Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 26

< Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Copyvio Japanese film images

Request a second look at Commons:Deletion requests/Screenshots from films by Akira Kurosawa. This request dealt with hundreds of images that are copyvios according to the terms of {{PD-Japan-film}}. However, it was simply closed as "kept", apparently because all of the hundreds of individual images weren't tagged. Is this really necessary in clear cases? I have no knowledge or ability with AWB and lack the time and patience to manually tag hundreds of images and notify who knows how many uploaders. Kelly (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Patience, my friend. I've just knocked off two of the films, see Commons:Deletion requests/Akira Kurosawa films. Because they're not recent uploads, they take one keystroke each. You could help by creating the list in the form shown. It goes fairly quickly in Excel -- just highlight a whole category page, copy into notepad to remove the links then into Excel and sort the file names from the rest, then add the *[[: and ]].      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio power tool images

Could someone look at the contributions of Sudswu (talk · contribs), who's been uploading images from [[1]] and claiming authorship. These have been used for spam on enwiki, where I temporarily blocked Sudswu for spamming. He has reverted my copyvio tags on the image files, claiming that he was the author of the images. It is clear that he works for the organization, but the sources are clearly noted as copyrighted. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

All gone and a "final warning" on copyvios issued - should be blocked if they re-upload anything. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Move without My Permission

Commons editor User:Snowmanradio moved File:NH Gumdrop.JPG (a pic of my bird for my en.Wiki userpage) to the completely unnecessary File:Myiopsitta monachus -pet perching on cage-6a.jpg without my knowledge or permission. No notice, on either my Commons talkpage or en.Wiki talk page was given. I release all my images under CC-SA 3.0, which I am pretty sure doesn't allow some guy to come along and rename it cause he feels like it. I am at a loss as to what to do on how to get this image back to "File:NH Gumdrop.JPG" as it was before. Can anyone help here? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA does not require the file name to be kept the same, or to ask for permission before renaming a file. Commons files can be renamed under certain conditions. Jafeluv (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I looked at Commons:File_renaming#What_files_should_be_renamed.3F and see nothing that required a change. Give you a little clue-in on the naming of the image "NH" = NeutralHomer and "Gumdrop" is the name of my bird. Also, it is in line with the names of the images of my other pets. Should I rename the photo of my cat "Ginger Tabby Feline - Pet under waterbed-12b.jpg"? Come on, seriously, this one is a no-brainer. No permission, no note, no need for the change. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
That's another question, and I'm not sure I see how the rename was necessary either. The "6a" part in the end certainly isn't, and it just makes the reader assume the image is part of a series or something. Snowmanradio can probably comment on why they felt the rename was justified. Jafeluv (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes me feel that he is almost trying to take ownership of it. I am hoping that isn't the case and I will go AGF on that until then, but it does make me think. The image was part of the "NH_<petname>" series of images that I use on my en.Wiki userpage (I don't use Commons enough other than adding images to need a userpage). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)
Although file names are not usually used for finding files, we do require names that are meaningful to users -- all users, not just the uploader. It is not, of course, an image of a gumdrop, and "NH" is not meaningful either. I would argue that, except for you, the name "NH Gumdrop" is completely meaningless and therefore it falls squarely into #2 under what files should be renamed? Your permission is not required and while Snomanradio might have left you a note, your talk page header makes it clear you would not have seen it.
I'm not sure I understand your reaction. The move left a redirect, so it has no practical effect on you or your user page. It was appropriate under our rules. It's not going to be reverted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
My reaction, I am a little pissed off. Cause no effort was taken to contact me and the note on my talk page says not that I wouldn't have seen it, it says "...if there is a problem with one of my images and you need to get in touch with me, please contact me on my talk page at English Wikipedia, where I spend the majority of my time". He didn't even try. So, since you make it bluntly clear that there will be no reverting, I will be nom'ing them for deletion and will just upload them to en.wiki. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No one contacted me last time they renamed one of my pictures. It's a Wikimedia project; just because you uploaded it, doesn't mean they need your permission.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Since I can't nom them as author, I am requesting the following images be deleted as the author/uploader:
  • File names should be descriptive, so I moved one of the creative commons files to bring is compliant with Commons naming guidelines. Perhaps a compromise can be agreed. What about "Myiopsitta monachus -pet named Gumdrop perching on a cage-6a.jpg". Snowmanradio (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No need now, they are nearing completing the deletion of the images, so it won't matter one way or another in a moment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted everything but the Parrot image as I thought, that although the resolution is low, it could be useful. Do you mind? All the other ones where rather low quality (I guess that is the reason you wanted them deleted). You can nominate your own uploads for deletion. You can also add a {{Speedy}} tag on your own uploads. Amada44  talk to me 13:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would rather the parrot image be removed as well, please, if you could. Thanks for letting me know about {{Speedy}}. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Please reconsider, I would like to keep the image of the parrot on commons. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
@Amada, I assume (hope) none of the deleted images was in use anywhere else as on the uploaders userpage. --Túrelio (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
@Túrelio, of course not. (except on NeutralHomer Userpage). Amada44  talk to me 13:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
They weren't, I checked before nom'ing them here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks to both for the feedback. --Túrelio (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Nope, just doing what was asked. Zscout370 is a good admin, through too, and probably read this whole thread, seen the Deletion Request, but stuck with the original reason as he put on his deletion remark: "Uploader request". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • But I asked for deletion to begin with. The admin took the original request into effect (which was always in play). Admin did the right thing. Image is deleted, everyone is happy. Time to move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • You are still going on about this? I have since left, done other things, taken a nap and had dinner. The image is deleted, the discussion is closed. Move on, Dude. It is almost like you are trying to take ownership of this image. It's over, let go, move on. Sheesh! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually I own the image as author under CC-SA 3.0, but that is neither here nor there. It is deleted and it is done. Everyone needs to move on, this thread needs to be immediately archived, and everyone needs to find something more important to do, I know I have. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hey Neutralhomer. Sorry to intrude, but just a heads up: If you do upload those files to Wikipedia under any license (except fair-use), anyone (including any users you disagree with above) have the right to delete the image on Wikipedia, and reupload to Commons (without any permission) via bot or other means. And if that ever happens, that means the files here on Commons will not have you as the creator/uploader (instead, with just a reference claiming you are the owner). Hence, IMHO it is better you reupload all those images back to Commons under better names (so that nobody can rename for any reason). Rehman 10:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Allthough you have a point Rehman, those images are not worth reuploading (sorry Neutralhomer). Can we now please not comment here anymore? This thread is long enough. cheers, Amada44  talk to me 12:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutralhomer´s request is a legitimate request that in my opinion should be honored. Renaming images even with their scientific name is not necessarily a good thing, for most people don´t know the scientific names of anything anyway. Categorization in this case is a much better strategy to help people locate images thay are intereted in. If we were to name every species based on theyr scientific name we would create a sequential nightmare, imagine Myiopsitta monachus 01, 02,... 1000 etc. for every single image... I think that people search based on the common name first and end up on the scientific name. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for a File Mistake

Hallo together. I did an mistake and named a file wrong. It's this file= File:Indischer Ketten-Plattenpanzerhelm.jpg. Please can an Admin set it to the right name= File:American civil war jacked. Thanks and best wishes --MittlererWeg (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Vielen Dank --MittlererWeg (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be File:American civil war jacket.jpg? Rehman 14:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
That would make more sense for me too. Jafeluv (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
In American English, it's actually a "vest", not a "jacket". A jacket has sleeves.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

1.17 to be deployed Feb 8, 07:00 UTC

Hi guys,

deployment of the 1.17 branch of MediaWiki is planned for Feb 8 ([2]). --DieBuche (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:South cone map.png

Anyone any idea why File:South cone map.png revisions is going on? Would it seem suitable to just re-upload one/revert the existing file and name it something different? Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That was edit warring, but since there were no uploads since a year ago, protection won't be productive. I dont think reuploading is a good idea, since it cuts off the original history... Rehman 13:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It would allow both files to be used though. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, if you meant saving the (reverted) image on a separate file, then sure, no problem. Just make sure of the usual issues: watch for duplicates, find sources/licenses (particularly sources, as you can see, this file will be deleted soon as unsourced), etc. Rehman 15:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes. I'll wait... I'd say it'll be deleted for no source. Thanks Rehman. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem :) Kind regards. Rehman 10:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture from WP:GB to commons.

Hello. Is it possible to transfer pictures from WP:Great Britain to commons? I'am interested in this picture (File:Mycenaean armour 1400BC.jpg) , but I don't know it's possible or not, and how to do it. Thanks and greetings, Lothar--MittlererWeg (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You could move it to Commons using this tool. Rehman 14:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Rehman. I try it but it showa me:"This file is not existing on WP:en". Where is the mistake. I can see the picture here. Is it not WP:en, or is it my stupidity with technics :)??????. Greetings --MittlererWeg (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The file is on en.wikipedia, see here. If you put just Mycenaean_armour_1400BC.jpg in the file name field, the tool should work fine. Jafeluv (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I think you added File: prefix in the Image name: parameter. I have moved the file to Commons, it is now here. Kind regards. Rehman 15:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rehman. You see it was my stupidity :). Thanks very much again. Greetings --MittlererWeg (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries; you're welcome. :) Kind regards. Rehman 10:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Need a :de admin

Hey everyone, could I get a German admin to undelete a file? The image in question is File:Phalaenopsis-de.jpg, which is sourced to de:Datei:Orchideen Phalaenopsis.jpg, but the original source is deleted (and thus cc-by-sa isn't being fulfilled). After the image is undeleted I'll finish attribution and ask for redeletion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest to raise this at de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Anfragen. Please feel free to write the request in English. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu IV

In an effort to maintain the naming conventions of RfA, I moved Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu IV to Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 4. Unfortunately, User:Docu reverted my move, with the edit summary "user request". Unless I am sorely mistaken, RfAs should not employ roman numerals within their titles. Since I have no interest in move warring with Docu, I would like to request scrutiny from the community on this matter and/or action to be taken if necessary. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think, the most important points are that the candidacy pages shall be named after the candidate and a running number. I personally do not care if this number is decimal in Arabic digits or if a Roman numeral is used. It should be easily possible to find all pages in the corresponding categories (Category:Unsuccessful requests for adminship and/or Category:Successful requests for adminship) and the sequential order should be clear. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Need I point out the irony involved in someone move-warring on their own fourth RFA? Wknight94 talk 23:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I moved it back to '4' and move-protected it. Commons is not playground for. Jcb (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Wknight94, "move-warring" would be moving it twice, e.g. "Jcb move warred" as he move it after it was moved back and there is no consensus about its title here. --  Docu  at 23:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't yet notice, but also Fastily is the proud owner of a talk page: User talk:Fastily. If you don't agree with a move, you can ask for explanation there. The fact that you don't understand that it wasn't wise to revert the move, is one of the things with which you show to the community that you should not be an administrator. Jcb (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't have to discuss an edit before reverting it. Notice that you also mis-used your administrator access by protecting the old title. This somewhat makes me wonder about your adminship in general --  Docu  at 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No offense, guys, but this seems (at least on the surface), like a very very lame edit war. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
And hence why it is Docu 4 - going on Docu 5 (or V). From the folks that brought you The Lamest Wikipedia War Ever. Wknight94 talk 01:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. It was pretty needles to move the request in the first place. Is there a rational reason? Looking for a reason I only find a cosmetic one and rename for example, does not allow cosmetic renames. And protecting the page is also an act of unnecessary force. No comment to Docu's part in the whole thing. Amada44  talk to me 11:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons refuses my SUL login

I have an almost permanent problem with Commons, which randomly refuses my login under SUL, say at least 3 times over 4, telling me in a red-framed message :

Connexion error

Your connexion session seems to have problems ; this action was canceled fear of a session phishing. Please click on "Previous", reload the page where you come from, and retry.

The indicated remedy is totally inefficient. In these conditions, I cannot use CommonsHelper, and I must do all by hand, under IP, with all the implied error risks.

At a time I thought that someone from my home site FR WP cured the problem, but it did not last for long.

I am a registered SUL user under the user name of "Trassiorf", and my home site is french wikipedia.

Could you tell me what to do in this situation ? With all my thanks.      Trassiorf (u)   92.128.101.120 08:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Trassiorf. It seems that you have already attached (created) your Commons account way back in 2006. And from the looks of it, it does belong to you. So I can't say why this is not working for you. Do you use the same passwords? What browser do you use? Rehman 10:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
A SUL account automatically has the same password so I don't think that can be the problem. Jafeluv (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

final call "PD-Iceland" deletions

Though Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-IcelandAlthingProfilePictures has been closed formally correct by a colleague, due to its dire consequences, i.e. the deletion of some hundreds of b/w portraits, in a sort of final call I want to invite anybody, who is knowlegable in this issue and has new facts, to voice the latter. --Túrelio (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Botcheck.js

Can some skilled admins help me with this additional removal? There might be some more possible improvements, too. --Leyo 16:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with the removal how? It would help if you could explain the problem. Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like the script to remove __NOTOC__, too. My try does however not work. --Leyo 10:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Fixed now, I think. Jafeluv (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. One minor thing: The script removes all empty lines above the categories. It would be good if one empty line would remain there. --Leyo 11:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Jafeluv (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Leyo 13:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Protected talk page of an admin

A Commons admin has fully protected his (local) talk page and asks users to use his Wikipedia talk page instead. I am not happy with this, but do not know, if it should still be tolerated (IMHO no). Thoughts? --Leyo 13:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this should not be allowed. We cant force local volunteers to another site... Rehman 13:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Protecting admin talk pages is wrong IMHO. No one can call themselves a project admin and then not take postings on the project (temporarily due to vandalism I can understand but that would be for hours maybe). If you "work" here you work here - end of story. --Herby talk thyme 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Herby, I understood that Rehman related his statement to those who want to contact an admin. --Túrelio (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. Herby disagrees with my comment? Rehman 13:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I interpreted his initial "wrong" that way, may be wrongly from my part. --Túrelio (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. No worries. :) Rehman 14:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Leyo, did you contact him/her over this issue? If not, this should be the first step, IMHO. --Túrelio (talk)
More clearly - I disapprove of protection of any talk page and admin ones certainly - it is wrong. Apologies if that was not clear. Equally the admin should be contacted (I hope their email is open!). --Herby talk thyme 13:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Yes, I contacted him. --Leyo 14:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, then unprotect the page - and be happy that you don't have other problems... --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  Done - Jcb (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the intention is good here - they probably visit En more often and want requests to be serviced promptly. But they can make it a request, not a demand. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
They may also enable email notification on talkpage edit. Jcb (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW: If you don't like bot messages, you might want to use {{Nobots}}. --Leyo 13:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Reckless Bot Editing by User:Docu

As Multichill observed here, I must concur that User:Docu is running a multitude of unauthorized bots on his main account. As evidenced by a quick glance at Docu's recent contributions, one will note that he has averaged >500 edits every two minutes for the past few days. Despite a stern warning from Multichill, Docu has tenaciously proceeded to flood Commons with trivial and superficial edits. That said, I humbly request that the community review this situation and take appropriate action if need be. Sincerely, FASTILY (TALK) 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what we should think of the below. --  Docu  at 21:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

