Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 28

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Request Deletion of Older Versions of File:FluvialTerraces.jpg

Dear Administrators, Is it possible to have the older versions of "File:FluvialTerraces.jpg" deleted from Wikimedia? I am requesting that they be deleted because they contain factual and typographic errors that will only confuse people.

The versions that I request be deleted are: (1.) 11:53, February 16, 2011; (2.) 11:06, February 16, 2011; and (3.) 11:04, February 16

I have been and will be more careful about I post in the future.

YoursCristellaria (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's possible, but it's also not really necessary. The old revisions are difficult to link to (and can't be done with normal wiki syntax), and it's clearly marked in the history that the latest version corrects errors. If it's really important, though, one of us can delete the old revisions. Powers (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. Agree with Powers, that it is not necessary, but then again, it is not that difficult to do it. ;) Regards. Rehman 03:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Version deletion?

Maybe the second version of File:Günther Platter.jpg should be deleted. A new user uploaded a poss. cpvio over an old image. I already reverted this. But its not clear for me if the uploader of the questionable version is the author as well. I think it would be better to remove this version. PS: Sorry if I posted this at an incorrect location. I didn't know a better one. --JuTa (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed & uploader notified for overwriting. --Túrelio (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Thx a lot. --JuTa (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Main page unusable: please edit Template:Motd/2011-05-13 (en)

Please remove the leading space in the description of Template:Motd/2011-05-13 (en) which causes a pre block on the main page. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Done by Martin H. Thanks! --Saibo (Δ) 01:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Polish-speaking admin needed

This DR needs a Polish-speaking admin, as arguments are (nearly) completely in Polish. --Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving and editing of Atlases by User:23prootie (reposted from the vandalism board)

Most of these edits in question are from January 2011 and has been move atlases to native names for months User:23prootie has changed the Atlas of British Indian Ocean Territory Introduction and Name to reflect a Chagossian biased slant and moved said atlas to Atlas of the Chagos Archipelago,

Here are the other Atlases that have been changed to a biased slant:

Atlas of the Paracel Islands

Atlas of Muslim Mindanao

Atlas of the Spratly Islands

I don't know how to fix this without messing up said Atlases

BionicWilliam (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which board this is better on so I'm posting it on this on board after 2 weeks on no response on Vandilism, if double posting this is wrong please remove off of the improper board.

BionicWilliam (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikiversity-logo.svg

Can an administrator please edit the protected file to change {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} to {{Wikimedia trademark}} and {{PD-shape}}? Also, the documentation for CopyrightByWikimedia needs to be updated to reflect the consensus found here and here, as well as to alert users to update existing files to the new "Wikimedia trademark + PD-shape" templates. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 09:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The linked discussions did not discuss the Wikiversity logo and I see no statements by Wikimedia's legal counsel on this. – Adrignola talk 15:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

File history delete

Can any admin please delete the previous revisions of File:West Bengal general elections, 2011 - Results (by district).svg, I kinda screwed most of the previous versions up, so there's no need for them to be there. Thanks :) --Sisyphos23 (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done -mattbuck (Talk) 19:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

How do we deal with suspicious looking copyright infringements and sockpupetry? It involves a copvio image of Nadifa Mohamed that was deleted today (File:Nadifa Mohamed.png), and now another image of Nadifa just uploaded File:Nadifa Mohamed picture.jpg (claimed by uploader to be own work but looks suspiciously like a professional photograph). These are all intertwined with suspicious single-purpose accounts editing the same articles/photos including User:Bazancourt, User:Ali Hamad and maybe others. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well-spotted. User:Bazancourt is indeed in all likelihood a sock of User:Ali Hamad. For one thing, they consistently upload the same invariably copyrighted images to Commons, and then shortly afterwards add those images to/edit the same handful of articles on English Wikipedia (c.f. [1], [2]). Both accounts seem particularly obsessed with Somalis in the UK, which is all s/he ever seems to upload images/edit pages of (e.g. Rageh Omaar, Abdirashid Duale, Nadifa Mohamed). This pattern of (a) one of the two accounts uploading an image pertaining to some notable Somali figure in the UK, (b) that image getting deleted for copyright infringement or lack of licensing and/or sourcing information, and (c) the other account then promptly uploading another copyrighted pic of the same figure, already has a precedent. For example, in January, the Bazancourt account uploaded File:Rageh omaar 2.jpg and added it to the Rageh Omaar English Wikipedia article [3]. He tagged the file as "OTRS" pending, but it remained that way for months; so I queried on the OTRS board as to whether or not an email containing details of the permission for this file had been received, and sure enough, it hadn't (c.f. [4]). The pic was therefore deleted on April 21, only for the Ali Hamad account to re-upload another likely copyrighted pic of the same figure less than a month later [5] and re-add it to the same Rageh Omaar English Wiki article [6]. I also suspect User:Biggleswiki may be another one of the user's accounts due to the same obsession with the same group of notable Somali figures in the UK, as well as the fact that s/he uploaded the exact same copyrighted file of Abdirashid Duale that the Bazancourt account had in the past (and which was deleted for copyright infringement [7]). Middayexpress (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow, this looks like a systematic problem, s/he just creates new sockpuppets and images as fast as they are removed, tagging everything "own work". Images that probably should be deleted: File:Rageh Omaar Journalist.jpg, File:Abdirashid duale.jpg, w:File:Abdirashid Duale.jpg -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Middayexpress (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Update: the Bazancourt account has now attempted to add the File:Abdirashid Duale.jpg image to the Somalis in the United Kingdom Wiki article, an image which was uploaded to English Wikipedia by the Biggleswiki account. This pic is also an identical copy of the now-deleted File:DualeImg01.jpg copyrighted Commons image that the Bazancourt account tried to upload in the past. Needless to say, the file has been tagged for deletion. Middayexpress (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
And sure enough, File:Rageh Omaar Journalist.jpg is not the uploader's own work either. It's a screenshot of a copyrighted Al-Jazeera video, taken from around the 27:37 mark. Middayexpress (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Excellent find. Maybe we could make a list of all the articles these editors edit, look at all the images in the articles, and perhaps set up a watch page for the articles and occasionally go through and check what images have been added. I don't think there is any way to stop the sockpuppets from being created, but we can monitor the articles and that way perhaps discourage. I also wonder if there is some project or group in Wikipedia that deals with systematic copyright violators.Green Cardamom (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Good suggestions. I've already added the bio articles listed above to my watchlist and shall be monitoring them. I still agree with you that something needs to be done about the existing socks. Besides this board, I'm not sure though what other recourse there is on Commons for persistent, deliberate copyright violations. Middayexpress (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

File:2009-6-10 soohyun.JPG and others

The claims that this promotional photo (and others uploaded by the user) was actually taken by the uploader do not appear to be valid. Active Banana (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please begin a deletion discussion so that the files can be evaluated by the community. Powers (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Repeated copyvios

Could an administrator please look at the contributions of user:Tsovas? I have now tagged File:SaidAfandi.jpg as a copyvio three times (under different names), but he keeps uploading it despite the warnings. He has also been warned about copyvios on en-wiki. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted and uploader warned. --Túrelio (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

remove version pls.

Hi, could an admin pls. remove the first uploaded version of File:Nord LB BS.jpg. Its a cpvio. A de:-user uploaded it over an "own" image of another user. The source and author of the cpvio version was stated as de:Braunschweigische Landessparkasse. The version which should be removed is this one. Thx in advance. --JuTa (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: May be its better to just "hide" the first version. It should kept clear that this was a Bot-Move-To-Commons. Thx. --JuTa (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. Rehman 02:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden image DRs

A series of images of Osama bin Laden have been nominated for deletion. Although the images were nominated separately, IMO they all involve the same issues and arguments. It would be odd if different admins came to opposite conclusions at closing some of these. Could one admin close all of them? Most are almost at seven days. Here they are: 1 2 3 4 5. One similar DR was already closed as keep, although that involved an image from Afghanistan, which has no copyright laws.--Chaser (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just want to note that the one closed as keep doesn't provide any information if it was made in Afghanistan or Pakistan, neither does it mention if the author was an Arab, Afghan, or Pakistani. Osama bin Laden arrived from Saudi Arabia in the 1980s to Pakistan where he established a base for his Arabs, which became known as al Qaida. He has been going back and forth between Paksitan and Afghanistan until he was killed this month. The 5 videos of Osama, which are hosted at the U.S. Dept. of Defense website with a permission telling the press that "They're yours to use as you like", were similar as this and never published in Pakistan.--Officer (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Local uploads in the Basque wikipedia have been turned off

Hi! After finally reporting (bugzilla:28609) some old votes (vote 1, rejecting local uploads and vote 2 rejecting Fair use) that had never been reported before, uploads to the Basque Wikipedia have been disabled. I will try to translate content as much as possible (policies, help contents...) into Basque, so Basque users find themselves as comfortable as possible. I'm writing here following the guidelines of Turning off local uploads. At the moment, there are no files at the Basque Wikipedia that need to be transferred into Commons, so I don't expect any problems with that. But, if some kind of trouble arises, I would be happy to try to do my best to solve it.--Janfri (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

issue

Hello. The User Wizard of Oz had identified a serious issue, that one user had uploaded many problematic maps. He asked for a bulk deletion on this page, but didn't take any action against the maps. I did that instead. I decided to do it in two batches, picking out some ridiculous maps that were not used anywhere. Some were deleted, and some were not. I am posting now because there is a serious issue regarding one map. It is downright ridiculous. It shows supposed municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yet, such municipalities as indicated on the map simply do not exist, have never existed, and will never exist. The map can be seen here, [8] , and this administrator seems to have rejected the deletion request for no reason. I feel that he has abused his powers or is incompetent on the issue. If I decided to make a map showing 86 states in the United States - when everyone knows that there are 50 - and when such an image does not get used, this administrator would actually keep it, because he/she does not know better. This is very troubling. The map in question is bosnia, and a similar thing has occurred, where made up entities were drawn out. There is no source on the image, and no wikipedia project is insane enough to use such a map. I request intervention in the form of a second or third opinion, because this admin "does not trust me". He has therefore broken a rule of wikipedia, thinking that I have bad intent. (LAz17 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)).

Request for rename Liiv-koeratubakas

Please consider renaming File:Liiv-koeratubakas .jpg, removing the blank in front of the .jpg, perhaps also adding the international scientific name Crepis tectorum in addition to the local name. Rename with leaving redirect. --G.Hagedorn (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Rehman 04:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User uploads same picture after deleting

User Special:Contributions/Michael_Velez uploads same picture after deleting, no OTRS-permission received in first time--Motopark (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Typo on MediaWiki:Searchresulttext/fr

Hello. In French, the word galerie has only one L. Could someone fix that ? Thanks in advance. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 10:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
What's with the inconsistent capitalization, by the way? All links should be capitalized (or uncapitalized, if that's the preferred way in French). Jafeluv (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
As these are lists, both capitalized and non-capitalized versions can be considered as correct (depending if you consider the separator as being a full stop or a comma).
Thanks to Túrelio. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 13:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Request deletion of a image version uploaded by me

Hi, can an administrator please delete 19:44, 16 May 2011 of File:Pissarro.jpg. I uploaded the wrong image (which I have uploaded to Wikimedia as w:File:Camille Pissarro.jpg before uploading the correct one. That earlier version's copyright is yet undetermined in its country of origin. Jappalang (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Main page edit by NeilK

I censoring of our mainpage now also a problem on Commons? [9] All translations are missing and a offending rational was given. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The template was cascade-protected for editing by administrators only. NeilK has a global staff flag, so this was a use of that power to interfere with the operation of the project using an unprofessional edit summary, with no discussion for the change on Commons. This was prompted by Commons-l discussion. – Adrignola talk 12:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
since the commons mailing list is publicy archived there is no particular reason to consider discussions on it not relivant to commons.Geni (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
It's relevant yes, but it can't be used to reflect consensus of actual Commons contributors since posting to it requires revealing one's email address publicly. At best it is only a subset of contributors. On-wiki discussions like those seen with the many talk pages for Commons:Sexual content are what must be had in order to effect change. – Adrignola talk 14:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
There are plently of ways to aquire a free email address. Mailing lists are an accepted venue for discussion and if that upsets the campers on certian talk pages that is their problem.Geni (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Still it is a discussion in the back room, where a mainly English speaking subcommunity will even notice the topic. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed; I don't care to have my inbox filled with discussions I don't care about on the off chance that I might find one relevant every few months. This should have been discussed on-wiki. Powers (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

error during upload

Please delete File:CoA mil ITA btg fanteria 53.png. I uploaded it forgot the 0 before 53, which is part of the naming system we use for military regiments. Therefore the correctly named duplicate file is: File:CoA mil ITA btg fanteria 053.png. thanks, Noclador (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. You can use {{Bad name}} or {{Duplicate}} to mark mistaken uploads as duplicates, by the way. Jafeluv (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thanks! :-) I will use that instead in the future; Noclador (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Or, even better, you can use {{Rename}} and eliminate the extra upload and the very small waste of storage space in having two identical files -- a rename changes the name of a singe file while uploading a new one and deleting the old ends up with both files stored forever.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

MineWatcher

Is the stuff that MineWatcher (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) uploading within Commons:Project scope? The copyright situation seems unclear at best for several of the files (the uploader incorrectly claims to be the author and copyright holder of all of the documents). The file descriptions are not very coherent, but several of them seem to make or imply accusations, including criminal allegations, against named individuals. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support It's entirely possible that I am missing something in this case, but my first inclination was to delete them all on a combination of copyright, libel, and hidden agenda issues. There is something about them, however, that has me treading carefully. I would certainly support deleting them all if a third colleague thinks it wise.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Only two of the files are in use – both on English Wikipedia. File:Perlasia Gamboa advertising her passion for the Human Being with statues behind of a cop after her, a farmer about to shoot her, another about to club her, and.jpg was added to en:Pearlasia Gamboa by 71.121.31.183 (talk) and later to en:Dominion of Melchizedek by the same user. File:Gamboa empty shell operation.jpg was added to en:Pearlasia Gamboa, also by the same user. The IP address belongs to confirmed sockpuppeteer PPdd. This user also seems to be editing as 64.134.223.46. The rest of the files are unused and seem unlikely to be used for educational purposes. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please to protect File:Jimmy_Wales_Fundraiser_Appeal_edit.jpg

Thanks. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 00:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This was done by Mattbuck.[10] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In the same vein - please protect File:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png. We've got someone playing with dongs again. Thanks! Ultraexactzz (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The chap's username is User:Terrafermat; seems rather persistent. Ultraexactzz (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Done by Gmaxwell. Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks. Ultraexactzz (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Out of scope pictures

see pictures of Special:Contributions/Radurock, are they out of office, I think that they shall be in locak network area, not Commons.--Motopark (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Radurock. Jafeluv (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests

Please complete these requests MediaWiki talk:Mwe-upwiz-subhead-alt-upload/ml and |MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/mlownwork. Advance thanks--Praveen:talk 18:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Revenge Edits on QI

