanks. Graham87 (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
You can place the requests on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands instead.
{{Rename}} should probably be fixed to make the admin link to User:CommonsDelinker/commands visible for admins only and display another one for non-admins.  Docu  at 13:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't need to be fixed, thats already the case. <span id=nuke is only visible for admins <span id=filemover only for filemovers. Graham87 you need to delete your browser cache, else you won't see the link--DieBuche (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have checked that. In fact, I think he refers to MediaWiki:Movepagetext.  Docu  at 14:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Yes, that's it. Is CommonsDelinker working anyway? It hasn't made an edit either here or on the English Wikipedia for four days, and it should have at least touched en:George Frideric Handel by now. If it wasn't so late here, I'd do the necessary work myself. Graham87 (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Its often broken. Someone seriously should fix that bot, but Siebrand isn't really around anymore...Maybe I'll do sometime--DieBuche (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I've replaced all the files manually. Graham87 (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The replacer thread hangs often, and then requires a manual restart. Maybe I should look into killing the thread every so often and then restarting it... Siebrand 18:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete this photo, pls

  Resolved
There is now a different image at this name. - Jmabel ! talk 02:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This photo shows my relatives and mom, I uploaded it by mistake. Please delete it, I don't want them to be public. Mizunoryu (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done Yann (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanky you very much. Mizunoryu (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

User:Bgoodman0310 uploaded several copyright violations that I nominated for deletion and all except one were deleted, but with an even newer username User:BGoodman0310 has uploaded one of the same images under the same name see the log. As en:User talk:Bgoodman0310 most of the same copyright violations were uploaded and most have already been deleted while other await deletion. Ww2censor (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

While the usernames and uploads speak for themselves, from a simply technical standpoint checkuser shows the two accounts are   Unrelated. The possibility that meatpuppetry is occurring here or that the person has changed their locations is very possible. Tiptoety talk 03:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Just on a side note, I deleted the copyright violation that was reuploaded. As for blocking, I am going to hold off. If another administrator wants to block, that is fine. Tiptoety talk 17:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple promotional accounts

Classic.cigs (talk · contribs) has uploaded a number of files that are at least improperly licensed and which appear to be copyright violations (with a couple of exceptions). The account has been used for promotional edits on enwiki, and is blocked, along with two other similarly-named accounts, one of which appears here on Commons as well, with similar problems: Classic.cigarettes (talk · contribs). Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  Gone blocked, etc thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Translated Cats?

Since when do we allow stuff like Category:Commons Wartung?--DieBuche (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's only for Commons maintenance pages. It's reasonable to have a different cat for each language, because the pages in the cats are themselves in different languages. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Abuse filter

Why is it called abuse filter on Commons, while in en.wikipedia it is named edit filter? Would it make sense to rename the filter? --Leyo 13:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure it makes that big of a difference. The original name on all wikis was abuse filter. The English Wikipedia changed the name because they started to use it for more purposes than to just combat abuse. Tiptoety talk 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete deletion closure

The deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Map shipping lanes.png was closed on the 12th as "delete", but the image (File:Map shipping lanes.png) hasn't been deleted. Could someone take care of this? --Carnildo (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted, but was restored as it was in use. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If Multichill rejects the deletion he should also reopen the request. The deletion request was also about accuracy and that problem is not resolved. --Martin H. (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I need my userpage restored

admin User:Herbythyme deleted my user page at User:Дунгане, claimg it was "out of scope" because i was storing links to websites on it. In fact, the website links i was storing on my userpage were links to websites with photos i was going to upload to commons. i worked hard to find those links, to access the images for uploading. I politely explained here [6], the reason i kept those links on my userpage. and i got this message back [7], with Herbthyme asking my exactly the question which i just answered.

I explain again [8], and waited for hours for a response.

I got none. I would really appreciate for the links back so i can upload images to commons again, and i don't like being treated as if i don't know english.Дунгане (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done - I think Herby's generally a good judge of things, but no one's right all the time - I expect this was just a misunderstanding. Besides, to my mind, what you do with your userpage is your own concern, as long as it doesn't violate our content rules (and, imo, isn't political). -mattbuck (Talk) 00:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I agree with this. I was going to do it then got called away. My concern was if the user planned to upload the image what the legality of licensing on the sites were. I'm not sure how "unpolitical" these links are but I would say that the use of user pages to "promote" anything and not contribute real content to Commons has always seemed to me to be against policy (I'm not referring to this case). --Herby talk thyme 08:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Nuke-defaultreason

I changed the default reason for Special:Nuke from "removal of pages" to "removal of files". That sounds more appropriate for Commons, I never saw that function used for the removal of gallery(article) spam here on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, maybe it would be better if it was "removal of pages/files"? Just a thought. Tiptoety talk 06:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Major Flickr review bot malfunction--can someone fix the bot?

There is something very wrong with the flickr review bot at present. I notice it marks only 1-2 photos at present. Maybe you know who runs the flickrbot? The backlog is now more than >200 images at present. But it may be as high as 275-300 images by Sunday.

I ask if other Admins and trusted users can be notified to mark images in this backlog at present. Maybe someone fix the problem with the bot? If the backlog grows to 300+ or 500+ images, this will be a major mess to clean up....and lots of complaints about the flickr review process from uploaders. I have marked some photos but other Admins or trusted users should chip in until the flickr bot works again. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh great.. :( Bryan does have the source for FlickreviewR on fisheye (main bot source is here). I don't think that is the most recent version of the source, but an experienced bot-op (not me I'm afraid) could clone it so we have a functional back-up. I've put a request at Commons:Bots/Work requests#FlickreviewR clone for that, hopefully someone will (as its good to have a backup system in place beyond having to resort to manual).
As for now, backlog is up to 240.. :(--Nilfanion (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Aju lion

Could someone please block Aju lion (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for long-term copyright abuse in spite of multiple warnings? And nuke all their uploads, please. What happens when you give people like this chance after chance is that other users put in good, hard work into retouching photos which later turn out to be copyright violations. Which is exactly what has happened in this case. Which is why an indefinite block is in order. They can be unblocked when they have explained why we should believe that they won't do it again. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not often I disagree with you LX but indef seems a bit strong to me. Blocked for a month though. The remaining three images look possibly ok to me? --Herby talk thyme 08:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Indefinite does not mean infinite. It means that the user is blocked until they demonstrate that they are ready to be unblocked – be it two weeks, one month, one year, or never. This user had eight months of undetected copyright violations after their previous "final warning." There is no reason to believe that this one-month block won't be followed by another eight months of undetected copyright violations, which other unsuspecting users will categorise and retouch – all in vain.
Personally, I think it's a bit strong to let User:Arb put in a lot of work on File:Shaare Shalom Synagogue, Kingston, Jamaica.png only to have it deleted, simply because we'd rather be lenient with someone who had already been caught uploading more than a dozen copyright violations.
The problem with this user is precisely that their uploads look possibly OK, but they're not. They're mostly amateur photos, all sourced from various places around the Internet. Some are high-res, some are low-res, presumably depending on what they were able to find. I can't find the sources for the remaining three, but they are undoubtedly copyright violations and should be deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
As it turns out, File:Sephardic Temple.jpg wasn't that hard to find: it's ripped right from the homepage: http://www.sephardictemple.org/. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
File:Temple kol ami.jpg was a little trickier. It's from a Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/York-County-Synagogue/114824645215870#!/photo.php?pid=194662&id=114824645215870. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Nominated for the Sherlock Holmes award ;-). I had tried to find the 3 remaining images via Google, but without success. --Túrelio (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File:IMG 3197.jpg

Could an admin on :en.wiki. check the original source information of this file please?. Thanks. --GeorgHH • talk   12:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It was uploaded on En on 28 November 2005 by en:User:Bobover1 with the description page
== Summary ==
Grand Rabbi Wolf Kornreich of Shidlovtza during a visit to Miami

I took this picture
== Licensing ==
{{GFDL-self}}
--Carnildo (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  Done I've added the information to the file description. Thanks. --GeorgHH • talk   17:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo

Please see Commons:Requests_for_rights#Kintetsubuffalo.  Docu  at 03:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Extremely bad faith.
  1. You are supposed to notify a user when you post about them here; you did not.
  2. Look at my recent edits-I renamed two-dozen images that have had pending rename requests, show me where any I have recently done are inappropriate.
  3. Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.
I don't know why you have chosen to go after me regarding my newly added rename rights, but I wish you would have discussed it with me rather than third-person like I am a nonentity. My issues with Foroa are fixed, he directed me to ask for those rights. DieBuche supported me in obtaining those rights. I recently renamed two dozen pending renames. Yes, some of those were my old requests, that does not make them less valid. I don't want a fight every few days when I come to Commons. You can speak directly to me, not at me or around me. Please Assume good faith.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

<moved from user talk:Docu> I don't know why you have chosen to go after me regarding my newly added rename rights, but I wish you would discuss it with me rather than third-person like I am a nonentity. My issues with Foroa are fixed, he directed me to ask for those rights. DieBuche supported me in obtaining those rights. I recently renamed two dozen pending renames. Yes, some of those were my old requests, that does not make them less valid. I don't want a fight every few days when I come to Commons. You can speak directly to me, not at me or around me. Please Assume good faith.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC) </moved from user talk:Docu>

I commented on your rights request at the place where you made it. I'm not sure if you read my comment earlier, but you hadn't responded to it.
I'm not sure if Foroa actually favored granting you these rights, otherwise they would have done that themselves.
In any case, if you feel your rename requests meet Commons:File renaming, it might be preferable that you state each time which of the valid reasons listed there applies to your action.  Docu  at 03:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
"this user in file renaming. He seems" means you were not addressing me, but the admin who granted me the rights. Since he didn't comment, and since that one wasn't hostile, I didn't have to defend myself. I had no cause to respond until your second post this morning.
And "it might be preferable" warrants bringing me to ANI rather than talking directly to me?
Request this is speedy-closed as unnecessary.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Tiptoety asked me to mention this here.
I had commented once more on your rights request, as I didn't think your renames meet the criteria of File renaming. Already the reason you give shows they are not appropriate. If you feel your actions meet the criteria of File renaming, please explain how.  Docu  at 03:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Fish Milwaukee County Zoo.jpg -> File:Lionfish Milwaukee County Zoo.jpg wasn't really necessary, but the rest aren't too bad. (I personally think descriptive names are overrated—it's just a name, so I'm not the best judge I guess.) Yelling out "bad faith" isn't much better than name-calling. We all can observe Docu's (and your) behaviour for ourselves, no reason to label it. Friendly advice: Try not to take things so personal. Things are more laid-back here on Commons. There's no need to "speedy close" a simple discussion. That's a silly en.wp habit. Don't worry about it and go back to work. :) Rocket000 (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Docu, sry I hadn't commented on the Request for Rights, i really had overseen in my watchlist. When Kintet was blocked I wrote him a long email, analyzing his proposed {{Rename}} and reasoning which one I found suitable & which ones not; and he seemed to be quite understanding. I think Foroas main concern back then was, that, if we were to allow Kintets rename, we would get more and more rename requests which are useful but not extremly urgent & that this would create a bigger backlog again.
So Imo, giving him the right actually gets rid of that problem: His renames are all useful (even if they sometimes only concern minor details), but it's his own time he's spending to do them, he'll maybe even reduce the backlog a bit & as far as I have checked they were all properly delinked etc. --DieBuche (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Rocket000, I wish things were more laid back here, as you believe; actually I find more drama here. I'd love not to "worry about it and go back to work," but presently there's a call to get my recently acquired rights to do so taken away. So I really have to worry until this is done, and the faster it is done, the faster I can "go back to work," which was my intent all along. ANI is not a "simple discussion", at that point, either someone (presumably me in this case) is a problem editor, or there has been a long, ongoing problem. It's not a friendly coffee klatch by any means.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Meh, it's what you make it. Drama is there if you want it. You're not going to lose your rights. Rocket000 (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's ok with everybody else, we could just add "make filename more descriptive" to Commons:File renaming Kintetsubuffalo can continue renaming files. Possibly we need to allow him an exception for applying English Wikipedia naming to Commons and other languages, but the last time we discussed his rename requests, he said he changed his opinion on some (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_22#Administrator_User:Foroa_seek_a_desist_order: "Some of my requests I now understand to be cosmetic").  Docu  at 19:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Improved Convolution Animations

Hi. I'm trying to update a couple animations from here. I need Convolution_of_spiky_function_with_box2.gif changed to Convolution_of_spiky_function_with_box.gif and Convolution_of_box_signal_with_itself2.gif changed to Convolution_of_box_signal_with_itself.gif. It said I'm too new to overwrite the files myself. I have Brian's permission. Tinos (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You can change the files name in Wikipedia. Geagea (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You mean the file the Convolution page refers to? I figured it would be cleaner to update the existing image rather than create a whole new one.Tinos (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I still don't understand why you need the name switch. If you need to replace your pic instad of brian's just make a change in the en.wikipedia article. It simpler. Geagea (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Suppose a third person wants to update mine. I don't think they should have to make a new file. You could end up with ten files for the same animation! Tinos (talk)
You can ask for deletion of the other work if it's useless. Some time we have original picture and retouched picture that look the same and we dont delete the original because maybe sombode else will make other version from the original. Anyway put {{Delete|reason=reason in your words}} and follow the instructions. Geagea (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the Wiki article to refer to the updated files. Thanks all for your advice!Tinos (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep doing the nice work :).   Done Geagea (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How do we set policy?

