Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 40

Ho hum

I know we are not censored but how many images of one guy's penis do we really need? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

About 100...apparently. :) russavia (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And a DR is filed: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hansy2. Trijnstel_talk 20:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please delete duplicate files

I've been cleaning Category:Katowice and it seems that at some point a flickr bot uploaded few duplicate copies of several pictures, spamming the category. This can be easily seen - just check the bottom half of the photos. I don't feel like tagging them with duplicates when an admin can just speedy delete them in half the time it would take me to use the template. I'd appreciate some quick clean up assistance, thanks. Duplicate files start with File:Wzdłuż linii kolejowej Entlang der Bahnlinie Katowice - Bytom - Tarnowskie Góry (10).jpg and continue until the end of the category. Whether somebody should investigate this weird bot malfunction (perhaps it has been already) is another issue (at the very list this bot malfunction has not been fixed). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Should be done now, there were some file upload and storage errors in the process so some images may have to be re-uploaded. --Denniss (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

mistake while file spliting File:Accession.jpeg

I am sorry but i made the mistake of undeleting too many text revisons while spliting File:Accession.jpeg(13:00, January 7, 2013 Morgankevinj (talk | contribs | block) restored page File:Accession.jpeg (3 revisions and 1 file restored: File Spliting) (global usage; delinker log)) and i a result end up attching the wrong revisions to each split after moving that file. I will be more careful in the future. Can someone help me fix this. Thank you, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 18:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge

Hi. Please merge File:Ismail lion 7.png with File:Shiite Calligraphy symbolising Ali as Tiger of God.png. First file has better quality and more usage and second has better name. −ebraminio^talk 19:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done --A.Savin 09:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. A.Savin 09:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Burned israeli flag - 27zapata.jpg

File:Burned israeli flag - 27zapata.jpg has had an edit dispute going on for a long time about its categorisation, and it recently flared up again, re-appearing at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#File:Burned_israeli_flag_-_27zapata.jpg. There is actually quite a lengthy discussion on the file talk page. Would any admin be willing to assess the talkpage for a possible consensus, and/or attempt to move the discussion forward?

There are also wider issues about such contentious categorisation which could potentially be covered in an RFC, about what the purpose of categories is - to what extent is to be descriptive in a verifiable way, and to what extent is it to help people find things they might use to illustrate a topic, even in a way others might disagree with? Rd232 (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Both burning flags (this act of hate (or just dumbness?) does not change anything) and this edit war make no sense. If the war goes on, the file is protected randomly; there will be always people who see it as antisemitism and those who don't (me included, but I come from Europe, more worse from a German speaking country so I don't feel comfortable making any decision here; The individual burning the flag may feel frightened by the state Israel, Israel as a country with nuclear weapons and who may be also influenced by his local media; he perhaps hates Israel but not Judaism; though I have to admit that I never visited Israel nor one of the neighbouring countries nor I am specially educated in this matter).

For Malcolm Schosha, it was important that the Jewish star was burned out, assuming intention and the fact that most of Israel's inhabitants are Jews, he came to the conclusion it was anti-Semitic motivated.

I believe the term antisemitism (which English Wikipedia defines as hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews), its meaning and especially which actions are interpreted as those are influenced by the culture and highly polarized.

This is, I think, the most important fact to understand here, though it's not the solution to the “problem” whether to add the category or not.

But it helps both parties to understand that the other party didn't add or remove the category because they want to provoke or because they are evil but because of the different worldview. Is this worth an edit war? -- Rillke^(q?) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I will cowardly refrain from stepping in (besides, I'm a European admin too). A RFC could be useful on categorisation as well as file descriptions/file names. Off the top of my head I can think of two issues, which aren't Israel-related. I remember a picture representing a man and a woman talking in the street; the file name or description mentioned they were a prostitute and her pimp. My second example is a close-up of a horse during a polo match; someone wanted to add a category related to animal cruelty. While Commons files need not necessarily comply to NPOV, there is a neutrality issue here. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What to do with Category:AAAP ?

What to do with Category:AAAP ? Is it real ? --Foroa (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User:MOTOI Kenkichi (not a newbie) seems to think so. Weird. Notifying user as you forgot. Rd232 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

1. #AAAP Is that "Real"(On wired communications group -> Exsample My work is Awamomo Office Profiles).

In a variety of ways Manner are not a alive Accessibility.Let's talk more.Thank you.Amen.--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I have indicated an intention clearly legal. It is not a concept to compete with the Wikimedia Foundation. We are persecuted in various forms in the battle of similar right up to the present.--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't suppose we can rustle up a Japanese-speaker here? Rd232 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We have various native Japanese admins (such as Chatama, Miya, Whym) and others (admins and non-admins) who speak it as well. :) Trijnstel_talk 19:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Added By Native Japanese talk pages to 2ch's We invite questions to more Discuss.--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

AAAP（アスキーアート保護協会） ７スレ目 inAAサロン(ja)

アスキーアート保護協会7->文字絵友の会 #AAAP 1(ja)

---

So feel free to use for anyone

---

Content that you have created the current situation I have to free.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
I think I have come to persecution or even suicide in money and power, large companies so unreasonable come.
Small author in trouble because there is exploitation, consider a system that can be directly reduced to the owner of the original creators.
Judging from this talk, if "Chiryaku(see ->Machiavellianism)" of Wikipedian, take for granted the obvious, it is possible to normally.
Civil and family all over the world at any rate.
We are just talking about the obvious commonplace rather than win the rights.
That was simple, was not it?--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

---

誰もが気軽に使えるように

---

私の作成したコンテンツは現状フリーにしています。
御理解と御協力をお願いします。 私が思うのは、大企業は金と力で迫害したり、無茶苦茶やってくるので自殺者も出ています。
零細作者は搾取されて困って居ますから、本来の持ち主である作者たちに直接還元出来るシステムを考えましょう。
このトークを見る限り、Wikipedianの知略なら、当たり前を当たり前に、普通にする事は可能です。
Σ/D＜Yapee Google translated is so none!?--MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I made 4chan Lounge.Talk thread.

4chan #AAAP No.1 --MOTOI Kenkichi(基 建吉) (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

AAAP seems a licence created by MOTOI Kenkichi. Category:AAAP is a private category, which may be needed to delete. / どうやらAAAPはMOTOI Kenkichiさんが作ったライセンスのようです。Category:AAAPは個人的なカテゴリですので、削除すべきでしょう。--Ohgi (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Moved by me in order to give better organization. --whym (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment I have a great difficulty in making sense of what he attempts to say, on the category page, on the links he gave, and here, even from his words in his (and my) native language... From what I seem to understand, at Category:AAAP he tried to document a "license" and its aims and background, envisioning a "framework for collecting fees [from re-users?] and distributing them to authors" ("作者たちに直接還元出来るシステム"). (Please don't ask me for details of it, because I couldn't understand)

My suggestion is to move it to his userspace, because it makes sense only to him. It could be deleted per COM:SCOPE, too. The so-called "license" seems to be something he is promoting through his blog [1] [2], his online store [3], and bulletin board threads he started [4] [5] [6]. However, I can see no use cases of it elsewhere. I don't believe we document such exotic "licenses" in our content space anyway. If it is incompatible to COM:L or ambiguous (which is the case I believe), we will certainly be uninterested. Even if it is compatible, having unnecessarily many of them would make Commons less machine-friendly and probably less human-friendly. FWIW, ja:AAAP was deleted with the rationale "non-notable and/or advertisement" years ago. It might be considered again someday when it becomes notable and gets many independent use cases outside his control, but not now. --whym (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment AAAP = Association of Ascii Art Protection / アスキーアート保護協会. The only place on Wikipedia mentioning the association seems to be ja:のまネコ問題, where there are two sentences about it. I followed the links from Commons and later found this, containing rules regulating the association. This does not seem to be a final version of the rules. For example, it says that the association has an office in "xx Ward, Tokyo" (東京都○○区), and a final version would need to contain the name of the ward. The page tells that the association doesn't exist, and in the deletion request on Wikipedia, a user tells that the chairman's blog no longer receives any updates. I'd guess that some guys met on the Internet and that they planned to start an association but in the end never did that.

The category contains a lot of files uploaded by User:MOTOI Kenkichi and User:Gikoneko. The page w:User:Gikoneko says "For other uses, see User:MOTOI Kenkichi" which could mean that both accounts belong to the same person. Also, the page has an interwiki link to ja:利用者:擬古猫 (擬古猫 = Gikoneko), which is blocked with a reference to Wikipedia:Contributor block requests/MOTOI Kenkichi. I can't figure out in what way the files are supposed to be related to AAAP or why they are listed in the category. Many of the images are related to ASCII art, and AAAP is obviously also related to ASCII art, but not all ASCII art is related to AAAP. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment this edit by User:Gikoneko supports the idea that the category is an attempt to create and explain a custom "AAAP" license. So the question then is whether to try and work out a viable {{AAAP}} license template here and now (tricky, since no-one seems to be able to make head or tail of it), or simply to nominate the category for deletion whilst recommending that those interested in AAAP try and develop a license template. User:Whym suggested moving the category to userspace, but given the communication issues, that might not be clear enough - it might carry on being used, which in its current confusing form would not be good. Rd232 (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Kkdu101

IDK what to say about this user. From what I can see, he's mostly interested in some sort of self-promotion and claims to tiles and similar things. This can all be seen exhibited on his talk page and his uploads. It's not really harming Commons, but it's not really in our scope either, so I thought I'd bring it here and let some wiser people make the call on what to do. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I did warn this user for to stop with the spam. Their editions on Commons are very similar with those of the english wikipedia. The next time will be blocked. Thanks for the report, Érico Wouters ^msg 23:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Much of his uploads look like they should go as well. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I have deleted most of his uploads, which were copyvios, nonsense, or both, in addition to being self-promoting. I have tagged several others with {{Delete}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ajout de balise

Bonjour,

Je voudrais savoir s'il serait possible, via un bot d'ajouter le balise Template:Personality rights à l'ensemble des images contenues dans Category:Images by Georges Biard. Certaines photos ont déjà la balise, mais la plupart ne l'ont pas. A une dizaine d'exceptions près, les images contenues dans la catégorie sont toutes des photos de personnes, dont la plupart sont encore vivantes. JJ Georges (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour,

Vous pouvez faire la demande du travail sur la page prévue pour les demandes pour travaux de bots : Commons:Bots/Work requests. Vous pourriez peut-être aussi voir si vous pourriez le faire vous-même à l'aide de l'outil VisualFileChange.js (que je ne connais pas plus que ça, mais qui a priori semble utilisable pour ce genre de travail). -- Asclepias (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Français : J'allais le faire avec VisualFileChange.js avant de me rendre compte que je m’apprêtais à faire 1800 modification à la chaine. Je suggère une requête aux bots (demande si tu as besoin d'une traduction)

English: I was going to do the task with VisualFileChange.js before realizing I was going to perform 1800 changes in few seconds. I suggest a Commons:Bots/Work requests

--PierreSelim (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fait, merci, je n'imaginais pas de demander ça à un être humain. JJ Georges (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

En fait on a des gadgets qui aident :-) --PierreSelim (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Unsigned

Please have a look at the last change to this template and changes to related Templates by this user so nothing is broken as side effect. --Denniss (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted that change. The change to the template forced the template to display in English, which is a bad idea on a multilingual project. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What about the change to Template:UnsignedIP2 ? --Denniss (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the {{UnsignedIP2}} template doesn't have any translations and that it never has had any translations. However, it may be a bad idea to substitute this template (or {{UnsignedIP}}) as this prevents tags from being translated. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Gas the Germans. (talk · contribs)

This user has uploaded an attack picture, File:Mohammed the Muslim pedophile.jpg, as “punishment for Wikimedia Commons' anti-Semitic propaganda such as Category:Carlos Latuff and anti-Semitic administrators such as the German Denniss (talk · contribs)”. He then added it to {{PD-old-100/en}}, {{PD-old-100/layout}}, and {{PD-old-100/lang}}. I have blocked them indefinitely, cleaned the templates, semi-protected them indef, deleted the picture, and protected its filename. I have also semi-protected Denniss' talk page. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Lock requested on Meta and underlying IP blocked - the earlier one was on an open proxy. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh and cleaned Denniss's page too. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Please leave a indef-blocked-message on the user's page. --High Contrast (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done and I've amended the block reason - hope that is ok (basically it is an attack account/inappropriate name/puppet abuse+) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the indef-block template Herby, and for adding a more precise block reason. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the actions, it seems I run into this Troll (or group of Trolls) multiple times per year (having Latuff-related pages on my watchlist). --Denniss (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment The file name suggests that the file might be related to File:Mohammed the Pedophile.jpg, which was uploaded by Kill Nazis (talk · contribs). --Stefan4 (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's the same picture indeed. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 00:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads by Hamid3

Please see Special:Contributions/Hamid3. I think a lot (or maybe all?) of his uploads are either copyvios or questionable uploads. Can someone help? Trijnstel_talk 17:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of them are also here with an earlier upload date and "all rights reserved. For example, File:AZNA - Spring View.jpg is at [7]. However, the user name on Panoramio is the same as the user name on Commons, which could mean that the users are the same. There's not enough evidence that they are the same person (just see yesterday's DMCA takedown), but it may be a reason for using a slower deletion process than a plain {{Copyvio}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeff2580 (talk · contribs)

Not sure if this is the right place. Anyhow: This user has repeatedly uploaded copyright violations (see his talk page for numerous deletion nominations) of nude pictures. He has been warned multiple times, he has been blocked for a week, and yet he continues to upload random nude images. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude girl spreading vagina.JPG for some recent examples. So I'd really like some admin to block this user indefinitely, or at least until he offers a satisfactory explanation about where he gets all those images from. In addition, all of his images need to be deleted, as we obviously cannot trust the licenses these images supposedly have. --Conti|✉ 00:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Screengrabs of porn videos. --Martin H. (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Conti|✉ 10:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

PD-India (continued)

Continued from Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_36#PD-India

There systematic review and deletion was decided. Now, I have been told again that these files are being deleted. Previously I asked to inform related Wikipedia Wikiprojects since thousands and thousands files are involved here, hundreds of Wikipedia featured article, good articles etc will be affected. I don't know about other Wikiprojects but it will be a huge loss for Wikiproject India (and some files be can be saved too by Commons:URAA-restored copyrights which I don't understand very much). If you are really going to delete all these files, I really want to see an option to move selected few hundred (if not thousands) to Wikipedia where we can upload PD-Country images only! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Then deal with it. You have an option to download as many files as you want. (Note that they can not be loaded onto any Wikipedia without justifying why they are fair use. The copyright holders can sue the Wikimedia Foundation.) You don't get to argue against the deletion of this file and talk about "some files be can be saved too by Commons:URAA-restored copyrights"; this is the model of doing it in small chunks so you can analyze the fine details of the copyright restoration.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