Could an other admin please have a word with User:PereslavlFoto. Since he didn't accept my review of one of his pictures, he starts revenge votes concerning different users and photographs. See his postings on my userpage, too. thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I tried to explain on Mbdortmund's userpage discussion. I can stress only 2 cases when I thought about Mbdortmund's position: "Inside the fort du Mont Vaudois, Héricourt, France" that I set to "discuss". My opinion is based on the opinions for this photo. I think all my votes have fair explanation.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    • It would have been a lot easier to review if some difs had been provided, PereslavlFoto are clearly very pointy if one looks at the Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list page the pattern is very clear. Looking at [11] this oppose is only a sour grapes about PereslavlFoto photo from January not about the image in question the review offers no insight to the author. Then its followed with my one was rejected I'll oppose this one, both these reviews are to photos already reviewed by Mbdortmund. They arent the only pointy reviews by PereslavlFoto given the nature of these reviews they should be struck, if PereslavlFoto continues then a block would be the appropriate next step. Gnangarra 04:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Note the QI review; File:Gm-ny2011-4138.jpg|{{../Decline|Pereslavl museum decorated at Christmas 2011.--[[User:PereslavlFoto|PereslavlFoto]] 15:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)| Perspective distortion --[[User:Jebulon|Jebulon]] 18:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)<br />What do you mean? Where is the distortion?--[[User:PereslavlFoto|PereslavlFoto]] 23:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Please see annotations.--[[User:Jebulon|Jebulon]] 11:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)<br>blown lights, white balance off, distortion --[[User:Mbdortmund|Mbdortmund]] 01:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)}} of the File:Gm-ny2011-4138.jpg which has annotations to explain the review Gnangarra 05:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree there are the distortions, and if those distortions are enough to decline, then the distortions on the picture that I set for the discussion — are enough to discuss. Why am I mistaken? In the 2nd case, there are blown out lights and wrong white balance. If in my photo the blown lights and the balance are wrong, this is a good basis to rely on when checking other photos. So I make a "discuss" review by parity of reasoning. I am not sure that the cases exactly the same, and that is why I set "discuss" but not "decline".--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I am "pointy" because I see the trouble and point out that trouble. The author can see my reason and fix it. For example, User:Chmee2‎ makes the same action, shows me the specific mistake in my photo and allows me to solve the specific problem.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Re "sour grapes". It is the analogy, the coincidence between two similar photos. So I take the sample from my practice & use it as a base for my for judgment. Where am I mistaken?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
      • What about "already reviewed", we have several days to review each photo from different positions. That is why promoted images stay on QI page so others could check them and make a discussion. See the examples: [12] [13].--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
        • The pattern of reviews leaves no doubt about your purpose, your choice of wording leaves no doubt, when you leave a negative response it must be someting that anyone including the author can understand you remarks were directed at Mbdortmund no one else. Gnangarra 01:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
          • My purpose is to tell authors the way to improve their photos (check my votes, please). Some authors have already used my remarks to make the images much better. Please show me the remark directed at this very user; I remember none; you may think about those based on this uses's opinion.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct term for the category

What is the correct term to indicate the category in which to bring together and connect the car models derived (licensed and / or modified) from an original model and marketed under another brand ?

Example:

Is it correct to write [[Category:Fiat Topolino custom-built]] or [[:Category:Fiat Topolino derivative models]] or something else ?

Here is a recent discussion on the subject.

Thank you all for your attention. --Ligabo (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that an umbrella category for the 500 derivatives is necessary. They sit quite comfortably on the Category:Fiat Topolino main page. Any mention of which car sprung from what by all rights belongs in the mainspace rather than here, or perhaps as a very brief hatnote on the various category pages (see Category:Simca 5 for an example). Best regards, Mr.choppers (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Create a subcategory that lists the models derived from an original model is very useful for anyone who has to make a research on the subject. I honestly do not understand the reasons for Mr.choppers: We have categories that provide information of little importance, like this (Category:Automobiles by color) or categories that are confusing like this (Category:Phaetons (automobile)) which brings together under a 'single definition, two very different meanings between Europe and the USA. I see no reason not to create a category that contains really important information to classify or search for images.
Creare una sottocategoria che elenca il modelli derivati da un modello originale è molto utile per chiunque debba compiere una ricerca sull'argomento. Sinceramente non comprendo le ragioni di Mr.choppers: abbiamo categorie che forniscono informazioni di scarsa importanza, come questa (Category:Automobiles by color) oppure categorie che creano confusione come questa (Category:Phaetons (automobile)) la quale riunisce sotto un'unica definizione, due significati molto diversi tra Europa e USA. Non vedo il motivo per non creare una categoria che contiene un'informazione realmente fondamentale per classificare o la ricercare le immagini. --Ligabo (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Jahalfredo

Out of scope ?--Motopark (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Promotional material

Promotional material, see User:Wambie and uploads--Motopark (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Userpage deleted, files sent to DR, and the user reminded of the project's scope. Thanks for reporting. Jafeluv (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong US General

According to this site the US General at the victory parade on May 8, 1946 in Berlin was not Ray Barker but w:Frank A. Keating. So these categories should be replaced. Btw: The French Brigadier General was Charles Lançon. 92.230.100.249 12:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, even the Deutsche Fotothek, where these images come from, agrees. Moved them all. BTW, the Soviet sector's commander was Aleksandr Kotikov, and the British section's Eric P. Nares. Lupo 13:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have created now a cat for Category:Charles Lançon and the others as Category:Commandants of Berlin Sectors. This is an innovation, so somebody should look at this. Regards, Mother Earth 92.230.100.249 15:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Restore file history

Disregard, this discussion is being moved to the Village Pump. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 16:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Hello, can this File:Bonifatius-gregorius-aedelbertus-noordwijk.JPG have one revision history restored, but not the image (which contains an unfree frame)? I would like the upload history to still be there. The result should look like File:1831_Quaglio_Ansicht_FrankfurtM_anagoria.JPG. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Second request: same thing for File:Cornelis_Schut.jpg. Thank you! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Repeated copyviolations

Rajk2011 is repeatedly uploading copyvio images of a canadian MP, claiming them to be his own. I tagged the first two for speedy deletion and warned him. Now he has uploaded a similar third copyvio. He is a SPA in enwki who edits only the subjects article and seems obsessed to add a photo through copyvio. Can someone please block him?--Sodabottle (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of. --Túrelio (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Euro coins and deletion template vandalism

In accordance with prior discussion on this board, and related deletion requests (1, 2), I've been going through a variety of Euro coin images here on Commons and tagging them for deletion as copyright violations (examples: [14][15]). I've properly notified all uploaders, and a variety of the images have been deleted (examples: 1, 2). As of now, the remaining images comprise 82 of the 143 images at Category:Copyright violations.

Recently, what I'm guessing is one person using a variety of IPs in the range 79.x.x.x (Rome, Italy) has been going around removing the deletion tags (examples from three different IPs: [16][17][18]). I've reverted these unexplained deletion tag removals.

I'm loathe to ask for a block of an entire range like 79.x.x.x. Would an administrator please go through and delete the tagged copyright violations? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Trolling? The images are free. They can be used to anything, except copying them to create money. Where is the reason for any deletion? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 13:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
How about reading the first link in the first comment, before commenting by yourself? --Túrelio (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
@Hammersoft, I had waited with the deletion somewhat intentionally, as (some or many of) these images might be acceptable on :de and as there was a request, already some days ago, to get them copied over to :de. --Túrelio (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been ~2 weeks since these were originally tagged. Can we please move ahead with deletion? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Schloss Dötzingen

I uploaded an scancopy of an old German Postcard (dated 1908). Why is this copy not allowed? File:Schloss Dötzingen (1908).jpg Henk Obee

The postcard is only in the public domain if the author died more than 70 years ago. There's no way to verify that if we don't know who the author was. Jafeluv (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
If the photographer is not credited in the postcard, I believe it counts as anonymous work. If the author's name was not published during 70 years after first publication, even if we now know who he was, this would be a moot point, at least in Portuguese law, and would still count as anonymous in copyright respects. Darwin Ahoy! 17:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
German law is different. For an overview see de:Anonymes Werk (Urheberrecht). In short: That noone is credited does not mean it is an anonymous work. --Rosenzweig δ 20:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, people keep saying that it is different, but despite my attempts at it, I still couldn't understand why. I've even red the German law (autotranslated, granted) and still couldn't figure it. I'm really frustrated at my cerebral laziness which prevented me from learning German in my young years (I actually have some empathy with it, but the language rules still do irritate me). In Portuguese Law it is very clear that the burden of proof is on the copyright claimer, and not the work reuser, and that no penalties could be applied if some inappropriate use is made in good faith, which means that you must reasonably, though not exhaustively, try to assert the copyright of the work you want to use. From what people has been saying this is not so in German Law, and I really would like to figure why not.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons edit suppression policy?

An admin edit/log action and subsequent log suppression has just popped up in my watchlist and it has given me cause for concern over the use of suppression tools on Commons. Can I state from the outset that I don't believe I have ever interacted with any of the editors involved in this. You can see in this edit history here that the admin Beria made an edit and that edit summary has been suppressed. Checking the page logs it shows that Beria left the edit summary <Mono> I have removed you from #poty2010 temporarily to talk with some of the other members of the committee. I'll let you know when we're done and I'd be happy to discuss things with you later. Thanks. and has then suppressed this edit a couple of minutes later. There seem to me to be a couple of things wrong with this: a). An admin used the edit summary of an admin action to discuss user conduct b). an admin has then tried to suppress their own edit, presumably as they have misgivings with it. It shows a distinct lack of judgement in my opinion.

So a couple of questions arise from this, is this acceptable, and is there a suppression policy on Commons? (ignoring the utter snafu that is the voting in the POTY2010.) Woody (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Our suppression policy is here, but what you're talking about is called revision deletion, not suppression. For that, I don't think we have a policy page yet. As for the edit summary, I don't see anything that warranted deleting it from the history, but I'm sure Beria can explain their reasoning if you let them know that it's being discussed here. Jafeluv (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, rev-delete is a form of edit suppression but that's semantics. There should be a policy for the use of rev-del or it shouldn't be used here really. My point is not whether it should have been deleted or not, I don't think it should have been but hey, it is whether a user who makes an edit should then suppress it.
Excellent point regarding notifying Beria, I've done that now. Apologies for not doing it earlier but I got distracted and then the servers weren't being helpful! ;) Woody (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm all for creating a revdelete policy for Commons, by the way. Relevant parts of en.wikipedia's policy probably apply here as well, so making a draft based on that page would probably make sense. Jafeluv (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Just throwing in a couple pointers here, not commenting on Beria's actions specifically. There are many things on Commons that don't have "policy" pages. In fact, policy pages are usually descriptive of current practices and not prescriptive. See #4 here, even though it's an essay that point still holds true on the many Wikimedia wikis I've been a part of. Killiondude (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes that's true but I think that edit suppression and the removal of edits is an a admin action is something that certainly needs a policy or guideline that describes how it should be used. It is a potent tool that can be seriously misused. Woody (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh God, so much drama for nothing. I was protecting the pages witht he right sumary "Voting closed: Well, not closed, but not open yet. The results of last round are not checked yet and I have no clue who open that without notice anybody" when Tanvir asked me if i had talked with Mono about it, and i showed him the log of IRC you pointed above. After i continued with my task and only realized a few edits after that i was using not the sumary i had wrote, but the log from Mono. Since was a private conversation, i supress the log. Béria Lima msg 08:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you offer the same courtesy to a conversation or action between two non-admins, if one were to accidentally place a conversation in the logs? Do you see the conflict of interest in you supressing your own edits? And finally, does the fact that you didn't actually achieve what you set out to achieve highlight the very need for guidelines/policy on the use of edit suppression tools. Woody (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
To answer your first question: Please see my talk page. Is full of request from no-admins, I also receive tons of requests in IRC every day. I will not put they in the spot here, but in a short answer: Yes, I would do if someone pointed to me (i will not check every single log in commons - i have more to do with my time). The second question: No, I don't. If i saw any I would not do it. I do see in COI in suppress the quote from your edit above, so I didn't do that. And the coment about I achieve or not whatever you think i should achieve is your POV, and POV i don't comment. Béria Lima msg 11:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
There are lots of requests but nothing regarding the use of rev-delete, which is the issue at hand here. You have only used rev-delete once before this issue, that was to remove your own IP. That you don't see the COI in suppressing your own edits reflects poorly on you. Well, you obviously didn't achieve what you wanted to achieve as the information wasn't hidden and I could access it. (You've missed one by the way.) I think this whole episode stinks and reinforces the point that some sort of policy needs to be developed around this potent tool so there is some recourse if it is misused. Woody (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please delete

Please delete this flag posed as the proposed city flag of Islamabad. No such flag is considered as the flag of Islamabad. --Khalid Mahmood (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If such is the case, nominate the file for deletion at COM:DR -FASTILY (TALK) 06:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

File:WIKI ABEL.jpg

Same picture has been deleted many times from Special:Contributions/Michael_Velez and if I remember there was other name in the EXIF-data, could some check Special:Contributions/Michael_Velez uploaded pictures.--Motopark (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the user's contributions appear to have been deleted. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

File:RioGrandedoSul RM PortoAlegre.svg

I request the delection of the versions 2, 3 and 4 of the image File:RioGrandedoSul RM PortoAlegre.svg due to the errors contained in these versions, including because there is no need to keep them. Thank you. Transfer talk 17:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  • As far as I can tell, there's no need to delete them, no one will ever see them unless they are specifically looking at the history of the particular file. This is typical of earlier versions of a map. - Jmabel ! talk 00:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 06:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove empty category

Could an administrator remove empty category Category:Panoramic views of Dubrovnik - all photos from this category are now in other category Category:Panoramics of Dubrovnik. Janmad (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. {{Speedy}} also works in such cases. Jafeluv (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand this change. "Panoramic" is an adjective, not a noun, so there is no such word as "Panoramics" and "Panoramics of Dubrovnik" is not English, as required by our policy for naming categories. On the other hand, "Panoramic views of Dubrovnik" is the standard English description of the members of this category.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh oh, see Category:Panoramics of cities and subcats. Quite some work to do. --Túrelio (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Panoramic is a noun.[19] Marc Kupper (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, contrary to the top header, the noun explanation seem to refer to panorama (see header [pan-uh-ram-uh, -rah-muh]). --Túrelio (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I've now checked four dictionaries -- three American and the (British) OED and all agree that "panoramic" is an adjective -- the noun is "panorama".      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Please move and continue this discussion on Category talk:Panoramics. --Foroa (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Artistas del Sincretismo

Out of scope, promotional ?--Motopark (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. {{Speedy}} also works in such cases. Jafeluv (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Not 100% sure, that why I ask here--Motopark (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Your lone ? was maybe a little too subtle here. Your eye is good, though -- maybe barely OK for a solid contributor but not for one who had made only one other contribution, File:CABEZA DE NIÑO.jpg which I have just tagged with a DR.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you sure you are doing the right thing? Please see the related article at wiki es. Those seem to be recognized works of art. File:CABEZA DE NIÑO.jpg, for instance, is a work of Alonso Jiménez, "antropólogo y artista fundador y director de la Liga Latinoamericana de artistas", mentioned in that article, with bibliography and all.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

More copyvios from Tsovas

Tsovas (talk · contribs) is continuing to upload copyright images (see previous discussion here, image taken from here), despite having been warned. Could someone please take action, as I'm getting fed up of tagging this image and removing it on enwiki. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted again, and the uploader blocked for a week for repeated copyvios after warnings. This and this could probably use some checking considering the user's history, although a quick Tineye/Google search seems to find no duplicates. Jafeluv (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I found a source for the second, so it's likely the first is too. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Started a DR for the remaining one. Jafeluv (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Help with a deleted image

Disregard, the question has been answered. Thank you! – – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Can I get an admin's help on an image uploaded and deleted from the Italian wikipedia? I posted my question at Commons:Help_desk#Can_admins_see_deleted_histories_across_language_wikis.3F, though perhaps I should have asked it here instead. Thank you... – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Should this user be blocked?

