Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 5

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

unfree flickr images

What to do with flickr images which are unfree if i check they immediately after uplaod? I think they are candidates for speedy deleteion, right? Follow images uploaded by User:FlickrLickr today are not free:

--GeorgHH 17:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

FlickrLickr shouldn't be uploading anything but CC-BY images. Something has gone wrong here. Jkelly 18:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The list of FlickrLickr images comes from a Flickr API request for CC-BY images. User:Eloquence can clarify, but the query has either been done once, long ago, or sometimes, but not during review or on upload. When a volunteer reviews the proposed images, the license status may already have been changed, and again when the batch of images is uploaded here. Our trust in the Flickr review process is based on a partly automated one-off verification of license status, and while FlickrLickr is equally a one-off process, the license verification is totally automated. It would perhaps be nice if the FlickrLickr script rechecked the license during FlickrLickr review and/or on upload, but unnecessary when we rely on the "once free, always free" principle. --Para 18:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange case. It's very odd that the images changed license the same day they were uploaded. It could be coincidence, but it might be a good idea to have see what Eloquence has to say, whether or not this could be a bug. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You misread; the license is not verified on the day of upload, but at some earlier time, very likely long ago. While it's possible that the licenses changed on the day of upload, it probably really happened weeks or months ago. --Para 23:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Once free, always free" isn't quite accurate. As the CC FAQ says, you can't revoke the license that someone else received your image under, but you can change the license that you distribute it under. FlickrLickr should only upload images under the license that it itself receives the image under, which would be the license on the page at the time FlickrLickr downloads it, not the license that was there some time in the past.

BTW, I found another one - Image:Small-aricraft.jpg; it's not just the Wimbledon photos. --Davepape 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

True true. Having helped with FlickrLickr review, it seems it's only downloading the images from Flickr when it's told to upload a batch here, even though the authors may not be distributing them with cc-by anymore. FlickrLickr only needs to be fixed to mirror all the result images then, though about 93% of them will go to waste. Or is that unethical, and should it instead recheck the license when a human reviewer finds an image useful? --Para 23:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Flickr-change-of-license exists specifically for Flickr images whose license has been changed by the uploader. See the FAQ on User:FlickrLickr.--Eloquence 21:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted before being used, I am the flicklickr of this set of pics (attributed 8+ months ago but reviewed only last days by lazyness :*). Greudin

Wikipedia FP vandalism

Image:Plunging bronco, Bar Diamond Bar range.jpg is the Picture of the Day on Wikipedia and it is being vandalized by User:HatesWM2. If it was on Wikipedia I'd block him, but I just have to keep reverting. Please do something!--HereToHelp (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A local copy has been uploaded to en:. I've deleted the vandal revisions here and protected the image. Jkelly 03:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

In the future, please remember that at en.wikipedia, you do have the quicker option of temporarily downloading an image that is appearing on your main page, using en:Template:C-uploaded. Thanks. Zzyzx11 03:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Cup and trophy

In the Commons:Deletion requests#March_31, ther is a lot of cups and trophies propose to deletion by Thugchildz (talk · contribs) with this argument : Same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cricket World Cup trophy.png; in violation of Commons:Derivative works. So could I delete all ? VIGNERON * ^discut. 07:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The user that nominated them is "unhappy" because one of the pictures he took from a cup were deleted. So I would not trust his judgement. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

But what's the difference beetween the deleted cup(s) and the keeped ones ? VIGNERON * ^discut. 10:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Vigneron, as I understand it, the image Thugchildz uploaded was from Flickr. It was confirmed via correspondence with the Flickr uploader that he or she picked the image off of the Internet and was indeed not the rights owner. It was thus a violation of the copyright of some unknown individual. I originally thought any image of a trophy would be an un-free derivative work, but User:Rtc and User:Lupo corrected me. Relevant discussion can be of course found at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cricket World Cup trophy.png but also at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 4#Urgent: Potential copyvio but I cannot tag the image because it is a protected page. It seems I created an unwarranted rush to delete all trophy images. Regards, --Iamunknown 03:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious Ferrol activity

I worked with Commons:Welcome log/04/7/2007 and noticed several users (Ferroliño, MGPita, Javy Rodeiro, The WiZaRD, J. Luis Suarez, Druida Artabro, Pablo Cinza) who upload Ferrol-related images. All images uploaded as {{PD-self}} and lacks EXIF info. Description contains only Category:Ferrol. I think CheckUser will be very useful. --EugeneZelenko 15:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been looking into this. Thank you for the report, you've done a good job. My findings will be posted later. --Gmaxwell 19:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And User:Daniel Santos too. Descriptions are different, but EXIF still missing. --EugeneZelenko 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The new "Clean the Commons!" project

Dear admins/sysops,
a list of images from the Commons that have no copyright tag is available in the "Clean the Commons!" project. It's a small project based on the Polish-language Wikipedia version. In few words: I've created the list using Duesentrieb's Untagged Images tool – now we have to check it section by section basing on this directives. Every pair of hands would be very helpful. Regards, /odder 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Persian miniatures

Someone doesn’t like Persian miniatures. --Polarlys 22:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Graphic lab

The Graphic Lab and the Graphic Village Pump aim to transform Commons from an uploaders' community to a true working graphist community, based on the four graphic skills and interests categories.
This project is in the beginning stages: please talk everywhere about it. Feel free to request image improvements and technical explanations. Active contributors are also really needed to lead the project too. All help is welcome to do this important turn !

Yug (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Reworded and pasted for Yug by -- Editor at Large • talk 09:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Need to put a link in the navigation box

This turn will also need to add the link "Graphic Village Pump" in the navigation box, just under the Wimedia Logo (top lef). The current Village pump will then be divide into 2 new willage pump :

Current Commons:Village pump : will become the "Legal forum and general issues"
Commons:Graphic Village Pump : will host all technical graphic talks, as may headline "Here we talk how to draw/make files (on various softs and free formats)"

I ask here the agreement of the community. Please state your agreement or opposition for this idea to add a link such "Graphic Village Pump" in the navigation box : more support we have, faster we will be able to do this. (and more efficient we will be) Yug (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Because of my final exam, I go to a wikibreak and will not answer easily. Factual & current leader, see Editor at Large • talk

Support - I think commons have all the tools in hand to do this move, add this link is need. Yug (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tom Denham

If someone could check out this user's contributions... looks fishy to me. Several photos, obviously professionally done of a model. Why would these be donated to the public domain? Also, the model is a minor and her name is given, which could be problematic... I would at least like to see some indication that the minor's guardians have signed off on that. One of the pictures has already been used for borderline trolling on the English Wikipedia. Herostratus 02:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at the source-link of the images: you can see that the updater is 'belginusanl'. And surprisingly (sarcasm), thats User:Belginusanl, a user that's been blocked under various account on en.wp, for continiously uploading pictures of minors. --Tuvic 10:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Which Herostratus probably knew... see [1] or also en:User talk:Jessica93. I don't know why this guy insists of uploading these images to any other photography site on the Internet (e.g. [2] (with a scan of a model release) or [3], or just Google for "belginusanl"). He's also known at the Dutch Wikipedia. (See nl:Overleg gebruiker:Lynn20 and nl:Overleg gebruiker:Belginusanl.) It appears to be always the same: he uploads his images of minors, gets told that we don't want them, and then starts sockpuppeting. Lupo 12:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why either, but I'm getting pretty tired of reverting this guy every 2 weeks. He's quite persistant. --Tuvic 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

reset

Looking at the WP page I've indef blocked this user. I consider that they are attempting to evade the WP block by coming here. Someone with more knowledge should look at the pictures. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

While we're at this, what about Special:Contributions/Vipperman? At least there the identity of the girls is not revealed... yet where's the model release? Lupo 14:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, kill them both. Same as this one. --Gmaxwell 15:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not this guy again... -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Denham's images are protected against recreation now and both these users are indef'd --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I unprotected one of the images and watchlisted it. Is handy to see when he has returned. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Symode09

User:Symode09 seems to be a chronic copyvioer. [4] and [5]. Can someone verify the authenticity of his other uploads? 24.76.121.182 07:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

He's also linking to [6] in his signature, which seems inappropriate; note also the Wikinews trademark vio that seems to be present there. I don't know. 24.76.121.182 07:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Now archved at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive81#User:Symode09. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Another batch of Shuppiluliuma socks

All uploads are copyvios, please purge with fire. See earler report here: [7]

Thanks, --Future Perfect at Sunrise 22:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you might want to hold off deleting them for the moment, because I'm currently hoping to get in contact with the actual photographers / copyright holders and negotiate a proper release after all. Future Perfect at Sunrise 20:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This could well be another one User:Mehmet Kerem Tuncay --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is. I have now finally been in contact with the real people behind all this and am confident the licensing is actually genuine. So please just let them be. There are two photographers involved here, one Asim K. and one Kerem Tuncay, who are close real-life friends; the user who did the uploads is actually Asim, speaking on behalf of his friend, but I have trustworthy confirmation that the other guy is also real and agrees with everything. The user is formally still banned on enwiki, for a variety of other reasons, but we are sort of informally tolerating him as long as he edits constructively; the images are okay and many of them are actually quite a valuable addition to the Istanbul articles. Future Perfect at Sunrise 14:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:213.199.192.60

block. --Rtc 12:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Was already blocked by me, but he is unblocked now and makes his holy war once again....

I confess I am tempted (I've never been described as patient!). I sort of hope he will get bored and give up - I think I'll go place a note on his talk page. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Which reads as follows (the answers provided as well):

Can I ask you to stop editing, marking things for deletion and trying to change licenses? Your actions are beginning to try the patience of a number of people on Commons myself included. Please go away and take some time to reflect on what you really want to do rather than continually changing things. If you do not I may well find myself forced to block your IP which I would prefer not to do. Please do not start editing my talk page either as I will merely remove your comments. Take some time - reflect and consider whether your actions really help your cause --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As the Commons user I have all the rights to the things I am doing. You tried my patience as well. My talking with you is over. Bye! --213.199.192.60 12:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Making these two deletion-requests pages are my FINAL DECISIONS.. I am looking forward to their final output (opinions of the Commons administrators and the final resolution of these two requests. Bye, Bye! --213.199.192.60 12:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Placed and signed by: --213.199.192.60 14:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, these decisions of mine will not 'close my mouth' if I notice my word crucial.. The threatening and the actions of closing mouths is practiced only, and, thus, reserved both to the Commons and Wikipedia projects administrators. --213.199.192.60 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth

Before i beginn to clean up - Am i right that Google Earth images are not allowed on commons? E.g. Image:Immagine sat treppio.JPG says its in the public domain because it was created by NASA?! --GeorgHH 14:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Look at the image. It got (C) DigitalGlobe and (C) Google. As neither parts are releasing their images under a free license the images are not allowed.

Such images should therefore be considered violations of copyrights. --|EPO| 14:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Use NASA's WorldWind! pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like images created with WorldWind are covered by Template:PD-USGov-NASA. See also: w:NASA World Wind and NASA World Wind homepage. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Block request

Could you please block user:155.232.128.10, who is stalking me (diff) from Wikispecies, where I recently blocked him/her (block log). Thanks Lycaon 12:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Done see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Attention#block_request --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to abandon {{Copyvio}}

The category for speedy deletion candidates is not working very well. The big problem is that many images require the deleting admin to speak a foreign language, or that the image comes from a website that the uploader might be the manager of, or that they are coat of arms, the copyright status of which depends on the country the arms are from. This leaves many images just hanging in the category, with admins looking at them and going by them, as they cannot determine if they are truly copyright violations. Currently they are over 100 files listed in Category:Copyright violation.

I would like to abandon the {{Copyvio}} template as it is too often used incorrectly. Pages can be listed as obvious copyvios, but if the reviewing admin doesn't speak the necessary language, he can't well delete it.

I think it would be better to list even "obvious" copyright violations at Commons:Deletion requests. If an admin determines that they are really obvious, he can speedy delete them at sight and close the deletion request.

Another benefit of this is that all admins then only need to monitor one page, for example admins with special knowledge of copyrights, or admins that speak Spanish/Portugese.

I think that the {{Logo}} and {{Badname}} templates should still remain though.

What do you others think of this suggestion? Do you have any other suggestions on how to tackle the Copyvio-problem? Or do you perhaps think that the current system is functioning well?

Fred Chess 18:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the current system is ok. But when a file is longer marked as copyvio and nobody is able to delete it, the file should listed on Commons:Deletion requests. --GeorgHH 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Mostly the system works well, and when I check there are often no files at all to deal with, except those that I can't tackle because of a language barrier or a lack of knowledge of some local law. Those 'hard' files aren't a problem with the system, though - they will always be hard (more admins wth good language skills would be useful). The copyvio approach isn't always used correctly, agreed, but at least it's pretty easy, and forcing users to post at Commons:Deletion requests would I expect result in many more errors, especially by new users. The problem to my mind is the residue of 'hard' files that never get looked at and, as GeorgHH has proposed, I think those should be moved across to Commons:Deletion requests. Would it be possible for one of our coding experts to write a bot that takes any files still awaiting speedy deletion after say seven days and opens a deletion request for them? --MichaelMaggs 19:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome "a bot [functionality] that takes any files still awaiting speedy deletion after say seven days and opens a deletion request for them". Such a bot functionality (that is, a capability of an existing or new bot) would bring those files to the attention of more people. Of course, use of {{Abstain}} with verbiage like "due to a language barrier - I do not understand the X Language" or "due to lack of knowledge of local law Y" would help to focus the attentions of the few that do "understand the X Language" or do "know local law Y". — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree that the copyvio template has its merit. I think the suggestion bot solution would be useful. / Fred Chess 18:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

All we need now is someone to volunteer to do it. GMaxwell? Bryan? Anyone? --MichaelMaggs 16:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Could be a good idea, but I would not list the images in the normal deletion request procedure. I think a page similar to that of the superseeded images is better, since I don't expect that many comments on copyvios. I will hapilly create such a bot, however after I have finished Flickr stuff I am busy with and have done something about the archival of COM:UDEL. If nobody picks it up the next month, I'll see what I can do. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We have this template and i suggest it should placed a link to it on Help:Contents and Commons:Help desk and the administrators add Category:Wikimedians looking for help to their watchlist. Or do you think we have enough help places on commons, and can remove this template? --GeorgHH 17:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears not to be used anyway. Michelet-密是力 17:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That is see reason for my question. It was created 4. April 2007 and i am not sure we will use this template. --GeorgHH 18:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Give it some time to be used, then, or? Michelet-密是力 18:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add a tie-in so that when someone puts helpme it sends a message out to the IRC channel like on en.wiki? MECU≈talk 19:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Helpme}} has said "IRC channel is notified that editor added it on Helpme." since it was created at 15:08 on 4 April 2007 (UTC), but as that creation was a copy from en:w, there is no guarantee that the bot that does the notification for en:w also does it for Commons, or that a similar bot does the same job. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Add it to Template:Welcome? MECU≈talk 23:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

GAHHHHHHHHH. How about we choose whether or not we want to import ideas wholesale from Wikipedia???? Just because it was created (as someone's first edit here, no less) doesn't mean we have to use it. We could make it a link which redirects to the Help desk. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect it to the Help desk. The lack of enthusiasm evidenced here suggests that it would not elicit a prompt response. Wsiegmund 04:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't really see the point of it personally. Between Village pump, Help desk and these admin boards there are plenty of places that folk can ask for help (equally a talk page). Being tolerant of folk (to start with at least!) seems to cover most things - just my 0.02 --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary here; the help desk and other places on Wikipedia people ask for help are overcroweded, over-edited, and subject to frequent vandalism, but here we don't have those problems and people are likely to get a semi-immediate response. Plus, having the question in a "public" place rather than on a talk page allows the community to help and give their two cents rather than just whoever happens to catch the person when they show up in the category. -- Editor at Large • talk 09:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all for your opinions! I have redirected it to the Commons:Help desk now. --GeorgHH 16:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Subpage for CheckUser requests?

Maybe it's just me but I am seeing an upswing in, and perhaps there might be a need for a subpage to collect, CheckUser requests. Right now they are getting scattered across /Vandalism, /Attention, user talk pages, etc... if people feel that it would be worth trying out, I'd create the subpage, change the navbar menu, and set up the bot archiving tags... again, I don't think we want the formalism that w:WP:RFCU has but some structure might be helpful. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 16:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Setting up a page is probably a good idea, since we seem to get plenty of requests, but it should be somewhere totally separate (like COM:CHU is), since it's only relevant to CUs and not most admins. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

editconflict Good idea, makes it also more likely for a request to be noticed. (Note that there is no such thing as an archiving bot for the AN, I have been doing it most of the time...) -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess a problem is that effectively the requests often turn up on one of the other pages so someone will still have to put a note on the new page whatever happens (not that it is not a good idea tho) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a messaging problem, we already have some directive notes in the navbar template... this would need more of the same I guess, but yes, some redirection may happen and it would be an issue. That's separate from where the page should live. (On reflection I can see putting it in a separate page like CHU, rather than a subpage of here, it is not a big deal to me on that). ++Lar: t/c 17:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with the separate page btw - given recurrent bad behavior it would be far easier to find previous postings --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requests_for_checkuser (below, until one or both of these get archived), a variant of this suggestion was implemented by someone more helpful and diligent than me. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

marking Wikipedia featured articles

A question: in the wikipedias is a tool, that mark featured articles in other wikipedias with an icon left side the other languages box. Why is this not available on commons? An example: Haematopus ostralegus on commons and en:Eurasian Oystercatcher on en.wiki. On en.wiki you see the yellow star left from Deutsch, but not on commons. --GeorgHH 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

orphan talk pages

Hello, with an agony's tool I create a page with some orphane talk pages, could be a good things? --dario vet (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's very helpful! Thankyou. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mentioned to Duesentrieb, who suggested that a bot could go around and move the text on the talk page to the deletion subpage (if it exists, otherwise create a new one) and then they could be deleted. The problem with talk pages of deleted images is that generally the info relates to the deletion in one way or another; this info should be made available somewhere in case it is needed and having to bother an admin to look at the deleted page is a pain. The list is currently close to 2000 and quite a few have already been deleted; some discussion on this matter (do we have a policy on deletion of orphaned image talk pages?) might be advised before deletion is completed. -- Editor at Large • talk 03:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, it will be far more efficient to delete everything, and discuss the matter again if needed, which should'nt be that often. Anyway, can't the discussion pages be restored? Michelet-密是力 04:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

@Editor at Large, what do you write it's ok "do we have a policy on deletion of orphaned image talk pages?" but we can archive the orphan talk pages, for example we could change the information with a worning template, or we could use a bot to delete al the page, all IMHO --dario vet (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Guide to adminship

I have started working on this page (it's in my userspace for now). I haven't written anything about deletion yet, which is probably the most relevant and important component of adminship on Commons. Please edit it as you see fit or make suggestions, I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff I've overlooked. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

How to rename a page?