I think the change above is a very good idea, but I don't like the process. We adopted new policy in a discussion which was open for less than 24 hours (26 July 12:20 to 27 July 09:38). In the past I had wondered how we go about setting policy -- there doesn't appear to be any rule about it -- and this seems a little quick. I, for one, didn't see it since I usually edit from around 10:00-12:00UTC. Perhaps we need a formal policy on setting policy.

Some of us edit only on week-ends. Others don't edit on their Sabbath. Many don't edit during their business day. While leaving things open for seven days may seem long, particularly in a case where there is overwhelming support, it is important to give everyone a voice and not have members feel disenfranchised.

I also wonder about the venue. While this is a public forum, its name suggests that it is for Admins -- I wonder how many active non-admins read it daily. Of the 17 people taking part in the discussion above, only three are not Admins. On the other hand, the Village Pump has a version for most languages -- certainly the discussion must happen in only one place, so this might be the best choice.

Finally, there's the question of language. English is our lingua franca, but we need to include interested non-English speakers in policy discussions.

We these thoughts in mind, I propose for discussion:
Policy for Creating New Policy

  1. Discussions on new policy will take place on the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard.
  2. Such discussions will remain open for seven days.
  3. Such discussions will be announced in advance on all of the language discussion boards such as Commons:Village Pump.(note)
  4. Multi-lingual Admins are encouraged to translate the proposal and assist in discussion as required.

(note)This might be done with a multi-lingual template which would be posted by the proposer -- is there an easy way to do this? Can we use the heading system which appears at page-top from time to time?

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't we need a pre-existing policy for making this policy? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that we can consider the above more of a clarification (maybe codification) of an existing convention about the closing, rather than an overarching change in the policy. That said, having it done in a day like that is rather intense, especially for a non-urgent matter. While I don't think that it is a bad idea, I think that the speedy closure is a little pre-emptive. For changes in policy, or writing of policies I believe that the guidance (rather than policy) is pretty much what you have expressed, well maybe the translations has been a little problematic. Whatever it takes to have a quality decision.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
We do need a guideline in this are. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
More seriously, we don't need that much bureaucracy do we? I really don't like the recent tendency to do everything by votes, an extreme case is discussions of potential bans. In case of the above one its a Snowball closure, I couldn't see benefit to keeping it running longer as consensus is clear - it always was part of policy just not written down. If you object to addition to policy please say so...
A centralised location for new policy (and guideline) proposals seems sensible, but a strict time frame is not really appropriate. Big complex issues may take weeks or months to resolve (imagine insisting on a yes/no vote on COM:SEX a week after the Jimbo deletions?) and really trivial ones - such as grammatical corrections - should be boldly amended without even bothering. So I'd suggest a designated location for policy discussion that allows proprosed policies to be discussed as long as they need to be to get consensus (for or against); with some method of handling no consensus.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that I didn't actually close the discussion on the matter, I just implemented the obvious result (at the time). The discussion can continue if there's any actual need to (things like exact phrasing for instance can be ironed out by editing the policy).--Nilfanion (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a valid close, or even a valid update, there is an open question about self uploaded deletes. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion was that it remain open for 7 days. I still think that is a sensible time. --Herby talk thyme 14:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, and I know when to say "sorry I made a mistake"! (Think I got 1 and 2 mixed up at start here..). I'll comment it out.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Let's try to get that particular point hashed out because it's a good thing to make this notion explicit. (unfortunately as said, it's not the same commons any more as in the early days and we do sometimes need things to be spelled out sometimes that used to be 'everybody knows that' sort of things...) ++Lar: t/c 15:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

to delete some version

i want administrators to delete 1st and 2nd version of File:Liancourt Rocks Map.svg.because it have my PC user name in xml abstract path. so please !!--Forestfarmer (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done, they are broken anyway--DieBuche (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thank you for your quickly deletion !--Forestfarmer (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Jheronimus Bosch (?) Group of ten spectators.jpg

Please rename File:Jheronimus Bosch (?) Group of ten spectators.jpg to something without the question mark. Thumbnails are not working, due to bug 23361. - Erik Baas (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done by someone else--DieBuche (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Moved to File:Group of ten spectators.jpg and tasked Delinker with changing usages. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename Files

Please rename:
File:Hjalmsreryds gamla kyrka ext1.jpg to File:Hjelmseryds gamla kyrka ext1.jpg
and
File:Hjalmsreryds gamla kyrka ext2.jpg to File:Hjelmseryds gamla kyrka ext2.jpg
and
File:Hjalmsreryds gamla kyrka int1.jpg to File:Hjelmseryds gamla kyrka int1.jpg
and
File:Hjalmsreryds gamla kyrka int2.jpg to File:Hjelmseryds gamla kyrka int2.jpg
and
File:Hjalmsreryds gamla kyrka int3.jpg to File:Hjelmseryds gamla kyrka int3.jpg
I mispelled the file names when I uploaded the files.Ulkl (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just place {{Rename}} on each file (like this: {{rename|Hjelmseryds gamla kyrka ext1.jpg|reason}}) and they will be renamed. Amada44  talk to me 08:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!Ulkl (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

user:71.228.129.139

Hello,

Can a admin please take a look at this anomynous user, he is changing a copyright free use template into a cc-by-sa

Best regards, Huib talk 10:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a day - cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thnks for the fast responds :) Huib talk 11:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Philippines -- Free or not?

I just ran across this in an image up for DR:

 
This work is in the public domain in the Philippines and possibly other jurisdictions as stated by Republic Act No. 8293 because the expressed work is or is derived from a public document. Under RA 8293 (section 175), all official Philippine texts of a legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, or any official translation thereof, are ineligible for copyright.

but the DR also referenced this: en:Template:Non-free Philippines government The two appear to contradict one another. At Commons Licensing we say:

"Works by the government of the Philippines are not protected by copyright. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work was created is necessary for exploitation of such works for profit."

That does not meet Commons requirements. Do we have a Philippines expert who can sort out these inconsistencies?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass undelete

What's the easiest way to mass undelete a lot of files? OTRS got permission for all those: User:L.m.k/E-Mails Max Batten/CC-by-sa --DieBuche (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there are more images than that - I can't remember what the OTRS ticket I sent said, but I'm pretty certain there are more Max Batten images than just those, so adding the ticket will require a search. As for stuff which was deleted... we may have to grin and bear it. Alternatively, find a database backup from 1st April or previous - that was when I started deleting them. Could also check DuncHarris's deleted contribs for others. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Would this be a good point to ask whether there is any record of deleted files that can be undeleted over the next ten years as they start to fall into the public domain? More generally, I think deletion debates that yield enough information to know precisely when an image will become free should be categorised with some category like "Image that could possibly be undeleted in 2015" (or something like that). Or even just add the redlink of the image to a list page somewhere. Would that be possible? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, see Category:Undeletion requests and pages categorized there. --Martin H. (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank-you. Have we only been doing that since January 2010? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. However there are some people here who celebrate Public Domain Day on their own and search for authors whose work is now PD. --Martin H. (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I suggested it before 2010 (and I'm sure others did as well), but I'm very glad someone went ahead and did it in the end. I will try not to think of all the one-day-to-be-PD stuff discussed in the previous 10 years! And I see this got PRODded and redirected. I'd never heard of Public Domain Day before! :-) Going back to what this thread is about, why does Mattbuck say find a database backup from 1st April or previous? Have some deleted images been lost? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No, he is refering to the possibility to search in a database dump (will require a search). Also this whole thread is not about public domain content but an uncertain permision, see User:L.m.k/E-Mails Max Batten. --Martin H. (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for answering my questions and sorry for changing the topic! :-) Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Btw i found out how to do it vai pywikipedia thanks to MGA73:1. Define your admin account like sysopnames['commons']['commons']='DieBuche' 2. use the delete module python delete.py -file=list.txt -undelete -summary:"OTRS received"--DieBuche (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Wypm03-22.JPG

Dieses Bild stellt einen Verstoß gegen das Recht am eigenen Bild von zum Teil offensichtlich minderjähriger Personen dar. Es ist keinerlei Einverständniserklärung der abgebildeten Personen zu einer Veröffentlichung des Fotos erkennbar. Bei Minderjährigen müßte diese durch die Erziehungsberechtigten genehmigt worden sein. Ich habe versucht einen Löschantrag zu stellen, aber irgendwas funktioniert nicht wie es soll. Weissbier (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wenn du in den Einstellungen das Gadget Quick Delete aktivierst, kannst du Löschanträge ganz einfach stellen. --Leyo 10:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Schick. Danke schön! Weissbier (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a picture taken for the promotion of Wikimedia by Ziko I'm sure he has permission and there is no reason to delete this file. Huib talk 10:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wie meinen? Weissbier (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remember this is Commons, not German Wikipedia please use links to policies here not to policies on Wikipedia. Huib talk 10:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done|Ich habe jetzt kapiert wie es geht. Danke für die Hilfe. Weissbier (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Formatting of upload form

Judging by the formats of recently uploaded files, something has gone a bit wrong with the line spacings in the upload form - can anyone solve it?

Currently: 

== {{int:filedesc}} ==

{{Information
|Description=

|Source=
|Date=
|Author=
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}
== {{int:license}} ==

{{(license)}}
[[Category:]]

Should be: 

== {{int:filedesc}} ==

{{Information
|Description=
|Source=
|Date=
|Author=
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}

== {{int:license}} ==

{{(license)}}

[[Category:]]

Problems: a linespace too many in Description, and linespaces missing either side of the license lines. It isn't a serious problem, but does make subsequent editing of files trickier as things aren't conveniently spaced any more. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's not even == {{int:filedesc}} == but the old == file description ==. The whole thing needs to be fixed in upload.php for a while now. Nuthin we can do really--DieBuche (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!! - MPF (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Botched rename

The history of File:NH Route 1A.svg is a bit botched at the moment. I had tagged the original file (the 2006 "revision" there) to be moved to File:NH Route 1A (old).svg and for File:NH Route 1A (new).svg (the current "revision") to be moved to NH Route 1A.svg. However, from what I gather, the "old" one was moved away from the non-parenthetical name, the "new" one was moved to it, and the "old" one was subsequently moved back to it. I'm not trying to bash the admin in question - I tagged six other images in a similar fashion and they were moved correctly by the admin - I'm just trying to get this situation resolved. Thanks. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Behaviour of user:Sardur and user:Foroa

These two users have together added to Category:Oshki Armenian monasteries in Turkey, violating such rules weight and Fringe. I consider this behavior as POV pushing by Sardur and Foroa. These users don't want to hear arguments - Foroa hasn't even taken part in discussion. As I remarked many times, there exist 166 neutral sources. The sources of Sardur have Armenian origin, (As you easily can see in the discussion). The only source of shown by Sardur, which is non-Armenian origin is Poly technical institute (A cool source in history, you know) who (They say it by themselves have copied it from Armenian book - the copy of the letter is shown in the discussion). I consider this behavior disruptive - as (A) neither Sardur, nor Foroa have done any contributions to this category, (B) they both break serious rules. Why must we mention fringe theory created by Armenians in this article, when we have lots of neutral sources, which say this monastery is Georgian? --George M. (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I will only refer to my summary on the issue and repeat this: Gaeser/George M. repeats the same things since last June and, though I produced counter-arguments, he never addressed them. He tried to do the same on WP:fr and was almost blocked there.
I won't comment on what he said about Foroa, except for this: imho, Foroa behaved as a neutral party there.
Sardur (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • the basis is that Category:Armenian monasteries in Turkey should be readded to the article, as it was the case before some users PoV-pushed it out, because there are sources claiming that the monastery was Armeno-Iberian or Armenian (i.e. not only Georgian)
No reliable source has been provided. only source of shown by Sardur, which is non-Armenian origin is Poly technical institute (A cool source in history, you know) who (They say it by themselves have copied it from Armenian book - the copy of the letter is shown in the discussion).


    • these sources are reliable (specialised and recognised historians / art historians) - the only answer I got is that "they are Armenian", (i) which is irrelevant if they are reliable, and (ii) which is even not true for several of them ("Armenian" and "of Armenian descent" is certainly not the same)
They aren't neutral - that's quite clear. Armenian's have long time history by stealing Georgian heritage - this was reported by Ilia Chavchavadze in 19-th century and continues nowadays .


    • they perhaps (it still has to be proved, as no source has been provided so far stating that they do) represent a minority viewpoint, but the viewpoint is certainly not insignificant, i.e. WP:WEIGHT does not apply here - and since when would WP:WEIGHT apply to categories on Commons?
This is a fringe and marginal viewpoint of quite known nationalists from one country.
  • no source has been provided stating that the place was not at least partly Armenian
166 sources are telling this monastery was Georgian. No mention about Armenians. Brings some thoughts, doesn't?
  • my opponents already recognised that the place was used by Chalcedonian Armenians, so what is the problem with the Armenian category?