As long as they are PD in India now, the files can and will be moved to Wikilivres, a Canadian project unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. So you don't need to fear they'll become lost. However they cannot be used on any WMF project, including Wikipedia, because WMF is based in the US. The only exception would be: 1. you can show it was published before 1941; 2. it was published simultaneously in the US within 30 days without full formalities (no notice or not registered/renewed); 3. you can secure a free license from the author's heirs. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! That's a good point! But, who is going to this work in thousands of these images? Also count the other countries PD Australia, PD Bangladesh PD Pakistan etc etc. Don't ruin us! Or handle this issue with care! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 00:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note: There are numerous images under deletion review for the same reason; PD-India and non-PD-USA. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nargis in Awaara film.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bapu and Baa.jpg and probably more. Could we have a common discussion on this issue at one location? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There is Category:URAA-related deletion requests/pending for this, but it is used for works from all countries, not just for works from India. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There is also Category:Indian law deletion requests. Yann (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Варна от космоса.jpg

Please delete the 2012-03-11 revision of this file. This revision, uploaded by Stanqo (talk · contribs), is a copyright violation from Google Maps, as indicated by the watermarks which are clearly visible all over at full resolution. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 17:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That was quick. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 17:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Rename a File

Could an admin please rename this file: File:European Union Cap Verde Locator.svg? It should be "Cape Verde". Sorry for the typo.--Jack-ONeill55 (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Once you have more of a record of contributions, you may find it useful to have file move rights for yourself. You can request this at Commons:Requests_for_rights#Filemover. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick help and advice!--Jack-ONeill55 (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sergi1982

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I'm a little concerned by Sergi1982 (talk · contribs)'s uploading of album/single covers. Many have been deleted (where s/he has proceeded to simply reupload them and reinsert them into articles again), and others have what I believe to be incorrect licensing. Many of his uploads (for example, this and this) claim that these images are his "own work". I'm not too savvy with Wikipedia's copyright rules, but considering they are album covers, this screams out as being a simple lie. A look at his account shows a talk page littered with notices saying that many of his uploads have been deleted because of incorrect licensing. Am I being too vigilant in this, or should an admin take a closer look at his upload logs? – Richard BB 15:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Warned by EugeneZelenko here. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Can someone go though and delete User talk:Druss123's images? They are all copyright violations (I tagged the first five after searching for them online though image search), but there's quite a few more and I'd rather just leave a message here than search for and then tag the remainder of them. Thanks, Spencer (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Uploads have been deleted and user has been warned. INeverCry 17:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki edit requests

Could a willing admin look at the edit requests here, here and here please - they've been up for over a week. The changes chould be simple and uncontroversial - it's fixing the UK spelling of licence for users with language preference set to en-gb. Thanks.  An optimist on the run! 10:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Techman224^Talk 14:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.   An optimist on the run! 17:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Movebot

Hello, there's an aggregation of catmove commands at the bot page currently, please be sure to get them processed smoothly, so that we can set in motion further-derived functions, or alternatively grant me with the bot operating right as has already been recommended. Orrlingtalk 02:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for creating pages used in Picture of the Year

ResolvedRillke^(q?) 11:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Administrators please help creating the following pages. They are translations in Traditional Chinese used in Picture of the Year. Thanks. -- Kevinhksouth (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2012/Galleries/zh-hant

.... [content was here]

 Done. Thank you very much. Next time you can put the contents on the talk page (Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2012/Galleries/zh-hant) and add {{Edit request}} (without the tl of course so it shows the request). -- Rillke^(q?)

Thank you. I was told to leave a message here following the instruction on the "Unable to proceed" page -- "If you receive this message when you try to edit, create, or move an existing page: Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard.", but I cannot see any instruction about using {{Edit request}}. Administrators here can consider adding this information back on the "Unable to proceed" page. -- Kevinhksouth (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you for the feedback. I will change MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit accordingly. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Policy on alternate account use

Moved from COM:AN/U and split from a discussion about userpage content.

Could someone point me to the governing guideline or policy to define the acceptable scope of legitimate alternative accounts on Commons? I note that many administrators have alternative accounts for various reasons and it would be neat to point everyone in the same direction when it came to questioning legitimacy of alternative accounts, when it is appropriate to out or openly speculate on someone's accounts, and when not. My personal expectation is that no users should ever be outed or have alternative accounts blocked unless they are disruptive to a level where their behaviour is fully and unambiguously covered by the Blocking policy, though I am open to the suggestion that some unwritten norms apply here that I am less aware of. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

One practical matter -- if someone uses two accounts to make similar or mutually-supporting edits to the same page (one account effectively reiterating the edits of the other account), then those accounts must be tied together, or else sock-puppeting will have occurred... AnonMoos (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If the edits are not misleading or disruptive, then even edits to the same page are not against any existing policy and there is no mandate for an administrator to require a user to merge accounts, to out these accounts by assumption or analysis, or to block alternative accounts when there is no obvious or intended disruption. The concepts of Sock-puppeting as used on the English Wikipedia are often used as a rationale for claims of malfeasance and administrator action to enforce "the norms" on Commons, but if administrators think this is a good thing, then Commons needs its own unambiguous policy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Not having a rule allows us to use the common sense, and can be practical some times. One of the things I hate on the huge wikipediae is how everyone wikilawyers about anything. If we need a rule it would be for me No misleading, no disruption then it's fine. I wouldn't want to enforce a no edit on the same page policy because it can be needed, but it's a slippy slope. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather well put by PierreSelim I think. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "no edits to the same page", I said "similar or mutually-supporting edits to the same page (one account effectively reiterating the edits of the other account)"... AnonMoos (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd go a little farther:

• No edits to the same page that a reasonable person might see as misleading or disruptive edits, even if the user did not intend to mislead or disrupt. Minor edits are OK, but both accounts making significant edits to the same page may not be.
• No edits to an image that the other account had uploaded.
• In general, a second account should be used only to further the aims of Commons. Having a second account for anonymity or other good reason is legitimate (within the bounds set forth above), but simply using a second account some of the time should be discouraged.
• If the relationship is declared on both user pages, I'd give the user more scope.

Aside from being misleading, there's another aspect of multiple accounts -- over time, we get to know each other. I can't for a minute claim to know anything like all of out 25,000 editors, but I probably have an impression of 500-1,000 of them. That's useful when I have to assess a user's opinion of an image -- some I follow without question, some I consider, some I ignore. If a user edits with multiple accounts, that knowledge is diluted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC) .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward -- some people have multiple accounts because each account deals with a completely different subject. That's not a problem. AnonMoos (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as I said above, I think it is a problem, albeit not a major one. I think the default should be one person, one account, unless there is a good reason, usually anonymity. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Jim, you believe this, but a mantra of "one person, one account" cannot be a rationale for administrative action under current policy, or established consensus, unless another behavioural policy has been breached in parallel. As for only allowing legitimate alternative accounts in cases of anonymity, I don't believe that would be enforceable as the burden of proof would be too high. I have noticed a recent admins actions openly outing alternative accounts, on the basis of alleged disruptive behaviour, before any potential for concern of anonymity were discussed with the user (particularly where sexual or homoerotic images were part of their uploads). Consequently if we wish to protect users who might claim a need for anonymity, then I believe we need better guidelines for administrators to operate within. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RafikiSykes – Are you talking about RafikiSykes? Here we have multiple accounts performing basically the same types of actions. Why not just use a single account instead? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Fæ is referring to an earlier situation, where the second account was opened for anonymity, but then made a wide variety of edits to images that he had also edited with the first account. I have no problem at all with a second account for anonymity -- I sometimes wish I were anonymous myself -- but if two accounts come to the attention of a checkuser, there must be problematic overlap of some sort, otherwise why would the checkuser see it? That was certainly the case in the situation I (and I think Fæ) have in mind.

Put another way, the reason I don't see the problem that Fæ describes is that if a person uses two different account for different purposes, there is no reason at all why anyone should discover it or even care. We have 25,000 editors in any given month. If Jane Doe edits with both User:Bambi and User:Godzilla, we have no reason to discover it or care unless Bambi meets Godzilla editing the same file. I agree that an editor could edit the same file under different names without it being a problem -- simple housekeeping, for example -- but I think that if a user is going to maintain two or more accounts, they should keep them completely separate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, that is a fair move away from "default should be one person, one account". I think the mellow norm on Commons should be the default of "we don't care" if anyone wants to contribute with different account names, so long as these are not deliberately used disruptively, for example in contravention of an existing block or in a detectable pattern to hound or abuse other contributors with the outcome of making Commons a hostile environment. Commons is a happier place without providing yet another Wikimedia project where those who seem here for the LOLs of obsessive witch-hunting, rather than making a positive content contribution, are given the guns and ammo to shoot the place up. If we accept that some users may have valid reasons for protecting their privacy, then we should see more administrators taking the option of sensitively handling poorly run alternative accounts or sock accounts by email discussion, rather than Commons declaring open season for public outing campaigns and liberally accusing everyone of being a malign sockpuppeteer. --Fæ (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I am always happy to hear from users that they are using alternate accounts by email. I work on the assumption that folk have some level of trust in project CUs and it does mean that someone knows about the accounts in case folk make a hue and cry about people using puppet accounts. It also saves me wondering in case I come across them while checking other issues.

I know a number of people who have multiple accounts on Commons - some of whom probably don't know I know... The only thing that would concern me is "abuse" and I will be the first judge of that. I have mailed people in the past as drama simply isn't my thing. Sometimes that works, sometimes not. If I am not sure I will consult fellow CUs first. Not saying that is perfect but I've not hit any real problems over the years and no one has ever had any confidential information via me other than fellow CUs. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Fæ takes me farther than I went. I think the default should be "one person, one account" unless there is a good reason, usually anonymity, or some special activity such as a bot. People should be discouraged from doing ordinary Commons work from more than one account. But we couldn't enforce that without running a checkuser on 25,000 accounts and flagging the matches (a ridiculous exercise without any rational justification). A second account can remain completely below the radar unless its activities make it a problem. Once it becomes a problem, it can be judged on its merits, but I think that as a general rule, if a second account becomes obvious to any of us, then it probably is headed for a block. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that we need any "no edits on the same page" policy. Of course, multiple accounts shouldn't be used to support your own RFA, but there could be legitimate cases of editing the same page, for example if the edits are in different sections at COM:VP. Some users might wish to use an alternative account for legal reasons. For example, a number of countries do not use the rule of the shorter term, and you might wish to use an alternative account to upload images which are free in the source country and in the United States but not in your own country, so that you can more easily hide from your own country's police. In that case, you might also have to conduct any discussions related to the images using the alternative account. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no problem with anonymity. I also have no problem with different sections on the VP -- it might better be said "no edits to the same discussion or file" rather than page, since that would also allow edits to different DRs that happened to be on the same log page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with PierreSelim's sensible viewpoint above, however as Stefan4 points out here there are some tricky issues with defaulting to quick responses to claims of sockpuppetry. I still believe the principles need to be laid out (pretty much in line with comments here), possibly in an essay rather than policy or fixed guidelines. The key benefit of having an essay is that when an administrator has their actions challenged in outing accounts as socks, or blocking alternative accounts, then they have something to point back to as the 'norm' on Commons. The other side of the coin is the additional benefit for users that find their account blocked, can have a clear reference document to argue their case against if they feel an administrator has overstepped their powers, or unnecessarily assumed bad faith for a users contributions, when the user's aim can be justified as within project scope or they may have other reasons for protecting their identity which may be open or compromised on their main account. In addition to Stefan4's example of copyright law, there may be issues such as the harassment of minority groups (religious beliefs, sexual orientation, political reform groups) in the country of the contributor. I am looking here at a better mellow approach rather than a bureaucratic one. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Unhelpful & off-topic discussion closed. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't you had disclose that fact that you operated multiple accounts when you started this discussion? Without such a disclosure, people might mistakenly believe that you don't have a stake in this matter or that this isn't personal for you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Are you Wikipediocracy guys really unable to give any comment to anything and anywhere without attacking/slandering/whateverunfriendly against Fæ? It's really disgusting. --Túrelio (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC) I'm simply asking for sincerity. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC) And to correct your misleading suggestion: Fæ did NOT start this thread, but instead added a question[8] to an already existing thread (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Appropriate_user_pages), which from its beginning included the question of second/alternate accounts[9], though its topic was userpage content. The current header of the thread, which you have moved to here, was later added by Herby[10]. --Túrelio (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Mistaken is not the same as misleading. Nevertheless, I still believe such a disclosure should've been make when it regards a possible change in or creation of a policy or essay. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC) O.k., if this was really an honest mistake, then I suggest you to undo your thread-move in order not to give the impression that this was an independently started thread by Fae. --Túrelio (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC) I already left a note at the top of the thread. I don't see COM:AN/U as an appropriate forum to discuss changes or additions to policy. I would've moved it to the Village Pump, but Jameslwoodward told me that COM:AN was more appropriate in a previous discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC) For the benefit of open disclosure, I can confirm that Michaeldsuarez created an attack page against me off-wiki which calls me a faggot and a homosexual deviant. An action he has never apologized for. To avoid misleading the community, I believe he should disclose this as a key conflict of interest, every time he attempts to criticise me personally on-wiki, or, as he has done in the past, claims to have to no problem with homosexuality or homosexuals in general. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC) You neglected to disclose the fact that I never called you a "faggot" or a "homosexual deviant". That was someone else's contribution to the page. I explained this to you and ArbCom before. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC) I suggest that Michaeldsuarez's comments about me are removed, collapsed or moved to their own thread as they are off topic and a disruption for this discussion. His personal campaign against me, on and off wiki, has been running for well over a year, a matter that resulted in his block on the English Wikipedia for harassment. Administrators on this project should consider whether he now needs to be advised to avoid all interaction with me on this project or we are in danger of providing a platform for disruption. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC) You asked for a policy on something you engaged in in the past without first disclosing your engagement in it. I was asking for honesty. That's all. I wasn't trying to start an argument about ED. Why shouldn't a trustee of a charity should scrutinized on or off the wiki? It's not a campaign. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Category moves: A friendly request

A lot Wikipedia's link to Commons categories using a template. We have bots running around to add and update these links. Today I added a feature which has been on my wish list for quite some time. The bot will now follow links in the deletion log. So for example I moved Category:American Hotel (Amsterdam). The bot picks this up and updated the link. Could you make sure you include "moved to <some category as a link>" in your deletion summary? That way you'll be sure that any links downstream will get updated. By the way, the deletion link in {{Move}} will do this. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Multichill, this is a great feature! I always left such a link in the deletion logs but never dared to hope that bots might pick that up. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice to know it's appreciated. I'm running a full update at the Dutch Wikipedia right now and getting quite a lot of hits. Might be worth running on some other Wikipedia's too. Multichill (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Great. Please add {{Bad name|good name}} to incorrectly named categories, so the deletion will generate the correct edit summary containing the link. This should help in User_talk:RussBot#What_about_a_nice_little_bot_.3F --Foroa (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It is good to have this bot, but it would be unnecessary if we just used the standard way for redirects, #REDIRECT. See discussion here: Commons:Requests for comment/Hard category redirects REDIRECT. See also: User talk:RussBot#May need bot to empty hard redirects too. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Page creation request

Some blacklist entry prevents me from creating Category:Kilmourne” (ship, 1986).