Commons doesn't have (easy to find) equvialent of en CfD/CfR. Category:Categories that should be renamed has no main page; is the only hit for 'rename' on Category:Commons maintenance, and Commons:Deletion requests doesn't recognize the word 'rename'. Please make some redirects and such so people familiar with en wiki can propose a categories for renaming: currently, I give up.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikimedia Commons is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikimedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. ;) Yonatan ^talk 00:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

One problem is we mostly call it "move" a category instead of "rename". Anyway this will help you: User:Orgullobot/commands/documentation#Rename_a_category. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories requested for renaming can be found under Category:Requested moves; to add a category you can use the {{Move}} template with the following syntax; {{move|<destination page>|<reason>|<date>}}. This is usually for categories where renaming is not immediately obvious; obvious ones can be moved by Orgullobot. -- Editor at Large • talk 14:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Tnx. I strongly suggesting adding the above text to a few places, and creating a redirects with 'rename' or 'move's in names.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hayk

I would appreciate if anyone could help resolve the problems that I have with User:Hayk. He persistently tries to delete this image: Image:Bey from Karabakh.jpg. He was chasing it at Russian wiki, and after I moved it here he tries to have it deleted from here as well. This image is used in a number of articles about Nagorno-Karabakh region in various language Wikipedias, and in my understanding it is just an attempt to cleanse Wikipedia of certain info. This image is a reproduction of painting by 19th century Russian artist, and thus it is PD in the US and other countries, as the author dies more than 100 years ago. PD-art tag clearly says:

This image is a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art and thus not copyrightable in itself in the U.S. as per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.; the same is also true in many other countries, including Germany. The original two-dimensional work shown in this image is free content because: This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years. Therefore, this reproduction is also subject to the same terms as the original work.

I would appreciate an admin intervention to stop the edit warring and attempts for deleting the image by Hayk. --Grandmaster 05:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason is: no source. Where does this image come from? Have you taken the photograph yourself, or is a file copied on the net (and where?) Michelet-密是力 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Are this information required? In that case we should delete many other {{PD-Art}} images. --EugeneZelenko 14:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please check all the files in the Category:Grigory Gagarin and tell me which one has properly identified the source and demonstrated that the uploader has a right to use it in Wikipedia. Thanks. --Grandmaster 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes per COM:L#License Information. Also (possibly) per ongoing discussion at Template talk:PD-old. --Iamunknown 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that in using PD-Art you are impliedly saying that the original painting is PD-Old, and so far you have given no basis for that assertion. You need to state, at the very least, who the painter was and when he died. If you don't know, you need to state your evidence for believing the artist must have died long enough ago for it to be PD. For example, what was the date of publication of the book from which you scanned it (assuming that's how you got the image). If the book was itself very old, you may be ok. But more detail is needed. --MichaelMaggs 17:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The info about the artist was there. File was linked to the articles about Grigory Gagarin both in English and Russian wikipedias. And I can provide info about the book it was scanned from, it was published in 1840. I just note that no other file with paintings of this artist provides such info. Check this, for example: Image:Vagharshapatpillaged.jpg It should be deleted for the same reason as my image was deleted. --Grandmaster 04:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, IMHO the information about the artist seems OK (you could have added the year of death, but the link gives that). This settles indeed the discussion as far as artistic property is concerned (=PD-old). The problem raised here is that of file origin (the .jpg thing), which may cause other kind of legal problems, linked to real property of the painting, incorporeal property of the file, and/or sui generis laws on database copying. ♦ You pointed out that most of the files in that category had not the information here required. Indeed, but this was probably an error: IMHO, it should have been required. The concern about these other rights emerged after most of them were uploaded, and this information has not been required on WP at that time. ♦ Now, since you uploaded the file, providing the information should not be that difficult, what is the problem? Michelet-密是力 05:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy that the image was deleted so fast. I'm not watching the files I upload here on a regular basis, so I became aware of the problems with User:Hayk a bit late. Plus, I see a problem with the way this person tries to delete images related to Azerbaijani people, but is not so picky when it comes to images related to Armenian people. Out of all images by Gagarin he picked this particular one, and I don't think it was just a coincidence. I don't think that this is a proper place for such biased approach. I just want things like that never happen again. Thanks for your comments. --Grandmaster 05:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

TINC ;o) Michelet-密是力 07:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

After the image Bey_from_Karabakh.jpg was removed from commons user Grandmaster uploaded it again, mentioning its source as "Scenes de paysages moeurs et costumes de Caucase. Paris, Lemercier, 1840" (then he changed the year to 1845). However, at least two other internet sources claim that the book was published in 1847. Hence the question: if the member, who uploaded the picture cannot provide his source, how does he know that image caption/description?

At first I tried to find out the source myself, but I couldn't. As for the Grandmaster first he tried to remove {{Nsd}} template in ru.wiki without enough reasons, then he uploaded the image onto Commons, where he again rolled back {{Nsd}} template.

Also I contacted the owner of the book "Scenes de paysages moeurs et costumes de Caucase. Paris, Lemercier, 1847", who confirmed that there is no such illustration in the given book.

Allegations that I "chase" Azerbaijan-related images are groundless. I have added the {{Nsd}} and {{Nld}} templates to many more Armenian images, which were later removed from ru.wiki --Hayk 18:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Juan de Vojníkov

Well, could you tell me, when this account was created. It is highly not probable, that someone logged under same name. I try to do this today, but unsuccefull. Maybe I did it in the past an forgot my password. Thats why. w:en:user:Juan de Vojníkov

See [8] October 7, 2006. I hope it's not you because then you uploaded a penis picture the next day. MECU≈talk 18:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I remeber that. I was elected an admin on cs and in short time my user name was attacted here and on en.--193.84.33.171 14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an attack account that you can probably supersede if you register and ask on COM:CHU. Yonatan ^talk 18:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So it is a way how to get that account?--193.84.33.171 14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ask a bureaucrat on COM:CHU. Yonatan ^talk 14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

License term, free enough?

Would "Copywrited free use provided that our name appears with the logo and its use is not detrimental to our organization." be free enough for us? Specifically, I'm asking about the usage "not detrimental to our organization". MECU≈talk 18:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with no. There are already laws which govern the field of libel and slander. That should not be part of a license. If it is trying to prohibit legal (freedom of speech) but unpleasant (for the copyright holder) use of the images it cannot be considered free. --Dschwen 18:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I don't like the "detrimental to..." part. Yonatan ^talk 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser

We haven't had a page for this which caused requests to be scattered all over the place so I created COM:RFCU which is a de-bureaucrified version of en:WP:RFCU. Please fix it up so it's good or if you think it isn't a good idea let me know. Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 18:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I was gonna get to this, honest (See above where I ask about doing it). You beat me to it. Well done. Perhaps we should move recent completed ones there. Also it's probably worth linking to from various places. Thanks for the page! ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I took a look. I was thinking just one page but you've imported the entire mechanism for making standardised format requests en masse, including the supporting templates and everything. Wow!!!! Much more comprehensive than what I had in mind. I did a little tweaking to remove mention of clerks and of code letters (leaving original stuff commmented out when it made sense to do so...) at the following pages:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox just a nit, Commons:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample (remove clerks and code letters), Commons:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Header/Instructions (remove clerks and code letters), Commons:Requests for checkuser/Header (revise to remove code letters and clerks)... please take a peek and LMK if you spot anything off. Perhaps we should try putting one of the older requests into this format as a test? ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's a better idea to continue on the talk page? -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Developers

Is there anyone on the commons who is a developer? Where would I find them? —talk to symode09's 08:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe Gmaxwell (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) is one of the most prominent Commons users that has the developer bit, and I believe there are others. The best place to find devs is probably on the IRC channels #wikimedia-commons or #mediawiki... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

another channel would be #wikimedia-tech. Cbrown1023 talk 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Abusive sock

This is Yamla from Wikipedia-en. Two requests. First, Verdict, a long-term abusive sockpuppeteer on Wikipedia-en, seems to have started up on Wikimedia as well. In this case, as Flash Fusion (talk · contribs). Please see the Wikipedia-en community noticeboard for more information. I am requesting (not demanding) that this user be blocked on Wikimedia Commons and the contributions deleted.

Second, it looks like someone here created an account, Yamla (talk · contribs). I am guessing they did so to impersonate me. Any possibility that I could claim that account as my own? If you wish to verify I am who I say I am, please go to my userpage and send me an email. Thanks, kind folks. --Yamla-en 20:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've renamed the impersonator and renamed Yamla-en to Yamla. You now own your account here. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 20:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. --Yamla 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This user, Flash Fusion, has continued uploading images which he knows are copyright violations. For example, Image:Brock Lesnar Shelton Benjamin OVW.jpg and Image:3046305 l.jpg where the user deliberately falsely claims he is the author of the work. He has a long history of these abusive actions on Wikipedia-en and is unlikely to stop here even if blocked. He's created more than seventy abusive sockpuppets on Wikipedia-en. --Yamla 05:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted both of those. You can tag any others that you spot with {{Copyvio}}. Jkelly 06:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've posting to say that two of his photos that he claims looks to come from two different people. Image:Brock Lesnar WWE Champion.jpg comes from this page by a Finnish fan while Image:Wwe05-brock.jpg comes from this page by a Canadian fan. Meanwhile, Image:Benoit35.jpg comes from the page http://www.obsessed(removethis)with(removethis)wrestling.com/gallery/benoit-c.html (sorry about that, an unrelated vandal has helped put that website on spamblock) with the same number at the end. I'm not sure how I can claim this as copyvio due to the lack of image rights on the pages, but I'm just here to say what this guy's like. --Oakster 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This banned vandal is back as DLGP (talk · contribs). Additionally, Flash fusion made this personal attack. --Yamla 15:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Flash fusion warned about attacking others - block should be the next move if this offense occurs again. Uploads look suspicious too --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If a steward or checkuser passes by, I want to request a checkuser for DLGP (talk · contribs) and Flash Fusion (talk · contribs). -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If needed I'll second that request (on Wikibooks I'd have done it already <g>) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably back as Hctp (talk · contribs) -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I confirm that Flash Fusion (talk · contribs) is DLGP (talk · contribs), Kid 360 (talk · contribs) and DGP (talk · contribs) as well as one other account that has no contributions. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked the sockpuppets and warned the user. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I confirm that as well as Verdict (talk · contribs). Yann 09:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

reset

The account with no contribs probably should be blocked too (otherwise I imagine it may be used?). A name please Bastique (or a block) thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think socks should only be blocked if they are abused. So no block for my part. If this sock however will be used for abusive means, I will also block the main account for some time. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the abusive outburst on the user talk page I have blocked Flash Fusion for a couple of weeks - I had warned them --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)--Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Back again uploading copyvios as MGAME (talk · contribs) (for extra proof of his identity, see his comments on Yamla's talk page). --Oakster 13:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not very helpful but I have few issues with blocking this user. However I am unsure what I would be blocking them for - copyvio, relatively short block or puppet, quite different. Hopefully someone else will pass and have a better view but I will watch --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Extended block to 1 month. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This user has declared that he has no intention of abiding by his community ban on Wikipedia-en and will continue setting up sockpuppet accounts both there and, presumably, here. --Yamla 20:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep us informed - there is more than one of us watching this --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Rockaway (talk · contribs). --Oakster 10:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

reset

Throw this one in too Datghettoplaya (talk · contribs), uploaded an identically named image a little before the one Oakster listed above which was deleted as copyvio. I think CU would be good to confirm that it would be appropriate to block both (no current activity on either) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Again I am after CU on these above & 213.113.231.164 (talk · contribs) seems involved. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead, blocked the users who uploaded those wrestling images and extended flash fusions block to a year. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

213.113.231.0/24 is confirmed to be used by this user on Wikipedia-en. However, these addresses are (presumably) used by other legitimate editors as well. This vandal generally uses TOR proxies to hide his address, though. I can provide a list of specific addresses in that range that have been used recently if necessary; 213.113.231.164 is one of them. I filed an abuse report with this user's ISP on Friday. --Yamla 15:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User is back as The DGP (talk · contribs), once again uploading images which have been previously deleted. --Yamla 22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked (CU would be good to confirm) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Back as Hctp (talk · contribs). Blocked and deleted. Happy easter everybody. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Back as Hctp9 (talk · contribs). Blocked again. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Back as Coolkid00 (talk · contribs) --Oakster 09:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

reset

Blocked --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering what is wrong with this. Could somebody checkuser this, to see whether there are more socks active? -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Have there been addditional recent edits? There were some technical problems that may possibly make it difficult to go too far back. But I'm happy to help if necessary, just drop me an email with the specific things you want to check and a few diffs as to why if you think sensitivity is required, or just give the new accounts you suspect here. Perhaps we need to start a more formal page to request these things? I'd hate to go as far in formality as en:wp's elaborate scheme but I fear missing these if we are not careful. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Results

User FIX (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) found, blocked.
User Jfl01 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) found, blocked.
User Jflo (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) found, blocked.
User Goofeh (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) found, but already blocked by Bryan.
User Coolkid00 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) found, already blocked by Herbythyme

Their contribs were deleted. Please advise of any issues or errors.++Lar: t/c 14:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

From the logs [9], TCO1 (talk · contribs) seems to be one to keep an eye on. --Oakster 16:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Er - I'm not having a good day but can you explain the connection? ~~The user has no contribs (even I tend to hesitate blocking with no evidence!) and the link points to one I dealt with earlier?~~ Told you I was not having a good day - blocked --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

MGAME420 (talk · contribs). --Oakster 12:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked based on contrib record. Am late for work, can someone else clean up the uploads if I don't get to them right away? I'll do a CU later if there's really a need (not sure there is) ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Cleaned" - may be worth a check but/as they do seem persistent --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Goofeh2 (talk · contribs). -- Oakster Talk 09:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

reset

Done Blocked & deleted - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Slight correction - for some reason I get some sort of scripting error deleting Image:LesnarBubba7.gif, will try later unless anyone else gets to it --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for asking again, but there's Predisposed (talk · contribs) as well. Pretty sneaky. -- Oakster Talk 10:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Done blocked & deleted. Persistent lot - if I were you I'd fill in a CU request to see if there is an underlying ip? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The slight problem is that over at the English Wikipedia the range of IP addresses from his ISP has been blocked and and despite that he's gone past them with open proxies. I'm not quite sure if he uses the same here or not. -- Oakster Talk 11:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Back again as Manfredoo (talk · contribs). I'll probabily make a CheckUser request later today on this. -- Oakster Talk 12:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Done - deleted, blocks (& I so nearly archived this bit...!) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Old large versions of SVG

The following list shows all SVG-images, where old versions have one or both sides with a defined length of more than 32767 pixels. Because this images create errors in the browser by clicking them on the imagedescriptionpage, (direct view), it will be helpfull to delete those old versions (only the old versions, please). Can a administrator do so ? Augiasstallputzer 07:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with keeping the older versions? They may break a browser, but someone may find it useful. MECU≈talk 14:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What browser(s) do they break, in what ways? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In use in the Projects, there is no optical difference between the versions. If someone wants to print, he need to download and to scale with absolute measures in the svg-Tag (inches or metric), equal what is in the uploaded versions. Therefore, there cannot be any advantage to keep the versions with hazardous syntax. Augiasstallputzer 20:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

~~Please list at Commons:Deletion requests. Please do not debate this further here. / Fred Chess 11:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)~~

Sorry, I now realize what the problem is. Well, it should be non-controversial to delete the older revisions then? / Fred Chess 18:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection for images

Bearing bad news - this may well not be working m:Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#WM:SALT_issue_.26_uploaded_graphic explains what happened on Meta with a bug report filed apparently. Probably not worth removing the pages from protection so that when the bug is fixed they will be protected but it probably doesn't work at present --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it certainly was working when it was implemented. I tried uploading to a page salted in this manner before with a non-sysop account and got the "protected page" warning. However, seems to not be working now...--Nilfanion 12:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

And frustratingly leaves an "ordinary" user unable to mark it for deletion - worst of both worlds!! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that this application was broken by whatever change(s) caused this bug (the report of which was prematurely closed by a developer who misunderstood its nature and hasn't responded to my messages). —David Levy 00:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

another bug report was already filed ([10]) but nothing has occurred as of yet with it. Cbrown1023 talk 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just chatted with Voice of All (the developer that I'd been attempting to contact) via IRC and cited that bug report. He said that he's been looking into the problem, but when he tried to duplicate it during our conversation, he found that it evidently was resolved in the latest version of MediaWiki. (He doesn't know how, and he thinks that he may have accidentally fixed it while working on something else.) —David Levy 02:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How to check if my photos were deleted?

Is it possible to see a list of user's deleted contributions? I was looking through my gallery and I a large number of photos I think I have uploaded in one specific period (November last year) are not there... If admin's access is requited, can I ask for a list of my deleted uploads to be delivered to my talk page? Thank you.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted contributions are not viewable, however deleted uploads still appear in Special:Log/upload. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Refactor: oh, I see, upload log will also show the uploaded and deleted ones, too?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeps, in red. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey about Commons on Swedish Wikipedia

A survey on Swedish Wikipedia about Commons showed:

The support of Swedish is considered sufficient, but many users still use English in their settings.
How to tag images for deletion is considered complicated; with Deletion Request being too instruction packed
It is perceived that Commons has increasing copyright paranoia, for example deleting images without notification
The mix of categories and galleries is considered confusing, but it isn't a crucial issue.

(full answers - in Swedish - copied to User:Fred Chess/survey)

Fred Chess 08:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Great idea, Fred!

How many users were surveyed? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool idea. Could we get the questions translated in English, so we could ask the same questions on en.wiki? MECU≈talk 14:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate it.

There weren't that many people participating. I just posted at the Village Pump, asking for opinions... six people gave there their opinions. The village pump is quite frequested, so I guess the others just agreed with those who responded. The last person who responded actually only said "I agree with Grillo".

MECU: I basically just asked for their opinions, but did suggest these questions:

A question about the support of the Swedish language (not relevant for English Wikipedia)
If they perceive they have difficulties in understanding how to tag their images correctly
If they perceive to have difficulties in other areas, such as categorizing their images
A question on Swedish help pages (not relevant for English Wikipedia)
If they wanted more help texts or information about anything on Commons.

Fred Chess 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just wrote something relating to surveying... pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Citing

If I would like to use a picture from this site in a presentation, how would I cite it in a bibliography?

