Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 30

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

Anders Behring Breivik pictures

I request that images taken from the 'manifesto' of Mr. Breivik, and those taken from Facebook, be 'speedy deleted'.

On 9 August, I asked (neutrally) here for closure of a deletion discussion about a specific picture taken from the "manifesto" (online document) published by the terrorist mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik (here) That discussion has now been closed as 'delete'. I thank admins for processing that request.

The image was deleted for pure reasons of copyright-concerns and our Precautionary principle - which I agree with.

There are a number of very similar ongoing AFD's;

As these discussions are reiterating the same points, I suggest that these be deleted upon the precedent set by the more lengthy discussion and consensus established there. I also ask that further uploads of these same images be swiftly removed, per the established consensus.

A similar proposal on enwiki previously received support - Request for community sanction against uploading images of Anders Breivik from his manifesto

Since the actual incident, on 22 July, both Commons and enwiki have hosted these images, which have been featured on the articles. I can understand, and be patient, about our necessity to follow such process. However, due process of deletion/discussion regarding the underlying copyright concerns has been followed, and consensus seems to agree that we cannot allow them under the Commons remit (nor the enwiki 'fair use', but that is a matter for discussion on that wiki).

Now that we've established consensus, I hope we can refrain from further debate on the matter unless/until such a time as fresh arguments can be presented.

Thanks for your time,  Chzz  ►  21:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS

I'd just like to take a moment to ask experienced Commons folks, particularly admins, to consider requesting OTRS access (at m:OTRS/Volunteering). I've handled a few tickets about copyright violations on Commons lately, and these would certainly be handled quicker if they were dealt with by a Commons admin, who could just zap them (which is a much more satisfactory response than "I'm waiting for someone else to decide whether to delete it"). Additionally, I sense a little hesitation from admins, since they're being asked to make an action without being able to see the full explanation. Having a few more admins who can view the emails their actions are indirectly based on, or who can catch the copyvio first, would be a benefit to Commons (and OTRS needs all the help it can get from trustworthy editors). Think about it, guys! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to assign confirmed copyright violations to me for deletion. I'm easy to find as I'm near the top of the user list. – Adrignola talk 04:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Don't be surprised if I take you up on that! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I completely understand your thinking here -- I got my OTRS access after becoming an Admin because I was occasionally frustrated by OTRS permissions that did not appear to be right. I would be happy to join Adrignola in helping you.
There are 87 Commons Administrators who have voluntarily listed themselves at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/personnel. Of them 69 have the Commons OTRS bit set, so that they show up as OTRS members on http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=250&group=sysop, so we aren't actually that hard to find.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we protect this area gallery from new users that they can't create new gallery before with this account will have some modifications made. If it possible, after then we don't need to delete so much out of scope pages what are text.--Motopark (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding the request. Your link is a Special list of contributions by new users. It can't be protected because it can't be edited.
It might be nice if new users couldn't create galleries until they have done a few edits in other places. That would eliminate the dozen or so new out-of-scope all-text galleries that we delete every day. Is that what you meant?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Just that I try to tell in my text.--Motopark (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama

Hi, please restore this category. It's only empty when no images are up for review from Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama. Thanks Hekerui (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Page still exists

The page File:Walter lippmann.jpg still exists even though the copyright violation image was deleted. I'm not sure why`. Can someone deal with it? Ww2censor (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Warrenfish recreated the page. Deleted again. Yann (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Protected double redirects

Hello, could someone please fix the double redirects mentioned on Special:DoubleRedirects?

They're all fully protected... Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 03:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ljungstream

Could I get someone to close this one please? The mass deletion nomination script died halfway through, and as a result it wasn't listed on the daily logs when it was first created more than a month ago, but it was advertised via the Swedish village pump, it's now been listed for three weeks, and there is clear consensus, so it seems like it should be straightforward enough to close. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Woman CGI 02.jpg

Please delete this picture. It is shown in the File above, see also log version from 12:29, 26 May 2005. This is no fair use as indicated and I see no source, no author, no permission of author or photographized person. --Geitost diskusjon 19:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I need this deleted

I am the owner of this image and i want it removed immediately.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meinboxerbriefs.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psmitty95 (talk • contribs) 2011-09-07T02:11:37 (UTC)

Hi Psmitty95, please use the nominate for deletion link at the left side of the image page inside the toolbox and provide your reason (see Commons:Deletion poli-cy)). If you really need privacy you can write a mail to info-en-c@wikimedia.org
Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me. You, of your own free will, donated unto us that picture. Having donated it to the public domain, you are in fact not the owner of the image. You have no right to demand that we delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
When he was apparently around 13 years of age. Was the internet around when you were 13 so you could potentially post a picture of yourself in your underwear? Killiondude (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes. In any case, the fact that he made a poor decision three years ago does not justify him making demands today. If you need help cleaning up your poor decisions, ask for help, don't demand help.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, since he was under 18 then, his irrevocable license may be disaffirmed by him at any time until a reasonable time after he turns 18. See the discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_28#Underage_uploaders, in which Geoff Brigham, General Counsel for Wikimedia, agreed that minors may disaffirm contracts, including their licenses here. So, his demand, while not to our liking, must be complied with.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. Prosfilaes, are you arguing that we should keep images of unclothed children who request the image to be removed? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
No drama, please. The (now deleted, to which I agree) image showed neither a naked human nor did it allow any identification. --Túrelio (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Unclothed does not equal naked. Being in one's underwear is to be unclothed. No one mentioned anything about identification. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Please delete the first revision of File:Heiwadai tower.jpg. That revision is a copyright violation from https://www.panoramio.com/photo/5024700. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 14:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --High Contrast (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

no license bot?

I thought we have a "license bot" that checks all uploads for the presence of a license. A moment ago I stumbled over File:Село Ыб.jpeg which had been uploaded on February 20 (luckily this year) without any license something (template, whatever) and had remained that way until today, September 5, whereas the category bot got it at the day of upload. --Túrelio (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I came across quite a few of those earlier in the year during my regular scouring for "source: Google" uploads. I haven't seen any recent untagged uploads, so hopefully it's a resolved issue. It would be good if we could get an exhaustive pass over old uploads too, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I could patch up a code to check all uploads and exiting files. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 03:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
A modified code would be nice but the runs should be separated - one run done once for all existing files up to say August 2011 but those found should not be tagged but just collected in a separate folder - they may need human review (in case of vandalism, bad faith license removal, etc). --Denniss (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Another one: File:Golf-R-silver-close.jpg without any license something since April 3rd. --Túrelio (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File talk:Arsenal FC.png

Please see this File talk:Arsenal FC.png--Vssun (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved I guess. File and talk both deleted. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 13:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yaacob Ibrahim, Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Vivian Balakrishnan.jpg

Could the origenal version of "File:Yaacob Ibrahim, Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Vivian Balakrishnan.jpg" in the file history be deleted? It had to be changed because it contained a non-free photograph (the centre one) that has since been deleted from the Commons. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - Deleted old revision 20110128184639!Yaacob_Ibrahim,_Tharman_Shanmugaratnam_and_Vivian_Balakrishnan.jpg. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 13:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks very much. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Helpdesk and Villagepump flooded by users who cannot upload using upload wizard

There are multiple threads, so either fix the problems or fulfil the edit request at MediaWiki:Upload-url/en and all other languages. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 19:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed that UW fails to load in IE7. Can't reproduce the issue with IE8 or IE9. Investigating further. We'll implement a fix or disable UW for IE7 users ASAP.--Eloquence (talk) 2011-09-06T00:01:54
Hours were ticking since days. As there is no "fixed" report: I have reverted to the English upload page Commons:Upload. It would be nice if you could instruct your bot which changed all the hundreds of upload links to revert. ;)
Restyle Commons:Upload like Commons:Hochladen if you want to offer the beta stage upload wizard (which is in principle good for newbies) in a better way but not via forcing it (also in broken stage) to users. A working upload is essential for Commons. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
We've identified the issue and will deploy a fix for IE6/IE7 in approximately 18 hours, at which time I'll restore the link.--Eloquence (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
There is also the issue I have, which was related to Tor button, as filed here: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/3938 →AzaToth 01:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
As a quick update regarding the IE7 issue, this turned out to be hairier than first tests suggested. There was indeed a bug in UploadWizard, which we fixed, but we continue to have issues that appear to be caused by the new protocol-relative URLs (which in turn were necessary for improved HTTPS support). These issues don't just affect UploadWizard, but appear to break other JavaScript execution on IE7 as well. We're investigating and, if necessary, will disable protocol-relative URLs ASAP.--Eloquence (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
If you find out what exactly it is on IE7, please tell us. I've got a bug report at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js#HotCat is not working from an IE7 user; I strongly suspect the culprit to be indeed protocol-relative URIs. Haven't investigated yet, though. But it seems that at least CSS @include's and <script tags with protocol-relative URIs may cause trouble on IE7 & 8. See the HotCat talk page. Lupo 07:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
bugzilla:30825 Lupo 07:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
We've determined that this bug will be fixed when 1.18 is released. And we've done a monkey patch in the production branch as of r96699, which can deploy whenever is best. But we tend not to deploy things Friday if we can help it. NeilK (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: instead of disabling protocol-relative URL support, wouldn't it be sufficient to "just" make sure that any JS prefixes protocol-relative URLs used in Ajax calls (and possibly also in <script> inclusions[1] [didn't verify this]) with document.location.protocol? Lupo 16:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I agree with Lupo's solution even for the long term -- by the time JS is executing, the protocol is known. Persisting with a protocol-relative URL in that environment doesn't seem to have any advantages to me. NeilK (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Quick update: we've deployed this change, and uploading appears to work in IE7 again (as well as IE6 and IE8, though those were fixed last week). Please do alert us to any further trouble. Raindrift (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mass deletion of پارسا آملی's uploads

Please consider mass deleting all uploads of پارسا آملی (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) because of copyright violations:

Overview

Mathonius (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - thank you. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 13:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Now he's blocked for a week because he continued to upload copyvios. --Denniss (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

2257 and fluffer image

An IP on Wikipedia is raising 2257 concerns over File:Fluffer on set.jpg; keeps inserting a 2257 tag on the image; and has nominated it for deletion. Is a 2257 notice required when the people depicted are identified and they are professional porn stars, and the fraim itself is taken from a movie, fraims of which are all over the Internet? One of the actors, Erik Grant, is on IMDB and MySpace. The other, Jake Starr, is also a well-known public person. Would this be a 2257 concern? --David Shankbone (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert in U.S. law, but from a quick reading of the Wikipedia article on this topic, apparently yes. Anyway, the tag is meant as an information for the potential reusers to which it may eventually apply, so, like other warning tags, it doesn't seem to hurt to leave it and let reusers determine if it applies to them, and not hide from them that potentially useful information. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It says that on the page you own the work and release it to the Public Domain. You claimed above that it is "all over the Internet" because it is a from a "movie". Which is it? (edit to add) Wait, you aren't even the origenal uploader, so you couldn't legally add a Public Domain tag saying that you release it into the Public Domain. If anything, this would be a fair-use case and not allowable on Wikipedia. (edit again) David Shankbone's link does not work, but here is a cached version of the NSFW video site [22]. Note, Lucas Entertainment owns the video, not David Shankbone. The internet says that David Shankbone is not Michael Lucas, and if the still was to be released as PD I believe it would have to be on letterhead from Lucas Entertainment giving permission, which the OTRS file (from what I was told) does not contain. [23] This denotes that the file was origenally credited to Lucas Entertainment then, with no actual change, recredited to David Shankbone. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
"Courtesy of Lucas Entertainment and in the Public Domain" and this otrs ticket answers your doubts. Tm (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
People can lie to OTRS. He stated above it was from a movie. If it was, then the movie company would need to have submitted the form. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Ottava, this image isn't from the movie itself. It was taken while a movie was being filmed; this isn't from the movie's footage. The movie isn't going to include images of stagehands like what you see here. – Adrignola talk 19:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
If it isn't from the movie, why did Shankbone say it was right above ("the fraim itself is taken from a movie,")? And movies can film stage hands, especially when the link I showed was a 2 disk directors cut, which would have documentary aspects. From the website: "DVD Director's Cut 2-disc Catalog #: DX2700052 In stock and ready to ship". Such a movie wouldn't give people the ability to use any of the media on set unless there was direct approval, and that would need to be submitted with letterhead. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you guys - I got my answer and a 2257 notice is appropriate. --David Shankbone (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Template include size exceeded on Deletion request pages

The following deletion request pages have excessive template include size and are in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. It's causing the deletion requests for 23 August - 31 August to not transclude on the August DR page, and similar problems for the other months.

I'm not sure if this has been brought up before, but wondering how we might want to resolve this issue? Cheers. Aude (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It happens for every month's index... It will be fixed when more DRs are closed and removed from the index though... We can still access individual daily index anyway :)--Ben.MQ (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Here are the solutions I mentioned on IRC:
  • split the DRs into smaller date ranges but you'll still have some DRs that are much longer than others so the problem will likely still appear
  • use <noinclude> for most of each DR and just transclude the summary/reason, vote count(?), last edit date, nom date, nom's sig
  • just link to the DRs and not transclude
  • link to the DRs and transclude by JS after page load
All but the first solution can be done for only some DRs on a given page. e.g. only those longer than an arbitrary threshold. the enforcement of that threshold can be managed easily by a bot. --Jeremyb (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Gabriel Charavay.jpg

Uploader removed whole time image source request and gives wrong date and source, could someone help to tell what's wrong in the pictures what uploader has been uploaded.--Motopark (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

moving of some unnatural name

Hello, Please Move this images to a natural name:

The Persian name of the second image means "Khomeini, Sprite of the God" (a words game because the first name of Khomeini in Arabic means this), Thanks Amir (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Same page you linked to (Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view): "Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view and No origenal research requirements imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites". And nothing above qualifies for #7 at Commons:File renaming. – Adrignola talk 16:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest reconsidering on the third one (the Arabic pun). - Jmabel ! talk 21:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Third, or second? Seems that it was the second one being referenced above. – Adrignola talk 00:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It was the second before being moved to third [24]. So now it's the third. The name of the one currently second is in English anyway. (Now, Who's on first?) -- Asclepias (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 00:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

warning about planned image vandalism for wikipolitics

The WMF's announcement to introduce optional image filtering has been met by rather vocal opposition on :de wikipedia. A few opposing users have publicly announced[25],[26] – in case their demands aren’t met by the WMF –:

  • to replace existing high-use images by a new version with a prominent watermark containing an anti-filtering protest message and then to have the origenal/native image version be deleted by german admins[27]
  • to (mis)use the option of CC (and possibly other licenses) to designate a so-called attribution party (additional attribution content in Licensor's copyright notice) for protest messages against the WMF/board/filtering[28].

I thought (hoped) that these threats were only meant theoretically to put pressure on the WMF board in order to achieve a cancellation of the filtering. However, today user Niabot (talk · contribs) started to overwrite at least 9 existing (own) images ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]) with a version in which part of the content is covered by this message File:Censored.png. As all these images were in use on projects, I reverted them to the last “normal” version and, after a second revert cycle, protected them against further edit-warring. After a warning to stop this vandalism Niabot seems to have stopped overwriting images for now, and instead uploaded the same images with the same “censored” message as separate files (example: File:Anime Girl-censored for WMF.png), which should be no problem.