  1. 21:28, 2011 February 2 (diff | hist) m Commons:Administrators' noticeboard ‎ (→Reckless Bot Editing by User:Docu: rv) (top)
  2. 21:27, 2011 February 2 (diff | hist) m Commons:Administrators' noticeboard ‎ (→Reckless Bot Editing by User:Docu: e)
  3. 21:27, 2011 February 2 (diff | hist) m Commons:Administrators' noticeboard ‎ (→Reckless Bot Editing by User:Docu: ce)
  4. 21:26, 2011 February 2 (diff | hist) User talk:Docu ‎ (→Rapid edits: notice) (top)
  5. 21:23, 2011 February 2 (diff | hist) User talk:Multichill ‎ (→fyi: new section) (top)
  6. 21:21, 2011 February 2 (diff | hist) Commons:Administrators' noticeboard ‎ (→Reckless Bot Editing by User:Docu: new section)
  7. 20:50, 2011 February 2 (diff | hist) Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu IV ‎ (sd) (top)
  8. 20:49, 2011 February 2 (diff | hist) m Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 4 ‎ (→{{int:Abusefilter-history-comments}}: ,)
  9. 20:48, 2011 February 2 (diff | hist) Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 4 ‎ (→{{int:Abusefilter-history-comments}}: ce)
  10. 20:47, 2011 February 2 (diff | hist) Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 4 ‎ (→{{int:Abusefilter-history-comments}}: cmt)
  11. 05:44, 2011 February 2 (diff | hist) N User talk:69.230.85.181 ‎ (←Created page with '== {{Autotranslate|1=Dylan Ojeda|base=Project scope/heading}} == {{Autotranslate|1=Dylan Ojeda|base=Project scope}} -- (top)
  12. 05:43, 2011 February 2 (diff | hist) User talk:Kris weese ‎ (top)
  13. 05:43, 2011 February 2 (diff | hist) N User talk:99.123.247.159 ‎ (←Created page with ' == [[:File:Al-Bakhit.jpg]] == Could an admin please ''speedy'' speedy delete this? It was uploaded yesterday and is quite evidently a copyvio. The given source site, state.gov.us, does not even exist. I cannot find it anywhere on USA.gov, state.gov, or google images (except for the [http://www.lepacha.com/webyep-system/data/13-gl-PachaGallery-6354.jpg page] mentioned in the speedy tag). Since al-Bakhit just became Premier of Jordan amid the ongoing protests in the Arab world, this copyvio image is probably getting a lot of eyes (it's certainly on a lot of our wikis).--[[User:Chaser|Chaser]] ([[User talk:Chaser|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 03:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC) :{{done}} but please notify the uploader next time --[[User:O|<span style="color: #2E82F4; font-weight: bold;">O</span>]] <small>([[User talk:O|谈]] • [[Special:Contributions/O|висчвын]])</small> 04:06, 03 February 2011 (GMT) :Thank you, O. BTW, I didn't tag it, but I guess now that you did we can still have a DR. My main concern was getting it off id.wiki's main page. Now if they get rid of the redlink, we'll all be in good shape!--[[User:Chaser|Chaser]] ([[User talk:Chaser|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 04:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC) == abuse log == Just thinking.. many of the copyright violations i see have the source set to "google". Isnt there a way to add that to the abuse log, maybe with a warning asking if "you are sure that this image is not copyrightprotected" or similar? --[[User:Evalowyn|Evalowyn]] ([[User talk:Evalowyn|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC) == [[:File:Kyuhyun.jpg]] == Uploaders claim of personally taking this staged promotional image is doubtful. It also appears to contain a watermark (or copyright) in Korean, I think. [[User:Active Banana|Active Banana]] ([[User talk:Active Banana|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC) :Gone, thanks for findin this. --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] ([[User talk:Martin H.|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC) == New Copyright violation == Please check [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Matheus_Camacho new contributions this user]. [[User:GRS73|Fabiano]] <sup> [[User talk:GRS73|msg]]</sup> 03:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC) :Blocked for a month, been given warnings in the past as well as a 1 week in late January. [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC) == [[:File:Petunia from a park.jpg]] == I recently tagged this image as missing permission and explained the rationale in the file talk page, but the uploader, instead of giving a proper explanation, is threatening to tag every one of my uploads. Please help me understand whether the image requires OTRS permission because the EXIF data says the photogapher is Binu Kalarickan. --[[User:Sreejithk2000|Sreejith K]] ([[User talk:Sreejithk2000|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC) :Maybe "Binu Kalarickan" is {{User|Captainofhope}}? But I agree, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3APetunia_from_a_park.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=48824464&oldid=48819909 this] is not the best way for them to respond... [[User:Rehman|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:bold; color:darkblue">Reh</span>]][[User talk:Rehman|<span style="color:green">man</span>]] 11:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC) ::"Binu Kalarickan" might be the real name of [[User:Captainofhope]], there is a good chance. So is it safe to assume this or does the image require OTRS permission? --[[User:Sreejithk2000|Sreejith K]] ([[User talk:Sreejithk2000|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC) :::To be honest, considering the [[Sulutil:Captainofhope|user's short history]], OTRS may be required, but I cant say... [[User:Rehman|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:bold; color:darkblue">Reh</span>]][[User talk:Rehman|<span style="color:green">man</span>]] 12:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC) :::: This users edit ([http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AFeatured_picture_candidates%2FFile%3AFlowers-2.JPG&action=historysubmit&diff=48825279&oldid=48822296]) at [[Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Flowers-2.JPG]] is also not really friendly. --[[User:Sreejithk2000|Sreejith K]] ([[User talk:Sreejithk2000|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC) [[Commons:Licensing#License_information|Strictly speaking, our policy]] requires words like "Own work" in the source line if, indeed, the image is the work of the uploader, so the "Private collection" shown here does require OTRS. With that said, I have never completely understood the rule in cases like this this where the "Author" line lists the uploader as the author of the image. It seems to me that all we really need to know is the author and that knowing the source is not important if the author is the uploader. However, as you point out, there is a second problem here -- that the EXIF calls out "Photographer: Binu Kalarickan". That makes the situation harder. With only the "Private collection" versus "Own work" problem, I might be inclined to ignore it, but with both problems, I think asking for a clarification -- one of: *OTRS *changing the source line to "Own work" by the uploader *adding his real name to [[User:Captainofhope]] is entirely appropriate. As for the threat, I have left a note on his talk page.      <strong>Jim</strong> . . . . <small><small>[[User:Jameslwoodward|Jameslwoodward]]</small> ([[User talk:Jameslwoodward|talk to me]])</small> 12:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC) :Meh - [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binukalarickan&redirect=no may help]. --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 12:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC) ::Aha -- as we guessed, but thanks, Herby, for the confirm. I'm more concerned with his attitude than this image, though. Please take a glance at [[User_talk:Captainofhope#Please_remain_calm_and_collegial]] if you will.      <strong>Jim</strong> . . . . <small><small>[[User:Jameslwoodward|Jameslwoodward]]</small> ([[User talk:Jameslwoodward|talk to me]])</small> 12:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC) :::Sure - general attitude is not wonderful - hopefully the warning will make him think a bit - not really sure additional rights are appropriate if he goes on like he has though. --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 13:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC) ::: Impolite wording are damaging the environment, I understand. By knowing my old username why the user tried this, to screw up the issues and take it against me. if not [[:Category:Captain%27s-Upload]] is available for a mass deletion, where the exif is there in many of the images. [[User:Captainofhope|<font face="zapfino" color="blue">...Captain......</font>]][[User_talk:Captainofhope|<font face="Papyrus" color="brown" >Tälk tö me..</font>]] 14:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC) ::::As far as licensing is concerned as the EXIF data is clear about the photographer then the name is linked to you anyway so I'm not sure I understand that. There does need to be something that indicates you can validly license images that on the face of it appear not to be yours. --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 15:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC) ::::: Please file a mass deletion request or tag all the uploads as missing permission. As the initiated user's intention is that...[[User:Captainofhope|<font face="zapfino" color="blue">...Captain......</font>]][[User_talk:Captainofhope|<font face="Papyrus" color="brown" >Tälk tö me..</font>]] 16:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC) ::::: Exif data is not an absolute proof. It's just a string of characters - not very different from any user-invented moniker. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 04:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC) :For reference, it is now [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=renameuser&page=User%3ABinukalarickan obvious that the user was renamed], and that "Binu Kalarickan" is in fact "Captainofhope". So IMHO, there is no issue on the licensing/permissions... [[User:Rehman|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:bold; color:darkblue">Reh</span>]][[User talk:Rehman|<span style="color:green">man</span>]] 03:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC) ::: Hope this give a happy ending...[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACaptainofhope&action=historysubmit&diff=47308954&oldid=47288149 planned][[User:Captainofhope|<font face="zapfino" color="blue">...Captain......</font>]][[User_talk:Captainofhope|<font face="Papyrus" color="brown" >Tälk tö me..</font>]] 21:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC) == {{Autotranslate|1=Arthur Acheson architect|base=Project scope/heading}} == {{Autotranslate|1=Arthur Acheson architect|base=Project scope}}
  14. 05:38, 2011 February 2 (diff | hist) m Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 4 ‎ (→{{int:Ratinghistory-table-votes}}: fx)
  15. 05:37, 2011 February 2 (diff | hist) Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 4 ‎ (→{{int:Ratinghistory-table-votes}}: ce)
  16. 05:36, 2011 February 2 (diff | hist) Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 4 ‎ (→{{int:Ratinghistory-table-votes}}: lol)
  17. 22:53, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 4 ‎ (→{{int:Ratinghistory-table-votes}}: soften up)
  18. 22:49, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) User talk:Docu ‎ (-sigh- nvm)
  19. 22:48, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) m User talk:208.111.227.199 ‎ (fx) (top)
  20. 22:48, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) m User talk:208.111.227.199 ‎ (Reverted edits by Fastily (talk) to last revision by Wutsje)
  21. 22:47, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) User talk:Docu ‎ (→please add babel info and email access: cmt)
  22. 22:44, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) User talk:208.111.227.199 ‎
  23. 22:44, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) User talk:208.111.227.199 ‎
  24. 22:43, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) N User talk:76.119.114.156 ‎ <nowiki>(←Created page with '== {{Autotranslate|1=The Corre (professional wrestling)|base=Project scope/heading}} == {{Autotranslate|1=The Corre (professional wrestling)|base=Project scope}}
  25. 22:41, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 4 ‎ (→{{int:Abusefilter-history-comments}}: note)
  26. 22:39, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 4 ‎ (→{{int:Ratinghistory-table-votes}}: cocky)
  27. 22:37, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) Commons:Administrators' noticeboard ‎ (→Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu IV: new section)
  28. 22:26, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) Commons:Administrators/Requests ‎ (rv for now)
  29. 22:24, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Chatama ‎ (→Votes: oppose) (top)
  30. 20:38, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 4 ‎ (→{{int:Ratinghistory-table-votes}}: e)
  31. 20:38, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 4 ‎ (→{{int:Ratinghistory-table-votes}}: oppose)
  32. 20:37, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 4 ‎ (adjust name)
  33. 20:32, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) Commons:Administrators/Requests ‎ (→Requests for adminship: adjust name)
  34. 20:32, 2011 February 1 (diff | hist) m Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 4 ‎ (moved Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu IV to Commons:Administrators/Requests/Docu 4: format title)


Format fixed. Sorry about that. --  Docu  at 21:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that this response is helpful, Docu. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't used catalot yet. If a Javascript program performs automatically edits in large numbers, it turns a web browser effectively into a bot. If these edits come indeed from catalot (and I've no reason to doubt Docu's statement here), I wonder why catalot doesn't put its own name into the edit summaries as it is done by Hotcat. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If we agree with the statement that the edits are actually botedits and the edits on itself are OK (there is sufficient edit history to judge that), I think the best solution would be to ask Docu to create a separate bot account for this and to ask a crat to set the botbit for that account. Jcb (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And I always thought Docu was the fastest-editing human on Commons! ;) I agree, that is definitely bot activity there, considering the frequency and similar type of edits. And the above table is just a segment where the bot edits were not made. Rehman 00:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please compare to my catalot edits: about 400 edits in 4 min with catalot. Amada44  talk to me 07:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, such a high rate could explain why the system became less and less responsive last months. I think indeed that the executing rate of Catalot has to be throttled (as with any bot) and the edit summary should indicate its origine. --Foroa (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Valid points. We would need to open up a new thread to discuss that. Amada44  talk to me 08:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I suppose some editors would like to think that they did so much editing that the site couldn't follow, but seriously, think about the proportions. --  Docu  at 08:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The odd thing about this thread is that Fastily started it, but failed to mention that I explained the mode of editing and that Amada44 had commented on this before. Their way of providing diffs and permanent links even linked to the relevant pages omitting this. Given the log of Fastily's edits above and they way their comments are phrased, their approach doesn't look constructive. Personally, I think it even fails to explain why there'd be anything reckless about this. Maybe I should bring this up in one of the subpages though.
    That said, err .. written, I think Multichill's question is a valid one and most people editing categories around this site can probably confirm my answer. --  Docu  at 08:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I am troubled by this discussion. Although I have used Cat-a-lot only twice, both in the last three days, I found it a very convenient way to diffuse a lot of files that were in Category:SVG maps into several sub-categories. I probably would not have bothered to do it by hand, one at a time. In the second case, I moved 15 files from Category:Marcel Riéder to Category:Marcel Rieder at the request of one of his family. Cat-a-lot saved a lot of time. I also use AWB occasionally when doing something on a large scale. From my point of view, while both of these allow me to work very fast, they are by no means bots -- they do only exactly what I tell them to do and no more. If we are to decide that these are undesirable, then we should probably also look at DelReqHandler, which also saves a lot of keystrokes, but does several things automatically.
There is a comment above about performance. I would expect that the two tools improve performance compared to doing the same work by hand, because they save page loads. Each category change requires a minimum of three page loads if done by hand using HotCat. Cat-a-lot does not download any pages while working so using it for my Rieder case saved forty-five page loads, which, while minuscule compared with the daily workload of the WMF servers, is a real saving. The actual change of the cat would be about the same whether done with HotCat or Cat-a-lot.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think nobody has a problem with 15 edits at a time. But if you generate 2000 edits in half an hour, people will complain. That's what this topic is about. Jcb (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It was done in the past by other users and FASTILY didn't complain. FASTILY's activity log above seems rather limited. --  Docu  at 06:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't state the case strongly enough. As we grow, we will have more parent categories like Category:SVG maps that novices put things in. There are 5,831 files in Category:Men. It cries out for someone to take Cat-a-lot and move many of those files down into more useful cats, or simply remove Category:Men. Why is it a problem if I generated 2,000 edits in half an hour? Is it better for me to take half a day to do the same task with HotCat, and generate 6,000 additional page loads in the process? I think not.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that the issue is the fact of using Catalot. The issue is that all bots must be throttled to perform less than 5 to 10 transactions per minute so that the system stays responsive for all users even if several bots are running. Catelot is not throttled and can manage more than hundred transactions per minute which means that one Catelot might get probably pretty close to the system saturation point. If several users are running catalots in parallel, the system might be no longer usable/responsive for other users. Can you imagine what will happen when an edit war or vandal campaign starts and a couple of users start very large transfers from one category to another and backwards ? What can we do then ? --Foroa (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

First, Cat-a-lot is not a bot -- if you set a bot running, it could operate on tens, even hundreds of thousands of files. Cat-a-lot is a script that operates on a limited number of files that the user must specify, just as AWB and, for that matter, DelReqHandler. That list might be a few hundred files, maybe a few thousand, though that is very unlikely.