This should already have been enough, but my opponents raised OR arguments, which I addressed - and I'm still waiting for their answers:

When we come to Moscow we pray in Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Saviour. Where is category Georgian monasteries in Russia? Same is here - if armenians prayed there this doesn't make the place armenian.
  • on Gaeser's attempt with Rensselaer: the e-mail copied above does not say that he's right - and btw, the Rensselaer page remains unchanged since then, which prooves a contrario that he's wrong
The poly technical institute can't be a reliable source in history. Anyway, it mustn't be looked as an independent source, ase they have copied this from an Armenian book, as is said in the email.
  • the Armenian (partial or not) origin is the only way to explain the vank part of the alternative name of the place, which is still used nowadays in Turkey
An ORISS. Without sources.
  • Tayk/Tao at that time: an "hybrid world" + "the bilingual and bicultural court of the curopalate David" (quotation from Garsoian, a very well recognised and specialised scholar). And Chalcedonian Armenians (or Tzatoi) were often called "Iberians" in Byzantian sources
Another "reliable Armenian." It's perfectly known by world historians, that David was a Georgian ruler. It is discussed by none, but mrs. Garsoian.
  • the monastery belonged to which Church: I can see in my sources that it was used by or it belonged to Chalcedonian Armenians; but I don't think they were "attached" to the Georgian Church (still in case you don't know, Chalcedonian Armenians are still not very well known)
A nonsense. The church was created on territory of Georgian Othodox church (As it is well known, territry of the church is almost always same to territories of the state)
  • "neither armenian script": it was quite usual for Chalcedonian Armenians to use the Georgian script: examples of this are very well documented, as for instance at the Kobayr monastery
Sure, and they created bas reliefs of st. Nino - the saint most worshiped in Georgia.


Is it enough or I must comment your other fridge theories?--George M. (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-speaking I guess, and now I'm sure from several of these answers that this is about Georgian PoV-pushism (I didn't comment on that before, because I wasn't sure). Mrs Garsoian, btw. Sardur (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
No my friend. Georgian point of view is supported by reliable, neutral sources. Your point of view is supported only by Armenian scientists. The question seems to closed.--George M. (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't; I answered on the category talk page. Sardur (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Tell me any source which doesn't have Armenian origin.--George M. (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
That's the last time I answer on the substance here (the place is on the category talk page): irrelevant criteria if the sources are reliable, which they are (and it can be sourced). Sardur (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Note for admins, just in case: as can be seen in the history of the category, my last modification was on 30 June (i.e. before the first admin intervention). I hardly see how discussing the editorial issue on the talk page could be disruptive. Sardur (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(Indent reset) As it looks that the discussion will drag on for ever, and to protect the users against them selves, I decided to protect the category, and to add the disputed category:Armenian monasteries in Turkey (better a category too much) till we find a reliable third party that can unblock the situation. Hopefully, the users don't continue the fight overhere as there is little chance that a knowledgable person will step in quickly in such type of endless debate. There is plenty of useful work to do. --Foroa (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't guess what do you want. Sardur relyes on Garsoians and Hovanisans, I on Russian and American cyclopaedias, which don't mention any word about Armenians - so WHY in the name of Commons have you added this category?!--George M. (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I was also involved in the discussion. Thr category removed by User:ZooFari and replaced in 30.6.2010 ("(Neutral category. Resolve this issue on the talk page. NO NOT REVERT"). So I believe it was a mistake of Foroa. To the subject itself. First, Non of the wikipedia articles categorieased the monastery as Armenian (ru, en, fr, es, eo). Second, User:Sardur himself admit that the church did not belong to the Armenian Apostolic Church ("belonged to the Greek rather than the Armenian church" User:Sardur).
Anyhow, as a "ignorance" in that issue I questioned User:Sardur about his theory (can be seen in the talk page) and I concluded that "As far as I can se the monastery in not Armenian and not Georgian it's Turkish :). Well the monastery placed in Turkey. And it also belonging to the Georgian Orthodox Church or to the Greek church or both (according to what you say Sardur) but not to the Armenian Apostolic Church (again according to what you say Sardur). Even the en.wikipedia article says that the only connetion of the "Chalcedonian Armenians" to the church was the y pray there (you can check the en.wikipedia article talk page to). So ZooFari I belive you can remove the extra category of monasteries in Turkey. And I think it will be good idea to Category:Georgian Orthodox Monasteries in Turkey, Category:Georgian Orthodox Churches in Turkey.".Geagea (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I already addressed this on the category talk page. Still unanswered by Geagea.
Not true about categorisation on WPs: categorised on WP:fr, disputed on WP:en. Sardur (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Evrybody can put dispute tag. Still you are wrong not me "Non of the wikipedia articles categorieased the monastery as Armenian". This sentence is truth. However, the category Tao-Klarjeti categoriesed with the Category:History of Armenia, so it might satisfy you. Geagea (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
What is then fr:Catégorie:Monastère arménien de Turquie? Oshki is in this category. Sardur (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Note for admins: for "As Gebbels said, I lie said thousand times becomes truth - you seem to be fullfiliing his theory", I request admin action to be taken against Gaeser. Sardur (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Note for admins: for You're again repeating yourself. Méthode Coué ?I request admin action to be taken against Sardur.--George M. (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Isle of Wight categories

As part of the mass uploading of Geograph images, bots created various categories in preparation. Unfortunately, whereas in most places "xyz in Cornwall" is good, on the Isle of Wight (being an island), this should really be "xyz on the Isle of Wight". Many bot-created categories are however named "xyz in Isle of Wight". There's quite a few, so I've been through the whole category tree and listed the incorrect ones here.

If an admin could do what is needed to sort this out and move all the categories, that would be great. I did try getting one category moved the conventional way, but that still hasn't been moved in 2 months despite consensus. Below, I have put the named of the categories that I think they incorrectly named ones should be moved to. Unfortunately, the matter is confused further, as some incorrectly named categories are duplicated by correctly named ones, for example Category:Streams in Isle of Wight and Category:Streams on the Isle of Wight both exist. The former needs to be deleted.

Any help to sort this mess out would be great. Thanks Arriva436talk/contribs 11:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Most should be done. Note that in the future, there will be several renaming attempts because the in/on rule is different for Islands but many people don't know that. --Foroa (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
All ín''-cats have been emptied now and tagged with Badname' --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic. Thanks very much for all your help in sorting this out, you clearly new what you were doing! Much appricated. I'll look out for renaming attempts (I've put every Isle of Wight category on my watchlist), but hopefully human beings will be able to see why they're like that, and bots shouldn't harm them. Once again thanks for you help. Arriva436talk/contribs 14:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Shit happens :-) Well normally we use {{Agriculture on the Isle of Wight}} unless it is unthinkable that other users could think of using that name again. But I agree we can delete. --MGA73 (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
In this case, I think redirects would be helpful.  Docu  at 11:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. For humans and for bots (that are programmed to take notice) as well. ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued copyright violations

User talk:Evily01 was warned on July 25 by an admin to stop uploading copyrighted images via flickr washing, but has again uploaded an image like that today (although the user failed to actually make the image on their flickr account licensed under cc-by, which is bizzare). Hekerui (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks   Done, regards --Herby talk thyme 15:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Pablo-barrera-300x350-1-.jpgFile:Pablo-barrera 2-1-.jpg

Believe this and File:Pablo-barrera 2-1-.jpg are copyright violations and don't have correct licences. They were due to be deleted 7 days after 21/july. Can I delete them or does this need an Admin?--Egghead06 (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done - I deleted both files, thanks for the note :) Huib talk 08:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Amendment to DR closure policy

In accordance with views expressed recently I propose that the following should be added to Deletion Request policy.

"No user may close a Deletion Request which includes media they have uploaded."

I think that is simple enough. To cover a couple of points in advance I've used the word "user" rather than admin as there are non admin closures sometimes. Equally I do understand the point that an admin might agree that an image they uploaded was a copyright violation and so delete it for example. However there are plenty of other folk around so let's go for a simple wording rather than getting all complicated.

My reading of the views expressed suggest that this should not be controversial but I suggest leaving it for a week anyway.

  •   Support --Herby talk thyme 12:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support - sensible addition to the nominator not closing as delete. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- smial (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support –Tryphon☂ 14:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support, but would still want to delete in case where I agree with deletion of own image. Wknight94 talk 14:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • In such a case, you could vote for deletion and wait a week, or find another admin to speedy close it for you. I don't think it's worth making exceptions to such a simple rule just to speed up the process in a few cases. –Tryphon☂ 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
      • If you want to leave it unwritten, then fine, but I am assuming no one is going to complain. What would the complaint look like? "How dare you agree with the deletion request and delete the file, and thereby make everyone happy!" Wknight94 talk 14:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
        • The complaint is more likely to come from someone who finds a valid reason to keep the image. The possibility that a non-admin might find a valid reason to keep the image is often a reason to let deletion debates run for at least a week. The usual compromise is to say that if even one person has suggested the image be kept, then the discussion should be left open and not speedily closed merely because the nominator and uploader agree (though if there is a separate and valid reason to speedily delete, that should be done independently of the deletion discussion). Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I think what you're mentioning is already covered by existing policy (speedy closing a DR should only be done for obvious cases that should have been tagged for speedy deletion from the beginning). So saying that the uploader may close the DR as delete should be understood as they are allowed to do so provided they follow the other rules pertaining to DRs (so normally, wait a week, and if really it's an obvious case with no opposition, it can be speedy deleted). –Tryphon☂ 15:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support of course! Amada44  talk to me 15:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Any admin should know that it is bad style to do so and therefore it should not be needed. But it would be ok with me to add it since some admins do not follow this "unwritten rule". However, we need to decide if it only goes for "keep" or if it is also forbidden to delete "own" files. Sometimes when I transfer files from a wiki to Commons I make a mistake (press ok instead of skip) and upload fair use, copyvios or junk to Commons. Normally I just delete a few seconds after the transfer if I can't stop the bot. I've also managed to make some duplicates when transfering files and normally I just delete these. I therefore suggest we allow deletions of duplicates and files uploaded by a mistake shortly after the upload. A new wording could be
"No user may close, remove or delete a Deletion Request which includes media they have uploaded. However it is allowed to delete duplicates and files uploaded by a mistake shortly after upload."
Has someone made a link to this discussion or is it just an "admin question"? --MGA73 (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
On VP when I posted this, certainly not admin only --Herby talk thyme 15:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Or even something as simple as "it's okay to delete own works if no one objects". Wknight94 talk 15:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
How about just saying "no user may close as keep a deletion request pertaining to media they uploaded". -mattbuck (Talk) 15:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Matt - I'd prefer not to see admins deleting their own uploads (immediate mistakes excepted). The transparency is lacking and I seem to recall it has been abused in the past. DR has transparency but I still think it would be best to keep it simple and not delete your own stuff that has been DR'd --Herby talk thyme 15:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Do I even need to say it? Uh,   Support. I always considered it a (unwritten) rule anyway. I'm fine with admins closing their own as delete if it's a simple mistake or once someone informs them of some law they didn't know about before and they agree it's unquestionably a copyvio. There's no point in letting it sit there. Basically, if it is speedyable, then the uploader can close as delete. Although, I can think of some scenarios where I wouldn't want the uploader to close. For example, someone uploads a new version of something and someone thinks it's vastly superior so they nominate the original for deletion. The original author may take that as an insult or something and delete it as fast as they can because either they're mad or they don't want to hear others say "yeah, delete. the original sucks". I also wouldn't want uploaders to close it as a way of stifling discussion. I would say if there's any keep votes or active discussion, they shouldn't touch it. Rocket000 (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support However, this should be restricted to DRs only. I think that it is still appropriate to speedy delete accidental uploads, superseded images etc if it is uncontroversial. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Obvious, but wish we didn't really need to write it down. One caveat to that though: What happens in the case where the DR is a bulk one? Thankfully ones like Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Soviet are less frequent now, but there's no reason why similar ones won't occur again. They can be very complex debates, and involve users with strong feelings on the matter. Its also likely that the admins most familiar with the legal background - and so best able to close the DR - are from the region the template relates to. This makes it quite possible that they will have used that template on one of their own uploads previously. A strict reading of the rule would therefore prevent those admins from closing the DR, if they then did so the "losing" side may well moan about the breach of policy...