Please create the category description page with the following content:

{{IMOcat|8509806}}
[[Category:Ships by name]]
[[Category:IMO 8509806]]
[[Category:Ships of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Ships built in 1986]]

Thanks for your help. --  Docu  at 10:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

 Created. Bidgee (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

+1 lock

Hey guyz. It's today Category:Bantu that's been "locked" while habitually violating wiki rules. do fix this promptly as the lock is already used to further vandalize that cat-tree by performing twisting edits and safeguard them outside our reach. Thanx, Orrlingtalk 11:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked Orrling for the very same behaviour that they have been blocked for in the past and wanted to continue to edit war rather than take it to a CfD. Protection will remain, also I'm happy to unblock if Orrling is willing to stop any changes when someone has disputed and start discussing it. We have a mess ATM with Category:Bantu peoples and Category:Bantu people, I dread what would happen if Category:Bantu's recreation is unprotected. Bidgee (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, repaired into the clean state it was before the creative attempt to make a spaghetti out of it. --Foroa (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/01/Category:IMO 6125398

I assume we have an edit-war on our hands. One issue user Windroff tries to win the discussion by reverting User:Docu's edits. What to do? --Stunteltje (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Please respect wikipedia's etiquette and refrain from accusing people of any supposed hidden intentions. The reason of my editions is simple: Discussion over the template text belongs in the template discussion page. Discussion over template deletion belongs in the template deletion discussion page, because both pages discuss different matters over the same issue: a clarification note in the template Category:IMO 6125398 and a deletion request for that template (Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/01/Category:IMO 6125398)

• Instead of starting the template discussion in the template discussion page, User:Docu placed it in the template deletion discussion page, which was not only breaking wikipedia rules but it also made increasingly difficult to follow the deletion arguments exchange) [11]

• I moved the template discussion to its own page [12]

• User:Docu reverted my edit [13] and added two short comments [14]

• I reverted it back, [15] informed User:Docu of my reversion [16] and since it was him who insisted on breaking wikipedia rules on discussion pages I asked him to add his missing arguments instead [17]

• User:Docu reverted my edit, but inexplicably left my answers to his arguments in the template discussion page and didn't copy them to the template deletion page, breaking up the discussion and creating a mess [18] [19]

• I reverted him once again [20], [21] and urged User:Docu to stop his behaviour [22]

So as everyone can see the edition history of both pages is clear about my good faith editions. For the fourth time I repeat my request for User:Docu to add his two missing comments to the relevant discussions without moving the latter across pages. Windroff (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't have the right to change, move or remove anyone's comment other than your own. Windroff has been blocked for a day, if they begin to remove the content again when the block lapses, they will be blocked for a longer period of time. Bidgee (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Page creation request (2)

Some blacklist entry prevents me from creating Category:PH 177 “Aaltje Margriet (ship, 1962). Seems to happen often today.

Please create the category description page with the following content:

[[Category:Ships by name]]
[[Category:Fishing ships of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Fishing vessels by license number]]
[[Category:Ships built in 1962]]

Thanks for your help. --  Docu  at 21:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 21:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfair treatment of a map

I would like to raise concern about a deletion request. A group of editors wants to delete a map. Actually the dispute became a historical debate (Hungarian opinion vs. Romanian opinion) and most of them who want the deletion have "I do not like it" opinion because of historical reasons. This debate is not about the map, because it is properly sourced (academic works). It is very unfair in my opinion. There are lots of map which ones demonstrate opposite opinions and nobody wanted to remove them. Why do we need to hide other options? I would like to ask the admins to raise attention to this matter. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ethnic_map_of_11th_century.jpg Fakirbakir (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You can`t make a controversial map with obscure sources that you yourself did`t checked , add them and claim that this map has sources now. Nobody said "I do not like it", you should put your personal opinions aside and actually read the comments by other users.Iadrian yu (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if it was a fringe theory (but not) I would have a right to design a map about it. There is no valid reason to delete it. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Leolo.jpg

Hello,

Do you think we need to do anything special in this case? It could be a king of message from a desperate boy. Yann (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Before the image was deleted, it was used at en:Léolo. It is a French film. Not sure if this photo came from the movie or not. Techman224^Talk 13:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It is an image often found on websites to illustrate a scene from the film. It may have been a publicity image distributed by the producing/distributing companies for the film. The uploader's only edits on en.wikipedia were to add this image to the article about the film. I don't think there is a message from the uploader other than he wanted to illustrate the article. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Evgeny Ruman.jpg

This file was deleted by user:INeverCry becouse it was missing OTRS permission as of 11 December 2012. I am OTRS volunteer, and we just recieved the permission. I need the administrator to revise the deletion so I can add the permission. Thanks Hanay (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Techman224^Talk 23:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Hanay (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File:HILLA VIDOR by Avital Palci Peleg.jpg

This file was deleted by user:INeverCry becouse it was missing OTRS permission as of 11 December 2012. I am OTRS volunteer, and we just recieved the permission. I need the administrator to revise the deletion so I can add the permission. Thanks Hanay (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. - put a colon at the start of the image link (just before the word "file") - stops it showing the image here once restored.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know, I am sorry that I forgot. There is a problem with the file, I can not see the picture, can you chack it? Thanks Hanay (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I got "Error generating thumbnail - The source file for the specified thumbnail does not exist." when trying to view 80px thumbnail. action=purge did not help, but I got a couple of thumbs to display with manual thumbnail purging. MKFI (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well there is a bug with Photoshop's saving that is being discussed and this could be a file with that issue. Edit: Maybe not! Uploaded with the recommended saving setting but didn't solve it nor has deleting and restoring the image. Tempted to see if renaming fixes it, if not uploading under a different title maybe the only option. Bidgee (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving the file has solved the thumbnail issue! Bidgee (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all. Hanay (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Re-uploads of previously deleted images

User:Tonywelch77 uploaded several images on 18 & 19 December. Two of those were deleted as copyvios and the user asked for undeletion (here and here). Both of those undeletion requests were denied since the images seemed likely to be copyright violations. It appears that some, if not all of the images recently uploaded were also uploaded in 2009 by User:TonyWelch (note this is a different but similarly named account) in 2009 and subsequently deleted (see the deletion request and the related undeletion request). The deletion request ended with the files being deleted as copyright violations. Since these images all appear to depict the same woman, who is identified by some of the file names, I am concerned that this may be an attempt to embarrass the subject. Can someone please delete all of the images uploaded by User:Tonywelch77? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Geniy24 (talk · contribs)'s uploads

This users sole contributions have been uploading screenshots of a copyrighted software. Can an admin please nuke them? Werieth (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Files nuked, user warned. INeverCry 17:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a procedure associated with {{NoFoP-Greece}}?

Hi there. A few days ago, someone nominated one of my pics for deletion, on a no-FOP basis. It looked sound to me, but The DR was immediately closed as kept, without a rationale. The closing admin then applied {{NoFoP-Greece}} to the picture. It is a template basically saying that the image "will be deleted" because it is not free (indeed). Then nothing happened to the file. I don't quite understand the process here. Is there a procedure for dealing with pictures with this tag? If this tag says that the image is not free and should be deleted, why does this template even exists (or why isn't it a speedy deletion tag)? We have DRs, we have other deletion templates. I remember other, probably more useful templates being turned down with, in my opinion, less reasons. --Eusebius (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. (By the way, the same problem with File:Rio-Antirio bridge EDIT.jpg.) It might have been speedy-closed as it is already an old upload and quite in use, or because in the US it is perfectly legal (FOP-exemption for buildings), though it still violates (likely) our own policy (free in the US and country of origin). The whole FOP thing on Commons is quite a mess due to its inconsistent application and the unclear international implications, and became even more complicated by the recent Oldenbourg-case, where an artist ordered the deletion of images of his sculptures that were perfectly legal in their country of origin. Eventually we will need to move all FOP-based image, which are not coverd by US-law, to WikiLivres.ca --Túrelio (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The bridges are not included in architecture in US copyright law, contrary to e.g. French law. We need to check the case of Greek law. Yann (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I wasn't aware that bridges aren't even copyrightable per US law. --Túrelio (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your responses. Of course I care little about an individual picture, it was about the general situation. If I summarize: FOP issues on Commons are rather messy, admins are aware of it, people are trying to build clearer solutions. OK, suits me, I consider my questions answered... Good luck with that! --Eusebius (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This is drifting a bit off-topic for AN, however, I would like to point out Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thermopylae.JPG for those interested in updating the FoP guideline for Greece. I believe that the single paragraph chosen from the copyright act in Greece is an arbitrary over-interpretation when taken in context with other provisions in the same act. In an absence of strong case law, there is nevertheless an opportunity to ensure that Commons does correctly accept photographs of state commissioned works on public display by careful compliance with the full Act, in particular state buildings and other erections. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Mass copvyio

Special:Contributions/I.Blu - copyvios from Solaris Bus & Coach ‎press releases. LeinaD dyskusja 00:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Files nuked, user warned. INeverCry 01:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem with "umlauts"?

I have a problem with File:Schrägluftbild_der_Zeche_Zollverein_(Bild-Nr._551-26).jpg. As suggested by OTRS I removed the copyright note on the photo to the metadata (permission of copyright holder is granted and accepted by OTRS). The problem now is, that there is still the same image (I also tried purge and Ctrl+R in browser). The images

• http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Schr%C3%A4gluftbild_der_Zeche_Zollverein_%28Bild-Nr._551-26%29.jpg
• http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/8b/20130125095626!Schr%C3%A4gluftbild_der_Zeche_Zollverein_%28Bild-Nr._551-26%29.jpg

are exactly the same with the size (altough the description page suggests different file sizes). Can one reproduce the problem. An explanation could be the "Umlauts" ("ä") in the file name. --Katernberger (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Das dürfte ein Cache-Problem (hier auf dem Commons-Server) und in ein paar Tagen erledigt sein. --Túrelio (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Alles klar, danke für die schnelle Rückmeldung. Bisher konnte ich Cache-Probleme immer mit Strg+R oder eben action=purge lösen. Dieses scheint aber hartnäckiger zu sein :) --Katernberger (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

hotcat translation

Hi,I am sysop in fa.wiki.would you please copy MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js/fa to MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js/fa ?, thank youReza1615 (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. It is even shown as your contribution. ;o) Yann (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

thank you please remove my comment at it's below :)Reza1615 (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer Lawrence

This user has uploaded copyrighted pictures of Jennifer Lawrence. I tagged a couple of them but there are some more and I couldn't find a reliable source for them. Could you please check them out? Thank you / P.S. I already notified him about those pictures. ~ KKCO Sol Jaguar | Let's talk 09:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for doing nor commenting nothing. This guy keeps on posting files copied from other sources and marking them as his/her own work. I already tagged all of his files with copyvio and informed him/her about all of them. So far 7 times! Anyway, I'll ~ KKCO Sol Jaguar | Let's talk 20:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Username policy official

Just to let everyone know, I've decided to make the Username policy official, after over 4 years. It has been proposed back in late 2008, with last discussions on the policy made in June 2011 (see talk page). I decided it was uncontroversial to make this policy official for these reasons:

1. It describes current practise.
2. The policy is pretty much final, as the last major edits on the policy were done in 2009.
3. It has pretty much been used de facto for years.

If there's a significant number of people objecting, feel free to revert me. Techman224^Talk 02:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Support As you say, it's what we actually do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 18:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Started a RFC as Rd232 reverted it back to proposed. Techman224^Talk 22:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Photo

Can an administrator please fix this File:Turner hi-res.jpg photo so it can be viewed by Internet Explorer. - Aaaccc (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done, but it may still take some time til correct display, as we have again a server cache problem. --Túrelio (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Collages6.jpg

An OTRS permission was received for this file. Can you Undelet the file? Thanks Hanay (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've restored it. For future restorations of files, please use Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. INeverCry 19:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. As you can see at this page I asked there at 10:20, but Nothing happened. Here after 30 minutes my request was answered. Hanay (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, due to INC's kindness. Taking things out of process is actually a waste of Admin time. Please do not do it again. Since OTRS often requires a week or more, a few hours in getting the file restored is certainly tolerable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, but I do not understand why to undelete pictures that only need to add OTRS permission, often requires a week or more. Can you explain this to me? I am a new OTRS volunteer and I want to understand the system. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe Jim was referring to the amount of time it takes to process OTRS emails/tickets. If you post an undeletion request at COM:UDEL, myself or another admin will usually restore it pretty quickly. I usually do them within a few hours. INeverCry 22:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, Thank you. Hanay (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies to Hanay. I did not realize he or she was an OTRS volunteer -- I assumed that Hanay was more directly related to the image -- the uploader, perhaps. Next time, as I said, it's better to make a request at UnDR or, ask an active Admin directly. Always put the ticket number in your request. And thanks for your work at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Burn the thief

It seems thgis user is running wild: he reverts meaningless and uploads weird new versions. Pls check this.  maxxl2 - talk 09:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I've blocked the user indef for harassment. Feel free to revert this user's edits where appropriate. INeverCry 18:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

All edits reverted. -- maxxl2 - talk 23:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Amber Ann - 2013.jpg

Hi. "File:Amber Ann - 2013.jpg" has been edited to remove a non-free background. Can an administrator please hide or remove the original uploaded image from the file history? Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 18:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Ernust

This fellow just takes jpegs from the web and uploads them as his "{{own}}". Was already caught a few times. Now I found this was lifted from here. I sugges that commons is not going to take this editor's word for anything any more. --Dbachmann (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Two deleted. Please make a deletion request for the rest of his images. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there no administrative process based on user conduct rather than content? If a user is known to contribute in bad faith, It would make much more sense to deal with the user than to spend time following their steps and lovingly submit all their contributions for deletion? I am just saying, I do not have admin buttons here, and I come here to upload images I need for Wikipedia articles; I am not motivated enough to systematically police user contributions. When I come across an obvious problem user, I would just like the ability to point them out to the local admins as a sort of 'civic duty' to commons. --Dbachmann (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If the majority of a user's uploads are copyright violations, we look suspiciously at all his contributions. Apart from that, I don't think we need a specific process. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that even if most or all are copyvio you won't take action against the user? Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Mass copyvio (2)

Hi everyone,

I noticed today the imports of MathisBrook, who downloaded a lot of pictures misnamed, owned by WWE and by now only used for a personal subpage. I don't think there is any free picture in there, so...

Kelam (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Images deleted, user warned. INeverCry 17:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The OTRS team needs help!

OTRS is receiving an increasing number of emails, and we are greatly in need of more volunteers to catch up and help prevent backlog. OTRS volunteers choose how many emails they'd like to answer and have access to a large number of templated replies that can be used or modified to speed up processing. Your private information would not be exposed to the public; replies are issued from a shared Wikimedia email address.

We are looking especially for people who are strong in any or all of the following areas:

1. Familiar with processes on Wikimedia Commons (and other sites) and able to answer routine questions about them
2. Familiar with acceptable licenses for images and text and willing to handle correspondence related to permissions (many routine, but some issues include unclear statements of permission or permissions issued by people who can't be clearly connected to the source);

For more information about volunteering, please see m:OTRS/Recruiting. This is a great chance to be part of the public face of Wikimedia. We can't always help people, but we do our best to leave them impressed with our professionalism and responsiveness. Please consider helping out, and please spread the word to others about the need.