Resolved– Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:RaúlRomeroTuñas – I'm sorry, I don't know how to warn someone on Commons. This account seems to have no purpose other than upload copyvio images. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a warning on the talk page. one more and the user can be blocked. cheers, Amada44  talk to me 21:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks : ) Looks like he was zapped anyway. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Basstards

Hello!

Can some professionl please have a look on User:Basstard's uploads? It is highly doubtful that those images are his own work. --80.187.106.158 16:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO they're his own work all right, just that they're being used to promote his nn-band. They should be deleted for falling out of scope. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A deletion request has been started on his files: Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Basstards. --High Contrast (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

need opinions

There is an issue. Suppose that someone makes a map of the US that has 50 states. That is fine. Suppose that someone makes a map of the US states that has 84 states. That is messed up and wrong, no matter what anyone says. It is wrong. We have a similar problem here, where an admin does not understand that many units on this map "do not exist", does not trust the "no source" reason for deletion, and is committing slander and libel by labeling me as a POV individual. Link: [20] Please help. (LAz17 (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)).

"Slander" and "libel" are very strong accusations and not something that should be bandied about casually here. Powers (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In the DR discussion LAz17 also uses "obscene" and "bullshit". I also note that the message here is trolling for support -- I'm not sure we have a specific rule against that, but it certainly doesn't help to have the discussion in more than one place. I suggest that User:LAz17 apologize to all of his or her colleagues for the language and calm down a great deal before making any more comments on the DR.
And, for the record, it would be libel, not slander. Libel is written, slander is verbal. And, finally, suggesting that a user has a point of view is hardly libel -- we all have points of view.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Angola

Español: He subido esta y esta imágenes. Posteriormente he encontrado y leído Commons:Currency#Angola, con lo que parece que las imágenes deberían ser borradas. ¿Serías tan amables de hacerlo? Gracias y disculpad por las molestias.

--. HombreDHojalata.talk 20:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you for your taking care of this problem.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Bug in {{WikispeciesCompact}}

Hi,
I found a bug on {{WikispeciesCompact}} that I described here.
Could someone look at it, or could you tell me who I could call for help? Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Guys, please, don't forget me! Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

technical error

There is a mistake here... [21] - yesterday I saw that the admin commented. I thought that he closed, not commented. So I listed it again, because there was not sufficient reason to close. Then I realized that it was not closed and apparently there were some errors in the coding. Then... someone removed it as if it is closed. Yet the discussion is not closed. Could someone fix this mistake? (LAz17 (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)).

You nominated the DR (!) for deletion. Some admin undid that of course. Anything seems OK now. Jcb (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Jee, I feel dumb now. Sorry for the stupidity on my part. (LAz17 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)).
No need to feel dumb -- Commons is complicated and the whole process of creating a DR is not well explained -- I suspect all of us have made similar mistakes. The best thing is to use "Nominate for deletion" in the toolbar on the left side of the page.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The crazy thing is that "Nominate for deletion" is also in the toolbar if you're watching a DR. Jcb (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that -- I suppose there's a certain logic to it -- anything that is user created can be nominated for deletion. In practice, a DR that needed deletion should either be a {{Speedy}} because it's a wild error, or just closed routinely as withdrawn.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:SchoolcraftT uploading at other wikis to circumvent block

To note that after being blocked here, the user then uploaded images at (least one) another WMF site, then played innocent and asked for images to be moved to Commons, see en:s:User_talk:SchoolcraftT. The issue has been identified there, though the behaviour may have occurred at further sites, or should at least be observed for abuse.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

He tried the same stunt over at meta ("i was wondering if somone can move this file?"). That file didn't get moved, but I notice that File:Mountain Parkway - Hacker Valley Kiosk.JPG was (from en-WS). Lupo 12:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
His pic was deleted and I answered him on meta. Just let me know if this happens again. --WizardOfOz talk 18:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted here as well. Jcb (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User edits anoher users userpage

Please see history of User:CECUDEC--Motopark (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently they are related.   ■ MMXX  talk  14:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Promotional pictures

See user Special:Contributions/Fairmate_Construction_Chemicals uploaded pictures, they are promotional--Motopark (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they certainly are. The username is also against policy. Nuked and blocked indefinitely.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hang on.. I'll agree with the blocking of the name, but are we sure we want to kill the pictures? Granted they are simple line graphics, but they're generic enough that I think they can be used by others... Tabercil (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe so -- but then there's a copyright issue. I wouldn't object at all if you wanted to shepherd them through OTRS, but I don't see that much value in them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Logos

Can someone deal with this user Special:Contributions/GroupeNP6 as all he seems to do is upload logos which are non free images and claims to be by them. Which I doubt very much. Good twins (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No such user exists, please check if you spelled the user name correctly. Jcb (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
They probably meant Groupe NP6. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Some of these logos can be kept with {{PD-textlogo}}. --Leyo 12:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
But do we want them? Both the username and the logos seem to be here only for promotion of a commercial entity.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
That might be true in these cases. I am just fighting the widespread and incorrect assumption that all logos are non-free images and can therefore not stay on Commons. --Leyo 19:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Mistake me not -- I completely agree with you that many logos can stay without permission because they are ineligible for copyright for one reason or another -- but that does not mean we should keep all logos -- they still have to be useful, which, as practical matter, means to me that they must belong to notable organizations.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
This statement was not particularly addressed to you. --Leyo 22:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

protected template edit: motd thumbtime

Please replace http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Motd/2011-05-30_thumbtime&action=edit with: {{Motd thumbtime|1=7.8|2=2011|3=05|4=30}}

The current "12s" do not work and are anyway not useful as it would be the end of the video where no lightning is visible. ;) Thanks! --Saibo (Δ) 02:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request

Would anybody be so kind and finally delete this hoax? Here's the deletion request page. Thanks. --Gleb Borisov (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not until next week. The DR page was incorrectly formatted, it was never logged, and the uploader was not notified. Turleio has notified the uploader and I have added it to today's log.
While the image may well be a hoax, and the defects in the DR were probably an honest mistake, we must consider the possibility that the nominator deliberately tried to create a stealth DR to get the image deleted without anyone actually seeing the DR.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Arthropoda.jpg, used on lots of Wikipedias for apparently a long time, had a mislabeled license (PD claim). I found the sources and corrected the attribution, but still a source image, File:Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus 2000px.jpg, has a GFDL 1.2-only license that doesn't work. I don't know where to turn, please can someone replace the butterfly image with a suitable image? My bad image software would likely reduce the overall quality. Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really an administrator task. You would probably have better luck at the Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. Powers (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! Hekerui (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if User:Ram-Man might be willing to grant a CC-by-sa license for its use as part of the montage? He is inactive, but has E-mail enabled. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought someone who specifically chose 1.2-only automatically had a strong position against more modern licenses. But you're right, asking won't hurt. Hekerui (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Fachada.jpg

Please revert to the original. Obs.: The new version is copyvio. Thx. --Gunnex (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Rehman 11:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection of images used on mainpage of en.wiki

Hi, can File:Ed Westwick 2010.jpg, File:Toxoplasma gondii.jpg, File:Tote Meerhand (Alcyonium digitatum) 2.jpg, and File:Lysimachia iniki.jpg be protected for the next 36 hours or so as they will be used on the DYK section of the en.wiki main page? Much appreciated, Casliber (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Leyo 23:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick! much appreciated :) Casliber (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dodogremio (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

User keeps uploading copyvios after warning. Please an admin step in. --Moros y Cristianos 05:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Copyvios deleted. Yann (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
This is yet another sockpuppet from Dodoimortal (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , and should be blocked indefinitely. Please refer to this thread.-- Darwin Ahoy! 09:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, and blocked indefinitely. A checkuser could probably check whether there are more accounts they're using. Jafeluv (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

License confirmation

Hello, I don't know if this is the right place, or if this is necessary at all, but just in case: I found some photos (six) which are public domain, they are in Category:Casa Piauí Design 2010. Probably it will by more secure if an administrator confirms that they are indeed public domain, in case they go offline in the future. Example of one of them. If this is not the right place, please tell me which one is.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done I verified the licenses and tagged the images. For future requests see Commons:License review --Jarekt (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much!-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Revert to newer upload image

Trying to use the newest version on File:TwillingateReligiousAffiliation.jpg It should say 2001 not 2006...please the duplicates can be deleted and the 2006 one can be deleted but I don't know how to get it to say 2001. Thanks...SriMesh | talk 19:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


Memorandum

I remember that the problem described in this discussion on May 18, has not yet given any indication by the administrators.
Ricordo che il problema descritto in questa discussione del 18 maggio, non ha ancora ottenuto alcuna indicazione da parte degli amministratori.
--Ligabo (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, this request was misplaced from the beginning. Admins in general do not have more expertise in categories than other experienced users. You might ask User:Foroa directly. --Túrelio (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I hope you will want to excuse me, but I do not understand why the request for opinions to know the correct English title of a category might be "misplaced".
Spero vorrai scusarmi, ma non capisco il motivo per cui la richiesta di pareri per conoscere i titolo corretto in lingua inglese di una categoria possa essere "fuori luogo".
--Ligabo (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason is that this is the Administrators' Noticeboard. It is for questions and issues that require the attention of an Administrator. Commons Administrators have no special vote or opinion on issues such as the one raised above. Therefore, my colleague Túrelio is correct above -- this might be better brought up at Commons:Village pump.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done [22] Thanks for the advice. --Ligabo (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown

The page MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown has been edited 50 times in the last 4 months. This is too much. It's confusing and disrupting for admins who often do speedy deletions. I propose we establish a version and we forbid admins to make individual changes without obvious support at the talk page, where at least three other admins responded. Jcb (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  •  Support I would strongly support that -- but note that Rehman is pushing for a major rewrite which I actually think will be positive if it includes two or three modifications which we are now discussing at MediaWiki_talk:Deletereason-dropdown#Moving_forward. There will probably be some changes after the major rewrite -- aftershocks -- which we should allow.

    I'm also not sure about requiring four yes votes -- that might be hard. Perhaps a week's discussion and no change without consensus from whoever is in the discussion?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  •  Support. While I can imagine how annoying the changes can be, I have to say that I am doing it with best intentions. The current logs are just too bad; being one of the first things a new user would see, it has to be kept as best as possible. Please see the above linked discussion for more details in the changes. Rehman 13:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
IMHO a clear and official policy would be helpful to get a more stable version of the dropdowns. Jcb (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
True, but then again, we're sticking to this not-so-good version for no strong reason, when we can actually change/improve it now, and further improve when the final policy is established... But then again, that is against what is being proposed here in this discussion. :) Rehman 18:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I support to establish a good version. My main point is that the current versions is changing too often. We need a good and stable version. Jcb (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support but remove or merge "Temporary deletion for file renaming", "Temporary deletion for history cleaning or revision suppression" and "Temporary deletion for history merging of different uploads of the same file" --High Contrast (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Omar2788

User:Omar2788 will not or cannot understand the idea of copyright. He's already had several images deleted, and every image I've checked of his has inappropriate copyright. He uploaded this image, for example, claiming the Source was "Own work". When I checked I discovered he had copied it from a website,[23] at which point he changed the Source to that website.[24] I created an AfD for another image he uploaded, and he claimed there that it must be in the public domain "since its used by a lot of bloggers".[25] He uploaded another image today, claiming it is in the public domain, with no permission or other information.[26] He uploaded this picture, taken directly from Britannica, claiming it was under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license, which is incredibly unlikely given the source is Britannica. I don't think things are going to get better. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the user and will take a look at the uploads. Jcb (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Need OTRS flag

It appears that no one is watching Commons talk:Requests for rights, so I'm reposting my request here. I have recently been approved as an OTRS volunteer, but still have not marked as an OTRS member on Commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You need to post this at COM:BN. Regards. Rehman 07:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Hi King of Hearts, it takes a 'crat to grant you this request. I've therefore forwarded your request to the bureaucrats' noticeboard and confirmed it. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done: The OTRS flag has meanwhile been given by EugeneZelenko. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Open proxy spam

173.234.176.193 is an open proxy, which was used to create I always tweet Wen I smoke my nightly cigarette 5. File:Electronic cigarette 3499.jpg is used on that page, and was uploaded by EmiliaAngel6 one minute after the page was created (so the link to the file name existed before the file did). The photo was uploaded with no source, no license, no nothing. I suggest deleting the page and the file and blocking both the IP and the account. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Deleted by Turelio, and blocked by me. Rehman 13:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

uploaded file not available externally.

File:Tomato_Flower.jpg
This image is unavailable when used on Wikipedia. Please help. I tried the file and html tags. TigerisLagoona (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That is because there is another image hosted on WP:EN that has the same name. If you call for an image on WP:EN, the software first looks to WP:EN for the image. If it is not found there, then, and only then, does it go to Commons to find the image. (see User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox2)
The only solution is to change one of the filenames. If you'll suggest a different name for the one here, I'll do that for you if one of my colleagues doesn't do it first.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The general policy is that the other wiki should change the conflicting filename, not Commons. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that need apply when the Commons file was only uploaded two days ago and is in use on just one project. Powers (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Logos on Football kits

My understanding is that there are to be no logos on football kits on the main, English wikipedia articles. This problem with user Bruno-ban crops up every year.

The situation of a back and forth at [27] and [28] is rather typical and will probably happen on a lot of kit pages over the next few months.

And that's even before we move into his lack of respect as he says things like "Não sabe desenhar", "sérios problemas psiquiátricos" "idiota" etc etc...