You need to comply with the license terms on the specific image. Is there an image or two that you specifically are looking at? We can help you better with specific image information. MECU≈talk 19:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Images.jpg protection

Image:Images.jpg has been deleted 19 times In the past 10 months. Can we protect this somehow so it doesn't keep getting used and abused? (I'm a noob admin, so I don't know how.) MECU≈talk 19:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Done I have uploaded the message Please use a more precise name for your image. and protected the file. --GeorgHH 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I did the same to Image:Logo.jpg. At least, I think I protected it. MECU≈talk 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been here for a while. My opinion is:

It's not a big deal, but it seems reasonable to protect it.

Fred Chess 22:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Claiming copyright.

Image:PaulBoateng20050515 CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg claims copyright, both in the image title and on the page, yet also claims GNU FDL and CC-BY-SA. Can these actually all co-exist? --82.45.253.226 12:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Every image is copyrighted. The license just states how the copyright holder has given permission for us and others to use it. The copyright holder should be given on all images. MECU≈talk 12:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete upload information

Since a few days the number of new uploaded files without any information is extreme increased. Examples of last five hours:

Image:Marcos Kraide.jpg - new user User:Kraide
Image:Tamer Nafar.jpg - new user User:Longjohnsilver
Image:HIVT.jpg - new user User:Ae0089 - four files
Image:800px-Elements of a tampon with applicator.jpg - new user User:Majorgaby - four files
Image:Fotoecsbinterno.jpg - new user User:Maryaguillon - three files
Image:IVStas Wejscie.jpg - new user User:Mrozu sc - four files
Image:TUCPamplona18.GIF - User:Daviddemiguel
Image:Point-OndashiStyle.jpg - User:Greenland4

All files have the {{Information}} but not filled in the informations.

What can we do to decrease the numbers of such useless files before they are uploaded? Most of this inaccurate files are uploaded by new users, can it be that the upload form is to difficult, need new users more or other instructions? --GeorgHH 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The empty information template is a new feature, see MediaWiki talk:Common.js. It could be possible to check onSubmit whether the description box still has its default value, and then automatically add {{Nld}}. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Detailing a P-47

Hi I am in the process of building a 1/5 scale p-47, I need the size of the formation lites lense dia, and the bezel dia, The drawings that I have are reprints and do not show them.

Any help would be appetitated.

Please E-mail me @ bobthomas32@earthlink.net

Bob t

"Self-made"

I dropped by today to up-load an image, and found that I happened to be just in time to save an earlier image (Image:Another corner.JPG) from deletion. It had had a {{No license}} tag added, and two identical notices left at my Talk page by Loco085 (talk · contribs) (they don't show up as I have a redirect [that doesn't work] — the edit was this one). His Talk page seems to be filled with messages from people whio have also had self-made images deleted or threatened with deletion. Is there something that we're all missing – some extra notice that should have been added to our up-loads – or is Loco085 misapplying a policy, or what? I've not had this problem with other images that I've up-loaded here. Advice/help/ illumination received with thanks. --Mel Etitis 21:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I just thought that I'd let people know that I'm bending over ready for six strokes of the cane; I'd somehow left off the license. I don't know how — I've not done it before.

(While I'm waiting for the first stroke to descend, could I ask if there's a way (that works) to redirect a Talk page here to a Talk page at the English Wikipedia? --Mel Etitis 21:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The syntax "#REDIRECT [[w:User talk:Mel Etitis]]" is valid, but it appears cross-project redirects are not allowed, sorry. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, we're all human (although some of us pretend not to be for various reasons), and we can all make mistakes. 30 lashes with a wet noodle should suffice. :) — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin inactivity policy

Given the comments around I have started a proposal page here to amend our current policy. I have offered two options and tried to keep it as simple as possible. Please feel free to go and rework it as much as you like! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Our discussion appears to be stuck ATM. A suggestion which I believe incorporates the wishes of the administrators as well as not being too forceful or rushed, is that

We let the current activity requirements stay.
But we add to them: that after an admin has not used any admin tools for 150 days (ca 5 months), he will be asked if he still needs the admin tools. He will then lose the adminship if he does not respond within a certain time (suggested timeframe 2-4 weeks), or responds that he does not need the tools. If he responds that he wants to keep the tools, he will be allowed to keep them.

The idea is, of course, that a user should realize that if he is being asked politely, it would be improper of him to answer that he needs the tools when he in fact doesn't use them, and doesn't see himself use them in the future.

How many admins would be affected? Last time I checked, there there 26 admins who had not used any admin tools within 150 days. I saved a dump at User:Fred Chess/a on May 5.

Fred Chess 22:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So, does anyone oppose this proposition? / Fred Chess 20:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. --Gmaxwell 20:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

and me. --MichaelMaggs 21:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the "asking" part. ~MDD 46 96 23:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

yeah, 150 days should be doable. I, of course, base this upon my own experience as an inactive admin, especially the asking part is nice indeed. This gives a way out without "losing face" as an official deadminship procedure after 150 days might come across like that. (I first read 50 days and was on the verge of writing oppose, but then saw the 1 ;-) ) NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 00:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as the inactive admins are asked via email, this sounds fine. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

reset

Now a single policy proposal with process derived from comments here and on the talk page --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations on the main page of en.wiki

I am concerned about the copyright status of the following pics that appear in an article that is on the main page today.

All these pics(there are more) have no information about the source of the pics except the assertions of the uploaders themselves. For example, one pic is taken from some calendar and there is no evidence(link, email... nothing) that the people who made the calendar have released it on public domain. And yet, the uploader simply asserts that he has got permission from them. If he has got permission, I believe he would have to forward it to the concerned authorities on wikipedia to endorse. And in such cases, a copy of the email would have to be made available(if i am right). Nothing of that sort is seen here.

The situation is the same with the other pics too. Just blanket assertions and nothing else. For example - "This pic was taken in 1892 by Mr. X" - no evidence to show that it indeed is a reproduction of the 1892 foto clicked by Mr.X(if there indeed was such a photo). No link, no reference to some book from where it might have been scanned.. NOTHING.

All pics however, have been released on free licenses. I have been demanding proper source information be put up in the last few days but I have been continually reverted by a user whose reverts, handwaving and stonewalling border on vandalism. I have once again tagged it asking for sources and unless something is forthcoming, I shall remove the offending pics from the page. Wikipedia is no place for copyright violations. Chances are that, I may have been reverted yet again even as I finish writing this message here. Sarvagnya 01:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reproduced from en:WP:

This user has been targeting en:Tamil people and en:History of Tamil Nadu articles and has been tagging the articles as well as images in my opinion maliciously. This disruptive behaviour has been reported [11]. The images in question have been through a [Commons:Deletion requests/User reverting copyvio tags previous round of examination] and have been found to have appropriate licenses.

Sarvagna has also been maliciously tagging images even with appropriate licenses such as en:Image:Thanjavur temple.jpg, en:Image:Nallur.jpg and en:Image:EttayapuramPalaceRemains.jpg. His intent is plain and clear for all to see. Disruption. Venu62 01:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reproduced from en:WP:

Hot air and handwaving again. Conspiracy theories too. Of the above three he's mentioned, only the last two were errors of judgement and I corrected myself once it was pointed out. And as is abundantly clear to anyone who can read English, I'm not even complaining about those two. I'd like to see some source information on the ones that I've mentioned above or I reserve my right to remove copyvio. Sarvagnya 01:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/User reverting copyvio tags -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for an experienced hand to look at an issue for me

I posted this request to User:Lar, he advised posting it here. Please note that I don't frequent Commons, so I'll leave the issue with you:

Images which are straightforward recreations of a copyrighted logo must surely be subject to the copyright of the image they copy, right? If I drew a faithful reproduction of the McDonalds logo, just copied it in my own hand without any extra artistry, that would be a copyvio I'm sure.

These images are tagged variously as PD, GFDL etc but they are handmade copies of flags. My contention is that the original copyrights should appply per my McDonalds argument; in some cases they'll be PD but in many cases they'll actually be copyright and shouldn't be on Commons at all.

Please do whatever you see fit with these:

There's also a few similar images in my contribs. I hope I dealt with them correctly but please feel free to check. --Kingboyk 18:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Flags and similar state symbols are usually ineligible for copyright. There are many flags already on commons (see Category:SVG_flags, and most of them are PD and tagged with {{insignia}}). I would think that the same applies for this situation. Alton 02:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. These aren't real states, however, they're micronations, made-up entities. I'm not sure if that effects the situation; it probably does.

In the meantime, should I retag them {{insignia}}? --Kingboyk 12:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That might spark a bit of back and forth... they're still flags, are they not, for the most part. My local footie club has a flag, although they're not a country. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Since these are micronations, maybe just ask the micronation governments and see if the flags are OK to use on here, since copyright is usually automatic (and whatever country that the micronation is based in, their rules follow). I remmebr I had to ask the Sealand Government for a release of their flag image in order to make an SVG version for us. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

It would be good if some admins could put Commons talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage on their watchlists and deal with the requests there. /Lokal _Profil 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Password Strength?

Any thought been give here at the commons to the admin password cracking that was occurring on en.wiki, [12]? Obviously there is a much smaller number of admins here, so it should be much easier to secure, but what starts on one of the wikipedia sites tends to spread here in time. I guess the situation in the admin land isn't as much of a problem now with the undelete function, but I imagine they could still cause plenty of problems. Even outside the admin sphere vandals could cause problems if gaining control of a standard account. SFC9394 22:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It has also been noted at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Attention#Secure_passwords. / Fred Chess 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing vote and personal attack

User:Juiced lemon "struck out" my vote in a deletion page [13] and subsequently left a warning on my talk page telling me to not vote on this page. I am, needless to say, for "keep" while he is for "delete". He also accused me of being a "sockpuppet." (This deletion was proposed as the first edits by an anonymous IP[14], but that does no bother him.) He then left a warning on my user page telling me not to vote and said that if I did so he would seek my blocking.[15]. Now, admittedly I am new to WikiCommons but I have been editing Wikipedia for two years. [16]. On Wikipedia, deletion votes of new or anonymous editors are allowed but given appropriate weight, and actions such as Juiced Lemon's are frowned upon. Am I mistaken? And if I cannot vote on this, does that not mean that this image should not be deleted because its deletion was proposed as the first edits of an anonymous IP?--Mantanmoreland 17:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To create an account to vote

Hello,

Tell me if I am wrong, but I think it is not allowed to create an account in order to vote in Commons. So, as I noticed that Mantanmoreland created his account on May, 8 to vote in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Palestine Mandate 1920.gif (page created on May, 6), I had striked his vote.

Now, this user has removed the strike tags, and warned me on my page. By a curious coincidence, Doright (the user who created Image:Palestine Mandate 1920.gif) warned me two minutes later.

So, I ask an administrator for checking the votes in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Palestine Mandate 1920.gif. --Juiced lemon 17:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See entry immediately above. Admittedly I am new to Commons. On Wikipedia, where I have several thousand edits, new editors and IPs can vote on deletions, and what you did would be considered vandalism. Also, you omit mentioning that this deletion vote was actually commenced as the first votes of an anonymous editor! If indeed my vote is invalid, then this entire page is invalid. But again, I do not know if different rules apply here, which is why I commenced the AN/I above.

Also it is not true that I "created this account to vote." I have every intention of continuing to participate here. My extensive participation in the other project speaks for itself. --Mantanmoreland 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are not votes, they are discussions held to find out either if an image can be kept on Commons or if it violates law or licensing policy, or if an image should be deleted because of its quality, usability, factual errors etc. It really doesn't matter how many contributions a user has, or how long the account has been registered; what does matter is having an opinion on the image in question and the ability to express that opinion. To do that, a user doesn't necessarily have to know much about Commons. An image can get a hundred keep comments, but still end up getting deleted because one user explains why it's illegal to keep it. The discussion mentioned here is a difficult one, because it concerns a very sensitive matter, but it's still not a matter of counting yes and no votes. Cnyborg 18:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. It is the same principle on the other project in every sense, and your point re deletion "votes" not being votes is well taken. --Mantanmoreland 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there are no votes, striking a “vote” is harmless (I didn't strike Mantanmoreland's comments). So, we had no matter to get worked up (sorry for my previous excessive comments). However, look at this diff: it's not so clear for everyone. --Juiced lemon 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You struck out the "vote" under the mistaken impression that it was a "vote," and that was disruptive to say the least and vandalism as well in my view. Your threat on my user page to have me "blocked" for "voting" was similarly disruptive and harassing, and your failure to revert that "warning" and apologize for your conduct is noteworthy. I think some kind of block is warranted. --Mantanmoreland 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think no blocks are warranted anyhow. Mantanmoreland ánd Juiced lemon: please assume good faith. Juicedlemon wanted to (stemming from a, now hopefully corrected, view that only Commons-editors could comment/"vote") keep the "vote" clear, Mantanmoreland wanted to voice his opinion on the subject, which in retrospect was completely warranted. I'm a football (soccer) fan, and if there's anything I hate about the game it's players reporting eachother for yellow cards... Please accept that in a multilingual project with editors who stem from different backgrounds and/or projects there should be some leeway. NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 00:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Niels, it's very difficult to assume good faith when an editor vandalizes one's comment in a deletion debate, and then adds a bogus "warning" threatening to seek a "block" for daring to disagree with him. These are not the actions of a good-faith editor, and I think that if you were a victim of this kind of misconduct you would be pressing for some kind of sanction as well. Juiced Lemon has not self-reverted his bogus "warning" and threats, and has not apologized. Additionally, his confrontational and attacking language in the deletion debate [17]also needs to be dealt with. I realize Commons is less formal than Wikipedia, but doesn't this kind of conduct warrant sanction?--Mantanmoreland 15:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize your comment, that you know very well. And you forgot to tell us that you first added a “warning” to my talk page. You really take liberties with reality, and there's nothing surprising about that because we are dealing with propaganda issues in Commons. Could you explain how to protect this project from propaganda and lies, if we cannot tell someone he is lying ? --Juiced lemon 15:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You put a "strikeout" through "Keep," which if I hadn't caught it could have been viewed by the administrator as my withdrawing my "Keep." That was vandalism, pure and simple. Either you are standing by your "warning," in which case you should definitely be blocked, or you need to revert it or strike it out, and apologize. You can't have it both ways. Also your constant use of the word "liar" in referring to other editors just provides another reason why you need to be blocked. If you need me to explain to you why you should not call another editor a "liar," you should not be editing in this project.--Mantanmoreland 16:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. Although you have not (yet?) contributed a lot to Commons, you are trying to get rid of an user you dislike. Carry on! You are getting more and more popularity. --Juiced lemon 18:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We wouldn't be having this discussion if you didn't try to strike out my "vote" and place a harassing warning on my user page. Your action has been totally repudiated, and you're still clueless.--Mantanmoreland 18:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lemon was obviously used to en customs and stroke out the vote. You didn't like it for obvious reasons and the vote is no longer stricken out - I don't see the problem. Nobody here actually counts the votes to keep or delete anyway, we just read the arguments so it doesn't really matter. This is Wikimedia Commons, not Metawiki, and you do not give people vandalism warnings for striking out a vote in good faith. This discussion seems to be over. Yonatan ^talk 03:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

some opinions please

Hey! Please check out Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wall1.png (it concerns > 700 files). Regards, --Polarlys 12:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks very unlikely to be ones created by the individual IMO. Some look far more like screenshots and some look like "pro" photos - going to make folk happy and wear the delete button out as far as I can see --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

All gone. --Polarlys 14:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Incomplete deletion requests

Please have a look at Commons talk:Deletion requests#Category:Incomplete deletion requests. The Category:Incomplete deletion requests is to overcrowded and needs being worked on. --ALE! ¿…? 11:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

correct format for naming disambig. places?

Does anyone know what the format for naming places is that exist in various places? For example I see here Category:Cities and towns in Connecticut that we use the format "X, Y", such as "Category:Hartford, Connecticut" in order to differentiate to "Hartford, Ohio" for example. Or should states be put in brackets, such as "Fairfield (Connecticut)". I am asking because on the German Wikipedia they use (brackets) instead of a ,comma. So is there a format on the Commons, and if not should we not establish a standard in order to avoid confusion? Gryffindor 09:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to go with the "X, Y" scheme, also I'm not an expert in naming categories. As the categories are English, it should be done the way places are named in English speaking countries. In the US (where your example is taken from) people often say "I'm from X, Y", so I would use this way. I've never seen a "X (Y)" category on Commons. --Matt314 12:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am asking because of this "Friedland (Mecklenburg)", which according to the English format should be "Friedland, Mecklenburg" instead. Gryffindor 15:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Da sich um "Friedland (Mecklenburg)" hauptsächlich Leute aus der DE.WP kümmern und das dort so der Standard ist, besteht kein Grund, das umzuändern. Ist doch beides gleichberechtigt. Sollen Leute aus Connecticut doch "X, Connecticut" schreiben, einen Friedländer stört das nicht und umgekehrt normalerweise auch nicht. --BLueFiSH 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ganz genau! Vorrangig das deutsche Gemeindeprojekt (de.wp) kümmert sich auch um die Neuanlage und Wartung der Ortskategorien hier auf Commons. Die Benennung der doppelt vorhanden Ortsnamen sind Resultat teilweise ausführlicher Überlegungen und da sollte man das so 1:1 aus de: übernehmen.--Notschrei 18:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ninelvndeathtrap's "Uber Orbs"

Ninelvndeathtrap (talk · contribs) uploads look to me to all be promotions for a certain product. Someone else care to take a look? -- Infrogmation 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, they are orphans (or only in Category:UberOrbs), and don't appear relevant to any Project, so they are out of this Project's scope. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion vandalism

Template:Wikipedia, Template:Wikiquote, and Template:Wikinews integral parts of the Wikimedia projects. They have been suddenly deleted without discussion.--Izba 04:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, there were requests on these templates for four months and two days before they were deleted. Please see Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Wikipedia. -- Editor at Large • talk 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my misunderstanding regarding Template:Wikipedia; I won't contest that. However, Template:Wikinews, and Template:Wikiquote shouldn't have been deleted. --Izba 05:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests#Inter-project_templates. --Polarlys 07:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Everything is okay. There was no vandalism; it was only my own puzzlement.--Izba 07:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Hetoum I

User:Hetoum I seems as problematic.