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact the OTRS leadership team members. Thank you! Rjd0060 (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If you guys want Ill do what I can. Ive got a little over 11k contributions globally. Werieth (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool! You will need to apply on Meta at m:OTRS/Volunteering. --Rschen7754 10:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

OTRS

Can an administrator please request an OTRS for File:Gerry.jpg and File:Gerry Rogers copy.jpg, so these photos are not unnecessarily deleted. - Aaaccc (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't have to do with administrators. If a non-free photo found on the internet interests you, if you are motivated, and if, in the case of this particular photo, you believe there's any chance that the photographer and/or the Nl Ndp (depending on who controls the copyright) might consider offering the photo under a free license, you can contact them and ask them, following the instructions at Commons:OTRS. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

categorytree-collapse-bullet: Parse error at position 0 in input

Since one week I get this error every time I open a "+" in the category tree "Chile":

categorytree-collapse-bullet: Parse error at position 0 in input

But not in the Category:Infrastructure in Chile, for example. --Createaccount 10:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly related to bugzilla:44459. — Edokter (talk) — 12:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a account in wikimedia. I think they could need some information about the error, (although someone already reported the same error message). Can some admin report the bug?. --Createaccount 22:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

SNDK

SNDK (talk · contribs) has uploaded a large number of images (old photographs, new photographs from a variety of cameras, paintings by recently deceased painters) and claimed them all as his or her own work. I've deleted a few, and, were it on enwp, I'd delete the lot, but I don't really know what the done thing is on Commons. I've no interest in opening dozens of deletion discussions. Would there be any grave objection to me zapping the lot? J Milburn (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

+1 lock

Guyz. Back in the registered account I now saw that there's still no change with the Category:Bantu 's status as reported here on 20 January (and the topic was somehow nevertheless removed, here). As before, the abusive procedure can be viewed here, as well as here, and is supposed to be tight-attended basing^[1] on some of our past understandings about the harassor. For now, after this while, the repair of this tree is still restricted as the lock is there, what can explain this delay ? Orrlingtalk 22:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Renaming

Moved from Commons:Administrators by Kaganer (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello after renaming is not necessary to redirect (garbage) If possible please give me the opportunity to rename without redirecting (((leave a forwarding))). Sorry I do not speak English. To be sure that you understand me correctly. regards -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Only administrators can suppress redirects. This is specified in the user group rights.
2. Redirects that are offending or highly misleading can be replaced by {{speedydelete|was an offending or highly misleading redirect}} (navigate to the redirect, press edit, replace the contents) -- Rillke^(q?) 15:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all understand. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Admin inactivity

Note that I started with this. Could someone with a bot account please notify the admins on their user talk page and via email as per policy? Trijnstel_talk 23:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Nvm. I did it by hand on their user talk pages -- it still needs to be done for the email notifications though; someone who wants to help me? Trijnstel_talk 23:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Category

Please, delete this category as per the discussion. --glossologist (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

[[23]]

Vandal, I've reverted, can someone deal with the user? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked by A.Savin. --Túrelio (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi. This map was nominated by its author for speedy deletion, and the substantial amount was being contributed was done by its author as well. But other people interfered in process. I demand the admins delete the file according to G7 rule.--Free ottoman (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No, not until a proper explanation for deletion is given. A free license is not revocable so a deletion is hardly possible. --Denniss (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, en:Wikipedia:G7 does not extend to files on Wikimedia Commons, only pages on the English Wikipedia. The relevant policy for this project is Commons:Deletion policy and it would be best to find a reason that fits, such as being unlikely to be useful for an educational purpose, possibly from being factually misleading (if it is). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Remove the animation from POTY central notice

(I originally requested this at m:WM:RFH, but was advised that it would be more appropriate here.) Could someone please remove the animation from the POTY central notice? It's rather distracting, happens every time the banner is loaded, and doesn't really improve things in any way, as the large banner is attention-grabbing enough without the animation. A possibly related issue is that the banner affects the hinting of text in Safari (likely a browser glitch), as shown in the screenshot. The issue is specific to the POTY banner and doesn't happen with the Wikimania scholarship banner, etc. (The example on the left shows what text looks like when the banner is present. Notice how characters look thinner and more jagged.) wctaiwan (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

First, you have to find more supporters for this proposal or even better a meta-admin and then, request it at meta. Or perhaps you find a solution with Mono and Thehelpfulone (they are responsible for our CentralNotice advertising). I've blocked all banners (|http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:BannerRandom and http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BannerController&cache=/cn.js&* in adblockplus) because I found them distracting even when not animated.

I can't say anything about the font-hinting issue. -- Rillke^(q?) 13:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I had originally requested on meta, but came here (after asking for an appropriate place to raise this on IRC and being advised to come here) since I thought it might be something meta admins are unwilling to act on unilaterally. To keep things simple, I think I'll follow your advice and ask Mono and Thehelpfulone for help, if they're the ones who created the banner. Thanks again. wctaiwan (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Noting that the animation has been removed by Mono. wctaiwan (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

User replacing FP with inferior version

See File:Marrus orthocanna.jpg. Citron has twice uploaded an inferior, different image (cropped, ostensibly bigger but insanely noisy) over a version chosen by FPC. I've told the user at his talkpage on the English Wikipedia here, but Citron does not seem to be listening.Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems that you're right. Scaling the new version down to the same size as the previous one provides hardly more detail. --A.Savin 12:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Even if it were of better quality, the guideline on overwriting existing files specifically exempts featured pictures from any edits, even minor ones. I'm worried this may become a habit if we don't nip it in the budCrisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

thank you Crisco to carry as much interest in my image. Yes, its a HD version from this poster, but the image keep the same. It's not "completely different".--Citron (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Who changed the title? This is not better than the original. It's unsharp and noisy, likely upscaled by whomever made the poster. Colours are different too. If you consider it better, upload it separately and nominate it for FP. We'll see who agrees with you.Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Pd-ItalyGov

I wonder if I can add the tag {{PD-ItalyGov}}, which in a nutshell put in PD (Public Domain) texts of laws, constitution, judgments and any other official document of the Italian government. Currently it no exist. The law article in English §5, in French §5 or in Italian §5.

This file shows or is part of a text of official act published and distributed by the Italian State or Italian public administration. According to Italian copyright law, this work is in the public domain in Italy unless the copyright has been reserved explicitly. §5 of Italian copyright law specifies that no copyright exists in such material: "The provisions of this Law shall not apply to the texts of official acts of the State or of public administrations, whether Italian or foreign."

Thanks --Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Bug: File description lost after move

I moved File:R0010016.JPG to File:Seewasserwerk Hasenberg R0010016.jpg, but something went wrong. There's no file description, but a redirect from the new name to itself now.
A minute later I moved another file (File:R0010024.JPG to File:Gipfelpark Karlshöhe R0010024.jpg) and eveything is as expected. So I don't know what happened in the first case and I'm not able to fix the problem. Please help. Holger1959 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The same happened again (File:R0010040.JPG > File:Villa Gemmingen R0010040.jpg) but I was able to restore the description because I kept the old file open in another tab in edit mode. Holger1959 (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

And a third case: File:R0010077.JPG > File:Lindengrün in Stuttgart R0010077.jpg (description restored manually).

Is this maybe related to https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40927 ? Can someone talk to the developers there? Holger1959 (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

All three failed moves have one commons issue, one move entry in the history for the source page but two move entries on the target page. The move order did not move the original description page but the new description page after file deletion. --Denniss (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. What should we do now to get back the missing description and license of File:Seewasserwerk Hasenberg R0010016.jpg? Holger1959 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible CR violation

Hi. Recently in es:WP received a report by this user of Panoramio, saying these two are his own work, not CC licence and not uploaded by him. Please check. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Files deleted, and uploader blocked for impersonation. russavia (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible file move corruption

I was fixing double redirects on files, then I realized that the redirects created were then moved to the location where the files was moved, leaving a redirect on the files that exist. However, in the process all of the information on the file got lost. Affected files:

1. File:Акты, относящиеся к истории Южной и Западной России. Том 4.djvu
2. File:Topaze, cleavelandite.jpg (Note that I moved this file to get rid of the space at the end.)
3. File:Thomasville Municipal Building (North corner).jpg
4. File:Seewasserwerk Hasenberg R0010016.jpg
5. File:Plan détaillé Fort de Bron.jpg
6. File:Photograph of a group of unidentified dignitaries in the doorway of the Lincoln Museum at Ford's Theater in... - NARA - 199494.tiff (This was the file that tipped me off, look at the upload description.)

Other files in Special:DoubleRedirects are probably affected too. Any advice? Techman224^Talk 00:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I tried searching using Special:Undelete, and can't find anything. Looks like this is a bug. Techman224^Talk 00:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Bug filed. Techman224^Talk 00:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

See also Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Bug:_File_description_lost_after_move from above for exact the same issue. --Denniss (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Unwanted Encoding

I recently uploaded this files:
File:Rainbow In Santiago, Chile on 2011-10-07 - 01.webm
File:Rainbow In Santiago, Chile on 2011-10-07 - 02.webm
File:RAINBOW IN SANTIAGO 01.webm
File:RAINBOW IN SANTIAGO 02.webm

In my computer there where saved as .JPG, and that's how they where uploaded, but, for a reason I do not know (or understand), they were "enconded" by the upload Wizard page, and turned into 0 second videos, can someone check on this issue, help me, and erase this files please?! To try to actually upload the real pictures?

Thanks in advance!--3BRBS (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If you upload the real pictures successfully (as you did), they will have a different extension (.jpeg or .jpg), so there is no need to delete these first. --AVRS (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you’ve chosen the wrong extension somewhere? If you find that the reason is at Commons, please report it at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org --AVRS (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I had exactly the same problem with File:Groupe des hommes de la congregation de Ville-Marie de Montreal (HS85-10-12897) detail.webm. I guarantee my upload was a jpg file, correctly saved. I attempted re-naming but the system automatically and incorrectly changed the new name to a webm extension. Raised earlier today at Commons:Village pump#Odd file type 'correction'. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Izhar Ben Nahum in 2009.jpg

Hi. Please delete the first version of the file; the author agrees to release only the current (lower DPIed) version. Thank you, Aviados (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Vielen Dank. Aviados (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Grant DeVolson Wood - American Gothic.jpg

This file is currently protected so that I can't edit it. Considering that it's in POTY, it will probably be protected for some time. As the file page is out of date, would an administrator please replace enwiki=1|enwiki-nom=American Gothic with enwiki=2|enwiki-nom=delist/American Gothic, as the file is no longer a featured picture on the English Wikipedia. Thank you! Julia\^talk 14:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Harry! Julia\^talk 19:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

File renaming

I erred in uploading certain files. So would you please:

1. Delete the existing File:TH Wikibooks - Agency without specific authorisation.pdf;
2. Rename "File:Awsa.pdf" to "File:TH Wikibooks - Agency without specific authorisation.pdf"; and
3. Rename "File:TH Wikibooks • Redemption.pdf" to "File:TH Wikibooks - Redemption.pdf"?

Thank you so much and sorry for inconvenience.

--Aristitleism (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Dschwen (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, could you please check. I might have screwed this one up. I don't remember if I moved and deleted in the correct order :-(. --Dschwen (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you once again. There's nothing wrong with the moved files. --Aristitleism (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for rename

Hello... I accidentally pressed the "copy information" to all media button and the wrong title was published for this photo.

Plagia 03

. Please rename to "Neohori". Thanks!--Mixalispapadatos (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please use RenameLink or {{Rename}}. Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Trying to vote in POTY

The POTY contest says I'm eligible to vote, but the vote icons are grayed out. I've spent an hour following page after page of help and suggestions. I'm eligible to vote both in en.wikipedia and in commons as User:Elf but still they're grayed out. As a last resort, this page says to just add my name to the end of this page (the one I want to vote for), but it requires an admin to do that. I'm admin on en.wikipedia, but not on commons. Can someone please add #[[User:Elf|Elf]] for me? Thanks. Elf (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Round one is over so you can't vote at Commons:Picture of the Year/2012/R1/Fleur de givre L.jpg but at Commons:Picture of the Year/2012/Finalists/Fleur de givre L.jpg. Clicking MyPOTY also told you Round 2 is running. You are on a gallery made for round 1. The full gallery of finalists is at Commons:Picture of the Year/2012/Finalists. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Translations for Farsi interface

Hi, please move these pages to mediawiki name space

• MediaWiki talk:Gadget-section-Navigation/fa
• MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js/fa
• MediaWiki talk:Gadget-section-AuthorizedUsers/fa
• MediaWiki talk:Gadget-section-LanguageSupport/fa
• MediaWiki talk:Gadget-section-Geocoding/fa
• MediaWiki talk:Gadget-section-Categories/fa
• MediaWiki talk:Gadget-section-Maintenance/fa
• MediaWiki talk:Gadget-section-Other/fa
• MediaWiki talk:Gadget-section-FilesCategories/fa
• MediaWiki talk:Gadget-section-Editing/fa
• MediaWiki talk:Gadget-section-Interface/fa

thank you for your time Reza1615 (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Done thanks for the help.  ■ MMXX ^talk 18:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Malformed DR cleanup question

Stefan4 noticed a bunch of untranscluded Deletion Requests today, which he transcluded onto the deletion log. A bunch of these were malformed or incomplete at creation time. I just wanted to know if fixing them like this is desirable/helpful? Thanks Storkk (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Answered on User talk:Stefan4 - left a message here because of the note on top of his talk page saying he might be busy. Thanks! Storkk (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Info about a file

Hi, Could a sysop please have a quick look at the deleted file File:24 horas.png and tell me what its licensing was? Thanks in advance. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

{{GFDL-self}}. INeverCry 19:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Problematic closure of deletion request after one day

I think the closure of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Windows_logo_and_watermark_-_1985.svg after a single day was problematic. I have now put in a request to move the file to a less misleading title in case the file is kept but I thought an admin was supposed to only do speedy closes this fast and otherwise it should have been kept open for a week. Dmcq (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see any reason to delete that file. But the closing editor is not an admin, so yes, you are in theory right. I don't think it will chnage the decision about the DR through. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So you see no problem with misleading and wrong pictures and ones besides that use companies trademarks on things they never approved? Dmcq (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the deletion was opposed I proposed itshould be renamed to 'Fantasy Micorosoft Windows logo' but instead it was rename to File:Proposed_but_Unused_Logo_of_Microsoft_Windows_1.0.svg and immediatly went around changing all the references so the pages still pointed to this fake logo! It was never proposed so why rename it and why stick it into articles as if it was an official logo? This is justt daft. Dmcq (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

I must say I do not approve the recent edits to the image. The burden of source is with the person who proposes the change. These editors claim the logo to be fake (and later relax their claim to "unused", "reimagined", "fantasy", etc.) without proving it while a direct statement from Microsoft puts that it is genuine. I do not quite follow.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

seems an easy thing to do to re-open the request and show more of the same reasoning as to why it was closed in the first place. Looks like a keep that would stay a keep, if one day is a problem, then just leave it open for a bit, can't hurt. Penyulap ☏ 01:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Penyulap.