Obviously that's a lot of "ifs", but I think it justifies a slight amendment to the proposed text - to prevent wikilawyering on that point in future.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone starts a bulk DR on all files on Commons then we need an admin without uploads :-D I see your point but in cases like that I doubt we will have a problem if the closing admin does not speedy close or close against what seems to be the right result and does not have more than a few own files. --MGA73 (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree this isn't a big deal :) The problem is what is "the right result" in the really contentious close calls? (Closing the DR may just move the venue for determining the copyright issue to the AN instead). I suppose the caveat is along the lines "unless the user's own uploads are incidental to the DR", my images are an incidental part of these so I should be able to close that a DR on that but I should be forbidden from closing a DR on these.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Geagea (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support A post on AN is a good idea on any bulk deletion that might be questioned. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment What if the nominator brings to light a copyright problem that the uploader was not aware of? Should the uploader for some reason not be able to delete it? I'm all for prohibiting admins from keeping their own uploads, but there are plenty of cases where they may want to delete them, especially considering how long full-blown deletion requests take to go through. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Well if that should happen uploader could write "I'm the uploader and I agree the file should be deleted". Then I doubt that DR will take weeks or months. Personally I would not think it is a big problem if admins delete own files but there could perhaps be cases where it could be interessting to keep DR open. --MGA73 (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • More fun things to ponder: What about authors that aren't the uploader? What about derivative works of your work (where you may not like what they've done)? Files that have multiple authors? Files where you're the subject? Previous uploader on another wiki? Community-shared upload bots that don't record the operator's name? Users would do massive uploading from some donation or other free repository and understandably will have some problem images mixed in there? Uploaders who were simply preforming a technical task such as replacing a lost image, renaming (the way it used to be done), fixing corrupt files, taking care of vandalism/privacy concerns, etc. 75.4.148.3 01:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support  Docu  at 04:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support - This should be rather obvious. Tiptoety talk 05:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done Added proposed addition to the policy [9]. 15 supports and no issues at all with the core point is unequivocal support and no need to keep that side of it going, though maybe the wording could do with tweaking (to address the minor concerns). I've changed the "may close" to "should close" as this gives the little leeway to allow deletion of own work, whilst keeping the meaning clear - feel free to rv if that's a problem.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I restored "may". No leeway is intended.  Docu  at 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose early adoption of this. Please undo the close, guys. I support the notion here, but we should let this run 7 days, it's a good practice, even in fixing what we think are "obvious" things. Further, we should get consensus on the may/may not delete own files question, which seems to be still at issue. ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose proposed wording, but support the intention. If we're to amend policy, let's take the time to get reasonable wording. Wording should allow for the situations mentioned by Rocket000, Wknight94, et al (e.g. closure as delete in cases of "simple mistake or once someone informs them of some law", etc.) To implement this instead of something more precise is quite imprudent (it may have been fine in days past, but my confidence that IAR/common sense would prevail over a literal reading of the policy in the current "atmosphere" is all but non-existent). Эlcobbola talk 15:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think my edit was based on what Commons was like not all the long ago, where IAR did give us room (I haven't lost faith that we will get back to that). Incidentally; anyone think we should have a local copy of WP:IAR?--Nilfanion (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support, except that admins may be permitted to close a DR for an image they uploaded as delete where they and all other users now support deletion (e.g. where someone points out an obscure copyright law to them). Stifle (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • That seemed obvious to me but it seems we do need that clarification in some form or another. Is that wording acceptable? Is is the best we can do? I don't want that clarification (of a clarification) to derail implementing this clarification. Hope that helped (I was going to say "hope that clarifies my view" but decided not to. :) ) ++Lar: t/c 13:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Familieman' uploads

Hi,

could someone please take a look at the early uploads of user:Familieman? See his usertalkpage for more information. He uploaded several non-free Flickr images in his early days as if they were made by himself. Later on he seems to have understood the practice better and switched to only free images with proper attribution. Could someone go through the images he uploaded with himself as author and delete when necessary? I have brought this up with some individual admins, but it looks like nobody has been able to pick it up yet. --Effeietsanders (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

He's got quite lot there. If you provide a list of the copyvios, I make sure they're gone--DieBuche (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Quite a lot indeed, which is exactly the reason why I don't have the time to go through them and why I reported it here, in the hope someone has, or knows a smarter way of doing it. --Effeietsanders (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

/gallery

Images only used in /gallerys don't count as {{Userpageimage}}, do they?--DieBuche (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's just the automatic gallery created by uploads through Commonist, I don't think so.  Docu  at 10:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I read the policy to mean that a user can have a very limited number of personal images on his/her actual user pages (either here or other WMF projects), but not on subpages. If you want to be really technical, I'd cut a little slack for transcluded subpages -- I have one that doesn't use any personal images, but I could see how one might.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
We have that as policy? We have a number of users that would be in violation of it if so. Commons doesn't have the vast policy forest that en:wp does, but it's rather a thicket in some spots. ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of sitenotice

Adam Cuerden added a notice to the site notice regarding the latest poll on FPC on the 26th, and was reverted same day by Dschwen. He re-added it earlier today, and now I reverted. Two reasons for the "conflict" - the poll itself is somewhat biased (the section title states that it has failed, should say "review of test").

However, more important to me, and the reason I've brought this matter here - why is the community being bothered by this? FP is a small subsection of Commons, and the changes to the rules aren't going to be noticed by anyone except regulars on FPC, who "should" notice the poll anyway. I would like to see some guidelines on acceptable sitenotice content, as I can't see how this poll is less important than any number of Deletion Requests (which don't get so advertised).

The sort of things I would like to see in the sitenotice are more restrictive:

  1. Major events - such as POTY
  2. New features - whether technical or new projects of relevance to whole community
  3. Polls about new policy (for instance if a "final" poll was held on COM:SEX).

I can't see why the community should be bothered about "5 supports or 7 supports, should the number of nominations be restricted?". To me - all that spam does is make me even less inclined to participate there...--Nilfanion (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely standard practice for votes on major site policy, major features, and the like to be announced. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, site policy like voting rules in general, major features like POTY. You actually started using the sitenotice for more and more things in the last few months. Look at the version history. --Dschwen (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Major site policy, yes. However the site is Wikimedia Commons, not COM:FPC. I could quote any number of deletion requests that are more important than changing "5 supports" to "7 supports" (which is the most minor of quibbles), why would should people be notified about (for example) altering the 2MP limit to 3MP, when they are not notified that we have decided that the UAE FOP law is too restrictive?
And please link to a neutrally phrased vote, irrespective of its importance (if a "final ballot" on COM:SEX was phrased as "should we allow blatant censorship on Commons?", that would affect the discussion. Dschwen's point is also germane - where did consensus that that practice is ok in the first place come from? Please don't overuse the sitenotice, or the header in recentchanges...--Nilfanion (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we need to informally agree that we need an informal consensus that the particular notice is significant enough, rather than an add by one person without review beforehand? ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Imagenfotografica.jpg

User:Smith19787 uploaded this file, the name of which literally means "photographic image," on 2009-08-27, claiming that it was their own work. As description of the file, they provided the text "reconocimiento por sus estudios e investigaciones," meaning "recognition for their studies and research." It is an over-exposed, backlit portrait of an unidentified male.

51 minutes later, they uploaded a completely different photo (a forest scene) over the original one, stating in the edit summary "una nueva renovacion," literally meaning "a new renewal." This version is taken by Darrell Gulin of Getty Images. It therefore needs to be deleted as a copyright violation.

I don't know if the original revision should also be deleted, but it seems reasonable. It is possible that it was used in es:Luis Gilberto Rodríguez Martínez, a vanity article apparently repeatedly recreated by the uploader, going by their Spanish Wikipedia user talk page. I can take that to a deletion request if need be, but it seems pretty obvious what the outcome would be. In any case, please speedy delete at least the latest revision. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done: I've deleted this file as copyvio. The first upload is a duplicate of the already deleted file File:Fotografiapublica.jpg. Thanks for the notice. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Taron Saharyan

Can someone please check contribs of this user? He is edit warring across multiple pages, leaving extremely incivil and racist edit summaries (in Russian). A few examples: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Grandmaster 12:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I ask to pay attention to insults and racist statements in my address.[15][16]. Gulustan 13:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a Russian speaking admin would be best suited to look at these. Perhaps ping some that have at least ru-3 on their language babel boxes? As it turns out there is not an ru-3 category but there is an ru-4. Not all of these folk are admins but it's a starting point. Category:User ru-4. A better way, of course, is to use this list Commons:List_of_administrators_by_language which shows we have a goodly number of admins to ask. ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  Done User warned. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with uploads claimed to be copyvios by the uploader

Hello colleagues,

There is a situation with User:Toubabmaster, who claims his uploads have never been his creation and wants them deleted. (I feel kind of bad about it, since I knew about it and failed to take quick action).

What should we do when a user claims his uploads are copyvios, when this user seems to hold a grudge against Wikimedia projects (he was blocked thrice on fr.wp, opened a case at the arbitration committee against the sysop who blocked him, and left begrudging against all-mighty admins and so on).

Should we assume good faith and delete his uploads, or believing this copyvio claim is a way to revoke the license he granted?

Jean-Fred (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello,
No we are not going to break the rules and delete those files.
It has been explained to him that he needs to make a deletion request for all files where he states that all the files are copyvios, he should also give the source of the images so we can verify it, than the community will decide if we delete or keep those files.
If the user is blocked on fr.wiki, and comes here to get this files deleted with lots of drama I and I think other people with me will not assume good faith, as far as I can see now all his actions are bad faith actions and he promised that he will continue after his block, this will get him blocked and the files will be kept, so he can play by the book or he can leave but Commons is not the place to make his battle. Huib talkAbigor @ meta 19:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
A bunch of them have already been speedy deleted. See User_talk:Toubabmaster#File:Bateau_Belle-ile.JPG.2C_File:Les_aiguilles_de_Port_Coton.JPG.2C_File:Pointe_des_poulains_4.JPG. –Tryphon☂ 20:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting a revision of an image as a copyviolation

Could any administrator delete http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/86/20100728004024%21Nagisa_Furukawa_models_on_the_train.jpg?

As the focus of this revision is focused on a copyrighted anime character, it fails to qualify for de minimis. The uploader has uploaded another image (the current version) that passes de minimis, but the troublesome original image is still in the history available for all to see and to take.

Also, is there any template or request process to use for such situations? It seems a bit callous to post an entire speedy template or to deletion request for a problem version. I posted here because I found no procedure for such a request. Jappalang (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd electrochemistry diagrams

Back in December 2007, User:Victoria.0702, uploaded 24 images in 26 minutes, all diagrams of various electrochemical topics, with labels in Spanish (or Portuguese, I'm not familiar enough to know), and what looks like text leaking through from the other side of the page, all claimed as "self-made". I'm doubtful about the truth of this claim, and of the value of the images. Thoughts? JesseW (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The most recent uploads are replacable with TeX or other wiki text, as plain text this files are not in scope of Commons. The before uploads like File:Mimi.013.JPG, File:Mimi.007.JPG, File:Mimi.006.JPG - are all scans from a book or paper, obviously, see the print through. They not have a proper source, thats not a problem from a copyright perspective, most are ineligible, but a problem for reuse. Without source its not possible to reuse this in educational context, so this files fall out of our scope and a deletion discussion ({{Delete}}) can take place. --Martin H. (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The lolicon uploader again

He has struck again and uploaded a number of Lolicon images. Now the question arises how to deal with it. Finally, he poses to be an alleged artist, that he tries to support with the image File:Ikusa.jpg. However, this is not the cover a of an real dōjinshi, as these usually don't have a ISBN and the given one isn't even a valid ISBN number (more precisely, it is an EAN). In his past some of his (User:Midnight68) images already got deleted, also he was banned from DeviantArt. Either way he isn't well known[17] and his works might fall under child pornography.

His latest uploads are:

How to handle it? (I also noticed it on Commons:Forum) --Niabot (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

For starters I think we've come to agreement that more precise categorization is needed... hentai probably does not belong in the main girls in anime and manga category. That, I think is true regardless of whether the images themselves eventually are retained or removed. I'd suggest starting deletion requests on the images you consider problematic and let the community work through the individual images. If there's a pattern here, can you give a bit more information on it please? ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
At first i have to state that the images got deleted some time ago by user:cecil. Some more harmless pictures weren't removed and kept. Some days ago he uploaded this images again, and included them in various articles in all kind of languages (spamming). A look at his user page should say it all, since he is most likely not an well known artist (got banned from deviantart, is not listed in other related pages of well known artist) --Niabot (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Im concerned about 1) the inappropriate inclusion in articles, adding images to articles and categories where the reader not expects such images was one of the major concerns of the 'porn-purge' 2) the abuse of userpages and usertalkpages here and in other project to stress the "not censored". Commons is not an webhost for personal artwork. In this case of a spam bias and images that are borderline (or already crossed the line) the non-acceptance of personal artwork should be employed. I first thought, misguided by the file description, that this is historic material - it is not, it is recently created dōjinshi/fan art by a non-notable artist. --Martin H. (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a very bad feeling about the true purpose of those pics. Besides, look at e. g. this or that. Simply copyvio from some movies (I doubt that "he" is the author). Alltogether I favour a deletion of all pics. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Every pic previously deleted should be subject to a new DR (with presumption of re-deletion), it seems to me. ++Lar: t/c 13:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, if there was no request for un-deletion after the first DR, now opening a second DR does actually reward the re-uploader who choose to ignore the result of the first DR. --Túrelio (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Good point, my bad. Any like that need to be redeleted without further discussion. Do we have a list? (or a tool that can easily generate it?) I'm not averse to exercising my delete button finger. ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't be so hard to look up this users previously uploaded and deleted images, to compare and delete them? --Niabot (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, when comparing the filenames of the current and of the formerly deleted files, only Panchira4.jpg is in both lists, though not in your above list. --Túrelio (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Added a deletion request: Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_by_User:Midnight68 --Niabot (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Protect this file name, please

File:Front.jpg is an image of a building, but to me it seems a rather inappropriate name. Could someone please move this file to a more appropriate title and convert this file name to something like File:Logo.jpg? I have file mover rights, but that's all. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  Done, moved to File:Chateau de Saint-Illiers-la-ville.jpg--DieBuche (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gee Jay (talk · contribs)

This user is uploading out of scope PDFs again. He has already been informed about our scope a while back, so maybe a block is now in order. In any case, please delete all of his uploads. –Tryphon☂ 13:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and   Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! –Tryphon☂ 13:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Rollback?

Can someone please take a look at Special:Contributions/217.190.238.11. I'm concerned about the whole bunch of ancient castles having their cats removed. They disapeared for no good reason from the article Category:Castles of the Eagles' Nests. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 14:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  Comment Maybe they have a good reason for doing so. You should ask on their talk page. --The Evil IP address (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so?

Well, some time ago, I decided to retire from being a user here. I got some issues in RL at that time, but liking this place, I couldn't really get myself into a wikibreak. The controversy around Jimbo, which I didn't agree with, then simply gave me a psychologic feeling which wouldn't give me a bad conscience to leave this place. I'm sorry if my leaving was a bit harsh, but I think I wouldn't have done this wikibreak by just putting a wikibreak template on my user page. I mean, even this way, I didn't do it completely. A lot of people have written something on my talk page here, on the German Wikipedia, even on translatewiki or via e-mail. I thank you all for the nice words and apologize for not responding earlier. I'm gonna do that soon.