My proposal is that if he wants logos to appear on the Portuguese wiki or if they are authorised to appear on it he should leave primary file names alone and upload under differentiated names for example: nufc1112hPT.png or nufc1112hlogo.png --MattM4> 02:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

getting a photograph removed from wikipedia site

Someone called Harmonia Amanda has apparently filed a photograph of me taken in Mons on a wikipedia site under my real name. I would like it removed. How is this done? I have tried to log onto wikipedia but am 'blocked' [?] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trollillo (talk • contribs)

Link to the photo or the article it is used at? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
She uploaded something like 100+ Mons images (Special:Contributions/Harmonia_Amanda). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
When, as a writer/artist, you are openly taking part in a public event, you cannot normally forbid people from publishing photos of you taken there in an article about you. Users could evaluate if there might be exceptional reasons in your case, but the first thing would be to link to the image or article. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
If the user doesn't want their real name (and photo) associated with their wikiname, they obviously wouldn't want to link to it here. Perhaps they can email someone to deal with this? --Tony Wills (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this has to do with a wikiname. As far as I can tell, he just created an account to post the above request. What I think I understand from the unelaborated request is that he does not want his photo associated with his real name. I guess, something along the lines of "If my fans want to know what I look like, they must come in person to meet me at a book fair or convention" (and pay admission fees). A link would not matter because either we agree to delete the photo and then it will not be visible, or we don't delete it and this section doesn't change anything. Doesn't sound like a request compliant with Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. It's not that the community couldn't grant it by courtesy if valid reasons are provided, but it's not a right that can be demanded. If someone thinks they can elaborate reasons why this might be deleted, I think it should be discussed in a regular deletion request. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
It also helps if we can figure out what artist is having an issue with this. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my bad english. I don't know whom you are, I spent two days to photograph everything. I only uploaded photographies of artists or writers who had a badge indicating their name, and so who were present in a public way. If there is any problem with one of my photographies, the first thing to do is to indicate which one... --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

To proceed here at this point, we need the photograph to be refered to. If you do not want to disclose this publically, please contact the Wikipedia support team by email [email protected]. Such correspondence is kept private and volunteers will try to help you in finding a solution. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Modify the Spanish Home Page

Is Portada, has a link to Category:Music sound but it would have to be Category:Audio files of music. Thank you, Metrónomo (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done/Hecho. --Dferg (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Rio Anil Shopping.jpg

Please, can an administrator have a look at File:Rio Anil Shopping.jpg, and separate the two images? The user has uploaded a new photo taken today over the old one, however I believe that both are valuable. The new one can be named as File:Rio Anil Shopping - Junho 2011.jpg or something like that. Thanks,-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ask the uploader to upload the new one under a new name, you speak the same language. --Martin H. (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm.. I thought it would be easier to ask directly here, since the outcome would be independent of the uploader will (or else it would be the same as speedy deleting the old file), but I will ask him. I just hate all that bureaucracy. :\ -- Darwin Ahoy! 00:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, on second thought, I'll just revert him and upload the new image myself, and then leave him a note.-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You could easily COM:HMS. Rehman 03:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Me? No, I don't have those tools, I believe.-- Darwin Ahoy! 08:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Oops sorry, missed a word there. I meant "You could easily request COM:HMS" :) Rehman 14:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, yes, that was exactly what I wanted, but I didn't knew where to ask, so I asked here. But now I've already manually moved it into a new file. :S -- Darwin Ahoy! 18:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

2006 picture

Hi. Can someone take a look at this? It´s got a watermark, but also metadata. Thanks, --Andrea (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Shorter link File:Dmc75v Portalfräsmaschine.jpg. As it comes from the pre-OTRS era, I think it's acceptable. Uploader is no longer active on Commons and :de. --Túrelio (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Modify Template:PD-CzechGov/en

To change the link to http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs_new/en/cz/cz029en.html by http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=126154. Thank you, Metrónomo (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And to add Template:PD-CzechGov/es in Template:PD-CzechGov/lang. Thank, Metrónomo (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC).
Done and done. Jafeluv (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Stephen III of Moldavia / Ştefan III cel Mare

One or more anonymous IPs have redirected Category:Stephen III of Moldavia to Category:Ştefan III cel Mare, copied (rather than moved) the content of that category page, and apparently moved all relevant items in the category. As I understand it, we always favor English in category names when there is any common English name, and this move goes directly contrary to policy.

I am asking for someone else to look this over, since I have already been an engaged party and should therefore not be involved as an admin. I noticed this situation because File:Four Romanians.JPG is on my watch list. - Jmabel ! talk 15:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Same or different?

Hi, Could an admin please have a look at the deleted File:Lolimanga.JPG (deleted 7 May 2010 per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lolimanga.JPG) and at File:Lolimanga.jpg (uploaded 6 July 2010 by the same uploader) to compare if they are identical or substantially similar? And use their best judgment after the comparison. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

They're not identical, but they are the same bookshelf from a slightly different angle. Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Care to compare another pair of files, please? File:Genderschool2.jpg (deleted 7 August 2010 per Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68) and File:Genderschool2a.jpg (uploaded 6 February 2011). -- Asclepias (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Simply scaled down. Deleted. – Adrignola talk 01:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
There's never been any shred of evidence that Midnight68 was not the creator of those files. I don't see a valid rationale for deletion. Powers (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Recreating deleted content is a perfectly valid rationale for deletion, and it is the same situation as the one just above in the thread. Given that Midnight68 uploaded Genderschool2.jpg prior to the upload of Genderschool2a.jpg by another user later, which was simply a slightly different size, with the former claimed to be created by Midnight68 by himself and the latter said to be brought in from fr.wikipedia where it was uploaded by Midnight68, the onus is on you to provide evidence that he wasn't. But you can save your arguments for the undeletion request. – Adrignola talk 03:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

inquiry

What are the rules on derivative works? Case in point - panonian made this nice map [29] , but a dude just changed its colors to remake it like this, [30] - is this against the rules or is it all according to rules? Does this give me the right to change the colors on any map like Direktor did? (LAz17 (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)).

@LAz17, please refrain from publicly calling other users "dude". --Túrelio (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not aware that calling people things such as dude, guy, being, etc, are problematic. In fact one of my teachers called everyone dude... while programming he would talk to himself and speak of dudes. XD Sorry. (LAz17 (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)).
ACK. It's at least impolite and in a multilingual project like Commons many non-native speaker may not get the fineprint. --Túrelio (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
As Panonian map is under public domain, everyone can change it and make derivative works even without naming of the first author. So yes, he can change it per licence. --WizardOfOz talk 17:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
True, per copyright. However, if you want to substantially change an existing in-use image, you should do that on a separate copy, i.e. not by overwriting the original one, per our policy. --Túrelio (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
And, although it perfectly legal to use the Panonian map without attribution, it is always correct to give attribution when you are use another person's work as part of your own.
"This map is based on a public domain map drawn by Panonian."
Some would say that without such a statement, you have committed plagiarism, even if the source is PD.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Some help for Tamil main page required

Source [31] -- RE rillke questions? 16:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Admins, I've created a new main page for Tamil. (முதற் பக்கம்) But there was already a main page for Tamil called முதன்மைப் பக்கம். But We Tamil Wikimedians follow the first name for Main page. So, according to that I've changed the name too. I need it to be changed in commons. Please delete this முதன்மைப் பக்கம் page. And change முதற் பக்கம் in other language list as I requested in the talk page here Template_talk:Lang-mp#New_Tamil_Main_page. :) --Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

user causing problems

There is a problem regarding this image, [32] . The user Ceha is continually reverting Ajdebre's map. I have opened a discussion on the talk page and asked him to stop edit waring and instead discuss it there. I have attempted constructive dialogue, and the user has simply removed my appeal to him to go the talk page. [33] He not only removed that, but he went back to the topic and again changed the file. I think that this is very disrupting. (LAz17 (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)).

Yawn. I wish people would learn that it's okay to upload a different version of a file instead of edit warring to get your preferred version as the only option. Protected for a week, although I fully expect the reverting to continue after that since it's been going on for months now. Jafeluv (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to prevent reverting? Usually this isn't an issue, but god forbid that people start edit waring on every other image - there ought to be some rules in place to prevent that. (LAz17 (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)).

Uploads of FabioAbazaj

Hello, back in 2009 FabioAbazaj uploaded a load of copyvios in photos of Albania at wiki-en. In 2010 many of those copyvios were transferred here via commonshelper. Here is a typical one: File:Old Orthodox Church in Gjirokastra Albania.jpg. I'm finding and marking some of them, but would like some help on that task, especially since the copyvios warnings are not being posted to anyone's profile, so user history will be difficult to track after known copyvios are deleted.-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


Backlog in protected edit requests

Are there any administrators doing protected edit requests? --  Docu  at 00:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Commons protected edit requests. --Martin H. (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Brutal deletion of old historic map

HI! Your robot removed a 120 old map about Louis The Great's rule (Louis_role.jpg) The map is originally part of the Hungarian Encyclopedia Pallas, it was printed in 1890. It is clearly older than 70 years. There is source: The full map: http://keptar.oszk.hu/000500/000590/magyaro-nagyl-terkep_nagykep.jpg , here is the informative source: Kapcsolódó dokumentum: A Pallas nagy lexikona : Magyarok eredete, the last edition of Pallas Encyclopedia was printed in 1910. Can you upload this important historical map again, and insert it in its former wiki articles? Than You!

Note: the above message of User:Darkercastel was transferred from here
This file was deleted at my request, because the uploader had lied by declaring himself the copyright holder of this image. As it can be seen the source (Hungarian Forrás) is Arcanum Adatbázis Kft.
I'd like also to inform the administrators that the account User:Darkercastel is a sockpuppet of a guy who has uploaded many files with copyvio from different accounts (see for example http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stubes99 and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stears159 - a checkuser will confirm soon here that these accounts are connected)) (Iaaasi (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC))
Independently of whatever other problems this user may have had, this map is in public domain and should never have been deleted. The author, József Homolka, died in 1907, so it's even {{PD-old-100}}. Please clarify what file you are talking about, so that it can be restored, otherwise I'll uploaded it myself. The map is indeed an historical document in public domain and should never have been deleted.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I am talking about this file and I can't see the name of József Homolka here... I can find only the text "Forrás: Arcanum Adatbázis Kft." (Forrás means source in Hugnarian)(Iaaasi (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC))
Lower right corner? --  Docu  at 11:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Lower right corner, "Homolka J.", which is József Homolka, a well known cartographer. "Arcanum Adatbázis Kft" is the company hosting teh content, which has not any right to that copyright according to Commons rules.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I've found this informatio nabout the image: "This image document comes from the Hungarian Digital Archive of Pictures. The copyright and other privileges are owned by the creator/owner of the image. This document can be freely downloaded, copied, but you can use it only for personal purposes and non-commercial applications, without modifying it, and with proper citation to the original source." (Iaaasi (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC))
It doesn't matter. It could have been written there as well that all reproduction of content is forbidden. The map is public domain, and no one is entitled to claim a copyright on it, even if they detain a physical copy of the map.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks clear-cut to me. I've restored the file here, and corrected the description per above. Jafeluv (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Serial copyvios and sockpuppetry

The following are all the same editor and have been indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia for persistent copyvio, disruptive editing, and sockpuppetry. See [34], [35], and [36].

They have uploaded numerous copyvio images at Commons as "own work" which they had then placed in English Wikipedia articles The following need to be deleted ASAP. All are clear copyvios:

I strongly suggest checking the contributions for ABG1997 [37]. Several of those appear to be copyvios as well.

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:ABrownG - Voceditenore (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Backing this. He keeps coming back with IPs at en.wiki to avoid his blocks. I've just rev/del'd some copyvio he added to a talk page of a semi-protected article, asking that it be added to the article. Dougweller (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Blocked all three accounts indefinitely, and deleted all files uploaded by all of them. Please let me know if you find more socks. Normally I give serial copyvioers a second chance, but this guy not only was being deceptive about the source of the images but engaging in sockpuppetry to try to evade notice. We can't tolerate that kind of behaviour. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Map of Kosovo

I would like to ask for advice on this, File_talk:Blank_map_europe.svg#Kosovo it is very hard to recruit editors in kosovo when they are not even listed. Can you please advise on how to get the version with kosovo in it listed, it is being constantly removed. Thanks, mike Mdupont (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This file is subject to an ongoing edit war that is already several years old. For me this is the first case I got to see where the upload history no longer fits into one page. I support the protection by Beria which stops this endless series of disruptions. Commons is not the place to have such content disputes. So, if you are not happy with the current version of this file, then upload an alternative under a different name and use that one subsequently where it fits and is accepted by the community. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

protected MOTD template edit

Hello and sorry again: Too late and consequently fully protected. Please edit those two templates:

Thank you! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --AFBorchert (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

COM:CSD

Opinions welcome on passing COM:CSD as official policy. Rehman 11:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

April DRs

Three DRs from april still need to be closed, see here. Could somebody have a look at it? Jcb (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I'd like to report a sockpuppet Testino1 (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk · contribs). Uploaded the same deleted files as File:George Balancine in his twenties .jpg and File:Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff(portrait).jpg. Elockid (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Underage uploaders

Have we ever addressed the issue of people who are not of legal age uploading files? In the USA, and, I think, in most other jurisdictions, a young person may not enter into a contract, except, perhaps, for certain necessities. Any such contract is voidable -- may be revoked. That would mean that any license granted by a person who was legally a child was not irrevocable.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Heavens - you mean taking licensing seriously... :) Not seen anything about it in my time here Jim. I used to think the attention to licensing here was ok however I've learned quite a bit since then. Flickr and the usual odd ball sites excepted we really don't take it very seriously generally & I agree that, legally, stuff from minors may well be dubiously licensed. --Herby talk thyme 13:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I fear that's the next entry for our backlog of still unsolved problems (such as "Commons license tags not informing re-users about the CC-BY condition to provide/link to the license text"; "images with questionable credit location specification"; etc.). Couldn't you have kept that secret? At least in its German-language versions neither the old nor the new upload mask says anything about that. I have notified Dr. Geoff Brigham now. --Túrelio (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I should probably add that my (non-lawyer) understanding is that while the license could be voidable, anyone that relied on it and did not have actual knowledge that the licensor was underage could not be held liable for damages. Would probably have to take the image down, though.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This is very bad news. I know that many schools have been actively engaged in contributing to Commons and Wikipedia, most notably in the Catalan wiki. Many of the Catalan files being uploaded are from underage kids as part of school projects. By coincidence, I've also noticed in the last few days a number of uploads of Galiza files of small towns apparently from school kids, so probably the Catalan example (a case of tremendous success) is being followed by other projects and communities. Very bad news indeed, and if taken literally, it will be an enormous set back in Wiki promotion, quality improvement, etc. etc.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
There are always risks involved in reusing content published at Wikimedia Commons. Copyright or personality rights violations, for example, which went unnoticed for a long time might put reusers in trouble, too. And this problem does not just exist for uploaded files but also for contributed texts. If you want to safeguard against this, you need to move far away from the ideal of a Wikipedia “anyone can edit” or a Commons where anyone can contribute photos as you would need then to identify all participating editors requiring scans of passports etc. to enforce an age restriction — what is currently required from all those who have access to sensitive data like checkusers. Hence we and the reusers have to handle this risk. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe current Commons:General disclaimer makes it clear that neither the editors nor Wikimedia Foundation can not be held responsible for contents and information also as our general disclaimer says "Wikimedia Commons cannot guarantee, in any way whatsoever, the validity of the information found here.", as long as we have this rule, I think we are ok :) we can deal with the possible future problems with our current policies.   ■ MMXX  talk  16:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I think, as this problem has surfaced now, we cannot go on with a know-nothing-do-nothing stategy. Anyway, the first step should be thorough legal evaluation, which would be the foundations task. --Túrelio (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
You guys ask good questions. WMF does not have liability on this issue for the reasons stated above and because we are only a hosting company. On the contract issue, the answer depends a lot on the jurisdiction at issue, but, as a general rule, a minor may make a contract in the same manner as an adult. However, a minor usually may disaffirm a contract during minority or within a reasonable time afterwards. Sometimes, courts may not allow disaffirmance in certain circumstances. We do not want to limit our site to adults. To date, I'm unaware of any problems that we have had with this issue, so this is more a theoretical - as opposed to a practical - concern right now. Although I can only advise WMF, I would not change our present practices. Cheers. Geoffbrigham (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
So when a minor comes along and disaffirms a license on a file they've uploaded, we can delete it at that time. That sounds easy to handle. But maybe we shouldn't grab such pics from Flickr, because we'll never know when they disaffirm. --99of9 (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Note that this same issue is a much bigger problem for Wikipedia and other textual WMF sites, since underage editors collaborate with adults, resulting in joint works. If the minor later disaffirmed their contribution, we may be forced to roll back the changes of others which were integrated irreparably with them (much the same problem we face with fixing late-discovered copyvios). Nevertheless, it has not proven to be a practical issue thus far, and has rarely been brought up. Enabling minors to play a big role in WMF projects is important to me and I want to avoid any policy that would discourage them. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
True, but we should also have in mind the potential risk for our re-users. --Túrelio (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Age proof is required for uploading images to commons..???--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Unable to re-upload deleted files so as to properly mark them for source

(Found that Commons:Undeletion requests was the right place to post. Sorry for the spam here.)