Judging by the circumstances, it seems unwise to do so. Commons policy does not sanction a deletion or even a deletion discussion if all the image needs is to change its description page. Meanwhile, Dmcq seems have put up a series of efforts to abolish or isolate this image that are contradictory. For instance, while he has called the image fake, in another effort, he has resorted to using Trademark laws to prove this image is non-free, which would only be appropriate if the image was genuine.

In my humble opinion, the solution for Dmcq is to come clean, state his true concern in the image talk page and if necessary, provide proof. It is only then that we can both provide assistance and stay true to the goal and purpose of the project.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa ([[User talk:|talk]]) 02:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Come clean? I have been quite clear about this. You removed the request to delete within a day without waiting for other opinion. You did not check on the evidence in any sensible way that I can see. Do you really think Microsoft could have had a Windows logo and yet for no-one to have any images of it? What do you think a logo is - something people hide? Apply just a tiny modicum of common sense instead of starting to accuse me of bad faith.

I have now searched around and the earliest I can find this 'logo' being used is September 7 2010 in Logopedia, just before the 25th anniversary of Windows. It was then popularized as far as I can see by articles like [24]. Dmcq (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any policy page that suggests a discussion quickly closed can't be reopened if someone wants to add something ? It makes sense to close regardless if a LOT of people have been chatting for a week solid and the conversation is never-ending and not progressing , closing it then makes sense. I can't see the problem here, I suggest re-open the discussion, a few people will add a few more comments, no meteorites will destroy the Earth, the stockmarket won't collapse, a week later it will be closed just the same and everyone will be happy, because that whole 'shut up' feeling will disappear. Plus, added bonus, it won't be here on AN. Closing discussions early to stifle discussion is actually a problem. Closing early is for situations where it is clear all are in agreement, not because someone feels they have a crystal ball. The result will be the same, but getting there the right way is more important than exactly what in this case ? What is there to lose in re-opening exactly ? Penyulap ☏ 15:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been protected due to edit warring and therefore a deletion request can't be put on it. I had requested a move to a name that reflected its status better as I thought that might be more acceptable to people on Commons since they seemed to have a problem deleting it. Someone moved it to a different name from what I suggested, and then Codename Lisa reversed the changes and requested protection. Dmcq (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway why are you so sure that there's no problem with the logo and that it actually was used by Microsoft in 1985 rather than being somebody on the internet's idea dreamt up in 2010? Dmcq (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Me ? I was thinking that the logo would look better in a phosphorous green, but I don't care about MS, I'd go so far to say that 'fantasy' is not as good in a title as 'artists impression'. Beyond that, if there is edit warring going on you'd need a discussion on the talkpage of the file that has a clear direction, then, supposedly an admin will do what admins are supposed to do in a perfect world. I have no idea if that works on commons, maybe it seems to, but you need a discussion with some agreement on the file talkpage. Penyulap ☏ 16:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the current decision of INeverCry on the image is wise. Even when I moved it to a diff. name based on Dmcq's request, I did not adhere to the suggestion of "fantasy". One thing, Dmcq, we often feel we're right when we're not. More so when our say appears a voice in bewilderment. So plz close the issue as it is now. I guess you're one of our valued contributors and I'll be glad if I can be of some help in your future constructive efforts on Commons. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC).

Btw folks, you can keenly observe this blog, if time permits: http://blogs.windows.com/members/sam-moreau/ Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC).

That's not me, I didn't know about it. I sent another one to him pointing out the earliest version I could find of it in 2010 at [25] and a discussion on the English Wikipedia with Codename Lisa and asking if he could please check if it had actually been used by Microsoft or whether it was just some mistake. Hopefully if they do respond this whole business can be cleaned up properly one way or the other but if they don't it seems to me to be policy versus common sense. Dmcq (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I can find 2009, but the number of instances across the Internet, which is nothing at all before this century shows Dmcq is correct and it is probably an unintentional hoax image. I suggest the discussion here is turminated and moved to the file talkpage, the name will need the 1985 taken out that is for sure. Penyulap ☏ 18:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You found one from 2009? could you say where please. Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I mention it here....

Discussion continues at File talk:Windows logo and watermark - 1985.svg

Penyulap ☏ 22:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I would have liked some sort of direction to Codename Lisa to not close discussions prematurely or call people trolls without proper check. However it seems most people here are happy with that sort of behaviour. I guess I'll just have to remind myself to have as little to do with this project and its people as reasonably possible in future. Dmcq (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate? PD or CC-by-SA? Two images or three?

Resolved

The almost exact same file has been uploaded twice:

File:Eva peron tomb recoleta.jpg:

• originally uploaded to en.wiki in March 2008; date taken July 1993; PD license
• transferred to Commons July 2010
• overwritten on 15 Sept 2012 18:11 with a different file by HerFariasP (talk · contribs)

File:Evita 60 Aniversario.jpg:

• uploaded to Commons 15 Sept 2012 18:18 by HerFariasP; date taken July 2012; CC-by-SA 3.0 license

The current versions of these two files are the almost-the-same parts; aside from a slight tilt change and brightness increase they are the same photo (and the one that was used to overwrite is better, imo). The 2012 version was uploaded to the PD license before being uploaded separately as a CC-by-SA 3.0 license, though. While he overwrite was probably in error and the original 1993 PD file should be restored, I do not know if the license for the 2012 file should be changed since it was originally uploaded/published to a PD license? Should the better image get its own file (and what license would it have?) or should it overwrite the CC-by-SA one? 71.234.215.133 22:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look at that uploader's log, you see that he can't really be trusted about licensing. Your first step should be to do an image search on the web with that photo and try to find if those uploads were legitimate or if the photo comes from a different author. If you conclude that the uploads are legitimate, then the overwriting should probably considered a mistake and it can be assumed that the intention for licensing is expressed in the separate upload. But do the first step first, as it may make the second step moot. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, whoever fixed the file. 71.234.215.133 01:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Problems with Ip 187.113.119.239

Hello, ip 187.113.119.239 (talk · contribs) edited several picture pages in a inappropriate way yesterday. In File:Pollo show.jpg, s/he stated the photo was reviewed in Flickr by a non-existent user, changing the warning that informed there was an error in Flickr review by bot. In File:Pollo vim pra dominar o mundo.jpg, s/he removed a deletion nomination, and changed the flickr-reviewer to a non-existent user. In File:Fredy-7.jpg, s/he removed copyvio warning, but confirms the picture was taken from a copyrighted source. Also, here, s/he stated photo was reviewed at Flickr by a non-trusted user, Abaporojucaiba (talk · contribs). S/he only edits files uploaded by Abaporojucaiba, which indicates there is probably some relationship. Ednei amaral (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked, deleted one file. Yann (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Files recreated outside of process?

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by KostastozisT was just closed at 00:32 today (with KostastozisT (talk · contribs) choosing not to participate), after which he uploaded eight more files. I don't remember what the deleted ones look like, but I suspect some of the newly uploaded ones might be identical to the previously deleted ones. Is that the case? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep... Deleted 5, couldn't find the remaining 3 though... Rehman 11:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm guessing today's uploads are more recreated deletions, yeah? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Are any of the images he's uploading actually in-scope for Commons? The ones which are currently there look like a photo of himself, some artwork he's created, and song lyrics. Is any of this stuff of use here? If not perhaps he could be pointed to deviantART or some similar site. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt any of it is in scope. It seems he's already aware of quite a few sites that accept personal photo albums,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32] so I doubt he needs our help with that, and given that his entire vocabulary seems to consist of his own name, communication might be a bit of a problem anyway. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes—I found some of those as well a few hours after my last post. It looks like he's here (and everywhere else) primarily to promote his own creative works, or at least to host them for some promotional purpose unrelated to general education. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

somebody who knows Nepalese could check File:Parda Samaya ra Manchheharu Book Cover.jpg

Could somebody who knows Nepalese please check File:Parda Samaya ra Manchheharu Book Cover.jpg and whether the shown book is really in the public domain. I have my doubts. Apart from this, the author needs to change the license. --ALE! ¿…? 09:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is under CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0, as mentioned in the description and the source page: not good. Yann (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've opened a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parda Samaya ra Manchheharu Book Cover.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-all

Had been changed from a redirect (target Template:Cc-by-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 to a separate version, stating license as the old version + any later CC version. I suggest we either immediately change all usage to the old template and keep the new version (and do the same for the -sa variant) or change it back to redirect. The current situation may cause some licensing trouble unless CC explicitely permits the license version upgrade. Thoughts? --Denniss (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(Related discussions : Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/09#CC-by-sa-all_problem and Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/01#Template:Cc-by-sa-all) -- Asclepias (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

User_problems#Fry1989

Could someone have a look at this please? Thanks. Rehman 13:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Don't tell Fry, we're planning a surprise. Penyulap ☏ 13:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Vector version available: Ambox_move.png

Please, place {{Vector version available|Ambox_move.svg}} on this page: File:Ambox move.png -- UniCollab (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Done; I also unprotected the file description page to let other users edit it without the need of requesting admin assistance. odder (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please restore the full protection or at least semi-protection for this high use image, this is no file an IP or new user should edit in. As it's in use by move/merge templates in multiple Wikis I'd favor full protection over semi. --Denniss (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

How important is consistency?

The bot User:SieBot recently edited some files on my watchlist, changing Category:Citadelle de Québec to Category:Citadelle of Quebec ([33] [34])

This bot edit concerned me for several reasons, first the bot didn't leave an edit summary that explained the reasoning behind the edit, or the policy or discussion that authorized it to make the edits. Shouldn't all edit summaries, including those left by bots, at least start to explain why the edit was done? I tried contacting the bot owner -- no response so far.

Second, maybe the bot owner thought that replacing a category with a non-English name with one in English was authorized? Is this actually authorized? If that is what they thought they were doing I think they failed, as I think the English translation of Category:Citadelle de Québec would be Category:Citadel of Quebec or, more likely, Category:Fortress of Quebec. Category:Citadelle of Quebec -- the replacement category name the bot used -- is neither French or English.

Back in 2011 I initiated Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Boatlifts in Henrichenburg, Germany. I'd uploaded some images of the engines known as boat lifts in the United Kingdom, and categorized them as boat lifts. Apparently the engines called boat lifts in the United Kingdom, are called Schiffshebewerk in Germany. The consensus in that discussion was that the German sub-categories for the engines in Germany should retain the German name. Well, to be consistent with that decision, infrastructure in Francophone Quebec should continue to be named in French.

I can abide by either convention -- but I would really like to see consistency here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Category:Citadelle de Québec was deleted. Administrators routinely delete empty categories -- even in instances where the empty category had been in long-term use, and was emptied unilaterally, without discussion, possibly for really bad reasons. It is a regretable inherent weakness of how categories are implemented. Categories revision histories record when their descriptive text is changed, and the parent categories they are included in are changed. Their terrible weakness is that there is no good way to determine which elements had bee a member of any given category. Geo Swan (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The general problem of Admins changing cats and then deleting the old one is real -- we can only hope that the vast majority of the time it is done intelligently.

As for the Quebec case, Commons policy is that categories are in English, see, for example, Category:Munich or Category:Rome. The WP:EN article is Citadelle of Quebec but "citadel" is a perfectly good English word, while "citadelle" is not, so it would be better to use Category:Citadel of Quebec notwithstanding the WP:EN choice.

And, yes, the bot should leave an edit summary.

As for your German boat lift, I think it is a "canal lock" in both British and American English. This is a boat lift, one of several ways of accomplishing the task of getting a vessel out of the water for service or repairs. A canal lock is one of several ways of raising or lowering a vessel as it travels through a canal that is not level. In a few canals the same task is accomplished by a lift lock, see Category:Lift locks in Canada. Since Category:Schiffshebewerk Niederfinow is the name of a particular lock, then I the name is OK.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Škofja Loka

Hi, can someone please rename (move) Skofja Loka to 'Škofja Loka'? It is the correct English and Slovene spelling of the name of the town (see en:Škofja Loka). Thanks. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hazard-Bot

Hello, re my bot and the village pump, I tried to leave a request here earier from a mobile device, but l lost my connection. The but is supposed to be exclusion complaint, so I was asking that someone place the {{Bots}} or {{Nobots}} template on the page to prevent it from editing until i fix the crontab and put some error checking in the code. The current block won't stop it forever, but if the template doesnt work (it just appends via the api rather than using the entire page content), please indefinitely block the bot until I confirm that it's fixed. I don't expect that I will be able to make the changes within the next 28 hours.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  20:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"{{bots|deny=Hazard-Bot}}" added to page. Riley Huntley (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, though that didn't work, as I'd guessed. I've fixed the code and crontab, so just in case there are any further issues, the bot now checks User:Hazard-Bot/Check/Villagepump (see instructions) before attempting to append the header, and checks if the header is already on the page.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That check page is useless if nobody knows about it though, so please link to it on your userpage and have it semi-protected if needed. :) Riley Huntley (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I intend to set up check pages for the other tasks soon, but I just placed notices re that specific task since it caused an issue. The user page will be updated soon.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Mass Copyright issues

Can someone please nuke Category:Legend of the Five Rings and its contents and give the uploader a lesson in copyright? Werieth (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

A single letter in a circle? At worst, they're {{PD-text}}. Cckerberos (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is PD-Text, too simple to copyright. Please see COM:TOO. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 10:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet uploads

All uploads by these three users indef-blocked in en-wikipedia after checkuser are suspected copyvios:

• Jamaradia (talk · contribs)
• Perosrsmnso (talk · contribs)
• Popomamaha (talk · contribs)

The style of the edits (increasing en-wiki weaponry article infobox image sizes) is very similar to a previous case (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 39#More Iranian weaponry image copyrights) involving sockpuppets of Category:Sockpuppets of The soso and User:Rablu1. MKFI (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to it by a few seconds. And since there are more accounts that are connected than the three you mention I might as well post my message too, minus the section header:

The user accounts Fangoh, Perosrsmnso, Asdfariha, Bafonaihi, Jamaradia, Khamrmah and Popmamaha have all uploaded one or more photos of various weapons over the past couple of days. The global accounts are connected to each other, and have all, along with a dozen or more other accounts, been blocked on the English WP as sockpuppets in a case of vandalism and disruptive editing on a large number of weapons related pages. Every single one of the pictures uploaded by those users that I have looked at so far is a copyvio, and some of them have already been speedily deleted (including all pictures uploaded by Fangoh, which was the first user that I looked at) while a number of other pictures have been reported for speedy deletion but are pending action. I don't know what the policy is here on Commons (since I'm mainly active on the English WP), but a block would most probably prevent further problems. Thomas.W (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

They are not that bright are they. Blocking next - thanks both for the info. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI an SPI on en-wiki [35] found a definite link between between Darmahjgari, who is mentioned in your Iranian pictures case, and the users listed above. So there is a connection between those cases. Thomas.W (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked the accounts concerned and, noting that this goes back to early December I've blocked the underlying IP too. Thanks again --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Museum username

Hi,

Is it sufficient to ask User:Museo de la Memoria Chile to verify that the account is being used by that museum, or should it be blocked and asked to create a new account? --Vera (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think ideally someone from the museum can use email account associated with the museum to send an email to OTRS. --Jarekt (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Good question. The Commons:Username policy says that such usernames are prohibited but some of those prohibited usernames will not be blocked if the contributor is a representative. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Undo self-nom'd deletion?

