Commons:Village pump/Proposals

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

Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Header

Special:MyUploads Part 2

It is proposed to add a link to Special:MyUploads at the top right, next to "My contributions". Special:MyUploads is a new function, which redirects to Special:ListFiles/username. Earlier discussion above (Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Adding_Special:MyUploads_.22my_uploads.22_link_next_to_.22my_contributions.22) led to the development of various elements of what's needed for this, namely the Javascript and a Gadget for users to turn the new link off in their preferences. To see the script in action, add importScript('User:Rd232/myuploads.js'); to your custom Javascript page, at Special:MyPage/common.js.

Notes
  1. The new link is aimed primarily at newcomers. As the blog entry which reported the creation of the Special:MyUploads function said [1], "During our interviews & testing, most people were wondering where their uploads had gone once the upload was completed." The link is currently available as a tiny link at the top of "my contributions" (I only noticed that after re-reading the blog entry! it's tiny, and mixed in with other tiny links!) which might be OK for other wikis, but uploading being so core to Commons it really should be more prominent than that.
  2. There is a Toolserver Gallery tool, but for many users MyUploads is enough, and sending them to the Gallery is confusing and wasteful of scarce toolserver resources. Also the Gallery tool is not always available.
  3. The Toolserver Gallery link can be added at MediaWiki:Listfiles-summary (shown at the top of Special:ListFiles). That way it's accessible (and allows for some description of how it differs from ListFiles, in a relevant context), whilst users get initially pointed at ListFiles.
  4. There will be an easy way to turn off the new link (via a Gadget in their preferences), for those who don't want it.
  5. Bugzilla: 30522 has been filed asking for improvements to Special:ListFiles. Those improvements will be nice to have, but MyUploads is already useful enough without those improvements.

Rd232 (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support - much easier