Second, no action taken with Cat-a-lot can have any noticeable effect on the system. The system load is far greater than you imagine. The Wikipedia sites had 320,000,000 site visits in December 2010. If each visit had only one page download and that page had only one Commons image (both are underestimates), there would be an average of 7,200 images downloaded from Commons per minute. Since a system like WMF must handle peak loads, not averages, the system capacity is much larger than that. An instance of Cat-a-lot might be 1% of that capacity, briefly, if it were creating downloads. But it's not creating downloads, so the system load is much less than even that small number. There's no problem here.

With that said, I would support having the use of Cat-a-lot be permission based, as is AWB. You can do far more damage with AWB, but certainly Cat-a-lot is a tool that might well be kept away from newbies. As for dealing with an edit war, we have the same tools as always.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This part of the discussion should actually be in a new section... anyhow, It would be a great shame to limit catalot to much. Because of the limiting users: should we not wait until we had an incident related to catalot? As far as I know we didn't have any problems yet. With rollback its fairly easy to undo thousands of edits of a user. So I don't see that much of a problem. Amada44  talk to me 12:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this is not the place to discuss it. It is important however to indicate that wikimedia software is optimised for massive parallel consultation (reading) at the cost of slower data modifications. I would be very much surprised if you could show me a recent changes log that contains more than 200 changes in one minute. --Foroa (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
How about about 400 edits in 4 min? 200 in one min is also doable. Amada44  talk to me 16:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
You counting is a bit optimistic, I've never seen 200 changes in one minute and I remain convinced that this approaches the system limit, why I am worrying. They did not invented a bot transaction speed limit for no reason. --Foroa (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Its never easy to undo 1,000's of edits even with rollback, Anything that enables an editor to 1,000's of edits in a very quick time should have some restrictions and safe guards inplace especially on the who and how fast these edits can be done. Gnangarra 14:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • On the Docu issue since catalot doesnt self identify in the edit summary and Docu has continued to perform edits volumes that arent capable of being performed by a person. It has been already been suggested that Docu creates an alternate account for these bot type edits which he's ignored should the community consider sanctions or is it happy to accept Docu's claim that catalot is the tool he's using. Gnangarra 14:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC) withdrawn comment Gnangarra 15:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Catalot issues

Points that have raised;

  1. speed of edits
  2. lack of identification thats its catalot performig the task
  3. usage restriction

IMHO catalot should be disabled until points 1 & 2 are addressed as both should be easily addressed, on point 3 its dependent on the effect of point 1. If point 1 cant be adequately addressed then alternative restrictins should be put in place. Gnangarra 14:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should not disable it unless we have problems with it. Why take down a very useful tool because we 'could maybe' have problems with it (but we don't!)? A better identification in the summary would be really good though. Amada44  talk to me 16:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I suppose most administrators around here know about w:WP:DWAP (intuitively or actually having read it). --  Docu  at 18:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Then they have to remove bot speed limitations. --Foroa (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Speed concerns are not a server performance issue but an edit volume in short time frames, I'm sure people are familiar with w:WP:BEANS. Either catalot is slowed or usage is restricted to trusted editors thats part of the cause of the issue that brought it here. Gnangarra 01:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Did you have a practical problem with my edits? --  Docu  at 14:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
A concern yes, I wonder how in the space of 7 minutes you could identify/select for Cat-a-lot some 500+images as being taken by one photographer when these images werent all in the same categories and the only category in common was one where multiple photographers are included. proof you were using a bot not sufficiently certain, so I assumed good faith but since you asked.... Gnangarra 14:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
It's only thanks to Tropenmuseum staff, Multichill, DieBuche and Special:Search. You can use this to double check. --  Docu  at 15:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. I don't think any of us are really qualified to discuss this in depth, but I say again, in a system that has the capacity to handle tens of thousands of page views per minute, a script that can do perhaps 100 transactions a minute, each no more than 30 bytes or so, and might do that a few times a day, is simply not something we need to worry about unless someone who knows better tells us to worry. --w:WP:DWAP--
I think I am qualified to discuss this. If the system can handle only a few hundreds of transactions per minute, despite its thousands of processors, it means that category changes need quite some system work. In fact, it means changing various unique database tables and replicating the changes to the various servers. If I respond like this, it is because last weeks, I stopped several times working on Commons because the system was just too slow; I had to wait many seconds for transactions to terminate. The whole idea of limiting bot speeds is to limit peak loads and have fair performance for all users. I see no problem requesting cat-a-lot changes so that it executes its first say 20 moves as quick as possible and the subsequent ones at say 8 moves per minute. --Foroa (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. I agree that it would be nice to have the words Cat-a-lot in the edit summary, but the edit summaries now say "(Moving from Category:X to Category:Y)", which certainly identifies them for anyone who knows that -- and a look at the editor's log will confirm it -- what else could do 15 edits within one minute?
  2. I have no problem with this, both because I assume I would qualify, but also because we already have similar permission for AWB and it's a similar problem.
  3. To Foroa's later comment, I say again, this is not a bot. There are bot jobs that could attack tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of files. As we speak, a bot on WP:EN is dealing with changing the ref to the National Register of Historic Places sites -- about 50,000 articles. That is enough transactions so that it might have an effect on response, for a short while. It makes a great deal of sense to tell a bot to work slowly, in the background, because a bot does not have someone waiting for it to finish. A script,on the other hand, does, something we all see occasionally with DelReqHandler. Why should we have to wait for Cat-a-lot if the performance problem is not really an issue?
  4. I say again, Cat-a-lot is there to help a few of our colleagues do the mind-numbing task of defusing and correcting categories, a problem that is not going to get easier. There are, as I said above, 5,830 images in Category:Men. Do we really want to make it harder for one of our number to deal with that? Or do any of you really think that a category with 5,000 images in it is useful? -- I know I would set the upper limit at a few hundred.

So, yes, by all means get the Cat-a-lot edit summary changed and, perhaps, make its use require permission. But please don't throw out an essential tool over problems that probably don't exist.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

what else could do 15 edits within one minute an unauthorised bot could, thats what brought the issue here and thats why edit summaries need to identify whats being used. Gnangarra 01:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

file:Koe7.jpg - two minor fixes necessary

Dear Admins, would you be so kind and fix two minor problems on file:Koe7.jpg?

  • First: It should be name in Hannover-Kötnerholzweg8.jpg (by accident I used a wrong house number).
  • Second: I don't know the coordinates-syntax, so that the location-coordinates don't work.

Nothing too big I guess. Thanks a lot! --Knase (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. Jafeluv (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Azeri Warrior

Hi, please check uploads of user:Azeri Warrior, most of them are copyvios. Yarl ✉ 20:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

All of the uploads including the illustrations gathered from some museum websites. Except File:Vikingler.jpg which maybe is from an old manuscript or is a part of an old map. Or maybe a recent imitation? I dont know. --Martin H. (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
He didn't get it yet, more flicker-vios. NVO (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe he thought that an image is free if it is from flickr. Happens. He has three days to make himself familiar with this project and free content. --Martin H. (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Eugène Delacroix

Hello, I would like to rename gallery Eugène Ferdinand Victor Delacroix to Eugène Delacroix because it is how he is usually referred to as. Thank you, Od1n (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Rehman 08:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Rehman  – Od1n (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome :) Rehman 09:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Mervin97

Please block Mervin97 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. (Also, does anyone know how they were able to upload several files with no licensing tags without them getting tagged by bots?) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Plung3r

Please block Plung3r (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Gire 3pich2005

He apparently violated the conditions of the lift of his latest indefinite block (not his first time). I grew tired of him in the past, apparently the same happened to Mardetanha (who unblocked him the last time) who doesn't want to hear about him anymore. Please be aware that he used to create sockpuppets in the past. --Eusebius (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. The user had an indefinite block. It was removed as follows:
":Per our discussion with you I have unblocked you , But you are neither allowed to upload any images nor to add any OTRS ticket to any images , performing such action would bring you indef block on sight --Mardetanha talk 13:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)"
He has uploaded at least twenty files since that date.
Therefore, someone should block him. I'm happy to do that after Eusebius or Mardetanha confirms that such an action is appropriate or do I misunderstand?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I dont make sockpoint. sysops can check me. this is insult from eusebius. If one of my pictures have problem, say me to explain. if my explains werent enough, sysops can delete it.
I dont know way Eusebius first complaint instead explain for exact problem. if he tired, why follow me? He can want to one of sysops to check my uploaded (like user:Martin H). I agree all his voted about my uploaded.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Gire 3pich2005: I didn't follow you, I was only surprised to see you active on the Quality Image project. Saying that you made sockpuppets in the past is not an "insult". There are 6 blocked accounts registered here, so please don't act offended. I didn't say you were doing it right now.
James: You understand the situation, but I am not recommending or requesting any action. I'm joint pointing out some facts. Obviously I'm not objective. --Eusebius (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

While Gire 3pich2005 has given us some good work, it appears that he or she is more trouble than he or she is worth. I have put DRs on the following files, uploaded since the conditional reinstatement by Mardetanha in December. They all are without credible source, date, or author.

Mardetanha's conditional reinstatement prohibited any uploads, not just bad ones. I think, therefore, that is clear that Gire 3pich2005 cannot live within the restrictions of the conditional reinstatement and should once again be blocked, which I have done.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I restored one of his uploads, because he could provide a valid source with a valid license. Jcb (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, I am not suggesting that he does not give us some good work. About half of the images he uploaded since the reinstatement are all right. The problem is that he is difficult to deal with and gives us a lot of bad work which we have to sort out.
The specific point here is that Mardetanha gave him "one last chance" in December and he soon began to violate its terms.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement over old DRs closed by a non-admin

While I was checking the list of DRs closed by non-admins, I found some to have been closed improperly (see my edits); thus I re-opened them. A day later, Pieter Kuiper labels them as "disruption", and a disagreement ensues. Did I make a wrong call by undoing those closures? More importantly, what should be done to ensure that closures and disagreements like this do not happen again? --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:17, 05 February 2011 (GMT)

There was nothing improper about the closures. They had been open for a very long time, when a non-admin closed them as kept. None of the 200 Commons admins had seen reason to act on the deletion request. That was in June. Reverting such a closure (which did not notify the uploader), is just disruptive. O should have made a new DR if he disagreed with the decision, just like anybody else. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Being a Commons Admin, I agree with Pieter Kuiper in this case. If you disagree with a closure (from 8 months ago!), just make a new nomination, using the "Nominate for deletion"-link in the left menu at the image description page. Reverting the closure doesn't make sense. It also takes less time to just make a new regular nomination. Jcb (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I would have opened a new DR had this case truly been something other than improper procedure by a non-administrator, something that is spelled out pretty clearly in the deletion policy. --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:14, 05 February 2011 (GMT)
Just so we're clear -- one of the incidents was at Commons:Deletion requests/File:National Stadium, Bucharest.JPG, which was closed by User:-Riotrocket8676 on June 11, 2010 after being open for seven months. The issue was lack of FOP, but it is a sports stadium at night and none of the structure is visible under the crowd.
Policy says "provided the closure is not controversial". Since a non-admin can make closures only as keep, such closings must go against the wishes of the nominator. In this case another user agreed and it had been open for seven months without further comment. It appears, therefore, that this closure had the minimum possible controversy anticipated by the rule.
So, I agree that this was within the bounds of the rule and not "improper procedure". More to the point though, is that even if it were improper, I would still object to reverting the closure as that is essentially invisible to the community. Far better to put a new DR on it, as that would get it current attention. Since the November 2009 DR log has long been closed, there was no way for it to get back in front of anyone who did not know it existed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The controversy arises from the non-admin closer lecturing the nominator(s) about copyright law, something that no neutral closer would do. That "lecture" should have been part of the deletion discussion(s). --O (谈 • висчвын) 16:50, 05 February 2011 (GMT)
It is always nice to see a rationale for a decision. This kind of decisions is rather unsatisfactory. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but I have been yelled at more times for including a decision rationale than the times I have not. That's besides the point, however. --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:57, 05 February 2011 (GMT)

I get grief for including a reason (because there's no opportunity to respond to a comment made by the closer) and for not including a reason (because I should explain my action.) I think it's about even between the two. I see nothing wrong with including a reason, and certainly a non-admin who is conversant with the law and our policy has every right to suggest that the nomination was not the best. With that said, I note that although the nom is an IP, User:Riotrocket8676 has only 33 edits on Commons, although he does have 3,000 on WP:EN.

However, again, that's beside the point. The point is that reverting a closure from eight months ago is not a good thing, because it is invisible. In the future, please, open a new DR.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Block 12Owl

Block user:12Owl for copyviolating after a final warning. Evalowyn (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done -mattbuck (Talk) 22:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Evalowyn (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Inter8700, Inter9700 and Inter9900

Please block the following accounts, which are sockpuppets of JAT67:

Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hum -   Done - maybe not the brightest puppeteer... --Herby talk thyme 11:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Machoacriano and ObrªEads

Today's Paulinho15 sockpuppets are:

(See global contributions for Machoacriano for confirmation.) Please block and nuke any uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Also:

—LX (talk, contribs) 13:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Krishnavamsi

Please check uploads of user Krishnavamsi (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Copyrighted images from misc. sites. Yarl ✉ 15:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass delete......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. All were copyright violations. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not so important request

Please some admin take a look at my request here (and do it if you can...) thanks. Diego Grez return fire 23:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Vineet.agarwaal

Please check uploads of user Vineet.agarwaal (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  - Most of the images are meeting personal web host criteria with web resolution uploads......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done, deleted personal photos. Left two, as it is used, and seems notable. Rehman 03:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Löschen

Hallo,

ich möchte ALLE Texte, Fotos, etc. löschen, die ich jemals auf Wikipedia/Wikimedia veröffentlicht habe. Ist das eigentlich möglich und wenn ja wie?

Danke für eine hoffentlich baldige Antwort

Wilfried Pinsdorf

Baumberge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baumberge (talk • contribs) 7. Februar 2011, 12:26 Uhr (UTC)

Hier auf Commons können wir dir eine definitive Antwort nur bzgl. der hier hochgeladenen Fotos geben. Beiträge in Wikipedia-Artikeln, an denen andere auch mitgearbeitet haben, können naturgemäß kaum entfernt werden. Bzgl. von dir selbst erstellter und rechtmäßig hochgeladener Bilder ist zu sagen, eigentlich Nein. Denn du hast bei jedem Hochladen unter einer freien Lizenz die Kontrolle über dieses Bild weitgehend abgegeben. Darauf wird man beim Upload auch explizit hingewiesen: "Diese Freigabe kann nicht widerrufen werden."[3] Dessen ungeachtet löschen wir manchmal Dateien auf Wunsch des Uploader aus "Freundlichkeit" (courtesy deletion), wenn ein adäquater Grund ("ich will es" ist keiner) vorliegt und das Bild nicht auf anderen Projekten benutzt wird. Zudem ist zu beachten, dass selbst bei einer Löschung eines Bildes von Commons, jeder, der es vor der Löschung heruntergeladen und/oder irgendwo (unter Einhaltung der Lizenzbedingungen) verwendet oder weiterverbreitet hat, dies auch weiterhin tun darf, weil das Bild ja unter einer freien Lizenz gestanden hat. IANAL. --Túrelio (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Slight concern?