ServiceAT (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin User:Jcb

Español: Solicito se revise la actuación del administrador User:Jcb en este caso. Jcb insiste en "blanquear" la licencia de varios archivos que son obvios copyvios. Así mismo insiste en prohibirme que participe marcando archivos que constituyen evidentes violaciones de los derechos de autor. ¡Alega que solo se debe hacer cuando los archivos originales proceden de internet! o que podría aplicarse el derecho de panorama en casos en los que resulta absurdo hacerlo, haciendo una interpretación muy parcial y subjetiva de las políticas.

--. HombreDHojalata.talk 22:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What happened is that this user nominated files for speedy deletion for FOP issues. I instructed him (in Spanish) at his talk page how to use normal DRs. Jcb (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Español: La utilización del marcador {{Copyvio}} está absolutamente justificada y ajustada a las políticas en este caso. Jcb no relata todos los hechos cuando dice que se ha limitado a "instruirme". Jcb ha revertido injustificadamente y de forma contraria a las políticas y perjudicial para este proyecto, sabiendo perfectamente, aunque no quiera admitirlo, que las imágenes tienen copyright, pues corresponden, como le he dicho una y otra vez, y tal como consta en los propios datos que aporta el usuario que las subió, a fotografías de cuadros de un pintor francés fallecido en 1999.
--. HombreDHojalata.talk 22:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Como bibliotecario aquí, tengo el derecho para decidir algo sobre tu nominación. Eso no es 'revertir' sino 'decider no que borrar en seguida'. Jcb (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Jcb: just nominate it for deletion yourself and you can avoid this fuss ;). That's the procedures anyways.
HombreDHojalata: Hay momentos donde los bibliotecarios de Commons no se sienten cómodos borrar algo inmediatamente. Tal vez los archivos sí se merecen ser borrados ya, pero cualquier usuario es justificado a convertir una plantilla de copyvio a una pagina de discusión (se le llama DR o Deletion requests). Jcb podría haber hecho esto, pero mejor te mando un recuerdo explicando que una discusión es preferida. Le comenté a Jcb que haga esto por ti ya que él es el que debería convertir la plantilla a un DR, pero el comentario de Jcb no fue mal tan poco. --ZooFari 23:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Pages of text only

I'm cleaning up maintenance categories, and I've come across Commons:Pages of text only, from 2006 with only one editor (and only one example of the concept). I suggest deleting both. Rd232 (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A good idea, but since you tagged it with {{Delete}} in the ordinary way, there is no need to raise it here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Someone else tagged it, presumably after seeing my note here... OK, job done. Rd232 (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to tag it, if its required for the community there will be arguments...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Frans Sammut

Dear Sir / Madam

Four pictures have been removed from the entry Frans Sammut (in all the language versions).

I have an unlimited licence to use said pictures, so I do not see any copyright infringement. You also have, in your records, a signed declaration as to the above (I received an email acknolweding same signed by Kevin Morgan on the 5th instant).

Could you please enlighten me?

Thank you,

Maltisafi

What are the related filenames? --Túrelio (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

Could anybody protect my talk page and block the IP? [38] --Gleb Borisov (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 1 day. Do you really need the talkpage blocked?
Was there anything in the IP's edits that seriously needs to be removed per version deletion of your talkpage? --Túrelio (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
He uses dynamic and different IPs and constantly vandalises same pages in the Russian wiki (example), so semi-protection would be really suitable. Yes, I think it would be better to delete those edits. --Gleb Borisov (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll semi-protect for a week. About your "would be better to delete": you know that I was talking of version deletion, not simple deletion, right? This would be appropriate if the content or edit summaries of the IP contain your real-name, criminal accusations or other things that third people could take seriously and that would damage you. --Túrelio (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess it wouldn't apply in this case, so perhaps let those versions stay... --Gleb Borisov (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
In case the vandalism goes on, using an account created by the IP, please notify us exactly in this thread (if it is still on COM:AN). --Túrelio (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, thank you. --Gleb Borisov (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:DmpdJuly2010.jpg

Hello. I wanted to point out that the above image has been tagged (by me) as a copyright violation, which it blatantly is. There is a long and unfortunate history to its continued existence, but after a grace period of a week, the image has so far not been proven to be licensed by the photographer for use on Commons. I have every reason to believe that this copyvio tag may be reverted by en.wikipedia administrator Nightscream, who has reverted all my previous attempts at deleting this image (or removing it from use on a GA article) without any solid rationale (except claiming to know who the photographer was; this does NOT prove the image is licensed properly). I wanted to make a record of this here and have the image deleted as soon as possible. Thank you. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The upload summary clearly states: Picture of Dawn taken by Michele "Fuchsia" Mupo. Copyright of Michele "Fuchsia" Mupo, so the uploader's claim that it is his own work appear to be false. Without permission from the copyright holder it should be removed and deleted if the promised permission, per the article talk page, does not arrive within a short time because the image appears to have been improperly licenced for nearly a year. Ww2censor (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Precisely. It went unnoticed because it hadn't been used (ever, or not for a long time). The OTRS tag has been in place for a little over a week, and, in fact, the OTRS tag is misleading because an email was sent requesting permission, and the file was then tagged {{OTRS pending}}, without the permission actually being obtained. So, in reality, the image has been a copyvio for over a year, then the image has been allowed to remain (it was undeleted after I tagged it copyvio eight days ago) in the hopes that permission would be granted. It has been allowed this grace period, and obviously it's not going to happen. So the image really needs to be removed now. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to rest my case. My speedy deletion tag has been removed without discussion on the talk page by Nightscream. I will revert my edit with a proper edit summary, and watch: it will be reverted again. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, matters may be clearing up, we shall see. MarkDBSkinsFan, original uploader, just left a message on the talk page. Of course, "permission" doesn't necessarily mean "licensed for free use", but that is up to OTRS (or whoever receives the email, to decide. And for the record, if the image is cleared for use, I don't think I acting wrongly in my stance against potential copyright violations. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi. This thread is a few days old, but I just wanted to confirm that I have spoken to a representative of the subject who has been given information on how to verify license through the OTRS process. Of course, if they do not follow through, we can't retain the image, but I just wanted to be clear that the uploader was operating in good faith. Just to add my personal opinion, I think the additional grace period should be sufficient. If the image is deleted and they follow through belatedly, it can be restored. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Can these be deleted?

File:Isaac clark.jpg

File:Jack smith.jpg

File:Jack Smith Cricket.jpg

File:Isaac peado.jpg

File:Jack smith 2.jpg

They were being added as vandalism by an en.Wiki editor I've just blocked, see [39]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

RevisionDelete

Can someone please admin-delete the two last blatant insults from my user talk page?

Also, pay attention to IP address from the range 201.76.114.0/24 (cross-wiki vandal).

Thanks in advance. Ruy Pugliesi◥ 20:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Nijarsanisidro.PNG

This file looks awfully familiar. Isn't it one of the files that were deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Neru? —LX (talk, contribs) 14:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, its this one: File:Sanisidrnijartítulo.png. Before I delete the re-upload. Are you sure this is/was a copyvio or is it just very likely? Amada44  talk to me 14:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming that. As far as I can see, it was not one of the files for which I was able to determine a definitive source, but since it was deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Neru (which they chose not to participate in), the uploader should explain at Commons:Undeletion requests why we should believe that this low-resolution file without EXIF data is their own work in spite of the many confirmed copyright violations that they uploaded. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
k. deleted and warning on talk page. Amada44  talk to me 17:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you meant to use {{Dont recreate}} rather than {{Dont overwrite}}, right? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, fixed ;) thanks. Amada44  talk to me 19:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
And again: File:Sanisidronijar.PNG. I can't remember if this is the same one or another one of the ones that were deleted, but I'm sure I've seen it before. Please delete, and I think it's time to block the user now. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a different angle of the same street. Not an exact or scaled-down duplicate. – Adrignola talk 14:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again License problems with images from Wolfgang Pehlemann

See also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_27#License_problems_with_images_from_Wolfgang_Pehlemann.

One administrators decides that such license restrictions are not acceptable, the next administrator says it is a valid CC license. Who will provide a consistent conclusion? How should "the community" decide about the legality of such requirements? Which license additions are valid/legal/accepted, which are invalid/illegal/not acceptable? Does anybody really understand the situation? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As I have told you and Niabot already multiple times, only to mention the latest ones on Jim's talkpage and on my talkpage, bringing up this issue was o.k. IMHO, but filing single DRs is an inappropriate procedure, as we are dealing with 9,000 to 37,000 images, as you well know[40], and because WMF's legal counsel has clearly stated in your first DR[41] that this "problem" and its solution requires a broad community decision. In my very first comment of your now closed 2nd DR I've outlined which (minimum of) questions needs to be addressed in a community polling. I am aware that it is not an quick-and-easy task, but it is neither impossible (as there will be support from others) nor is the impending deletion of thousands of original images just because of allegedly unclear license specifications an easy task. --Túrelio (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
How do you want to get the "broad community decision"? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The question to which extent license tags can be amended by explanations or wishes or additional conditions or something that could possibly be interpreted as such should be discussed at some point where the whole community notices it, i.e. at COM:VP and its corresponding pages in other languages, and as soon as we have some initial consensus, we can focus on possible updates of our policy, i.e. at CT:L. It would be important to focus in these discussions on the general issue, not on particular uploaders or images. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions which require a broad community consensus (slightly modified from this DR):

  • whether these credit-location specifications are seen as a problem needing a solution by the mayority (as the adminship's evaluation differs about that)
  • what kind of wording for credit (location) specification is no longer considered acceptable on Commons; needs to be specified at least for the main languages or for all languages actually used for such specifications on Commons
  • the operating procedure for the eventually resulting deletion action (i.e., checking for community-defined inacceptable credit wordings for the most frequent languages, selection of files, notification of uploaders/authors with a request for change of wording, deadline for feedback, how to handle works of inactive contributors, etc.)
  • what measures have to be taken that every uploader from now on gets informed a priori what kind of credit specification the Commons community holds acceptable or not acceptable.

--Túrelio (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Continued at COM:VP, as suggested by AFBorchert. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Vincent Basciano.jpg

This is a surveillance photograph of an American mafioso. The source is AP, and it states that they received the image from the U.S. Attorney's office. Does "AP File photo" mean that they own the copyright to the photo, which is supposed to be in the public domain? If not, then the speedy deletion tag must be removed. Joyson Noel Holla at me 15:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Should be public domain. See also Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/05#Wire_services_routinely_add_public_domain_images_to_their_libraries. – Adrignola talk 15:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
First, please note that discussions like this belong on Commons:Undeletion requests, not here. They will get wider visibility there.
With that said, I agree with Adrignola. My reading is that this is a photo taken by the government -- FBI or the DOJ -- released, as noted by the U.S. Attorney and then physically distributed by the AP to its members.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, this was listed here before the file was deleted and while it was tagged. I removed the copyright violation tag and then it was added again by the same user and unfortunately the deleting admin did not check the file's history to see if it was controversial. – Adrignola talk 00:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I have opened a checkuser request on the nominator. See this. Joyson Noel Holla at me 05:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The sentence in the deletion summary doesn't seem to make sense. Looks like someone might have slipped on the delete button. --  Docu  at 06:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
This docu comment doesn't make sense (as usual). Jcb (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

File has been restored and added to my watch list. Jcb (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion summary read
"It is an AP photo, only released by the U.S. Attorneys Office,but owned by AP, says AP under photo https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-25-2782988181_x.htm ".
Said webpage reads "This undated surveillance file photo, released by the U.S. Attorneys Office in New York"
Cheers. --  Docu  at 11:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Latorre. jpg

Please delete the second revision of File:Latorre.jpg, uploaded by Leopard123 on top of a completely different photo. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done and file renamed to File:Juan José Latorre.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

File:DGHT Hauptlogo RGB.jpg

Die Datei soll natürlich nicht frei verwendbar sein sondern unter der gleichen Lizenz wie das bisherige Logo im Artikel "DGHT" in Wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Dghtlogo.jpg&filetimestamp=20080822181623 veröffentlicht werden. Leider habe ich nirgends gefunden, wie das geht...

Antvet (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

'Keep' for a DR and that's too without a valid reason..Commons:Deletion requests/File:Varghese Palakkappillil.JPG