Here the all contributions Special:Contributions/Hetoum_I;
- I send messages to ask source URL/?here and here.
  - He responded here with the explanation to a third user;He(User:Makalp) also made personal attack claiming I am ignorant to Turkey, threatened me with reprisal for my scans of postcards and accused me of being POV.
  - Later he took actions on images, Like as;
    - Image:Stepanos2.jpg;-- [[18]--[19]--[20]
    - Image:1915medal.jpg;--[21]-- [22]
    - Image:Stepanos.jpg;--[23]-- [24]
    - Image:Kaymakli.jpg;--[25]
    - Image:Smyrnarm.jpg
  - He changed all copyright info from one to one other.Possibly all info are false and user knows the rules about it.
    - Image:Stepanos2.jpg; exactly taken from this web page
- He knows rules, there is no good faith mistake, but he lies/deceives the community.
  - Other username here User Talk:Hetoum also all of his four contributions was deleted.
- Images above, now nominated here Commons:Deletion requests/Hetoum I (2007-05-16) by an admin user.
- User:Hetoum I insults that nominator user there.
- I think an another admin needed for this case.

Regards.Makalp 20:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Administrators,

I continue to get the feeling this user has attacked me based on the topics I am contributing to Wikipedia. He has personally attacked me by claiming I have no knowledge of Turkey without a basis. He has threatened me with reprisal and taunted me by engaging in hate speech referencing to the Armenian Genocide as "Genocide Allegations." He attacks me and my additions as well as uploads based on my race and topics I contribute to, being Armenian. This is racism, I demand apology. He claims to be a member of the Wikipedia welcoming committee, but I feel I am being "bitten" as someone who has accasional difficulty understanding wiki protocol. I have treated others who have come here as user Gevo with friendliness and if I ever felt I said anything amounting to a personal attack, I have apologized.

As for my uploads, I am sorry I made mistake of putting wrong tag for postcards, but I stood responsibly and corrected tag as a user in good faith. I did not know which tag at first to apply to antique postcards. I also noticed that the image I uploaded of Stepanos II was copyrighted and removed my own tag, agreeing to its deletion, the one from levantine website.

As for genocide medal, I am sorry I orignally said wrong site. I do 10 things on the computer at one time and I can mistype things. Here is the link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260108941888

Clearly author is Makhyan, from ebay. I am not a liar as this user unfairly has harassed me.

Finally, if he were working in good faith, he would fairly and unbiased inquire about questionable uploads by fellow WikiProject Turkey members as this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Armenian_ARF_Van_resistance.jpg

He attacks me because of my race and topics I contribute to. Sincerely, and thank you.Hetoum I 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Saud37

Is there anyone with arabic language knowledge? Please check this contributions, they seem to be c&p from the web. --Polarlys 12:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

he's baaaaaack...

Housekeeping deletion needed here and presumably all the mass of images uploaded by User:Dolphingirl. Same guy I suppose. Questions, contact me here. Herostratus 02:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would the user be the same as Belginusanl (talk · contribs)? Why was the user blocked indefinitely? / Fred Chess 11:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have made a mistake. Dolphingirl (talk · contribs) has transfering lots of files from Eng Wikipedia tagged with "move to Commons" tag; the user en:User:Cyberman101 tagged all his images with that tag. It is possible that Dolphingirl chose a couple of children images by mistake? / Fred Chess 11:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on these [26] [27] diffs, I'm fairly certain they are one and the same user: this user repeatedly spams talk pages from admins with "requests for help." Also, this user does not contest the bans, but tries to hide it by erasing their talk page. But I'll ask for CU evidence. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I trust you, but it probably isn't a bad idea to ask for CU. / Fred Chess 16:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's listed here. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Two protected template edit requests

{{Vk}} and {{Vd}} both need to have their English equivalents removed, as the templates were deleted back in September of last year.

I've gone through all of the other templates listed in Category:Polling templates and removed similar links, but can't do these two as they are protected. EVula // talk // 19:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[x] done. By the way: We could delete these templates as well, since there are some groups of users here who confuse discussion with voting, even if there is a big hint “This is no voting!” … ;-) --Polarlys 19:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Danke. I hate having to ask for something so minor. Being an admin on the English wiki has definitely spoiled me. :)
I doubt that deleting the templates will prevent people from not reading, though... EVula // talk // 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep them - I find them to be useful. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

username change

Hello, how do I change my username on Wikimedia Commons? Thanks. BlueShirts 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Changing username. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you sir. BlueShirts 07:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn’s uploads

Liftarn (talk · contribs) uploads a lot of files from local projects to Commons. Unfortunately he often does not check the given source (if there is any …) or cares about OTRS permissions and correct license tags. He also uploads derivative works and images used for spamming on local wikipedias only. There seems to be no preselection. The result: tons of requests for deletion, useless work for us. I already contacted him, but I can’t see any improvement so far. Please talk to him. --Polarlys 00:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Lorenzop

This user has made plenty of suspected uploads; I've just tagged his most recent one, Image:Walter Veltroni.jpg, which he claimed to be his own work but was however taken from an external website. I have strong suspects also over Image:Papiro Artemidoro.jpg and Image:Giuliano Amato2.jpg, both claimed to be own work as well. --Angelo.romano 22:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User Siebrand

User has deleted clearly PD files and is asserting PDF is out of project scope [28]. In the Category De Wikisource books there is a lot of PDFs and Djvu's. It might be excused that the user has forgotten to give a valid license but it cannot excused what Sieband has done (not using its brain and giving a policy which isn't consensus) --Historiograf 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I restored the PD files. Of course pdf files for Wikisource are not out of the project scope, I’ll talk to Siebrand as well. But please stay polite. Regards, --Polarlys 18:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Xcv47x

User:Xcv47x is uploading a bunch of celebrity images without noting any license status; they are almost certainly unfree images from websites and publications. Dtobias 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Done Taken care of by User:Dodo. Siebrand 09:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Etienne (Li)

Etienne (Li) (talk · contribs) uploaded many images in not full resolution without EXIF info. Probably copyvios. --EugeneZelenko 16:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm no admin but let me give you my opinion based on the last two pictures this user has uploaded. I don't see what makes you believe those pictures are not genuinely taken by Etienne (Li). His photos don't look professional, despite some are beautiful. Moreover, EXIF data exist (it seems that it takes some delay for mediawiki to include those exif data into the description page) and show that those pictures are at full resolution (3 Mpixel - the maximum for a Nikon E3200). The only problem is the watermarking and I've left a message on this matter on his talk page. — Xavier, 22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see, you're refering to images like Image:Chiesa del Luogo Pio.jpg (750×500 pixels) and Image:Bagni della Puzzolente.jpg (616×465 pixels). Considering the date (1998), the low resolutions and the absence of EXIF data are not surprising. They may even be pictures that have been scaned. — Xavier, 22:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rename my user account

Hello,

Can somebody please change the name of my account to "Tukka"? I don't know where I can put this, so I wrote it down here.

Steven lek 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see COM:CHU. -- Editor at Large • talk 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Steven lek 19:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll on removing sysop rights due to inactivity

Could I draw people's attention to this which we are seeking to make policy. It takes into account various items on pages over the past couple of months. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge protection against recreation

Page recreation protections are made are made at at least two different places, Commons:Protected_against_recreation and User:Notschrei/protected pages. Those pages needs to be merged by an admin. /82.212.68.183 22:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How to move a category

There is a consensus to move Category:Maps of countries to Category:Maps by country. How as an admin do I make the move? Electionworld 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, undelete Category:Maps by country beforehands. --Juiced lemon 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

See User_talk:Juiced_lemon#Deletion_of_Category for my reaction. If deletion is not necesary before moving categories, i do not oppose undeletion. Electionworld 19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Undeleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You can order Orgullobot to do it, see User:Orgullobot/commands. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

New Template

Is there a template like {{nsd}} for badname, duplicate and all the other incomplete speedy deltion requests?
Example: B o r r a r (What's the new name), Category:Museums of Belgium (what's the right name? Category:Against Commons naming convention doesn't exist).
So is there a template and if not how about a new template?
--D-Kuru 11:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit:
That's another very good example for {{badname}} The badname picture is Image:Salten krematorium.JPG and the bew picture is Image:Salten krematorium.jpg
--D-Kuru 12:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not certain if I understand what exactly your question is. We have {{Badname}} for identical files uploaded under a wrong name (by the same user), we have {{Duplicate}} for identical files or lower resolution versions of a file and {{Superseded}} (and {{SupersededSVG}}) in case a file is not exactly the same, but of undisputedly higher quality and preferred for usage. The first two are reasons for speedy deletion, the last is not. Furthermore we have {{Move}} for a move request outside the image namespace and {{Rename}} for move requests inside the image namespace. What else would you like to see covered? Cheers! Siebrand 13:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you set for example {{subst:nsd}} on a page of a picture you schould also set {{subst:image source|Iamgename}} ~~~~ on the user's talk page who uploaded this file.

If we have a look at B o r r a r the content is "{{badname}}". Nothing more. How should somebody know what the new gallery/category/image is when there isn't any pagename.

My proposition is that there is a template as {{subst:image source|Iamgename}} ~~~~, but the difference is that the content is "You have set a wrong speedydeletion. Please coorect your speedydeletion request to {{badname|Image:correct new imagename}}"

This is only an example for an incorrect badname usage, but it could also be an example for an iccorect {{duplicate}} request (Example: Image:The Yanks mop up on Bougainville.jpg and Image:U.S. Soldiers at Bougainville (Solomon Islands) March 1944.jpg - someboby set {{duplicate}} but the other picture is no duplicate. So there should be a template which notifys the user that he/she set an incorrect speedy deletion request).

I hope that it's clearer now what I wanted to say.

--D-Kuru 15:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit:

I thought about something like this.

In my opinion it needs a facelift, but before I try to repair it I want to be sure that this is something usefull and not a complet waste of time

--D-Kuru 17:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's finished it should look like this and this.

Maybe I shouldn't have done this before the template is ready, but I wanted to see if it works :)

--D-Kuru 17:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

seems to work. He changed it after I set {{User:D-Kuru/bsd|Image:Bromatan.gif}} on his talk page

--D-Kuru 22:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll on removing sysop rights due to inactivity

Could I draw people's attention to this which we are seeking to make policy. It takes into account various items on pages over the past couple of months. Thanks -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bryan, thanks for mentioning that poll! I hope you all vote in support of the new policy. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers

Hi. It seems User:Bryan, administrator usually responsible for dealing with Flickr image reviewer requests is busy studying for exams at the moment.[29] Could another admin who is familiar with the process take a look at my request, which according to the guidelines at Commons:Flickr images should be able to be speedy granted in light of my administrator status on the English Wikipedia. I'm keen to help reduce the backlog of images needing reviewing. Thanks. Adambro 14:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Iamunknown 00:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hello, I am a newcomer and I have created this page, while I haven't seen its copyright. I propose its deletion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arboubou (talk • contribs) at 05:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The image has been deleted by User:Dodo. --Matt314 06:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinions please

I'm being drawn in to a bit of an edit war with User:BerndH regarding categories on "his pics"... I had moved them from one category to another early this morning (from general to more specific), after which he (quite nicely) added more info to the description and released under an additional licence. However, he also removed the category, so I added it back in, and he has since removed it again with the edit comment "no cats on my pics".

He's a good contributor of original materials, but whenever someone says "my pics", I wonder a bit about the depths of their altruism. Looking at his contribs he's done this at least once recently in response to someone else. I left him a note, but my further instinct is to use rollback to make the point more clearly... is there anything wrong with doing that? (I ask because there's great paranoia about the use of rollback on Wikiversity these days, and I'm not sure how it's seen here on commons). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you and categories do not harm galleries or other forms of organization. Categories are important and every picture should be put in at least one category (not counting license categories of course). Dantadd✉ 16:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, my question was more specifically about the use of the rollback tool, since it does have that "ahem" connotation. I'm generally not comfy using an admin tool (even rollback) when I'm implicated in a "dispute", but in this case the "my pics" thing rings all sorts of alarm bells for me.

(Just for the record, they were already categorized in a general category, I only recatted them down one level). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 17:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Haynold is a published author, please see de:Benutzer:BerndH. Image:Ajuga genevensis 150505a.jpg has been identified by this contributor. He has added the image to the Ajuga genevensis species gallery page and has not categorized it by taxa. This is consistent with the guidance of COM:TOL. I know that you and and some other editors disagree with that guidance. But I think that it does not serve Commons well to use administrative tools to attempt to impose that opinion on other editors. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd also advice caution with reverting-- isn't it ok as long as they are in a gallery? / Fred Chess 21:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For some reasons not quite clear to me the policy in the whole taxosector seems to be either cats or galleries. While I personally strongly disagree with that policy, I also think that it'll take a bigger forum to try and sway that subcomminities decission, rather than individual reverts. --Dschwen 09:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of Commons policy is that every image needs to be in a category, see Commons:Categories. The argument by User:BerndH "no cats on my pics" IMO is null and void, regardless of ownership of images. Now how different projects do it is always subject to debate, but does not override the principle guideline of the usage of categories as "the primary way to organize and find files on the Commons." Unless we change that rule it should be followed. Gryffindor 00:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Coloniale

This user uploads a lot of files as PD-self, he is always the author, no matter if this image is 10, 30 or 50 years old, if the image is 200 years old, he is also the author („copyfraud“). He has seen every conflict on the globe, over decades. Some files are scans from books or magazines, others are copied from websites. Source always: „travail personnel“. He uploads images I marked for deletion (Image:Tirailleur sénégalais.jpg) again (Image:Tirailleurs sénégalais en 1944.jpg). Please stop him. --Polarlys 16:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: I blocked him for 2 h after uploading unfree images after warning. --Polarlys 16:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Since that hasn't helped, I've extended the block to one week, and I'll be deleting all of the user's self-attributed uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The user appears to be identical to User talk:Davric. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

...and User:Paris75000. Sighs. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Coloniale. Sighs. — Jeff G. ツ 16:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

News images for Wikinews

Hello everyone,

Wikinews is currently setting up a new project on our main page: "News in pictures" (it's on Template:Featured picture and Category:Featured pictures). The idea is to find free images from recent events to graphically illustrate the news. So far I've been searching images on Flickr but we'd really like some input from Commons:

photographers who are interested in Photojournalism,
people who have photographs of events in their neighbourhood,
and possibly admins looking through newly uploaded images who see images of recent events.

Of course we'd like to create a barnstar for it here for people who provide us with a featured picture .

So basically, if you see any recent images that might be of use to us, or you are planning to go to an event to take pictures, think of Wikinews! We have already provided some Commons-people with press cards to be able to get into events to take pictures for us, so if you want to become a photojournalist, we can talk!

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there is the possibility to get a barnstar? Then everything is fine … Maybe we should also encourage some people from Wikinews to look through Special:Newimages on a regular basis? --Polarlys 11:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Newimages checker updated

The newimages script that I took over from Orgullomoore became ver inefficient in recognising untagged images after the JavaScript thingie to insert the template {{Information}} into the upload screen was introduced. A small patch, thanks to Bryan has resolved this, so that more images can be automatically tagged as Unknown now. You might be please to hear that. Please be aware that we have built quite a backlog on untagged images. You can help by tagging them using UntaggedImages by Duesentrieb. Please fiddle a bit with the date timeframe in the URL to work your way back until January 2007 or so. Cheers! Siebrand 19:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, the UntaggedImages list looks like it will keep me busy for a good while. Pleased to hear that the automatic tagging has improved. Adambro 20:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you are not tagging the images with the JavaScript tool. Please look at User:Siebrand/monobook.js and copy it to your own (being Special:Mypage/monobook.js). Be sure to CTRL+F5 to update your local caches. You will get an additional three options in your bottom left bar below nominate for deletion, being

No source · lang?
No permission · lang?
No license · lang?

These are only visible on image pages. Have fun typing less and tagging more. Try and top 250 edits in 12 minutes ;). Siebrand 20:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh! Thanks for that. Much appreciated. I guessed they'd be such a script lurking somewhere but hadn't taken the time to look for it. Cheers. Adambro 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Without more people checking our new images, we’ll never get them under control. :-( --Polarlys 21:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Every bit helps. Just do whatever you want to contribute. Us whining at eachother things must change will most definately not help... I deleted 1200 images and pages today. Takes a lot of time, but imagine how much time it would have taken without BadOldOnes. If you have any ideas for tools that would make maintaining Commons easier and would enable us to use the valuable human time more effectively, please write it what it is you need. I'll try and get it done. Cheers! Siebrand 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My sad „record“ are 700 or so. We don’t need more tools, but more users willing to read Commons:Licensing. An integration of the script mentioned above per default would also help (most people won’t know it). By the way: Have a look at User:Polarlys/monobook.js. A friend of mine (de:Benutzer:DerHexer) built a fine script with delete buttons and a possibility to close deletion requests and to add duplicates to the CommonsDelinker. Regards, --Polarlys 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I'll look into them. Getting the same algorithm UntaggedImages in newimages.py is definately on my list. I have a few people willing to code up the ideas for tools I come up with. Currently Bryan is improving stability and reliability of CommonsDelinker's delinker.py and replacer.py. Once he's done with that, he will probably code up a small web interface that will give insight in what exactly CommonsDelinker is doing everywhere (we need to act as transparent as possible, very important IMO). Filnik is probably able to make an implementation for this thing.So far for the status update :) Cheers! Siebrand 21:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That commons delinker is somewhat instable these days is a huge problem on de.wp: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CommonsTicker ;-) --Polarlys 22:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You forgot that some buttons delete with linking to the correct deletion requests' page. ;) If you want to, I could help you to use Polarly's monobook or look at the monobook's bottom what you have to do, if you want to copy it. Greetings, DerHexer 22:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Something completely different: No matter how automated this process gets one day, we should be aware of its disadvantages. Checking the uploads manually is still required, to detect copyvios, to fix things. I just saw a file, which was tagged because of a missing licensing template. The license was mentioned in the text. If no one fixes this, the file remains in the maintenance category. Unfortunately I have the feeling, that some of us don’t clear its content with a certain amount of reasonable care. There are always images where the license is hidden somewhere as text or where we simply could set a template because of its origin. Deleting files like that damages Wikimedia Commons. Whenever most people from other projects don’t engage themselves here, there is a lot of critism. --Polarlys 21:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how others do it, but I usually delete using BadOldOnes and double check the descriptions (although quite rapidly). I usually correct about a handful of images out of 200. What I see is that often a license is added by the uploader, but the deletion template is not deleted. Especially in case of bot tagging, this will mean that now that the bot tags more efficiently, that number will most certainly rise. So please check the image descriptions and let's not make them say we blindly delete ;) Cheers! Siebrand 22:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocks not taking effect?