Checking out new user pages I came across a fairly large number of new user pages almost all of which had "I am a volunteer to upload images gathered and donated to the wikipedia anniversary event in Sligo." on. I can understand it and would not normally bother had it not been for this one whose name I find a bit suspect? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As permitted/required by our policy on offensive user names, I deleted the user page

  • User:I have massive sausage (note the missing "a")

and blocked the account

  • User:I have a massive sausage

I applied a minimal block, so he can create a new account with a different name if he wishes.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User:MadeinLatvia

Please block MadeinLatvia (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who has been uploading copyright violations for years in spite of multiple warnings, and who has now turned to falsifying Flickr review tags. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. No useful uploads over two year period -- all copyvios. As LX says -- repeated warnings and now a fake Flickr bot review.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a bug in my SUL on Commons

I am a Commons user since 8 March 2006, at 15:29 as Trassiorf. Since SUL came up, I am constantly bothered by bugs of the following sort : The most common is :

Create an account or login

Login error

Your login session seems to be problematic ; this action was cancelled for fear of login abuse. Please click on "Previous", and reload the page where you came from, and retry.

The suggested remedy is totally inefficient. From times to times, I dare bother an admin or sysop or what, who puts things in order, but it does not last for long : it begins by not transferring my login from the wikipedia session on which I am, like it should according to SUL, but if I login manually, it will accept it. But after a while I get the above message. Could it be possible that a kind Somebody studies this bug and eradicates it for good, so that I can continue working for Wikipedia ?

There is a work around: delete all of your cookies (this includes *wikimedia.org and *wikipedia.org (you need to delete all) and log again. Esby (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
That's done : I have erased 19 cookie directories named *wiki* . Let's cross fingers ! Thanks 92.128.101.120 09:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I have also explicitly reauthorized each site to put cookies, but asked to be requested for each new cookie. I login on my home wiki (fr), authorize a few cookies, and SUL goes on to ask for permissions to put cookies for me on many other wikimedia sites. Then I try to log on to de:wp : there SUL had forgotten to put me automatically, but I can do it by hand. I find that I can logon automatically on en:wp, but I still can't logon to Commons ! With the above diagnostic. I even tried to logon with a secure connection, to no avail. Can someone tell Commons that I am a good old friend, not a vandal of some sort ?       92.128.101.120 19:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC) (that's Trassiorf (u) 19:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC))
I think that's it : I re-erased everything, and restarted the computer, and I can login automatically on Commons ! Many thanks.       Trassiorf (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Kohen Gadol vestments.jpg

I'm probably just missing something, but where is the evidence for permission? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - "all rights reserved" on the website - probably should go - just off out so can't do it but I'm sure someone else will look more carefully. --Herby talk thyme 10:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  Done -- It doesn't take a note here -- just adding {{Copyvio}} is all that is needed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to remember that! Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Jydaff

Today's Paulinho15 sockpuppet is:

Please block. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked - no other obvious accounts - thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
And the next one, User:Gady&Ieda had a very short performance on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Wayne Pigram.jpg

I would revert the IP's fake claim on File:Wayne Pigram.jpg but it could be seen a misusing my Admin tools. The DR should also be closed as the claim made by the IP is false, The camera I used (Pentax K100D) is the same camera I have had for almost four years and most of my photographs that I have uploaded is taken from that very camera. Bidgee (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverted the vandalism; leaving the DR for an admin to close. 58.163.175.131 is blocked on English Wikipedia for their activities there and should be blocked here as well. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  taken care of. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
They're still not blocked. Additionally 58.163.175.133 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  needs to be blocked. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Two IPs blocked --Herby talk thyme 08:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
After closing the DR, I got distracted by reverting the IPs new attack and semi-protecting the image. Anyway, I've now blocked a third IP (58.163.175.134). --Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with it, I thought it would be best for me not to revert or close the DR. The Anon has been harassing/stalking me ever since dealing with a BLP issues relating to a AFL player. Bidgee (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Same type uploadings and user page

Mario9191 and ]Fabian1992 will have uploaded same picture and same link in userpage.--Motopark (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Both images have been deleted as they are copyvios, not too sure if a checkuser would be any good but seems sus (suspect) to have two editors upload the same image and link it to the userpage. Bidgee (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Tahrir Square during Friday of Departure.png

The earlier image in the history should be blanked to leave the record intact -- The Egyptian Liberal 14:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Like that: File:Tahrir Square during Friday of Departure.png? --Túrelio 14:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Needs to be done again. Sorry -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass deletion of partially-copyrighted mobile phone photos and screenshots

Hello,
I was working on a smartphone-related article in en-wiki, when I came across many, many mobile phone photos in Commons showing copyrighted non-free software on the display. I nominated a few first, but I kept finding more and more of them. In total, I have now nominated almost 100 23 such images for speedy deletion. Now I started looking at some of their usage, and some are widely used, eg. Nokia N-Gage.png. What should I do? --Hydrox (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: namely I am seeking advice on which of these paths to proceed on:
  • Speedily delete them all and let the article maintainers fix after it. Negative: widespread impact on multiple wikis.
  • Speedily delete only those that are unused and nominate used ones for normal deletion, so that article maintainers have time to fix.
  • Speedily delete none and make this whole case a normal deletion.
  • Edit each images with eg. blur, so that they don't anymore show identifiable copyrighted content. --Hydrox (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd say to speedy the ones not in use and nominate the ones in use so that we have time to seek out a replacement and/or migrate to En under fair use. I sometimes can persuade uploaders to take a new photo with the screen off, or displaying one of our featured images full screen - a good test image is File:Colouring pencils.jpg to show the colour range of the screen. Note that that image is CC-BY-SA though, and if they don't want the CC-BY-SA license they will have to find another image (I can't find any featured images that aren't, are there any?). Dcoetzee (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I hand-picked all files with any global usage and transformed them to a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Partially-copyrighted mobile phone photos and screenshots. Please comment whether this nomination is appropriate before I list it. --Hydrox (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but a 100 images at once is too big. There is no humanly possible way that a consensus can be found for something that large. I would very strongly recommend splitting it into multiple noms, preferably based on images that are similar - i.e.: similar operating systems, brands, etc. I also don't like the rush to nominate such a large number of images without prior discussion. I've only got one image in this pile: File:Blackberry Storm.JPG, and if there are concerns that can be resolved with Dcoetzee's suggesion, then I would have appreciated such a note first, before the rush to destroy images. Resolute (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes I must admit it is maybe a bit rude awakening - I started browsing categories under Smartphones and opening files that seemed to have recognizable UI elements on display to tabs. Then I just nominated every one of them to speedy deletion with copy&paste, because that is what it does when I choose "Report copyright violation" under "Toolbox". The default user notification template is how it is, but I did not see it coming before it had been done already.
On whether the consensus should be reached, I don't think there is any issue. These images are not within the project's scope, because they are Fair-use images displaying proprietary software screenshots. You can easily verify this by opening each nominated file in a tab. --Hydrox (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I get your rationale, but in the case of my image, I still have the phone, so if the only issue is what is on my screen, I can very easily upload a replacement image with the phone turned off, or showing a free image in its place that would eliminate the need for a deletion discussion. Resolute (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
In the case where the uploader appears to be active based on their talk page, or in the case where in the image is in use, I would request a replacement before requesting speedy deletion - just because it is pretty easy to fix this kind of issue. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Brian 93

Could someone please help Brian 93 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) quit uploading Getty Images photos with fraudulent authorship claims? —LX (talk, contribs) 22:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, blocked and seriously warned. --Túrelio (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Daugauhmt

Daugauhmt (talk · contribs) has been creating out of scope/promotional content despite a warning. Could an admin take a look at their edits and possibly block them? Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done thanks :) --Herby talk thyme 09:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop Psychiatric Damaging (talk · contribs)

I've given this user a first 1-day block for his vandalistic spamming of "his" book cover on Commons:Featured pictures ‎and Commons:Quality images[4], likely for promotional reasons[5]. Others may extend the block. In addition, there might be an "association" to Dr. JOSEPH ISAAC (talk · contribs) who uploaded related files a week earlier. --Túrelio (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Eyl14

Please block Eyl14 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is yet another Xraykan sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Tiptoety talk 21:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Translation for Template:Image permission/ar

{{Image permission}} could use a translation in Arabic. OTOH, if OTRS doesn't deal with permission in Arabic, it might not be worth it. --  Docu  at 05:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Soso34 (talk · contribs)

It seems that this user has faked the EXIF entry of (at least some of) his uploads in order to cover their copyviolating status. His upload File:Belhanda maroc.jpg comes from http://www.lionsdelatlas.net/images/stories/Belhanda-2.jpg, where the image has no EXIF data at all. However, Soso34's upload has EXIF claiming Soso34 as the photographer and February 15, 2011 (!) as timepoint of its creation. Another upload File:Bocally coupe de la ligue.jpg comes from http://www.mhscfoot.com/liste-saisons/saison-2010-2011/articles/garry-bocaly-ab-un-moment-magnifique-bb, where the image file carries no EXIF data, but - oh, wonder - Soso34's upload has EXIF data suggesting soso34 is the photographer. I've blocked him for 1 week now. However, a indef ban might be appropriate, as this uploader can hardly be trusted. --Túrelio (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with an indef ban. He has uploaded 16 images that have been deleted, and certainly faking EXIF data cannot be tolerated. On the other side, he has uploaded three images that we have kept, all of which are in use.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
With Jim, he has done really more then just uploading copyrighted work. Faking EXIF data is a big no no. Bidgee (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Import Template:Eventonmap

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask. Could somebody import Template:Eventonmap from ten.wikipedia.org including its history. I would like to use this template on commons, and want to keep the history of the users who contributed to it. HenkvD (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The image is hosted on the commons and has been so since September 2008 and its history can be seen here. The history I assume you want, is specific to the Wikipedia 10 project and not to the commons, so that history has nothing to do with us here but perhaps an interwiki link would suffice your needs. Ww2censor (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I will create it here with a reference to ten.wikipedia.org. HenkvD (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Red whiskered bulbul.jpg

I am trying to move the image ബുൾബുൾ.jpg from Malayalam Wikipedia to commons, but I keep on banging to the error A file identical to this file (File:Red whiskered bulbul.jpg) has previously been deleted. You should check that file's deletion history before proceeding to re-upload it. Please modify the file description below and try again.

Can someone please check whether the files are the same? This file seems to have the proper license in Malayalam Wikipedia, and so I would like to have some help in moving this file to commons. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's the same file. I've undeleted it here and added the license from ml.wikipedia. Jafeluv (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I have deleted the Ml Wiki image and pointed all the pages to the image in commons. I am actually quite surprised on the ability of Wikipedia commons to compare the image being uploaded to the tons of images already in commons. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Uploader re-create same picture agan and again

Check Special:Contributions/Findit1500--Motopark (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, blocked, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

169.139.224.100

Please block 169.139.224.100 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  (Broward County public schools), whose contribution list consists exclusively vandalism (45 instances since 2007), with escalating abuse during the last week. Currently blocked on English Wikipedia (for the eleventh time) until September and on English Wiktionary (for the fourth time) until December. Previously blocked on Simple English Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Old speedy-delete requests in Category:Copyright violations

There are quite some files in Category:Copyright violations which have been nominated for "speedy deletion" more than several weeks ago, and up to 2½ months ago (see [6]). -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with identifying copyvio in en wiki

A user has uploaded what i suspect is a google earth image to enwiki as his own work - [7]. The image doesn't have any metadata. I tried tineye, but it is not giving any result. As i figured editors in commons would be more experienced in iding image copyvio's i am asking for help here. Can someone take a look and confirm this is a copyvio. Also he has added a dozen or so images in en wiki and i need help in verifying them too. Thanks--Sodabottle (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The main one is dead easy to me - copyvio 'cos it is google earth - it would be gone now if it was here :). The others look iffy but others may have better ideas. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
File:Tnaucom.jpg is from here http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=444817&page=5 which has a (c) as shown by TinEye      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Herbythyme and Jameslwoodward. I have speedy tagged both.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Unless this uploader has uses many different cameras, and especially since some were clear copyvios, I think most of these are questionable. Jonathunder (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Inefficiency in Deletion Requests

Currently, the archiving of the DRs are done in the following way:

  1. You create the DR request; Commons:Deletion requests/Sample
  2. This is transcluded at Commons:Deletion requests/2011/01
  3. This page, where all requests are transcluded, is alive until all existing discussions are closed;
  4. Once all discussions are closed, this page is deleted, along with all it's page history.

Now the main issue here is that:

  • This method requires the deletion of pages on a routine basis.

A maintenance page, or any page for that matter, should not "require deletion on a routine basis". Deletion should only be used on random occasions when needed; history of routine work should always be kept.

The best way to overcome this issue is basically to scrap the dated pages (Commons:Deletion requests/2011/01), and directly transclude contents in the archive pages (Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/12). Are there any reasons why this should not be the case? Rehman 07:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you completely understand -- the sequence you have above is not correct. Aside from the archives, there are five pages created by the DR process:
  • Commons:Deletion request/example -- the actual DR
  • Commons:Deletion requests/yyyy/mm/dd -- all the requests for a day, call it the "daily log page", which is initially all the DRs for one day, transcluded
  • Commons:Deletion requests/yyyy/mm -- all the daily log pages for a month, transcluded only if they exist, call it the monthly log page.
  • Commons:Deletion requests/Older discussions -- a linked list of all the monthly log pages for the last twelve months, listed only if they exist
  • Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests -- a linked list of all the daily log pages for the last 14 days.
The latter two are used to create the top summary page
The whole process depends on the DRs being removed from the daily log pages by a bot as they are closed, so that eventually the daily log pages become blank and can be deleted. If this were not so, the monthly log pages would be far too long to be useful -- we have around eighty DRs per day, or 2,500 per month.
While I understand your reluctance to delete history -- it has concerned me from time to time that the process destroys the daily logs -- it is not very important history -- the only edits that are made to the daily logs are minor corrections, including removing duplicate entries and entries that arose from an erroneous DR. The history remains until the log is finally deleted and by then the log is empty.
As for working from the archives, it won't work. If I decide to work on the open DRs from August, 2010, I can go to Commons:Deletion requests and click on Commons:Deletion requests/2010/08 and immediately see only the open DRs that remain. If I go to Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/08, I have to go to each day to see the open DRs and have no way of knowing which days are completely closed. As evidenced by the growing backlog, it is hard enough to close old DRs without having to scroll through all of the ones that are already closed -- the current system, which whittles the log down as it is closed is essential.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess you are right, removing the entries as the discussions are closed is the best way forward. But, for some reason, the routine deletion part just doesn't seem right. Maybe someone someday will come up with a better idea. Thanks for the detailed explanation! Kind regards. Rehman 01:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Do we need evidence that this is public domain?

File:IlyaMusinWiki.jpg says it is a modified public domain image but there is no evidence it is public domain. As I know the editor isn't clear about copyright from examining his text edits, I'm wondering about this one. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, the image looks like a crop of the cover from Iazyk dirizherskogo zhesta. I'm not sure of the copyright status of the cover image, though. - Bilby (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Very unlikely PD. The depicted died in 1999 and the photo was shot in his advanced age. File tagged as derivative. --Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Review of contribs?