  1. As proposer. Rd232 (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure thing. I do not think it is necessary to provide a gadget to remove the future link, such a change is consensual enough I think. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I think it best to provide a gadget; for example for people with small screens the extra text may be an issue. If the gadget isn't much used, it could (like any underused gadget) be removed at some point, and those using it use the gadget's CSS in their Special:MyPage/skin.css to hide the link instead. I expect the gadget would be used enough for that not to happen though. Rd232 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, I think it's a great idea. Kelly (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes please, integrate that feature right into the UI. Can it have a field for categories as well? Ingolfson (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Support Support, with or without gadget. Good idea.--Jebulon (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Support InverseHypercube (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Support I only discovered that galleries and lists existed after some months and uploading tens of images, so I agree that link should be as easy-to-find as possible.--Pere prlpz (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Support Great idea for newbies Rastrojo (D•ES) 00:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Support I very much love this feature; I often find myself needing to find files I've uploaded (among hundreds of edits) and this would be very useful to have up top. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Support Good and useful idea.   ■ MMXX  talk  01:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Support --Forwhomthebelltolls (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  Support useful link with good visibility. --Jovian Eye storm 01:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13.  Support Fantastic idea. Would make things a lot easier. Swarm (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Support Awesome idea that will be very useful. King Curtis Gooden (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  Support Themfromspace (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Support Definitely a good idea. Michael Barera (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17.  Support With this feature all categories "Uploads by User XXX" become unnecessary! -- Simisa (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18.  Support -- penubag  (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Support A great idea. Novice7 (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20.  Support Petritap (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Support Looks useful and easy to use for newbies. Better than sending people to the tool server. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Support --Marco dimmi! 09:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Support It is necessary for commons. --Vssun (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24.  Support Support -- Raghith 09:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25.  Support So useful --Elitre (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26.  Support It's very useful to be able to see your uploads without going through your contributions one-by-one; and the Toolserver Gallery is down or malfunctioning half of the time. --Kimsə (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Support This would be a very useful tool not only for beginners! --OhWeh (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  Support Very usefull --Haneburger (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29.  Support--Great idea. Vibhijain (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30.  Support --Stryn (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31.  Support--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32.  Support--Gareth (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33.  Support Would be very useful for me. Léna (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34.  Support Great idea! AnaJur (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35.  Support It's very good idea. Electroguv (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36.  Support Great idea! --Dtarazona (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37.  Support especially as the toolserver gallery fails often. Shyamal (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38.  Support why not? -- ianusius ✆ Disk. 15:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39.  Support What a great idea! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay8g (talk • contribs) 15:14 (UTC)
  40.  Support useful tool. Should get an easy access --High Contrast (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41.  Support Good Estratocastro (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42.  Support, Though I'm not sure if I am qualified to vote. --YusuF 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43.  Support That makes sense. Bouchecl (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44.  Support--Jusjih (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45.  Support This is a great idea. I wholeheartedly support it. SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46.  Support Love it! --Ebyabe (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47.  Support, I find this even more useful than "My contributions". --Pierre Rudloff (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48.  Support yes --IIVeaa (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49.  Support Great idea --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50.  Support Good idea! Georgez (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51.  Support --Losch (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52.  Support Telperion (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Pile-on  Support --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54.  Support Yeaph, why not! --Jwh (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55.  Support For the reasons above. Editor5807speak 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56.  Support strongly. I hadn't even realised it was there myself and I've uploaded hundreds of images to the Commons. — OwenBlacker | Discussion 22:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57.  Support, but expecting that this integrates watchlist-features would be technically obscure. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58.  Support strongly. Excellent idea. By the way, it would be great to have a column showing how many wikipedia pages are using each specific photo. This way I will sort my uploaded photos, to see the more popular ones.--Jordiferrer (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59.  Support idem... Vitor Mazuco Msg 23:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60.  Support Great idea! - PKM (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61.  Support only if a gadget to disable is provided. ←fetchcomms 00:30, 26 August 2011
  62.  Support I didn't even know this page existed. Very useful, thanks! Ephemeronium (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  63.  Support Agree, it's a fantastic idea! Would be very useful not to layaway through all these sites! Smartcom5 (Any thoughts ?) 02:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  64.  Support Intresting stuff to add to Wikipedia Commons. Dhe Zerohander (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  65.  Support} Clearly an improvement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  66.  Aye. Makes sense for Commons. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 03:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  67.  Support Very useful tool, and not just for newbies. Tabercil (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  68.  Support Usefull. Palamède (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  69.  Support Sure --Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  70.  Support Sounds like a useful addition. ZanderZ (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  71.  Support Support, sounds good. --kuvaly|t|c| 11:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  72.  Support Sounds really great and encouraging to regular uploaders like me. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  73.  Support --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  74.  Support--Vassil (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  75.  Support Is much more useful and also faster find it at the top. With or without a gadget for me is irrelevant. Is a very-good-idea :) --raul (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  76.  Support Fantastic idea ! Trizek here or on fr:wp 13:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  77.  Support Jirka Daněk (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  78.  Support A time-saving and useful improvement. JuventiniFan (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  79.  Support --Wmeinhart (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  80.  Support Would make finding your own uploads much easier! Jacsam2 (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  81.  Support Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  82.  Support This would be a very useful addition. Harrison49 (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  83.  Support Good idea. --LinuxCLP (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  84. --Antemister (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  85.  Support Nice idea, would definitely be useful. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 18:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  86. -- Hardcoreraveman (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  87.  Support Prima. Very good.--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  88.  Support It would be very useful. --Boukeas
  89.  Support Musthave feature. B7elijah (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  90.  Support Would be useful. Haaninjo (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  91.  Support Much more convenient than the current system. Delaywaves talk • contribs 22:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  92.  Support fully support.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 04:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  93.  Support It's a good idea. --Leiem (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  94.  Support Yes. I can't find stuff either! Agong1 27 August 2011(UTC)
  95.  Support--Citron (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  96.  Support Finally. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  97.  Support Nice and helpful. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  98.  Support This has been long overdue. Branko Radovanović (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  99.  Support Yann (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  100.  Support Jmalo (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  101.  Support --Winiar✉ 14:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  102.  Support Dcoetzee (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  103.  Support B25es (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  104.  Support --LasseG (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  105.  Support Nice.--Morphypnos (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  106.  Support Good feature! CZmarlin (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  107.  Support Do it! Williamborg (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  108.  Support Kennyannydenny (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  109.  Support - very good idea! Romaine (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  110.  Support -- M 93 (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  111.  Support - A very concise way to show just the uploads Benrr101 (talk)
  112.  Support Logan Talk Contributions 22:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  113.  Support It's a nice idea --Sammy pompon (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  114.  Support Great idea! --Yetisyny (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  115.  Support Seems very sensible Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  116.  Support Nice idea, and it seems not to change "contributions" special page then it would be perfect then. Jeriby (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  117.  Support As opposed to other projects, uploading is a major part of what almost everyone does here. Being able to quickly look back at what we've uploaded helps us do our tasks better. Daniel Case (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  118.  Support —stay (sic)! 01:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  119.  Support Bring it on. That said... I wish it looked more like the currently broken tool from daniel ( http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php ). Nephron  T|C 02:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  120.  Support Would save time. --Thompson.matthew (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  121. GfoleyFour 04:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  122.  Support Good and useful idea. --Thomy3k (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  123.  Support --Karelj (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  124.  Support --ST ○ 08:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  125.  Support Lymantria (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  126.  Support - Good move..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  127.  Support as proposed. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  128.  Support Excellent idea. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  129.  Support Seems like a great idea. -Joltex (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  130.  Support This can replace the "gallery" Richardprins (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  131.  Support I'm surprised it took so long for someone to think of this ;) . It'd be very useful. MikeLynch (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  132.  Support Good idea! Cindamuse (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  133.  Support Good Idea! Subin.a.mathew (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  134.  Support Long awaited. --Ainali (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  135.  Support It would be helpful and its a great idea! --Vaishak Kallore | വൈശാഖ്‌ കല്ലൂര്‍ (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  136.  Support +1 --Kippelboy (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  137.  Support A very good idea indeed. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) Wikipedia Random Picture of the Day 18:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  138.  Support Spares me from having this essentially replicated on my user page. -- Mcstrother (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  139.  Support The most important contributions to commons are usually uploaded images, hence they should be easily accessible. Puchiko (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  140.  Support -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 21:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  141.  Support Gzzz (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  142.  Support Good idea! Biólogo32 21:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  143.  Support --Davidpar (disc.) 21:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  144.  Support Starus (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  145.  Support Addresses core activity of Commons. Steven Walling • talk 23:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  146.  Support - Quite similar to Upload log by user, with a larger picture. Yuval Y § Chat § 09:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  147.  Support Good and useful idea! --Dirk Van Esbroeck (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Very strong support. It's a good feature. Scrawler (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  149.  Support, I'm always looking for this link when I need it, I think it is of very different use than the contributions, even if the first one include the second.Indeed, if someone can tell me how to filter out the imports from the contributions, when I'm looking for comment maintenance, I would be glad. --Cqui (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  150.  Support It's a very good idea. --Rave (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  151.  Support Handy! Smile4ever (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  152.  Support Useful -- Kakashi-Madara (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  153.  Support I litke it --Wilfredor (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  154.  Support. Yes. Maybe even add it to the toolbox on user pages next to "User contributions". Drilnoth (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  155.  Support Cool idea. --Anoopan (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  156.  Support A handy link. --George2001hi (Discussion) 20:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  157.  Support --RanZag (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  158.  Support -- Neithsabes (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  159.  Support. And I like Drilnoths idea. --ᛏᛟᚱᚨᚾᚨ (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  160.  Support — Excellent idea, given the purpose of the wiki.  Hazard-SJ  ±  00:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  161.  Support – Excellent idea, especially since the main purpose of this wiki is to host images. —mc10 (t/c) 03:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  162.  Support The Commons is all about uploads, so it makes sense to split those out and make them easier to find. Will Beback (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  163.  Support --MaryankoD (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  164.  Support Obvious good idea S a g a C i t y (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  165.  Support Ziga (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  166.  Support --Anatoliy (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  167.  Support Useful tool. --Shibo77 13:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  168.  Support It's nice.--Jan Polák (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  169.  Support Super! mr. Анатолий (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  170.  Support Angelus (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  171.  Support Dorieo (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  172.  Support das Beste seit Langem, Danke --Böhringer (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  173.  Support --Keithonearth (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  174.  Support--ReijiYamashina (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  175.  Support This is an important feature, should be done as a one click option. Beta M (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  176.  Support A great shortcut. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  177.  Support yes very good suggestion --Olli (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  178.  Support Une super bonne idée, je vais déjà rajouter ce lien Special:MyUploads sur ma page perso Wikisoft* @@@-fr 07:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  179.  Support Very good idea--Trex2001 (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  180.  Support It would be nice to have it handle files where we uploaded new versions as well. Right now I handle that with my watchlist. But yes, support. --Quintucket (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  181.  Support Simple and obvious improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  182.  Support Great idea!--ChristianSW (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  183.  Support --Paolo77 ru (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  184.  Support It would be good if it could help newbies come back to their uploads and become aware of speedy or requested deletions when that happens. Teofilo (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  185.  Support Very good idea. I'm waiting for this tool for a long time. - Bzh-99 (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  186.  Support --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  187.  Support It would be a very useful tool. Sealle (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  188.  Support Makes a great deal of sense to me... it would be a useful and visible tool. — Gbms86—talk 17:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  189.  Support --CristianNX 17:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  190.  Support --Geoff Who, me? 17:46, 31 August 2011