But now, with some less stress, I somehow miss maintaining and improving Commons. I mean, I see that it works pretty good without me, seeing all the improvements over the last three months, especially I've seen some good new administrators around here. I would like to continue my help here, but since quite a lot of it has been administrative (but don't worry, I recently got some new 12 MP camera, not a pretty good one, I know I got a COI, but I dare say that some of the pics I made with it aren't that bad) it would probably be useful to have the "buttons" back. However, knowing that a lot of things change within three months, and that not everything I did was that brilliant (I just remember a DR when I deleted a FP instead of the copyvio or MediaWiki:Vector.css/en), I was actually wondering if the community would want me back. I mean, if you don't want me, I can also use edit requests and speedy deletion templates again, it's not that I need it, but I think I'm more helpful when being able to execute the requests myself and not taking too much of the administrators' time.

As I haven't retired from Commons before, what's the next steps to continue? Should I get some practice again as a regular user, make an RFA again or am I even allowed to take this position again? I generally would probably continue in the deletion requests, the technical side of Commons, the localization and generally stuff that I come across with. No matter what, I think it's important to make myself familiar with any policy or guideline changes, thus I'm gonna read the as not to miss anything. So, please advise on the next steps. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome home. I don't think there are any actual policy changes, though COM:SEX is still making its way through treacle, and there was a proposal that people not be allowed to close DRs on their own images. As for what to do, I think you need to go through RfA again, though I'm not sure on that. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I want you back. (For the rest, do what you think is best for the project.)  fetchcomms☛ 23:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back Evil IP. Diego Grez return fire 23:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
We never put a formal policy in place but if you were in good standing when you retired, you can have your admin bit back just by asking (if you even had it turned off, that is, too lazy to go check right now). If you want to run an RfA again you can, we don't give people quite as muhc grief about that as they don on en:wp. Spending some time getting your sea legs back is always a good idea, so maybe do that for a few days or weeks (till you feel comfy) before you start using the tools? And yes, please do come up to speed on the latest policy questions (DR policy is about to change a bit but not major, for example) ... but 3 months is not that long so it won't be too hard. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Post on the 'crat board here. I'd like to think any 'crat would be as pleased as I am to see you back. I'd certainly re-grant the rights if I was still a 'crat. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Error on Special:Upload

If you go to Special:Upload, you'll see the following message next to the summary box:

Summary (also add a license tag if those below do not apply):

Following this phrase is a little question icon that produces the following text when clicked:

Other versions: If you know that there are other versions of this file available at the Commons, link them here, otherwise, leave this field blank.

This quote from the question icon box includes a comma splice. Could someone please fix it, either by changing the comma after "here" to a period or a semicolon? Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Close new deletion request, please

Hiya, we're discussing File:King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck edit 2.jpg over at EN FPC, and it has been mistakenly tagged for deletion (as of this morning). It was uploaded over the top of File:King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck (edit).jpg, but has since been reverted. Could this deletion request be closed now, perhaps, so that the tag can be removed quickly? Thanks! Maedin\talk 18:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Suspected copyvio sock

en:User:Vian kadal, an account with last edit 4 July 2010, had several copyvio warnings and was uploading photos of Indonesia from Panoramio. Some of the photos credit User:Alfian Ainun, an account with first edit 7 July 2010, also copyvio photos of Indonesia from Panoramio[18].

I'd like to request all uploads from these accounts be deleted as suspected copyvios, many are from a different cameras, and the accounts to be globally blocked for uploading copyvios after warnings and socking to continue uploading copyvios. Benchill (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the images: I fully agree and delete them, you gave the evidences. This are photos taken from the web, also the city collages are not montages of self-created photos but of non-free images. Regarding the sockpuppetry: You see the close connection in en.wp, I agree, en:User:Alfian Ainun uses images on userpage that the other user uploaded, Vian kadal gives credit to Alfian Ainun. Example en:File:Tangerang city.jpg, thats btw again one of this non-free montages, see the watermark on the lower left image. I suggest to nuke the en.wp uploads too. It looks like Alfian Ainun (talk · contribs) is sock for Commons after Vian kadal (talk · contribs) did it wrong already, the sock is however not doing it right but wrong wrong. Additionally to the behavioural connections this users are very   Likely sockpuppets technically. --Martin H. (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I deleted all of the en.wp own-work claimed uploads by Vian kadal. Wknight94 talk 14:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I nuked all images from the second account. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 16:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. Benchill (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

request for deletion

Could someone be so kind as to delete the two oldest file versions of File:Painted stucco relief Estonian Literary Museum.jpg? I accidentally left tmi in the EXIF data. Many thanks in advance! — Linus (disk) 00:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Done. Wknight94 talk 00:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible Bot misbehavior

Hi, please block the bot Crochet.david.bot (talk · contribs) as long as the problems on the talk page are not adressed. It will simply increase the mess if it keeps changing the pages. 129.206.126.87 15:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Done. Editing the original upload log is indeed worrying. I'll help him refine his regex terms--DieBuche (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Request

At 12:19, August 5, 2010, User:Brechtsbaal changed the whole first section (Amendment to DR closure policy) to German and added the following there:

"Habe Probleme mit Bild Eberhard Päßler bzw. Päßler Eberhard. Es ist ein privatfoto!!! Irgendjemand pfuscht daran herum und löscht es?! Bitte um Hilfe Brechtsbaal"

Since this appears to be unrelated to the policy question, I have reverted the translation above, but I can't help the user because the machine translation of his/her request is not very good.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I speak german, gonna try to take care of this--DieBuche (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
k, he complains about the deletion of File:Eberhard Päßler 1.jpg, which doesn't look like {{Own}} to me either. Try to clarify on his talk--DieBuche (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the followup.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor170209

Please block Editor170209 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) and nuke their uploads (all copyvios). —LX (talk, contribs) 12:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks muchly! —LX (talk, contribs) 12:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I have deleted all his uploads and left him a last warning message on his disc.-page. If this user continues uplaoding copyvios, then he/she gets blocked. Thanks! --High Contrast (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Update: I see, this user was just blocked after I have written my text above. Problem solved, I'd say. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, as you can see, I already gave them the same warning yesterday, which they chose to ignore. Thanks for helping out with the deletions. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like team-play High Contrast ;) Huib talk Abigor @ meta 13:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

They've asked to be unblocked "so that they can start over." I've left them a comment explaining why I think that'd be a bad idea, but it would be good if an admin could approve or decline the request. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm the blocking admin I will not handle the unblock, I guess there is a other admin that can take a look? Huib talk Abigor @ meta 18:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  Done (& agree with both block and LX's summary) --Herby talk thyme 18:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyvio with User:Wyvren

Hey. Over on en.wiki, someone noticed that many of the images uploaded by Wyvren (talk · contribs) are potential copyright violations of the site www.family-crests.com. They contacted one of the people who administer that site, and since then someone has been going through as 194.217.0.4 (talk · contribs) and marking the images for deletion. Not all of the uploaded images are the same as on that site (e.g. File:Clan arthur.jpg vs arthur-clan-crest.jpg) but some are so similar (e.g. File:Clan baillie.jpg vs baillie-clan-crest.jpg) that it could be problematic. I don't know if all of Wyvren's uploads should be deleted, but I figured this issue should be brought up here, as it's so widespread. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I was about to do this myself. Wyvren is a problematic user on enWiki, blocked 3 times not by me but by 3 separate Admins) in the last 3 weeks for edit warring, and obviously if these actually are copyright violations it's a concern. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I emailed my corespondent, David Humphreys at Family-crests.com, directing him to this page. NB, the user who requested deletion at the pages was myself, at times I forget to sign in when moving from Wikipedia to commons, sorry. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Some of them are actually taken off this website rowandisplays.com. The metadata betrays it. Example Maxwell: both this rowandisplays image: [19], and File:Clan member crest badge - clan maxwell.jpg, were created on 2007-08-14 16:15:43+01:00. I guess the graphics guys from both webpages use the same software, or maybe Wyvren is taking some from one, and some from another. The Baillie and Arthur badges that HelloAnnyong noted are from rowandisplays.com: [20] [21]--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's another one, but from a different site: File:Akins-coat-of-arms.jpg is an ever-so-slightly resized form of the image from this page: [22].--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I posted a warning on User_talk:Wyvren. I hope he stops this internet harvesting exercise. SV1XV (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the facts given here above and some simple checks I decided to nuke all the files. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 09:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

These images can?

Some administrator can see if these images are accepted in the Commons? File:Rihanna in The Good girl gone bad tour.jpg, File:Rihanna good girl tour.jpg, File:Rihanna cantando umbrella Good gilr gone bad.jpg this account on flickr it's located here Commons:Questionable Flickr images with the name of wenthwort. Truu (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

  Done By the way, once you've tagged an image with {{Speedy}}, an admin will look at it. Although it's not a problem in any way, there's no particular reason to also add a notice here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

the infinite block reason?

hi everybody. I wanna to know why this user has been blocked infinite? who is Truth seeker (talk · contribs) here? thanks for your attention.--Gordafarid (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The summary should have a capital "S".
Gordafarid, since you're from fa.wiki, I imagine you already are aware of fa:کاربر:Truth Seeker aka User:Breathing Dead - 07:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
yea I know it. but why the user that have useful contribution in here must be blocked? if Mardetanha (talk · contribs) had personal problem with truth seeker, it`s not enough reason to blocking him in all wikies. what`s the problem of the blocked user for commons?--Gordafarid (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I see one upload, thats not really "useful contributions" ? Huib talk Abigor @ meta 08:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Inactivity

Hello,

I created the new Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2010 since it needed to start at 6 August. At this moment six administrators lost the bit because of inactivity.

Best, Huib talk Abigor @ meta 07:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the level of activity be higher? There are some admins on http://toolserver.org/~vvv/adminstats.php?wiki=commonswiki_p&tlimit=15768000
that were only named in the last couple of months and hardly have more than 10 or 20 admin actions. Seems like they somehow wasted our time with the RfA.  Docu  at 10:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
That is certainly a possible proposal to make. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree the needed admin actions should be higher. Six can be easily gained by spending 10 minutes in the CSD--DieBuche (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You can even gain six by just deleting old versions of re-uploads ;) A problem is that short term activity sprees aren't necessarily helpful either.
Personally I'm more concerned by lack of total activity than just temporary breaks.  Docu  at 11:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that we should raise it till 60 that means 10 admin actions every month. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 11:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
IMHO it could be less, if a user performs several actions that do not require admin status, too. --Leyo 12:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
All I can say was it was hard getting even that through. People who do nothing are usually the ones who protest most about the community thinking a little more activity would be nice. However I know many do not share my views (or like them!). --Herby talk thyme 12:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess the next step is asking on the talkpage to change the inactivity rule? I will be happy to write a proposal there and link it from here and the village pump. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 12:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Any proposal will get my support I assure you :) --Herby talk thyme 12:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I will work something out today. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 12:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that some admin actions are not taken into account. I think that file moving is restricted to admins, but moves are not counted at [23]. For example, User:~Pyb is listed at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2010 despite making more than 5 moves. Pruneautalk 13:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
That certainly needs taking into account. There have always been similar issues on Meta with edits to the SBL (protected) which are admin only actions. If the policy changes it does need to include any less obvious admin actions. --Herby talk thyme 13:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but mediawiki edits are counted by the vvv tool. But I don't see file-moving as administrator action, when you only need to move files please ask for the filemovers right. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 14:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I created Commons_talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Activity Huib talk Abigor @ meta 15:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Banished for live

Dears,

Admin "Rama" ,after a deep dispute, about OTRS methods where I publically accused Wikipedia of incompetence and forcingly abuse take the position to block forever my account and any reopening of my account: "Hcrepin". I admit having be extremely rude, so rude than the rookie level of the OTRS methodology presented in french in fact. This is driving to a blocking situation in fact where most of my points were accepted except in my tone, it was then admitted I was quite right in analyse but wrong in attitude. Due to this and an autoritative attitude, I request the destruction of my account Hcrepin with any personal data as allowed by my national laws, Belgium. But, to avoid problem and don't having a selfish attitude, I allow you to transfer all my pictures to any other account, at your best convenience, no need that Internet users or Wikipedia will be touched by this dispute.

I profit of this occasion to signal again that OTRS method is, minimally in French, completely obsolete without humanity, efficiency or ergonomy. This spoils clearly the time and energy of everybody, some tests demonstrate that OTRS request around 4 to 12 hours of work for every side to let approuve one bunch of pictures (because in OTRS, most of the authors are approached only once, experience is rarely recycled). The system can be clearly improved by a competent IT and it is illusion to think that anyone can garantee identity on the WEB of most of people but it exists maybe a method through the "tiers de confiance" (a people who's garanteed identified through classical way and is the warranty into some transactions). Around 5 to 10 years in the future, out of anglo-saxon world, most of the people will have their ID card with electronical chip and could then sign any electronical transactions, this time OTRS will be mature but until this, I feel this is trying to do a thing just to let think that situation is all right, no more or just to try to avoid to be sued. Un "rideau de fumée" disons-nous en français.

I denounce too a complete despotic attitude from Admin "Rama" who's clearly a fair and efficient contributor but not enough mature to be an administrator. The duplicity is so deep from this Admin that he/she same blocks me to complain to other admin and I must use some tricks to do it in place to do it frontly and honnestly.

Then, due to non-efficiency and amateurism of WikiCommons plus tyranny, I request to be erased from the WikiCommons world.