Help me out here... How is it that Xcv47x could blank the warnings off his/her user talk page at 09:23, 10 June 2007 when I blocked him/her for a duration of one week starting at 08:08, 10 June 2007? Is anyone else seeing edits from users who are supposedly blocked? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked users can edit their talk pages at Commons (I did a bug request for it). It allows them to respond to the block on-wiki. If you don't want them to be able to, protect their talk page too. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I was just in the process of saying that when I got an edit conflict. There is nothing to worry about. Adambro 10:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing ones own Flickr images or images by others from Flickr

I am concerned by the issue of self-reviewing Flickr images and would appreciate comments on my proposal that such uploads are left for others to confirm the licence is correct. Please see Commons_talk:Flickr_images#Reviewing_own_images where I have raised this for discussion. Thanks. Adambro 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

About moving/renaming categories

Hi, I just wrote this help page: Commons:Rename a category. Please edit it if you don't quite agree with something I wrote.

Also, am I correct in thinking that User:Orgullobot/commands is used by other bots? (Orgullobot hasn't edited since 18 April.) Should we move it to Commons:Bot commands and figure out a way to allow bots to follow the commands (ie, "Your bot must be approved and you must work in agreement with the controllers of the bots who currently follow these commands"), just to stop duplicate action or anything like that. I think there should be one central place to request bot actions like this, so it makes sense to have it in the Commons namespace. Thoughts? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The CommonsDelinker command part will soon (in about a week) be moved to User:CommonsDelinker/commands. The category moves are currently done by User:SieBot. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What Bryan says. We'll let you know when to take the business to another page and keep things managable using the great #REDIRECT ;) Cheers! Siebrand 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Right... but in general we can't guarantee forever such commands will be tied to one bot... so why not move them to a bot-independent page? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Missouri Botanical Garden images

The Missouri botanical Garden specifically prohibits the commercial use of any photos taken of their gardens. This notice is printed on the back of their admission tickets. Since Commons has a policy of only publishing free images, this poses a problem. The following images make no claim that they have received permission from the Missouri Botanical Gardens for commercial use (please let me know what tag I should post on these images):

Rklawton 04:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please file a deletion request to that effect. The place for that is Commons:Deletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a deletion request per your recommendation. The response I've gotten to my request from the two editors who bothered to comment was that the Missouri Botanical Garden's non-commercial stipulation "is not enforceable." I've spoken with the Garden's PR coordinator, and she affirms that these images are copyrighted. Personally, it seems logical that gardens that have been uniquely designed and constructed constitute copyrightable works of art (unlike individual plants which are part of nature and are not copyrightable). From a Commons point of view, it seems illogical to tell another organization to go stuff their claimed copyrights. I thought we were a bit more cautious than that. From the Missouri Botanical Gardens point of view, an organization which charges a minimum of $700 for commercial photography, anyone publishing their work as "free for commercial use" in violation of the Garden's copyrights diminishes the value of their work. As this is not a simple case of "is this image in bad taste," etc.), it occurs to me that this is something administrators or even the Commons legal staff would want to review rather than leave it up to the whims of unqualified editors. Rklawton 01:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that lots of organisations claim copyright over things they don't have copyright over - libraries and museums are prime offendors. In the past we have dismissed claims of copyright where there's no basis for the claim. It seems unlikely to me that their "PR coordinator" is an expert in copyright. As the restriction is printed on the ticket it seems likely to me that taking/publishing such photos is a violation of the terms of entry, and as such the person could be tossed out of the gardens, but I'm not convinced the wording on the ticket transfers ownership of the copyright to the gardens rather than the photographer. So far we have dismissed similarly worded statements from e.g. sports venues entry conditions. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

See Commons talk:Licensing#photos from British Natural History Museum for a similar discussion. To summarize: Under User:Micheletb's reasoning, these photos would violate the property rights of the garden (it's their grounds, they can do as they wish with it, including limit commercial usage of photos). The photographer is notified of this via the ticket stub, which is an enforceable contract. Although the contract is between the photographer and the botanical gardens, downstream users cannot benefit from the photographer breaking the contract. howcheng {chat} 17:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Same statue, different attribution

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring this to someone's attention, but while looking for suitable images for the article "en:James Smithson" I noticed that the image in Wikimedia Commons "Image:Smithson.jpg" is said to be a photograph of a statue of James Smithson, while a photograph of the same statue in the English Wikipedia, "en:Image:The Smithsonian Dude.jpg", is said to be a statue of Joseph Henry, an American scientist and the first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Which attribution is correct? Cheers, Jacklee 23:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I lack any actual knowledge, it appears that the consensus of the Net is that the EN attribution is correct. Compare image hits for J. Smithson with image hits for J. Henry... note that the latter include several other depictions of Henry which bear a distinct resemblance to the statue, while IMO the various paintings and sketches of Smithson have a very different look. -- Visviva 04:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-election of Chinese wiki administrator

Hi, in Chinese wiki, we're currently discussing the feasibility of holding a re-election to deal with the conflicts between admins and users, but as one administrator pointed out, even if an admin fails to be re-elected, no one in Chinese wiki has a right to cancel his admin rights. Could anyone advise us what to do? If we have an admin failed to be re-elected, is it possible that the commons take a follow-up action according to the re-election results? Thanks a lot. --Kevin wong 08:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Each project sets its own standards, so normally a desysopping in one wiki won't affect a user's status in another wiki. Your broader question is better asked on Meta rather than here. In any case, if ZH Wikipedia does not have bureaucrats, you should ask a steward about the handling of this matter. -- Visviva 09:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks a lot! --Kevin wong 09:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT a vote, please do not

Support/

Oppose and etc. -- Cat ^chi? 12:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we make it a policy prohibiting the removal of {{Delete}} until the relevant deletion discussion is closed (assuming one was properly started). This really needs to be spelled out. There should be no reason to remove this information template before the closure of the deletion discussion. -- Cat ^chi? 23:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Similar to the way nsd, nld, and npd work with {{Dont remove nsd or nld}}? Cbrown1023 talk 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - I wholeheartedly agree with this proposal. See also: Template talk:Delete#Do not remove deletion request tags and {{Dont remove delete}}. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- That should probably be added to the user links script, then. Cbrown1023 talk 00:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose La propuesta parece ser un interés particular, hecha minutos antes de bloquear mi cuenta, aún sin política al respecto. Considero muy grave que un administrador bloquee una cuenta sin aviso previo, sin argumentar, sin política definida, siendo parte interesada en el conflicto de ediciones y dando como argumento una especie de burla. Al margen de esa gravedad, lo que debiera considerarse inadecuado es poner {{Delete}} en cientos de categorías, sin debate previo, utilizando un bot controlado por quien bloquea a quien discrepa y sin aguardar el resultado de la consulta. --Tano4595 06:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Adding a delete template is like any other edit: it can be wise or inane. Therefore, I strongly disagree with special rules about some sorts of edits, unless we are able to give quality assessments about these edits. --Juiced lemon 08:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The point of the tag is to notify visitors that there is a discussion taking place. It should only be removed if (a) no proper discussion page was started, (b) the discussion has concluded, or (c) it's replaced with a different tag that is more appropriate. I find it hard to believe that anyone disagrees with these statements?

If people make bad faith deletion discussions, those discussions can be speedily closed and the person warned/blocked. That's not what's going on here though. Just let the discussion take place and worry about more important edits than reverting over a delete tag. (PS: If you want the name to stay the same, don't you want people who agree with you to see the notice and be able to take part in the discussion too??) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a general argument. Not for a spesific case. The special situations you mentioned (a - COM:DEL subpage is a redlink), (b - closed COM:DEL discussions), and (c - for example the replacement of {{Delete}} with {{Move}}) are of course exceptions that goes without saying. {{Delete}} (and other similar templates) additions should not be removed even if done in a bad faith manner (to prevent bad faith removals of {{Delete}}). Bad faith noms will be speedily closed and nominators probably will get blocked after a point so there is no need to panic remove the notification template. People should not under any circumstances be removing noms they disagree with. -- Cat ^chi? 12:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose -- I don't see the need to make policies for everything (in fact, the user Cool Cat itself said this at one time!). I have also changed back the image of the Delete-template from the Stop-hand to the Warning Triangle, so it should give a better impression now. / Fred J 11:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, however this is a fundamental issue that needs some coverage as there is serious confusion over it as demonstrated on this very page. -- Cat ^chi? 12:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I would say if one puts a deletion request tag on an image it is helpful and necessary to find the discussion. It is no indication whether the images should be deleted or not of course. So this tag should not be removed. If the request is not based on good reasons, the request will be closed quickly and the image will be kept (tagging the discussion page with {{Kept}}. So what is the problem? --ALE! ¿…? 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PD images on en.wikipedia

w:Wikipedia has a lot of free images. Since the goal of commons is to host free images for all wikimedia projects I thought that I could create a bot to move free images on wikipiedia to commons. My first move would be w:Category:User-created public domain images. and how should I request a bot flag to do this? Betacommand 15:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That bot already exists. Check imagecopy.py in the pywikipediabot framework. Please do fix the FIXMEs ;). You can simply request a file upload bot or additional permissions for your current bot. Siebrand 15:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Siebrand, that is what I was planning on doing. I just wanted to make sure the idea would float first. Betacommand 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. I copied about 12k self images from nl.wp over here to test the bot a bit. It works ;) Please be aware that copying in autonomous mode would be unwanted, as in my experience about 10-15% of claimed self licenses are actually copyvios or derivative and the like. Copying something like 150 images/hour is possible. More if you are really sure about copyright status. Please be aware that the bot uses CommonsHelper and CommonSense, so it relies heavily on availability of the toolserver. If it's not there, the tool cannot be used. Siebrand 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would seriously discourage autonomous copying of images. A lot of "claimed" self images really are copyvios. If it is supervised, it would be fine to me. See Commons:Bots, on the top for requesting bot status. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I also copied several hundred images from de.wp, but I copied sets from single users instead of starting with „A“. On en.wp there are a lot of files just with a template and no further information. About 10–15 % copyvios is a bad rate, we shouldn’t work without considering this. I’d really enjoy a possibility to run the bot on a user’s contributions, not on categories. The files also need some manual clean-up regarding categories. --Polarlys 18:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of adding switches to the bot for getting image links by using existing page generators. I know the theory, just not how to code it... If you require something specific, you might ask User:Orgullomoore to add it or any other user able to extend a pywikipediabot bot... Cheers! Siebrand 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is imperative that you review the images. A lot of free images are actualy unfree and falsely tagged. You might want to copy images by "known good users" first. -- Cat ^chi? 21:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea of copying based on "known good users" is a very good idea. The idea of blanket category-wide moves is a very bad one, as we have already seen with bots that do this from other projects. It just produces a stream of unsourced material that creates twice as much work to look up and check.

En.wp could introduce an idea like "WikiProject Image Check". Users check allegedly-free images uploaded there, and either nominate them for deletion or mark them with a template {{Commons ok}}. Bots could check if those templates were added by "trusted users" or admins, and if so, then those images could be auto-moved. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons, which tries, but with the volume of work it's gonna take awhile. I think I calculated once that if 50 people moved 5 images a day it would take a year or something crazy. I agree blanket moves aren't a good idea. Even in the Federal Government images there are many images that are actually from the state or school level with that tag. There is the w:Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons, but it can be put on by anyone. A tag that a few people know about to mark images approved so a bot can move them over wouldn't be a bad idea. Moving is the most amount of work and I could tag several hundred a day versus moving about 20. The bot could check to see who added the tag and if they're approved to (aka, trustworthy), so we don't get some Joe Schmo or IP adding the tag and then it ends up here. MECU≈talk 12:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fides images

Hi. Jollyroger is looking for help with getting images from the Photo Archive of the Fides Service of the Fides Agency of The Vatican via the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (Italian: Archivio Storico dei Fides Servizio dei Agenzia Fides per L'Vatican per Congregazione per L'Evangelizzazione dei Popoli) onto Commons. These are images that the Roman Catholic Church has released for anyone to use with attribution because they appear to feel that this suits their purpose of promoting their Church (similar to CC-BY-SA), and I feel that copying them to Commons would be a good idea, but I don't have a bot that can do so. Please see Commons:Village pump#FIDES License Template, Template:FIDES, User talk:Jeff G.#Fides, and their photo archive for details. Can you please help with any of the following steps I see?

Consensus that the images will be acceptable as far as licensing is concerned.
Asking for a volunteer.
Having someone volunteer.

I think we're still at step 1. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|supports deadminship for inactivity) 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please get a explicit permission to use this photos (derivative works, commercially). Jollyroger says: „making available images and media for use in promotional material. So obviously the derivative and commercial use are included, and there is no doubt about that for anyone who understand Italian language.“ I doubt that. Whenever people will get angry: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FIDES. Unfortunately, people don’t care about explicit permissions without a request for deletion. --Polarlys 15:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly feel more comfortable if we could get some clarification from Fides on the licensing issue when considering the upload of over 4,500 images. Adambro 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I contacted them via mail. --Polarlys 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Polarlys, the license stated on the website is *CLEAR* for anyone who understand italian (i.e. not you). the word "liberamente" means that all uses are allowed (they are free in the broadest meaning), so why, why, why do you want them to answer again? Italian institutions seldom answer to paper letters, not to speak of e-mails... Why the hell do you keep ignoring copyright statements on websites even when they are clear?--Jollyroger 18:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your point of view is an interpretion, for me it’s a typical press license (if it’s a „license“ at all). Isn’t it better to ask for a clarification instead to upload pictures first? --Polarlys 19:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. License statement is clear, as I said. It will just end up in waiting an e-mail never to come. --Jollyroger 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Will end up here: Commons:Copyright_tags#Unknown_nature. --Polarlys 22:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

From a strictly legal point of view, I agree that someone announcing that a work they created is "free" would have a hard time in court arguing that "free" means "free except [some restriction]". Nevertheless, the standard procedure at Commons is to require a license explicitly permitting derivatives and commercial use. You may like or dislike that practice, but please curtail the hostile language. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jollyroger, the ambiguity is not on the adverb freely/liberamente but on the verb use. In the software world, a freeware can be used and distributed freely/liberamente but this does generally not imply it may be modified. I'm pretty sure you're right but it's safer to ask Fides what they exactly mean. — Xavier, 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A freeware software is distributed "gratuitamente".

If we speak of "software libero", we are speaking of free software (in stallman's way). --Jollyroger 07:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Most freewares are also distributed "liberamente". And since you know about free (libre) software, you can't ignore that using the software is only one in four freedoms provided by the GPL. The other three freedoms offered (among them: redistributing modified versions) are explicitely stated because "freedom of use" is a term that is not broad enough. Same thing applies here. — Xavier, 01:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, guys, that's over. I don't give a damn about those images. Do as you wish, I am not asking anyone to repeat the license statement. --Jollyroger 13:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Look guys, JollyRoger is exactly correct in his interpretation, as any italian language speaker would confirm. If I attempted to fire up such a discussion on some license worded in english (which is not my native language, though I speak/read/write it fairly) I would be (rightly) laughed out of existence - so this entire discussion boils basically down to linguistic bias, often sighted in Commons, as in "Since I don't understand italian, rather than trusting another commoner who does I'll demand that the holder rewords it in a language that is presumably foreign to him for my perusal.": replace "italian" with "english" and "english" with "italian" and see how it suits you. Secondly, JR is also right in stating that badgering the Vatican to reword/clarify the license statement will result in nought with 99.99999% probability. Have fun, --Alien life form 10:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Polish site - help needed

Can someone check http://www.wkugdynia.pow.mil.pl/html/komendanci.html or the main site for license information, please? I dont belive that the images are GFDL, see Image:BroniewskiKarol.JPG. --GeorgHH 09:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This page doesn't mention GFDL and very unlikely that old images are licensed under GFDL. May be {{PD-Poland}}. --EugeneZelenko 15:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I primarily see three pending deletion requests on current photos, always series, no explicit permission from the owners of various websites but GFDl, and a massive violation of COM:SCOPE in the last weeks (i had to delete several hundred “party pictures”). I think, the user is not aware of elementary project guidelines such as permissions and scope. Unfortunately the user is sysop. --Polarlys 19:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Arabic system messages

I would like to request help from admis in updating Arabic system messages which currently contain a lot of spelling errors. I have created a user subpage in which I wrote the name of each message and the correct text under it. An admin is needed to copy and paste the code. Thanks. --Meno25 12:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Meno. If you are talking generic messages in Arabic, please consider moveing your activities to betawiki. You'll have a lot more synergy there, as you are working on improvement of MediaWiki language source files. Cheers! Siebrand 12:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Siebrand, for your kind advice. --Meno25 09:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Meno: lots of stuff on Commons need translation though. Our only Arab speaking admin appears to be gone? If you are interested in translating, there is for starters Template:PD-Arab.

There are also several longer introduction pages at Commons:First steps/ar that could need translation if you really want to practice your translation skills.

Fred J 12:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/196.218.187.88 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.60.137 (talk • contribs) at 20:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

penis-photo

somebody shoud delete this old file of a masturbated penis:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/94/20060401205745!Gerhardschroeder.jpg

it was in the search results of google images when i searched after the former german cancellor gerhard schroeder

--84.56.178.109 21:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it from the version history of Image:Gerhardschroeder.jpg. Regards, --Polarlys 21:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

the picture ist still there when i search at google images after that:

http://images.google.de/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=de&q=gerhardschroeder.jpg --84.56.178.109 21:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

delete it!

Google needs some days/weeks before it disappears. --Polarlys 22:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's still visible at this URL. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

== who is able to delete this ugly file?????????????????????? --83.71.231.1 23:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC) ==

PLEASE...thats not good for wikipedia!!!! —the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.71.231.1 (talk • contribs)

As far as I see, the image is not in Wikipedia anymore. It is a matter of time until Google loses it. We can't force them to delete it, can we? -- ReyBrujo 02:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It’s still there (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/94/20060401205745!Gerhardschroeder.jpg) whenever I deleted it the common way. BTW: The IP unrolls this topic more and more, attacks the deleting administrator and screams for deletion. Maybe the blocked uploader and the IP (IPs by a German and an Irish ISP (open proxy?)) are the same person? Who knows? To attract attention is a troll’s elixir. --Polarlys 12:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The same IP has left an comment about that on my talk page[30], though I've nothing to do with that and, being no admin, can't delete it. It's quite annoying. -- Túrelio 20:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried asking the developers, but no response so far. I'll try again tomorrow. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Try restoring the image, uploading a neutral image, purging/regenerating thumbs until it's fixed, then deleting again. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving Suggestion of the Project "CJK stroke order" category

I have suggested that the project "CJK stroke order" should be moved. Please look at Category talk:CJK stroke order#Should move to Wiktionary !? If you have any opinion or support it as an Admin, I would apprecite it. --SantaClaus 13:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[Quote]

Just for my 2c, I think the Stroke Project is fine at Commons. The project scope is only really intended to keep out stuff that is not suitable for any Wikimedia project, and keep text and non-media things at their appropriate home. Since the stroke project is so closely tied to the media files, I think it's fine at Commons. But it could also be fine at Wiktionary. I think this is a borderline case and it would be appropriate at one of several projects. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[Quote End]

OK, I understand. It's clear now. I just wondered if it should be done somehow if it is not appropriate for this Commons project. Thanks.--SantaClaus 10:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Revising adminship policy

I've put a possible policy proposal for this here. It tries to incorporate much of what was said during the de-adminship discussion. Some parts are very unfinished but at least everyone can have their say! Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

ENGLISH: The Odyssey of my deleted images

Hi to all you! I'd like to make you know my odd, unlucky Odyssey here on commons: the 100 files I uploaded have been deleted because an user of it.wiki thought that some of them were copyviol, and told it to a commons's admin who deleted ALL my images! But only 5 of them were copyviol, and I really didn't know it! After I talked to this admin, he restored my images at last, but another user, Fred Chess, deleted again some other files. Among the ones he deleted, there were many photos I took with my own mobile!!! I asked him to restore the images which were not copyviol, but he didn't restore all them. Now, I'm here to ask you please to restore all my deleted files that weren't copyviol. These imagese were also in 3 wikipedia's featured articles, so the damnage wasn't just to me, but also to wikipedia.