  191.  Support --Nick Michael (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  192.  Support Very good idea! --— Habib M'HENNI [¿tell me?] 20:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  193.  Support Yes FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  194.  Support Useful for multiple purposes.   — C M B J   04:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  195.  Support I would like it.--Salino01 (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  196.  Support -- Ariadacapo (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  197.  Support. Can't see why not. Jafeluv (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  198.  Support Good idea! PAULOGARCIA2005 (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  199.  Support Yes, please. Wiki-uk (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  200.  Support --Avenue (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  201.  Support --Lucien (es·m·com) 15:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  202.  Support Useful addition. --Geraki TLG 17:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  203.  Support Galandil (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  204.  Support Great idea.--Pesare amol (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  205.  Support Exellent idea! Achird (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  206.  Support — putnik? 23:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  207.  Support useful Ggia (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  208.  Support It would be very useful. Fandecaisses (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  209.  Support I would appreciate that. Saulus (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  210.  Support Very useful addition. Owain.davies (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  211.  Support Useful addition.--Josef Moser (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  212.  Support Nice! ...Kenrick95 14:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  213.  Support --Pethrus (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  214.  Support —kallerna™ 18:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  215.  Support Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  216. --Aschmidt (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  217.  Support It would be much useful, easier and quicker to reach, specially for newbies -- Massic80 Contattami 23:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  218.  Support Good idea. Saves a step. Nonenmac (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  219.  Support - snow? Bulwersator (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  220.  Support - very helpful! --KuK (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  221.  Support --Jakubhal (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  222.  SupportJerzystrzelecki (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  223.  Support strongly For some people, their main contribution to Wikimedia projects is uploading new pictures or creating needed graphics. Their support is appreciated and this way it can be better noticed. Ldorfman (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  224.  Support It's a good a idea, and I think it will have a some kind of benefit for easier use. So, I agree with this. --MrEskola (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  225.  Support Very helpfull.-- Bertrand GRONDIN  → (Talk) 17:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  226.  Support That's genius! --Honza chodec (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  227.  Support Froztbyte (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  228.  Support Anything that makes it easier to *get to* information/data is a good thing, in my book. —Safety Cap (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  229.  Support Very useful, as the majority don't upload as-much-as editing... ~ AdvertAdam talk 03:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  230.  Support --Metalhead ✉ 08:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  231.  Support --Ex13 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  232.  Support STRONG Support - It would help me review my own contributions, for updating info, data, etc. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  233.  Support Good idea! "The new link is aimed primarily at newcomers." - badly needed for them indeed. {Reo On (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  234.  Support --MartinThoma (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  235.  Support Definitely. I didn't even realize that Special:MyUploads exists! Rdrozd (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  236.  Support Yes. Saves me the detour. Manxruler (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  237.  Support --Aushulz (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  238.  Support That's a great idea! --Mlorer (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  239.  Support This is great idea, and may encourage people to make more contributions. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 04:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  240.  Support That's a great idea! lonio17 (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  241.  Support Not very important, but useful--Packa (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  242.  Support Good idea, it will be helpful. Prioryman (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  243.  Support C'est tout de même bienpratique ce lien direct. Je suis totalement pour ! --Ctruongngoc (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  244.  Support Good idea, it's what I do with my user page at the moment! Miyagawa (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  245.  Support Good idea, I would like to use it in the future. --Midi7 (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  246.  Support Excellent idea ---Peterdownunder (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  247.  Support Makes sense Jebus989 (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  248.  Support Of course!? -- Michael F. Schönitzer 17:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  249.  Support Yes please. Lionel Allorge (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  250.  Support Alwayse wondered why it's not there. Lysy (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  251.  Support YES, it is easy to see the images instead of finding them through your watchlist. -- Spesh531 (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  252.  Support Make it so! --Mav (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  253.  Support YES ! --MadriCR (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  254.  Support Yanguas (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Excellent idea, but better with gadget. There is a lot of users who don't have any upload.[reply]
  255.  Support --Helios13 (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  256.  Support Support, I have often wished for something similar and could not find it. Phil Konstantin Philkon (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  257.  Support Kiltpin (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  258.  Support Seems very useful. -- sarang사랑 08:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC) But:[reply]
    • The column "User" has no use and is redundant
    • The suffix "(file)" in column "Name" is redundant
    • More helpful seems something like "File 151 to 200", or "Page 3", at the top of each page
  259.  Support Great idea.--Edgars2007 (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  260.  Support strongly. Very good idea! Eduarda7 (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  261.  Support A very good idea, it seems useful. Surt Fafnir (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  262.  Support Good Idea. Usefull. --Willi Wallroth (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  263.  Support Great idea. --S nova (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  264.  Support Looks to be a good feature. Matthewrbowker (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  265.  Support SarahStierch (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  266.  Support Banfield - Amenazas aquí 02:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  267.  Support Useful link. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  268.  Support Please! --Schorle (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  269.  Support Seems like a very good, usefull idea. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  270.  Support, could be useful. Cdlt, Pymouss Let’s talk - 11:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  271.  Support OK/--Torin (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  272.  Support --патриот8790Say whatever you want 15:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  273.  Support. Good idea. Marcos talk 18:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  274.  Support Fantastic! This makes it so much easier to see my media content. Indispensable! Thanks BDS2006 (talk)
  275.  Support Patrick Edwin Moran (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  276.  Support Madeline 7 (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  277.  Support Sure! (for Commons) AndreyA (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  278.  Support Very good idea. Please with the indication of the category. Dinkum (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  279.  Support --Lucas Nunes 14:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  280.  Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  281.  Support a×pdeHello! 19:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  282.  Support Tacci2023 Great Idea 19:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  283.  Support Sounds like a great idea EdwinHJ (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  284.  Support Definitely helpful! Samar (Talk . Contributions) 20:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  285.  Support Rainer Halama That is what I am looking for when I want to see my contributions to Commons 23:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  286.  Support Lauro Chieza de Carvalho (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  287.  Support Freebiekr (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  288.  Support Amol.Gaitonde (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  289.  Support Sounds very convenient. --Soppakanuuna (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  290.  Support Olsi (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  291.  Support Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  292.  Support It sounds like a very good idea. -- Marek69 (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  293.  Support Bonaber (talk) Great idea! 18:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  294.  Support Yes kekistar (Discusión) 15:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  295.  Support -- OperRu32TALK -- 21:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  296.  Support -- I think it would be helpful. Warfieldian (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  297.  Support. Good idea. Rehman 03:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  298.  Support -- CristianCantoro (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  299.  Support Already on the English Wikipedia, it would be very useful here. Hurricanefan25 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  300.  Support Chuck Carroll (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  301.  Support --Gelpgim - disc 20:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  302.  Support Excellent idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  303.  Support. Good idea. --Dezidor (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  304.  Support Very usefull. --Claude villetaneuse (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  305.  Support This could be of some use to some people, hey? WHY NOT!!! (can't others just not check the gadget box if they no like?) — --Benzband (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  306.  Support Let's do this already, we seem to have a consensus. Feedback (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  307.  Support GerFes (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  308.  Support Might as well pile on; it's sensible enough and should save a little clicking around. Not like adding it's apt to hurt anything, either. Isarra (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  309.  Support Bravo, bravo! Excellent! --WhiteWriter speaks 21:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  310.  Support Sounds like a good idea to me, I'd also like to see it on all Wikis. --Hibernian (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  311.  Support Bonne idée Mat.webmiss
  312.  Support It will be very useful. PRENN (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  313.  Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  314.  Support Since I'm one of those people who had to go through hell tracing the uploaded files, I'm all for it. Great for newbies, or even those who've been around a while, but are yet to master wikipedia's dynamics. --Compendium wmc
  315.  Support jep! --RoB (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  316.  Support Been through it, so not much bothered any more, but I too have suffered, so I support it.JonRichfield (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  317.  Support Ease of use. Nuff said. Maikel (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. No, no, no! This would be equivalent to splitting the "My Contributions" page on all the other Wikimedia projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc.) into a "Contributions" one and a "My New Pages" (or "My Pages Created") one. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 22:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I can't speak to the other projects but I reckon that idea would find some supporters on Wikipedia :) But basically, it's a false analogy, because "my new pages" are textual contributions (which is what Special:Contributions is designed for) and "my uploads" are (largely) images. Whilst Special:Contributions could in theory be merged with Special:ListFiles (which, crucially, shows previews of the files), that wouldn't happen for years even if it was thought a good idea. Even merging Special:NewFiles with Special:ListFiles, which seems pretty obvious, would probably not happen in much less than a year. And, bottom line, if it's useful here (particularly for newcomers, as some WMF research shows them having trouble finding their uploads), who cares what use analogous things might be elsewhere? Rd232 (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: Increasing the prominence of Special:ListFiles sounds like a good idea, but I don't think a link to 'My uploads' (Special:ListFiles) should be put next to the 'My contributions' link. There are already two easily-accessible links to the feature, available in two clicks from any page. Both links are in 'My contributions' -- 1) right at the top of the page, labeled 'uploads', and 2) at the bottom of the page, labeled 'User uploads'. Link (1) in 'My contributions' could probably be better placed, i.e. immediately to the right of the 'talk' link, instead of having the 'block log' link there. 'My uploads' are a subset of 'My contributions', so it makes sense to put a link to Special:ListFiles within the 'My contributions' page -- and not next to the 'My contributions' link. Emw (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Does this really have to be a script? Of course it's easier to activate, but a native mediawiki implementation wouldn't be that difficult to develop. The opt-out gadget works with css (I had expected a js variable, but Ok), so that wouldn't be a problem. But internationalisation would be easier in translatewiki, and not using js would make the page more accessible (and also a bit faster). -- ✓ Bergi 11:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We would appreciate if you develop this extension. A simple link, that sounds really easy. Upload wizard without heavy js would better, too because it could be used by more people. ;-) Unfortunately, I never worked with php. -- RE rillke questions? 11:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to make the page tell you how many uploads you have made? --Årvasbåo (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I asked the devs but they said the number is stored nowhere. It's a pity. -- RE rillke questions? 18:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could try filing a bug to ask for it to be stored somewhere... Rd232 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This would be nice. a) total uploads count (log) b) number of images created by user x and alive c) live count of a) -- RE rillke questions? 18:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki implementation (development of Special:ListFiles, probably) would be great, but (a) MediaWiki development is an even more specialised skill and (b) Javascript development allows much easier and quicker feedback from users into improvements. Bugzilla: 30522 requested improvements to ListFiles; if we get those, that'll be a start. Maybe one day all of Rillke's script will make it into MediaWiki, but it's more likely to be 5 years away than 5 months. And having the Javascript also gives a basis for that possible MediaWiki development, because it's much easier to copy/adapt an existing structure (design/code) than start completely from scratch. Rd232 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bergi's comment is just about adding the link, not creating a gallery-tool. Replacing the target of the link to a JavaScript-tool is easily possible. -- RE rillke questions? 23:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Bergi's comment was about that (?) but I was actually going to suggest that it might be worth filing a bug to have a new MediaWiki option to display the "my uploads" link, pointed at Special:ListFiles, and then your script would divert that link to your script page, for those with Javascript. This would help those users with Javascript turned off. My concern was that the Javascript diverting of the link away from Special:ListFiles might be slightly delayed, and people might often click on it before it happens, and end up not seeing the script. A note/link at the top of ListFiles would help with that though, and also tell people with Javascript off what they're missing out on. This would be a pretty simple bug to implement, so there's some chance it might happen soonish, especially if we can bend the ear of a developer. Rd232 (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File a bug, to display this link, target file-list. If a user is too fast, we can even display a note on the file-list if JavaScript is active. -- RE rillke questions? 18:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly an overwhelming support for this. Can we just close it and get it out of the sitenotice? :) Personally I don't see why this was so important to put it up for a vote in the first place - even more why it had to be advertized in the sitenotice. But maybe I'm missing something. Effeietsanders (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this has been running for two weeks and a half, with landslide support. The proposal clearly has support for the community. I thus removed the enquiry from the SiteNotice. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation

  1. Add more localizations in User:Rd232/myuploads.js.
  2. Localizations of the disabling Gadget, in the format MediaWiki:Gadget-NoMyUploadsLink/de, MediaWiki:Gadget-NoMyUploadsLink/fr etc
  3. Add a clarification to MediaWiki:Listfiles-summary (possibly in MediaWiki's default for this message, via Translatewiki) When filtered by user (Special:ListFiles/username), only files where that user uploaded the most recent version of the file are shown. ✓ Done
  4. Add a link to the Toolserver Gallery in Commons' copy of MediaWiki:Listfiles-summary
  5. Put the contents of User:Rd232/myuploads.js somewhere in MediaWiki:Common.js
  6. Move User:Rd232/Gadget-NoMyUploadsLink.css to MediaWiki:Gadget-NoMyUploadsLink.css
  7. Move User:Rd232/Gadget-NoMyUploadsLink to MediaWiki:Gadget-NoMyUploadsLink
  8. Add to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, under Interface, NoMyUploadsLink|NoMyUploadsLink.css Rd232 (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other

Improvements to Special:ListFiles itself are covered by Bugzilla: 30522 (though it may be possible to do some things in Javascript, this is not easy)

  1. Please also have it show all categories the image is sorted under. Thanks! Ingolfson (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It does not show when someone else uploaded a new version (like for example Rotatebot). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Option to show all files that were originally uploaded by user xyz. Hi there, you made these suggestions to help new contributors. I experienced a problem yesterday (before knowing about this discussion) with a new user. He had uploaded several files, some of them not rotated. I helped him and set the rotatebot to heal the pictures. Afterwards this new contributor would not see those files anymore, since this list only shows those files of which he is the latest version contributor (sorry for my English). You are thinking of an extra possibility to sort the list for those files which the user has uploaded. More experienced users may understand about cropped/rotated versions and may choose the option to show only originally uploaded files, but newbies will just try to find “their” files. So I believe the standard option must be “list all files that have been uploaded by user xyz, even if somebody else overwrote that file with a newer version”. --Schwäbin (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, by default the list should show all files a user has uploaded, regardless of what happened to the files later (with maybe some extra annotation where a file has been overwritten by someone else). That's the behaviour most users will expect, and I'm surprised it doesn't do that. Hopefully this will be done soon under Bug 30522 (but "soon" in bug terms is months...). Rd232 (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. The old gallery tab (running on toolserver) showed ever image you'd uploaded, I believe. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, have always found it strange that the currently generated list doesn't show files that were later overwritten by another user. It would be a welcome improvement to show all files uploaded by a given user, but I agree with Rd232's suggestion that (ideally) it ought to include a notation to indicate when a given file is no longer the current version. Steve Morgan (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The feature is very good, but I have found faults:

Implementation II

Behind the scenes, User:Rillke has been developing a Javascript version of ListFiles which is absolutely brilliant. This script will be used in the new top-right "my uploads" link instead of ListFiles. It's still a work in progress but already amazing. To use it now, add 

if (-1 != mw.config.get("wgPageName").indexOf(mw.user.name())) importScript("User:Rillke/JSONListUploads.js");

into Special:MyPage/common.js - it gives you a link to "my uploads" in the toolbox. Comments welcome (bearing in mind it's not finished). Rd232 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats

I would like to propose that COM:BLOCK be amended to state that if someone issues legal threats, they should be blocked from editing Commons until such time as the issue is resolved. This is pretty much a transwiki of WP:NLT. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support. Commons is a reuser not a host so we don't need people threatening legal action to start messing with the terms under which they claim we can use files. – Adrignola talk 15:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. In case users simply move files from other wikis that turn out to be copyvios, legal threats would be very bad, as this kind of simple file move is within Wikimedia, not from outside Wikimedia. In this case, the blame should belong to the upstream uploader, like falsely claiming self work on English Wikipedia as to trick a user here to move the files in good faith. Automatic image search tool may reduce the problems.--Jusjih (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose After gathering some ideas/ thinking about it, I think leagal threats only should not become a reason to block. If these threats become disruptive, then should be blocked if there is no way to resolve the issue since blocking as only tool will not solve any legal dispute. -- RE rillke questions? 13:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Commons is mostly about copyright issues, claims of rights to ones own image, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And that can be done politely, through process, without threats. I am not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to say they own copyright and such, but if they threaten an uploader, or anyone else, by legal means then the conversation should be done by the lawyers, and further onwiki discussion should be stopped. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can only be threatened if you do not know the law / do illegal things. Otherwise I prefer to ignore this. -- RE rillke questions? 18:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A comment which just highlights, for me, the definitional problems seen in practice all too often on en.wp: what exactly is a "legal threat"? And the definitional issue has to be worse on Commons, where there is so much of an issue with copyright/licensing, which is intrinsically a legal issue. Rd232 (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, commons is not en:w:, just ignore stupid legal threats. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NLT makes a lot less sense to me on Commons than on en.wp. In Wikipedia articles, you can have all sorts of compromise, and easily remove problematic text (typically just a small fraction of an article) temporarily for discussion, etc. Sharply discouraging legal threats as a substitute for dispute resolution makes sense, because there's so much you can do, dispute-resolution-wise. This is not true in the same way for images, which is Commons' body of work. Besides which, legal issues themselves (around licensing/copyright) arise far more frequently on Commons, and experience on en.wp is that the existence of NLT can cause problems in legitimate discussion of legal issues. So I'm not Opposing, because I'm open to a case being made that NLT is necessary here, but I don't particularly expect that case to be made. Rd232 (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legal threats don't belong on Commons; as mentioned above, we're just a reuser and legal threats do not have a place here. ←fetchcomms 00:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who, in that sentence, is "we"? It seems to be "Commons" (not a legal entity) or "WMF". What about legal threats against users? Should people whose legal rights have been breached by Commons users be blocked for threatening to enforce those rights? Rd232 (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, because if someone is threatening legal action it means that they are being unnecessarily aggressive. If they just nominate it for deletion, or contact OTRS, it can be resolved amicably with nothing more than a {{Copyvionote}} on the uploader's talk page. If they are going to go with legal action, then they are displaying no respect for Commons and civility, and they should cease talking on Commons and instead go through the lawyers. I'm not saying people should not be able to take legal action, but if they do, or if they threaten users with said action rather than just saying "this is a copyvio, please take it down", then they should not be on Commons, or at least they should not be on commons until the dispute is resolved. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the situation you're describing (and it rather helps to be concrete like this, rather than totally abstract) sounds like someone who just doesn't know how Commons works. So the first response should be education, not blocking. For really persistent legal threats, after education, I can see referral to OTRS, but I don't see how blocking is going to help anyone solve a particular problem (it's not going to make a legal threat go away for instance; it's like sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la"). Where a user is making legal threats in a way that is actually disruptive, they can be blocked for that (though "disruptive" isn't mentioned in COM:BLOCK; it would make more sense to import that concept from en.wp than NLT). Rd232 (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose straightforward ban, open to fine-tuning. Disputes over rights on media files are quite different from disputes over content on wikipedia. One needs to separate valid claims (that need to be resolved directly with the foundation through DMCA takedown calls) from unacceptable wikibickering. NVO (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per above. Legal threats are certainly not encouraged on Commons, but legal issues are much more common here and I don't want to risk misunderstanding - newbies may show up making legal threats and turn out to be legit copyright holders whose issues we can handle easily without making them lawyer up or bother the WMF. That said, I wouldn't hesitate to block someone if an edit war involving legal threats spills over here (as often happens e.g. with maps and disputes over territory). Dcoetzee (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you think legal threats could harm the Commons? Commons is somehow more complicated to use and understand than Wikipedia and any new user might get tense and make threats, but they always have only one way, discuss and reach an outcome to dispute resolution, which doesn't always have to be a calm discussion... after discussion they can be blocked if they continue to make threats... but I don't understand how they are supposed to defend themselves if we block them instantly?! nature of Commons requires more legal discussions than any other projects and legal threats are not really important when we don't do anything illegal, we can change the general disclaimer to be more specific on these issues.  ■ MMXX  talk 21:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Commons is not a battlefield about xyr suing xe. If an image is a copyvio, delete on sight. —stay (sic)! 02:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: This thread is not about copyvios or a copyright-violator. There is consensus to block if those users do not stop uploading them. It raised because one user did not agree that he can't change the license after 2 years or similar. -- RE rillke questions? 09:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      And how were we supposed to know that? I do not like to have to read the policies of Wikipedia in English to understand Commons proposals, and in this case I think mind reading would have been needed. Please do use some time to make any proposal understandable and unambiguous in itself, without us having to know the background.
      About blocking for legal threats: there should be a clear description of the circumstances where threats could lead to blocking, and a rationale for each case. I do reserve the right to take legal action to defend my rights, and to warn about that before I go to court. That can be understood as a threat. Should I be blocked now?
      If the thread is about somebody changing his licence, then that is only a special case. It might equally well be about somebody changing the licence of somebody else, e.g. because this somebody thinks the licences are equivalent while the author thinks they are not. That is no reason to issue a takedown request, but might very well be a reason to warn about legal consequences. Would that be disruptive?
      --LPfi (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As long as it is applied only to discussions between Commons-users. Anyone coming from outside to demand a copyrighted file be removed, should definitely not be blocked simply because they are threatening to sue if it isn't removed (they might not be aware that copyright violations will be removed even without having to resort to legal threats). But if an established user threatens to sue because he doesn't agree with something that was done to his files, then that should definitely not be tolerated. --Terfili (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you draw the distinction? How many contributions or uploads does a user need to make to be suddenly blocked for making what somebody considers a legal threat? The situation you're talking about is too unusual to justify making a policy. Rd232 (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's pretty straightforward if common sense is used for enforcing it. If someone sees a photo he owns the copyright to, demands that Commons remove it or else he'll sue, clearly he shouldn't be blocked. But if let's say, I edit a map that I think is inaccurate, and the uploader threatens to sue me over it, then that should certainly warrant a warning and/or a block. --Terfili (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should it warrant a block? If there's no basis at all for a legal action, it's just hot air and is an education/discussion issue. If there is a basis for a legal action, then there's an issue to be resolved, and actually blocking or threatening to block will not help resolve it. Basically, I accept there will be situations where it would be useful to have NLT and be able to point to it and/or block on the basis of it; but I think on Commons it will be far, far outweighed by situations where having NLT will make things worse. Even on English Wikipedia, in my experience the balance is less strongly in favour of NLT being a net positive than you might think. Rd232 (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Same as for en:WP. You can edit/upload here, or you can go through the courts, but doing both is incompatible. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose forbidding legal threats should be limited to gangster groups and abusive religious cults, where abusive behaviour is condoned. God forbid that Commons or Wikipedia communities follow that line. Wikipedia:NLT is a shame. Teofilo (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose We will not stop ignorance with blocking. --Foroa (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, per nominator. --Túrelio (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Legal threats don't seem very collegial, but I'm not convinced a block is automatically the best response. I also agree that new users should probably be given more leeway than regulars. --Avenue (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Depending on the nature of the dispute a legal threat, admins should try to find if there is reason of a legal procedure or not. A legal procedure can be a way of defense for someone. If User:A does something bad (e.g. reveals personal info) for User:B and User:B threaten User:A, then would we block B while he can be a victim? Yes, admins or the community cannot be the judges but we can just ignore the fact of a legal threat if there is some valid reason for a legal procedure. A user shouting about "bring admin C at the court because he deleted a photo of his kitten and that is a violation of free speech" can be blocked for trolling. --Geraki TLG 18:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per above and per what Andy Dingley said. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - AFAIK disruptive behaviour is enough to block sb, what includes disruptive legal threats. Wikipedia:NLT is one of the worst things on w:en (irritated newbie mentioned lawyer? Ban. Attempted to ask later? wp:SOCK, ban. Sb else attempted to ask? WP:DUCK+WP:SOCK, ban.) Bulwersator (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Clear risks with such a policy. If it is needed in some situations, those should be described and blocking confined to such cases. --LPfi (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socializing the Commons