Hello, I was wondering if I could undo my own nomination for deletion of my own file at File:Lockheed SR-71B Blackbird, NASA 831, over California (sRGB).jpg. I uploaded two versions of this file and nom'd them both for deletion, but I would like to keep this one. I may work on it in the future. Thanks so much. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 04:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY ^(TALK) 11:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 11:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Request undeletion of Category:Castle of Turku

User:Foroa deleted Category:Castle of Turku with reason "Moved to Category:Turku Castle.Reason: Tagged with {{move}} since 13 January 2013". However, Category:Turku Castle is a category redirect pointing to the deleted category. Non-admins cannot recreate the deleted category since we can't see the original content. This deletion also broke all Commonscat-links from Wikipedias to Commons. MKFI (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Here you go -FASTILY ^(TALK) 11:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Recreated, but the original category history is now hidden. I left the {{Move}} intact on the recreated category page. Turku Caste is still a redirect. MKFI (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Photos on article Sawana and Lomaloma

The removed photos were photos taken when I was travelling and on holidays to these islands from my camera.

They are from my own travels and no one will dispute it - I have the originals of these photos.

Can you please reconsider re installing them as they add value to the article and provide context to those reading them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabeta (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 March 2013‎ (UTC)

 Info This is related to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Trabeta. I've commented on this on my talk and am awaiting comment on User:EugeneZelenko's talk, where this user also posted about this. INeverCry 05:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you there EugeneZelenko. More photos have been removed except one - maybe remove that as well for now until I can re group and attend to the requirements of photos to be posted. I may have to take photos of photos for those that are over 70 years old ... the article is devoid of useful photos that add value to the article ...

Trabeta (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Error in MediaWiki:Recentchangestext/es

Hi. In the spanish version there is an error in the IRC channel name. It appears as #commons.wikimedia instead of #wikimedia-commons, the correct name. Greetings. --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 03:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed [36] -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Alan Lorenzo ^(talk) 04:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

OTRS request

Folks, we have received a request at OTRS (Ticket # ticket:2013021110005581) from User:Younes.burjawi that their uploads (Special:Contributions/Younes.burjawi) be deleted. They are not used on any projects and appear to be personal images. Please consider. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I created Commons:Deletion requests/File:Younes Burjawi.jpg. --Jarekt (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Doh! Thank you, why didn't I think of that?!--ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Files are gone (thanks to Fastily), you can close the ticket --PierreSelim (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

User:1YlGC6dsynvm

Can someone keep an eye on User:1YlGC6dsynvm. I have blocked them on Wikipedia and they have now followed me here.[37]. I am getting abuse from theirs sock MathMan145 [38] and User:76.226.116.22[39]. User:Dy11111 is also a sock. SpinningSpark 19:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. The statement by this user on your talk "I accidentally allowed some other disruptive editor to edit, and so then I got interpreted as a sock puppet" seems a bit concerning. I don't see much of a purpose for this user here except to harass you, so I've blocked the 3 accounts above. I also semi-protected your talk to get rid of any more bothersome IP messages. INeverCry 19:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't believe for one minute the story that the accounts have been compromised, but either way they needed blcoking. SpinningSpark 19:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Zeppelin-museum-flagmetamorphoses.jpg

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture? I'm trying to insert the OTRS permission, but it seems that the pic is protected, at least for my editing.Willy Weazley 22:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I contacted the sysop who locked the page.Willy Weazley 22:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Flickr Washing - Jason H. Smith

Hi, could someone verify this photographer and his flickr account? https://www.flickr.com/photos/92147157@N07/ I dont know why but it doesn't look like an official account. Images in his gallery are random and some of they even cite a different source like the one with [ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adele54grammys.jpg Adele at the Grammys, (AP Photo/Matt Sayles), Thanks.--Ileana n (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If those files are his own work, I'll eat my hat. The uploads and the account are dodgy enough, but I looked at the the EXIF data of their uploads and it was different on each image I checked. Somebody with that level of access and some very expensive equipment who has a blank Flickr profile, a photostream with just a handful of photos of celebrities, and releases them as CC-By... All that put together, and like I said, I'll eat my hat. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I checked the EXIF of the cast of Lost image using http://regex.info/exif.cgi and it contains the actual rights manager as http://limefoto.com/ Don't we have a bot registry for flickr washers somewhere?--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

We do have Commons:Questionable Flickr images. --Túrelio (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Multiple COPYVIO by user Kobel

A large number of uploads by Kobel (talk · contribs) are blatant copyright violation. He/she seems to have no regard for copyright law and uploads images/videos from anywhere claiming to be "own work". I have tagged a few as copyvio but I think it needs a more thorough investigation of the large number of media uploaded by this user. In the meantime I think an admin should give a strongly worded warning or even a block. --Bob Re-born (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Despite everything, including an admin warning, this user has continue to upload more copyvio videos this evening, e.g. File:Schiessen2.webm. When is he/she going to be stopped? I suggest all the user's uploads are removed as questionable at best. --Bob Re-born (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 2 weeks, though I'm not sure if we really should nuke everything he ever uploaded. He claims that the photos are self-made, many of them (like this, that one) seem OK indeed. It would be helpful if someone checked the uploads and marked obvious copyvios for speedy deletion; that should suffice I think. --A.Savin 22:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a word on behalf of Kobel, one of his problems is that he doesn't know how to categorise images, I agree that he has uploaded a large number of copyvios and this is of course wrong but most of these appear to have been done enmasse together a year or even longer ago and seem to have been done in genuine ignorance. When working through the uncategorised backlog, individual files will intermittently show up and be brought to his notice. This gives the appearance that he has wilfully been refusing to obey instructions with regards to copyright, when in fact no new copyvios have been uploaded. His most recent uploads seem to be clean and it is my hope that once he can get his head around the ideo of derivative works, he can channel his obvious enthusiasm into being a productive contributer.--KTo288 (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please protect commons licensing image for Kannada

Requesting to protect File:Licensing_tutorial_kn.svg as we have just finished translating, verifying the Licensing Image. ~ Omshivaprakash ^{/talk/Contributions} 19:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

In Chrome, Opera and IE the image appears with a big black square in the middle. Are you sure you want to have this version protected? --Túrelio (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Lots of errors reported here. Please check yourself and fix the issues. --Denniss (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see those errors. Let me quickly get rid of this and update here. ~ Omshivaprakash ^{/talk/Contributions} 22:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of Nigeria.svg

Maybe someone could look up to this file: File:Coat of Arms of Nigeria.svg? Maybe it would be ok to undelete it (i think that all COA of nations can be here). --84.245.229.37 08:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Trolling Jimmy - I am drawing a line in the sand

Hi, I am now getting disturbed by the deliberate misuse of Commons and the DR process by Penyulap (talk · contribs) to create so-called parody images of Jimmy that have become increasingly offensive, and can now be argued to be defamation. Could an admin promptly make a determination on the speedy deletion request I have raised on File:Whambo.jpg? I no longer believe that a series of DRs is appropriate, as these images are now being deliberately created to infringe on basic expectations for Personal rights that Jimmy Wales should have every expectation that the Commons community should respect, rather than having such vandalism hanging around for 7 days at a time. Sorry to get snotty about this, but we should not invoke Staying mellow just because some of us are having LOLz at one person's expense and others do not want to draw too much attention to it. If this continues, I will make a personal apology to Jimmy, and make it a priority to ensure appropriate action is seen to be taken against Penyulap. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I deleted all files and warned him. Hopefully, that's enough. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your action. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Has Jimbo made any comment ? he is an editor here. I would think he is capable of speaking for himself or offering some sign. Not that I have any objections to you speaking on his behalf.

Some previous images have been deleted because the components were found on commons but turned out to be non-free. I do my best to make sure the images are OK first, but have no complaint whatsoever when they are not, in fact I ask for the images to be deleted when any components are deleted because I made the image, I feel I should maintain it as best I can. Having it deleted and replacing it so that there is no longer a big hole on someone's userpage, or on the non-wiki project where I saw it used is proper and polite. I take this responsibility seriously. That's why there was a whambo and a whambo2 for a backup image.

I asked for the latest image to be deleted as well as the other images, this seems rather inconsistent with your claims.

You've said several times that the picture is not of Dr Blofeld and therefore out of scope. COM:SCOPE allows for images other than the editor. The "e.g." means example, as in one example is images of the user. Should that be removed so that people can only use pictures of themselves on their userpages ?

Replacing an image that I ask to be deleted because it is of poor quality with a better image, I would think, is a good idea. Replacing an image that has to be deleted because it uses images that have turned out to be non-free with an image that uses only free components, I would think that is a good idea as well.

The images were in use and jumping the gun where a deletion discussion is moving towards keep makes ugly holes on non-sister projects where the delinker doesn't work.

I can't see this as anything but misdirected, the whambo series was created in response to a request, and as I recall the requestor seemed happy with the work. I don't consider this to be trolling and would refuse to participate if I thought it was. If you have a problem with a requested artwork, perhaps ask the person on the relevant project if it is really needed. If you have a problem with the scope of commons, perhaps ask for it to be amended.

Yann, you've left a note on my talkpage saying

== Stop uploading useless images ==

Hello,

Please stop uploading useless images. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This is so hasty and vague that I consider it impolite.

I feel the note in the block log of the Whambo image is defamatory and I ask for an uninvolved admin to consider restoring the image so a discussion can take place. Penyulap ☏ 12:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Vague? You know very well what it is about. That was a friendly warning. If you don't understand it, a more explicit one can be sent. Yann (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly like to know which images you are labelling 'useless' (excluding the ones which I have asked to be deleted before you made your comment) Penyulap ☏ 14:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, you certainly are not a victim here, in fact you have been tolerated in a very mellow fashion. Parody and humour is fine, but with some of these images you are crossing the line into creating original material for which a legitimate case of defamation could easily be created against this project, you personally or the WMF. I doubt Jimmy would ever want to go that far, but I do not need a personal complaint in order to expect action here, and as would be the case for any recognizable person where their portrait is being used offensively and potentially for deliberate harassment, we most certainly do not sit around waiting until they find out about this disruptive content, and are then upset enough to make a formal complaint or pay for lawyers. I suggest you take a moment to reflect on the detail of Photographs of identifiable people which includes statements such as "Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject" and "Common decency and respect for human dignity may influence the decision whether to host an image above that required by the law". I find that your actions are certainly not in compliance with this key guideline and should you persist with using Commons in this way, you will be seen as deliberately making this project a hostile environment for a well known contributor which falls well within the Blocking policy under the sections Vandalism ("Insertion of gratuitous vulgarity") and Harassment. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So that the people who are not admins can have some idea of what images are being spoken of, rather than leave it entirely to the imagination and stories being told, here are the images used and a description of the image. Sorry if it sticks a needle into your accusations balloon. This is the basic image from which Whambo.jpg was derived and this is the face of Jimbo that was used to replace the child's face

As I recall, Jimbo was recently married, and I wish him all the best in married life and hope that the couple is blessed with children, although, as he is as far as I know a US citizen, they may take a different view of family and the blessing of children to the rest of the world, so I hope the newlyweds have success if it is what they seek.

The sight of a little Jimbo Wales in the Jimbo household 'finding his bellybutton', I would think, and remember I am not from the US, something perfectly innocent and acceptable. The map icons I have placed around the image, 1 2 3 4 5 probably are a result of me doing so very much hard work in the Commons Graphic Lab map workshop over the last few weeks. So much work gets to you, and it's probably as much a parody of the locator images I've been making than it is of Jimbo. Penyulap ☏ 13:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am taking the initiative to convert embedded images to links. COM:AN is not the right venue to illustrate with images of Jimmy Wales or portraits of children and then create new personal rights issues and past practice here has been to remove unnecessary images. The links to these images, with captions by Penyulap, are:

File:Child pokes own navel with finger.jpg This is the basic image from which Whambo.jpg was derived

File:Jimbo at Fosdem cropped rounded.png This is the face of Jimbo that was used to replace the child's face

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The images that were deleted (if I recall them correctly) were pretty much nonsensical and I don't believe that much of value was lost. Nevertheless, I'm concerned that this discussion might lead to the deletion of true, well-made parodies that Penyulap created. I praised these image on Wikipediocracy: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30583#p30583. Not all of Penyulap's parodies are bad, and I believe that it would be a mistake to delete any of Penyulap's parodies on sight. Penyulap might create better parody images in the future. I believe that it's better to judge these images individually in the Deletion Request process than to delete them outright. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap is free to upload the results of his little hobby to flickr or imgur or whereever. --Dschwen (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

We've kept odd parody images in the past:

• Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Putin.png
• Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Putin_on_the_Ritz.jpg
• Commons:Deletion_requests/Santorum_images

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

When I saw the subject, I thought this was in reference to a discussion on Jimbo's talk page. This appears to be what should be a more general discussion of "personality rights" and parody images. Jimbo is hardly a public figure. If users are free to make and upload parody images of Jimbo, then anyone is fair game. The fact that many people want to have such images on their userpage should not be an excuse to use Commons to poke fun at Jimbo in joke images. If it is, let's hold a contest for the best joke images incorporating Wikipedia or Commons editors. I'm sure there are some great possibilities. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo is the public face of Wikipedia. He's in the news often. He's a guest on radio and TV shows. He advises politicians. Are we going to disallow parodies of non-politicians such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Giorgio A. Tsoukalos as well? Once you eliminate possibilities such as Jimbo, you eliminate other possibilities as well. Soon, we'll have a narrow list of possibilities. Freedom means great possibilities. We limit possibilities; we limit freedom. Freedom of speech means freedom from the narrow list – the freedom to have a message on anything heard. This discussion won't end well for freedom of speech. It's best not to limit these possibilities. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're asking my opinion, yes, I would disallow parodies of anyone who isn't a public figure. Is that limiting Penyulap's freedom of speech? No, it only means he can't upload the images to Commons. Penyulap is free to keep making these images and sharing them elsewhere, if that is what he wants to do. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What's to prevent abuse of the "list of appropriate persons to parody"? What if people claim a public figure that they favor isn't really a public figure in order to keep that public figure's image clean? This is why such restrictions are dangerous. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for someone to throw around the word censorship. *roll eyes* --Dschwen (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess we would first have to discuss what "public figure" means. You seem to think that Jimbo is a public figure. I doubt many people would agree with that. On the other hand, I doubt many people would disagree that someone who holds a public office is a public figure. Santorum and Putin are public figures. Even so, should we allow someone to upload a parody image which showed Putin having sex with Santorum? You should pay more attention to what COM:IDENT says and what Fæ posted earlier. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Meditating over our project scope would also be helpful. --Dschwen (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) A parody image of Putin having sex with Santorum wouldn't be appropriate since such an event didn't happen, but a parody image of Arnold Schwarzenegger having sex with a maid, on the other hand, would be appropriate in my opinion. The truth doesn't unfairly demean people. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell if you mean this as a joke or if you are serious. Thankfully, there is no rule preventing self-parody on Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Question for those who wish to place restrictions on parodies: Should File:Commons_deletion_requests_can_into_comedy.jpg be censored for demeaning the participants of Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Durieu_7.jpg? I recently learned about this image and its creator from the Wikipediocracy blog. That image doesn't have anything to do with public figures or a public event. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Here we go: "censored". This discussion may now be closed and archived. --Dschwen (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Censorship may be a joke for you, but it's a reality for those living in the PROC or Iran, and I've witnessed censorship briefly become a reality here at Commons as well: Commons:Requests_for_comment/offsite_discussions. Censorship is a real threat here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Your misuse of the word censorship with regards to enforcing commons policies is the joke. --Dschwen (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Fæ had been nominating my images for deletion repeatedly and I was considering giving him a barnstar after seeing time and again that the images weren't deleted or problematic but were in scope and to the liking of the community in general. I had assumed good faith and thought that the efforts were a tounge in cheek way to put my art into the spotlight and get me some attention. Well, that does not seem to be the case and I'm sorry Fæ, you'll have to do better than this for me to consider giving you a Barnstar in the near future. You need to accept the communities decisions on the deletion requests you've made.