Regards

Hcrepin http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hcrepin

It appears your user talk page was deleted by your request. You can have your username changed to something random if you want; just post on your talk page while signed in to confirm it is you.
I am not certain that an indefinite block was deserved here and would like other admins to review the matter. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My dear,

I understand your point but understand mine, when clicking on this URL, it exists still several content. Page doesn't exist anymore if, for example, user Hcrepin is again available and considering as not existing anymore. My point is simple, I don't want that any reference to user "hcrepin" exists anymore under Commons. So difficult?

Regards

Hcrepin

You mean the part that goes "This user is currently blocked...." Yes, it's impossible to completely erase account history (even if the log entry is deleted, it's obtainable through other methods). How else do we know if the account is blocked or not? There's no personally identifiable information there. Rocket000 (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
At a quick glance the indef block here is ludicrous I'm afraid. A day or two to cool off maybe but indef is plain mad. I'd like to see this account unblocked. --Herby talk thyme 14:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess I will get myself in trouble with this, but the user has been blocked for over a month now, thats long enough for the first time. I unblocked. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 15:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but can someone give me a recommendation for a mass-uploading tool/script/program? I recently returned home after a trip in China and have some 1,000+ photos for Commons. It would be very helpful if I had a tool of some sort to assist me in uploading. Thanks in advance. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fastily, do you know about Commons:Tools/Commonist? --AFBorchert (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I tried it out and like it very much. Thank you for the suggestion. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 07:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Enwiki problem, need an admin

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello. I have a bit of a problem on en-wiki, where this account is now indef blocked. I claim that block is without policy basis; the blocking admin has not explained *why* it should be necessary to jump through arbitrary hoops (sign on with a different account and perform some action) when there is no allegation of account abuse, and when the "identity" of the account is not even an issue. Imagine, for instance, that the user is in a situation where the user is unable to use the primary account for whatever reason. If so, then these admins have just banned a long-term productive user without any policy basis. It also means that a bot account that does regular tasks is de-facto blocked, too. Since the admin has removed talk page and email access I have no way to either discuss the issue or email arbcom for review. Could someone from en-wiki, ideally an admin on en-wiki, fix this problem? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello,
You need to email to unblock-en-l [at] lists.wikimedia [dot] org
Best,
Huib talk Abigor @ meta 00:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you in fact the same user as w:User:Gimmetrow? As far as I can tell, you've never given a straight answer to that question. Your talk page access and email was revoked on the basis that if you were actually Gimmetrow, then you would have the ability to unblock your alternate account. That being said, if you are Gimmetrow, unblock yourself. Otherwise, please stop attempting to pose as another user. Such behavior may result in a global block on your account. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course I am the same user; it was a clearly identified alternate account. Do you not see any problems at all with blocking an alternate account for no clear reason (why - because it says it's an alternate account?) and then demanding, as a condition for unblock, that the editor perform on-wiki actions that could potentially endanger that account or editor? I am particularly troubled the comments here, where even after this was pointed out, you and NW not only uphold the block but want to extend it. I find it rather curious that despite the mess created by NW - neither him not any other editor or admin, excepting kww, has emailed 'trow for clarification. I am not going to reply to kww's email for various reasons. It's too bad someone didn't email 'trow with a unique phrase that could have been used by the 'too account (with clearly identified permission, of course). Gimmetoo (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I've sent a set of codewords to Gimmetrow. If he echoes them correctly, I'll say so.Kww (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In reply to [24], it would be inappropriate to use a bot account for human editing. See Bot policy. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor exception are certainly acceptable. Cheers, Jack Merridew bot (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Apologies to the Commons community for this interruption. Gimmetoo is indeed an alternate account of Gimmetrow, and has been unblocked at enwp. I apologize for the apparent bad faith that has been seen here. I don't know what you do to close threads on this project, but I think you can probably consider this resolved. Risker (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Help me please !!

This user wants to delete all my pictures on Commons, see what is happening File:Adam Lambert at American Music Awards 2.jpg, File:Babi Xavier.jpg can someone help me! Will delete all my pictures ?? Truu (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The bot just nominates, only admins can delete. Nevertheless I blocked the bot for going nuts. axpdeHello! 23:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Is not your pictures because you do not take any of that. You need to learn about copyright, not every picture that is public is free. Béria Lima Msg 06:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, depends on the definition of "my": I for my share regard all files I uploaded to commons as "mine" regardless of the copyright holder! axpdeHello! 07:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

User:SGallery

Please block SGallery (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for repeatedly removing problem tags from their own uploads[25][26][27][28][29] (there are more examples in their deleted contributions; see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Галерея Скульптуры.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Галерея Скульптуры. Прозрачный ландшафт.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Галерея Скульптуры. Старый дом.jpg) in spite of repeated warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please get around to this sooner rather than later, as the behavior continues.[30] —LX (talk, contribs) 13:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Didn't see it earlier - sorry :(. Blocked for three days to give us time to sort things out. Not got time to do more at present I'm afraid. --Herby talk thyme 13:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
They're now evading the block as 95.28.98.94 to continue the behavior. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes - blocked --Herby talk thyme 08:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to PDF file

The link to a PDF file at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Non-Programmer%27s_Tutorial_for_Python_2.6 takes me to "Commons:upload". The link for "printable version" opens a long HTML file, which is what I would have expected. How do I complete the license page of "Commons:upload" to receive the PDF file?

You can't. It's meant to upload files to Commons.
As this seems to be problem at WikiBooks, try Wikibooks:Wikibooks:Reading room/Assistance.  Docu  at 09:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

日本語: ウィキメディア・コモンズ内における諸問題の解決に向けて。
- Serious problem.

日本語: こんにちわ！　見たところコモンズ内での情報の共有化が不完全な様子です。私はこれは世界的に見て何か文化的なことが起因となっていると見ました。　要はコモンズ内のアップロードに関する説明やらについての日本語ページが少ないというのと、日本語のページがあっても中途半端な不完全なものが多い！ということです。日本語化された大抵の記事は・・・「続きはwebで！」みたいな感じです(><)。特に重要なフリッカーなどの他サイトからのファイル転送ソフトの日本語による説明が不完全かあるいは無いです。これは非常に重大な損失であると見受けられます。至急にこの問題が解決されることを私は望みます。

--Corpse Reviver (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Google translation, feel free to improve: - Jmabel ! talk 04:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! This is an incomplete state of information sharing in the Commons apparently. I saw that this is due to some cultural and global perspective. And that do little about Japanese page description of the Commons upload short, often incomplete, even half-baked Japanese page! Is that. Most of the Japanese article, 'It is a web!' I feel like (><). This is an incomplete description of the Japanese or no file transfer software from other sites such as Flickr particular importance. It is very likely to be a very serious loss. That I immediately want to solve this problem."

This doesn't particularly sound to me like an admin problem, and might better be taken to the Village pump, or possibly better yet to Commons:井戸端, its Japanese equivalent. - Jmabel ! talk 04:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Google has translated your text, too.

これは特に私には管理者の問題のように、より良いコモンズ村のポンプ、または可能性がいっそコモンズへ取られるかもしれない：井戸端は、その日本と同等に聞こえるではありません。

日本語: ・・・・（－－；；；）。　なるほど、、つまりえっと、あの井戸端とかいう過疎っておる相談場か英語版のそっちで相談してみてほしい、とのことでしょうか。。あの、、ヨーロッパ旅行するにゃ差し支えないほど複数の言語を扱えるユーザーはたくさんいるようですが、哀しいことながら、日本語の読み書きのできるユーザーはかなーり少ないようなのですよ。。（丁　丁）。だから仕方がないのでここでお願いしてみたのですが、とりあえず、日本語が出来る人を待ってみましょう。　もしもだーれも現れなければ英語レベル１のわたしが血を吐きながらでもガンバッテ日本語化していきまする＞＜；；；　Jmabelさんありがとー。

--Corpse Reviver (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-id.png

The community of Indonesian Wikipedia wants this file (id:File:Wiki-HUTRI1.png) to be their logo at August 17, 2010. (Discussion at id:Wikipedia:Warung_Kopi_(Usulan)#Logo_tematik_HUT_RI) Since File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-id.png is protected, I am seeking help from Commons administrator. Need a fast respond. Thanks. ...Kenrick95 04:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering the size of community, I think more participation is needed for logo change. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 04:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
If your community have wide consensus to this, local sysop can use a CSS hack by changing #p-logo property. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 04:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
CSS hacks are really not the proper way to change the logo of a wiki. They are also completely unsuitable for short-duration changes, since browsers may cache old CSS files for up to 30 days. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should submit a bug to request logo file to be hosted in local wiki. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
bug 24812 submitted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Usually the participants (for temporary logo change) are less than 5. Never more than 20. Usually the temporary logo is shown from D-1 until D+1. One of the sysop in Indonesian Wikipedia has added a code to "CSS Hack" the logo. [31] Thank you for the bug request. ...Kenrick95 14:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

mass deletion of images of the European Parliament building in Strasbourg

Dear other admins,

as the result of my deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:EuropeanParliament.jpg was as expected (delete because there is no Freedom of Panorama in France), I would like to to speedy delete all external views of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, which are not authorised by the European Parliament itself. This means, that probably all images with external views of the EP in Strasbourg will be deleted. Is such a speedy procedure ok in your opinion? --ALE! ¿…? 08:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I fully support that. This FoP is a unresolved problem. Either we are radical and delete them all, or we don't delete any. Amada44  talk to me 08:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
(Not an admin, but I'll comment anyway.) There are two speedy deletion tags that fit the case perfectly: {{FOP-cv}} and the even more specific {{France-cv}}, so I see no problem with speedy deletion. For borderline cases (for example, where the included portion of the building may or may not be significant), go with regular deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Deletion is clearly necessary (sad but nonetheless necessary). I believe that a DR would be a waste of time here, speedy will suit just fine. Rama (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Speedy is fine for majority. However, not all of them are clear cut: For example, File:Strasbourg-Depuis la Robertsau (2).jpg and File:EU-FR-AL-67@Strasbourg-Parc de l'Orangerie 01.jpg are almost certainly fine and File:Cité-jardin Ungemach-Strasbourg(12).jpg could go either way? Send images like those to DR, but speedy the obvious ones.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
These ones also may be fine IMO: File:Institutions europeennes IMG 4297.jpg, File:Flaggen.jpg. Trycatch (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. I will go with the {{France-cv}} for most of them and will be cautious with the borderline cases, like those mentioned by you. --ALE! ¿…? 15:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If this is too late, sorry. I agree with Nilfanion, including the uncertainty about the one, but not with Trycatch -- those are goners, I think.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
File a DR if you want. It's not a speedy case. Trycatch (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
No, they are clearly not speedy deletes and I'm not jumping up and down about it, just expressing an opinion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me?

I accept we all have slightly different views about what is actually within our scope but surely this is debatable? I don't want to be "bitey" with newbies but... Cheers --Herby talk thyme 06:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that is worth a deletion request. MBisanz talk 07:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
{{Userpage image}}? Rocket000 (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes - that would work for me I think. --Herby talk thyme 08:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A bugged bot

On a somewhat related note to the section above, User:Lucia Bot operated by User:Beria appears to be tagging numerous files for deletion under the reasoning that they were uploaded by User:Truu and are copyright violations. Unfortunately, it is putting files other users have uploaded in the deletion request as well. Normally, I wouldn't bring something like this to an admin noticeboard, but the bot might be bugged. I have brought up the bot bug possibility to the bot operator. I'm not requesting any action be taken against the operator, I'm just giving notice.--Rockfang (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above I blocked the bot for a week, that should be sufficient time to clarify what went wrong! axpdeHello! 23:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the block length be switched to indefinite. According to the bot request archive, there was only one bot request for that account name and it was closed as failed/stale. I checked Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Lucia_Bot for any other requests, but there doesn't appear to be.--Rockfang (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course, if a bot request is filed and then approved, I would suggest the bot be unblocked.--Rockfang (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the extension to indef, especially as the edit summary of the edits adding {{Delete}} is "clean up".  Docu  at 07:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
If the "bot" misbehaves after this first block is lifted, an indefinite block is in order. I'd wait until then. --O (谈 • висчвын) 19:15, 15 August 2010 (GMT)
If by "misbehaves" you mean "makes an edit", then I agree. The bot has not been approved for any use yet.--Rockfang (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this was clear, but it's just the bot account that should be blocked, not the operator.  Docu  at 21:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I concur.--Rockfang (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin abusing his power

Admin Geagea is abusing his admin privileges, he reverts me then he locks the image: [32] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote you in your talk page. Geagea (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
As you apparently know "If you have any problem with my edits, bring it up at the talkpage and don't just revert" - how about YOU bring it up at the talk page rather than just reverting it? Geagea was responding to someone changing the description to a more inflammatory version. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the rules here at wikimedia, but at Wikipedia an admin involved in a content dispute is not allowed to use his admin power for his advantage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
There's no such rule regarding vandalism, which may be what Geagea considered it - I can't claim to speak for them, but it's one possible view. There has been a lot of bad blood over Israeli/Palestine conflict here recently. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Non of my edits were vandalism. So it appears that Geagea did indeed misuse his admin powers. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
You revert first the uploader her and then you revert me her. And according to your answer you intended to do it over and over. The uploaders file description was'nt wrong. I revert to the uploaders last version and protect it. The description is natural. It does not says that Golan Heights is Israeli or Syrian. It does not says that it's "Israeli-occupied" or not. Pleas read what I wrote to you in your talk page and start to use the talk page. You can see good example her. Geagea (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The soldiers depicted on the image look Israeli to me, judging from their apparent use of the M-16 and the shape of their helmets. Furthermore, they appear to be decoys made of strong cardboard, or some similar material, judging by the barrel of the rifle of the leftmost soldier; this would suggest that the installation has a military rather than a commemorative of artistic purpose. I am not certain that "Israeli-occupied Golan Heights" is the best way to convoy this, but the description certainly leaves room for improvements -- I definitly do not think that snow is the real subject of the image.
Adding the country in "Golan Heights, Syria" is definitly not vandalism. I would prefer a link like [[:en:Golan Heights|Golan Heights]], but the facts that the Golan Heights are a Syrian territory is not a serious debate. And captions do benefit from good contextual information (and "occupation" is not a loaded word; you do say that Germany was occupied by the Allies after the Second World War, it doesn't make the Allies the baddies in the story).
This makes me think these edits cannot be qualified of "vandalism" without a serious exasperation. Supreme Deliciousness's behaviour is not beyond reproach, but the conversation that Geagea cites as an example contains a comment by him stating "You dony know it for sure. And you dont know when thos specific buildings destroyed or if they destroyed Israel" (sic); I'd therefore suggest that people actually listen to each other and maybe re-read their own comments before pressing the "save page" button. Rama (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone object...