I came across these yesterday as one was tagged for copyright violation. Running through quite a few more (now deleted) they were watermarked and I felt fairly sure they were not "own work". This am three of the watermarked ones were re-uploaded with no more information so I've deleted them again and blocked the user. However I think it would be as well if someone else took a look just to be sure I am not wrong. Equally the remaining images I think are probably copvios but they don't have the watermark. Off out so no more time. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Mass-deleted. Highly doubtful that he is Michał Sikora, Krz81, and the official photographer of a Polish women's basketball team all at the same time. Wknight94 talk 12:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Guiga 123

Please block Guiga 123 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who has uploaded over 20 copyright violations during the last eight months and continues to do so in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleting previous version of File:Uri-Automobile.jpg

Hi! Could someone please delete the previous version of this file due to a personality rights issue (cf. my talk page)? Thanks. --ireas :talk: 18:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing Photographers from Trinidad and Tobago: Noel P Norton

I just uploaded a file called noeldoctorate.jpg and some text for Noel P Norton, Photographer, Trinidad and Tobago. It is located in "My contributions". I was trying to link this file and information to Photographers-Photographers by Country and then add a new subcategory under "T" called "Photographers from Trinidad and Tobago. I am now lost!

I created a subcategory for "Photographers from Trinidad and Tobago" but in the wrong place. It is located at Photographers: Photographers from Trinidad and Tobago. Can you help to delete this one and instead link my Noel P Norton page to the category above mentioned under Photographers by country. thanks

Hi, I've corrected the cat thing. However, the source website is (C) All rights reserved. Therefore, we need a written permission by the rights holder, sent to OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Mgkhgkhfgfdfgfd5423

Please block Mgkhgkhfgfdfgfd5423 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is yet another Fark sockpuppet (and delete their uploads). —LX (talk, contribs) 12:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done by Martin H. --Túrelio (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Fabian1992 created agaiun and again same user page

User:Fabian1992 created agaiun and again same user page--Motopark (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak the language, but maybe s/he's just working on some article? It is after all, their userpage; they could use it as a sandbox, right? Rehman 13:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged the page as copyvio because it was largely a copy from http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Dakar, and explained to the user how to use his userpage. --Túrelio (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of scope user name and user page

User:Casinolawgroup, promotional user name and user page--Motopark (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Mukhtar Pasha.jpg

Hi, in September 2009, I realized that File:Mukhtar Pasha.jpg uploaded by User:Alex:D in October 2007 contained a wrong picture. See File talk:Mukhtar Pasha.jpg. Basically the person pictured in the file was someone else. I was able to find a correct photo of the person and uploaded it under the same file name. So far, so good. Unfortunately, for reasons I don't understand, the new version has not fully propagated during the last year and a half. The old version of the file keeps coming back like a zombie. It is very erratic. See in the article tr:93 Harbi#Kars-Erzurum savunması, the photo is displayed as the old version the but in the article tr:Ahmet Muhtar Paşa, it is displayed in the correct version. Is there any way to decisively kill the old version, so that it never comes back to haunt us ever again? Thank you very much.

---Vikiyazar (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Im going to delete the old version, maybe this will resolve the problem already. tr:93 Harbi#Kars-Erzurum savunması indeed shows the wrong image, maybe now that the old version is delted purge the article again will help. --Martin H. (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

so blue

Small edit war (now protected for a week). File talk:Finland roundel border.svg -- Common Good (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested update of main page

Could someone please who is more familiar than me with the main page template setup take a look at this request? The point is that tomorrow's POTD which is a panorama would best come with a different main page layout. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

IP Block

Please see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:13001350ALBANIANMIGRATIONS.png, this kind of nominations can be accepted..??? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a good nom, but I don't think it warrants a block... Rehman 05:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User contrib

Can someone check these contributions of a new user? I put a nsd template, but I think maybe should be deleted all, or should I following tagging the files? What you said, I´ve got no problems. Cheers. --Andrea (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios

Can someone delete the uploads from today of Hari7478 (talk · contribs)? I've tagged a few, but they're all copyvios spanning over sixty years apart plus a couple of web drawings. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  Gone already, with a little help by Zscout370. --Túrelio (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
THanks to both of you. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded new version of an image to the wrong page

Sorry, I accidentally uploaded a new version of an image to File:Foire saint-laurent.jpg which I should have uploaded to File:Foire saint-germain.jpg. I reverted to the original version, but I don't know how to request deletion of the incorrect file. Thanks for help. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done abf «Cabale!» 05:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Move Request

hi, i think {{PD Egypt}} must moved to {{PD-Egypt}} with it's subpages. (same other PD templates) −ebraminiotalk 10:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

DelReqHandler Problem?

Has anyone else noticed that DelReqHandler is not putting the "[del][keep]" buttons/links on some images. The "[d][del][k][keep][edit]" buttons still appear for each DR. I cannot see any particular pattern to it.

I've reported the problem at MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-DelReqHandler.js#Problem with more detail, but I figured it would get more visibility here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the handler works with the 'title='-attribute? If so, it needs to be rewritten, the title-attribute is no longer set on all links. We have to fix a similar script on deWP already. --Guandalug 14:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
That was it exactly. And I thought I had eliminated all uses of title-attributes long ago... fixed now. Lupo 14:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to Lupo for the fast work.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Image renaming - how to merge two images?

This is not Commons-related, but I figured this is the best place to find people who are familiar with image renaming. Is there a way to merge two images? (In other word, turn one of the images into a redirect to the other?) Renaming an image leaves a redirect at the old name, but creating a conventional redirect (#REDIRECT [[File:...]]) does not have the same effect. --Tgr (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless you think about doing this in an image editor, there is no need to do this.
If the images are closely related, you can add one in the information template at
|other_versions=<gallery></gallery>
of the other image. --  Docu  at 01:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The images are the same, except one is in better quality (but the other has the better name). There is no point in keeping the smaller one. --Tgr (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

{{Duplicate}} ... axpdeHello! 08:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Replace all uses with the better-quality one and after that delete the other version. If the better version has a bad name you can just rename it. Jafeluv (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:13001350ALBANIANMIGRATIONS.png‎ gone wild

Likely due to canvassing on other projects this DR discussion is attracting a lot of heated comments, in part openly racist, mainly by outside people who badly want to have the disputed map deleted. Though unusual, would a semi-protection of the page be an acceptable option? --Túrelio (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think not -- while the discussion was unruly for a while, with many unsigned comments and unfortunate language, I warned that if such things happened again, users would be blocked. Since much of the discussion (including at least one well reasoned comment) has been from IP users, I'd be reluctant to prevent them from continuing to comment.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
All are questioning the accuracy of map data, not the map...is it a reason to keep the discussion......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Closed, Keep, as it is in use on about thirty sites.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Category renaming and redirection

Category:Bosanska Dubica should be renamed as Category:Kozarska Dubica, since town was renamed around 20 years ago. At moment Kozarska Dubica is redirected to Bosanska Dubica, i suggest opposite redirection.--Mile (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the page Bosanska Dubica? Do you want this to be renamed too? --Sreejith K (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Could be also if not problem. --Mile (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  Done both change of categories and move of Bosanska Dubica to Kozarska Dubica      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Filepage.css

Hello everyone again,

with the recent move to MediaWiki 1.17, there's now a way to use CSS on our file pages that can be shared with all our other wikis. This would allow us to ease many of our templates. My idea was that we do the following:

  • Add all styles that are needed on Commons and other wikis to MediaWiki:Filepage.css.
  • @import Filepage.css in Common.css so that there are no redundant rules.
  • Ilmari has suggested to use a prefix like commons- to avoid conflicts with possible local style rules.

I've been away for some time, though noting most changes here, because I believe that Commons is running quite smoothly without me at the moment. However, I'd be sort of interested in getting this thing working. My idea was to slowly convert more and more templates to use such a styling, starting from the top of Special:MostUsedTemplates because they're most important and then we have the server load behind us. FYI, the revisions of this change are 68904 and 68968. Any suggestions, improvements or the like. Cheers, --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Some input please

We have an admin and another user (well respected elsewhere) wheel warring over an image here. There is info here about the background. I have warned both users as wheel warring is the most pointless pursuit on wikis. Personally I fail to see why the version with the visible plates must be kept but others should add their views. I'll not be online for a while now hence the posting here. --Herby talk thyme 17:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Equally I note that the admin concerned in the wheel warring has protected the image. Given the involvement in the issue this really should have been handled by another admin. --Herby talk thyme 17:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Herby asked me to take a look at this. Although I certainly respect his views, I think he's wrong on this, as his view is from the other side of the Atlantic. Although we may not like it, there is no privacy in the USA for families of people accused of mass murder and assassination. The image was, apparently, taken from a public street. Leaving the license plate numbers is not a problem, as everything about the family is on the public record somewhere, or will be soon. Therefore, I agree with Jcb that the image with the numbers is the correct one to keep.
However, here is a slap on the wrist for each of you:
  • Sarek for getting involved in wheel warring -- the correct course would be to reopen the DR with, perhaps, a note on the Village Pump and the Administrator's Noticeboard. Although sometimes I wish it were so, no decision on Commons is final, but simply ignoring the decision will get you blocked.
  • Jcb for using administrative tools in a wheel war in which you were involved -- although the outcome is correct, it would have been much better if you had asked another Admin to protect the file.
I have left this message on both talk pages and at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Some_input_please.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)"Edit warring", thanks -- "wheel warring" should be reserved for the second undoing with admin tools. PeterSymonds deleted the revisions, and Jcb undeleted them, so it would be the next admin deletion which would be wheel warring, if done without obtaining consensus first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going with COM:IDENT#Moral issues here. "Not all legally-obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable to Commons even if they otherwise fall within the project's scope. The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable:... Those that unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life." At least one of those cars doesn't belong to Loughner. His family had nothing to do with the attack on Giffords, and had attempted to confront him over his behavior that morning. Therefore, publishing high-resolution pictures of their license plates is an unwarranted intrusion into Loughner's family, and into the family's privacy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
All these reasons should come to mind before uploading, once uploaded community deserves the right to keep or delete.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 19:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course. I accept that the photo will continue to reside here -- especially since similar pictures have apparently been published in national media. What I continue to object to, and what an admin previously agreed with me on, deleting the unredacted versions, is the advertising of high-resolution license plate images that make it easy to identify these low-profile people anywhere they go. There was no consensus in the deletion discussion to restore the unredacted version -- one person commented on it with a bogus "Commons doesn't do virtual reality" argument.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the version with the license numbers is out of scope. I agree with the points made by Herby and SarekOfVulcan, also. My suggestion is to delete the version with the license numbers. Captainofhope's concerns may be addressed by means of an undeletion discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The license plate definitely don't make the diffence between 'in scope' and 'out of scope'. If the version with the license plates would be out of scope, the censored version would be as well. Jcb (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Colleagues, this is not a DR -- it is a discussion of the behavior of two of our number. If Sarek, et al, want to open a new DR, that's fine -- I acknowledge that the question has two sides and that I might even be on the wrong side of it. Please restrict your comments here to behavior, not the the merits of the image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, your point is well taken. I endorse the items that you list in your post of 17:45, 17 February 2011. I acknowledge SarekOfVulcan's response, but I think your advice is sound. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Protection request

I would appreciate if someone could protect the following image description page from being edited:

This is a family image. One of the articles in which it appears (Roman Catholic Brahmin) has been vandalized by a user and his IP. I fear that the user who appears to be vindictive might vandalize the image page. Thanks! Joyson Noel Holla at me 15:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As there has been no vandalism on this image so far, protection would not be appropriate. I've put it on my watchlist. --Túrelio (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

State Treasurer image

Can someone check this image? I'm pretty sure that it is not the work of the user. Truthsort (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with your analysis Truthsort, and have tagged the image as missing permission. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Collard

Offensive language: [8]. -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a bit uncalled for, but really, go do something useful rather than bugging people over non-issues. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd be far less offended by Lewis' use of "unparliamentary language" than I already was by Mikhail's description of my book scans as "the worst imaginable" and the need to rescan them all again from paper, let alone his campaign to pointlessly format convert and delete anything that's a JPEG. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I might have blocked Collard for his intemperate language if I'd seen it promptly. At this point, may I remind people to avoid personal attacks and to be civil. Please review COM:MELLOW and follow the relevant policies and guidelines. If you don't agree with the guidance on an issue, please work with others to amend it, but do follow it. To do otherwise leads to conflict and ill-feeling. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Witchbook

Page [9] contains personal names of site admins which is not authorized by admins of witchbook.net. If these cannot be removed, I would ask that the page be removed.

User:Meepsheep3

Meepsheep3 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  needs an immediate block. Quite graphic stuff in the contribs. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

+1, please also block edits on {{Multilingual description}} for newbies. Yarl ✉ 20:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Done and done. Tabercil (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I've gone further and hidden the content of this vandals edits. --Túrelio (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Sopotea

Please check contribs of Sopotea (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information), duplicates of one file. Yarl ✉ 21:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Palatka Putnam cty crths05.jpg

A user uploaded a picture over the one I uploaded previously. Could my original be restored, please? Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Vladislav735

Vladislav735 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) has demonstrated clearly through both words (Google Translate) and actions that their sole intent is to knowingly upload copyright violations. Seems they don't need an account here, then. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

1 month. --Túrelio (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Photo on WP:en

Hello. I like to ask for help to take a photo file from WP:en to commons. I don't know correct how to do it. The last time I tried it fails. I need the photo for an atrtice I'am just writing. If anybody likes to help I'll be very thankful. The File is: File:Benty_grange_helm.jpg. Thanks very much, Lothar --MittlererWeg (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the image over. Easiest way to do it is to use the Commonshelper tool - you'll need a TUSC account first though... Tabercil (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tabercil. Thanks very much. I will try it the next time myself. Happy weekend, Lothar--MittlererWeg (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please restore

Please restore edit}, I haven't rights to restore.--Motopark (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have undid the vandal's edit. But you have surely enough rights to this, too. Anyway, thanks for your notice here. --High Contrast (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Dietplan

Please block Dietplan (talk · contribs) for advertising/spamming, despite warning. Note that it is also an inappropriate (promotional) username. Cheers, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Khusraf

Khusraf (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) clearly learned nothing from their last copyvio block and still seems to think that the whole Internet is published under the terms of the Free Art License. Needs another block. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

KevinIJC

KevinIJC (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) needs some time off from uploading copyvios to read up on what Commons is. Please block. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

[[::File:Flag of Medes.svg]]

Possible copyvio. I templated it and was not going to post here as well, but an editor removed the template with no explanation, thus my post here (I've restored the template). I'm not sure why, but I think there are nationalistic issues involved here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Should have added that I'm very dubious about the so-called flat as its description is a mis-match with anything I've found. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Nosoyladygaga

Nosoyladygaga (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) is uploading copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Please block. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Mistake

There is a mistake here . Its name is Tughra of Mehmed V It isn't Tughra of Abdulhamid II. Could you fix this mistake --Tarih (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Asadalamgir

Asadalamgir (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) is uploading copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Please block. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

W0295

W0295 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) is uploading copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Please block. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done --Herby talk thyme 08:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My user name

Hi, i need to change my user name from (Reccardow) to (Mohamed ElGedawy), because it is my name on Arabic Wikipedia.--Reccardow (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you can make a rename request at Commons:Changing username. Jafeluv (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
In my honest opinion, I don't think it is a good idea to rename. Your global account is based on "Reccardow", while you only have two accounts on "Mohamed ElGedawy". Renaming here would break your global account, and give you a big crap load of work in renaming your other accounts. If you ask me, I'd say it's better to rename "Mohamed ElGedawy" to "Reccardow". But that's just my opinion... Rehman 06:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

has User:Nbv reviewer/admin status?