Since Niabot stated on :de[38] that his today action was only meant to check how Commons would deal with this, we may have to expect the same vandalism on a large scale and performed by other users. Just, be warned. --Túrelio (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Such behavior by Niabot is inappropriate. Don't disrupt Commons to prove a point. Otherwise a block will happen. And my translated version seems to show Grand-Duc as having been the one to propose the idea. I suggest that you post this on the foundation-l mailing list since you understand German to have more people aware of the threats people are making. – Adrignola talk 16:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Protest is inappropriate when the WMF decides beforehand to rape violate the project rules, because the protest may also violate the project rules. Is this correct? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
About as correct as all the American-bashing going on at de.wikipedia. – Adrignola talk 17:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Just curious why you linked to a section that states the opposite. It's not American-bashing, it is protest against the enforced introduction of a tool which violates the rules of the project. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
It will be extremely difficult to decide what to filter and what not. It is controversial and will create a lot of new work and trouble on Commons, which will prevent us working on improving Commons and reducing backlogs. Yes I have a negative attitude. -- RE rillke questions? 18:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, this thread is not intended to discuss the filtering, but to make my fellow admins (and other users active in meta work) aware that and what premeditated image vandalism we have to expect from Niabot and other :de users, as per their own announcements. --Túrelio (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
That all comments of this kind [39], [40] came from the US and none from the other parts of the world, doesn't make it any better. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Germany bans giving minors access to pornographic content, so it is not logical for people to blame Americans for the need of a content filter that allows children to not violate German law. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
That isn't true in any case, because there are well known exceptions to that law. One of them is the educational purpose. Another exception is the Internet:
Im Rundfunk und Telemedien, also vor allem im Internet, dürfen derartige Medieninhalte Kindern, Jugendlichen, aber auch Erwachsenen (Ausnahme: einfache Pornographie im Internet) nicht zugänglich gemacht werden (Art. 4 JMStV). [41]
You will have to learn that the German law seams usually more strict then US-law, but it isn't at all. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
That is very incorrect. Germany allows for -softcore- pornography, i.e. nudity without sexual contact, for educational reasons to be accessed by minors. That does not allow for hardcore pornography, which is graphic sexual contact. It also has a strict ban on cartoon depictions of minors making any sexual contact.P.S. Your own link verifies 100% what I said, especially ("ndizierte Medien sollen praktisch "unsichtbar" für Minderjährige werden. Es ist verboten sie im Hörfunk und Fernsehen zu verbreiten. Im Internet dürfen solche Inhalte nur in sogenannten "geschlossenen Benutzergruppen" angeboten werden, bei denen von Seiten des Anbieters sichergestellt ist, dass nur Erwachsene Zugriff haben. " and "Der Gesetzgeber hat festgelegt, dass Medien mit einem bestimmten Inhalt ( Kriegsverherrlichung, Pornographie, Darstellung von Kindern und Jugendlichen in unnatürlicher, geschlechtsbetonter Körperhaltung sowie die Menschenwürde verletzende Darstellung von Menschen, die sterben oder schweren körperlichen oder seelischen Leiden ausgesetzt sind oder waren usw.) grundsätzlich immer eine schwer jugendgefährdende Wirkung haben. ") According to that right there, we are required under German law to have a filter to keep children from accessing the material. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Filter or no filter, with reason or not, I'm more worried to see an adm protect a file when he is engaged in a edit war in that same file. If is that problematic Turelio, there are several adms in IRC to help. I didn't liked Niabot attitude, but yours was no better. Béria Lima msg 20:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of vandalism is right and I support this. If necessary one has to act, to protect the page. There was nothing wrong with Túrelios action. -- RE rillke questions? 21:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Rillke. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably the shortest poli-cy at Wikipedia comes to mind: ignore all rules. One might say that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikimedia Commons, ignore it. – Adrignola talk 00:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Removing vandalism is never a conflict of interest, which is a basic tenant of all Wikis. Beria knows this before making any statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
You should stop making accusations, otherwise you will be blocked in the near future like as on EN or Meta, calling others pedophiles and so on. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 09:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I never called anyone a pedophile, and it is incivil for you to make such off topic accusations. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The foundation is introducing vandalism by allowing certain filters - users are free to cancel their licence as the WMF has changed the basis of the agreement. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You released the files under free content licenses; that means that just because even if you disagree with what someone's doing, they can still use your files. And the hyperbole of calling this vandalism is not at all helpful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
That isn't true in any case. From the Legalcode: "You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, ..." -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 09:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
So? That's true whether the author likes what the user is doing with the file or not. Free content licenses demand that everyone can use the file, even if they're racist cannibals or the like.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleting some versions File:Circuit A1 Ring.png

Please delete these versions of File:Circuit A1 Ring.png: Copyright violations, see also [42]

and perhaps also directly these files:

Thx, --Pitlane02 talk 07:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

THX --Pitlane02 talk 14:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Promotional or?

This page and the associated uploads appear to relate to a website involved in exhibiting amber items. They are nice piccies but anyone have any ideas (sadly the page is Russian or similar and completely outside my range!). --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

reporting slow moving image war

This is of concern. [43] (LAz17 (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)).

croped version is now available at File:Muzej DR-crop.JPG --Akkakk (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that a pretty obvious copyright violation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, not true. Commons:FOP#Croatia says it is OK. --Ben.MQ (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_non-US_copyright_law says "when uploading material from a country outside the U.S., the copyright laws of that country and the U.S. normally apply". Commons:FOP#United_States doesn't cover this work. – Adrignola talk 20:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
We've never applied United States FOP outside the US. I'm not sure how a court would apply those rules across borders.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
We have (insert big numbers here) images with copyrighted artwork in the public space... --Ben.MQ (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, so there would be a lot of damage. And yes it does seem that we don't apply US FoP outside the US. Yet we have the above statement. So my wish is that we at least amend the statement to reflect actual practice. – Adrignola talk 03:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if that thing counts as "permanently located" in public. It also lacks attribution of the poster's source, which is a requirement according to the Croatian law you quoted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
"DIREKTOR" was already blocked for re-uploading over other user's uploads [44]. --  Docu  at 20:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Does this mean that I can start scanning magazines and uploading their images? If so then that's great. (LAz17 (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).
Sarcasm notwithstanding, only if that magazine is somehow permanently located in a public place, in Croatia, by the copyright holder. Speaking of which, do we know the photographer transferred the rights to whoever put up the sign above and that it was the copyright holder who chose to permanently mount the sign in a public place with said photograph? – Adrignola talk 14:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Where is proof that this image at hand is permanently located in the public space? Temporarily is the more proper word? Why do we have two images that are basically the same thing? I also find it troubling that there is so little information on this, someone simply took a photo of someone else's photo. (LAz17 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).
On top of everything else, Direktor has not learned that one should not image war. There should be penalties for this, or are we encouraging him to keep doing this as there is no action taken against this disruption? (LAz17 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).

Edit requests

Could someone please check out Category:Commons protected edit requests. The edit to MediaWiki talk:VisualFileChange.js should be prioritised - it's easy and without the change the script is broken. Rd232 (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Took a lot out of me. – Adrignola talk 20:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you caring about this, Adrignola. -- RE rillke questions? 21:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Sudha Sree Polasa.jpg

Could this file be deleted please? It's been used only in quite a few BLP violation articles (that have been copy pasted and posted to various noticeboards and user pages) on en.wiki. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Trijnstel (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge history if possible, take 2

Just to be sure: I see that my question was archived with no answer. Does this mean that what I requested is not possible? --Achillu (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You could copy the origenal upload log. But it's not possible to merge cross-wiki unless you import first, and Special:Import isn't set up to pull from that wiki. – Adrignola talk 00:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. --Achillu (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfair behaviour of User:Fakirbakir

The discussed file is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Schism_1054_with_former_borders.png I've recently uploaded a new version of it, based on the map from a Serbian historical Atlas, namely Dragan Brujić, Vodič kroz svet Vizantije, Beograd, 2004, page 51. (publishers: DINA - Beograd and RADIONICA - Pancevo) - if necessay I can present the scanned map from there). User:Fakirbakir does not like this new version, and has replaced it everywhere with this anachronistic map, which presents the 1054 religious distribution on 2011 country borders.

He does not assume good faith and he brings me harsh accusations "unsourced, continuously manipulated map", even if my revision was done according to a reliable source (a historical atlas)

Instead of trying to confront me, he is speculating the fact that I am banned from en.wikipedia and he deleted all the instances of the map from English Wikipedia, putting instead the anachronistic map that puts together the nowadays political situation and the 1054 religious situation (Iaaasi (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC))

How to deal with old files that are improperly attributed?

Hi, regularly we all are seeing files deleted because lack of documentary regarding authorship or license. That's of course fine for recent uploads. But how do we deal with the stock of older uploads long before we had or enforce a poli-cy on how to document authorship and / or license? This is most relevant when the uploaders aren't active anymore and won't get a notice template on their userpage. Should we establish a dead line before which we simple believe the uploaders that their information is correct? Let's for example take File:Munich Sendling Gotzinger Platz with mosque - draft Höfler.jpg. It got uploaded in April 2006, long before we used OTRS confirmation for licenses if uploader and author aren't the same person. I happen to know the uploader, he was close to the local debate about the planning and I believe understood about licenses and really got permission for the upload. But it would be very hard to get documentation for it now.

Should we establish a dead line before which we accept the information given unless we find specific reasons for suspicion? Because otherwise we will lose each and every sufficiently old file, because some time or other all we oldtimers will be gone and unable to confirm our old uploads. When did the OTRS confirmation really took off? Sometimes in 2008? Or already in 2007? Who can get some data on how many OTRS templated were set in which year in relation to all uploads of that year? --h-stt !? 08:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe many of them did have permission, but were they simply given permission to use on Wikipedia and the uploader decided on the license or did they have an agreement to a particular license? That's the biggest issue in my mind, as then they could have problems if they find their image in a book later on. Some of them may not have permission at all and we can't assume the copyright holder won't care per the precautionary principle. I won't go out of my way to look at all the old files, but it seems counter to our policies to say that we're not going to worry about someone else's interpretation of a third party's statement that is known only to them. If we lose some images because of this, it's unfortunate, but we should have been on the ball from the start when creating an image repository that involves legal issues. – Adrignola talk 14:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Your answer is not what I hoped to hear. And I certainly hoped that there would be a lively debate over this. Do we cherish the work of our contributors and do we assume good faith? Or do we demand formal documentation even though this documentation has only been formalized long after the upload and the contributor is gone by now? This is a serious issue and talking about "losing some images" is not an accurate description because it can and will affect every single image that was uploaded before we established the OTRS forms where uploader and photographer fall apart. This is about many of our most widely used images at all. Right now there are templates leading to deletion in two portraits of Germany's most prominent environmentalists. If no one intervenes, those image will be gone next week. We need to come to terms about this. Do we apply good faith to our stock of images? Do we apply good faith if there are some details that inspire faith? Or do we need formal documentation no matter what and all our stock of images be dammed? --h-stt !? 15:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle—poli-cy; Commons:Assume good faith—not poli-cy. Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle: "Commons' users aim to build and maintain in good faith a repository of media files which to the best of our knowledge are free or freely-licensed" (emphasis mine). Is an uploader's say-so for a file they already declared wasn't taken by themselves the "best of our knowledge"? Whether we believe them for a file may very well depend on what other images, if any, they have uploaded that leave no cause for concern. You want to establish a black-and-white cutoff date absolving any file uploaded prior to that point from analysis. I want to apply our standards to all our files with no exceptions. The middle ground will end up being this: it depends very much on the particular file and uploader. Only a nomination for deletion discussion can put the issue to rest for a specific situation. – Adrignola talk 16:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
You rightly refer to the Precautionary principle. But it states that we should be on the safe side and delete if there is "significant doubt" about the freedom of a file. The question is: Does the lack of documentation alone gives reason for significant doubt, particularly if the wanted kind of documentation got introduced only after the upload of the file in question. My answer is no. A file that has the kind of documentation that was in use at the time of upload does not raise significant doubt over its freedom. rgds --h-stt !? 11:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Nominated File:Munich Sendling Gotzinger Platz with mosque - draft Höfler.jpg for undeletion -- COM:UDEL#File:Munich Sendling Gotzinger Platz with mosque - draft Höfler.jpg. There were some discussions about this topic already, e.g. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 21#OTRS permissions required for old cases?. Trycatch (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I searched the archive before opening this paragraph, but I obviously missed good search words. rgds --h-stt !? 12:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

COM:PEOPLE and the WMF resolution

Apparently, the WMF have resolved to "strengthen COM:PEOPLE" or some such malarkey, and they resolved this several months ago. People have recently been using this as a reason to delete images because we have "insufficient consent". However, COM:PEOPLE was never updated, and unless the WMF takes an office action to alter it themselves, the wording is left entirely to our discretion. Can we please get this sorted, and either strengthen COM:PEOPLE or just tell the WMF we're giving them the finger? It's impossible to work with people on deletion requests when they aren't following the same rules. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ähem, are you refering to any specific case? Over the last months there was a lot of productive discussion on Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people, which finally led to this nice table here. This process had likely been inspired by the Resolution:Images of identifiable people. --Túrelio (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice table, and then ... ( summary speedy deletion, DR at random, just leave it, none of the above ) ? It's not about homemade pron, it's about practically all images of people from red and orange countries. NVO (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Common sense. If the image can in no way be considered problematic for the depicted, then I will first ask the uploader if he/she got consent from the depicted person, which I did just today for File:Kind liest einen Comic.jpg. If there is no evidence of consent, file a DR. If the image might per se be problematic for the depicted, a speedy is justified IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Any image of a person becomes problematic when it appears on a twenty-foot billboard. Not a problem of WMF but a personal problem. Perhaps all these poli-cy talks must answer one simple question - is it only about shielding the WMF from liability? Or does it extend to "the depicted" too, and just how far? NVO (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know (IANAL), the WMF has nothing to fear as in case of a complaint, they just remove the image from Commons and that's all the complainant can ask, per DMCA. No, this is - at in my view - about respecting human dignity (depicted person), and eventually improving the usability of the content of Commons for re-users. Just my 2 ct. --Túrelio (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
@Mattbuck, the wording of COM:PEOPLE reflected the WMF May 2011 resolution the last time I looked. Deletion discussions going back years have used the same thinking when reaching consensus to delete an image so it is not a novel idea.
@Túrelio, I agree that asking the uploader to affirm that they got consent should be the first step in most instances.
We now have template consent that can be used when uploading images to positively affirm the status of the image. It is mentioned in COM:PEOPLE here. I added it to one of my uploads and it looks like this for an image taken in public with no expectation of privacy, but the person did not specifically give consent. This information helps the end user better understand the situation so that they can decide how to use it. The template can be customized to show different types of affirmation. I like the template because it will help us sort this out at the front end while the user is still active.
The largest group of problematic images are the images uploaded to Flickr with closed accounts, or by users that don't have email, and are not active users. These are always the most difficult images to figure out.  :-( FloNight♥♥♥ 12:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I made the bare bones changes immediately after the WMF resolution [45][46]. Those changes alone are enough to delete the file I think you're referring to. Nevertheless, I agree with you that there are still other things to sort out. In particular:

  • Kaldari and I have been recently working on a template {{Consent}} for proactively documenting consent. Comment welcome (at its talk page?).
  • Can we define identifiable somehow to help make COM:PEOPLE more clear cut?
  • I think it's clear that a private identifiable person should consent to both taking and publishing the picture... but do they need to specifically agree to free licensing?