..if I return User:Diego Grez's rollback rights? It has been like 3 months since they were revoked, and I feel that the admin was a little strict than what Diego could have used as learning experience:

(in order as listed here)
  • 1. [33] - Simple mistake that even I recall myself doing in the past.
  • 2. [34] - It is easy to get confused because there was already a subpage created, in which the IP did not file the second deletion request. Diego noted that he thought it was vandalism. That DR was finished by the same admin who revoked his rights, so I could assume Diego should know what to do the next time he comes across a situation like this.
  • 3. [35] Well it isn't rollback, to begin with. Diego used rollback in the previous diff but undos his action few minutes later. Can't see what the problem is in this situation.
  • 4. [36] - Another simple mistake (not even rollback) and we all know that checking talk pages is something we sometimes ignore.
And I could continue. Because of the rights being revoked, Diego has not patrolled due to "undo" being tedious. His recent contributions show he is (or has been) back on track. If we could trust Diego for filemover than I think we could trust Diego for rollback. If no one objects within a couple days than I'll proceed. Hope you can share my feelings. ZooFari 01:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
DG has made great advances over the past few months, so I see no problem with this. Rollback can easily be revoked again if any issues arise, which seems unlikely. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose to this, DiegoGrez has shown on mediawiki.org that he is still not using tools by a policy, he was almost emergency desyssop there but Catrope give him a last warning there. I do not want to see this user with rollback here where it already has been revoked 2 times. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 08:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I suggest against giving this user rollback rights. He has already lost it twice. How many times does a user need to gain and then lose a right before we realise maybe they shouldn't get it again?--Rockfang (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
If we continue with "I do not want to see this user with rollback here" and "maybe they shouldn't get it again", Diego is not going to go any farther, and he has mentioned to me that moving on is one of his priorities. I'd be glad to volunteer mentorship if the community feels more comfortable this way, and I will direct Diego to this discussion to see if he's interested. ZooFari 18:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it would be a good experience. Diego Grez return fire 18:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
@ZooFari: So where do we draw the line? Do we just keep removing and restoring rights indefinitely? This user was given a 2nd chance and didn't do so well.--Rockfang (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
secondly, I don't see anti vandalism work wherefor Rollback is needed, and we draw that as a line to give rollback... Get it when you need it let him do anti vandalism work / patrolling for a while without rollback so he can show that he is changed. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 20:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
So what. I did patrol without rollback for a while, but it is too annoying to just undo edits, when rollback does the job quickly. May I remind you? You removed the rights on May 24. I still patrol. Diego Grez return fire 20:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As the administrator who dealt with Diego on the English Wikipedia, I have no problem with this request. Rollback is not a big deal. I don't think many problems are going to arise by granting this tool, but I must remind you only to use rollback on blatant vandalism. If in doubt, use undo, or ask for an explanation before reverting. This should be an easy-come, easy-go tool, and with Diego's improved status on other wikis, I think we should at least give it a try. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
@Diego, So use the undo function first for a while to show that you need it... Huib talk Abigor @ meta 20:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me remind you that you revoked his rights because of undo actions. Rockfang, there is no line, as we should not assume bad faith indefinitely either. I've offered my help, and waiting more months looks unnecessary to me. ZooFari 20:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Its pretty simple, if he doesn't want to help out using undo and skips those actions, because he patrols why should we give it to him? If he doesn't need / use it now he doesn't need it.   Oppose Huib talk Abigor @ meta 20:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
We all prefer a shovel than a spoon just like Diego. You have approved users who have not demonstrated a need for rollback. That's because things don't work like that at Commons:Requests for rights anymore. If a user wants rollback and he/she looks trusted, than he/she gets it. Why would the standards for DG be different? But anyways, I made an attempt to help a user progress but if I can't even help him obtain rollback then it's gonna be slow. ZooFari 21:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Little bit strange that we don't have a support consensus but it has been given anyway. Why even bother to discuss it then when people just give rights. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 10:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Neutral observation: The count appears to be:
  • In favor
  1. ZooFari
  2. Juliancolton
  3. PeterSymonds
  • Opposed:
  1. Huib
  2. Rockfang
All but Rockfang are Admins. While that's not an overwhelming margin, it is on the side of supporting the action taken.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
BTW according to the policy the right couldn't be given this way Commons:Rollback Users who have had their rollback permission revoked may not be re-granted the permission without a formal application on Commons:Requests for rights. But let him mess-up again, so we can revoke it again and he can ask again and we have a circle. Huib talk Abigor @ meta 11:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
@Jim: Are you implying that because I'm not an admin, my opinion carries less weight? If so, that doesn't seem right.--Rockfang (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little annoyed about Huib's reaction, assuming bad faith on the user who didn't even ask for rollback in the first place. Both Rockfang and Huib imply that a "cycle" shall continue. I expressed my opinion about it here and believe that the argument should be disregarded. Diego had his rollback revoked three times, two which were not legitimate, and the third being the one I raised my objections above. It is too early to start assuming bad faith and predicting that we will be going in circles. Maybe after the 5th removal I will believe you. ZooFari 20:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thumbnails problems with large images

I recently noticed that Baablek featured picture is no longer generating a thumbnail!

 

The problem seems to be common with other jpg pictures:

 
 

A direct access to the thumbnail returns the following error message:

Error generating thumbnail
Error creating thumbnail:


This is rather urgent matter, since some featured pictures are going to be displayed on the main page as picture of the day August 20, and August 27. --Banzoo (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

See Bugzilla: 24824. Kaldari (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the history of file description

Dear admins, I've changed my username to Skykid_123ve for privacy reasons. However, all this files I've uploaded to Commons: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 years ago contain, in the File History, my old username, which I would now like to keep private. I've manually changed the author tag from those files to match my new user name. Is it possible to delete my old username from the File History & Comments and just keep the rest? If you need additional information, please let me know. Thank you. --alltheboys 23:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Before you go to much further please read COM:USERNAME#Changing_your_username there are copyright issues with what you've done so far. Gnangarra 01:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I've read it. What do you mean by saying there are copyright issues with what I've done? --alltheboys 05:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Skykid_123ve, could you prove that both of those users are 'you' by writing something here with your old username? Otherwise how would we know that you are not just trying to hijack those images,... Once you have done that, I will help you with your request. Amada44  talk to me 07:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Amada44, yes I know I have to prove it, no problem. Just one thing, how can I write something with my old username since my old username was deleted or at least should have? In the mean time, here's my rename request.--alltheboys 01:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think accounts can actually be deleted per se, it would be a violation of the GFDL, so in principle it should be there somewhere. -mattbuck (Talk)
Hi, you just need to login again with your old account and it will create the account again --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 07:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
But, btw, I don't think that confirmation from the old account is needed, it was a legitimate username change, upload history doesn't change (I think) because are static, but if you see the page history you can see the new name as the first contribution --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 07:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

yes its fine. continued on user talk page. Amada44  talk to me 09:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Idh0854

Please have a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Idh0854 , the user is making mass reversions and changes to the maps in the name of NPOV, but they're coming off as edit-warring.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems they are normally discussing over the issue with civility.   No block needed. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Note for Admins on Picasa Review

Moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Note for Admins on Picasa Review – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Do many Admins here know about this block of images of unmarked images in Picasa review. I marked many in the past as a trusted user but the backlog still stays stubbornly high. Once it was 150+ images. Now, its 75+ but its still too much for me to mark them all. Can some Admins mark some of these images in small bites of say 10-12 images? Just curious. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll give a check ;) Regards, --Màñü飆¹5 talk 02:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediawiki Helppage page update

MediaWiki talk:Helppage/ca. Thanks. -Aleator (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

  Done but please use {{Editprotected}} next time --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:22, 23 August 2010 (GMT)

Retirement

I have copied the following in its entirety from User talk:Fernrohr:

I didn't expect to win many new friends when I was nominating some images on Commons for deletion. What I didn't expect either, was such an amount of bad faith, which amongst other aggressions led one user to block me on my home Wiki. Other users get harassed as well, even a Checkuser request was started because I dared to nominate images uploaded by an administrator. I will therefore retire from Commons after my pending nominations have been decided by the community. Until now, most nominated images were deleted, so I have no problem with what I did. There are several Wikpedia users in the family, I will have fun watching my grandkids using it. Commons certainly has enough other users, who are able to nominate copyvios. --Fernrohr (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the harassment that User:Fernrohr reports, if correct, is a disgrace. While it is true that some of his DR nominations were borderline, all of them deserved serious consideration as violations of copyright. I note, as well, that when one of his mass deletions was correctly challenged, he promptly removed all the DR templates and cleaned it up.

The FOP rules seem to gather more irrational inclusionists than other subjects. We, as Admins, need to protect hard-working, well intentioned, Users both here and on their home wikis. If User:Fernrohr will provide us details, we should follow up on his accusations as they appear to lay out a pattern of misuse of our policies.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The nomination of imgages for deletion is not the reason of the checkuser request on de. There is reasonable suspicion, that Fernrohr is a sockpuppet, used mainly for wikihounding other users in the german wikipedia. --Engie (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No. The CU against me and others came when I appealed my block on DE, and the block came when I nominated the same image of a certain user, which was previously deleted on Commons, and which I found also on DE. The block reason was stated as "image vandalism", not "sock puppetry". I later realised that I nominated several of his images on Commons. Thanks for your kind words Jim, maybe I will upload some pictures to Commons when I find the time, but not in the near future. --Fernrohr (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
This is typical of what can happens when one makes deletion nominations images of administrators. Disgraceful indeed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The block reason was image vandalism AND sock puppetry (exactly bypassing a block). The formal Checkuser request containing almost 45 kB of evidence for massive misuse of sock puppets over several years followed just an hour after appealing the block (which followed the block immediately) and has been puzzled together by several users. It's hard to believe that it's a spontaneous vengeance campaign against an innocent user. --YMS (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
By the way, the discussion about what was the reason or not is a bit amazing here. Everybody can check the CU request and visit the funny google translator. -jkb- (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Transwiking galleries from Wikipedia

Hello Commons admins. At wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Old NAC AfD never transwikied, we've discovered that several "gallery" articles entirely made up of images of flags or other pictures were supposed to be transwikied from Wikipedia to Commons, but it was never done. Does anyone know the procedure for doing this? There's 19 galleries in all. Fences and windows (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I will try. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 03:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
About 15 pages are   Done. en:Gallery of flags by design was unable to import due to massive history and conflicting commons gallery has been maintained. – Kwj2772 (msg) 05:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
You're a star. Thanks. Fences and windows (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Were eligible en-wiki images transferred along with them? ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm gonna ask a steward about transwiking the one remaining gallery. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything I can help you with? --Dferg (talk · meta) 20:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, no, not necessary. I've just seen that Kwj didn't import the one gallery because we had one ourselves. Sorry for bugging you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Regards, --Dferg (talk · meta) 10:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Football kits

Hello Can you block Bruno-ban that keeps adding non-free logos on the shirts? Cordially --SS10' (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed there, and it doesn't seem those tiny, barely recognizable logos are a problem. –Tryphon☂ 16:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
At the very least, he needs to upload them as separate images so that: 1) there is no need to edit war over them; 2) individual projects can decide whether or not they want to use graphics that will quickly be out of date. Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

He keeps saying that I am a vandal and I should go to jail. Proof: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kit_body_fcgb1011h.png?uselang=f I request arbitration. Regards. SS10' (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You should not go to jail, but you should stop edit warring. The images with logos are fine, and if you want a different version, you should upload it with a new name. –Tryphon☂ 13:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
@SS10' : It already have been said that this kit are probably not a problem. Why do you continue? Everybody say you stop but you don’t, I’m sorry but you looks like a vandal ! Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 13:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Blinked Kentwood

Blinked Kentwood (talk · contribs), sulutil:Blinked Kentwood is pasting probable copyvios images of w:Helena Bonham Carter to many wikis. User blanked deletion discussions here. Someone take over on this, please. I have a plane to catch. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Images deleted, user warned. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

replacing images with smaller versions

User:PaulT replaces his uploaded files with smaller versions (e.g. File:Tram sign de Sh1.jpg) -- 78.55.198.14 05:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I made an edit on his draft page and explained the use as Amanda44 suggested. I hope that will help. --Schlurcher (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Iglesia San Pedro.jpg