This was my story... plese, help me! --Max 27 Jul 2007, 21:40 (UTC)

We have, as far as I could check, already undeleted all images that were not ripped of from some website, or photographed from a magazine/book. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

ITALIANO:L'Odissea delle Immagini cancellate

Ciao a tutti! Volevo farvi conoscere la mia sfortunata odissea su commons: dopo aver caricato più di 100 immagini, esse sono state più volte cancellate e ripristinate dopo le mie pressanti richieste in cui dimostravo essere infondati i motivi delle cancellazioni. Un utente di it.wiki ha segnalato a uno sbadatissimo admin straniero di commons che alcune (4 circa) delle mie immagini sembravano essere foto scattate da volantini, com'è realmente, e costituivano copyviol: premetto che non sapevo lo fossero, visto che non c'era scritto copyright sui volsantini da cui le ho scattate. L'admin, comportandosi da vero cafone, ha cancellato TUTTE le mie immagini!!! Sbalorditissimo, io, gli ho scritto e lui le ha ripristinate. Poi un altro utente, Fred Chess, è tornato a colpire alcune mie immagini: quest'ultimo non si è limitato a cancellare solo i copyviol che io stesso ho ammesso dopo aver appreso che lo fossero (e che comunque erano appena una decina su 100 immagini che ho caricato), ma anche altre foto che ho scattato con la mia macchina digitale o col telefonino!! Gli ho chiesto di ripristinarle, ma non mi ha risposto. Ora, mi sfogo qui perchè non intendo nella maniera più assoluta che qualcuno rovini parte del mio lavoro quando questo è pulito, il tempo a fare e caricare le immagini l'ho perso io, al "cancellatore" sonpo bastati pochi istanti per annullare i miei sforzi. Faccio presente che alcune delle immagini cancellate erano parte di 3 voci della vetrina di it.wiki (tutt'e tre scritte da me), e che il danno arrecato non solo è morale mio, ma si ripercuote anche su pagine d'eccellenza della wikipedia italiana.

Chiedo a chi può di aiutarmi in qualche modo, specialmente agli admin italiani, e per favore, qualcuno potrebbe dirmi come si fanno le richieste agli admin qui su commons? C'è una pagina apposita come su wiki?

Questa era la mia disavventura qui. Grazie a chi l'ha letta e vorrà aiutrmi a ripristinare i miei file, bona serata! --Max 27 Jul 2007, 21:16 (UTC)

Sembra che ti abbiano già ripristinato le immagini. La prossima volta, magari, un po' meno pathos... --Jollyroger 10:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Milanmartic.jpg

This has been tagged as copyvio for over a week now (uploader notified). 81.104.175.145 18:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you tag an image as no-source, it takes at least 7 days, but more likely 10 days before the image is deleted. If you are quite sure that the image is a copyvio, you can use {{Copyvio}}. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Did you actually look at the IDP, or is that a stock response?~~ Disregard that, I suck cocks and the answer is "both". Sorry abotu that. 81.104.175.145 20:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ferrol CU case

Any admins that would like to review this case and do some blocking are welcome to. There are around 30 users and 20+ IP addresses and it looks as though the puppetry is continuing so keep an eye on anything Ferrol related. Let me know if I can do anything or provide info - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

While this is largely tied up I think (thanks to Seibrand) there is still some issues around - I have semi protected Prevert's page because of attacks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Szczepan1990's hundred deletions

Hello, the administrator User:Szczepan1990 delete hundred pages, I guest it's to clean up commons. But I found out that he do (in some cases) more than one hundred deletion by 10 minutes, which means one deletion every 6 secondes, and without comments (19th may 2007, 23:51). In this way he deleted by mistake the page Chinese_characters_decomposition( part of the CJK stroke order project) (2007 may, 19th). I was able to revert it, because I seen it and because I'm admin, but I think he did many other such mistakes.

I have two question :

What lead these deletions ? (page are they categorized "to delete ?")
How admins can deleted one hundred (or more) pages in 10 minutes without destroying something ?
What can we do to check all this deletions ?

--Yug (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that it was the deletion of page in the main space, without image(s). See User:Gmaxwell/scratch. Now what do we do ?

nothing, waiting people asking undeletions ?
check all ?

--Yug (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's common practice to delete galleries containing no media. There may be a few cases where it is acceptable but they are exceptions; gallery pages here are for gathering images on a subject and we don't have articles or lists. I'd say deleting is fine, and if people complain we will take things on a case-by-case basis with undeletions. -- Editor at Large • talk 19:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like many of the deletions were valid, but more than a few were species lists. At first glance these might seem redundant to Wikispecies, but I was just looking for hummingbird pictures, and got an unhelpful red-link redirect to Trochilidae (now restored); as directories of galleries, these are perfectly useful. Maybe they'd be better with only links to existing galleries, and representative thumbnails (similar to List of dog breeds), but I don't think they should be deleted wholesale. --Davepape 14:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

283 of these pages relating to WikiProject TOL were restored. The main problem (apart from the fact that a deletion per 6 seconds didn't involve much checking of their usefulness), is that there was no discussion beforehand and no notification afterwards - it seems strange to have a system where minor edits to pages show up in watch-lists but wholesale deletion of pages does not. Odd pages were noted as missing and restored on an individual basis for a month before I investigated the loss of one page that I normally consult often. Is there some mechanism that can list page deletions in watch-lists? --Tony Wills 11:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

>It's common practice to delete galleries containing no media.

Well, it may be common but clearly not very wise practice. In the current, common (sadly too common in Commons) trend of hastily deleting some files without much previous, sensible consideration or procedures, automatically unlinking them (but never, as far as I know, linking them back) all over Wikimedia and then (crikey!) restoring them, deleting "empty" galleries adds a bit of extra mess to the whole, extra loss and extra work for admins and/or users alike... each case is interestingly different. An example in which I am currently involved: almost a month ago, ten pictures I uploaded here where deleted because I was not properly informed. Now permission has been provided for them. Connection permitting, I will ask for restoring them in a while and hopefully they will be undeleted soon. Anyway, I distinctly remember having made a gallery to collect all the 10 related images. Checking my contributions I cannot find it, so unless I am wrong, it seems to have been erased along with the pictures. I cannot remember its exact name, I do not know who or whot erased it. I only can guess about the period when it was supposedly deleted. If the pictures are finally restored, should I create again the gallery from scratch? (in which case, I should slightly change Editor at Large's statement: "deleting is fine" would become "deleting is a fine") or there is a way to find it and saving it from the furious pyre of oblivion? --Piolinfax ^{(Tell me)} 17:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have learnt what the actual problem of the previously mentioned files was and that after all they will be probably dwelling in the Commons deletion log limbo for eternity but that does not change my contention about the "common practice to delete galleries containing no media". --Piolinfax ^{(Tell me)} 23:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Signs

Is anybody willing to clean (Stop gaychat.svg, Fart.svg) this category? See COM:SCOPE. ;-) --Polarlys 21:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Stop gaychat.svg is used on a user page on cs.wiki, i'm not sure what the subject of this is. The other image is unused. I want delete them. --GeorgHH 10:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is not if you want or do not want to delete them. The point is "should them be deleted?" and then add arguments for or against the action. And the fact that a file is unused now does not necessarily mean that it has never been or will never be used. Maybe they display slightly bad taste but I do not see a real reason for these svgs' removal. --89.168.29.253 01:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nick Andromeda

I want to register with the nickname "Andromeda", the same I use in the English Wikipedia, but it says me: "The name "Andromeda" is very similar to the existing account "Andr0meda" (contributions • logs • user creation entry). Please choose another name, or request an administrator to create this account for you." So, I'm asking. Can anyone create this account for me, please? Thank you. --80.25.176.81 20:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolved -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this feature available project-wide? --Polarlys 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

On all Wikimedia projects, users are now not allowed to create accounts with names that are determined be the software to be "too similar" to existing accounts. Admins can create such accounts though. Does that answer your question Polarys? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For anybody who does not know how to, goto Special:Userlogin, click the "create account" link, add all the relevant stuff, including the user's email and a random password, and click on "per-email". -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. --Polarlys 12:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think if you click on "by email" you don't have to enter a password, and the system will automatically generate one and send it in the email. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2007/03

Most of the remaining discussions from march seems to be over license templates. I am uncomfortable in closing any due to the MASS AMOUNT of them. Any thoughts? -- Cat ^chi? 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, the problem is that there are several well-founded requests, but people just voted the requesting user down and (well-founded) deletion will upset them as well. I’ll help a little bit. --Polarlys 21:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

These homebrew „licenses“ are a pain in the neck … --Polarlys 21:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think, that it is a good idea to just close the requests. Some show good reasons for deletions. Maybe we should try to find a consensus by voting on the discussion page of each deletion request whether the template and the files should go. I know we do not vote here, but we should find a majority amongst us Admins. Another problem are the dozens of money deletion requests. --ALE! ¿…? 11:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone just close them to calm people down? Voting is not a good idea, it’s just the wrong sign. Maybe a short exchange of points of view instead? --Polarlys 13:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, something like

Admin ALE!: Delete because unfree license.
Admin Plarlys: Keep because valid permission

etc.

--ALE! ¿…? 09:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If a deletion request lingers for a long time without reaching a clear consensus, you can always bump it up to a more current subpage. I think that's fine, especially for requests that affect a large number of images. As for arguments based purely on emotion and what is useful rather than what's legal and policy-compliant, just ignore them as invalid. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Polish permission - translation

Joymaster has uploaded a permission image for Image:Biuro Hydrograficzne Marynarki Wojennej - Reklama wydawnictw.jpg. Can someone confirm, that it is a permission for PD not only for wikipedia.pl? I asked the uploader for translation, but got no response. --GeorgHH 11:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph said about permission to publish in Wikipedia. Second said about public domain but with attributing source and authors. I don't think that this is uncontroversial permission... --EugeneZelenko 14:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is that they agree for publication of their images under any attribution license - they don't prohibit redistribution. It is not a Wikipedia-only permission, they just note that it is Wikipedia who will - for obvious reasons - be doing the publishing/hosting, but since they want only attribution, this is a free license acceptable on Commons. Anyway, I translated the permission.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

New script: UserMessages

I'd like to inform you about a new script: MediaWiki:UserMessages.js. This script enables you to added three templates to users pages (more if you count language variants) in exactly the same style as MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js. It only adds menu items on user talk pages. Installation instructructions are on MediaWiki talk:UserMessages.js.

The following templates are currently supported and I do hope that more will be supported soon:

Cheers! Siebrand 11:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone program two toolbox buttons <deleted> and <kept> to facilitate the closing of deletion requests where no additional comment is needed? --ALE! ¿…? 11:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not that difficult. The buttons would only be available in the namespace Commons: and would add {{Delh}} at the top of the page, a line under the current discussion and kept or deleted with your signature and {{Delf}} at the bottom of the page. I think it would be handy, too, if there was a pop-up with a keep/delete reason before the page is edited. I guess you agree. I'll try and code something up, as at least the part without the pop-up does not sound that hard to do. I'll let you know the result. Cheers! Siebrand 12:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a look in my monobook.js. --Polarlys 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, this has obviously been built already. Polarlys, could you convert this to a module in the MediaWiki namespace? Cheers! Siebrand 13:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I’ll forward it to my technical advisor, Mr. DerHexer. ;-) --Polarlys 14:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you just love those technicl advisors. I also have a few of them and I really cherish them... Cheers! Siebrand 15:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Today it's not possible. I hope I'll find some time tomorrow. Greetings, DerHexer 21:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at MediaWiki:DeleteKeep.js. Polarlys 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I installed it in my Monobook, but somehow it does not work at all. --ALE! ¿…? 07:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It works on every section of Commons:Deletion requests. … But I'm creating a sysop-monobook with delete buttons and so on. DerHexer 10:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

When I press the "delete auto" button on the page Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Blsgif.gif nothing happens. Sorry. --ALE! ¿…? 10:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You should use the edit modus. Without action=edit it doesn't work, yet. I'll try to fix it. DerHexer 10:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In the edit modus [31] it also does not work! --ALE! ¿…? 11:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

On my computer it does work and I just use this script. Please delete this line

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="/w/index.php?title=User:Polarlys/quickbar.js
&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"><\/script>');

in MediaWiki:DeleteKeep.js and try it again. It has to work. ;) DerHexer 12:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Still not working. --ALE! ¿…? 12:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove it here, but on MediaWiki:DeleteKeep.js. DerHexer 12:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but still not working. (I'm using IE 6) --ALE! ¿…? 12:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Also does not work with Firefox 1.5) --ALE! ¿…? 12:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

:( IE 6, IE 7 and Opera don't work, too, but on FF 1.5.0.8 and on 2.0.0.4 it works. DerHexer 12:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I am using FF 1.5.0.7 and it does not work. Can you imagine some way to make it work on IE 6/7, too? --ALE! ¿…? 13:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(It has to work. …) JS is activated? You don't want to change to FF 2.0? ;) … Most of my and others scripts just run on FF (2.0), but that's normal: On de.wp our two most well known scripts (by PDD and D) just run on FF. DerHexer 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Strange with my other Computer running FF 1.5.0.7 it works partially however presing delete auto, it does not delete the image but only closes the discussion (pop ups permited). I will now try IE 6. --ALE! ¿…? 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It only automatically closes the edit box. BTW in IE 6 the script does not work. --ALE! ¿…? 22:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to, I could combine it. That's not the problem. DerHexer had made a deletion script for me. Polarlys 22:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I already have a customizable form of this using Pathoschild's script; when editing pages it makes links appear below the sidebar, which add templates specified by the user and auto-create an edit summary likewise specified. I find it quite handy for warning vandals quickly (*poke* especially since people *poke poke* really need to start warning vandals *poke poke* when they vandalise *poke* so we anti-vandalism admins who block *poke* know they have a history of vandalism *poke poke poke*). It's at m:User:Pathoschild/Script:TemplateScript, and you can see my specific script in my monobook. As menu items it sounds interesting... -- Editor at Large • talk 22:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, please have a look at my monobook. You’ll find there modules in the MediaWiki namespace, doing the following:

Deleting with (at the moment not individually) configurable reasons (e.g. “copyvio”, deletes a page, writing “copyvio, see Commons:Licensing”, “fair use”, “test”, “flickr: All rights reserved.”), MediaWiki:Delete.js,
deleting with linking the request for deletion (MediaWiki:DeleteLinking.js),
closing requests for deletion (various modes, MediaWiki:DeleteKeep.js) and
adding duplicates to CommonsDelinkers list (MediaWiki:Duplicate.js). Regards, --Polarlys 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added links to MediaWiki:DeleteLinking.js and MediaWiki:Duplicate.js but I do not see any new buttons. Could you please check this and/or give me a hint how it works? Thanks! --ALE! ¿…? 11:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:UserMessages.js (once more)

Additional toolbox entries

One last message to let you know that MediaWiki:UserMessages.js was updated. It now supports the adding of 29 different templates to a user talk page, including those requiring exactly one parameter, and templates that require no or one paramter. For all templates that do not require a parameter, a localised version of the template can be made available easily. I have tried to sort the menu options in order of usage (lower is used less often). Please check the right of this message for a screenshot. Happy time saving and I do hope that using this tool will encourage you to more often add messages to user pages. I will try to make a similar script for tagging media files. Please let me know if you have any questions or use the script's talk page. Cheers! Siebrand 13:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow... it's huge! But it looks great, good job Siebrand and whoever else helped! :) Cbrown1023 talk 16:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not just want to try all buttons in order to find out what they are for. Could someone briefly explain what they do? --ALE! ¿…? 11:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Automatic user messages

Installing this script as described on the talk page will give you links in the toolbox for all pages in the User talk: namespace, that say 'Please tag', 'Please name', and 'Please link'. Clicking any of the buttons will add one of the following templates to the user's talk page, signed by you:

Alternatively you can place some templates in a user's language. Templates marked with an asterisk (*) use a parameter and can be translated, but cannot be localised on the user page with the script. Click the link 'lang' and fill in a language code to have a localised version of the template put on the talk page.

Main code by User:Siebrand, derived from MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js by Jietse Niesen, pfctdayelise and Alphax

I hope the above suffices, ALE!? Cheers! Siebrand 07:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --ALE! ¿…? 15:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Privacy violation

Could somebody quicky delete photos from Bratislava Wikipedia meeting that was uploaded without permission of Slovak Wikipedians. It is question of time. --Deletolog 09:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not completely sure about that. If you are one of the users portrayed, state which one (and possibly state which pictures do you think violate your privacy). Otherwise, there is a notice about these photos on sk:Wikipédia:Stretnutia#Vyhodnotenie, currently without a single objection. --Mormegil 09:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware which Slovak law requires permission of attendees, I haven't found it in Slovak copyright law. Can you please tell me where can I find it? ~~helix84 16:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with copyright, we accept a wish like this one independent from local law. --Polarlys 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with publishing images numbers 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 13 and 18 where I am portrayted in. --Dezidor 00:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to delete them for you. But to be absolutely sure: do you mean the image names (...-02) or the position in the gallery? Please link them, that way I can also be sure I didn't miss any. For example: the image with suffix -02 doesn't exist. NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 00:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"2" was deleted after Wizzard´s request. Another are [32] [33] [34][35][36][37] --Dezidor 00:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Should be deleted now. Lemme know if I missed something. NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 01:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

New "Toys"

Some info found today. Firstly we now have a local spam blacklist at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist which may well be useful. The other is very neat particularly when finding bot pages and is Special:DeletedContributions. I know folk tend to just delete such - my own view is that placing a block (a week for me if no valid contribs) acts as a marker & is quicker than placing a user page message but this will allow a review of previously deleted material. Longer blocks can then be placed on repeat offenders.