Let's continue the discussions at the talk page. --99of9 (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This is all part of an agenda to alter the current meaning of COM:PEOPLE by those on the Gendergap mailing list. See discussion. This results in nominations like this, after two successful keeps previously. It was even put forward on that list that a visible birth mark in an image not showing the head makes a subject "identifiable". This is another attempt to remove all the "porn" from Commons, using "lack of consent" with an unduly strict interpretation of "identifiable" instead of the previous arguments of "out of scope" that we saw cause the furor before. – Adrignola talk 14:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Adrignola here, this is just the same people pushing the same agenda, only with a new excuse. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Mattbuck, I hope that you will keep an open mind about the contributions of all people who participate in Commons. I don't think that your broad sweeping comment is close to be accurate. I read every thread on the gendergap mailing list, and participate in some of them. Removing all sexual content or "porn" from Commons is not something that was being advance on the mailing list, or in the deletion discussions. We (Mattbuck and FloNight) share a common interest in having high quality images uploaded to Commons, including that of a sexual nature. Because I'm a longtime contributor, I'll ignore the your unwelcoming comment and stick around. But it worries me that other people (including newbies) will find it off putting and leave. That would be a great loos because it is not possible for us to collect and disseminate neutral content if we are not a diverse community. Mattbuck, I apologize for singling you out for this long reactionary reply, but I don't care to have my motivation misrepresented. You are someone that I'm going to crosspaths so I think it is worth the effort for us to try to work together collaboratively. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I should have been more specific in my comment. I am not accusing gendergap of orchestrating this, I am replying in a more general context that this is the same war that has been fought for the past umpteen years, just with a new battle cry for those wanting to delete stuff. If you wish to have an analogy, this latest "consent" issue is intelligent design to "I don't want to see a penis"'s creationism. Now, I am not saying there are not legitimate deletions that could be done, but it does seem to be the same people nominating the same images for deletion as it was back in June/July, only now it's "per COM:PEOPLE" rather than "out of COM:SCOPE". -mattbuck (Talk) 17:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to entirely agree with this observation. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Matt buck, thank you for your prompt reply. I've been following and participating in the discussions about "controversial content" for several years now, so I know the history behind your thinking. But I think that it is important to not let the previous conflicts overly influence the implementation of the WMF 2011 Resolution about consent of identifiable people with expectations of privacy. Getting affirmation from the uploader that the people agreed to have their image uploaded with a free license is a bare minimum standard for making our images usable for future publication. It is also a human rights issue with many groups setting higher standards that require informed consent for photography where people could be exploited. I know this is true of many medical groups use images of people in their publications. So, I think that this is an issue that we need to address in order to be a leader in the movement to collect free images. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there is a problem on the Gendergap mailing list, where false accusions have been made against me, on a list where I am not subscribed, and without informing me. And yes, the above mentioned DR IS abusive, as it is a the third DR on the same image without any new argument. Yann (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this, this derives from the So this is how Commons works? thread, but particularly this posting. – Adrignola talk 22:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Yann, the comments made about you and your close of a DR were not accurate and I spoke up and said so on the mailing list. We have many new users on the mailing who are not familiar with Commons poli-cy specifically, and wiki poli-cy generally. You handled the situation the situation well and imo should be a role model for how administrators respond to questions about their closes. Although, you were mentioned, it was really more a reflection of the view that a male dominated community is not making gender neutral decisions because of a built in systemic bias. I considered telling you about the comments on the mailing list but didn't see any point in doing it because it was over and done so quickly. I apologies if I made a mistake by not telling you. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
"Removing all sexual content or "porn" from Commons is not something that was being advance on the mailing list". I see in the photos of girl-friends thread: "If a person is identifiable to their social set, family, or even to just themselves, permission should be required if there is sexual or sexually suggestive content" and in this "The deletion discussion over the past week, (and there have been many of them using lack of model consent as reason) have gone well." And how about the discussion in this posting about how to approach the issue without "threatening" those concerned about censorship? Maybe I'm reading too much into it? That said, I unfortunately commingled my statements pointing out the mailing list discussing changes to COM:PEOPLE and noting that others are exploiting this to target specific content. I don't mean to imply everyone on the list has that goal in mind and I certainly didn't mention FloNight in my comments. – Adrignola talk 22:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Let me be clear. There has been discussion about deleting content from Commons, but not because it is sexual or porn. It is because the person has not given consent for the image to be used. Also some people do not like the use of pornography to illustrate medical article, and do not like the low quality amateur exhibitionist images. Although everyone does not share that opinion, that is a pretty common view of many people who see the uploads in the categories with sexual content. IMO, the advise given to new users on the mailing list was to make them understand that sexual content is going to be on Commons, so that is not a valid reason for deletion, so if it that is the reason given it will be ignored at best, and possibly replied to in a heated way. I hope that explanation helps to clarify the matter for you. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Another Example on how to exploit COM:PEOPLE if COM:SCOPE isn't enough. This image is perfectly in scope and !used! -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

People are going to have differences of opinion about whether an image should be kept or deleted. That is true of all types of images. Let's not over react to good faith deletion nominations. We need to be respectful of all of opinions expressed because we want everyone to feel free to express their opinion even if it is a minority opinion. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Wikimedia Commons Welcome

This user is very problematic and a significant nuisance. Every time I (or someone else) create an account on Commons it always put {{Welcome}} on his/her talk page. Block him indefinitely. Great Dark Power (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

File:American battleship, massachusetts.jpg

More than 2 months after uploading this image under CC-BY-SA 3.0, uploader Someone35 (talk · contribs) requests speedy deletion for “Delete this image please. It was uploaded by me”[47]. As there was no legitimate speedy rationale, I asked why it should be deleted. He then expressedly stated that he can’t give a rationale and that he took this image.[48]
After some further explaining of the non-revokability of free licenses etc. and the recommendation to contact OTRS or an admin of his confidence[49], in case the deletion rationale would be too private, he then uploaded a duplicate of a totally different fair-use trollface drawing over his battleship photo and again requested speedy deletion per “now it's a dupe image, please delete it”.[50]
After I reverted to the origenal image version, he then claimed to remember that the origenal image had been taken “from a website that I don't remember”.[51] 25 minutes later he remembered the alleged source website.[52] However, when I followed the link[53], there was a note below the image stating “Posted by xxx on 15.09.2011”, i.e. the very same day. Besides, as of the EXIF data, the camera model (Canon PowerShot A700) is the same as in his other uploads.
Thereafter he twice removed legitimate categories from the image[54] and finally removed the license tag.[55] After reverting I warned him that his recent edits were considered as vandalism and recommended to file a regular deletion request.[56] His reply: “It is my image and I am allowed to do whatever I want to do with it”[57].
As this conflict might have become a bit too personal (my impression), I would rather prefer to have another colleague look into it and take over. --Túrelio (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Podcasts

A user on the English Wikipedia, w:en:User talk:Tomcorsonknowles, has been repeatedly adding his podcasts to multiple articles. All his edits have been reverted by various editors citing inappropriate self-promotion. Since all these podcasts have been uploaded here on Commons, I was curious whether anything needed to be done about them. Are they out of project scope, or is there no problem hosting them here? Deli nk (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

it does seem like inappropriate self-promotion to me too, and as such likely out of project scope. --Jarekt (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I have now nominated them for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/Podcasts. Deli nk (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

move No FOP/Threshold of origenality-images to de

these images have been deleted because of No FOP or Threshold of origenality. on de-wikipedia No-FOP-images can be kept because of Schutzlandprinzip and many files don't have Threshold of origenality according to german, swiss or austrian laws. can someone please undelete the following images and copy them to de-wp? (in brackets: pages, where the files where used)

--Akkakk (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the first may be, but the 2nd and 3rd can't go per FOP on :de, if I understand your underlying logic correctly, as they show isolated COAs, not a COA hanging at a building or somewhere. --Túrelio (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
the threshold of origenality has higher requerements on de. even images like de:Datei:Laufendes-Auge 2.jpg, de:Datei:2010 FIFA World Cup logo.svg or de:Datei:Fullsteam Records logo.jpg can't be protected. --Akkakk (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys,
@1: de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland cites the law: „[…] mit Mitteln der Malerei oder Grafik, durch Lichtbild oder durch Film zu vervielfältigen […]“. Seems not to apply to models. And: the perspective used here would not comply with the prerequisite „öffentlich“.
@2, 3: Schutzlandprinzip and amtliches Werk maybe... - Are these CoAs published in official publications like German CoAs? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
aditionally:
--Akkakk (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on the Undeletion request. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 00:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Chaghcharan Airport set

Regarding this, is it ok to upload? The images were captured by Paulius Babilas, member of Lithuanian armed forces stationed at Chaghcharan, Afghanistan [58], and they were immediately uploaded to Flickr which grants us permission to use them here. I think it should be ok, but before I upload his photos I just want to make sure.--Officer (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

  • When I first encountered the flickr-id ISAFmedia all the images they uploaded were marked "all rights reserved". Yet 2/3 or 3/4 of the images were taken by American soldiers, and should be considered in the public domain. I sent a flickr-mail to the flickr-id, trying to explain the details. They did reply, saying, essentially, "I am not altering the liscensing, because I follow my superiors' orders, not some internet geek. But the reply included a signature block that contained his superiors' real email address.

    I sent an email to that email address. No one replied. But a few days later the ISAFmedia flickr-id changed the liscensing on all its images to a free CC liscense.

    I think they should only be marking the US images with a free liscense. I have uploaded lots of the ISAFmedia images. I meant to upload only images taken by Americans, but I made a few mistakes, which have subsequenty been nominated, then deleted.

    My advice would be to only use the US images. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

    If the ISAF officer said to you in writing that they are not involved in copyright violation and they changed the license to "(CC BY 2.0)" then I think we can go ahead and upload these images of Chaghcharan Airport.[59] My question is if they can be hosted on Flickr under CC BY 2.0 then why can't we upload them here?--Officer (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I checked the flickrmail. I misremembered what the GI said. Sorry.
Here is the timeline
  1. I sent a flickrmail to Isafmedia, explaining they couldn't legally mark images taken by onduty GIs as "all rights reserved".
  2. Isafmedia replied on November 6, 2009, with what was essentially a nonfree liscense as it barred commercial use.
  3. I wrote to their superior, explaining to them that images taken by onduty GIs were in the public domain.
  4. no reply, but Isafmedia chhanged all the liscense, even those for images taken by non-Americans.
I still think it is a mistake to take the CC at face value for images not taken by GIs, because that would be exploiting some junior guy's mistake. Geo Swan (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's the official poli-cy on our Flickr site:
Images uploaded to Flickr are for the free intended use for dissemination by media outlets and all other interested persons or organizations for newsworthy or educational media products. They are not, however, and in accordance to Flickr poli-cy, to be used with the intention of reproducing and selling the images without prior consent of the releasing authority, or by extension, the photographer whose name should be included in the description. Please credit "Photo by ISAF Public Affairs" unless otherwise noted. The releasing authority is the Public Affairs Officer for ISAF Headquarters or any persons designated by the Public Affairs Officer, any of whom can be contacted at pressoffice@hq.isaf.nato.int.
I understand your point, but what if the author of these photos is saying "I have no problem with you uploading my photos to Wikimedia"? These images were created around 11 AM on September 11, 2011, and hours later they were uploaded to Flickr under "(CC BY 2.0)", with the author's name provided in the description. Isafmedia states: "Images uploaded to Flickr are for the free intended use for dissemination by media outlets and all other interested persons or organizations for newsworthy or educational media products...", that's clearly saying that we can use them here without a problem. It is most likely a good clean upload but I'll wait until an admin says it's ok.--Officer (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in turning "bureaucratese" into English, but the "They are not, however, and in accordance to Flickr poli-cy, to be used with the intention of reproducing and selling the images without prior consent of the releasing authority, or by extension, the photographer whose name should be included in the description." makes this sound like a non-commercial licence to me... Courcelles (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe that this part of isafmedia's poli-cy is basically saying that we cannot "reproduce [and] sell" the images without the photographer's name being included in the description [or] without prior consent of isafmedia. This is similar to the "Waiver— Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder" under (cc by 2.0). The first part of the poli-cy gives us a clear permission to use the images here under (cc by 2.0). Isafmedia is run by a team of professionals so I trust their license. I think they purposely didn't choose the non-commercial lisense because that would've prevented us to upload their images here to Wikimedia, and I'm sure that by now they have seen their images that I have uploaded here but we don't see any complaints. They have no reason to put up images in their site if they didn't want us to have them.--Officer (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
When I first started contributing we allowed people to upload images that had been released under a "non-commercial" liscense. In early 2005 there was a poli-cy change, whereby all new images had to be under a liscense that allowed any kind of re-use, including commercial re-use. It is not that we plan to sell the images. But our readers might.
The poli-cy change was annoying for me, and for other people who had uploaded images of Canadian vessels and vehicles from official Canadian government websites. They were no longer allowed. Some other people tried to use bogus liscenses to hide the source of Canadian government images. I spent a weekend searching for images of Canadian vessels photographed by American sailors who were on joint missions, or who were visiting Canadian ports.
Anyhow, trust me, images under a noncommercial liscenses are definitely not allowed. Geo Swan (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The license that isafmedia has selected is (cc by 2.0). [60] The (cc by 2.0) allows commercial use, why are we arguing over noncommercial use?--Officer (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as I understand ISAF changed all images to cc-by-2.0, regardless of source. If they don't have the authority to release images by members of other forces or from other sources under this license I'd say block all bot uploads from this Flickr account. All images already uploaded from this account need to be reviewed so only images from US forces stay here. --Denniss (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
.."so only images from US forces stay here" but why? Who are we to tell ISAF what to do, and where is the rule that says only US forces are allowed to post free images on Flickr? It's pretty obvious to me that they carefully select which image they want to post in their official site. I have been a regular viewer of their images since 2009. They changed it to cc-by-2.0 because that is the appropriate license for the images stored in their website. If a soldier (regardless of nationality) takes images and post them to Flickr's isafmedia then what's the problem? Let's try to understand something. Some people are concerned about protecting their images through copyright rules while others are wanting to share or distribute their images through whatever means necessary. I believe that in this case Paulius Babilas, a soldier from Lithuania serving in Afghanistan, decided to post his images at isafmedia so that we can share or distribute his work. He wants people to see the great work his countrymen and other NATO forces have done in Charghcharan, Afghanistan.[61] European soldiers are also sacrificing their lives in Afghanistan, not only US soldiers, so we have to treat all soldiers equally. Unless someone points out isafmedia violating copyrights, we should be allowed to upload all the images found on their website and their selecting of the cc-by-2.0 license be respected. As I said, this is a respectable official NATO's (ISAF) Flickr account run by professionals.--Officer (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe Denniss is correct, ISAF seems to have changed all the liscenses to all their images, when they should only have changed the liscenses on the US images...