Per this edit Nbv (talk · contribs) has claimed to be "administrator or reviewer" (Nebeviye=Nbv)[10] and in this "authority" to have positively reviewed on "29 November 2011" (!) that his own Jan-29-2011 upload File:Deniz Seki 013.JPG was correctly licensed at its Picasa Web Albums source. However, I found it to be "(C) All rights reserved" on 21 February 2011. Similar claims[11] for File:Seda Sayan 01.jpg, which is also "(C) All rights reserved" at its source, and with File:Tarkan 013.JPG[12] and File:Zeki Müren Müzesi.JPG[13] ...
So did I miss something? --Túrelio (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert..delete...and block.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I see that Nbv is now blocked for one month. I also think that either Nbv or Nebeviye should be blocked indefinitely to prevent them from abusing multiple accounts. Nebeviye's user talk page was redirected to User:Nbv in October 2010, yet the two accounts have been used in parallel both before and after that. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Turelio has blocked Nbv for a month. I have blocked Nebeviye indefinitely to prevent further abuse of multiple accounts. After the month is up, we will keep an eye on Nbv.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

File licensing: Image:Human brain - please add comment or fav this if you blog with it. (421949167).jpg

Can someone possibly undelete that file or fix up the licensing at File:Human brain in a vat.jpg. Betacommandbot did a terrible job of moving the image over, and I have no idea what the license is, as it's been changed back on Flickr. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done Copied the license from the original description page. Jafeluv (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

File Upload Bot uploading fair-use images

Spotted this yesterday when deleting an image but only for the bot to reupload it, I have tried preventing recreation but that has failed and left a message on Magnus Manske's talk page however they haven't been on commons since the 11th of February. Problem is that it isn't just one file, it has been three others, File:Hk417.jpg, File:Norinco HP9-1.jpg and File:KRISS.jpg, possibly more.

I have always has a concern with bots that only have on operator as if something goes wrong it affects Commons, blocking it would only hurt both Wikipedia and Commons but something needs to be done to stop Fair Use files from being transferred by the bot. Bidgee (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Those files shouldn't even be on English Wikipedia, as they are completely replaceable and thus ineligible for fair use under English Wikipedia policies. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm retired from Wiki so I have no opinion. ;) Bidgee (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Tagged them as replaceable on en ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

After File:Norinco HP9-1.jpg and File:KRISS.jpg have been deleted 4 times, twice by me, I have now admin-protected the filenames. Let's see what happens. --Túrelio (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The bot will no doubt still uploads even with the creation protection, I have no idea how it can override a Sysop protection! Bidgee (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
An idea to try here might be to upload a placeholder file and protect that. The full protection got removed by the upload too, which is just plain strange?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I did it with File:KRISS.jpg, File:Hk417.jpg and File:Norinco HP9-1.jpg. Let's see what happens now. --Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about this, didn't see the message until 10 min ago... I think I now blocked upload of images that have "fair use" in the description. If there's some other malfunction that needs urgent fixing, better mail me :-) --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And the story goes on again: File:Norinco HP9-1.jpg, File:KRISS.jpg and File:Hk417.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Fixed and tested. Should not happen again, fingers crossed. --Magnus Manske (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving category bot is not working

It seems moving-category-bot (User:SieBot) is not working since a week ago. Is there any alternate bot for processing move cat requests? Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's urgent, you can post requests to User talk:Category-bot. I will try to get them done later today or tomorrow. For smaller categories, you might want to use cat-a-lot. --  Docu  at 06:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

enwiki Commons Helper Proposal Draft

Hi - would some of you guys mind taking a look and commenting on the commons copiers section? link. Thanks. --Addihockey10 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Undelete Category talk:Norwegian coats of arms

I am trying to find the reasoning for Template:Norwegian coat of arms. It seems some of the discussions were on this deleted talk page. It was deleted as orphaned, but that was a mistake since it is still linked to (both internally and externally). And according to the logs the discussions are relevant. /Ö 17:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Undeleted happily. However probably should have the info shifted elsewhere as it is strictly an orphaned talk page and someone else may delete it in time? Regards --Herby talk thyme 18:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Süm10

Please block Süm10 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is yet another Xraykan sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, Süm12 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log). —LX (talk, contribs) 08:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Ping? The first one is blocked, but the second one is still not blocked. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Jafeluv (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

bot flag not set for User:Liné1bot?

Hi admins,

though the flag was granted the edits by Liné1bot are still without the bot flag. Is this something the operator can change? On Line's talk page the missing bot tag is currenly on-topic. Thanks, Rbrausse (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The bot flag is set, isn't it?[14][15] Jafeluv (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but Liné1bot's edits still appear as non-bot in our watchlists... What's the problem? --Eusebius (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you just have to set the bot to mark its edits as bot edits. This isn't automatically done, although it can only be done by flagged bots. Jafeluv (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the tip, Liné solved it. Rbrausse (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If original picture don't have any source and moved to Commons

What we will do in those cases where picture has been moved to Commons and original picture don't have any source, an example File:IMG 2945.jpg--Motopark (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You can tag it with {{subst:nsd}} here. If there's no source indicated after 7 days it can then be speedied. Might also be a good idea to apply a similar tag in the project from where the image was copied. Jafeluv (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, in such cases the image has to be deleted here, and the user should be notified on the original project if possible, with the exception of copies of well-known PD artwork which generally don't require a specific source. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

deleted picture uploaded again

It seems that this picture has been deleted before and uploaded again File:BP louisiane 2010.JPG. Please check reason and delete if needed.--Motopark (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done - Jcb (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

please delete

pictures of Special:Contributions/Islamalkhaldi shall be used english wikipedia in some kind of contact spamming, please delete because all of those can be found from some web-side.--Motopark (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done Gnangarra 09:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

sock-puppets

As of their (as of yet low-grade) vandal pattern[16],[17] Daniel salvador14 (talk · contribs) and Mvlorca (talk · contribs) are likely sock-puppets. --Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

About File:LibyanCivilWar.jpg

I uploaded the original high-resolution version of this map over an old version, and then found out that there is no evidence anywhere besides User:Vidboy10's tag that this is licensed under the Free Art License. Judging the Twitter conversations between Vidboy10 at https://twitter.com/Vidboy10 and Iyad El-Baghdadi at https://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi, who is the author of the map, I realized that Vidboy10 uploaded this map probably without El-Baghdadi's permission, and then twittered to El-Baghdadi asking for permission. El-Baghdadi twittered that he really wants this map to stay here, but needs to know how to declare a license on the Commons. El-Baghdadi also has a Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/iyad.elbaghdadi .

Could someone who is more familiar with Twitter or Facebook contact El-Baghdadi to help him with these licensing concerns? I would try to do this, except that I am really frustrated due to an international banking issue so I am afraid that I would say something wrong, I do not have a Twitter account so I feel that I would not know the proper netiquette for Twitter and therefore risk offending him, and Facebook's infamous privacy issues have made me realize that getting a Facebook account might be one of life's worst mistakes short of committing DUI. El-Baghdadi looks like he is fluent in Arabic and English.

Also, what needs to be done with the map? There is no evidence that El-Baghdadi has licensed the map under the Free Art License anywhere except Vidboy10's tag, which I do not believe to be credible enough because Vidboy10 looks like a newbie who only realized the importance of attribution and licensing after he uploaded the image. Nowhere in the Twitter conversations is the FAL mentioned, but deleting the map straight away is bad because El-Baghdadi wants the map to stay here but needs to be introduced to the Wikimedia Commons, licensing, and what licenses are permissible. Jesse Viviano (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I forgot this: I apologize for not verifying the source's licensing status before uploading the original hihg-resolution version of the map. Jesse Viviano (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

New FOP policy?

Hi all. Is that a new Commons policy that "no FOP" means "yeah, keep anyway"? See DR 1 and DR 2. --Eusebius (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Though the WIPO-link to the english version of Belgium Copyright law on Commons:Freedom of panorama#Belgium is dead, it is unlikely that from now on we can host images of the Atomium and other modern buildings ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm appalled too, our policy is clear in both cases, and Jcb is ignoring it in favor of his own understanding of FOP. Looking at his talk page, he seems to have gotten into a bad pattern of closing DRs based on his own personal opinion, without trying to convince the other participants or relying on policy (leaving a comment instead of closing the DRs would have been much more appropriate to express his disagreement with policy). It's really troubling. I urge Jcb to reconsider his closure (after reading COM:FOP#Greece and COM:FOP#Belgium), or any other admin to revert his actions. –Tryphon☂ 21:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
FoP is an exception to the copyright law, but, if the copyright law of a country doesn't mention architecture at all, no FoP is needed. I did open the NL version of the Belgian copyright law and I didn't find anything about architecture. NL is my native language. Jcb (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
That's not the point, we can't have every admin here going by their own 5 minute review of some country's copyright law. These are very complicated, and what is not precisely defined in a text of law has usually been established in jurisprudence by court cases. So that's why we have COM:FOP, summing the information that people have gathered and giving an overview of where we stand in our policy; you can't just ignore that. If you disagree with the information on that page, try to change that first (with proper sources of course), and only then can the DR be closed/reverted. –Tryphon☂ 00:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a typical action of Jcb that I have seen oftenly: he closes DR's based on his personal thoughts. This is quite problematic concerning the fact that he has closed lots of deletion requests. This pattern needs to be stopped. A classic example here: "... as far as I can see" => closed. --High Contrast (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you have severe difficulties with the interpretation of English. With 'as far as I can see' I just mean 'as far as I can see', with which I keep the possibility open that I missed or missread something in the NL text of law. 'as far as I can see' does not mean: 'in my personal opinion'. You read emotion in any of my words. Jcb (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
This is appalling. Not so much that he closed them based on his personal thoughts—that's normal. What strikes me as bad, however, are three points:
  • one example mentioned above was speedy closed, cutting short the discussion (if there was any at all).
  • in one example, there wasn't even a discussion; in the other case, it was only among two people, one of them being Jcb himself.
  • in one example, he closed a DR in which he had participated himself and his opinion had not been backed by anyone else.
That's not acceptable. I'll re-open these two DRs; and if that pattern continues, stronger steps should be taken. Lupo 22:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Mea culpa. I misread timestamps. Actually, neither example had any significant discussion when closed, nor were they speedy closed. Lupo 23:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
They were not speedy closed. I think you forgot to compare the months. Both DRs had been open for one month. By the way the second DR you reverted my closure, which is not OK. Please start a new nomination instead. Jcb (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I guess it would've been if I hadn't misread the months. Lupo 22:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"cutting short the discussion" is also not true, please check the times. In case of the first DR the discussion began after closure. Jcb (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Oops, indeed I didn't see that month difference. Sorry. In that case, do you want to discuss whether architectural works are subsumed in Belgium under "artistic works" in a new DR or at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama? Lupo 22:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I think Commons talk:Freedom of panorama would be a good place. Maybe we should ask Belgium people with knowledge about their laws to participate. This could be interesting and maybe it could lead to clarity for us. Jcb (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I just created a new DR for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lotto Mons Expo.JPG, giving a link in which a Belgian web site explains that point quite clearly, also with lots of references to court cases. Lupo 22:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the links about the Belgian situation. The situation is clear to me now. I will change my decision for the Belgian case. I think we should also add this information to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Belgium, for architecture is a common issue at Commons. (And don't worry about the mistake with the timestamps, this can happen to anybody). Jcb (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"in the other case, it was only among two people, one of them being Jcb himself" and "in one example, he closed a DR in which he had participated himself and his opinion had not been backed by anyone else" - that discussion took place after closure. So as you can see all things you call "not acceptable" didn't even happen. Jcb (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Jcb, please calm down. Please accept that other users share a different opinions. That you have acted wrongly in the DR's that Eusebius has mentioned above is beyond question. --High Contrast (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
It now looks more like a misunderstanding of copyright law. Apparently, at the time they were closed, neither DR had any discussion (and they were not speedy closed either). At some point, we have to close DRs, and if there's no discussion to evaluate, it's OK for an admin to use his or her own judgement, otherwise we won't get anything done. If a wrong decision is taken, a new DR will correct it. And, High Contrast, I thought Jcb handled my "not acceptable" comment (largely based on my misreading timestamps) well enough. Lupo 23:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a decision needs to be made at some point, but when we have a page giving clear guidelines regarding the (quite complicated) FOP issues in many countries, I can't see why an admin could just come along and close the DR against those guidelines, without so much as a comment giving the opportunity (if not to other participants, at least to the nominator) to react and present counter-arguments. I would really like Jcb to acknowledge that this part of his actions was unacceptable, and promise to be more considerate in the future. These copyright issues are complex, so of course anyone can make mistakes; but that's precisely why we have COM:FOP. –Tryphon☂ 00:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
As you can check at my talk page, I'm always prepared to look again at a closure. I read every comment at my talk page and sometimes I changed my decision after somebody explained something. Also I don't worry if somebody just starts a new nomination after a keep closure. I will not keep close such a renomination again, except when nominator cancels the nomination and delete votes are absent. Every comment at my talk page may help me fine tuning my actions. Already more than 99% of my closures don't cause new discussions. (Did you notice I closed thousands of DRs in the past months? Or did you only see the few that leaded to discussions?). Jcb (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I know you're closing a lot of DRs, and that of course the more DRs you close, the more likely it is that you make mistakes or that people complain. But I'm talking about this particular case, and you still haven't acknowledged that you did anything wrong, nor that you would stick to COM:FOP guidelines from now on, so that doesn't leave me very confident that you're willing to learn from your mistakes and accept criticism. –Tryphon☂ 00:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I suppose you didn't notice what happened here in the meantime??? Jcb (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Well I don't want to drag this on and on, but the fact that you deleted the file eventually is not really the same as admitting you were wrong (in the way you acted, not just in your decision), nor does it show that you won't act the same way next time you disagree with the FOP status of, say, Albania, France or Italy. But please, if you find yourself in a similar situation in the future, follow COM:FOP, or if you really disagree with it, leave a comment instead of closing. –Tryphon☂ 01:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Who ever close the DR, should have the clear knowledge of FOP situations in the particular country and how it reflects with commons, an admin should uphold the values of commons above his personal judgement and opinions..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the user "lacks understanding about what we are doing here altogether" and should resign adminship. --  Docu  at 11:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
We should concede to an admin (as to every other user) to learn from own mistakes and experiences, instead of calling for de-admin when he has made a mistake. --Túrelio (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
In general, I agree with that, but in this specific case, I think we can also expect from this admin to live up to what he asks from others. --  Docu  at 12:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
fyi: this is the reason why I'm a specific case for Docu - Jcb (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, we expect that from all admins. What this implies specifically for you, just depends on what you ask from others. --  Docu  at 13:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Another historical war???...please consider that this is a learning platform for admins..??? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
More like a "learning plateau" as we had the same thread about the same admin a week earlier. --  Docu  at 15:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, I have to agree to Docu. In the past weeks there have been several discussions on VP, here, user problems and Jcb's disk and he just goes on like nothing had happened. This causes problems again and again (last example: replacing a valid licence with a wrong one) and if Jcb is not willing to see the writing on the wall and change, actions have to be taken. --Isderion (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I've restored the correct license. That's really unbelievable coming from an admin. –Tryphon☂ 18:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, this was an error. The right action would have been this. (But I don't understand why you fail to find my user talk page if you think I made some mistake. As you can check there, I take the comments serious.) Jcb (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Jcb is a performing admin, working hardly to end the backlogs, thus creating more works to some users...give him a time period to kill all the issues......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tryphon, if a closing admin don't agree with FoP should comment but not close. On the other hand, I don't find this as a case for de-sysop, errors are there for us to learn from them. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 23:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Vrghs jacob