Please delete the revisions of File:Iglesia San Pedro.jpg uploaded by Toperez and Jrenueva on top of the original file, which is what the file description and license apply to. The version uploaded by Toperez appears to have been nicked from http://sites.google.com/site/zaragozaproyecto/monumentos-y-patrimonio/mudejar, while the file uploaded by Jrenueva was nicked from https://www.panoramio.com/photo/6173643. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  Sorted thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Cassock.jpg

Please delete the revision of File:Cassock.jpg uploaded by User:Nokia ST, which is unsourced and as such, possibly a copyright violation – which would hardly be a first for this user. It is also the basis for the manipulated version File:Michail Belicoff.PNG (rather blatantly out of scope and supposedly sourced from Template:Google, whatever that's supposed to mean). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  Sorted thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Logos on football kits

I'm not familiar with copyright issues and such, but as far as I know, using trademarked logos on files you upload here is a blatant copyvio. So, what should we do with this user that keeps adding the club crest and the Adidas logo to File:Kit body acm1011h.png, File:Kit body acm1011a.png and File:Kit body acm1011t.png? Besides, it seems he has uploaded many other football kits with logos and crests on it. Luxic (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're clear here, we are talking about the logos that are about five pixels high in one case and six pixels wide in another? At that size, they are de minimus. I would argue that at the size they are you cannot tell whose logo they are. If the jerseys were 1,000 pixels high, even then, some of us might argue that the logos would be de minimus.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for answering! Oh, by the way, it's spelt de minimis. Luxic (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The logos may be de minimis, but there is a bigger problem here. The kits (uniforms) themselves are copyrighted unless they are simple enough to meet {{PD-textlogo}}. With the extra bits added, the kits are no longer simple enough to be exempt from copyright protection. Thus the logos need to be removed. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the spelling -- can I plead a "Senior Moment"?
As far as the question raised by User:Kaldari goes, I don't think I agree, at least in this case. The uniform shown is very simple, stripes and shoulderboards. It is, as we agree, PD. You don't then, make it a problem by adding something from another source unless the added material is itself a problem. Putting it another way, the creator of the uniform cannot find fault with us because the basic uniform is PD -- too simple. The creator of the Adidas logo cannot find fault with us because it is too small to be distinguished. Even granted that that the copyright in the club crest is owned by the club, putting it on the uniform at this size doesn't show anything with any originality.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The central issue isn't actually the copyright of the images, it's the copyright of the actual uniforms (of which the images are derivatives). The actual uniforms without the logos are arguably simple enough to not be copyrighted. Once logos, numbers, names, and other graphics are added to the uniforms, it becomes more difficult to argue that they are too simple to attract copyright. Just the task of deciding where all these logos and graphics should be positioned on the uniform involves a tiny bit of creativity. At a certain point the uniform itself becomes a "creative work". At what point that threshold is crossed is debatable. If we create a derivative image of a version of the uniform that is beyond that threshold, the image is also copyrighted by the team (regardless of the copyright status of any one component of the image). We need to stay on the safe side of that threshold in my opinion, and only host images that are derivatives of the simplest versions of the uniforms, i.e. without extra logos and graphics. Kaldari (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, Jim! I'm Italian, so I have an "unfair advantage" when it comes to Latin... :-P Going back to the topic, I'm not an expert of copyright laws — as I said beofre — but for what I can tell, Kaldari seems to have a point there. If you go to en.wiki, for instance, Template:Football kit states that the template is for showing basic team colours and it is not supposed to be an accurate drawing of the kit. The reason might be the one pointed out by Kaldari. Luxic (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for stupid question, but why logo on kit is so important? Just don't use them, and I hope world will not fall apart :-) --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I freely admit that I am translating my own considerable US experience to a non US situation, but, in the US:

  • You can't sell a copy of a complete Boston Red Sox shirt without a license, which covers both trademark and copyright issues.
  • You can, however, make and sell exactly the same shirt with a Little League team logo (or any other team logo that you have the rights to use) in place of the Boston Red Sox trademark lettering. (You must also remove a very small MLB patch.) The similarities would include color, striping, type face and color of lettering, placement of lettering on the front, back, and sleeves, and so forth. At the pixel size we are discussing you could not distinguish from a genuine Red Sox shirt and it would be perfectly legal as a shirt.

There is also another issue. If, indeed, the football clubs have a legitimate copyright in their uniforms, then every photograph of someone wearing a uniform is a derivative work and would require consent of the club. You might argue de minimis if the subject were David Beckham, but not if it were some anonymous person. Since we don't require such consent, somehow we argue that a uniform that has a person in it is OK, but one that does not is copyvio? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

The truth here, at least in the USA, is that the teams don't rely on copyright to protect their rights in uniforms, they rely on trademark, because trademark covers a lot of things copyright doesn't, including color and typeface. Since trademark is not a problem for us, I suggest we stop worrying about it in cases like this.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with trademarks. The reason you can reuse the basic colors and style of a Boston Red Sox jersey for a little league team is because the basic colors and style are too simple to be copyrighted. This is the exact same reason why we can reproduce the basic jersey here. If the basic jersey consisted of complicated swirls instead of simple stripes, we wouldn't be able to reproduce it on Commons. Similarly, if the jersey design includes particularly placed graphics (regardless of whether they are logos or not) it becomes a "creative work" and can then be copyrighted (but only the complicated version of it, not the simpler version without the graphics). If it is a copyrighted creative work, we can't reproduce it on Commons. Thus all of our jersey/kit/uniform graphics must be based on the simplest versions in order to assure that they meet the conditions of {{PD-textlogo}} (which is a badly named template as it is used for many other cases besides logos). Kaldari (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course we could reproduce swirls, most likely. Clothes are not copyrightable; placement of items on them I don't see being copyrightable either. Complicated patterns maybe in some situations, but you are really stretching things. Can you give a reference for a case like this of such a graphic or photograph being ruled a copyright violation of clothing? Color choice has little to do with it either, as far as I know. I think User:Jameslwoodward is basically correct; this type of thing is almost entirely a trademark (or trade dress) concern, with little or nothing to do with copyright. Photos of players in sports kit should always be fine. Copyrightable logos used on graphics may be an issue though... that is likely a bad idea. (Lots of sports teams U.S. logos are probably PD though; at some point or another they were likely published without a copyright notice (say on ticket stubs or something like that) prior to 1989.) Many logos are not copyrightable. From a practical perspective, I'm not sure what good adding virtually unrecognizable logos actually does, but I think the copyright concerns (trademark is a completely different area of law) discussed here are way overblown. I really cannot fathom actual copyright in team kits (placement of numbers etc. are typically the same across all teams and are not creative anyways). You'd have to cite some cases to convince me otherwise :-) There are people trying to make fashion copyrightable, but clothing to this point is usually not (and explicitly not in the U.S.). Photos of people wearing clothing should virtually never be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
If you are correct, someone needs to rewrite Commons:Image casebook#Sports uniforms.2Fkits and Commons:Image_casebook#Clothing. I'm afraid I don't understand, however, why swirls on a canvas are copyrighted, but swirls on a jersey wouldn't be. Shouldn't our standard for PD-ineligible works be the same regardless of medium? And where does it say that clothing is uncopyrightable in the U.S.? I haven't heard that before. Kaldari (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Clothing, as a general rule, is considered a utilitarian article and not copyrightable. Here is the synopsis of one case; Here is another case where a company tried to register a costume as "soft sculpture" (since the Copyright Office routinely rejects copyright on costumes), and was basically found guilty of fraud for that description. You are correct that fabric designs can be copyrightable (as they are "separable" from the utilitarian aspects), but they would have to be some fairly complex shapes, or involve the arrangement and selection of a number of colors -- stripes and 2-3 colors won't do it, I'm pretty sure. Swirls are common shapes, and probably wouldn't be copyrightable by themselves either, I'd guess -- though I'm sure there may be exceptions. Also see Copyright Office guidelines: mere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work. For example, it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. (and more from that paragraph). [Unrelated to sport kits, I'm pretty sure there has been at least one case where costume masks were deemed not utilitarian and therefore copyrightable, though.] Logos are "separable" of course, so if copyrightable they may be an issue (unless so small as to be de minimis). These are all U.S. rules of course, and the details may well differ in other countries, but in general I would have a hard time thinking that sort of thing is copyrightable -- the instantly recognizable combination of colors for a team is more the realm of trademark, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
How close are we to a final ruling on this? User:Bruno-ban certainly seems to think he is right to add and re-add logos to as many kits as possible. MattM4> 17:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
@Clindberg: "You are correct that fabric designs can be copyrightable (as they are "separable" from the utilitarian aspects), but they would have to be some fairly complex shapes, or involve the arrangement and selection of a number of colors." So is this complex enough? Is this? The designs we're talking are complex graphics. We aren't diagramming the shape and form of the shirts (the utilitarian aspects); We're purely reproducing the graphic design - the specifically copyrightable aspect. So if we agree that this type of graphic is copyrightable (as a derivative of the uniform design), what is the threshold at which they are too complex to be public domain? Kaldari (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Can the graphic itself be copyrightable? Yes probably. A derivative work of the fabric design? I can't see how. The first one is simply vertical stripes with two colors; nowhere near copyrightable. The second is basically the Greek flag; also not copyrightable. I do see an Adidas version of that Greek jersey with some particular shapes on it.. that may be different, but even if that is the one depicted here, it is so small as to just be a couple of curves now. Most of the fabric design copyrights have been used to prevent people using similar designs in clothing (or rugs, etc.), and never to photographs or drawings like this as far as I have been able to find. I don't think this type of thing is a copyright violation. Logos are a separate issue; they may be, but could also be de minimis (or reduced in size so much as to be unrecognizable, maybe not even a derivative work). But "legal" isn't really the same thing as "good idea" -- don't those sponsors change every year, etc.? Seems like a silly thing to try to keep current on, particularly if these graphics are used for teams over multiple years. That is an editorial judgement though, and in general image uploaders should not be overwriting images with their own versions if there is any kind of dispute; rather they should upload separate images and let individual projects determine which versions they want to use. Changing images on Commons so to remove that choice from the individual wikipedias is terrible practice, and is what seems to be occurring here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • the basic colors and design arent copyrightable, so there is no issue with having them they are also relatively stable over time. The inclusion of the crests, and sponsor logo's can be addressed by photographs of players/supporters which then have date/time/place/context attached, as such things change over shorter time periods. Gnangarra 01:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys, listen...

The situation at File:Kit body acm1011h.png, File:Kit body acm1011a.png and File:Kit body acm1011t.png is becoming unbearable. There's a constant edit war! So, instead of keep arguing over whether kit desings are copyrightable or not, wouldn't it be better to simply decide what we have to do with the logos? Luxic (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Pretty much all the pages for kit graphics he's uploaded are like that. History of changes back and forth constantly growing. Let's have a ruling on this please. MattM4> 17:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
It does appear that the person adding the logos was the original uploader. Perhaps upload a different, non-logo version under another name, and change the use on the wikipedia to the new image. Edit wars are awful; just have both images available and choose whichever seems best. I frankly can't see a copyright issue here with such small bitmaps -- the copyrightable expression in the logo is pretty much obliterated. If someone makes vector versions of course, full-quality logos cannot go on those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree. These edit wars have to stop, and the only way out is to keep two separate versions, one with and one without logos, if the latter is really needed. –Tryphon☂ 20:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes the edit wars need to stop, but having two versions isn't a viable solution at all. The reason why the user in question is making all these shirts is for them to be used and seen, if we started changing the team pages where they are being used to a new design he would only follow closely begind and edit them back to his. The number of pages with silly edits back and forth would grow exponentially. No, there needs to be a final ruling on whether logos are to be allowed or not. MattM4> 00:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, some think they are a good idea, and some think they are a bad idea. It follows that some wikipedias may prefer one version, and others may prefer the other -- so we should have both, at this point. You seem to be asking us to enforce an editorial choice via copyright. It may be there are edit wars moved to the wikipedia instead, but at least you will get discussion among the editors there which is where it belongs. Certainly not here. I think it is pretty clear there is no copyright issue on these tiny bitmaps; Commons would not delete either version, so use the one you prefer. If the original uploader wants logos on his image, then please upload another under a separate name. If copyright was the *only* concern, then leave it be I guess. If the logos were larger, or were vector, yes there would be issues. But not on things this small. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

All the elements I've seen reproduced in these football kit images are clearly PD-ineligible. It's not even arguable in my mind. Stripes and color schemes aren't copyrightable. Simple geometric shapes aren't copyrightable. They may be creative, but copyright is about originality. Lots of things can be done creatively, but are not copyrighted (furniture arrangement, landscaping, hair style, planning events, etc.—creativity is everywhere). Furthermore, (US) copyright law defines what can be copyrighted[37]; it's for "works" only, not everything we design/create. It's true that "separable artistic features of two-dimensional and three-dimensional useful articles" are definitely eligible for copyright which would include logos, however all the logos I've seen are either simple shapes or so small that they're ok. And I don't mean ok as in a de minimis way but so small they couldn't possibly contain originality. They're like 5px. No matter what the original logo looks like, 5 pixels is just not enough to be able to pass that threshold of originality. One thing to note: these images themselves may be eligible for copyright (by the creator) since some might be non-trivial expressions of the subject. Consider this a "ruling" on the matter (or don't :P). The images are perfectly fine copyright-wise, if you still disagree over what version to use, upload them with different names. Rocket000 (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_22&oldid=264577799"