Ideas to discuss:

Bookmarks  · Easy share options  · Subscription to FP, QI and VI via email  · Commons' day / Commons' birthday  · Inviting Wikipedians to donate images to Commons using CentralNotice  · Making introductory video tutorials in different languages  · ...

Wikimedia Commons is a host for freely-licensed media files. we are very much like the Flickr and other media sharing websites. unfortunately we don't encourage people to upload their files here instead of other websites, AFAIK, Commons doesn't have any ads outside of Wikimedia projects, people who upload their files to Commons can't get proper review for their works, they can't share them easily and tell how many people like and appreciate their works. I have some ideas to socialize the Commons and make it more fun to use:

Bookmarks

In my daily work in Commons I come across many images that I like to bookmark them to use them later, everyone can bookmark contents personally, however I believe it would be more useful if users be able to make a list of their favorites contents, similar to Flickr and Youtube, the file page shows how many people added a file to their favorites. this can be similar to categories,

What it needs:

  • A new namespace, which acts similar to categories, could be named bookmarks, favorites or anything relevant, to list the media files, this gallery could be customizable, unlike the categories here users could be able to customize number of files per page, file size, sort...
  • A link/icon on file pages to add and remove favorites.
  • A label on the file page which shows how many users added the file to their favorites and a link to list those galleries or users.

Easy share

I suggest we add an easier way to share contents by adding links to different social networks and social bookmarking websites to a dropdown menu (for files and user pages and maybe commons namespace), this could be disabled or customized to add or remove some links.

Currently we only have the "Email a link" and "Use this file" shortcuts only on the file pages, we can expand "Use this file" shortcut so users could easily add files to different social network websites.

Subscription via email

Subscription of featured, quality and valued pictures via email, similar to COM:POTD, on daily, weekly or monthly basis.