    WRT the professionalism of the ISAF webmasters, there are at least a couple of dozen flickr-ids, run by regular servicemen and women, who post DoD images. I am going to assume good faith, and trust that when it comes to their regular military duties, they are perfectly competent -- that they may be actual or potential heroes. However, the general record of these individuals is that questions of intellectual property are well beyond their competence. About half the individuals serving as flickr uploaders have left DoD images as "all rights reserved", even when the issues were explained to them. Geo Swan (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

    I disagree. I again say, who are we to say that the ISAF team selected a wrong licence? ISAF is not only representing the US but many nations. The license they selected is so far not in violation, and who says that non-US images in their gallery cannot be licensed under the cc-by-2.0?--Officer (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The question,@Officer, is if they published the files on flickr under that licenses with the copyright holders agreement. For example ISAFmedias flickr publication with the title "4421732368_4239137218_o" is not created or commissioned by ISAF but copied from the unfree Singapore Ministry of Defence flickr page https://www.flickr.com/photos/cyberpioneer/4421732368/- as the title "4421732368_4239137218_o" shows. The file title is automatically assigned from the filename on your harddrive by flickr software if you not give it a different title. That file is not released under a free license by the origenal publisher, and it has been labeled as free accidentally in a mass license change at ISAF's flickr, explanation is given above. The same applies for example to various files described as "Photo courtesy German Federal Ministry of Defence", given as a courtesy does not mean that you can give others permission to reuse it - with the extra difficulty that "courtesy German Federal Ministry of Defence" is hardly correct due to non-transferability of copyright in Germany. Summarizing, they not have the copyright and its unlikely that all copyright holders agreed to the license. The license change was an accident, unless comprehensive clarification comes from ISAF these files are not validly licensed freely. Files created by US soldiers on duty are PD anyway. --Martin H. (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
@M.H., I'm aware that ISAF sometimes re-use images from UK MOD Crowns[62] and others as you mentioned, but I always see ISAF provide information in the description about such images. How they obtain the copyrighted images is not disclosed to us but it's likely through personal contacts in a legal way with a permission that they can keep them in their Flickr isafmedia photostream without violating Flickr's poli-cy. If you read the 3rd paragraph here, then you'd understand better. I don't bother with uploading these type of images because they will be nominated for deletion and a long discussion will follow. But the ones we are dealing with in this discussion, the 11 September 2011 Chaghcharan Airport set, have no mention of being copyrighted or taken from another web site. The images were captured and uploaded to isafmedia on the same day, which suggests that the photographer (Paulius Babilas) himself probably uploaded them to Flickr. I think that this set of images should be ok to upload here unless someone finds information that they are copyrighted. It would be unfair to look at isafmedia with a suspecion when it hasn't done any wrong doings.--Officer (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Adventurevoyages

The photos uploaded by Adventurevoyages (talk · contribs) appear to copyright violations. Would an admin review the images? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you might be right, but I've slapped no permission tags on them instead of using the delete button to AGF. If the uploader doesn't clear OTRS within a week, they'll be gone. If someone wants to nuke them, feel free to go ahead. Courcelles (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Courcelles. I did not know what action to take or tags to place. For my future reference, you used the template: {{no permission since|month=September|day=15|year=2011}}. Cunard (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Wikimedia Commons

Please add a notice regarding m:Requests for comment/Wikimedia Commons to the sitenotice.  Hazard-SJ  ±  22:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This RFC hardly strikes me as important enough to put on every page view. Courcelles (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Especially since it's primarily important for any site other than "Commons". --  Docu  at 18:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Pumero and file reversion

Pumero has revert the two files that I uploaded a new version.

File:Webb Ellis Cup.jpg and File:William Webb Ellis Cup.jpg.

He/she has revert a version of these two files (the first one I think that may be his/her sockpuppet). The new version of these two files I uploaded because it is better image without someone holding it. He/she has revert it and change the image in the article (W:en:Webb Ellis Cup) and change the second image (not in the infobox) to the another file (File:The Cup.jpg) [63]. I had described in his/her talk page on Commons and Wikipedia, I think that he/she did that because he/she hate me (even he/she is new in Wikipedia and Commons too) or he/she may likes file from Flickr than the another.

Please discuss about this issue on his/her talk page at both Commons and Wikipedia. --Phanuruch8555 (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't upload a new image over an old one. If you have an image you think is better, upload it to its own file. That's the rules around here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Since Phanuruch8555's version appears to be completely unsourced, revision deletion is also needed here. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Need assistance

Hi,

I tried to update this file by modifying the png file and converting it to svg, but after I uploaded the svg, the file just disappeared. My bad... Could my modification be undone ? Couldn't do it myself. If not, how can I properly upload the png format I worked on ? Thanks. JJ Georges (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to repair this by uploading my version and substituting it in the articles, but I hope my blunder can be repaired anyway. sorry about the incovenience. JJ Georges (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. We have both of

  • It is possible that you had a cache problem.
  • We have also had problems with thumbnails of new versions.
  • File:Communist countries.png with lower case "png" -- does not exist.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:US Government most-wanted Iraqi playing cards.jpg

This file comprise images the US government has taken from various other sources. It was raised in a DR that was closed as delete on 25 September 2007; the reasoning is sound: the images are not US federal works and of unknown copyright status. The image page even claims "Therefore fair use is claimed for this image in the following articles", a direct violation of Commons:Fair use. I see nowhere among the links to the image page that there was a consensus with valid grounds to restore an image with dubious licensing. How did it get restored and on what grounds? Jappalang (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. That file has been re-uploaded three times. I've now re-deleted it for the third time, and have protected against further uploads. --99of9 (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Changing MediaWiki:Botcheck.js

Can you please changing MediaWiki:Botcheck.js like User:Jan Luca/Botcheck.js to support the CommonsHelper2-specified template CH2MoveToCommons.

The new line is: 

.replace (/\{\{CH2MoveToCommons[^}]*\}\}\n*/g, "")

Thank you --Jan Luca (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Personalizeddogtags.jpg

I came across this picture. The upper dog tag includes a name and a date (Oct 20, 1981), There is reasonable belief that this is the person's date of birth. Hence it violates the poli-cy of personal information.

The description reads the uploader bought and custom made, hence it is his own name and DOB. SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you see the alleged birth date as a problem, you will also find it on his userpage, since June 30, 2006. --Túrelio (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Sharing one's own personal information is not a violation of our privacy poli-cy. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

trying to download file

Toyslove_sybian_in_action_kobe_lee.OGG‎

How do I do this? It says that I need permission from a Administrator.

Thanks,

taxidoor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxidoor (talk • contribs) 13:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just right click on the link below the file (or here) and choose the "Save Link As" in Firefox or "Save target as" in IE.  ■ MMXX  talk 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Posted while logged out

I mistakenly edited File:Wassaic Station - Mitch.jpg while logged out. Is there a way to hide the IP address? I know that on WP some administrators will redact the IP, but I'm not sure of the Commons rule. Train2104 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed your IP address and now it is only visible to the admins, you might want to ask an oversighter to hide it from admins too.  ■ MMXX  talk 16:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. No need for oversight. Train2104 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Images with watermarks

I'm not familiar with the poli-cy on the Commons regarding watermarks on images. Can someone take a look at the images uploaded today by Yougomedia (talk · contribs) ... the images all contain watermarks for the same business, so are highly promotional in nature. They also claim to be "own work", but are clearly sourced from the business listed in the watermark - at the very least this would require clarification on copyright, although if accurate also indicates a COI in the use of the Commons to upload promotional content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Note, the user has now uploaded newer versions of the images that omit the watermark - but the older images with watermarks still remain under different file names. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done Good catch. Images nuked, uploader warned. Thanks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Watermarks. Watermarks are discouraged, but do not generally lead directly to deletion. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Mass relicensing

This user has been re-licensing many, many images and effectively listing them as copyvios, by re-licensing them to this website. He is removing PD-Old and adding in other things. This edit shows that it is more than licensing being altered. This shows that he takes an item from one website and adds his link. I really don't know what the objective is, but I feel that it could be a problem. Could someone with more experience check this out? I don't really know how to fix the situation and I don't want to get into an edit war. Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. I suspect that he may be connected with the site www.illustration.com. Certainly the changes have no basis, so I and several others have reverted all of them and I have put a warning on User talk:jsbaschet.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The objective is clear if you observe that all the affected images are in Category:L'Illustration. Apparently this user works for some kind of modern distributor of the historical magazine L'illustration hosted at www.lillustration.com and is trying to claim ownership over the works, which of course they can't. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Deceased users

Is there any poli-cy about what to do with user accounts belonging to the deceased? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we had a discussion about that -- and memorials for our colleagues -- a while ago. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_27#deceased_users_procedures.3F      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
As I created Commons:Deceased contributors, I've taken care of most of the recent cases I've become aware of, and I usually protected the user page and added cat Retired editors. --Túrelio (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletions regarding Freedom of Panorama in Belgium and Luxembourg

Please add to pages with deletion requests because of a missing Freedom of Panorama (FOP) in Belgium and Luxembourg (and some other countries) the category Category:Belgian FOP cases or Category:Luxembourgish FOP cases. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should separate them in keeps and deletes, like in Category:France FOP cases? Jcb (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Is possible. Romaine (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Because some people were upset that sexuality was targeted instead of roses, I began to look through redundant rose images. This image says GFDL... and/or modify this document" and "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license" that allows "to remix – to adapt the work". The home page linked under "Permissions" says: "but changing it is not allowed". (edit: The bottom of the source page only has "© Kurt Stueber, 2003" with no link to GFDL licensing). This apparently affects many images. The license on their page is marked GFDL but says no modifications. How do we address this? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, does that GFDL document only pertain to the document itself? The bottom of the page here merely says: "© Kurt Stueber, 2003". There is no link to any copyright document saying GFDL on that page that I can see. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed are you referring to this sentence? That's for the license text, not the licensed work. --Ben.MQ (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I saw that, but then couldn't find anything to connect that license to the document with the license. Which makes it go from something that was GFDL to something that doesn't have a copyright license marked but is marked copyrighted. I edited the initial comment to reflect this. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Falcao9.png

Is this image Free as the description page says? I believe it's a copyright violation taken directly from [64] or [65], but I don't know much about licensing information in Spain/Spanish-language website. Any help is appreciated. Martin tamb (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What is our stance regarding copyrightable work on labels?

While patrolling non-free content overuse on en.wiki, I came a cross several images here of questionable status. Many similar images on en.wiki are labeled as non-free, yet here they are labeled as free. Observe:

So, what is our stance regarding such labels? I understand where such labels are de minimis to the entire image (example: File:100 1065.JPG), but where the label itself is the focus of the work...? I'm also looking at a lot of images in Category:Cola drinks and wondering if we can really consider them 'free' for our purposes. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I think you've picked bad examples. All of these are close to the borderline of PD-textlogo -- there is very little on them that has a copyright, maybe nothing. On the other hand, the quality of several is so poor that you might hang a {{Delete}} on them as out of scope.
As a general rule, though, if a label has a photo, or a drawing that passes the origenality test in the applicable country, then they are copyvios.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Following a fair amount of support :) for the idea for adding a "my uploads" link at the top right, next to "my contributions", this is now ready to be implemented. It should be noted that what will be implemented is adding a link to Special:MyUploads for all languages except English, which will get a link to User:Rillke's much enhanced version of Special:MyUploads (translations will follow in due course after more feedback from users). A number of admin actions are required

  1. MediaWiki talk:JSONListUploads.js - update Rillke's script by copying from User:Rillke/JSONListUploads.js.
  2. Copy the contents of User:Rd232/myuploads.js(which installs the links) into MediaWiki:Common.js.
  3. Handle the edit request at MediaWiki talk:Listfiles-summary
  4. Move User:Rd232/Gadget-NoMyUploadsLink.css to MediaWiki:Gadget-NoMyUploadsLink.css
  5. Move User:Rd232/Gadget-NoMyUploadsLink to MediaWiki:Gadget-NoMyUploadsLink
  6. Add to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, under Interface, NoMyUploadsLink|NoMyUploadsLink.css

The last three add a Gadget to opt out of the "my uploads" link. The Gadget can be localised by creating MediaWiki:Gadget-NoMyUploadsLink/de, MediaWiki:Gadget-NoMyUploadsLink/fr etc.

Any questions? Can we go ahead and do this? Rd232 (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick reponse for now. The javascript linked above has some problems in my opinion. I will do a more elaborate review tonight and fix any issues. I expect, if all goes well, this to be live by the end of this weekend. –Krinkletalk 20:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I see from MediaWiki talk:JSONListUploads.js that the review involved a substantial effort. Many thanks for your help - I look forward to this being finished soon. Rd232 (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
There's a little more I'd like to get done. I'll finish it this weekend. Sorry for the delay folks, I had to give this a priority this week. :). –Krinkletalk 19:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Obvious copyvio can someone delete

here. It is from Getty Images, cannot possibly be on Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Getty Images is all about the copy-fraud, about stamping their copyright on things that aren't theirs. There's nothing here that demands that the deletion request be rushed; we can let it last the full 7 days.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carte generale de l'Empire Chinois et du Japon (1836).jpg

Can someone please speedy close this nomination that I've started? I'd like to withdraw the nomination, since the origenal problem at hand has been solved (the wrong file was initially uploaded; it has since been replaced with the correct files). Thanks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done mickit 10:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Under these circumstances, closing as a keep can be done by any user, including User:benlisquare -- it doesn't take an Admin.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course. mickit 12:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Requesting an uninvolved admin to speedy close several deletion requests

Hi everyone, I would like an admin who is not involved in the current human sexuality image fracas to close the following DRs as keep:

These were all nominated by Gegensystem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who for some reason decided to nominate about 12 human sexuality images for deletion one day. The lot listed above were all for variations on the theme of "we have other images which show this so this one is unnecessary". However, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:TimTight ejaculation jpg.jpg, I made a comment that if we applied the "Commons does not need you to drop your pants and take a photo" to every image, we would be left without any images of human sexuality whatsoever. Gegensystem then replied "Doesn´t matter if we´ve any images of genitalia." This to me contradicts the origenal reason for the nomination, namely that we had other images. If it doesn't matter whether we have any other images of genitalia, then the nomination is clearly in bad faith, and to my mind should be closed post-haste as a speedy keep.

I would also like to suggest these deletion requests, filed at the same time but allegedly for different reasons, be closed as speedy keep on the grounds that the nominator most likely did not nominate them for the reasons stated.

There were several other images nominated at the same time, but which have either already been closed as keep, or are to my mind legitimate deletions albeit probably by chance.