Hope it helps someone - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to try to make time to add the deleted contributions link to the {{Checkuser}} template, it's a handy thing to be able to search. (hint.. if nobody beats me to it!) ++Lar: t/c 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever cough Herby cough took the hint, here and on meta, works a treat! Now I can see Jimbo's deleted contributions in one click! :) ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-category crusade

In the past, I have discussed the need for categories (for plants) with Ies (talk · contribs), arguing that per our policies (COM:C in particular) all images should be categorized, in addition to being in a gallery (please note that on his talk page he has been questioned about removal of categories by other users, not only myself). I thought I have convinced him of it some months ago, but his edits just came up on my watchlist again: not only is he removing cats again, he is nominating depopulated categories for speedy deletion. I would not be suprised if some categories have already been deleted as empty :( I think his behaviour is disruptive, and an admin should warn him that he can be blocked for disruption of the project, revert his category removal and restore any deleted categories. For users who use category structure to navigate, his actions are very disruptive. PS. For the record, just today, that user has decategorized hundreds of images and nominated dozens of categories for speedying. If he keeps up, in a month or two we will have no categories left...! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I support this request. Media files must not remain uncategorized. If you remove accurate categorie(s), it increases the risk that other users will add inappropriate categories later. --Juiced lemon 16:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

See Commons:Disputes_noticeboard#Removing_categories_from_images. I have warned User:Ies. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 12:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, there seems the beleif that COM:C is a policy but this isn't true. To ease things I'm quoting a resent discussion from here:

I quoted the Commons:Categories policy above, but I'll quote it here again for your convenience. "Some users are of the opinion that when an image is included in a gallery article, it is sufficient to categorize that article. Others believe that each individual image should be categorized too. The consensus on this issue, as determined by vote, is that both systems are equally valid and should be used concurrently. Do not remove categories just because an image is in a categorized gallery." There is no exception for photographs of plants and animals. I'm certainly open to discussing this at the ToL Wikiproject, but this is a Commons-wide policy which is not restricted to one particular project or another. Quadell (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Quadell, even if you repeat it a thousand times: this is not a policy. It is not even a guideline. It is just a quotation of a help page. Help pages are neither rules nor dogmas nor decisions nor anything else of a binding character. They do not need a vote or a consensus to be changed, their only intention is to instruct the beginner. Neither all the above voters nor I are beginners. Many of us are part of the commons since a long time or even since the beginning and are having a solid overview on the effects of categories and galleries on their separate levels.

Furthermore, even if your quotation would be of a dogmatic character: I prefer understanding and sanity instead of rules, laws and dogmas. This has been the reason for the different "Ignore all rules"-pages in our sister-projects, which clearly state "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.". Though this are the Commons and not Wikipedia sensu stricto, it is not even lesser true here. Denis Barthel 06:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Quadell, please, don't misrepresent the old vote on this issue. There was no consensus by vote in favor of the "mixed system", but by missing of a clear result of the poll the mixed system survived, as it was the system used before - obviously an unsatisfactory system as its existence had triggered this undecided vote. Actually the "mixed system" had significantly fewer votes than the pure "normal pages" and "categories" alternatives. Moreover, one should read carefully the description of the "mixed system" alternative: "Images can be both on normal pages and in categories; some can be both, but only images that are neither are considered 'defective'." This doesn't not call for creating double structures, but only allows it ("some can be both") under given constraints. In my opinion, every plant and animal image that is not cross-checked for its correct identification is 'defective'. And dumping it unchecked by default in species categories is a danger for Commons, as quality assurance is only possible with very big effort, given that watchlist function doesn't show images recently added to a category. Let me describe how the ToL stuff should work because of practical reasons of quality control: Images that are checked for correct identification should be only in species pages, not in higher categories and not at all in species categories. An uploader has the choice to add it to a gallery (and it can be checked by the person who has this page on the watchlist) or to a higher category - both would be OK. All images included in higher categories (genus, family) can be considered of being of uncertain identity, have to be checked and - after confirmation or correction of the identification - will be moved into a gallery page. This separation between images in normal pages and categories allows a straightforward procedure for quality check. Having every image only at a single place, either in a page - if correctly identified - or in a category - if unconfirmed - helps to keep an overview for the person who does category maintainance. And it is also easier for a person who is searching an images, as it doesn't force him to browse through redundant structures. In my opinion, a pure category system endangers the project out of reasons I described above, but a double system of mandatory species categories additionally to already existing species pages is even worse, as quality control gets lost in a jungle of redundant structures. I did a lot of maintanance work in the described manner, corrected many misidentifications, but I stopped this, when I was accused of doing harm to the project, because I had removed a correctly identified image from a family category, that was already included in its correctly categorised species page. I am not willing to restart any activity of checking species identifications, if I have to do this in an environment that systematically is impeding this work and if I take the risk to be accused of vandalism. --Franz Xaver 09:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

- Thanks for your explanation. All I want to add is that I wasn't trying to misrepresent the result of the vote. I understood that the vote resulted in consensus to use both systems (since that's what the help file says the result was). Quadell (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

--Ies 13:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Each of the categories I deleted during the last days resulted from a test run of Quadell's Polbot. See Commons:Bots/Requests for flags/Polbot and note the missing consensus on function 2! Currently I'm only reconstructing the state before the bot ran. No vandalism at all, no reason to fear that "in a month or two we will have no categories left...!". I'm nothing more than clearing the traces of a bot's work that proved to be inacceptable. A speedydelete might not be the best way to get rid of the bot traces, but I don't know any better. Please help. The sooner the bot caused categories are deleted the sooner we can keep on our normal work. You might have noticed than the current upload rate of quality plant images decreased to almost zero.

@User:Juiced lemon: There is no risk that other users will add inappropriate categories later. Maintained plant categories, articles and their content are checked again and again by botany experts. As explained by Franz Xaver above: we are putting very big effort in plant identification, the articles and the particular structure of articles and categories - that unfortunately was destroyed in wide parts by Quadell's bot.

There seems a big hole in the knowledge of what we are doing. Mabe we should become a bit louder. --Ies 14:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Ies, let my clarify this a bit. We don't have a solid policy either way on this point, so adding thousands of pages to Category:Other_speedy_deletions is against policy, because those pages aren't candidates for speedy. Removing categories is not supported by policy either, and really doesn't serve a useful purpose. Whether the adding of category tags and making the categories in the first place served any purpose is debatable as well, but put the stress on debatable, as in worthy of discussion. What you're doing now is just making work for other people (i.e., admins who have to follow you around with a delete and/or rollback button), and if nothing else, it's supremely inconsiderate. You asked me to intervene on your behalf with Quedell, and I did so. Just keep in mind that you may end up reaping what you've sown here. Your options are to stop and discuss, or to face a block. Until this you have been an excellent and knowledgable contributor, and a great asset to commons, but your current "campaign" has the smell of vendetta, so please take some time to think and discuss, because if you don't do it voluntarily, I'm perfectly comfortable with (if unhappy about) blocking you until you agree to think and discuss.

(responding to IES's comment above)Ies, you did not delete any categories. You demanded that others speedily delete them. Again, those pages aren't clearly of the "speedy deletion" ilk. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I stopped and here I am discussing! --Ies 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ies :). The reason I got a bit alarmed is that I had left a note for you on your talk suggesting that you discuss (rather than revert), and you didn't seem amenable to discussion (and went back to the reverting spree). A good maxim for all things wiki is that you can always put off 'til tomorrow what someone strongly objects to you doing today. I understand your point of view, and I understand Quadell's point of view as well, but my point of view is that it really doesn't matter how images are made findable, as long as someone can find them when they need them. You're both right, but you both need to be a bit more sensitive about how others are going to react to massive numbers of edits. Try to remember that we're all on the same side here :). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

First, let me say that I hope we can resolve all of this without blocking anybody. I first met Ies when he helped to identify images of some plants I uploaded, and I do look forward to many similar collaborations with him. If a bot created many potentially problematic categories, since as we can see there is no consensus on whether we should keep them or not, we should not speedy them but discuss them (maybe even vote), and only then speedy them (or keep). Until then the categories should not be depopulated as well. As has been pointed above, COM:C is indeed not a policy nor a guideline (a fact which I didn't notice last time), so indeed an important question arises: what does a policy (or a guideline) say about categorizing images? I think that until some better software solution arises, there is no harm in having both gallery pages and categories, just as is common on many other areas. In the end, some people use galleries, some (like me), use categories to navigate commons, and until they are merged, we should make sure both types of users can find what they want easily. If Ies doesn't want to categorize images, I certainly am not going to force him to, but please, let others do that. Even if one does not use categories much, they certainly don't damage Commons in any regard (and I think most would agree that they are helpful).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said, and it looks like we're getting to a point where there is more discussion and less unilateral action, so I'm equally hopeful. As far as I know, no policy or guideline specifically deals with categorisation. However, the most widespread interpretation (and one I share) of a lengthy discussion and poll involving a large number of contributors is that categories and galleries shall coexist and that neither shall be deleted in favour of the other. In many ways, this established practice is more clearly founded on consensus (or the lack thereof) than many of our policies and guidelines. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

Let’s think the situation over:

There is one group of users who believe in the boon of categories. They think that everything in any case and without any exception must be categorized. No policy supports this belief.
There is a group of experts who give a detailed and reasonable explanation why botanist can't work in an environment that prevents a working quality controll and systematically bears the risk to be accused of vandalism. They require the approved system of family and genus categories on the one hand and species articles (without additional species categories!) on the other hand to do their job, and they don't understand that people without any botanical knowledge want to destroy their approved system only because of a erroneous belief.

Johnny who read the German discusson will confirm the deep uncertainty and frustation of all attendant botanist. They seriously think on giving up any work for Commons and even on deleting their own images (thousends!) if the current situation keeps on.

I almost forgot a third group. It's one only whos job is to make himself obnoxious by drawing some attention, pointing out the situation and forcing a quick but wise decision. That's me. Sorry for being that annoying.

Please find a solution for the current problem before it's too late. It's really urgent! Ies 17:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I wish all it would take was one "obnoxious" user :). This has been going on a long time, Ies, and I share your frustration. I wish I could be more encouraging, but this is an issue that for some reason (which I personally cannot fathom) is not going to be fixed in a quick and wise manner, but rather requires long, cool-headed discussion. A solution is possible, and we will almost certainly reach one, but it will take a while. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 17:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Ies, I am quite disappointed in your reply. Your side is 'the experts', and your opponent are just 'users' (why not just say 'amateurs'?). Your threat to 'delete' images is also not helpful. And you still failed to address the primary issue: how do categories detract from the value of images? Btw, even if taxonomic categories change so often, we have capabilities (=bots) that can update the names of the categories, so really, the only issue at hand is why you (and some others, I presume) hate the categories at the bottom of images so much?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Piotr, I guess there is some misunderstanding. Ies didn't "threat" with a picture-deletion. He only showed up, that this "Cold War" on categories and gelleries lead some users in de to withdraw their input to only uploading images already. And there was indeed the proposal to boycott the commons and to rely on the local wikipedia only for hosting pictures. A useless and extremely contraproductive proposal, which has already been denied, but that it came up may be an indicator for the high level of frustration which is around there.

Concerning your idea "we have capabilities (=bots) that can update the names of the categories": who has this "capabilities"? Will every user receive his botflag within minutes then? Of course not, but who then? Two or three reliable users will get the flag and you'll have to find out, where to place your request, will have to stand in a queue and to ask kindly "Please change the name of this and that category, because of this and that reason, see this and that references for the nomenclatural change, thank you very much."? Is this very wiki-like? Moving a gallery is much easier and is a "one-click-solution", where the way of re-categorising requires a tremendous bureaucracy, a hierarchical system, is available for experienced users only and generates much server-load too.

Finally: I am not a category-hater and as much as I know, most others and even Ies aren't too. Categories are in general the best way to organize the overwhelming amount of files available here. I would join you immediately in every case of attack on this system. But every system has its weaknesses and I guess it is only wise then to complete it at its weak end by a system, that works more easily, more accessable and more reliable. I am quite disappointed by the "cat-lovers" :), because I have up to now never heard a reason for the category-system on species level, which showed up it's advantages against the gallery-system. It's only about a dogmatic understanding of a so-called policy, which simply doesn't exist, but is a (quite recent) one-user-edit without any backing through consensus on a help-page only (see [38]). I'd be glad, if you could convince me of my erroneous belief. Denis Barthel 06:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Piotr definitely has a point about the unhelpful qualities of stomping off and taking your toys with you. Commons files are supposed to be uploaded in the spirit of free use, and categorizing is one way of using them (in the sense of making a collection). While I suspect it's true that some "experts" will leave the project if people insist on categorizing "their" images, we should also keep in mind that there are at least a few users on the other side of the issue who are not contributing for the opposite reason.

Denis Barthe: there have been arguments made for why cats are good, somewhere on this page I believe. For one thing, galleries can be annotated and filtered so that the best-quality and most instructive images are arranged to be readily available for use, and in that case you could use the category to hold lower-quality or instructively redundant images. The point has also repeatedly been made that categorizing does no harm whatsoever (especially for those who think they're more or less unneccessary), so I really have a hard time understanding why people get so upset about them. Moving a category is an incredibly easy thing to do using any of a number of automated scripts and tools (it's really just simple text replacement), and there are more than enough folks around using AWB that the waiting time for a move might be only a matter of minutes. Moving a page, on the other hand, can in some cases require an administrator. --SB_Johnny|^talk 09:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, Johny, with one exception: moving categories could and should be made easier - Commons:Rename a category is not very helpful in answering 'how to rename a category in practice'; a helpdesk person referred me to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands but I don't know if its the best or only way to so; User:Orgullobot/commands/documentation#Rename_a_category is a suggestion from another user, Category:Requested moves has no suggestion how to actually move a category...etc. Somebody should update Commons:Rename a category with an easy 'how-to', and perhaps we could create a subpage/bot/whatever is needed to make it easy to speedy rename a taxonomic category if indeed they change so often.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we really just need a "bot owner's noticeboard" or something for that. You can, of course, move one without a bot, but it really is an excersize in mind-numbing. That sort of thing is what bots are for. --SB_Johnny|^talk 18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider to rely on someone else's botability when doing such work. The promise, that anybody with bot-control will do it soon is not trustable. I have to often experienced, that the commons are rather slow in such things and I do not believe, that it will be better in this case. That way things get only more complicated and bureaucratic. Beside this, pictures in categories cannot get explaining texts, which can be essential. As long, as categories cannot be moved simply by any normal user ( .. shudder! ... ) and don't give the same amount of editability, this is not a good way, but the opposite of "user-friendly". Denis Barthel 15:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, and not meaning to nag, but what are we supposed to do with Category:Other speedy deletions? The category is pretty much useless at the moment due to indecision on this topic, so any "new" speedy deletion additions are deeply buried. --SB_Johnny|^talk 23:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems several people agree that these categories are not appropriate candidates for speedy deletions (and I would be one of them). The general procedure applied when there is disagreement over speedy deletion tagging is to file a regular deletion request. In the interest of avoiding further edit warring, I'd therefore suggest converting the speedy deletion requests to a single unified regular deletion request using a bot. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a solution™.

But first I will define the problem, so we are clear about what the solution solves.
The problem is that:

one group of people want to add categories to images so that they can be found through the category system and with powerful tools like catscan.
another group wants to use their expertise to validate image description and classification and maintains the gallery pages. They have found it useful to use category tags as flags to indicate not yet assessed images and object to these flags been 'reset' by people adding them back to images after they have 'cleared' them.
There is also an objection to having two parallel systems which will inheriently get out of step unless their relationship is maintained in some mechanical manor.

The solution resolves the problem between #1 and #2 above by simply using something else as a flag, rather than categories. This leaves categories to be used consistently across the whole of commons and not have some special use in some areas, eg TOL.
The twist is to use a template as the flag, which has a few benefits: The template is highly flexible and could potentially contain lots of powerful things (including categories, but that's probably not a good idea), but in fact, to be useful, it can actually be blank! It is after all just a flag/label. Just the existance of the template allows us to search for images, that have been tagged (ie processed by some expert), by using the catscan tool. But here is the magic :-), catscan can also be used to find all images (within a category tree) without the template, ie all as yet unprocessed images!

So that's the theory, I have been trying it out for four months in a small area of commons. I have created a template called {{WikiProject Birds}} and add it to all bird images that I have categorised and or added to gallery pages.
For the sake of having an indication on image pages that I have already processed an image, the template adds, to each image page, a short line of text in an unobtrusive way. It could just as easily add a project logo or anything else that a page can contain.
Of course anyone can add the template to images, and so its mis-use could confuse things, but I have not noticed anyone else using the template (because its not documented and they probably wouldn't know what its for ;-) and similarly it is seldom deleted (again people leave well enough alone :-). I expect there would be little trouble of use/mis-use as there is with QI and FP tags, and the text of the template can make clear the origin of the tag eg 'This image has been classified by WikiProject Birds'.

And, no, tagging of images in this way is not asserting any individual or project 'ownership' of the images, and it is of course possible that people may not want it on 'their' images.

This solution is basically an implimentation of an idea by User:pfctdayelise discussed here Commons:Village_pump_archive/2006Oct#A_general_proposal_to_reduce_gallery.2Fcategory_fights but there was not enough momentum to actually do anything (and the User:Gmaxwell comment at the end mis-understands the solution). It is a solution that allows two different ways of doing things to co-exist without having to undo each others work. --Tony Wills 12:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmmh, this proposal should be considered. Maybe it really will solve the problems. However, there are points that make me cautious: (1) The solution is depending on Catscan. We already had to suffer the experience that the tool server does not work sometimes. And this solution will increase the server load, when Catscan will be used more intensive. (2) When someone is watching the content of a category, this solution requires that he puts every image on his watchlist, instead of the galleries only. This should not cause problems. Anyway, is there experience, if watchlists create problems when they get very long? (3) If I was engaged in doing maintanance work for a category, I would wish to have the content of this category on my watchlist. If someone else adds stuff without the template to the category, this proposed system will work properly, as I will find it with catscan (and I can check, sort, flag and watch it). However, I also would like to know, if someone else has added a new image with this template to the category. This will happen much more often when this system is in wider use. If a template is shared by a project, every participant will use the template. (That's a different situation compared to your personal experiment.) In this case, Catscan would not do the task, as this new image already is flagged and will show up within the big majority of already checked images. I would not find it and could not put it on my watchlist. (Probably someone else will have it on his/her watchlist, but I would wish to have it also on mine.) Is it possible to check in an automated way the results of catscan against a personal watchlist? Regards --Franz Xaver 18:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I like this proposal, although I think we already have a simple solution: the 'Category:Unindentified... ' framework, starting from Category:Unidentified subjects and branching off into Category:Unidentified plants and others. A stub-like template for various plants/animals, adding them to appopriate 'unidentified' category, until such time that it can be identified and moved to correct category AND gallery page, seems like the optimal solution.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the 'Category:Unidentified... framework' is not really a solution of these problems. It does not work with misidentified images that are added by the uploader to the place she/he thinks it would be the correct one. There is a lot of images of this kind. --Franz Xaver 18:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Addressing User:Franz Xaver's first points: (1) Yes the toolserver is a bottle neck, and is usually lagging behind the main database. I envisage catscan not being used daily on a particular category tree, but regulary (eg weekly) depending upon the rate of addition of images to that area. (2) Every image processed by a project (ie galleried) needs to be tagged, projects could use a bot to assist tagging of all images in a gallery. But the individual images don't need to be on watch lists, additions to a category are detected with catscan. Admittedly that won't notify you when images are removed from categories, but in that respect people maintaining categories are no worse off than they are now. (3) If the tag makes it clear that people using the tag should be part of a specified project I expect little abuse of it (as with QI & FP experience). The problem is then one of working in that project community to ensure quality control, trusting other members to know what they're doing an encourage them to ask if they're not sure about an identification.