Please have a look at this DR, its kept and i re-opened, and admin just deleted the DR without saying any reason (a small note on my talk page). Hope some other admins can detail the keep to me, so that the DR will not be re-opened...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks more like you have some sort of grudge on the uploader than your worry on the copyright. 5 DRs on a single image? Boy, will not allow this image to be kept no matter what, won't ya? --182.71.254.46 04:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
That is not helping at all IP. Anyways, I did close the last 2 DR's (the last one was more of a procedural thing because it was just closed and I saw no new points. Plus, if it is reopened, it should be at a new subpage because the first DR and the previous 2 were over different images with different reasons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Its clear in DR Rational, uploader didn't give a source for the PD (Source is published on 2009) So how PD can be assigned to a drawing created on 2009..??,There is no any grudge on the uploader as the uploader is not providing any PD status sources..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The uploader has clearly mentioned about the original publishing date. It was first published in the Malayalam daily 'Nasrani Deepika' dated 6th October 1929. The fact that this image was later published in a memoir in 2009 does not make the image ineligible for PD --182.71.254.46 08:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
If its published in the said date, provide a link, so that the community can verify that, a scan from the whole news paper is sufficient...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement that the source be online. The Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle talks about the "precautionary principle" when there is significant doubt about the freedom of an image. In this case the image is most probably of the subject when ordained (File:Varghese_Palakkappillil_Tomb.jpg) at the age of about 31, in 1907. This appears to be the only generally used photo of him (including the colour version, which was probably a hand coloured photo, both the b&w and colour images appear to be from the same source image). It is unreasonable to assert that someone who is the subject of a beatification process was not significant enough for this image to have been published during his lifetime, let alone upon his death. Whatever the doubts about the uploaders claims, I can not see significant doubt that this image is in the public domain about 100 years after it was taken. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I too agree that the base photograph was taken before many years, but the drawing available to commons is drawn on 2009 and it is creating its own copyright, as it was not a derivative and as an artistic work,
  1. Or let the uploader provide the original photograph so that we can compare the both.
  2. There is no valid sources provided by the uploader that the uploaded pencil drawing was created before 100 years...
  3. As said by the uploader, that he/she is the relative of the subject why he/she not having the informations about the subject's image.
  4. Another IP is telling that its published (Same drawing)Nasrani Deepika' dated 6th October 1929, From where IP got information..?? If its from the newspaper why its not produced in front of the community--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The uploader asserts iin the DR this is a photo and not a drawing. Although it looks a lot like a drawing, this may be the result of applying simple filters. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
    • It looks like a retouched photograph, indeed. It was quite usual at the time (1920's, 30's) to make that sort of effect on photographs aimed at public distribution, such as postcards or official portraits to be hanged at walls as a memory. In any case, I don't believe the claim that it's a 2009 work, that image seems to be quite widespread in websites dedicated to this person, sort of an iconic image of the father.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It looks like a retouched photograph - From which photograph..??
  1. This image is definitely a pencil drawing, especially the construction of eyes, hair and Ears, even if its a photo in 1929 50% body textures will remain...
  2. If there is any 'simple filters' (Skin softening filter) are applied whole picture will be in blur, but that was not happened here and its a pencil drawing drawn recently with a base 'photograph' of the subject and this image creates its own copyright...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Look here for a different version of this file. I would suggest that the version uploaded in wikipedia is a BW version of an handpainted photograph of the subject which seems to be popular among his followers. The cyan background in the website version possibly is a recent addition, but the priest bust seem to be handpainted, indeed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 03:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
This painting was done over the existing drawing (Done by the uploader), and already uploaded on commons and deleted by Jim...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a retouched photo, anybody who knows photoshop can easly do this type of artwork in photoshop. The original photograph may be an old photo, but it is changed a lot with an image editing software. I am sure that the present artwork is not a pencil drawing, this is a retouched work of a photograph. - Rajesh Odayanchal (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Rajesh Odayanchal was telling I am sure that the present artwork is not a pencil drawing, this is a retouched work of a photograph - Provide the original photograph aka base photograph if there is one...If a Photoshop filter is applied on this, it will be recent as Adobe photoshop was released only on 1990 (with limited capabilities), If the base photograph was digitalized for a 're-touch' still it can be existed, So please provide proof for such sure cases..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo manually retouched with a pencil. This was very common in India at that time (see photos of Gandhi e.g.). The original photo certainly does exist any more. I think that Captain asks undue proof, which is bordering harassment. The uploader has provided a valid source. If Captain does not agree with that, please bring serious arguments that the source is not valid. Yann (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Before it was photoshop now its 'pencil drawing' above the original photo..There is no source available such as Malayalam daily 'Nasrani Deepika' dated 6th October 1929 - if so provide such evidences in front of the community to decide that whether this is a newly re-drawn image or a same image 're-touched'...I have seen that you have changed the image description, but without any valid evidence its doesn't sound good..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Captain, my assessment was based on the observation of the hundreds or thousands of postcards from the 20's and 30's I have here, many displaying an effect very similar to what can be seen in the photo. In some cases you will never say it's an actual photograph, but a painting or drawing, such was the level of retouch. As Yann said, such practice was also very common in portrait photos at the time, and it was not a India only feature. I have many family photos that display that effect, especially from the 30s. Even as late as in the 60s it was occasionally done - My parents engagement portrait, which is from circa 1965, was painted and retouched with a pencil - a bit clumsy, unfortunately, as my mothers dress was blended with my fathers arm creating quite an awkward effect. It was sort of fashionable to do that in "official portraits", so it's no wonder that Varghese Palakkappillil portrait appears that way. In many cases you don't have an "original photograph" to compare, since the work was originally delivered that way by the photographer, he took the picture and retouched it before delivering it to the costumer, and the original remained with him or was simply discarded afterwards. Your request, as has been said, is not a reasonable one. You have been provided with a source - 'Nasrani Deepika' dated 6th October 1929 - which is even more than can be expected for many such cases. In my understanding, you have not made the slightest effort to confirm that source, but rather keep demanding "a link" for the source, as if it could be expected that every Indian newspaper from all times is online. You have not provided any argument that could cast doubt on that source. My opinion, frankly, is that your demands are not reasonable nor inspired by any real doubt on the copyright status of this work.-- Darwin Ahoy! 05:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
This is not a multi layered pencil drawing (Pencil draing above the original photo) or an improvement, If the uploader got this image from a news paper on 1929, provide the scanned copy of that news paper (If he is saying true) or else as per the image source there is no enough evidence available to establish its PD status..and drawn recently (2009)..we are not discussing about the picture drawn styles...necessary evidenc erequired to establish a PD status of this image.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi, could somebody please move Template:Clin to Template:;), and also delete Template:;)/old (sorry I thought I'd be able to move over a simple redirect). The template can then be internationalised properly (e.g. merging Template:Wink). Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 14:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Incidentally, there are some outstanding Category:Commons protected edit requests. Rd232 (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that often the contents of that category vary between requests that require technical expertise to verify that they won't break a template used on thousands of pages to simply proposals for a change with no actual code to changes that need greater consensus. – Adrignola talk 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Tech changes are a problem, yes. The middle one does have the new text, it just requires a little thought to see exactly what old text the new text is to replace (I can specify if you like, but it's really not much thought). As to the last one: I'm a bit surprised that Commons has only one Village Pump. It does seem that discussion of various specific, mundane issues tends to swamp wider discussions about proposals for change, and beyond that there are coordination issues about discussing change (I may of course be missing something). Perhaps at least a subpage /Proposals (with new proposals advertised at the main VP) would help. Rd232 (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Commons should have more than one, yes. In line with either en.wiki or Wikibooks. Then they can stop adding date headings which put an undue weight on hurrying up and finishing the thread as soon as possible. – Adrignola talk 16:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Village pump/Proposals... Worth a go? Rd232 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Discussions can be on any related (proposed) policy talk page. Special:Contributions/BryanBot can then dispatch recent changes on such pages. --Foroa (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Interesting - I've not seen that approach before. You could have a User:BryanBot/DiscussionIndex linking recent changes for up to 25 policy talk pages, yes (BryanBot is limited to 25 pages per index). But that's not a substitute for the freeform discussion you can have on a single page like Commons:Village pump/Proposals. That allows you to discuss new ideas that don't have an appropriate existing talk page, advertise discussions at talk pages which merit wider input, or cover cases where there's no single good place to discuss the topic. Rd232 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-controversial cat move

Folks, I just goofed and created Category:David Alan Green, but the guy's name is actually David Allen Green. Would a kindly passing admin please move the new cat to Category:David Allen Green? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Thank you..--ukexpat (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad import by me

FYI, yesterday I was trying to do a recursive import for someone on IRC and accidentally did a very confusing cross-wiki history merge of several high-profile templates, including Template:Documentation and Template:Citation. I managed to revert my changes but the histories are still a bit of a mess and will probably need revdel'ing by comparison with the histories of the corresponding templates on En. The lesson here is to avoid recursive import, since you don't know in advance if it will affect existing templates or not. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Backlog ping

Category:Commons protected edit requests has a backlog. Any volunteers? — Edokter (talk) — 17:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

On a similar note, so has the requests for AWB permissions at Commons talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage—Optimist on the run (the user formerly known as Tivedshambo) (ask me why) 17:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Fine, fine. Took care of the AWB ones and some of the protected edit requests. – Adrignola talk 18:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.—Optimist on the run (the user formerly known as Tivedshambo) (ask me why) 18:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
There are also unattended requests from up to five days ago on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Daphne Oseña-Paez .jpg

Source is described as "author donation" but there is zero evidence of such donation or the terms on which the image has been "donated". Shouldn't the OTRS/permissions process have been followed here or do we accept this without evidence? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is a case for "no permission". I tried to tag it that way, but was unable to do so since the image seems to be under some kind of cascade protection, though I couldn't understand what is originating it.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've seen what is happening now. The image is in use at "Did you know..." section of the wiki-en main page, that's why it's protected. Possibly it was uploaded with that objective. The picture licensing is messy, with the author stated to be the subject of the photo, which doesn't seem to be much probable. It should follow OTRS, yes.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... probably best thing that can be done is to contact User:Noraft to get details of the image's provenance... Tabercil (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
It's now off the en Main Page and so unprotected. I have tagged it as "no permission" and I see that DarwIn has tagged the other image used in the article. Thanks for the help.--ukexpat (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Meepsheep sock

DoorsMost (talk · contribs) is a sock of a banned user on a vandalism spree: block, deletion and checkuser needed. Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Gmaxwell. – Adrignola talk 03:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, CommonsDelinker

Thanks for whichever administrator is in charge of the CommonsDelinker bot. I tagged two images for the Lawrence (LIRR station) and Halethorpe (MARC station) articles for renaming, and when I tried to replace them with the renamed images, they wouldn't show up. ----DanTD (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Both articles cited above have Commons images that have recent (one April, one last week) renames. Are you sure there is a problem?
If so, a little more information please -- what, exactly is the problem? Are you sure that it isn't a problem with cache, either in your browser or in the WMF server? See Wikipedia:Bypass your cache for details.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I had the same problem regardless of what computer I used. The renamed versions always showed a blank space with red "300px" in their places. Fortunatley, the problems don't exist now. ----DanTD (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! Booboo! Please delete.

Could someone please delete: Image:Please delete this.jpg Submitted in error in a batch by JonRichfield (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done in case you meant File:Please delete this.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Btw, there are a few description pages found with a search on "Please delete this". Apparently people who were trying to make deletion requests but didn't know how. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Lkobi84

Can this user please be checked? Any of the images he uploaded so far is copyrighted acc. to a watermark. -- Ies (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

However, it may be his own watermark. Anyway, I've asked him to re-uplad without watermarks, but with EXIF dara, which are missing in all files. --Túrelio (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:202.89.142.205

Please check activity of User:202.89.142.205. Recently, categories "Yield signs" and "Give Way signs" were merged by Bidgee (on my proposal). 202.89.142.205 made massive moves and restores and split this category into two categories, without a clear logic and without discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth adding short category descriptions to distinguish the various categories similar in scope. --  Docu  at 07:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The IP is used (along with many other IPs) to disrupt Commons, the anon user is User:Rukshanawahab who has used a number of accounts and IPs to by-pass their block. Bidgee (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Several his edits were reasonable, the other seem to be some US x British terminological difference and his preference, not a real distinction. I merged again both category branches. --ŠJů (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily Missing DRs

I think we've known this for some time, but maybe it is time to raise it again.

If you look at the May DRs right now (12:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)):

you will see only those part way through May 25 -- the rest will not show up until some of the earlier ones are closed and archived because there is a limit on the number of transclusions on a page.

This means that once we combine the previous month's logs onto one page, the DRs at the end of the month may go out of sight for weeks. That leaves images in limbo that might have been dealt with relatively quickly.

  • Perhaps we should not do the combining until the total is less than the transclusion limit -- I'm sure one of you knows how many that is?
  • Since we seem to have caught up pretty well[1], perhaps we should combine older DRs into weeks, not months.
  • Or something else, including just doing nothing?

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  1. ↑ Thanks to several of our colleagues (not me) who have worked hard on older DRs, we have a backlog less than two months, down from around a year a while ago.
    • I think the best thing to do is to decrease the backlog. If we succeed to limit the number of open DRs older than 2 weeks to about a few dozens (some DRs just need some more time), the problem will no longer occur. Jcb (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

See en:Wikipedia:Template limits. Within the referenced page, you'll find a summary in the generated HTML code, i.e. the post-expand include size limit was apparently hit: 

 <!-- 
 NewPP limit report
 Preprocessor node count: 6367/1000000
 Post-expand include size: 2047995/2048000 bytes
 Template argument size: 12690/2048000 bytes
 Expensive parser function count: 36/500
 -->

Perhaps it is better to avoid the transclusions of a whole month, either by organizing it by week or by linking the individual days — possibly with a generated summary. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that JcB is one of those mentioned in my footnote above, so I appreciate the comment, but even with his significant effort (leaving aside for the moment our disagreements on some closures), I think it is unrealistic to expect that we are going to get it down much further, particularly since summer is upon us and some of our number will actually want to spend time outside rather than in front of screens. We might even take some pictures! I think AFBorchert's thoughts are more practical.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:J-A-Baczewski 001.JPG

This file here File:J-A-Baczewski 001.JPG was deleted by User:Beria with the short argument "No FOP in Ukraine". I have however as the original uploader not received a notice that the image was under consideration for deletion, nor can I see that there even was a discussion that took place in the first place? I request that the image be restored and a proper deletion request be initiated first. Since I do not remember what the file was, and I do not have it in my archives anymore, I have no way to ascertain if it is in violation of FOP rules in Ukraine or not. Thank you for your help. Gryffindor (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Jerry Dandridge is back

Please check: Special:Contributions/FDTD

Special:Contributions/Moonraker01

--Nobody perfect (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

username Copyleft (talk · contribs)

I just became aware that we have an account with the name "Copyleft". Though the name isn't bad per se, I somewhat doubt that such an account name is wise in an environment where "copyleft" isn't just a string of characters, but has a meaning. It seems the user changed to this account in April 2010 from his earlier account Eurobas (talk · contribs). Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems to me that there are a number of potential usernames that we should not allow. At Commons:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames we set forth some of these, but Copyleft, CC-BY-SA, and other similar names are just as likely to cause confusion.

It also appears that the user has uploaded a number of images that are either copyvio or out-of-scope, such as File:2002-12-12 Trou noir-Black hole.png.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Túrelio that it isn't covered by the proposed policy as it is not "misleading, promotional, offensive, or disruptive". In what circumstances would we reasonably expect confusion? If we stretch policy to include this name, then where would we stop? Treat the user's activities on their merits don't quibble on usernames. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Re-users of his images may confuse the username/author name with the name of the license, which they have to mention per all CC-BY licenses. --Túrelio (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree it makes attribution tricky at best. The username seems selected to make copyright status confusing, if not downright misleading. Powers (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly.
"Photograph by Copyleft CC-BY-SA 3.0" or
"Photograph by Copyleft licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0"
will undoubtedly confuse anyone who sees it.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

O.k., I will ask the user if he's willing to change his username voluntarily. --Túrelio (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Record_Group_233/Petitions_and_Memorials,_compiled_1813_-_1968_(Judiciary)

I would appreciate it if one or more of my colleagues would take a look at this -- warning, it's long.

Briefly, I came across the page while doing New Page Patrol. It seemed far out of scope -- 14 paragraphs of description, rather than the "brief description" mandated by policy. I also wondered why these document files need a gallery, since there is no need to browse through thumbnails to pick a good image -- it seemed to me that the category tree was a far better way to go. Parallel processes didn't seem to make sense here. Rather than delete it, though, I tagged it with {{Delete}} so that all of us could take a look at it, possibly make suggestions, and decide whether the community thinks it's a good way to organize these valuable documents.

The creator, User:Dominic, is not happy with a DR on his work. I'll leave it to his words to describe his unhappiness, but it is profound. I have tried, several times, to tell him that a DR is a discussion, not a condemnation. I have also tried to get him to tell us, on the DR page, why he thinks that galleries with considerable metadata are the best way to organize this material.

Perhaps I should have just marked it as Patrolled and ignored it. I do think, though, that there is an issue here, and where better to get a community opinion on a page than a DR?

I would appreciate it if one or more of you can convince User:Dominic to stop complaining about process and respond to the DR with constructive reasoning why we should keep this gallery and the many similar ones which will probably follow in due course. Dominic is in a position that could be very valuable to Commons and I would hate to lose him over misunderstanding of our ways.