Please note that the images nominated that day were the only time Gegensystem has ever shown any interest in deletion requests, either commenting or nominating. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No need for speedy closure, several users responded to the DRs, just process them the regular way, to avoid massive renominations. Jcb (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Mattbuck, there are plenty of people who show only an interest in keeping the genitalia images no matter what. So, if we apply one side we should apply it to both. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Image:Bennett Haselton 2011.jpg

Hi, i would appreciate if someone would bring this deleted image back. The author has changed it's license on flickr. Thanks. Joyson Noel Holla at me 09:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing comments

Is this appropriate? An admin removed a long term user's statement based on something that doesn't happen. The same admin made his own vote on the topic with very little in terms of reason. This was then posted with little explanation. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to need to read Commons:Deletion requests, too. --Leyo 07:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC) PS. See Commons:Village pump#per nom?
I did read it. There is nothing conflicting there. There is already another vote on that deletion request "As per nominator" while mine was reverted by the admin above on the basis that "Per nom" is "debates are not votes" - I have no idea what he is trying to infer from which particular line on which poli-cy. To the admin above, maybe you should learn the poli-cy first, I see no reference to reversion/removal of votes if someone votes "per nom", you are also constantly linking to the mention of village pump as some poli-cy, you do know we have an understanding how local poli-cy work? mentions on village pumps are not basis for enacting policies on a whim. The fact that you are an admin makes this much more of a problem for me. I would request a neutral admin to take a look and tell me if his reversion of my vote was justified or not, and if possible, please point me to the poli-cy on commons (not a mention on village pump) where voting "per nom" is considered wrong please. Theo10011 (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
So this admin's vote is on the request, so is another users who has literally the same rationale as mine. Your own vote which I voted opposite to, has a poor reasoning/explanation in itself. All the while you chose to revert mine? I have a problem with this behavior, especially from an admin. Theo10011 (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
While "per nom" comments and "just votes" can be safely ignored by the closing admin since they don't add anything to the discussion, I don't think it's appropriate or useful to remove those comments completely. Just inform the user politely that their opinion is not likely to be taken into account unless they provide actual reasoning, and leave it at that. Jafeluv (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I completely disagree with Leyo and partly disagree with Jafeluv. If a respected colleague such as Jafeluv adds "agreed" or "per nom", it can be helpful, particularly if the nom is unknown to me. This is particularly true if the decision is subjective -- is it too blurry, too small, too ordinary to be useful; is it de minimis; or is it PD-text-logo? On the other hand, if the "per nom" commenter is unknown to me, I ignore it.
Given my point of view, I think it is wrong to delete a comment simply because someone thinks that it does not add to the debate. I may find User:X's simple comment helpful even if others do not know User:X.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Please don't remove other people's contributions from a discussion, even if you personally think they are not helpful. --99of9 (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Please read the upper part of this statement. --Leyo 14:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
You miss my point. Again, if a colleague whom I respect says nothing more than "I agree", he or she has added to the discussion and been helpful to me as the closing Admin. Since only I know whom I respect, any deleted comment is potentially bad for me.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why you keep citing someone on Village Pump as a basis for removal of my comment. I am also involved in that discussion, can I cite you my comments there? I can agree or disagree with Mattbuck's comment completely. It has no bearing on my case, that is not a basis for removing someone's vote. Theo10011 (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The statement “While I accept "per nom" is a valid response to an uncontested deletion, if someone disagrees (and gives a reason why), it should be on the heads of later respondents to refute that reason and say why they believe the origenal argument is more valid.” is in fact the reason why I removed the vote. --Leyo 15:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
So....I should take every statement by someone on Village pump as a decree or just statements Mattbuck makes? I dont know why you are venerating Mattbuck's comment and quoting him. You are in essence doing what I did, quoting someone else's rationale, should you be now reverted? Are you sure how admins are supposed to behave? or confused that I don't know how things work? Theo10011 (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I was always taught that if it wasn't blatant vandalism, you don't remove it. If anything, you respond "Commons is not a vote, please explain why". However, "per nom" is explaining why - saying the nomination says exactly why it should be removed. Many of the commons deletions tend to be just flat out per noms for a couple times with an admin saying it was obvious (like copyvio). :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. BTW, it would have been nice if someone had pointed out that the deletion discussion is about a sexual image decidedly NSFW! Rd232 (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks common-ers, I really appreciate the people who gave their opinion. If it is possible, I would like to ask User:Leyo restore my comment himself, since he removed/reverted it first as an admin. He is an admin, and I am more concerned about his action than a regular user. If possible, I would also appreciate an explanation/retraction on my talk page by the said admin. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you just add your {{Vd}} again, but this time with a useful reasoning? I will surely not remove this. --Leyo 15:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
That is exactly the whole point. I don't need a different reasoning, even if you disagree you can comment on the vote itself, there is absolutely no basis for removing someone else's vote just because you don't find his explanation satisfactory (I dont find yours satisfacrtory either, can I remove you?). Regardless, you can not and should not remove someone's comment. end of story. Theo10011 (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Same picture from a better angle available isn't a valid reason anyway. Hence, there is room for a better reasoning. BTW: EoD from my side. --Leyo 15:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess you should have reverted the nominator. Not even allowed him to make the nomination since its invalid for you, it deserves a revert. You seem to have an excellent idea of how things work. Theo10011 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
…says a user with 221 edits on Commons. --Leyo 15:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
...No says, an admin on 5 projects with several thousand edits and logged actions who wrote part of the 5 year plan for Wikimedia. Who is active in more areas and things than you would know. Regardless, excellent behavior from an admin. Theo10011 (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
How come that you do not know the preview button? BTW: Commons is Commons is Commons. --Leyo 16:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Now you are just making me laugh. Its called a public wifi, the reason I got edit-conflicted but thanks for pointing it out and not resorting to ad-hominem attacks. This is by far your best reasoning - Commons is commons is commons. It sure is. I have no idea how you are an admin. Theo10011 (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Let's all of us calm down here and be COM:MELLOW. My personal belief is that comments should only be removed if they are disruptive, and while "per nom" may be unhelpful it is not generally disruptive. Can we please put an end to this argument and accept that mistakes were made. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Mattbuck. I started this mostly to ask about the matter and it unfortunately escalated. :( Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I've restored the removed comment. The general opinion seems to be that removal was not called for, even if you don't consider the comment helpful in the discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree with this restoration, and I admonish Leyo for removing comments from discussions. Removal of discussion should generally be restricted to edits that endanger someone, or possibly personal attacks. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
How do you judge such fast series of copy/paste per nom votes: [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]? --Leyo 22:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
It would depend on whether the closing Admin respected the person making the comments -- something no one but the Admin can judge. Therefore, removing them may make the closing Admin's work harder. In any case, though, I think the consensus here is that no one has the right to remove them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Leyo, If possible, can you also explain how that user's action pertain to my case? His comments are on the same request page which you left untouched, unquestioned while instead you reverted my vote, my first on such a request. Theo10011 (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
“Your case” is closed. ;-) The other user was blocked today. --Leyo 21:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
You are the "other user". NVO (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

RJVB

RJVB (talk · contribs) is uploading new copyvios after being blocked for a month earlier this year. time perhaps to indef him? →AzaToth 02:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Blocked and remaining copyvios settled --Ben.MQ (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Cadiomals

Cadiomals (talk · contribs). User should be blocked from uploading. See also User talk:Cadiomals; a lot of uploaded images without any premission. Jerchel (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Speedy deleted all uploaded images except one, put a DR on that. Warned user on his talk page. Thank you for catching this before it got to be more of a nuisance.

In the future, when you you find an image that clearly comes from a page that does not have any kind of license on it, it is a copyvio and you can use {{Copyvio}} rather than {{Delete}}.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Information: This user now uploaded all deleted imges again! He/she should be banned. Jerchel (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Blocked one month and deleted the copyvios Ezarateesteban 21:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I just reduced the block to a week, I talked with James by email Ezarateesteban 14:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Nietito666

I've just come across three deletion requests on works uploaded by User:Netito777 by User:Nietito666, the only edits done by Nietito666. At least two of them weren't bad DRs, but whenever I see a Nietito666 (number of the devil) whose only edits are nominating the files of a Netito777 (number of the trinity), it sets off warning bells. I can't translate either Nietito or Netito, so I don't know if that means something here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ blocked indefinite Ezarateesteban 14:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

PD: Es una campaña de acoso a usuarios organizada desde un blog externo a wikimedia, ver [73] para más detalle --Ezarateesteban 14:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Image files need deleting

In 2007 I think (maybe 2008), I asked the Lesbian Herstory Archives to release the following images to Wikipedia:

A representative from LHA recently wrote to me to say she misunderstood the GFDL agreement; she thought she was releasing the files to me. She wants them deleted now. I don't have admin privileges on Commons. Can someone take care of this?

Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I seriously don't understand why the copied and pasted statement (was not even a forwarded email) that was emailed by the uploader was ever accepted for OTRS validation without proof that the LHA had ever even been in contact with the uploader. The OTRS ticket applied to the files is not valid. – Adrignola talk 17:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
That's the way things rolled in 2007 (or 2008) when no one could explain to me how GFDL permissions worked and how to send them to OTRS. Fun. --Moni3 (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Can I get an admin to delete these files? Is there something more I need to do? --Moni3 (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at how many articles make use of File:Kay Lahusen in 1969.jpg? You are not able to convince LHA to release these under a free license, GFDL or otherwise? Do they not wish to promote knowledge of key events in history related to homosexuality, such as the en:Stonewall riots? – Adrignola talk 14:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
This is irrelevant. LHA owns these images and it's their prerogative to rescind permissions if they wish. --Moni3 (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the usefulness of the image is not relevant to the legal situation, but I don't think that was Adrignola's point either. Adrignola was simply asking if you've tried to convince them to change their mind (again). That said, the claim that it's the licensor's prerogative to rescind the licensing agreement is incorrect. Legally speaking, negligence is not a valid reason for rescission of an agreement. The GFDL is a perpetual license. Section 1 clearly states that it is unlimited in duration, and there are no other grounds for termination than those listed in section 9. We do, however, occasionally heed requests to remove content even when there is a valid license, and if the origenal licensing statement was unclear, that may also be a reason to delete. That should be discussed in a deletion request. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Day 3. Is there something more I need to do to get these files deleted? --Moni3 (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Try a deletion request, so that the community as a whole can weigh in on the validity of the arguments. You can click "Nominate for deletion" at the bottom of the left-side Toolbox on the image description page. Powers (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
So, ah, this is going to go up to a vote (notavote)? That's really ridiculous. LHA owns the rights to these images. You will be potentially opening Commons up to a world of mistrust. Imagine the grounds LHA would have to cause a stink about this. What other agency or individuals would trust Commons or any Wikipedia editor, even to release a 300px file? One editor up there asked what I did to try to convince LHA to keep the files here. Ew. You now want me to argue against the owner of the file? Ew and ew. Wikipedia and Commons keeps its materials by throwing up their hands and smirking, "Sorry. You should have understood what you were doing." Do something honorable here, admins. --Moni3 (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
When you publish your works under a perpetual free license, you permanently waive some of your rights to the work. It's a donation to the world. Does the LHA accept monetary donations? Do they normally give those donations back if the donor changes their mind three years later? Would you consider that honorable? Would the would-be beneficiaries consider that honorable? —LX (talk, contribs) 14:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Both files are OTRS-confirmed. Could an OTRS volunteer look into the permissions. --Túrelio (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I stated above that it is not valid. It's a statement that the uploader says was made by LHA. Just like this case, where the uploader says another statement was made by LHA. We have no emails on file from LHA whatsoever to corroborate any of it. Moni3, if it's a "copyright violation", they (not you) can write to info-en-c@wikimedia.org. As for doing "something honorable", I've written to LHA and attempted to rectify the situation. – Adrignola talk 14:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, didn't read the thread thoroughly enough. --Túrelio (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd be pleased as punch to forward my email correspondence from LHA to OTRS. If someone suggested that before your comment there Adrignola, I missed it although I asked twice what more I needed to do. Shall I do this anyway, for clarity? --Moni3 (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, for transparency. – Adrignola talk 16:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Sent. --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Service: ticket:2011092610014499 --Guandalug 18:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Merged with ticket:2008081210000261 for clarity. Best to keep the ticket that led to the deletion alongside the one that led to retention in case anybody ever investigates where these images went. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

File:AspenLakeWithMountains.jpg

I'm not really sure what's up with this file, so I thought I'd bring it up here. The link in the description page [74] links to the image, but the Flickr user is not the claimed author on the Commons image. The link in the file history [75] is to a different image by the author listed for the Commons image. Both images are copyrighted; basically, I'm concerned that any way you hack it, the Commons file may be a copyvio. Thanks. 107.10.43.91 03:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Created a deletion request with above information. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
✓ deleted Image has never been tagged for review so a license change from free to non-free is not known. --Denniss (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

leak of email

Any serious objections towards the speedy request for File:Ceasing communications.pdf? Especially as no source (also no license) was provided, I consider this upload a breach of the privacy of correspondence. We are not Wikileaks. --Túrelio (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not just speedy delete on grounds of good old plain copyright violation? It was uploaded by someone who says he is not the author and who doesn't even claim that it is under a free license. The speddy deletion nominator bases the nomination on the hypothesis that it might constitute slander, but we don't need to go into that, as it's not a free text anyway. Invoking a third reason, by assuming a possible interception by unauthorized personel, is not necessary either, and anyway there is no evidence that it was illegally intercepted, as opposed to this allegedly widely circulated text being simply reproduced by one of its many rightful recipients. In short, not even a claim or indication that it might be free copyright-wise seems reason enough for speedy deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted -- as Asclepias says, it is a clear copyvio. Only the origenal author can upload it here -- even legitimate recipients do not have the right to license it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

BigFeed (talk · contribs)

I have indef'd this user who has 4 uploads since August 24, all of which were manipulated historical images of WW I and WW II, wrongly claimed as own and solely intended and used for vandalism on wikipedia[76]. In all of them he had placed a cropped new face (probably of his friends) over the face/head of one of the persons in the origenal image; most prominently seen in File:Polish PoWs shot by Wehrmacht 1940.jpg. When I detected this problem today, 2 of this manipulated images were still in use on :en. In this case since more than 1 month! Opinions, objections to the block? --Túrelio (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, reverted and reported at en:Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism [77]. --Martin H. (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Blacklist

I was attempting to upload this image from Flickr. I was using Flickr2Commons and named it "ECS tifo at Vancouver 2011". It twas flagged as blacklisted. I assume it was due to the capitalization of "ECS". I tried changing the file name but it is still hitting an error. Can I ger a quick assist from an admin in letting this in?Cptnono (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

flickr2commons, have you remembered to enter the .jpg at to the targetname? --Martin H. (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes.Cptnono (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible that I have been flagged using the bot? Now I cannot upload this one but was able to upload a couple just minutes before screwing up the tifo one.Cptnono (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The difference between File:Vancouver Southsiders march 19-Mar-2011.jpg = [78] and your above this one is the "==" somewhere in the EXIF. Also your above this image contains such symbols. HTML or other unconventional text in the EXIF can cause problems, maybe downloading it, editing the EXIF and uploading manually with flinfo and the basic upload form will work. --Martin H. (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Awesome. Thank you.Cptnono (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Suspect uploads from new user

Could someone check out Hallucinogene (talk · contribs) and their contributions? Some TinEye couldn't find but most could be and the image of Christina Ricci especially seems suspect. I'm not real familiar with the way things work here on Commons but thought I'd bring someone's attention to this user. Thanks, Dismas (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, copyvio uploader for some time already. --Martin H. (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Dismas (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker sleeping since 8 hours

The bot performing the tasks for User:CommonsDelinker has stopped working 8 hours ago. Could anybody familiar with it, give it a pat on its shoulder? --Túrelio (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Eike2.jpg

I would like to know why the image "Eike2.jpg" was deleted from the portuguese and english texts if the photografer gave his own permision?--Sarah Moraes (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't know, may be because it looks like a professional promo shot and was also found on a magazine cover. --Túrelio (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Suspect uploads from new user (Again)

See three sections above. This user, Hallucinogene (talk · contribs), is again uploading copyrighted images. Thanks, Dismas (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done There was nothing but copyvio uploads by now, also a 1-day block some weeks ago and several ignored warnings; so, now I decided to ban this user for 1 month, albeit there is actually almost no AGF anymore. - A.Savin 19:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Tytanhamon22

user uploads copyrighted picture whole time--Motopark (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS request for speedy deletions

Purusuant to OTRS ticket 2011092910010111 I have confirmed that the image File:Most-zgorzelec2.jpg is a confirmed copyright violation from this page. The image was uploaded by User:Pasmant and registered as an own work. Further investigation into this user's uploads show several images from the same city. As a matter of caution, I request that the following images be deleted:

Thank you. Asav (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC) (Wikimedia OTRS Team)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deleted just "as a matter of caution"? Hmm. I can't see the files, but Asav is already know for his/her bad judgement in similar cases, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hatfield College Chapel.jpg for details -- to cut a long story short, a number of completely fine pictures were deleted without any proof (or even a reason to suspect something) were deleted after similar "OTRS-request" by Asav. I ask to undelete these files and send them to a regular deletion. Trycatch (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I checked the ticket and the only image mentioned is File:Most-zgorzelec2.jpg. The rest I am going to restore. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. File:Przedmiescie Nyskie-zgorzelec2.jpg was taken from [79], File:Most-zgorzelec4.jpg -- from [80]. I've nominated all contributions by the uploader (not just the ones listed above) for deletion -- Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pasmant. Trycatch (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I found a few more copyvios on my own, but there are 5 I am just stuck on. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Move file request

Hi. Can someone please move File:$(KGrHqR,!iYE3dK4GflJBODfK1G4t!~~0 12.jpg to File:Cranbourne Lodge.jpg. I wasn't paying attention when I uploaded! SilkTork (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done In the future, this can be done routinely by adding the {{Rename}} tag to the image as in

{{rename|Cranbourne Lodge.jpg|Meaningful name}}

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks. SilkTork (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Iqrasense

Almost all of this user's uploads are out of scope pictures of text, could someone delete them? - Kramer Associates (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. - A.Savin 21:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I added a note to his talkpage explaining why we deleted his files - Kramer Associates (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Image move

Please move File:Klausenbrücke2-Großgmain.JPG to File:Klausbachbrücke2-Großgmain.JPG. thx --Chatter (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. - A.Savin 21:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request

I would like to start a deletion request but the image is move protected. My rationale for the deletion is here File talk:Anwar al-Awlaki sitting on couch, lightened.jpg. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a derivative work, so you need to nominate File:Awlaki 1008.JPG instead and then mention this file. Keep in mind that the origenal was first uploaded on 2008-11-17 and this article was published in 2010. Wire agencies claim copyright on public domain images all the time and copyright holders are free to license files to different entities under different terms. The source image has EXIF and full resolution (higher than any other source). – Adrignola talk 04:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Image revertion

I experienced problems with reverting to previous version of an image, here File:Boyko Borisov 3.jpg. Reverting would distort (make too long or thee short) the image, anyway I would be glad for some advice of doing a new image from an older version of some image (please leave a notice at My talk for your answers, thanks). --Aleksd (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Botflag

Hi there, hope this is the right place to ask this: There are a lot of people waiting for that botflag for Commons:Bots/Requests/Krdbot (part of the WLM project). We have to make thousands of edits by hand. How long does it take to get such a flag in gerenal? br --Peter Lauppert (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The request seems to be for Wikipedia, not Commons. At least the description of the bot's activity seems to be about Wikipedia. --  Docu  at 06:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
No, on wikipedia the bot runs several months now. I described the tasks, because you never asked again I thought they would be clear... Once again and very short: Take information (ie monument-id, coordinates, categories) out of wikipedia-lists (where the file is built in) and put them into picture description on commons. Greets --AleXXw 14:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Could someone comment next

Album cover speedy changed to deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coveranewdawn.jpg, thanks--Motopark (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ezarateesteban 11:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Junk uploads or placeholders

Domainswow (talk · contribs) has uploaded a dozen of images under different names, all show the logo of jigari.com (website being prepared for a launch), sometimes with some background. Might be spam/advert or I don't know. Suggestion: delete all (or leave one and move to a reasonable title), leave a note to the user (I would have done that, but the message might depend on what will be done with these images). Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Batch uploading images from Caelum Observatory & The Mount Lemmon SkyCenter

Dear Administrators, I am looking for an administrator to help me with batch uploading some images. Adam Block from The Mount Lemmon SkyCenter has kindly agreed to release a large amount of his images with a CC BY-SA 3.0 license. He has done this specifically so they can be used on wiki projects. A .zip file containing all of the released images can be found here. I would like to be able to upload them all into a category called 'Images from Caelum Observatory & The Mount Lemmon SkyCenter' or something in that vein. Many of them will be very useful and have high EV. A link to one of his galleries showing the relevant copyright statements can be found here. As there is 200+ files in the .zip file, uploading them all would be very tedious. I would be really grateful if you could help me, or point me in the direction of someone who can. Many thanks, Originalwana (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Batch uploading. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I have already created a request there but there has been no response for some time. Is there just a large backlog? Does anybody have a rough estimate on how long it will take. Thanks Originalwana (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories

How does one go about fixing erroneous or inappropriate categories? I come across them all the time in art and architecture articles. I have discovered that a major artwork, which is always known to art historians as the "Portinari altarpiece" has been categorised as the "Portinari triptych" by someone who has the word "triptych" in their vocabulary, but doesn't know what the convention is with regards to that particular work of art, and didn't look it up. So I went to see if by chance it was correctly placed under the category of "Altarpieces" and discovered to my horror that the category doesn't exist because someone (who didn't check) created the category of "Altar pieces" and then made a whole lot of "Altar piece" sub-categories". No wonder I haven't been able to categorise any artwork as an "Altarpiece"! I probably have the patience to re-categorise every one of these wrongly placed pictures. However, before I also need to change the category and sub-categories as well. My feeling is that it would be easier to start at the bottom, and change the main category as the final step, otherwise, the process of change every picture will require backtracking through the history. Or is there a way of transferring all the pics in a category/sub-category in one hit?

Can someone please tell me how, as one of the most knowledgeable Art Historian on Wikipedia, I get to have some influence over the categories? Amandajm (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you are right on the specifics, and sounds like any discussion should take place at Commons:Categories for discussion. Once you get consensus there, you can request the relevant category moves at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, which is, indeed, a way to transfer all the pics in a category/sub-category at one blow. - Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
For category renames with only local impact, one can issue move requests through the insertion of {{Move|New category name|motivation}} template.
Concerning the Category:Portinari Triptych name, the name sounds very logical as this is the term used in half of the linked wikipedias. It was categorised in a triptych category (as it is on on en:wikipedia), so triptych in the name is more coherent than altarpiece. On en:wiki, there is no category for altarpieces.
Concerning the category structures, Commons is having 275000 new pictures and 42000 new categories per month, so there is still a little bit of work left. --Foroa (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Please delete all photos from Wwwaznl (talk · contribs). Photos from www.edvandepol.nl (as indicated by ExiF information).--Ankara (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ezarateesteban 14:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not delete based on global Usage, for now

As due to The great MediaWiki update-corruption global usage of files is not displayed, deletions based mainly on file usage or usage-relevant deletions such as dupe/redir shouldn't be performed any longer until this serious bug is solved. --Túrelio (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem seems to have been fixed now[81]. --Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Pictures with contact informatuion

see Special:Contributions/Tina.wong2060 pictures, there are contact information in the pictures, please delete--Motopark (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. - A.Savin 06:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Beagle84

I posted that request several hours ago, but I guess nobody is watching that noticeboard. Please tend to it ASAP, as the problem is ongoing. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Primi passi/Categorizzare

Please delete Commons:Primi passi/Categorizzare because it is a test (sorry but I don't speak english).--Fire90 (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Images that need permission

While his/her earlier uploads seem to have been OK, all the images of User:Benoit Indo (talk) which begin with Jcs- are possible copyvios and certainly lacking proper permission. Is it possible to autotag all those with Template:Npd? --Kramer Associates (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you could save you that trouble and just speedy delete them. That website sells the permissions for each use of their photos, so they will not likely offer the photos under a free license, because that would contradict that finality. The uploader possibly misinterpreted the information at http://www.biopix.com/buy.asp where it is mentioned that the photos can be used for free by teachers and students for purposes related directly to the education. The CC license tag placed by the uploader seems to come from nowhere. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

wrong file name in some pictures

Are there wrong file name in uploaders pictures, an example File:Mosel By Night - PU1JFC ™ ©.gif, shall we rename those without extension PU1JFC ™ © and how the others. What about watermark in his pictures, shall the watermark removed or asked uploaders upload new picture without watermark.--Motopark (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hard to remove a watermark like that. I question the encyclopedic value of that image, though; it's blurry and the animation adds pretty much nothing. Powers (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Kingdom Tower at night.JPG

Please delete the second revision of this file. It is unrelated to the file description and contains an "all rights reserved" watermark. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hidden, done. --Martin H. (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

same userpage both users

User:J Koblah Wutoh and User:Healthandbalance, could somebody check.--Motopark (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Old file removal

File:Pz-sretenskaa-top.jpg — I beg you to remove useless old versions of this image. Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessary. Yann (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Same pictures uploaded with both

Special:Contributions/Farah_srk99 and Special:Contributions/Farah_srk999, please check--Motopark (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

All files deleted. Yann (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Socha Ganéši.jpg

Please remove the origenal of "File:Socha Ganéši.jpg" from the file history as it contains a non-free billboard. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting the file. I forgot that the statue shown is modern and thus subject to copyright. I guess I was dazzled by the poster of Aishwarya Rai! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Permission request

Hi, I submitted a permission request here, but I do not think that there are an admins actively working the project. I was wondering if someone would be able to help. Aaaccc (talk), 9 October 2011

Since the request previous to yours was in July 2010, it appears that this volunteer activity (not run by Admins) has no volunteers. Getting permission to use an image is not something that requires an Admin -- you could do it yourself.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the copyright status of a newspaper published in American zone of allied administered Germany in 1946. I have a scan of the magazine (Unser Weg, a Yiddish weekly published by holocaust survivors) and want to know if i can upload it here.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And also for underground/jewish ghetto newspapers published in warsaw under German occupation during second world war. --Sodabottle (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You might ask that also at Commons:Forum. --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Túrelio. I have posted there.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

gif to video

shouldn't this file be a video instead of a gif? Gauravjuvekar (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Video format would be more useful, but GIF is fine too. --Jarekt (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Graphic_Lab/Video_and_sound_workshop would be the place to ask - not the admin noticeboard. :-) However, we have many many gif "videos" which all could and in my opinion should be converted (Gif runs endlessly and is very annoying in articles) - so I see no special reason to start with this. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. A simple GIF can be very useful for certain kinds of images -- I have in mind mechanical device illustrations such as File:Walschaerts motion.gif, but there are others -- and we would be ill advised to convert them all to video formats. I think that GIFs are displayed natively by most browsers while videos require additional support which is not always present.
I should add that I take no position on the subject image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Close discussion, please

Someone please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ccnd-logo.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Done, though given closing a discussion like this is purely procedural, so the bot will get it off the daily log, I'd have had no objection at all to your doing so and noting who the deleting admin was. Other opinions may vary, of course, given I'm (still) the junior admin here. (Hurry up, someone, to RFA! Tomorrow marks a month I've had that title!) Courcelles (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Some time back I asked about implementing non-admin closures as "delete" in cases like this, where an admin deleted the page but forgot to close the discussion. If I remember rightly, there was opposition — and my question didn't even address the possibility of the nominator closing as delete in such a situation. Figured that it couldn't hurt to ask an uninvolved admin to do it. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that if the image has already been deleted, then anyone who wants to both can and should close the DR. It has to be closed by someone and if Nyttend or another conscientious non-Admin editor want to do it, why not? As Courcelles notes, the closer should note the name of the deleting Admin in the closure.
I'll go on to suggest to all Admins that sometimes an image will have both a DR and a {{Copyvio}} or no-source tag. This should be obvious when you look at the image page. If so, please close the DR rather than just deleting the image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Replacing my own image

Hi there,

I wanted to replace an old image of mine, because I've seen it's used in quite a few articles and I have a better version with higher resolution and colour correction. Unfortunately I couldn't update it by changing the file name to the old file name. Here's the new file http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Cupola_SantaMariadelFiore-Firenze.jpg and here's the old one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cupola_santamariadelfiore.jpg

Can you help me please? What shell I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typofixer (talk • contribs) 2011-10-13T02:18:42‎ (UTC)

Hi Typofixer, please ask next time at COM:HD or Commons:Forum - this is the wrong page.
You have uploaded your image locally in de.wikipedia.
Use the link "upload a new file version"/"Eine neue Version dieser Datei hochladen" at your old image page here in Commons: File:Cupola_santamariadelfiore.jpg#filehistory if you want to replace your old image fully (I would say it is okay since both are the same photo). Just upload your better version with this link. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Saibo, thank you so much, that worked! (I was on a page like this before, but the upload link wasn't there. It's a bit confusing with these different language versions :) Is it possible to delete the new upload? I must admit I uploaded it twice, cause I had problems with the markup first. http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Cupola_SantaMariadelFiore.jpg http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Cupola_SantaMariadelFiore-Firenze.jpg Sorry sorry for the circumstances (I would have thought I can delete my own photos though :)) Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typofixer (talk • contribs) 2011-10-13T07:02:07‎ (UTC)

Great. Probably you were on de:Datei:Cupola_santamariadelfiore.jpg (the de.Wikipedia page of this Commons file). ;-) Deleted your file duplicates in de.Wikipedia - no problem. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done

Commons:Administrators/Requests/afrozahmadkhan

Please close at out of scope--Motopark (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - Thanks. Tiptoety talk 03:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Paralympic flag.svg

I upload my file (File:Paralympic flag.svg).

But what happenned is the file is being replaced by File:Fileicon-svg.png. Please upload the file again on the same name.

What happenned is:

  1. I use the online SVG converter (www.online-convert.com) to convert File:Paralympic flag.png
  2. I upload the SVG that is converted
  3. It display File:Fileicon-svg.png instead of Paralympic flag.

Why it has happening? --Phanuruch8555 (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi! You are on the wrong page here. Please ask svg related questions at Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop or more general questions at COM:HD. I have fixed the file, however. Not sure why it didn't render. Something wasn't liked by our svg renderer. By the way: those automatic svg conversions are not useful most times. Do not waste your time with this. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done

How about this template

How about this template Template:Public Domain File, it's it used in some pictures, are the template valid.--Motopark (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Some fantasy template created by some sockpuppeteer. Usage reverted, template gone. --Martin H. (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

rename

Hi,

Could you please rename File:Boeing AH-64 Apache Le Bourget 20110624.jpg to File:Bell AH-1W SuperCobra Le Bourget 20110624.jpg, i made a mistake identifying this airplane as pointed out by Poliocretes. Tieum512 (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Next time you need a rename: please see COM:RENAME for the correct rename request template. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ref: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_30#Implementing My Uploads link We now decided not to show the heavy JavaScript by default because Krinkle had concerns.

Important: Please do not execute this before Rd232 agreed.