User has been blocked on Commons before for false copyright claims -- uploading web images as own work. Back to the same now. File:Barack Obama addressing Joint session of both houses at Parliament of India.jpg, File:Manmohan Singh with Bill gates.jpg are photographs from the Press Information Bureau of India, which have an incompatible copyright license, but uploaded here as own work released under CC-BY. The user has been blocked on en.wiki for persistent copyright violations. The other India images are also copyvios, but I haven't found the source images yet, but I assume they can be deleted. Also, some action would be nice as it's difficult cleaning up these messes everywhere. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

On it. I agree generally and have done a "final" warning. Not sure it will have any effect but the user is certainly blockable on the next copyvio upload - thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Plus - I think I probably have concerns about some other files - this being "own work" strikes me as doubtful for example? --Herby talk thyme 09:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The two signatures are definitely not own work (but may be covered under PD-Signature; I'd asked this question before on this board, on a couple of other signatures, but the rules on Indian signatures appear to be hazy). The AK Antony image is a copyvio, and can be deleted -- unless you really want a source before deleting it. Oh and btw, he did receive a final warning and a block already, so he's aware of the rules (infact on en.wiki he asked us to go sue him in courts as he doesn't care for our copyright policy!). SpacemanSpiff (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Tut tut - not doing my job properly was I...:) Don't you love folk like that. Anyway - the AK images is gone, user blocked for a month (indef after that but I'll not worry if someone does that now). As to the sigs issue I guess I'll leave that to those who know more than me about. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Note that he did exactly the same thing with the same file name in November, 2010.. As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barack Obama Parliament of India.jpg he has told flat, direct, lies in the past.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Special:nuke

Is it me or have others notices it has "gone" - never shows any recent items to delete for me? To do with the software "update" (!?) maybe. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about that too the other day, the page showed up nothing although the user's uploads were only a couple of hours old. Testing with random people from Special:RecentChanges does turn up some results, though. Jafeluv (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Testing it on myself it seems like Special:Nuke lists all namespaces (I have commons&talk, filetalk, user&talk, gallery&talk) except file namespace. Please bring the file namespace back ;) --Martin H. (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes that is the critical one - maybe someone will realise it is "quite" important on Commons... --Herby talk thyme 16:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I just tested on two people picked at random (without actually deleting) and it worked perfectly for files and all.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Odd... Special:Contributions/Laura_Fiorucci vs Special:Nuke/Laura_Fiorucci. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 22:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Maybe it is that the recency check is too short -- like today -- my test were off the top of the new files page, the Laura_Fiorucci contributions are from yesterday.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It was indeed a bug :) I reported it to #wikimedia-tech, Bawolff found the issue and fixed it, the fix should be live soon. The real limit for Nuke i think is 30 days or so. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 00:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Same picture uploaded again after deletion

Same picture uploaded again after deletion File:Jartse Tuominen.JPG--Motopark (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of. Jcb (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

delete a just-uploaded DjVu file and rename another to its name?

Hello,

A couple of hours ago, I uploaded File:Men of the Time, eleventh edition.djvu, but it turns out to be a dud (pages missing, etc). I then uploaded File:Men of the Time, 11th edition.djvu, which seems to be OK. (They are different scans of the same edition of a book).

Is it possible to:

  1. Delete or rename File:Men of the Time, eleventh edition.djvu (only uploaded a few hours ago, not in use except by me)
  2. Move File:Men of the Time, 11th edition.djvu to File:Men of the Time, eleventh edition.djvu

-- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Gianfranco Chiarini JPG Photo Removed

[The following was entered on the talk page]

This photo removed as an "alleged" result of copyright infringement should have not been removed. Please see email below from Chef Gianfranco Chiarini giving me his Marketing Director the right of usage:

Dear Beverly,

Thank you very much for the beautiful project of Wikipedia in my behalf. Hereby I authorize you to the full extend possible to use my name, pictures, links, written material and anything copyrighted for the further projects based upon my image.

Thank you very much

With my warmest culinary regards.

Chef. Gianfranco Chiarini | Europe, Middle East & Africa Corporate Executive Chef

Chiarini Culinary Consultants | Aprikosenweg 71. 22175 - Hamburg, Germany.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianfranco_Chiarini

http://www.executivechefgianfrancochiarini.com – http://chiariniculinaryconsultancy.com

Furthermore, the photos were not taken from the site you've stated as the photos are originals from the chef himself, who in face has right of ownership. Please reinstall the photos to all websites. Thanks!

Bevwb1220 (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 12:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC) [end of copy]     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a {{Wikipediaonly}} permission. Get a proper permission statement and send it to OTRS. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
There are several problems here.
First, as LX says, the permission is nowhere near comprehensive enough, as it is limited to use on Wikipedia -- we require a license to use images anywhere.
Second, the permission must come from the copyright owner, who is not the chef, but the photographer.
Third, the permission must come directly to Commons, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
You have recreated this file three times after it was initially deleted. Please do not do so again until and unless you can provide appropriate permission.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

same picture uploaded again after deletion

Same picture uploaded again after deletion File:Jartse Tuominen.JPG, and uploader informed, see discussion page. Please delete this picture because no OTRS-reveiced before.--Motopark (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done axpdeHello! 16:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Request to close a debate

Hello,
I would like to have Commons:Deletion requests/Partially-copyrighted mobile phone photos and screenshots (that I started) closed as no consensus or keep. I was originally hoping to fix these images in GIMP on my free time, but

  1. most importantly, it now seems many of them (except 1, should go to speedy if/when the debate is closed) could be seen as being actually covered by Commons:De minimis, and
  2. in my current situation the amount of work to fix all of them just seems overwhelming.

Of course, it is for the benefit of everyone, if the portion used is insignificant enough to exempt, and I was honestly not aware of the de minimis policy before nominating these files. Also, many have voiced their disapproval of the nomination. I am asking to have it closed for now, and maybe amend Commons:Screenshots to explain that photos such as these are acceptable (or leave it as it is now, that is, (purposely?) ambiguous. Either way, on en-wiki there still remains much stricter readings of what constitutes a non-free screenshot, eg. 2, but maybe I can live with this.)

What this debate really lacks, of course, is the professional opinion of a trained Intellectual Property lawyer (IANAL). In the absence of such, I think it is best left unresolved for now, maybe pending a larger renomination/discussion in the future. Thanks, --Hydrox (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Paulinho15 sockpuppets of the day

Please block. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done by Martin H. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Right, got this together with Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Csilasvegas. --Martin H. (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Huskie

Huskie (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) uploaded a bunch of photos with various unclear sources ("Famous45," "Larry McQuillan," "Drogs213" etc). After I tagged them as missing verifiable sources, Huskie re-uploaded them under different names, now claiming to be the copyright holder. I found that to be false for File:Tallinn2008093.jpg/File:DrogTalin.jpg and File:AdamHughesDrog.jpg/File:Hughes0526.jpg, and I'm guessing it's equally false for the other uploads. Please look into it and delete or re-tag as needed. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No? Okay, I went back myself and tagged the re-uploads as unsourced and duplicates and wrote another note to the uploader. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Derivative works of Sesame Street puppets

I'm far less familiar with Commons then I am with Wikipedia...isn't the admins decision suppose to be based on consensus, like on Wikipedia, not their own decision? Ctjf83 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope; it is determined from copyright law. Even if there are 100 keeps, the material must be deleted if it is not free to host in the United States (or for foreign works, the US and the original source country). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
So there is no point in discussion, basically...can you weigh in on my image - File:Bert and Ernie Married.jpg, since you are an uninvolved admin. Ctjf83 (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The point of a DR is to have various people bring different points of view to the table for the closing Admin to consider. That very much happened in this case, as Jappalang cited case law that was right on point.
As far as discussing it here, when you brought it up on my talk page, I suggested that the proper place for further discussion is Commons:Undeletion requests. That remains true.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I just wanna see if there is any chance of undeleting my image, before I bring it to undeletion requests. Ctjf83 (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
About the image you cite, the characters were parodies of the Muppets and it is a derivative work of the copyrighted Muppets characters (however, given the two subjects, I think it can be restored on en.wikipedia and used as fair use). However, I am honestly confused by the whole character issue. Muppets are bad, but I been told in the past Japanese cosplay is OK; yet both are the same deal. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly not clear. There is, apparently, a school of thought that costumes are OK because they are clothing, and therefore utilitarian. However Jappalang's good comment in the subject DR points out two things, that masks are subject to copyright since they are not utilitarian (and this image is masked people) and that the costumes lose their utilitarian aspect as they have more unnecessary decoration, just as a plain dinner plate will not be (C), but one with painted flowers can be.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Mike Godwin quite clearly stated that a photo of a guy dressed up as Spider-Man is just fine to host here on Commons. Since a guy dressed as Spider-Man is wearing a mask, masks must also be okay. Ever since that statement from Godwin, we've started keeping pictures of costumed characters. Your decision to delete those images goes against that precedent, which I daresay now qualifies as "longstanding". Powers (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
But with Godwin no longer our legal counsel, I am not sure how longstanding that statement will be. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I know that copyright has some odd twists and turns, but this fails on several grounds:

  • We have no problem that photos of muppets -- the same costume rigged as a puppet -- are infringements. Or a wax figure at Mme Tussaud's, except where FOP applies in the UK. How then, is a costume with a person inside not an infringement? Godwin's comment was over-broad.
  • We regularly delete photos of characters like Yogi Bear.
  • I cannot imagine that if I started an amusement park and staffed it with people in Muppet costumes that I would not immediately be sued, successfully, for copyright infringement.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that the deletion was correct and valid in this case, as supported by the case law cited by Jappalang. The "separability" test he mentioned should be our standard (and it's not entirely clear to me that a Spider Man costume would pass it, regardless of Godwin's claim). Dcoetzee (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
      • That turns years of Commons precedent on its head and would require the reversal of countless DRs, as well as the deletion of an untold number of images currently on Commons. Clearly, this needs wider discussion, and preferably some sort of guiding advice from a professional. Powers (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

source: Transferred from en.wikipedia

What we shall do with pictures where are source: Transferred from en.wikipedia and original picture in en.wikipedia has been deleted. Part of those en.wikipedia pictures are without any source information

Shall we ask original source ot what--Motopark (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A given image may be deleted on EN if it's been moved to Commons - that's CSD:F8 there. If the source info is absent on the Commons version of the image, you're probably going to need to ask someone who's an admin there on EN to check the deleted file history to see if there were any details that did not get copied over to here which answers the question of sourcing. Otherwise, I think you're going to need to check with the user on EN about the image source same as you would with Commons users uploading stuff here. Now, if there's specific stuff on EN you're looking at, I can take a look as I'm an admin on EN also. Tabercil (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

198.209.77.233 (talk · contribs)

Could someone block this University (!) IP for a while? Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 16:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  6 month abf «Cabale!» 16:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems with Excursions in Taiwan

Hi, I have a problem with that gallery: only a few pics are linked. --Lord Koxinga (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

you have to replace .jpg with .JPG. That is case sensitive. However, a random collection of your photo is not the best selection to illustrate the topic "Excursions in Taiwan" and make a Commons:Gallery of it. You should consider to move that into your usernamespace as a user-specific gallery. --Martin H. (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Martin H.
Thanks for your advices. About the case sensitivy I don't have any problems. About moving the gallery I have to find out. Anyway I will post the positive result of both actions here.
Best wishes --Lord Koxinga (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I've managed the first part (not 100% yet, but that's just some other manual editing). But I didn't find out how to move the gallery? --Lord Koxinga (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Some of the links on that page do not correspond to any file. For example, there never was a file "2010 07 12880 6342 Chenggong Highway 11 (Taiwan) Taiwan.JPG". However, there is a file "2010 07 12880 6342 Chenggong Highway 11 Taiwan.JPG". Perhaps some file names have not been copied accurately. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Asclepias,
that's correct. I'm busy with it. -- Lord Koxinga (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I userfied the gallery to User:Lord Koxinga/Excursions in Taiwan. --Martin H. (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Renaming

Can any admin rename the Category:Train stations in Vallés Occidental (a mispelling) to Category:Train stations in Vallès Occidental (which is the correct and official one)? Thank you. PS: Check en:Vallès Occidental. --Catalaalatac (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

New cat created, and the move added to CommonsDelinker's queue. Tabercil (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

deletion of (C)ARR-uploads from Flickr

When patroling File:Helen McCrory and Faye Ripley.jpg, I found it to be "(C) All rights reserved" (ARR) on its Flickr source page. After admins/users from Germany have recently been labeled on Commons-l as "the root of the problem"[18] (of unfriendly problem messages[19]), I didn't immediately copyvio-tag the image, but first put an explainatory question[20] on the uploader's talkpage. In between the uploader had added a Flickreview-tag to the image. When the FR-bot had put the obvious result on the image page, I was astonished to read "This file may be deleted seven days after being tagged with {{Unfree Flickr file}}". This file is a clear copyvio. The uploader is not the Flickr user and didn't even claim that a permission is underway. Nevertheless, if taken seriously, this bot message forces us to host an undisputed copyvio for 7 days on Commons. A bewildered Túrelio (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll give the discussion on how being German affects your ability to being civil exactly the amount of attention it deserves and turn instead to the {{Unfree Flickr file}} issue. Non-free Flickr photos reviewed shortly after upload are obvious candidates for deletion on sight according to Commons:Deletion policy. The tag should be updated to reflect that. This change should be uncontroversial. If anyone objects, it's Commons:Deletion policy that needs to be updated first. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with that change. ++Lar: t/c 11:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Seconded. If there's no clear valid license at the source, I tend to kill on sight - better (I think) to not have an image than to have one that's a copyvio. Tabercil (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Login problem

Please check my login here on the Commons because my secure login is rejected and must log in locally, while this works on every sister site. Thanks.Ineuw talk page on en.ws 13:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of "temporary circumcision"

Hello,

Firstly please excuse my english but I'm French ... (feel free to correct mistakes !)

Mici has to download three pictures of the same penis(1, 2 and 3) who is "temporarily circumcised" (with a strange system that keeps the foreskin back permanently).

And he put these pictures on all pages of Wikipedia (in all languages) who are dedicated to phimosis and circumcision... The legend of the pictures is different depending on the article. Sometimes, he indicates that is a "circumcised penis", sometimes he indicates that it is a "treatment of phimosis", sometimes he indicates it's "a way to retract his foreskin "...

In fact, these pictures have nothing to do with circumcision and phimosis.

On the french page devoted to phimosis [21] he put one of these pictures three times (as different users [22], [23] and despite the warnings).

Can you do something because he put these pictures of "temporarily circumcised" penis on all pages of Wikipedia.

Thank you in advance !--Xobo2 (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded for sole purpose of vandalism, so I speedy deleted them and CommonsDelinker will complete the job. Jcb (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
And I blocked him, some edit waring shows that Mici (talk · contribs) uses a sockpuppet Wpici (talk · contribs) - also cross-wiki. --Martin H. (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Policy about name of the author/website in picture names?