The tags are primarily of use to people maintaining galleries, and that is where I see most of the expert classification going on (thinking of TOL here). I see gallery pages as places where a 'useful' (as in illustrative examples) images are displayed and categories contain all of those plus others (eg where there are multiple revisions or crops of an image they are all kept). The tags don't do much to alter the category maintenance job. A bot could be used to categorise all galleried images which would help to maintain consistancy between the two (the tags help in maintaining that connection in the other direction). --Tony Wills 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been lots of discussion on this subject... But I want to suggest another solution. What if we place a special tag under each photo which can be parsed by a bot that automatically generates Categories and normal pages? The tag could be something like: {{photo-tag|Species|Section|Description}}. For example. I have uploaded a new picture of a frog called Hyla arborea. I place the tag {{photo-tag|Hyla arborea|Illustrations|this drawing shows the backside of ''Hyla arborea''}} under the picture. If the bot finds the new picture with this tag, he'll automatically adds the photo to the appropriate category Category:Hyla arborea and adds it to the page Hyla arborea under the section Illustratios. That way we would have redundancy too but nobody would care about since the pages are generated automatically. What do you think about it? Fabelfroh 06:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That might help automate filing new images but brings up the difference between categories and galleries. The category vs gallery arguments often seems to overlook that their usage and content are different. A category should fundamentally contain all images of that description, but a gallery is a photo album page with a selection of good images (without duplicates), with added descriptive information and probably sorted/ordered in some useful way. That is: while all images should logically be categorized all images added to a category are not necessarily wanted in the gallery. They are two inter-related but independent presentations of the images. --Tony Wills 11:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And from a technical viewpoint, this is actually ok: a user sometimes may want to load a small gallery of best images, and sometimes a full, big category of all images. Decategorization and overgallerization leads to creation of giant (over 200+ images) galleries, that can simply crash some older browsers and computers...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me...

... why no one even bothered to close this image as keep or delete: Image:Mario Carlin 002.jpg. As I explained on the deletion page, it's an obvious PD problem. 64.178.96.168 16:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are significant backlogs around reviewing this sort of thing, which volunteers are working diligently to get through, so someone will get to it eventually, I'm sure. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Rename file name

Image:Jap mount.jpg. This file name "Jap" is discriminatory. Claim to make alterations to file name, "Jap" to "Japanese". --Fukutaro 00:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please re-upload file under new name and place {{Bad name}} on old one. --EugeneZelenko 14:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

For comments please - local username blacklist?

In the course of dealing with a spate of vandalism elsewhere I was pointed to this as a way of preventing user names being created. I noticed that some Wikis I'm on have it and some don't. This one doesn't. To get a basic level of protection from - for example - offensive user names seems sensible? Anyone with views? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should get a Username blacklist. You can copy the one from other projects first (they work very well) and then fit it to Commons' specific needs. Cbrown1023 talk 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sure, it seems like a good thing. / Fred J 15:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Commons is big - a good idea I think. Majorly (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In place here - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

On de.wikipedia.org this list was a stimulus for vandals … --Polarlys 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If that is likely to be the case I would remove it. The list I've used is from en wikibooks, all I can say is that vandalism generally is very low there now and username account vandals rare --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Category and galleries policy

Since the discussion above has died down, I wonder - have we reached any consensus that may be put in some policy? Or was it all for nothing and this issue will return again to haunt us in the future?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To Piotr: From experience I can say that the issue will come up again, and again. Something needs to be done about it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Like scrapping categories for tags (which, I know, would require a software update)? --Iamunknown 02:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there was a consensus. Basically, people disagree over the merits of the two systems. There was once a similar list vs. category debate on en.wiki, which was mostly resolved in favor of categorizing everything, and making lists of particularly interesting/unique things. De facto that's what's happening on Commons as well, as galleries simply take more centralized work to keep up, since you have to edit a giant main page instead of just the page of the image you're uploading. --Delirium 05:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Logos

The user Hautala (talk · contribs) is uploading somes logos, like Sony, 3M, Canon, Coca-Cola etc. He argues that these words cannot be copyrighted and trademarks are allowed. I don't have enough time now or technical capability to discuss this matter, could somebody look it up? Dantadd✉ 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe almost all of them fall under {{PD-text-logo}}. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

How about fonts themselves (as SVG paths)? Looks like {{PD-text-logo}} is violated when logo extracted from PDFs. --EugeneZelenko 14:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Monobook.js in Italian

By now, the Italian user interface is missing additional Commons specific page buttons such as "find categories", "check usages", etc. since the file MediaWiki:Monobook.js/it does not contain any script for that purpose. I created a translation of the standard localized script file in User:ARTE/MediaWiki:Monobook.js/it (from Monobook.js/de); it would be great to have the script copied to its proper location in order to make the extra tabs available. thank you. --arte …talk… 08:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Done Siebrand 08:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

HELP

i have uploaded all my dads images as mine by accideny, under the gfdl license. some german guy is refusing to let me have them deleted, my dad wants them removed NOW and he is getting very annoyed, spouting legal stuff. Messaging me on my discussion page would be very helpful so i can explain the situation in full. Fethroesforia 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Answered on talk page. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Can other admins comment on this? I personally am inclined to delete, but I am not sure. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

After some explanation on User talk:Fethroesforia, I have deleted the images, assuming good faith of the user. I would still like some opinions on this. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually declined an earlier request (Commons:Help_desk#I need someone to delete an image;.). Something about the situation (even after the explanation) gives me a strange feeling. Especially the legal action threat is something we shouldn't take lightly, but still I'd have liked to see (in whichever way, maybe an e-mail from the parties) some more substantiation of it. Confusing situation, this. NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 23:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have the copyright of an image, of course you can't give it away. I think you guys are doing the right thing -- what else can we reasonably do? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for advice

Please help me. My special watchlist in plants and animals is grown to nearly 3000 article. Now I want to check the genus und species categories for new or changed pictures. Which tool can you advice me? Thanks und greetings. Orchi 17:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Orchi, I am actually not that much of an expert on Commons, I hope somebody else will be able to help you in this new thread.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Try setting up BryanBot's watcher on the categories?... see Commons:Discussion index ... if you set something up on a subpage that points to the things you want maybe it would do the trick for you? But maybe what you really want are pictures that are added to specific categories? That I am not sure about how to do. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Lar, thank's for your proposal, but I'm afraid, this way is too complex for me. Nevertheless I'll try it. Greeting Orchi 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me know where you put it and I'll take a look at it when I get a chance, if you like. ++Lar: t/c 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That won't work for categories. Maybe later. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for information. That saves my time. Greetings Orchi 17:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you can: User:BryanBot/CategoryWatch and as example User:Bryan/CategoryWatch. I will not have access to internet for two weeks starting within a few hours, so if it breaks, it breaks. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

...I'm trying. (with help) Greetings Orchi 21:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

..it works!! Greetings Orchi 22:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Holy smokes, that's cool! Does it work on Meta too? I will have to set that up there. Wow. This should help a lot! Thanks Bryan. ++Lar: t/c 03:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Access removal

I hereby request my access to be removed from both my bots and my account. The bot flag should also be removed from my bot User:Computer -- Cat ^chi? 18:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

White Cat, wtf. We need you here. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes - all in all I am with Bryan --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, White Cat! We love you! Please don't leave us! You're one of the people who brings the sunshine to Commons. Don't leave! Cary Bass ^demandez 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Câlins ? Rama 19:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why, what happened? Can we discuss this? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

/me cries and begs White Cat to come back! :'( Majorly (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please come back, White_Cat, you were a great user here! :-( (→O - R L Y?) 20:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in Sasha Grey

There is a lot og vandalism in article of Sasha Grey [39], /he says it quality control/. I think, protect is usefull /there is no work more to do, if we have a new imaga in Category:Sasha Grey, protection can be undone. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. The image Image:SG01.jpg I deleted a while back and blocked the uploader, who had the username User:SashaGrey3 - I assumed that like most celebrity names it was merely a fan using the name to get away with copyvios. However, after the username was blocked I received an e-mail from Ms Grey asking why the account had been blocked. She was also concerned with quality of the images currently being used on her article, which is why the replacement SG01.jpg was uploaded; I believe Madjabuds is the same person. Contacting Ms Grey through e-mail or even her publicity representatives may be a good idea, she may wish the poorer images removed and have the professional one remain. I see no reason to keep the poorer images here if her wish is to have them removed. -- Editor at Large • talk 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm an administrator on the EN Wikipedia, but merely a user here on Commons. User:Madjabuds here is probably the same as en:User:Madjabuds there; I have not confirmed that she is Sasha Grey. I've been involved in reverting some en:WP:BLP vandalism to the en:Sasha Grey article (if you don't know what en:WP:BLP is, count yourself lucky!), so she asked me to weigh in here; however I'm not an admin here, and said so. I do, however, have an opinion just as a Commons user, with no more authority than the next user.

I don't know how the Commons policy is on deleting free images because the subject thinks they're poor quality, but I would think we could stand to delete these if they were replaced with better ones. See, we only have three images of Sasha Grey, and the two in question aren't demeaning or improper or hideous. (In fact, they're face images, while the one Madjabuds like better is more revealing.) If User:Madjabuds is Sasha Grey, I would guess she would have quite a number of better quality images around, so if she could replace them with better ones, I would think that would be a fine trade. One more time, I'm just writing this as a user, not as an administrator, and someone with the shiny buttons on commons would have to do the deletion work here, if she delivers better ones. --AnonEMouse 21:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you do with the rights of the photographed person? I think she didn't give her authorization to publish the removed pictures. In which case, these pictures must be deleted. Be happy to have one (good) picture of Sasha Grey. --Juiced lemon 22:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we need the permission of the person in the photographs, or of the person owning the photographs? I hope the latter. If that's not the way it works, then we have to delete almost all our photos, because it's almost always only the photographer who released them, not the subject. --AnonEMouse 23:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the new account "attack" on this page (now indef blocked) I've reverted this page to the single image for now and semi protected it (I'll go to full protection if folk don't leave it alone). This should be sorted by discussion not attacks & reversions. If anyone has useful comments about whether the "bad" picture should be here and whether they are covered by the permission it would be good to hear - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Local spam blacklist policy!

Err - just realised it might be an idea to share "my" policy on this!

As we have our own blacklist it seemed daft not to use it but maybe views on "how" we do it could be good! As someone who deals with a lot of the "out of scope" contributions we get, my own rule of thumb for ages as far as the bot/index pages are concerned is that it is quicker to block the IP for a week than place a tag. If you then find it has been blocked once before I then make it a month - it's simple anyway.

For the blacklist I take the view that we may as well save unnecessary deleting and editing by prevention so

New pages solely with links. Block for a week first and add the url to the blacklist.
Mass insertion of links (usually the porn spammers). Block for a week first and add the url to the blacklist.

To add to that - if I come across the links on other wikis like these I have added & will add them to ours (& vice versa). I realise there is a cross wiki blacklist on meta but my experience of them has shown them as less than helpful and it may well be that some links are appropriate to some wikis - the fm radio one I've blacklisted has a "legitimate" page on en wp. However someone has created numerous spamm pages on this and other wikis with this link in - I do not see that we are likely to require the link and the very act of creating mass pages makes me sure that is was an attempt to spam wikis. Just my 0.02 and views welcome, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to this I guess if anyone does add to the list then some sort of narrative about why might be useful in time to come of if the entry is challenged? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing username

Could you please change my username from "Daniel.baranek" to "Daniel Baránek"? Thank's a lot :) --Daniel.baranek 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please direct your request to COM:CHU. Thanks, (→O - R L Y?) 22:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct image, wrong building

Hello, I just wanted to point out that this picture is from a different church, as someone anonymous also pointed out before me... Thanks. -- Olve 08:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Template restored

Please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FTemplate:PolishPresidentCopyright. --Polarlys 12:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, an administrator from Poland restored the files (of course!). For me, this is a clear abuse. --Polarlys 14:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, an administrator from Germany removed the files (of course!). For me, this is a clear abuse. --tsca 14:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you didn’t noticed: I deleted hundreds of files from closed requests in the last weeks, hundreds of Swedisch politicians, maps from Iceland, French politicians, works by the Finnish army. But of course, if I do the same here it’s “abuse”. That’s simply a narrow-minded world view, wake up, we live in 2007 and I don’t care about national interests. And: Restoring files that way is always abusive, independent from this request. --Polarlys 14:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's have this discussion in one place, not on four separate pages. BTW, if you haven't noticed - it's you using the word "abuse", I simply re-used your argument to show it does not make sense. // tsca [re] 14:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know any Wikimedia project where it’s legitimate to use admin functions to undo decisions you don’t like. That’s the point here, not the debate itself. --Polarlys 14:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously though, the discussion is here. t.

Reclosed, reprotected by me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 14:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You also removed the arguments of the people who reopened the debate. You don't have to agree, but do not deny others the right to speak! Please restore the discussion part. // tsca [re] 14:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the past four months? --Polarlys 14:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance announcements

I created a template called Commons:Announcements that I hope you would like on the top of your talk pages. It has information about Commons maintenance. If no-one disagrees, I'll add it to the top of all administrators' talk pages? / Fred J 13:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Inactive admins

The following admin's are considered to be inactive:

GerardM (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 386 489
OldakQuill (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 65 583
Conti (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 351 485
Ausir (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 14 393
Brion VIBBER (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 177 391
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 420 612
Rdsmith4 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 136 315
Anthere (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 666 791
Dori (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 274 282
Notafish (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 195 326
Walter (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 160 536
Danny (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 93 155
Piom (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 410 520
Sanbec (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 38 252
Reytan (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 97 317
Paddy (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 197 198
Neutrality (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 240 295
Plugwash (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 70 716
Solipsist (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 292 507
Fanghong (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 251 265
Ran (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 226 598
竹麦魚(Searobin) (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 240 501
Morven (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 43 402
BrokenSegue (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 162 363
Dbenbenn (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 378 378
Arnomane (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 8 194
Evil Monkey (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 379 610
Danutz (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 86 326
Martorell (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 137 169
Fastfission (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 82 260
Thryduulf (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 184 409
W.wolny (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 305 443
Spangineer (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 185 251
ABach (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 43 176
Grm wnr (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 378 430
Alphax (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 174 189
Silsor (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 490 527
Omegatron (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 84 208
Erin Silversmith (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 301 313
Fir0002 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 96 191
Water Bottle (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 161 161
Taw (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 391 525
Shaqspeare (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 359 365
Tomomarusan (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 205 432
Jossifresco (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 1 379
Arniep (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 53 238
UED77 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 27 195
Grön (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 350 378
ColdShine (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) 133 196

(Days since the last admin activity; Days since the fifth admin action)

We should create some boilerplate message to send them. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and brion can readmin whenever he wants... (→O - R L Y?) 21:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And some stewards as well. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I wrote the boilerplate message a while ago: Commons:Administrators/De-adminship/Warning message and also set up the desktop for coordinating the effort at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section. I don't know if it looks alright. Messages could be sent automatically via User:CommonsDelinker/commands/documentation#To send a message to many people

Fred J 11:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This passage is incompatible with the proposal which has been voted by the Commons community:

If you resign your adminship voluntary because you don't need it, you can request to have it back on COM:AN and can get it back in 24 hours (if no-one objects), so you don't have to go through the full RfA process.

The alleged motive for this proposal was to make real the de-adminship of inactive administrators, and certainly not to repeal the existing rule. The 24 hours waiting time is a joke. You could have said as well that inactive administrators are automatically added to the resigning administrators' list: at least, that would allow to keep honest administrators. --Juiced lemon 19:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Juiced lemon. That passage is not in the policy. Why is it in the message, Fred? --Iamunknown 02:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

@Iamunknonwn: It used to be in the policy. Juiced Lemon reverted it stubbornly in his usual manner. [40] There was however rather support for it on the talk page Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship. I added it to the warning message as I had hoped that the de-adminship policy would change back. But if no-one wants it, it can be left out.

Note that this part in the warning message has been changed to If you resign your adminship voluntary because you don't need it, you can request to have it back on COM:AN, and if there are no objections a bureaucrat may restore the rights after a period they consider suitable.

I welcome users to give their support or oppose. / Fred J 15:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Your usual manner is to liven up your comments with base personal attacks. There are some talks about the issue in the village pump. Regarding to the warning message, your insistance to add the controversial part is irrational.

You must consider that I'll systematically object to the restoration of the rights of any inactive administrator. So, there are 2 options:

my objections will be considered, and the controversial part would point only to an illusory possibility.
my objections will be ignored, and the controversial part would practically invalide the de-adminship policy.

So, the controversial part is wrong in any case. --Juiced lemon 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Fred, I'm sorry I misunderstood the sequence of events. --Iamunknown 06:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

reset

You may of course object as we all may if someone request the return of the rights on the Admin board. I myself would be likely to object to some and will do so if I feel it would not be in the Commons interest to have them return without an RfA. However please bear in mind that objecting to all such requests consistently may make people consider that your view is not taken based on good faith or the requirements of Commons --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok so to conclude: the disputed section has been taken out of the warning message, and I think we are set to go. / Fred J 12:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot -- the warning message needs to be translated first. / Fred J 12:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was it taken out? --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 12:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/De-adminship/Warning message/de (Right place?) --Polarlys 13:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

@SB Johnny: Because no-one voiced their support of it.

@Polarlys: Great! Thanks, It is a good place, I'll make sure to integrate it properly.

Fred J 14:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)