Or, if you think I made a bad choice here, tell me, and I'll happily withdraw the DR. I'm looking for community consensus rather than taking a strong position, although I clearly lean toward this not being the right way to do it. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

User:RattyNana

Hello, I received this message from Dougweller, who I believe, is a sysop in Wiki-en. I don't know what to do with it. Apparently it refers to this file I marked as missing source a while ago, and the user who uploaded it.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

One of several socks. I don't know if it matters here, on en.wiki we'd delete new articles, etc. created by a sock. Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is the sockpuppet investigation. I'll delete now the last remaining file he uploaded, since there's no point in waiting for a source, but I can't make a decision about any eventual block, since I'm new as admin and I'm not used to those cases yet, so I'll leave it to another colleague more seasoned than I am.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Chow,Mr (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) has also been used here to repeatedly upload copyvios. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Both blocked. --Herby talk thyme 10:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm pretty sure he'll be back. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Block Review

Hi all. I recently blocked User:Pauk for repeatedly removing no-source image deletion tags from several different file description pages. For example, on File:Spofford Lake, Chesterfield, NH.jpg, a file which Pauk transferred from en.wikipedia, he claimed that "Reproduced from an original postcard published by the Detroit Photographic Company" was a verifiable source, sufficient for verifying the file's copyright status. By en.wikipedia standards, this file would qualify for deletion as a file without verifiable copyright status and source information. I would assume that the same, if not stricter standard applies on Commons. That said, I would like to request a community review of my block of Pauk. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think there was too little communication between you two. You left him only 1 comment on his talkpage and he did the same. IMHO, Pauk may have erred, but seems to have made his edits in good faith. At least in the single sample that I checked, the no-source-tag removal was accompanied by adding input to source and other entries, which may (or may not) be enough to consider the image as properly sourced. I would recommend to shorten or even lift the block, but to really talk to each other, may be over 1 sample image, so that each of you understands which problems the other sees/has. --Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Pauk also seems to be willing to discuss source verifiability, so the block is moot anyways. I've unblocked him and invited him to discuss source verifiability on my talk page. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I certainly hope we see a marked change in Pauk's behaviour. Edits like these[42][43][44][45] are cause for grave concern when coming from such an active contributor. With so many edits per day and things like that buried between them, it is really, really easy for some really bad stuff to slip through unnoticed. I've initiated deletion requests for each of those, but that only covers edits from the last four days or so, and I might very well have missed others. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I hope to see a change in Fastily behaviour as well. If you place a no source/no permission tag on a picture, and someone contends with this tagging, you can simply place these files for deletion. It's that easy. But no, you need to begin an edit war and then to block your opponent. I'm not happy with some bad tag removals by Pauk cited by LX (while I have to say that many other tag removals seems to be reasonable), but on the other side there is a lot of bad nsd/npd tagging, when completely fine pictures get tagged and deleted without any good reason. Trycatch (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

File:General.png

The original image was replaced with one that has nothing to do with it. Is it possibile to restore things as they were before march 2011? --Valerio79 (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Strange error: [Category:Photos taken with Nikon digital SLR cameras] is not working correctly

Since appr. 2 weeks the amounts of the content are not refreshed:

Refreshing or different browsers or computers does not help.

Please be so kind to inform me here, what the error was; i´m technically interested. Thanks. 77.12.121.93 08:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks, it works. But what was the error? 77.12.121.93 08:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It was probably needed to purge the cache of mediawiki. See en:Wikipedia:Purge Esby (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
So you think the server cached the page over 2 weeks without refresh? 77.12.121.93 08:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I've seen some reports lately that users who are not logged in do not see all the files in some categories, while logged-in users do. Since you are not logged in, you may be affected by this. As I recall, nobody seemed to know why that happens. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Eisstadion Landshut Halle1.jpg

I guess the first version of this image should be hidden because it was uploaded with unknown source after an OTRS-release. Thx. --JuTa (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Done by Jameslwoodward. --Leyo 17:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File move assistance

I have a file that is up for deletion on Commons. I need it moved to WP, but I am topic-banned from doing so myself.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it's a fair use file so an image out of scope here would be out of scope there. Assuming it's a user image there are exceptions for those. I'm not sure what a topic ban has to do with your T-shirt image. – Adrignola talk 19:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It is for a user space bio, so what is the relevance of an out of scope issue. The ban is against en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#2._Topic_ban_of_TonyTheTiger_from_uploading_images_about_himself.2C_broadly_construed. Maybe I should ask a WP-side admin for assistance on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I was avoiding making a blanket statement regarding the still-open deletion request, but personal images used on user pages for users are normally given leeway and seen as in scope. If you can make the argument that this is an important aspect of your user identity the discussion will likely be closed as a keep and there will be no need to upload at Wikipedia to bypass the process. – Adrignola talk 20:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
What he's saying is that if you use the image on your userpage it's fine, just as it's not really useful educationally it should be classified as a user image. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Flickr washing?

Can someone check the deleted images of User:Nt.nt, who was recently blocked for copyright violations, and compare them to the new uploads? It looks like at least one is a reupload with a new name. File:Nay Lin Aung @ Nay Toe.jpg, uploaded to Flickr by snow.pink, may well be an attempt at Flick washing because that is a cropped version of another All righs reserved Flickr image that has an attribution watermark in it. File:Ko NT.jpg was uploaded here by the same editor and is another snow.pink Flickr image and may be the reupload of one of the deleted images. None of the Flick images have any metadata either. Ww2censor (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this was Flickr washing. I added the Flickr account to the list of bad ones and deleted the copyright violations. – Adrignola talk 20:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

megan fox main pic

Can u please change the pic on the megan fox page? it looks like a guy dressing up like megan fox...the pic i would use is below...

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FGNBhvrytdQ/TclC4etWCII/AAAAAAAAAJQ/W7158accHRo/s1600/megan-fox-gross.jpg&imgrefurl=http://hary-fsahion.blogspot.com/2011/05/megan-fox.html&usg=__5EuFtXYDD5zJm9_X6UV-zCdqULM=&h=1103&w=800&sz=125&hl=en&start=51&sig2=JM1VxFZCvARZhJguXnYXeA&zoom=1&tbnid=RM9OiMxxxJEDpM:&tbnh=117&tbnw=85&ei=PdQDTrfDEsfn0QG6gtDwCg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmegan%2Bfox%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D1333%26bih%3D582%26tbs%3Disz:l%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=408&page=3&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:51&tx=50&ty=76&biw=1333&bih=582


thanks,

mike waelder

Hi Mike, you're right, the current pic at the Wikipedia article Megan Fox does look a bit odd. However, we can't use that image as we do not have proof of a free licence. The image could however be replaced by anything from Category:Megan Fox - as the article is semi-protected, you will need to ask on the article's talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverter

User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) uploaded two maps with wrong and disputed name of the state, following original file created by user PANONIAN (talk · contribs). Subject is Nedić's Serbia, where user changed name of Serbia into Government of National Salvation. On talk page, user PANONIAN and i asked about this file, present sources, etc, but user DIREKTOR just repeated that he had sources (none of which we saw) and reverted. Files are:

As user was blocked on en wiki 8 times for edit warring, i am forced to ask for help, as that slow motion edit war may happen here also. Please, all related data can be seen and understood on talk page where we talked, so please, just read that. Its not TLDR. Thanks. --WhiteWriter speaks 16:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The version warring will be over now. In cases like this you should always upload your own derivative under a different name. Wikimedia Commons doesn't choose between the two opposing POVs. It's the responsability of local projects to choose the version they consider most appropriate. Jcb (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
That would be fine that usre DIREKTOR didn't replaced his own version throughout Wikipedias and languages. Should i just follow him, and revert? Interwiki edit warring? --WhiteWriter speaks 17:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
You'd better just notify local communities, so that they can make their own judgement. (All Wikimedia projects have the watchlist-feature.) Commons is not going to judge whos map is worse than the other. Jcb (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks, that is valuable information. All best. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Please bear in mind User_talk:WhiteWriter#Please_do_not_overwrite_files. --  Docu  at 03:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Page with strange bug

Martin H. created this page, but whatever I try to get it deleted, it keeps sending me to es.wikipedia. Jcb (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird -- maybe an Admin from WP:ES can delete it. Or maybe it will take someone who is an Admin both here and there.
I wouldn't be surprised if the same sort of problem happened if a page were created on Commons with the prefix from any of the language Wikis.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)Same happens to me, rather strange. es: seems to be the problem but not sure how it could be fixed. Bidgee (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I will try to find a tech at IRC. Jcb (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)Worked out a work around, by keeping the "&diff=prev&oldid=55869053" and adding "&action=delete" will take you to the delete page, whether it works or not is a whole new kettle of fish. Bidgee (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't work now that it has been deleted, which is a good thing! Bidgee (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I just deleted it using the API [46]. --Catrope (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Jcb (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll link this posting in my question at COM:HD#User talk redirect, its resolved then. --Martin H. (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy.jpg

The file was moved here from en.wiki, however it was a copyvio there. The file was first uploaded under fair-use condition from www.ysr.in (now down) on Oct 13, 2006, was deleted on Nov 27 and then re-uploaded by the same user as "own work", "taken from my digital camera" on Nov 28. The history of the particular image is not available to non-admins so I'm guessing this was inadvertently moved here. Should it be deleted as copyvio? cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably; please nominate it for deletion so we can discuss it. Powers (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Category re-assignment requested

I have mistakenly categorized a series of 126 images, which I uploaded, as Category:Eugenics and they need to be re-categorized as Category:Anthropometry. Could someone kindly correct these with a script? The list of images are HERE. Many thanks in advance.Ineuw talk page on en.ws 17:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Using cat-a-lot seemed quicker. --Foroa (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Foroa. Wow! Many thanks and for pointing out the .js tool required. I am completely deficient with scripts - never having used one. I would like to learn how to use this since there may be others in the PSM galleries to be corrected. Would it be possible to see a copy of this .js how it was used for the requested changes??? Thanks again.Ineuw talk page on en.ws 18:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just tick in /My preferences/Gadgets the Cat-a-lot and Hotcat tools. And read some of the docs. Can save you some time. --Foroa (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate cleanup

Could someone with a delete button please clean up a couple of duplicate templates from here (the correct pages have a space betweeen the date and the language code, i.e. YYY-MM-DD (xx)). Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, I think. Please let me know if that's not right.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

All good, thanks. While I've got your attention though... I've just seen Template:Russian/layout, an unused template created in error ({{Russian}} doesn't even exist). Rd232 (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please advice the licence details of this image..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that all uploads (well, I checked only 2) of User:BrooklynMuseumBot are without a license tag, even though most are (likely) PD. --Túrelio (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The museum tags notes "no known copyright restrictions". --  Docu  at 07:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it also says "While the Brooklyn Museum cannot make an absolute statement on copyright status for legal reasons, it supports and encourages the Wikimedia community in researching and applying the copyright status tag that is most appropriate for their purposes." (bolding is mine) It seems, the latter hasn't been done yet. --Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
It's similar to the much debated status of the images in Category:Files from Flickr's 'The Commons' (finally kept).
BTW there is even Category:Images from Brooklyn Museum Flickr stream. --  Docu  at 10:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Help with Flickr image

Hi, I tried to upload the current (higher resolution) version of File:Meredith Baxter at the AIDS Project Los Angeles (APLA) benefit.jpg over the old, and the bot sent it to File:Meredith Baxter at the AIDS Project Los Angeles (APLA) benefit (1).jpg. Instead of nominating one for deletion or something, is it possible to do a histmerge? I don't know if this is possible with file-moving. Either way, delete or histmerge, could an admin help? Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 08:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If it was just slightly downscaled, you could use {{Duplicate}}, but as the first one
is a cropped version of the second one, just added
|other_versions=<gallery>File:Meredith Baxter at the AIDS Project Los Angeles (APLA) benefit.jpg</gallery>
to the description of File:Meredith Baxter at the AIDS Project Los Angeles (APLA) benefit (1).jpg. --  Docu  at 10:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC) edited
I've added the other versions as mentioned, but seeing as how file moving is now enabled, wouldn't a history merge be the ideal in this situation? The original is not a crop, rather both are scans done by the Flickr user, and the second one is a much better scan. The Flickr user uploaded the second image over the first image (he probably saw WP's crop of his photo and realized it deserved a do-over). So there is no artistic difference between the photos, just a difference in scan quality. Also, I am very curious if history merges of this sort are now possible, as they always have been for articles. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 00:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Transcription of the Carpathian Basin Rovas Inscription of Szarvas.png

Seems to be from here http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n4006.pdf (an en.wiki article has been created with almost all of its text from the same source). The editor has uploaded a number of other files I see, eg File:Genealogy of the Phoenician character Teth from the Rovas Atlas.png which seems to come from another source, http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4080.pdf. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if those files are copyrightable. They are only text, is that text copyrightable on itself? At least in the case of the first one it seems to be a reproduction of very antique inscriptions.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The original is probably long enough to be copyrightable, but it is very PD-old. Translations are derivative works, but ordinarily they also have their own copyright, which we must honor. However, there is also the issue of whether the translation is long enough, and has enough creative work, to make it eligible for copyright. On that issue, I think not. While it takes real work to translate a poem or a novel into another language and make it read well, I think this is just a word for word transcription that has little creativity. So, I think it's OK for Commons.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I note that File:Genealogy of the Phoenician character Teth from the Rovas Atlas.png may not be in the same category - have you looked at it? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I am by no means expert on the subtleties of this area of copyright, but I would be inclined to believe that it does not have a copyright, because it contains only information, and no expression of information. A human genealogy would be in the same category, so I think a language genealogy fits.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

um, I just noted this after creating a more general section below. This concerns a much larger class of images. Note that drawings of archaeological artefacts are not free of copyright. They constitute substantial originality on the part of the draughtsman. I have been annoyed by this often enough in the past, but that's how it is. A drawing is not an "unoriginal reproduction of a 2D work". Of course the original work is long out of copyright, and any donated drawing under the GFDL will be fair game, but you can't just go around and rip off drawings from academic archaeological literature.

A brief transcription and translation is of course fair use if cited verbatim and properly attributed. Just as obviously, such citations belong on Wikipedia, in text form, not on commons in image form. Such stuff should be deleted on grounds of being unencyclopedic with no conceivable use, but I agree that it wouldn't fall under copyvio if properly attributed. Now this is basically ripping off a full page from a published book. If that was fair use, we could just start uploading copyrighted works page-by-page as pngs. --Dbachmann (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Two thoughts. I agree that a drawing of an artifact can have a copyright. It would depend on how slavishly (to use the Bridgeman v Corel word) the drawing followed the original, which would in part depend on how clear the original was. Simply typesetting PD-Old material, as I think we have in the first case, does not attract a copyright.
In the other case, however, there are books that you can copy with impunity. A telephone book is the best example, but I submit that a straight genealogy -- just names and dates of BMD -- or any other plain list of facts, will not have a copyright. Hence my feeling that the genealogy of a Phoenician character will not have a copyright. It is not, therefore, "fair use", which we never claim on Commons, but simple {{PD-ineligible}}.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Rovasscript (talk · contribs)

Perhaps somebody would like to look into the uploads by this user (i.e. all of Category:Rovas Scripts). They are all ripped off scans or pdf snapshots from some published book.

It is in fact possible that Rovasscript is actually the book's author, but he doesn't admit to that. The images uploaded are mostly encyclopedically worthless anyway, being taken from crackpot literature (the same user is throwing a tantrum ovecr this at en-wiki atm), except the drawing of inscriptions, which the recent publication has in turn ripped off earlier publications and the uploader probably wouldn't have the rights to them even if he was the author of the 2011 publication.

Some stuff, like the basic shapes in Category:Rovas letters - Right-to-Left shapes probably is not copyrighteable, but again, this is creating the impression that this is somehow encyclopedic material while it is in reality just some made up nonsense taken from a crypto-nationalist publication of 2011. --Dbachmann (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup after a messed-up filemove

Hello!