Hi,

I've been wondering if such a policy exists. This seems to me like the website in the picture name is too much and therefore the pictures should be renamed. I'm unsure about the author name. See images by Schoci (talk · contribs). Badzil (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have already raised this issue at Commons talk:File renaming#Author or website names in filename, so comments are probably better there rather than here. Bencherlite (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Index page transfer pdf to djvu.

Earlier today a pdf file was uploaded to create this "Index:Thehistoricthames.pdf" page. Unfortunately the only text associated with this file is the front cover. Located the djvu file, also from AI, and would like to use it as the source for the index page, and delete the previous blank pdf file if that is possible. Am holding off uploading djvu file pending this discussion. This text is a 1907 UK and US publication makes this file PD. Thanks... For reference see todays WS discussion. JamAKiska (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Put in deletion request for the blanked pdf file and uploaded the djvu file as the source for The Historic Thames.JamAKiska (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes/ remove page

Hello,

Does someone can remove the previous version of my work : File:Diagramme de phase (Arzy).jpg. Because there is a spelling mistake. Arzy should be written like this : Arzi. The last work with corrected mistake is here : File:Diagramme de phase (Arzi).jpg.

Thanks,

Sorry for my english. Aporie (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done In the future, please add {{Rename}} to the page and don not upload a new page. It saves Admin time and storage space to do a rename, rather than uploading it twice. Your English is no problem -- it's better than my French.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Aporie (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Backlogs in the copyvio category

It was a month ago that I tagged File:Lorentzmedal small 2.jpg as a copyvio, because the file was taken from http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/lorentzmedal/ but it still has not been deleted. Right now, Category:Copyright violations has 259 files. Maybe there should be a date tag on copyvios too? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps nobody's dared to do it because of the 1927 date, but the photograph is obviously newer than that, and the depicted object is not two-dimensional. The claim that it's a screenshot of GPL software is obviously bogus too. I think date-tagging copyright violations would be a major failure – copyright violations should not stay up for several days. Delete on sight or bring it up for regular deletion discussion if it's not clear-cut and it should not be a problem to eliminate that unacceptable backlog. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Benninolde.jpg

This picture is considered to be deleted according to the DR discussion. However, it is still there...--Yikrazuul (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Deleted. Rehman 16:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please delete

see the history File:Exposição GDSesimbra.JPG and please delete--Motopark (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Kept. The Wordpress copyright is about the weblog layout. Wordpress is a CMS system. Uploader asked permission online (in Portugues), which you can read below the picture at the source website. Jcb (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, the question to which the blog owner said yes, was "Gostaria de pedir autorizacao para publicar esta fotografia do seu blogue na Wikipedia." I don't read Portuguese, but that clearly looks only like a "for Wikipedia" permission. --Túrelio (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You are true that the permission is actually not specific enough, but that's not a reason for speedy deletion. I sent a message to the blog owner to ask for more specific permission. I will keep an eye on it and if I don't get a response within a reasonable timespan or the response is negative, I will nominate it for deletion. Jcb (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You're right, is not a reason for speedy, but is for deletion (DR) :) I hope he gives an answer soon. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 01:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Since when is {{Wikipediaonly}} not a speedy deletion tag? Oh, wait – it is. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The difference is that the owner didn't restrict use to Wikipedia in this case, but that the uploader didn't ask for permission clear enough. Jcb (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Images locked

The former pictures of the day are currently locked from editing by this page User:Giggy/Tomorrow's Main Page salt. This admin left commons in 2009 (from what i can tell) however the cascading protection on his user sub page has locked up a the former PotDs to non-admins. Would it be possible to have the cascading protection removed to allow editing of these images? I found this while trying to correct the information on File:Spiriferina rostrata Noir.jpg, utill the changes can be made I have noted the needed changes on the files talk page.--Kevmin § 19:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I was able to edit the images in question after posting this notice, but I can not tell if it was related to my question, or if the cascading protection expired on the image in question.--Kevmin § 20:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Scoobynaiterpaul123

Please check contribs of Scoobynaiterpaul123 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  - several probable copyvios. Yarl ✉ 21:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Deleted copyvios, tagged other for source. --Túrelio (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Request speedy delete

...of file File:G9ygL (1).jpg, reportedly of Larry Sanger but someone has decided to draw in orange mickey mouse ears to hide the digital camera that was on the first version. Photo is not Sanger but they are trying to introduce into his article on EN Wiki. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

movie screenshot with wrong license claims

User:Josh R. currently uploads lots of movie screenshots of US movies from the 1940ies claiming PD, PD-US, PD-US-not renewed and Free screenshot/GPL. Please check them and nuke them all as there's no proof given for a non-existing copyright renewal. I also request to have the {{PD-US-not renewed}} template modified requiring uploaders to add confirmation for a non-existing renewal. It also need to be stated this template does not apply to foreign works or US/foreign co-productions (unless also PD in source country). --Denniss (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Userpages

I frequently come across deletion requests like these. Even though I almost always delete them per request (as most other admins do), I don't fully agree with such deletions. The main reason is, a userpage is an editor's own personal page, they may use it as a page to describe themselves or their work, or they could actually use it as a sandbox. So, IMHO, I don't think we should delete such pages as above, unless a userpage is either:

  • Vandalism or attack page
  • Promotional content
  • Or in rare cases, where personal information is disclosed (and should be redacted), or other similar rare cases.

Comments? Rehman 06:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The link seems to be broken? Jafeluv (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Fixed, page was deleted by someone... Rehman 10:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think user pages should be encyclopedic articles unrelated to Commons (especially if they're just copy-pasted from Wikipedia) or off-topic personal home pages. It's okay to allow somewhat greater leeway in userspace than we would in a gallery or a file description page, though. Jafeluv (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely, but take a little care -- I've seen half a dozen cases where newbies used their user pages as Sandboxes -- before I deleted an article, I might either ask the user, or simply move it to a subpage.
Also, I'm not sure I understand this from above:
"Or in rare cases, where personal information is disclosed (and should be redacted), or other similar rare cases."
If a user wishes to disclose personal information that is not promotional, why not? I might draw the line at address and phone number, but I've seen just about everything else disclosed on some user pages.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
These days I tend to look and see if they have offered anything constructive as well as any self promotion (& when I get the time on other wikis too). When their only contribution is a user page then I tend to think they have confused Foundations sites with social networking sites and a "project scope" info may help them understand. --Herby talk thyme 14:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
@Javeluv: I agree that using a userpage as an encyclopedic article is not recommended, but because of the fact that users have the right to use at as such, that includes testing or sandboxing, I don't think it actually warrants a deletion, don't you think? I mean, it's their right. Unless of course, we chance the policy here at Commons (which would contradict the Wikimedia-wide policy).
@Jim: Sometime back, there was a case when a user posted information about their family and children on their userpage. They didn't know about userpages, and didn't know of Wikimedia's system of storing history, and how public the information can be. Thus the page was in need of deletion (with the user's consent).
@Herby: Yes, we could do such a check, and if the user has contributed to nothing but their userpage, we could delete the page, be it a testpage or article. Rehman 14:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Jafeluv that an encyclopedic page should not be here as a user page. That is merely attempting to bypass the policies here. Such pages - if appropriate - should be on the correct language wp. All too often they are minor groups, DJs or one man companies - not Commons material. --Herby talk thyme 14:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Mmm. Yes, you have a point; non-Commons material shouldn't be on a Commons userpage. But, in a case where the Commons-user uses their userpage as a Commons-use sandbox, per what I wrote above that should not be deleted right? Rehman 14:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess I would feel that the only appropriate "sandbox" on Commons would be something that was appropriate to Commons so a gallery, template etc. If it was encyclopaedic surely it should be a sandbox on the appropriate wiki? That said I've seen ones I would not really consider appropriate but from experienced users - I leave them alone (even if I wonder why they are there). --Herby talk thyme 14:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted or not

Accoring to a deletion debate this file is ought to be deleted or not? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The version uploaded here was deleted. --Leyo 18:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Glitch

Does anyone know why File:Ōhashi Suiseki - 19121224.jpg is categorized at Category:Other speedy deletions since many hours ago? I've even tried a dummy edit, but it didnt get it off... Rehman 14:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It had a redir from File:Suiseki1.JPG (now deleted). I've sometimes observed the same problem in such cases. --Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay thats weird. Notice that the page cant be edited/created or deleted? Rehman 15:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Probably something to do with this... Rehman 00:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads-up

The File:Croats2.jpg is a collage in widespread use that sports a number of non-free images and images with very dubious rationale. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In the future, please just put {{Delete}} on it. We process approximately 100 Deletion Requests per day, so there is no reason to bring it here. I have done so, although not for the reasons you give above. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Croats2.jpg.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Myriam-P

All contributions of this user, including pictures of people, are copyvios from this art gallery. This is not personnal works. Binabik (d) 17:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done Thank you. All but one (which I couldn't find at the cited source) have been deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, Move back to former name

Hello, Managing files names, I made a move error : I wrongly moved File:龍-order.gif to File:龍-torder.gif. Can one of you 1. delete the redirect page File:龍-order.gif, 2. movethe file back File:龍-torder.gif to File:龍-order.gif, I'm not allowed to do so. Thanks a lot. Yug (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Amada44  talk to me 07:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks ! Yug (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Creation protection

Creation protection appears to not be working. File:Logo.gif has been uploaded twice in the past month whilst the file had create=sysop protection. Is this a known issue?—JeremyA (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

what is working, precisely? everything seems to work but in an absolutely wrong way. NVO (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, the purpose of creation protection is to prevent a user uploading a file or create a page at the protected title (in this case File:Logo.gif). There are now three admins, including myself, who have applied creation protection to this page and still people upload files to it. So creation protection is not working in the sense that it is failing to fulfil its purpose.—JeremyA (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Probably something to do with Commons:Village_pump#Strange_system_behaviour. Rehman 00:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess that it is better to redirect it to File:Logo.jpg or similar in Category:Commons prohibited file names as is done with many other recurring prohibited media names. At least, the slot is taken and documented. --Foroa (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

File:ScottishGreenBranding.png

The OTRS permission is only for a low resolution version of this file. Can someone please delete the bigger size first upload? Thanks. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done. Jafeluv (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it {{PD-textlogo}} though? I don't think we even need permission for this. –Tryphon☂ 09:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Photo.jpg

Since the set of misfeatures of the so-called "upgrade" of the Mediawiki software three weeks ago included breaking both upload protection and Titleblacklist (see COM:VP#Disabled functions and COM:ANB#Creation protection), File:Photo.jpg (being the kind of name to attract what are perhaps not the most clued-in of Commons users) is currently a layer cake of messed-up-ness.

The first version, uploaded by Riridulac, is a low quality web resolution photo of a relief of a butt with Tineye matches. As far as I can see, it was never used on any project, and the uploader has no other contributions on any project. I have some doubts both about the authorship claims and the usefulness to the project.

The second version, uploaded by Krishnapyrmca is a low quality web resolution headshot, currently used as a user page photo for a user with no contributions other than sandboxing, self-promotion and copyright violations (see en:User talk:Krishnapyrmca). It was uploaded on top of the first without any source, authorship or licensing information.

The talk page consists of the letter "h".

Putting the above through a deletion discussion seems ridiculously bureaucratic. Please just clean it up – and watchlist it, since it seems Commons is going to stay broken for a while. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

upload protection is fixed. I'm not sure though if the fix is already live. --DieBuche (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
That's sort of good news. Any word on bugzilla:27470? It's had no activity for two weeks (and no relevant SVN commits). I would consider titleblacklist more important than upload protection. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Move requests concerning Coat of arms of Serbia.svg

Last year, Serbia updated the design of its big & small coat of arms; only recently, the svg versions were updated to Commons. However, instead of overwriting the old version of File:Coat of arms of Serbia.svg, the new CoA was uploaded as File:Coat of arms of Serbia (since 2011).svg. With small version (File:Coat of arms of Serbia small.svg) everything is OK.

I'm not sure if I should go ahead and overwrite it myself, or should an administrator perform the move (because of attribution and watchlisting issues)? In any case, we need to keep old versions under a name like File:Coat of arms of Serbia (2004-2010).svg.

In addition, we have a File:Coat of arms of Serbia.jpg which should be disposed of, when its usages are replaced with .svg. I volunteer to fix the usages accross wikis, but only after the situation above is rectified. Please ping me at en:User:No such user. No such user (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Thanks everyone for a prompt reply.</sarcasm> Since, apparently, Serbia is about to reverse the insignia to the old versions, the move will not be needed. No such user (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Rights revoked

Hi. I have revoked the filemover rights of User:Steindy after they moved old files for invalid reasons (or no reasons at all), and then tagged the redirects for speedy deletion while they were in use (no Delinker requests). 1, More... Feel free to reapply the rights if you think my move was wrong. Kind regards. Rehman 04:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

At least the file, now redirect File:Bernhard Brugger - Fußballschiedsrichter.jpg, that you say was 'in use' was in use only on the users own usersubpage in de.wp and not anywhere else. --Martin H. (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
There were quite a handful more... 1 for example... Rehman 04:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible socking

Looks like there's another sock of User:Rukshanawahab on the loose. Compare Special:Contributions/Kazuya348 to Special:Contributions/Rukshanawahab. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, blocked Kazuya348. --Martin H. (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Emirr

Have a look at this file, notice the big TheEmirr banner, and the image-link in the "Author" field? This is the case for most of their uploads. Is this acceptable? Didn't notify the user yet, if in case I am wrong... Rehman 06:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are many users marking their uploads with special templates. There's only one problem to discuss: Is the file in project scope? axpdeHello! 08:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Although policy specifically permits this sort of template, even including "some advertising", it specifies that they should be created in User space, not Template space so, yes, there is a problem here. We might suggest that at the same time The Emirr moves the template to template space, he or she should tone it down some.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, quite some of the re-users of our images obviously really need such a large banner specifying who is to be credited, when even on a page that credits all images taken from Commons, I as well as our cropbot (!) got credited for images of Julian Assange (shot be neither of us), see here (scroll down to the last two images in the middle). Or didn't you know that even our Flickreview (bot) has a camera and did shoot this image of the resigned minister of defense of Germany. --Túrelio (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I have userfied the template, and left a note on their talkpage regarding the file. Does anyone know how to command the Delinker to replace links to the "Template" namespace to the "User" namespace? Is there a special template? Rehman 02:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to notice that the most of his uploads regarding bosnian history (CoA and the most graphics) are fictional images created by him self without any sources and used in much projects for real articles. On other places, this user identify him self as the last king of bosnia and several of his socks are blocked on bswiki and user is banned. --WizardOfOz (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible logo copyvio?

Could someone take a look at File:Company_pixmet.jpg? The uploader originally tagged it with a patently invalid license, but has now put {{Pd-textlogo}} on it, I'm not sure textlogo really applies here though. Perhaps this can be moved to WP and tagged with the appropriate fair-use rational? OSborn arfcontribs. 15:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly borderline, but I would say keep. The procedure when you have this kind of suspicion is to nominate it for deletion -- use the link in the left bar -- and let the community decide.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for help

Here's a message I don't understand: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Engravings_of_crucifixion&diff=0&oldid=39142089

Can someone please help with this? Thank you in advance! --Jdsteakley (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The category was renamed. The new category is Category:Engravings of the Crucifixion of Christ. Regards. Rehman 14:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_26&oldid=264577843"