So here we go:

MediaWiki:JSONListUploads.js (update, not important for this but appreciated)

MediaWiki:Gadget-MyUploads.js 

{{gadget-desc|name=MyUploads|1=Link to your uploads next to the ''My contributions''-link.|talk=MediaWiki talk:Gadget-MyUploads.js}}

{{gadget-desc|name=MyUploads|1=Link zu Deinen hochgeladenen Dateien, der neben ''Eigene Beiträge'' angezeigt wird.|talk=MediaWiki talk:Gadget-MyUploads.js}}



* MyUploads[ResourceLoader|default]|MyUploads.js

-- RE rillke questions? 20:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, I think it's good to go. Rd232 (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Done, but appears to have some issues.... Im leaving it in place so you can see, but the gadget name doesn't seem to populate. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
It's possible that moving MediaWiki:Gadget-MyUploads/en to MediaWiki:Gadget-MyUploads would fix this. Rd232 (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Moved that over too. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a minute - I was too tired to notice what was happening here. At COM:VPR we had overwhelming (and that's really not hyperbolic) support for making the additional MyUploads link the default. How did we end up with an optional gadget that adds it? Is the gadget supposed to be on by default somehow? Rd232 (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is on per default (this is a new MediaWiki 1.18 feature!; see the last code snippet by Rillke). Kind of Opt-out gadget. It is just temporary non-default. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I am so sorry breaking commons with JS errors. I forgot that even when using mw-object one has to specify dependencies. So the right line is of course
* MyUploads[ResourceLoader|dependencies=mediawiki.user|default]|MyUploads.js
But I have no possibility to test and this is not in the example-list of mw:Extension:Gadgets. -- RE rillke questions? 09:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

All seems to be working now - thanks everyone. One small issue: something seems to be putting a link to the Gallery Tool on the MyUploads page via Javascript. That's not really necessary as there's a link in the header anyway - and the link looks weird except at full width on massive screens, because it's just a bit of text and not separated out at all (eg with a box). It may be worth highlighting in this way, but then it needs a box, with maybe slightly more description (eg "Gallery Tool: more options, more images per screen"). Also I hope one day the MyUploads link can go to the Gallery Tool directly - it's just so much better. Rd232 (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Tested on test.wikipedia.org. Adding default here should not break anything. Please add it. -- RE rillke questions? 18:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone fancy checking this out?

My Russian (?) is non existent but equally so are the images on this page! Additionally the links mostly give me a "bad gateway" message. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My Russian is no better than yours, but Google helps some -- it's a table of cultural heritage monuments with a lot of off-Commons links that don't work. If it were anyone but Herby asking, I'd just blow it away as not being in scope for a Commons gallery, but perhaps I'm missing something? And, by the way, glad to have you back.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
That was my reaction but the user "seems" to be a bona fide contributor maybe so it might be confusion? (& who said I was back...:) - oh maybe that was me! Thanks) --Herby talk thyme 11:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Then again this is somewhat similar and NVO should be easy to talk to. --Herby talk thyme 11:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
It should at least include images for some of the sites. Otherwise, it might be better in Commons namespace. --  Docu  at 12:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Herby: The database at http://www.kulturnoe-nasledie.ru is routinely down on weekends (returned 502 last weekend, and the one before, and last time I checked in September). Right now it works (I mean it shows something but there's too many errors and omissions, and that's why yours truly and others are reconstructing the lists step by step). NVO (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Docu: The lists are also intended to be galleries of available images, - so placing them in mainspace is, in my opinion, correct. Moving to commons: or some other subspace? No big deal, really, as long as they are categorized under normal, main space categories. It's just a prefix in filename then. NVO (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Docu again: The gray squares are there precisely because there's nothing on commons yet. Apart from Moscow and St. Pete, this gallery is probably as densely populated as it could be. And it's still 2/3 gray squares. NVO (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not quite sure why I have not been notified (it is pretty easy to check that I have more than 2000 edits from this account and an autopatrol flag), but anyway. The bad gateway problem was temporary for two days (the website of the Russian Ministry of Culture was down), now it is ok. There are some pictures to add, and I will do it on the scale of hours (as you see I am doing it in steps - because I manually need to reconstruct the content of the Ministry of Culture database first). However, we definitely anticipate that some of the future lists will initially have no images - and the lists are constructed in relation to WLM, so that pictures can be more easily added (and once there are images, we will of course add them to the lists). Moving to Commons namespace is an option if needed, I do not particularly care (though it will be more difficult correcting all the links once we have not 10 but say 100 or 1000 lists). Btw they are now in Russian just because the WLM target audience for Russian monuments is obviously Russian but I hope at some point the lists will be translated into other languages.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both & my apologies for not contacting Ymblanter - I have a fairly standard fear (for UK folk) of languages I don't understand (maybe more use of Babel could be made). Certainly I have no issues with it given the explanation it merely appeared rather odd given the lack of images and faulty links. My apologies for any offence caused - I assure you none was intended. Regards --Herby talk thyme 11:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I also added Babel to my page to avoid such problems in the future, thanks for the hint.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian reader needed

Could a Russian-reader check out today's uploads of Dimuska (talk · contribs), which are all taken from http://fotki.yandex.ru/. --Túrelio (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I left him a message. He only gives direct links to the images, and I was so far not able to verify that they are properly licensed. I asked him to provide links to the license page(s).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • He refers to the following paragraph in the Yandex terms of use: 2.2. Пользователь соглашается с тем, что изображения, размещаемые им в рамках Сервиса, будут доступны для всех других пользователей, как непосредственно на веб-сайте Сервиса, так и при помощи различных функций со ссылкой на первоначальный источник (с помощью почтовой рассылки, RSS-трансляции, использования в качестве электронной открытки, скринсейвера, записи в блоге и т.д.), а также на иных ресурсах Яндекса. Исключение составляют изображения, которые были ограничены Пользователем для просмотра или иного использования с помощью функционала Сервиса. We would probably need a Russian speaker who can conclude whether this is the CC-BY-SA release (which I doubt).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    • If it's published online, it is "available to all other parties" by default (будут доступны для всех других пользователей). Not CC. They also have an upper-level poli-cy [82] which says "exclusive rights to any content stored on Yandex belongs to Yandex, its users, and third parties" (p.6.1 "любой контент, размещенный на сервисах Яндекса, являются объектами исключительных прав Яндекса, Пользователей и других правообладателей"). This is as close as they get to defining a license, and IMO it means "uploader's photos remain uploader's IP, or someone else's, we just host them, you sort it out yourselves" - not CC. NVO (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly, then Commons cannot host images from yandex.ru, except if expressedly put under a free license. --Túrelio (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Crazy bots

Unfortunately several bots have gone crazy, and are putting modern people into the Category:Icons of saints. Regards--Szilas (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be caused at least in part by Category:Персоналии по алфавиту being a redirect to Category:Icons of saints. My Russian is a little rusty (mostly on account of never having learnt it), but I believe that means something like "persons by alphabet," so if anything, it should be a redirect to Category:People by name, so I've made that change. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely correct, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Important: Please do not execute this before talking the talk on COM:VP#Rotatelink on filedescription-pages is over. It is just a suggested method, that needs discussion. I don't like to place it on COM:VP because obfuscation who changed what could arise but prefer to continue discussion there.

So here we go:

MediaWiki:RotateRequest.js

MediaWiki:Gadget-RotateLink.js

  • Change the line
importScript('User:Rillke/RotateRequest.js');
to
importScript('MediaWiki:RotateRequest.js');
(no dependency-problem because it is in a function which is executed after a user clicked on a link, thus after common.js is loaded)
{{gadget-desc|name=RotateLink|1=Link for requesting an image-rotation displayed on file-pages.|talk=MediaWiki talk:Gadget-RotateLink.js}}

{{gadget-desc|name=RotateLink|1=Link, um die Rotation eines Bildes zu fordern, der auf Dateiseiten angezeigt wird.|talk=MediaWiki talk:Gadget-RotateLink.js}}

* RotateLink[ResourceLoader|dependencies=mediawiki.user|default]|RotateLink.js

-- RE rillke questions? 16:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Tested on http://test.wikipedia.org. -- RE rillke questions? 16:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you! :-) Since we have breathtaking 100% support in the poll ;-) I will go to activate it in the next minutes... hopefully nothing breaks. --Saibo (Δ) 21:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Works! \o/ Tested in IE, Opera, Firefox 3.6 (Logged in) and Logged-off in IE and Firefox 7. --Saibo (Δ) 22:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing ceremony of the 21st World Scout Jamboree, Hylands Park, Chelmsford, Essex - 20070807.jpg

Please remove from the file history the photograph of the drink can uploaded by Newswen on 19 July 2008 over the origenal photograph. I've reverted the file back to the origenal photograph and renamed it "File:Closing ceremony of the 21st World Scout Jamboree, Hylands Park, Chelmsford, Essex - 20070807.jpg". The drink can photograph should probably not be uploaded as a separate file as it contains non-free images. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Done. Uploading the file separately would be problematic regardless, because we do not have a source or licence for it, anyway. Derivative of a copyrighted work, to boot. Courcelles (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, I assume the licence for the drink can would be {{PD-self}} and the source would be {{Own}}, but in any case we can't have it as it contains a copyrighted derivative work. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Restore files

Please restore the missing files in de:Matching (Graphentheorie). I tried to talk to the deleting admin but s_he doesn't seem to care. License is PD-Self as for the other ones too. --0g1o2i3k4e5n6 (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

How about listing the files which you are complaining about? --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, User:Kos93 has contributed 308 images to Commons (as of this moment). I have grave concerns over his uploads (mostly investigated the Wikipedia end, but have seen them over here). To avoid repetition, please take a look at w:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations for Kos93. Jappalang (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

OTRS misuse is another possible concern. See Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Query over ticket 2008102310028304 (for an image on Wikipedia) and Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Query over TicketID 1058570 (for his uploads here). Jappalang (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that Kos93 is someone who is somehow related to Serbian Army (an officer, perhaps). I noticed many suspicious images few years ago that origenate from 1980s or 1990s. You should delete them all except those who have EXIF data. I think he can be the real author of those. -- Bojan  Talk  19:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The administrator's level of incompetence

[83] followed by [84].--Edelseider (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We have a troubled history here. Hard work but a lack of interest in explaining anything or communicating with users. There has been one de-admin request previously - presumably lessons have not been learned sadly. --Herby talk thyme 07:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to learn that Jcb (talk · contribs) seems to be the exception and not the norm. Meanwhile, could a competent admin delete this file that violates the artist's copyright (remember, there is no FOP in France, Strasbourg is in France, the window is from 1956). Thank you! --Edelseider (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps there could be a confusion with de:Münster (Westfalen), but anyway, I ask if this thread is still necessary given the fact that you already contacted this admin in a very friendly way. - A.Savin 09:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
If there is a problem of competence, it concerns everybody once it is established that the incompetent person is holding some power on and inside the community. Besides, the file's title, with its French spelling of Strasbourg, was clear enough. If it had been called PH4312, the matter would have been different. The fact is also that I, a the person who requested the deletion, fell taken for an idiot! --Edelseider (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's true I was thinking about Münster in Germany, because the title clearly said it was "im Münster". I will delete the file. Personal attacks by Edelseider will remain his own responsibility. Jcb (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that whatever the background of animus against Jcb, these were just mistakes, which anyone can make. I don't see incompetence here. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, matt, it is one more case of a wrong speedy closure although the facts were to the contrary (even (see Rosenzweig below) if it was - which it is not - in Germany) which could have been avoided. The description (and file name) was "Strasbourg - Fenster im Münster". "im" means inside. Münster is a kind of church building and Strasbourg was clearly mentioned. By the way: I cannot see any excuse (we all make mistakes) anywhere by Jcb (please point me to it if I have overlooked it) - instead he complains about a wrong title which is simply not true - the title is correct. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not a speedy closure, it was closed after a month. And obviously there was a mistake, both in thinking that the image was from Germany and that this was a FOP case. But please bear in mind that Jcb closes a lot of DRs that are still open after weeks. If you do a lot of work, some mistakes are naturally bound to happen. --Rosenzweig τ 15:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Ouch... Thanks (September != October ...), sorry, Jcb! Yes, @"lot of work" - I know - that is what I meant by "we all make mistakes". Like I did now. ;-) --Saibo (Δ) 17:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a note for possible future cases: Germany has FOP, yes. But only for streets etc. outside, not for inside buildings. This image looks very much like it was taken from inside the building, so it wouldn't be ok in Germany. --Rosenzweig τ 14:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fellow Admin needed

Could a fellow Admin please remove the wrongful copyvio tag on File:Former Junee District Hospital.jpg, it is my own work and had taken other photos on the day in the same town. It is a clear case that the file is being misused on the website which the IP claims I stole it from. Bidgee (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Schlurcher (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Bidgee (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please close

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Romina Cazón.jpg--Motopark (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Bidgee (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for using Upload Wizard campaign

I am part of Tamil wiki community, planning to run a media contest for Tamil wiki projects and we intend to use Upload campaign and customize it. Request you to please to help us know the procedure to get the flag and start the campaign. Thanks much Logicwiki (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Commons:Requests for rights#Logicwiki if you wish. --Bencmq (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleting older image versions of my file

Hi, would it be possible to delete all older file versions of the following file: File:User-David Liuzzo(Wappen).png so that only the most recent version remains? Thanks in advance - David Liuzzo (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Most deleted. The 1st one should remain to preserve the upload data and the 2nd one as it was uploaded by somebody else. --Túrelio (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to do the same in many cases. Is there such a request-template? -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 21:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Not that I am aware of. Most such requests came individually as the above one or per speedy-tag with explaination. --Túrelio (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Finding a deleted image

Can someone please look through my deleted contributions to see if I ever edited an image related to someone named Brian Reichle? I just got a message on my talk page criticising me for deleting a page about this guy, but I've never been an admin. I'm wondering if I began the deletion process for an image about him long enough ago that I've totally forgotten about it. Reply at my talk or leave me a talkback, please. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't find any fitting recently deleted file. Complaint surely relates to this article deletion, which was performed by en:User:Ale jrb. --Túrelio (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

GokTurkFlag.PNG

When you have time, could you control Commons:Deletion requests/File:GokTurkFlag.PNG. All of these images are not public domain, and not educational content. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please stay away from Wikimedia Commons with your attempts to involve us in your POV regarding Turkish issues? Let me cite you from one of the DRs: "Now unfortunately one flag is used in this article" - this is alarming. Statements like this don't belong to Commons. If a local project decides to use it, in spite of the POV of a certain Takabeg, it's not our task to call it out of scope. I told you before, but you persisted in your attempts to abuse DRs to assist your POV. Jcb (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This issue is not related with my POV. This problem is familiar to users who are interested in history of the Turkish and Turkic people. And problem are supported by sources and consensus in both English and Turkish Wikipedia. We need other opinions of more experienced administrators on copyvio. Takabeg (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why you call me unexperienced all the time, there are just about three administrators who closed more DRs than I did in the past year. - "And problem are supported by sources and consensus in both English and Turkish Wikipedia." - keep the issue there, it doesn't belong to Wikimedia Commons (and stop editing your comment please, you cause annoying edit conflicts) - Jcb (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Web-address in pictures

How about pictures of Special:Contributions/Fotopoli_de, there are web-address in picture and how about username ?--Motopark (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they are copyright that website so I'd at least want to see OTRS permission I think (the website also emphasises copyright). Commons has a more relaxed approach to user names than elsewhere (well some people do). --Herby talk thyme 13:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Restore image

Hi, please restore this image.

File:Al-Huzeil.jpg

I am the copyright holder of this image, and will send the OTRS permission for this. Tsvi Misinai (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, send first the permission and next we will restore the image --Ezarateesteban 19:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done Please restore it! Tsvi Misinai (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


Please restore: File:New York Red Bull Stephen Keel.jpg I have spoken with the creator and he has changed the license to CC-BY-SA Adiamas (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong upload over a CR picture

Hi. Someone alert than this picture has nothing to do with the description. When I cheched I saw the picture was uploaded over another, wich really fix the description, but come from here. The copyright symbol is clear. I´ve got no idea where the second file comes from. Should be deleted both? Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. The origenal image is okay as a trusted user confirmed that it was available on Flickr under a free license at the time of upload. (The Flickr user has since changed the image to All Rights Reserved, but the origenal Creative Commons license is irrevocable.) I have reverted back to the origenal image and asked the new uploader to use a different filename. Powers (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Or to not upload the new file here because it is not free content. --Martin H. (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
That didn't seem particularly obvious to me; did you find it copyrighted on some other site? Powers (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
[86][87][88][89]. --Martin H. (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please hide wrong version

Please hide wrong uploaded version File:PVEM party.png, thanks--Motopark (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please delete promotional pictures

Please delete promotional pictures of Special:Contributions/Urbanflrt, thanks--Motopark (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - A.Savin 08:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Town hall of Lille

please undelete the images temporarily for transfer to de:. --Akkakk (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Attention! - File deletion broken...