I made an error while moving a file (I failed to notice a typo in the filename, making it a nonsense bio-name). This page should contain the bug image, but it's still at File:Pentatomidae rufipes-dkrb.jpg. I guess that there are admin privileges needed to repair my error. Sorry for it. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 18:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, and again my apologies. :-) Grand-Duc (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Anachronism issue

The following person's category Category:Trajko Kitančev is categorized with Category:Men of the Republic of Macedonia, which is actually a huge anachronizm, since the country "Republic of Macedonia" was established (in 2001) more than a century after his death. He was born in 1858 in the Ottoman Empire and died in 1895 in Bulgaria. At that time "Republic of Macedonia" or a predecessor state never existed. Unfortunately 2 users from Republic of Macedonia reverted the change few times, although I've explained very precise why this categorization is wrong. Can you please give your opinion on the issue, in order to avoid future edit-warring on this pretty straightforward case. Regards! --StanProg (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Men of the Republic of Macedonia seems to have a lot of people from 20th and even 19th century. --Túrelio (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, all of them were initially categorized as "Men of Macedonia" (like the region of Macedonia), but later the category was changed to the "Men of the Republic of Macedonia" (the present day country) which spawned the anachronism. --StanProg (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
A typical problem when there is no clear separation from the beginning. We have the problem all the time as most countries are only existing in their current state since 100 to 300 years. Not to worry if the republic covers about the same area as Macedonia then. Otherwise, you have to make separate categories. (such as the Macedonia region)
Concerning Category:Trajko Kitančev, he was seeking the autonomy of Macedonia and southern Thrace, so it is logical that they want them categorised as an actor of Macedonia. That is why we use the wider "xxx of Macedonia" and not "xxx from Macedonia", so we can easily cover such moving or travelling cases. --Foroa (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The republic covers only 38% of the region Macedonia, which is far from "about the same area". "xxx of Macedonia" is acceplable, because it's intitially created for the region. Basically "of the Republic of Macedonia" means "coming from", which implies that such country existed at that time, which became true one century and a half after he was born. On the other hand, we do not have a categorization being born and lived in the Ottoman Empire (the state which existed at that time), which is more correct than making him from a non-existing country. --StanProg (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem comes from the fact that several people of the republic of Macedonia used to claim that they have the exclusive right of the Macedonia name (look in the subcats of Category:Republic of Macedonia and tend to hijack the "xxx in/of Macedonia" categories). I spend already substantial time renaming them. All this struggles create serious mixups, but there is not a lot we can do on to solve that quickly. When the move bot works again, I will try to do again a renaming campaign. What you can do is to setup the needed categories for the Macedonian region, but it needs to be disambiguated such as "history of Macedonia (region)".
Again, there are plenty of regions that existed before the country was created (US, Australia, Belgium, European Community, ...) but they all refer to the scope of the current political world organisation. --Foroa (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please delete

Loaded with an error. JukoFF (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done with the 2nd one. The 1st page didn't even exist. --Túrelio (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
First one also done. (Had to add the full stops to the URL by hand to get to the page.) Jafeluv (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Nazanian (talk · contribs)

Probably all uploads by this user need to be deleted. They all seem to be photoshopped versions (usually contrast plus adding a shadow) of random images pulled off the internet, all fraudulently tagged as "own" (copyrighted by uploader). --Dbachmann (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments please

This seems to go in the direction of a desysop procedure for Abigor, but before somebody may or may not start such a procedure, more opinions by admins are welcome, the discussion lacks participation at the moment. Jcb (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the facts merit closer scrutiny. Without prejudging the results, the desysop procedure is the proper venue for that discussion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, see Commons:Administrators/Requests/Abigor (de-adminship) - Jcb (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Abigor (talk · contribs) has had his adminship removed by a steward after resigning on Meta. ✓ Case closed. Thanks, odder (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File:SF_marriage_license.png

Request - delete all previous versions other than current edit. REASON: Request due to privacy/Identity theft concerns. - Davodd (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the previous versions would distort the file's history, preventing non-admins from seeing who uploaded the initial version. Instead, I've used revision deletion to hide the older revisions' content while preserving the original upload log. A much better way to handle the situation. – Adrignola talk 01:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

CC-BY, but "images cannot be sold"

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steve Montador.jpg is a somewhat special case of a very good-willing (Flickr) photographer with an incomplete understanding of CC-licensing. Any better ideas than mine? --Túrelio (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Just blocked a sock at en.wiki

I've blocked User:'KatCookie' on en.wiki as a sockpuppet of User:AlexBrownGarcia. He's uploaded some images here. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Hold and Wave

I requested a CU of this user on June 14, but no one has performed a CU so far, as i have not discovered any sockpuppets. However, i strongly suspect the user to be a sockpuppet of banned en wikipedia user Mynameisstanley and his alternative account :אֶפְרָתָה. The second account was banned this year, and was suspected of being a sockpuppet of Mynameisstanley, as can be noticed in the latter's sockpuppet investigation page. Both altogether have numerous sockpuppets in Wikipedia. See [this and this. Mynameisstanley was banned in 2008 for his disruptive behavior, and has been returning to Wikipedia under false identities ever since. The characteristics typical of his account is that the account is used almost exclusively for deletion purposes on Italian-American organized crime, and Jewish related articles, as can be ascertained from the contributions. The user has added some gibberish one liner on his user page to make his link appear blue, again typical of the banned user. Being familiar with Mynameisstanley and having reported him to CU numerous times, the similarities of the contributions (almost exclusively editing Jewish and Italian-American organized crime articles) makes it glaringly obvious to me of his identity. The use of this account primarily for deletion of Jewish and Italian-American Mafia images makes it clear to me that it is him. Hold and Wave's earliest edit has been on a deletion request of an Italian-American organized crime image. See this. As such, i request that the user be blocked. Thanks. Joyson Noel Holla at me 13:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Give them a credit for not sticking exclusively to Jewish and Italian-American topics. SPA accounts like H&W or CofH aren't all evil. They are bad because their very existence spawns a disruptive snowball of other SPAs like their "nemesis" user:Island Monkey (see their first edit). There's just too many of them. However, some are necessary to bring fun and thrill to what is, let's face it, a very dull business. NVO (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The account is banned in Wikipedia. As such, it should be banned here as well. The en Wikipedia user Island Monkey is a sockpuppeteer? There is no evidence of that. Joyson Noel Holla at me 17:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Accounts banned in wikipedias can operate here freely; what happened on wikipedia stays on wikipedia. NVO (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that. Provide me a link to any policy which states that. Joyson Noel Holla at me 16:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Written policy or not, that's our practice. We "judge" users mainly by what they are doing here.--Túrelio (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there a written policy or not? If there is, then it must be followed. Joyson Noel Holla at me 17:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
More importantly there is no policy to say that we have to follow Wikipedia - Commons is an independent project. --Herby talk thyme 17:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that! I was assuming that a ban on Wikipedia meant a ban on all Wikimedia projects. Joyson Noel Holla at me 17:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Tutor a user

Please, somebody tutor this user.. he is uploading pd-art as "own" files (copyright violation then), never cathegorizing.. files have already been cancelled for this, but he uploaded again, the same. By the way they are file from wga.hu that we already have.. and he is putting these files in all international wikipedias substituing the previous ones, so as they get cancelled the pages risk to end up without images.. please stop him!! thanks --Sailko (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Stupid bot marks PD-art files as no source, then they are deleted without check... I'm restoring them all, but the damage is already done. The files he's uploading are mostly good quality, sometimes better than we have.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

User:123sarangi

Can someone please take care of this account? Uploading more copyvios than we can manage to set right. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I reported same problem here. mickit 07:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Did I kill Commonsdelinker from overfeed? :\

Hello, I have the horrible suspicion that I may have killed CommonsDelinker from overfeed, after feeding him a lot of renaming requests from the talkpage. It seems to be still working, though the page at Toolserver shows nothing, and no editions in any project in the last hour. Can someone please see if there is something wrong with it? I hope I have not done some disgrace. :\ -- Darwin Ahoy! 08:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely not, as CD has operated[47] my requests wich had been posted after yours. Seems, he likes me ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Ahah - Working again, it seems it was only a temporary indigestion. ;) -- Darwin Ahoy! 08:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Milfordsound.jpg

Here a good picture was overwritten with low quality nonsense. When I tried to revert to the original image it didn't work for some reason. Can someone please fix this problem? Thanks in advance. -- Ies (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably a cache issue. Yann (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the correct image is now up, but the history is still screwed up & misleading, not sure why. - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
It's the cache bug. There are at least 2 threads in the Village Pump and 3 more at the Help Desk about it, besides the Bugzilla request.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Please delete File:Ps 146,8.jpg

After uploading File:Ps 146,8.jpg I noticed that the text and especially the font used is under copyright protection. So the file has to be deleted. Would you please clean it up? Thanks --Arjeh (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Why it is copyrighted? it seems to me it's simple Hebrew typeface and should be ineligible for copyright, also as description suggests, the text is from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia which to my understanding should be in public domain, please correct me if I'm wrong.   ■ MMXX  talk  19:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. The text is originally from SESB (Stuttgarter elektronische Studienbibel, Libronix Corporation). The font is "SBL Hebrew" which is copyrighted by Tiro Typeworks. But after a very close look to the licence agreement I read this: "You may use this font software free of charge for all non-commercial purposes". So we should be allowed to use it here, shouldn't we? Apologizes for my uncertainty --Arjeh (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
A font being copyrighted does not mean that all text written with it is under copyright. The copyright only applies to the font itself. Jafeluv (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. And although the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is not in the public domain, the small text-example should be allowed to be used here, right? --Arjeh (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. I'll find another safe solution. Thank you very much. --Arjeh (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Commons protected edit requests

Category:Commons protected edit requests is backlogged, if anyone has a minute. Rd232 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if, when you made requests like this one, if you distinguished between
  • edits that can be done by most Admins who have good Commons sense,
  • edits that require the ability to read template coding and decide if it's OK,
  • edits that actually require template coding.
Perhaps, radical thought, we need two categories:
which would require a new template {{Editprotected (technical)}}
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. Something like this? See Category:Commons protected edit requests (technical). Rd232 (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
This does leave open what is "technical", but if an admin trying to respond the request considers it technical, they can add the |technical parameter, and thereby shunt the harder requests out of the main category. Rd232 (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Forrest_griffin.jpg

Author is listed as "google images" and the licensing as Copyleft. --76.120.1.206 05:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. It is best to just add {{Copyvio}} in this case. Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Piiuma (talk · contribs)

Please lock user Piiuma for multiple copyvios. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done for a week. Yann (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year 2010 - Assessments-Template

Could an admin please add the parameters 

|comy=1|year=2010|

to the Assessments-Template. (File-Link) Only andmins can do that. Thanks Jahobr (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Done, I think. Regards, --Dferg (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Valternet

Valternet (talk · contribs) made good photo contributions for some years. Then in December of last year, they decided they wanted all of their photos deleted from Wikimedia. As far as I can determine, Valternet has never offered an explanation beyond "I want it deleted!" and variations thereof. That free licenses are not revokable has been explained to them repeatedly by multiple other users and admins in multiple settings. Valternet's actions have been discussed here previously example from January. Since December, Valternet's only activity has been trying to delete their photos, either as a group or individually, plus a series of edits uploading tiny thumbnail images over their photos (many of which were/are in use). Today he again listed a number of his images on Deletion requests; many of them he had listed previously and had been kept. Again, no explanation was offered. After an additional warning which was not heeded, I blocked Valternet for 36 hours. I request feedback from other admins. I suggest that if Valternet resumes this behavior after this short block expires, Valternet be indef blocked. Infrogmation (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I support your block and and a long block or indef if he tries to do this again. It was a lot of damage, indeed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
As an info, he send a OTRS (number 2011062710012379) asking for the deletion of all his files. Béria Lima msg 10:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I hope the deletion is not allowed unless approved by the community, even my files also i listed for deletion but community agree not to delete it and kept..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully any OTRS volunteer will be able to look at the user's history and see that the community does not approve of their attempts to revoke. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, too. I explicitely stated, that aside legal issues there is no way to "revoke" a free license! a×pdeHello! 21:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
He's back and at it again. I'm giving an indef block. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
He blanked the notices, so we can assume he's aware. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Protection of images used on mainpage of en.wiki redux

Hi, can someone please protect File:Gottfried Schloemer.jpg, File:Iglesia Inmaculada Concepcion Ujarras.jpg, and File:Thomaskirche Interior.jpg for 24 hours or so as they will be used on the enwiki main page? Thanks in advance, Casliber (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 00:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I've made some improvements to the image descriptions and categories. It might be worth adding this to your mainpage workflow before protection. --99of9 (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A curious situation

User:Anshuman001 has uploaded a couple of images (licensing is fine) that are only used in a bio article of a young person providing too many personal details (possibly himself). In en.wiki we have WP:CHILD to deal with this and the pages are generally deleted. I'm not sure what Commons policy is in such cases, but is it possible to delete these images as it's either someone repeatedly recreating pages in multiple locations for an underage person or that person himself doing so without realizing the consequences. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, as the images have no problematic details in the description, I don't see a serious risk here. However, they are likely out of COM:SCOPE, if the user doesn't put one of them on his userpage, and may be requested for deletion on that rationale. --Túrelio (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Vultee

Hello,

Vultee tagged his images for speedy deletions, but his images are good quality and used in several projects. I removed his tags, but he reverted me. Since the license is irrevocable, I don't think his images should be deleted. Opinions? Yann (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Files in question: See also User talk:Yann#Images deletion.

This seems to be the reason for that behaviour. Since Commons can't be blamed for undue reuse of the images, his reasoning is invalid and all speedys must be reverted. If he insists in deleting the images, unfortunately a block may be in place to avoid further damage to the project.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Would be nice if several uploaders started to ask removal of their widely used pictures uploaded more than one year ago. --Foroa (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
? Foroa? I don't understand this.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
All I want is to respect my will as the author of these pictures. No matter what the license does say, I am still the only copyright holder and want to have control of my work. Please note, that "attributions" of some files have been changed. File:Joanna_Mucha.jpg was deleted immediately when I asked for it. Vultee (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but it is not realistic that items donated to the public domain are withdrawn. During one year, those images were in the public domain and (virtual) copies are used on many places. One cannot withdrawn the rain or snow that is falling on the land, pictures that are published in the newspaper, money donated to charity, ... --Foroa (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict -- more or less repeating Foroa, but not as poetically). Sorry, but no. When you licensed your images on Commons, you gave up most control over those images. You may still enforce the requirements of the license, but beyond that, you have given up control for all time.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Grzegorz Kornijów, please notice that Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable and you can not stop anyone from using your works after you released them, if you believe the file is not attributed correctly, you can correct that yourself or ask someone to do it for you.   ■ MMXX  talk  12:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Blu ray icon.png

Could somebody please verify it's license? Thanks in advance. Mizunoryu (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

OK for me. The logo is {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant putting a {{LicenseReview}} tag. Creating the disc icon is complicated ya know. So I don't consider it PD. Luck me the guy released it under CC-BY. Mizunoryu (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't know what version of CC-BY the author intended. 1.0 is not forward-compatible, for instance. Powers (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Huumeen käyttö nenään.png

Something weird is going on here. Other opinions wanted. Yann (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by something weird? Jafeluv (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It looks like an edit war in a DR about some junk drawings. Yann (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, now I see -- you mean the closure-unclosure stuff. The nominator tried to close it after one week by counting the percentages (as we do in fi.wiki), but it was reverted and I think they've got the point now. Jafeluv (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_28&oldid=372570693"