I understand the community's expectations and I damn well uphold them. I don't parody non-notable people. I say this all the time, in fact it says so in the link I gave before, the link named "seemed happy with the work"

Now I don't know if the remarks by Delicious carbuncle are serious or also tongue-in-cheek

"Jimbo is hardly a public figure."

You seem to think that Jimbo is a public figure. I doubt many people would agree with that.

The community has decided that Jimbo is a notable public figure, and no small sector has decided this, I see that there is an article in more than 120 languages. So clearly the community pervasively considers Jimbo to be a public figure, and so parody rules apply. I do not upload images elsewhere, because I believe that everyone in the community should have their say in whether an image is acceptable or not, and they should have that say here, on commons.

While I am thankful for the GF invitations to upload parody images onto other websites, most recently from the sysop of a notable site, I politely decline at this time because I believe the images should be here on commons for everyone to enjoy, and if there is any problem at all with an image then everyone should be entitled to have their opinion heard. That is the purpose of the DR process, and it has not failed.

The continuing efforts to misrepresent the latest artwork by keeping it deleted while discussing it is an attempt to exclude the non-admin community from commenting. The only whambo images previously deleted are those I have asked to be deleted, for the licensing or quality reasons I mentioned. Fæ is using the wrong venue to hold a deletion discussion so that non-admins cannot comment because they can't see the image. Penyulap ☏

You seem to have confused Wikipedia's somewhat flexible notion of "notability" with what it means to be a "public figure". They are not equivalent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Then have a DR. Penyulap ☏ 04:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at all the legal dictionaries, normal dictionaries, as well as the article on 'public figure' Jimbo suits the description perfectly. No wonder people want to skip process with arguments as poor as these. Penyulap ☏ 04:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Propose opening an DR so that everyone can have their opinion heard

I propose an DR of File:Whambo.gif so that everyone can see the deleted image, which was made from this body and this face. Penyulap ☏

• +1 the DR process is not broken. Time for a roll-call of those against public opinion. Penyulap ☏ 23:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, I have no problem with satire and parodies of Wikipedia/Wikimedia, and I believe we as a project should host such things. Whilst, I am not seeing "defamation" in that image, could you possibly give us some indication on what the image was parodying or satirising. Because I'm just not seeing it. russavia (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The Whambo image with Jimbo riding a meteor is a free version describing the non-free Putin riding the meteor which people can find as easy as putting 'Putin and Meteor' into google and then clicking images. Putin is the supreme leader of the Russian republic for those who don't know. The images of Putin riding a horse, which everyone else on the internet used to make their parodies are not free images, so we can't use them. Although it is a notable meme that it's based upon, two birds with one stone, it's moot anyhow, as it was to provide an image for Dr Blofelds page, to replace the one I had asked to be deleted when it came to my attention that a component image had also been deleted. Someone asked me for an image, I provided an image. They use it on their userpage.

The Whambo images are scrutinised to the enth degree by people with no sense of humour :D and I appreciate that, it makes sure it's all above board. It seems in this case there was nothing wrong with the licensing or scope.

I feel the deletion summary puts the Whambo image under a cloud unfairly

(Deletion log); 10:34 . . Yann (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Whambo.jpg ‎(Sticking Jimmy's head onto a partially exposed child's body has crossed into the realm of deliberately offensive and disruptive in my view. If an admin wishes to create a DR, fine, but we must take Personal Rights seriously here. Commons is not 4Chan, ...)

That summary would suggest that I've done something wrong and it would no doubt follow me around with accusations that I've done some wrong, which the community has not judged and cannot judge, because they haven't seen the image. This creates a hostile environment.

I would ask that if there is no good reason for the image to be speedily deleted, then it should be discussed properly in the deletion venue so people can have their say. As for the locator map image, it's meant to take a swipe at the whole 'every image has to be educational' attitude, which is correct of course, but we are allowed to take ourselves a little less than super-serious sometimes you know. I had been considering using it on my userpage, it's a cute and funny image, but now with this sort of nonsense I might reconsider. Actually, dammit, I just may use it, not as a backup in case people find fault with the meteor image, but as an image on my own userpage somewhere.

The meteorite image which Dr Blofeld liked and had on his page was in scope for a userpage, he liked it, and chats with Jimbo often, I've never heard a peep to suggest that Jimbo is unhappy until Fæ began claiming today to be Jimbo's mouthpiece. Jimbo can speak for himself, failing that I would ask Fæ states if Jimbo has actually indicated anything at all about the images. Personally I doubt Jimbo gives it more than a passing thought. I do not take up invitations to other websites and put my skills to use creating truly offensive images, I consider it a waste of my talents. If you cannot get a smile and a laugh that everyone including the subject can enjoy then you have no real talent in my opinion. Penyulap ☏ 01:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is not strictly about Jimbo anymore. Whether or not Jimbo is ok with these types of images being created of him, they seem to be at odds with COM:IDENT as well as WMF statements on images of identifiable people. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to change the topic in search of anything that has a snow ? None of this has to do with skipping the DR's because you don't like the outcome of previous DR's. Penyulap ☏ 04:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just responding to one part of your rambling statement in which you opined that Jimbo didn't mind these images. I do not care whether or not there is a DR for this particular image - I am concerned with the broader issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

So you don't care if there is a DR or not. Here was I thinking that I talk a lot when I have nothing to say. I take my hat off. Penyulap ☏ 04:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, lay off with the persistent and offensive personal attacks against me. Claiming that I have no sense of humour, or that I am claiming to be Jimmy Wales' "mouthpiece" are clearly ad hominem arguments when compared with what I have written both here and in the DRs referenced.

You are trying hard to paint yourself as a victim of some sort here, I believe the community has been very patient and mellow with your activities, especially considering how some of the folks involved are normally highly productive with creating good quality content for the project, and instead have had to spend time dealing with your allegations and claims for what amounts to a couple of highly dubious derived works which have been created for lulz rather than general benefit of open knowledge. Consequently I doubt there is much mileage in your portrait of being a harassed victim of anti-free speech bureaucracy. Now, I'm off to do something more useful with my time, I suggest you do the same before your ridiculous claims boomerang, badly. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh I take my hat off to the king of comedy now, boomerang on me when you are the one who brought it up here at the AN ? and wasting everyone's time with making a big deal over the images when you're the one who has been nominating them for deletion repeatedly. Twisting userpage policy to claim pictures have to be of the editor themselves when many people don't mind advising you in your previous DR's. I'm not the one making the 'ridiculous claims' that Jimbo is not a public figure. Boomerang indeed.

Your attempts at humour aside, there are serious aspersions that have been cast, and while you may consider your actions to be time-wasting, I don't consider making clear the reputation of my parody work to be trivial. I don't consider that sweeping aside proper process because you don't like the outcome of previous discussions and compounding that with slanderous aspersions to be insignificant. Penyulap ☏ 09:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you take time to read what I have written before marginalizing it and misrepresenting it. I have not argued that Jimmy Wales is not a public figure, this was others muddying the discussion, and is tangential to Commons policy and guidelines that I have applied. The "public figure" rationale is an argument much used off-wiki to justify publishing invasive material or personal attacks without credible sourcing or that are plainly irrelevant to any public office held. Pretty much this appears to be the nature of your "parodies" of Jimmy Wales which have no benefit to this project, Wikimedia or open knowledge. If you wish to claim slander, then that is not a matter to raise on-wiki and puts an effective end to this thread, as no administrator can or should advise you on legal claims. --Fæ (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it'd be interesting to note what the project scope is:

The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository:

• that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and
• that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”.

Thus, we're considering two main fields of applicability. Let's start with the second one. Is the file we're talking about suitable for the Wikimedia projects? I don't think so. One of the pillars of the project establishes that we're not a primary source. Using a parody made by a wikipedist is not suitable to be used in any article. And I don't think anybody could argue that (which, by the way, applies to all the home-made parodies stored in commons).

Let's move to the first one (which deals with applicability beyond the wikimedia foundation projects). Is the file "free"? For sure. Is it educational? That's we need to assess. Considering the relevance of Jimbo outside the wikimedia projects I don't think this parody serves any educational purpose outside the wikimedia projects (with regard to an educational purpose inside the projects, please, refer to the previous paragraph).

To sum up, beyond the censorship claim (which I don't think can be applied) the file does not comply to our scope policies. My €0.02 Best regards --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 10:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:ecemaml, this kind of files are clearly out of scope. "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use". --Jarekt (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with my colleagues above. The files have no educational or informative value and are thus out of scope. A media repository Commons may be, but Flickr, Imgur, or Tumblr it is not. Or to put it another way, we don't host it just because it's freely licensed. The personality rights aspect just makes deletion more imperative (whether or not the subject has complained or is even aware of the image is irrelevant). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

space for non-strawman arguments as to why the regular DR process needs to be avoided

in case anyone has one. Penyulap ☏ 06:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Are parody images (in general) compatible with COM:IDENT?

As Fæ pointed out in beginning this discussion, our COM:IDENT policy advises that "Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject" and "Common decency and respect for human dignity may influence the decision whether to host an image above that required by the law". Moving away from the specific images of Jimbo that started this discussion, should parody images which depict or incorporate identifiable persons be allowed, in consideration of COM:IDENT? And if they are to be allowed at all, what is the basis for determining whether any particular image is "parody" or just harassment? In the discussion above, someone suggested that having an article in WP makes someone a "public figure". I strongly disagree with that suggestion, but there should be some line, however fuzzy, to determine who is and is not an acceptable figure for parody if parody is to be allowed here at all. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of policy, just like the deletion review above, are not appropriate for this venue. Penyulap ☏ 03:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

So DC, pray tell, just what is the fine line of harassment in your mind? This should be good; I've always wanted to hear a troll who engages in harassment on an almost daily basis tell us what constitutes harassment. russavia (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, this discussion was collapsed by a non-admin soon after you left your comment. I have re-opened it because I would like your fellow admins to see your comment, but also because I think this is an issue worth discussing. Would Commons accept a parody image of Wikipedia editors Sarah Stierch or Justin Knapp? Both have entries on Wikipedia, which someone claimed made them public figures. I do not think we would accept them. Nor should we accept these kinds of parodies of anyone else for the simple reason that they violate COM:IDENT. I'm sure there is an argument to be made that people who are public figures because they hold public office (Vladimir Putin, for example) are an exceptional case, but then we get into issues of the limits of parody. Someone has suggested in the earlier part of this thread that a "parody" image of Arnold Schwartzengger having sex with a maid would be acceptable. I suspect most reasonable people would disagree. If it were up to me, parody images of any identifiable persons would be disallowed based on what COM:IDENT says. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

These images aren't even "parodies" (did anyone even bother looking at the definition of the term). They are childish unfunny junk without any educational value. Sorry, Penyulap, I realize that you think you are some pointed comical genius, but what you are producing here is not appropriate material for this website. --Dschwen (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

hey :D it's not me that thinks me is a comic genius, although sure I can't deny, it's lots of people who think so. Like here where it says 'Comic Genius creating Whambo.jpg'. Personally I'm happy to fill the request so it is OK, if I do the job really well that's a bonus. If lots of people enjoy it that's brilliant. That praise was for the old whambo. The current one with the asteroid is on the Internet, I'd recommend taking it up with the Kremlin if Putin is not a public figure, or whoever the many artists and websites are if it's not meant to be funny. Penyulap ☏ 08:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be sure to give your opinion and everyone else's given here their due weight. As there is no opportunity for the majority of users to comment on the images because they can't see them in this inappropriate venue, the only consensus you can come up with will be, by definition, a limited consensus.

There is a significant lack of comment as to why these images can't undergo the regular DR process for an appropriate consensus. Please feel free to continue to decide what you think about the image, and maybe at some stage you might be able to voice it along with the rest of the community, or not. Penyulap ☏ 00:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=91592206&oldid=91591986 – As I've said earlier, parody images and Penyulap's images should go through the DR process rather than deleted without discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Penyulap has filed an undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Whambo.gif, if you wish to comment there either way about the image and/or how it was deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Another "Whambo" image

Guess what? There's also File:Whambo in '84.gif. Can someone please delete this one as a COM:IDENT violation? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This is currently under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Whambo in '84.gif. russavia (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

How to do a history split

How does one do a file history split (if it is even possible) and what are the guidelines for when it is appropriate to do so? Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 11:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

We have a page here COM:HMS, hope it's what you need. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! PumpkinSky talk 12:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

User:ValentinaEME-15

ValentinaEME-15 (talk · contribs): As far as I can tell, this account has been used solely to upload copyright violations and, in one case, to perform an act of vandalism. - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

User has not contrib since november 2012. I don't think there is a lot of hope. --PierreSelim (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Salvadorian09

Pleas warn Salvadorian09 per continuos uploading copyvios. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ecemaml, PierreSelim and me are taking care of this case --Ezarateesteban 23:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Chinese character not permitted in file name?