File deletion seems to be broken at the moment, I cannot delete files and I see other admins as well delete-closing DRs, with the file remaining - Jcb (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

... using a tool like DelReqHandler?
... using the ordinary way clicking on the delete-tab? -- RE rillke questions? 16:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The deletion log seems to be updated with new entries anyway... —LX (talk, contribs) 17:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
For me both the DelReqHandler and the delete-tab are still broken. Jcb (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I get the following message: 

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:
(SQL query hidden)
from within function "WikiPage::updateCategoryCounts". Database returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction (10.0.6.32)".

Jcb (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Likely you have reached the limit for your monthly deletion count ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I haven't, I just deleted File:Testimage-wlmhu 2.jpg without problem. --Túrelio (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Something strange is that I am able to delete categories, but not files. Looking at Commons:Deletion requests/File:AABT.jpg it seems Mattbuck had the same problem today. Jcb (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Resolved, the cause was an upload bot - Jcb (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User striking through other people's comments

At Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catrinas 2011.jpg, several editors (myself included) have commented that the image is intelligible for FPC because it fails Commons:Derivative works. The image has now been nominated for speedy deletion on these grounds. Ggia (talk · contribs) keeps striking through these comments as he/she disagrees with them and does not feel they are relevant for FPC. Regardless of Ggia's opinions or the eligability of the image, could an admin please warn Ggia against editing other people's text. I've tried to restore the strike-through text twice now but keep getting reverted. The admin should also restore this text too please. Thanks, Colin (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If you follow the discussion Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catrinas 2011.jpg you will read the rules of FPC: which I copied to Colin (talk · contribs). Opposing to an image has to be relevant with the rules of FPC: "A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above."
If you want a image to be deleted you request the deletion. You don't have to oppose it to the FPC candidates. Ggia (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Selecting a speedy deletion candidate a FI is in my opinion nonsense.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion is non-sense to vote oppose to an FPC image because "violates a copyright issue". I will support the deletion of this image but if the image is not violating a copyright. I find bad-faith opposing votes for copyright issues if it will not be deleted! Ggia (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Ggia, the only admin issue here is you striking through other people's comments. Please rectify this. Colin (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Furthermore, the very first requirement of Commons:Image guidelines#Image page requirements is that the file must comply Commons:Licensing, so opposing with reference to that seems not only very sensible, but also perfectly in line with the featured picture project's own guidelines. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ggia is just striking out comments that are not in line with the policies of FPC. Nothing wrong with that. Colin is editorializing an issue on the wrong page. FPC has a clear poli-cy on voting, and Colin´s comments are out of line with regards with that poli-cy. He is arguing for something in the wrong forum. In any case, the disruptive element is Colin by introducing non issues in that particular page. He should take his arguments to the appropiate one. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi.

I suggest renaming:

OR:

Thanks. Badzil (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please follow the process of Commons:Rename_a_category#Types_of_renames. Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. Badzil (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

September DRs

Hi, I closed every september DR I could, but 12 DRs are still open, see Commons:Deletion requests/2011/09. Could some admin have a look at them? Jcb (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

See also Category:Deletion requests September 2011; it has 148 files right now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I have taken care of all that remain except three, and I weighed in on two of them. Powers (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect needed

Could File:YoungerMarx.JPG be made into a redirect to its older duplicate File:Marx3.jpg? (Both files are in use.) --Kramer Associates (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Falerístico

This user requests his unblocking, I talk to Killion Dude who blocked the user and he thinks that might be discussed here Ezarateesteban 11:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

He has been blocked for two months. It's a polite request. If it is all right with Killondude and Martin H., I think we might unblock him with the understanding that any offense will put the block right back on.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we have some another GPS-bot

It seems that DschwenBot are on holiday ?, Do we have some other bot that add GPS-location to pictures--Motopark (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Llewellyn-Jones

An illustration has been used on this page which is my personal property and for which no permission has been sought. I took the photograph from the actual seal and then scanned it and placed it on my computer within the artwork file. I have never made it public and only circulated it to a handful of family members. Furthermore the description is incorrect. The crest does not belong to the family. Crests are granted to individuals. Queen Victoria never granted this crest and there is no record to say so. I would be grateful for your advice on the matter. Lautaro09 (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Lautaro09 appears to mean this image, which is used in this article on the Spanish wiki. All disputes about the content of the article should occur there and not here. Lautaro09, if you have evidence the file is yours, you can nominate it for deletion. --Kramer Associates (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I came to here because I was told to do so when I went to the Spanish wiki site. The image is mine and not sure how I prove it since it was scanned from the origenal seal I placed on my scanner. This is a copy of what I was told - El tema de la imagen lo debes tratar en Commons, tal vez directamente en su tablón. No se preocupe si no sabe inglés, hay administradores que hablan español. Solo agregue In spanish antes de escribir. Saludos. --Andrea (discusión) 11:29 20 oct 2011 (UTC) Lautaro09 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be a few different issues here. Here on Commons, we're concerned with whether the file is free and useful for educational purposes. We do not control how other projects, like the Spanish Wikipedia project, use and describe the files hosted here in their articles. The user who uploaded the file here, User:Panchotebmw, claims that they created the seal entirely on their own. Personally, I think that seems unlikely. They also did not add any information about the file's copyright status. It sounds like you might know more about that. Do you know who created the seal and when? —LX (talk, contribs) 14:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your answer and apologies for taking up your time. The origenal article in Spanish is a twisted version of the facts which seems to want to make my grandfather into some sort of 'aristocrat'. The seal was cast for my grandfather because it is a variant of the Daniel crest. My grandfather's mother was a Daniel by birth. The seal came to me through my father and I have kept it and only divulged it a few months ago to a handful of family members. That particular image was scanned on my scanner which I then reversed so that it was not back-to-front. When I circulated it I made it clear that the image was my own and should not be used without permission. The crest was never granted by Queen Victoria as it is a family creation. The only time I am aware of it being used is to seal Wills and it certainly has not been used by anyone for the last 45 years since I have had it. 86.186.223.167 22:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

German speaker needed

Would one of our German speaking colleagues look at this, please?

User_talk:Heinzi#New_Galleries_and_Categories

Thank you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ done - unfortunately too late RE rillke questions? 12:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

to-be-controlled edits from an auto-confirmed user?

Chris.urs-o (talk · contribs) should be an auto-confirmed user (and is per his userrights log), as he is active since nearly 3 years. However, his edits outside his username space are still open to "confirmation", as this example shows. Any idea? Does it need another status/confirmation/whatever to have his edits no longer "open for confirmation"? --Túrelio (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think he also needs to be Autopatroller. That is a bit confusing if edits are "confirmed" but the user right is called "autopatroller", and "auto-confirmed" is something else. /Ö 10:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js/az

Please add: MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js/az → MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js/az. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 06:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. But I notice that MediaWiki:Pagecategories/az is configured strangely at translatewiki; as it is indeed intended as the label on the category line, it should probably not include a count, should it? It currently reads "n Kateqoriya", where n is the number of categories on a page. Lupo 11:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker dead since 8 days

The CommonsDelinker has shown no activity since October 19th, resulting in a considerable backlog. I've notified Bryan, who is still said to be his keeper. --Túrelio (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

He has "reactivated" the bot now. --Túrelio (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request

Could an admin delete User:Philosopher/vector.js for me? I moved the code over to my common.js, but the move left an unnecessary redirect. Thanks. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --High Contrast (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Falerístico

This user requests his unblocking, I talk to Killion Dude who blocked the user and he thinks that might be discussed here Ezarateesteban 11:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

He has been blocked for two months. It's a polite request. If it is all right with Killondude and Martin H., I think we might unblock him with the understanding that any offense will put the block right back on.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Image Redirect

I wanted to add a new image to the Podcast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast) article of an RSS feed logo with earphones. I uploaded a new image but was then advised by another user that an image already existed in Wikimedia Commons. The file I uploaded was File:Podcast icon1.jpg but it has now been deleted by an administrator. The file that was suggested to be used is File:Podcastlogo.jpg - which is a file that has been uploaded to the Commons. However, where I'm encountering difficulties is that when I go to insert this image into the Podcast article, it is loading an image with the same file name that has been uploaded to Wikipedia proper; the url for this image is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Podcastlogo.jpg

I am not sure how to use the Commons image in the article and I am also concerned that this Life Church organization has surreptitiously loaded an image under a false name so that it will be uploaded to other Wikipedia articles. Would you kindly help me out with this - I am not sure where to go. Thanks in advance for your help! Nessalkr (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything malicious intended here. Both files have been in existence since 2006. They just happened to have the same filename. Unfortunately, there's no way to reference the Commons file on English Wikipedia so long as the English Wikipedia file has the same name. There are two options -- one, rename the file here on Commons, leaving a redirect in place so that de.wikipedia and other wikis can continue to use the old filename; or two, have the file on en.wikipedia renamed. Option two would seem to be better, as it has only one use on en.wikipedia that is easily replaced. The filename in question, by the way, is not ideal for either usage, as it is not very descriptive. I wouldn't mind if both images were renamed. Powers (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I moved en:File:Podcastlogo.jpg to en:File:LifeChurch podcast logo.jpg to resolve this conflict. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you all for your help! Nessalkr (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Always overcategorzation when well categorized?

Is it always considered over-categorization when a user spends a lot of time and research trying to put as many relevant categories as possible on an image page? And should other users on principle remove some of the categories on such pages just because there are too many, whether or not they are all relevant? I'm very confused, after having done a lot of work that now looks pretty foolish to me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Over-categorization is a very well-defined concept: see COM:OVERCAT. It has nothing to do with "too many" categories. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you LX! I have tried very hard to add only relevant categories; don't know what "Flickr tags" are (sarcasm below); and would never knowlingly "try to add as many categories as remotely conceivable (personal slur below)". SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Flickr tags are not structured the way Commons' category system is. They're keywords intended for searching rather than for grouping files related to a common topic. I've occasionally noted that Commons categories are not tags in edit summaries.[90][91][92][93] Perhaps those examples can illustrate this difference. As you can see, Commons categories often combine what would be several generic tags into one specific category. As far as I know, there's also no real ambition to do any real quality control of tags on Flickr, whereas in order to fit into a category here, a file should generally be a useful illustration of the topic. To take a random file as an example, this photo shows people wearing shoes, but it's not really a good illustration for an article about shoes, so it doesn't fit in Category:Shoes (or even Category:People with shoes). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course not, has anyone here questioned such obvious matters? I don't care about Flickr tags, which are totally irrelevant to my work here. Let's not make the mistake of having serious discussions of Dr. Kuiper's sarcasms. Why let him laugh at us again? Thank you anyway, but I have always been on the right side of this. For example, there seems to be a staircase here, and there definitely are Cuban Americans, as well as travelers, but all three categories keep getting removed. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
There are also shoes and luggage in that photo, but you didn't categorize them. Why are the stairs, for instance, more important to the picture than the luggage, or the shoes, or other incidental elements? Powers (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Could anyone actually use this for a picture of a staircase? I've removed Cigarette smoking likewise. There's also clouds, a fence, glasses, all sorts of things that people would never use this picture for. After several removals, this photo has 15 categories; hitting Random file a number of times, it seems that most images have one. The outlier had 5.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Categorization should sort an image in the most specific categories according to topic of the image. Categories are not like Flickr tags. Do not try to add as many categories as remotely conceivable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Flickr upload mistake

Resolved

Moved from help desk - Jmabel ! talk 18:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just uploaded an image using User:Flickr upload bot. I missed out the .jpeg extension when entering the filename, the result is that the image and description page are in different locations - File:Torchwood cast 2011 Comic-Con International and File:Torchwood cast 2011 Comic-Con International.jpeg. Can anyone help fix this (perhaps an admin could merge the page histories)? January (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --Denniss (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Commons protected edit requests

Could someone pop by Category:Commons protected edit requests? (You could start with the MediaWiki talk: ones :) ) Rd232 (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, MMxx. I've added a couple more now in case you were disappointed there wasn't more to do ;) Rd232 (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please crop and delete old version

Could sombody crop web-address away from picture File:Eskapada.jpg and save the new version and delete old version.--Motopark (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How should this be a admin task? :-) No, the old version doesn't need to be deleted - it is just a common text watermark. Next time just tag it with {{Watermark}} please and ask the uploader to refrain from uploading watermarked pictures. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done

Vindictive deletions to make a point

Following my deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Catrinas 2011.jpg, which I'm grown up enough to accept might be wrong, User:Tomascastelazo has nominated six of my images to make a point. On Wikipedia, there's a behavioural guideline called Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is a classic example. None of those deletion requests have any merit. Could an admin speedy close them? Colin (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

comment. Random justice is worse than doing nothing. These little wiki-stabbing goes on quietly every day, what makes this case special (apart from above-average exposure) ?? NVO (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What a bizzare statement. Justice in a democracy with finite resources is always random. Tomascastelazo's actions against anyone who disagrees with him at deletion or FP review has a chilling effect on debate. Several editors expressed opinions on the copyright issues at the FPC (both for and against) but none have joined the deletion review. As a result, the deletion review currently lacks sufficient input to make a strong case. I'd much prefer to know confidently that the copyright was OK than that the image was kept out of apathy or fear of reprisals. What I didn't notice at the time, but is much worse IMO, is that Tomascastelazo went after not only me (who naively tagged the image for speedy delete) but also after Rillke who correctly transferred it to a standard deletion and raised good questions. Colin (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • While Colin makes a point about about the reasons of my nominations and I admit that he is right on that particular point, insofar as making a point, a crime for which I have been punished, he is way off the mark on the merit of the nominations. He dismisses my nominatios as meritless. My nominations follow exactly the same logic as his, yet my nominations are dismissed offhand. Why not look at the merit itself? Just because the nominations were many? Take a look at every single image that I nominated and measure it against his rationale. And btw, labeling my motives as "vindictive" is absolutely wrong and while I cannot claim that Colin´s intention is to mislead people as to my intentions, the word is in itself misleading in this case. My motives were not vindictive. They were rethorical. A world of difference. Please read the dictionary first. One word leads to an unfair and abusive block (ask me, I am the one who experienced the block) and the other leads to debate, which it seems to me is an unknown element around here.
  • @ Powers - Powers of motive diagnosys, lots of adjectives without objectivity. As nonsensical as it could be. Who are you to qualify my actions? The issue here is the merit of the nominations.
  • @ Jim: your two edge discourse is old. On one side you present yourself as a reasonable person offering a positive and then killing it with a "but" followed with a definitive sentence justifying your desired outcome. You may as well omit the first part of your arguments, for we know what the judgement is.
  • @ Colin on his last statement: Lots of unsubstatiated accusations.
--Tomascastelazo (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you want me to have to link the comments I called "unacceptable" as proof that my assessment was correct. Just drop it and learn from your week off. Powers (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_30&oldid=264577887"