Every other Chinese file title worked fine, except for this one "𢁙". There is no way of using this character as the file name for the file File:木⼡⼱缺字.svg, which I request to be renamed to File:木𢁙缺字.svg. The error message shown sad that the title/content matched the blacklist. Since the problematic Chinese character doesn't actually mean anything, and is rarely used, I suspect this is a technical issue. Yinweichen (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It is probably blacklisted as many browsers are unable to render it properly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. Commons is a multilingual project and should not be catered specifically to English users with regards to choice of filenames. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Another file with the same problem. Requesting move from File:氵糹列缺字.svg to File:氵𦀎缺字.svg. Yinweichen (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Third request: from File:金漢缺字.svg to File:金𦰩缺字.svg. I'm almost certain that this is somehow a technical bug. It always happens with absolutely obsolete characters. Yinweichen (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment File:金漢缺字.svg has no licence. I am not sure if it is a good idea to use Chinese characters in file names if the characters require fonts often not installed on Chinese computers. How likely are you to come across a computer without a font containing these characters? I had to install extra fonts in order to see some of the characters (but I am not using a Chinese computer). With your suggested file names, the depicted characters will still be split. Are the characters missing from Unicode? If not, why are you suggesting files with split file names? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is another request: File:⼡土火缺字.svg to File:𪢶火缺字.svg. These are some of many images of Chinese characters currently not in the Unicode, but are part of names of ancient persons. These are used in the Chinese Wikipedia for whenever these people are mentioned. The names are split Chinese characters because that most closely resembles and describes the image itself. I can resort to splitting them up even more if other computers have difficulty seeing them. My computer has the fonts so I did not realise this problem. The renaming is not essential, so if the technical issue is significant, then just leave it as is. Yinweichen (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at this thread using two different computers: one running Windows 7 and one running Ubuntu 12.04. The Windows computer displays all characters except 𪢶 out of the box. Several of the characters failed on the Ubuntu computer until I had installed extra fonts, and I haven't checked whether 𪢶 works with the extra fonts. However, I am using Swedish computers. I'm not sure what would usually be available on a Chinese computer if you frequently use the computer for reading Chinese articles about people from the Ming dynasty. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

---

I think the problematic characters go beyond the "Basic multilingual plane" area of Unicode into the "Supplementary ideographic plane". Non-BMP characters can cause problems in a number of different software programs, and it's probably correct to blacklist them in file names at this time (will change in future). AnonMoos (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This effectively bars certain languages from using Commons completely. Think about an Egyptian Wikisource: they would be forced to upload all files locally because Egyptian filenames are rejected by Commons outright. Even some living languages, like Sora (300,000 speakers in India!) are written in languages encoded only in the SMP; they too could only upload files locally and would be excluded from Commons, the so-called "collaborative" project for no reason. Problems with non-BMP characters may have existed in 2002, but in modern times I won't take that as an excuse. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, got: uses characters from the w:Supplementary Multilingual Plane in almost all page titles, and would also need them in file names. In the past, I remember hearing that Windows users had to upgrade to Windows 2000 in order to use non-BMP characters properly. Most people have hopefully upgraded by now. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Languages don't use Commons, people do. Speakers of Egyptian and Gothic are likely to natively speak English, German, Arabic, etc., and putting Egyptian hieroglyphics and Gothic characters in filenames on Commons would hurt their usability everywhere for marginal gain on their home project. As for Sora, I highly suspect that when taking to the Internet, they use the Latin or Telugu script, not the w:Sorang Sompeng alphabet, especially as the proposal for Unicode specified that that alphabet was only in use in religious circumstances, which is why it was put in the SMP, instead of stuffing them in one of the last spots in the BMP. Let's not exaggerate; the people who have problems being limited to BMP are the Chinese, who will find that various non-Mandarin, older, and obscure characters won't work. That should be enough justification without making other problems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Liliana-60 -- An ancient Egyptian wikisource project could upload any needed files to Commons, just not with actual hieroglyphic characters in the filenames themselves. The restriction will probably be lifted when the developers feel that the whole software ecosystem of user operating systems, browsers, etc. is mature and bug-free enough to handle such uses of non-BMP characters with few problems... AnonMoos (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that I see the practical difficulty, I'll just leave it as is. Thanks for your help though. Yinweichen (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-ce.png

Hi we are members of the Chechen wikipedia decided to upgrade to a higher quality logo and distinctive. On this please remove the file protection for a time when I will do everything I tell you. regards. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Ezarateesteban 17:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much refreshed by a new one. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I am at a loss of words now (actually, I am all cursing and screaming right now, but I won't write that for obvious reasons). For the time being, I reverted the change and protected the logo against reuploading, and I ask you not to unprotect it again without consulting the Wikimedia Foundation wordmark creation guide. odder (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What happened, we decided to make the logo a kind which you are not happy, I do not understand is not. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Please, note this discussion on Meta. I request to ban users Sasan700, Dagger and other curent administrators of Chechen Wikipedia who violate the rules of Wikimedia Foundation.--Soul Train (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see what any of that has to do with the proposed change to the logo. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Local block by a steward

Hi all, I'd like to inform Commons' sysops I had to make this local block in order to trigger an autoblock on the IP address used by that account. It belongs to a long-term vandal which was flood newaccount log with its puppet and I was, unfortunately, unable to find a local sysop or a local checkuser to stop it. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notificaiton. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible multiple copyvio by user Giggette

A very large number of uploads by Giggette (talk · contribs) appear to be copyright violation. Specially those related to Aztek and Mayan gods and other ancient-culture illustrations. The source for most of them is the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies Inc. (FAMSI) In its website is clearly stated, that the free use of their images is not allowed. Other images this user has uploaded are derivative works of FAMSI's. Could you please check that out and help mass-delete them? I already tagged a few ones. The user also uploaded pictures of artist Jesús Helguera's works and portraits, which are not in public domain. I already tagged those ones to be deleted. Thank you in advance for your help with this subject. ~ KKCO Sol Jaguar | Let's talk 10:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop placing inappropriate {{Copyvio}} or {{Speedy}} tags. As a general rule, we use DRs for all DW issues, particularly in jurisdictions such as Mexico that have very broad FOP rules. If these works hang in a Mexican museum that does not charge an admission fee, then FOP applies. It may apply even if a fee is charged. As noted below, FAMSI apparently makes claims on works that are clearly PD, so its assertions are certainly not a reason for a speedy deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:DRBot

Is it just me, or has DRBot recently stopped editing? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to poke Bryan (talk · contribs) via email as he states on his talk page intro. Aside from that, yes, the bot isn't working since 27 February 2013. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Any answer/reaction from Bryan yet (assuming someone has contacted him)? This is a major issue and a shedload of work to manually archive all these DR. --Denniss (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, no reply to my message from a week ago. Granted he's no longer active on Commons, I'm doubtful we'll even get an answer. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It started working again. Let's hope it's stable now. --Denniss (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Codex Borgia

Could someone please delete all files (76) contained within Codex Borgia? According to FAMSI (source indicated for the files), their images are not for free use allowed. Thank you ~ KKCO Sol Jaguar | Let's talk 10:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As faithful reproductions of a pre-Columbian work that has been PD since before the invention of copyright, these images appear to be {{PD-Art}}. Many museums, including, apparently, this one, make claims about reproduction that we are not required to honor.

If you would like to pursue this, please post a Deletion Request and add a note here that you have done so. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any way to mass change the copyright tags to {{PD-Scan|PD-old-100}}, since they were scanned from a book and thus not subject to PD-Art?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can do that with AWB, which is much faster than doing it one at a time, but still takes 15-20 seconds per image. I could do it (or you could, if you'd like to learn about AWB), but I don't understand why {{PD-Art}} doesn't work. The fact that they were photographed, printed in a book, and then scanned, doesn't change the fact that Bridgeman v. Corel and our policy ignores copyright in "slavish copying", which these are.

It seems to me that PD-Scan applies to scans of an original, while PD-Art applies to photographs of an original. In the digital age, the distinction is a very fine point, perhaps irrelevant, and, in some cases, hard to determine. In any case, these were photographed and then, much later, scanned. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The photography was long ago, and is out of copyright everywhere. The distinction doesn't matter for us, but in the UK, for example, it's believed that PD-Scan images are fine where as PD-Art images may not be. (And digital age or no, getting high-quality photographs of paintings is not trivial.) Also, PD-Art doesn't work because it defaults to PD-old, which isn't good enough for Mexico, which is life+100. PD-old-100 makes it clearly out of copyright everywhere. I will look into AWB.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for a very good explanation. I agree that the tag needs to be changed. I'd be happy to give you the AWB permission if you want it and help with your using it. AWB is a very powerful tool for doing any of many different things to a lot of files quickly, but it's not terribly well documented. This is a good learning case, as it handles search and replace very well. If you have questions, drop a note on my talk page..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Haliaeetus albicilla (Svolvær, 2012).jpg

I've started an undeletion request for the file, but I thought there are wider questions that I'd like to bring up with the admins. If the uploader was the creator of the file in question (for example: a picture of a wild eagle), can there be any sort of copyright/licensing violation if the subject itself is not copyrighted (like a wild eagle)? Suppose the picture was previously released in a more restrictive license elsewhere, does that mean the image can never be released under more liberal licenses at a later point in time? Are two (or more) files the same if they are derived from a single source? Also, aren't the admins who delete the files required to verify if the file on commons is indeed the SAME as the differently licensed file elsewhere (and be knowledgeable enough to see the differences)? Also, if the uploader is the creator of the file, shouldn't there be time for a response before deletion and needless running around to get the file undeleted? My camera puts an automatic copyright to the owner into the EXIF of all files it creates, does that mean I can never put anything up on commons? Seriously, I think some people need to be more diligent in their work before causing trouble and unnecessary wastage of time to others because nearly everyone in this community has something else to work on. -- ~y (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yathin,

while I am sorry for the extra work etc. that resulted from this inappropriate tagging and deletion, I don't see an easy solution.

One might characterize what happened to your image as a sort of collateral damage of more substantial problems Commons is facing. Each day about 8,000 new files are uploaded to Commons and need to be patroled. Approximately 15 to 25% of them need to be tagged for missing source, author, license, wrong license or other inconsistencies or being plain copyvios. In order to protect 1) content creators from violation of their work and 2) unknowing re-users from litigation for copyright infringement, it is very important to detect any copyvios as early as possible.

The number of users willing to do this patroling work is understandibly rather limited. We therefore welcome new/other users who help a bit with patroling. Every now and then there are new patrolers who are willing, but inexperienced and just see what's at the surface, though sometimes this may even happen to us admins, as in this case. Usually this is recognized by the admin who works on the deletion request. If a patroler shows such mistakes repeatedly, usually he/she is asked to be more careful.

The situation on the next level, working on deletion requests, is similar: too much work for too few users (admins). We therefore tend to err on the side of caution and sometimes an image is deleted, that didn't need deletion.

The other problem that may have a deleterious impact on the trust of patrolers towards other uploaders is the fact that quite a number of copyvio-uploader blatantly lie to your face about being the author/photographer of what they have copied from elsewhere. Over time this may led to having no trust at all towards anybody.

Anyway, in case of your image, errors were made on the 1st and on the 2nd level, which shouldn't have happened. --Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. I didn't realize there was such a huge problem with copyright violations on commons. Having read you're response I think I would err on the side of safety causing minor discomfort to some users. I think I was a little too hasty in my response and I apologize for it. Cheers. -- ~y (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Your response was measured, polite, and rational, which is always appreciated -- such comments often rant and threaten. Polite questions and comments from users with relatively little experience are always welcome -- encouraged, in fact -- and never require apology. And, by the way, it is an absolutely wonderful image. In fact, all of your images are a pleasure to look at -- please keep contributing. If we had a "Photographer of the Year" award, I might nominate you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks James. -- ~y (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what's already been said about the core issue, just to address some of the specific questions you asked:

• If the uploader was the creator of the file in question, can there be any sort of copyright/licensing violation if the subject itself is not copyrighted?

  Possibly, if he or she created the work for someone else as a work for hire or transferred the copyright to someone else. In practice, this situation is rare.

• Suppose the picture was previously released in a more restrictive license elsewhere, does that mean the image can never be released under more liberal licenses at a later point in time?

  Only if the first license was an exclusive license, which is rare. (All Creative Commons licenses are non-exclusive.) However, for reasons stated above, we tend to ask for written permission or for the original source to be updated to reflect the license here. Since files on Commons must be free for everyone to use, imposing additional restrictions elsewhere is not very meaningful.

• Are two files the same if they are derived from a single source? Also, aren't the admins who delete the files required to verify if the file on Commons is indeed the SAME as the differently licensed file elsewhere (and be knowledgeable enough to see the differences)?

  In this case, it should have been obvious that the 3,000×2,000 pixel file on Commons could not have been derived from the lower-resolution and more tightly cropped 1,000x666 pixel file on Flickr. If the situation had been reversed, there would have been grounds to ask some questions, but based on user names and other factors, it still would not have been a candidate for speedy deletion.

• My camera puts an automatic copyright to the owner into the EXIF of all files it creates. Does that mean I can never put anything up on Commons?

  No, that is emphatically not the case. Unless you release your works into the public domain, you are still the copyright holder. Having terms like "all rights reserved" in the metadata should be avoided, as that contradicts the release of some rights granted through a free license, but there is nothing contradictory about asserting that you are the copyright holder. All Creative Commons licensed works are protected by copyright. All Creative Commons licenses and all other copyright licenses rely on copyright for their terms to be enforceable.

—LX (talk, contribs) 17:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• That was very well explained. Thank you very much. -- ~y (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Today's de-adminships

The following users had their administrators' rights removed today as result of the February-March inactivity run; they either resigned the rights voluntarily or had them removed due to inactivity:

• Andrew c (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions);
• Ilmari Karonen (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions);
• Rocket000 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions);
• Saibo (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions);
• Spangineer (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions);
• Stan Shebs (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions);
• ZooFari (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Please join me in thanking these amazing volunteers for their contributions to Wikimedia Commons over the years; it is my hope that at least some of them might want to become administrators on this project again at some point the future. odder (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

At least three of them are colleagues that I have frequently worked with and regret seeing on this list. I wish them well in their new activities.

Rocket000 is 20th and ZooFari is 31st out the 573 names on the all time Admins' action list..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, they made a substantial part of the Commons build-up and history. I regret to have to say this, but they certainly deserve a memorial or life-time achievement award ;). --Foroa (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Memorial sounds a bit somber, but I'll raise a glass to every last one of them. I still remember thinking of Rocket000 as "that new admin that's doing a good job." Time flies. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and your efforts.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Delinker broken

• User:CommonsDelinker/commands is broken. It says to send Siebrand an email and I did, but he's not very active. Can someone else fix this bot?PumpkinSky talk 21:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Can someone fix this? There is a HUGE backlog now. PumpkinSky talk 02:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid only those listed at User:CommonsDelinker can help. Regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Btw, if you are refering to category move requests, those are handled by User:SieBot, which only Siebrand (talk · contribs) controls. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I already emailed him and he's only made 6 edits all year and there are dozens of cat moves in limbo. Sigh. PumpkinSky talk 11:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have left a note at the bot-ops. They might assist us in the meanwhile. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.PumpkinSky talk 13:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• The delinker, on the other hand, is still working. There are even two complaints from a de.wiki user. --Nemo 08:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

SieBot (talk · contribs) is back and working again. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

strange up load behavior

hi,

i have a pb with up load in following file : File:Voca+charpente.jpg

i have correct a bug picture (contrefiche and fiche) on my computer and i try to up load this new version. i try many time and at each time the current version is first version with the bug (contrefiche and fiche). so all intermedaite issue are good (as http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/99/20130319105925!Voca%2Bcharpente.jpg), but current version i have all ways wrong version, could fix it ? could you explain me ?

best regards Erwan1972 (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

A cache issue in your browser or in mediawiki, I'll delete and restore the two different image versions with the fixed version on top. EDIT Tricky indeed, I had to move the file to get a proper display of the new version. Strange. --Denniss (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks Erwan1972 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)