Please let me know what you think, also I like to hear some new ideas to socialize the Commons.  ■ MMXX  talk 19:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These issues are worth exploring, but my first reaction is caution: Commons is supposed to host files useful for educational purposes (COM:SCOPE) and we don't want to end up with a massive influx of photos which should have been uploaded to Facebook. So whatever we do to encourage contributions, it needs to be careful not to encourage too much of the wrong sort of contributions. Excessive volume of useless or not-very-useful stuff makes it hard for end users to find useful things, and for active Commons editors to organise content in a way useful for end users. PS "Email a link" and "Use this file" shortcuts ... I can't find. Sounds useful though. Rd232 (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On top of the image. / MediaWiki:Stockphoto.js -- RE rillke questions? 09:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Communication should be eased. On translatewiki, I recognized a chat-plugin. This could be really useful.
Subscription via mail could be done by User:Dschwens bots. There is an API and if we set up a list somewhere (I suggest a template to put on the userpage to categorize in a subscription cat), this should be possible. -- RE rillke questions? 09:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Too many whyes, for example "why should commons compete with wikipedias for wikipedians' attention"? I'm sceptic about any "socializing" gizmos because, well, commons is not a very social place by design. There are regulars like yours truly. And there are many more casual uploaders who come to commons only because their home wikipedias discourage uploads there. All too often it's "casual squared" (the uploader's interest to wikipedia as a whole was a one-time affair, and he or she is gone for good). NVO (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@NVO: I didn't mean to compete with other WMF projects, but to learn from websites like Flickr and Youtube...
I don't think that adding this features encourage people to upload their noneducational to Commons, although already many do this and we simply delete those files. the goal of these suggested features is to encourage professional photographers to upload their noteworthy images to Commons, and the most important, to encourage them to release their works under a free license. currently we are a consumer, the value of our project is mostly dependent on websites like Flickr and we have very few professional photographers. I believe there is nothing against socializing the Commons in our policy, we can ease the communication and facilitate the sharing of our free contents with the world. we have a mission, and that is to collect and provide free educational content and make them accessible worldwide, I think it's not right to deprive the world from what we have.  ■ MMXX  talk 11:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against this initiative, but I think that we should address our natural allies in the first place. If on all wikipedias, there was some site notice invitation to look in (and potentially donate images to) Commons, along with a click field that launches on Commons a search for the name of the currently displayed page, we might substantially improve interactions, categorisation help and downloads. --Foroa (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a good idea too, in upload page of some projects like enwiki, there is a notice that asks users to upload their free images to Commons, also there are two banners in enwiki (1, 2) which advertise the Commons, but none of these actually encourage people to donate their images to Commons... why don't we have a Commons day? September 7 is Commons' birthday, on that day we can use CentralNotice to advertise the Commons and invite everyone from other projects to donate images.  ■ MMXX  talk 14:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Banners seem pretty well done, but I guess that that the first step should be to state that we have more interesting stuff here and to get them walk around here. Don't ask to donate first: show first what we have to offer. Especially in the UK, there are hundreds of thousands of uncategorised images, so they could already getting the hang of it by searching and categorising images. A good first step. A commons day might be a good idea indeed. --Foroa (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I support these kinds of initiatives. --99of9 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it, do we have some professional introductory video tutorials? (Nice voice, making curious, simple "how-to-do"s ...) I tried to create one myself but it would more likely chase away new comers. I think one of our main benefits is that we have users from all over the world while Wikipedia is used by a specific group. -- RE rillke questions? 16:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Rillke: I don't think we have any video tutorial. it would be useful, we can put it somewhere in the mane page.
@Foroa: I agree, but currently we don't have a useful page to use as target, a page that explain the available works on Commons (it should be translated too), IMO currently we can use Commons:Welcome or the main page as target.
As stated, we could, through a link, just send a wikipedia user to a commons search page that displays the result of a search using the name of the page/subject he is looking at. That might better trigger the curiosity than a standard page (which I always skip anyway). Moreover, it would help editors to trigger searching for the pages that they are working on. After all, we have to make people "walk" through Commons. --Foroa (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning advertising the Commons, I don't think that only once a year on Commons' birthday would be enough, so we should choose some certain dates to run the CentralNotice. meanwhile, we can run the CentralNotice for next week on September 7, we should decide about it's message and target page.  ■ MMXX  talk
Would be nice to have a click counter to measure the effect. --Foroa (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about a "create-a-profile-wizard" which helps creating a userpage with babel-templates and uploads and transcludes a "profile-image"? At least every social network has something like that. This will help to find the right words and the right language. -- RE rillke questions? 15:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. Good idea, though for languages and this kind of stuff, we could dream of a global wizard related to the global account.--Zolo (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed informational page: Child pornography policy and laws

Child pornography policy and laws COM:CHILD

  1. This is an informational page about existing policy that also lists US laws related to the issue and Wikimedia's obligations according to US law.
  2. This is actually already Wikimedia policy according to law.
  3. I want to have a page that is easy to find so people can read and know we do have these policies and explain the laws in plain English.
  4. These are all gathered from different pages that are all found on Wikimedia Commons itself and accumulated here so one can understand what constitutes as child pornography if they are suspicious about a photo or work on Commons.
  5. If not listed on Wikimedia, these are national laws in the US that all pages or files under Wikimedia must follow due to its servers being located in the state of Florida and offices in California. (Per #1)

If I am incorrect on anything please correct this.

--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I am afraid such a page will be written not only as pointers to and cites of relevant existing documents, but will also in itself interpret those documents, which opens a whole new can of worms.
If we are too relaxed, we may got legal problems, if we are too strict, this may open doors for censoring e.g. art and ethnographic images and making it still more difficult to compile images needed for sexuality related articles and books.
I think no Commons user in their right mind will upload child pornography here or allow it to stay. The problem is with images that somebody thinks may be interpreted as such by some law enforcing institution - or with images that somebody does not like, when that somebody uses the policy as an excuse for censorship.
--LPfi (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I now see you write "This is an informational page", and such a page would be fine. But you also call it "Proposed policy page", which is a very different thing. I hope a decision on which one this is about would be made before the discussion goes astray. --LPfi (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure what to put it under, so this is why I wrote it as proposed policy. You are logical to think that no person who is smart would upload child porn, but this is to inform users that there is a policy--which already exists made by Wikimedia. I'd also like to mention that while it doesn't happen often, there is at least one case of it happening--so while it might seem like an overreaction, it's more like informing people this does exist, these are the laws, and this is Wikimedia's stated policy on it. It is informational and already a policy created by legal and Wikimedia must follow the laws dictated by the United States because their servers are located in the state of Florida. I have changed it to informational page about laws and policy.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment LPfi, potential concern about interpretation is the reason that I suggested the amendment I mentioned above. It is that the proposal should quote Wikimedia legal policy verbatim in the lead section, with a link to the original page. It needs to be 100% clear that this is not a policy proposal but instead information about an existing legal policy. Rubywine (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support as it is written currently, i will attempt to fix some problems that i see a bit later. I support it only because it is a policy forced onto Wikimedia and as such it already exists, this should be made very clear for three reasons: 1) to explain why the policy did not go through the regular review 2) to stop the well intentioned people from removing the information which they believe does not constitute consensus of MW users when it is the law 3) to stop badly intentioned individuals (groups?) from adding their opinion on how things should work when it is not backed by the law. Beta M (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the request for votes be withdrawn immediately, so that the proposal can be discussed and changed without there being confusion about what the voting is about. If there seems to be support for the suggestion and the substance matter doesn't fit in Help:Sexual content, then, after some time for fixing remaining problems with wordings etcetera, a stable version on the proposed policy (or whatever) could be offered for voting.
--LPfi (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing MediaWiki:Gadget-UserMessages.js

A few months ago, I suggested replacing this outdated script by AxUserMsg (doc). There were no serious objections but I'd like to get more input. -- RE rillke questions? 09:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can install and try this script by adding the following line to your common.js: importScript('User:Rillke/AxUserMsg.js');

Main benefits

no archives yet (create)

New talk summaries

I'd like to discuss the new talk-summaries. Here they are:

Template Message
{{Please link images}} Please link images.
{{Copyvionote}} Please upload free content only.
{{Derivativenote}} Even derivative works of copyrighted material is protected.
{{No fair use}} On commons, we do not accept fair-use-media. Please stop uploading those.
{{Please name images}} Please name images correctly.
{{Please tag images}} The description of one of your uploads is lacking in information about reusing. Please check the whole description-page.
{{Please describe images}} Search-engine: Mhh, interesting, a picture but what is on it? Can you describe it, please.
{{Project scope}} Please do not create out of scope media and pages.
{{No comments}} Please put comments to the appropriate place.
{{Welcome}} Hello, Welcome to Wikimedia Commons! -A database of freely usable media files.
{{End of copyvios}} Immediately stop uploading copyright violations, please.
{{Off topic}} Commons is not Wikipedia. WP is for articles; commons for media.
{{No re-uploading}} Please do not re-upload
{{Test}} We have a sandbox for nonsense-edits; or use the preview function if you want to test.
{{Test2}} Please do not contribute nonsense-edits.
{{Test3}} Please stop making nonsense-edits.
{{Test4}} Last warning: Stop producing nonsense!
{{Inappropriate imagenotes}} We have a guideline for imagenotes.
{{Dont remove delete}} Please do not remove deletion-templates from pages nominated for deletion
{{Dont remove nsd or nld}} Please do not remove valid warning tags from file-description pages
{{Dont remove speedy}} Please do not remove speedy-deletion tags
{{Dont remove warnings}} Please do not remove valid warning templates from your talk page, except while archiving.
{{Be civil}} Please remain civil, even if your contributions are being attacked
{{Be civil final}} Remain civil! You will become blocked next time
{{Blocked user}} Your account has been blocked.
{{Inappropriate username}} Your username is considered being inappropriate and therefore your account has been blocked
{{Copyviouploadindefblock}} You did not stop uploading copyright violations and therefore we had to block you.
{{Indefblockeduser}} This account has been blocked indefinitely.
{{Imposter}} Mark account as blocked for impersonation or attack
{{Sockpuppet}} It is suspected that you're maybe a sock puppet or impersonator
{{Please register}} Please create an account. Your contributions are numerous and quite good.
{{Provide better quality}} Do you have a better version of this media?
{{Please use SVG}} SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) have a few advantages, I'll tell you some of them.
{{No scaled down dupes}} Please do not upload scaled down duplicates. MediaWiki can change the size for you.
{{Unfree}} Image deletion notification
{{Attackimage}} Please do not upload attack images
{{Attackpage}} Please do not create attack pages
{{Dont overwrite}} Please do not overwrite images
{{Dont recreate}} Please do not recreate deleted images
{{Speedywhat}} One of your uploads has been speedy-deleted
{{No advertising}} Please do not advertise on commons We have the goal of an educative image collection
{{Sign}} Please sign your postings with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments
{{Village pump/Proposals}} A new message for you!
{{Blocked}} Your account has been blocked.
{{Sockpuppeteer}} You are suspected using sockpuppets to circumvent a block.
{{Anonblock}} Anonymous editing is not allowed from your IP address. Create an account to contribute.
{{Blocked proxy}} This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or zombie computer.
{{IPsock}} An editor has expressed concern that this IP address has been used by a registered user.
{{Geocoding}} Geo-Coding: Maybe you could consider adding coordinates to some of your images.
{{Sourcefield}} Please properly use the source field.
{{Dateformat}} Please use the correct date format.
{{Do not upload thumbnails}} Please always upload the biggest resolution image, you can obtain. Thanks.
{{Flickrvionote}} Please do not upload questionable Flickr-Files to Commons.
{{Speedynote}} Some of your contributed contents will be possibly speedy-deleted.

-- RE rillke questions? 16:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talk

Can the indef blocked one read "Your account has been blocked indefinitely" rather than "Your account has been blocked indefinite." - it is better English :) Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. -- RE rillke questions? 21:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The summary message for {{Please describe images}} is currently "Search-engine: Mhh, interesting, a picture but what is on it? Can you describe it, please." Could we please make that more neutral and non-emotional? ;-) I do not like to say "interesting" to all pics. Suggestion: What is it? Could you please describe it in more detail? --Saibo (Δ) 15:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -- RE rillke questions? 16:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bug?

On MediaWiki:AxUserMsg.js there is this line: 

o.doAPICall(params, callback);

Maybe I just overlooked it, but I think "callback" is not defined at that point, is it? Helder 21:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

doAPICall: function (params, callback) {. Even if callback is undefined (not passed by the calling function), it is "declared" and therefore, I do not expect an error. -- RE rillke questions? 10:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Example:
var aConter = 0;

function bla(d) {
'use strict';
    if (aConter === 5) return;
    aConter++;
    console.log(aConter);
    console.log(typeof d);
    setTimeout(function() {
        bla(d);
    }, 500);
}
bla();
-- RE rillke questions? 10:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! =)
Never mind... Helder 12:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't work on redlinked user talk pages

(I can't remember if I reported this issue elsewhere; it seems familiar.) The script doesn't work when clicking the notify link while visiting a user talk page without any content (like title=User_talk:Username&action=edit&redlink=1). Normally, the only users with blank talk pages are users that are not logged in (a.k.a. "anonymous" users, IP addresses). Notifying users with blank talk pages works fine from their contributions list and similar; it's only from the talk page itself that it doesn't work. When clicking the notify link on that page, the link simply disappears. This happens in both Chrome and Firefox. Obviously, this is only a very minor issue. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. I tested it on http://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/User_talk:Rillke and I was able to notify myself from the deleted user-talk-page. I will do further investigation. -- RE rillke questions? 17:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the same problem, I just tried to add a notice to a redlink ip talk page in Chrome, and it hangs as it says, "Loading...". Techman224Talk 06:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried likely everything (switching to monobook, enabling edit-toolbar, ...) but it worked all the times. Is there any error in the js-Console (ctrl+shift+j) appearing after clicking on the link? I try to step though the code, through. -- RE rillke questions? 12:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should have mentioned: I checked the error console in both Chrome and Firefox – nothing. I'm using Monobook. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I prepared a test. Volunteers? Please wait 20s, then copy everything starting with Commons Troubleshooter v.0.2 (below the edit-box). You can paste it into your sandbox or if you have security concerns due to the amount of collected data, e-Mail me or simply tell me whether it worked and then I can ask step by step. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 17:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That worked, I think. If you need me or anyone else to test again on that particular page, you'll have to delete it. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 19:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. When the dialog appears, close it and scroll down completely. There is a very long debug output. In the best case, I'd like to have all. If that's not possible, here are the questions I have: Below which "heading" AxUserMsg: object appears?

  • Below Hello! I am your userscript tester!,
  • Below -------- Loading directly ---------- or
  • Below -------- Loading using AJAX ----------?

-- RE rillke questions? 19:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it. You have mail. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I made a few changes. Does it work now? -- RE rillke questions? 21:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, works. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 10:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional parameter request

Would it be possible to add the "additional parameter" option to the Test templates as the Attackpage template has? From what I can see the Test templates accept a page name. Thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 06:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -- RE rillke questions? 14:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick! Thank you. —Bruce1eetalk 14:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

talkback

How about adding talkback? Or is there any other tool (similar to twinkle at enwp) which can do this? mabdul 11:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that easy but included now. (script does not support default and named params) You may have to wait 30d until your the script copy in your cache has refreshed. -- RE rillke questions? 12:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

register

Consider adding {{Please register}}. Could you make it so that the tool first checks if target user is, in fact an IP.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Isn't this already included for IPs? -- RE rillke questions? 17:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error message

During the execution of AxUserMsg, the following error occured:
this.umTemplate[$("#umTagToInsert").val()] is undefined<br/>TypeError @line467

Message appears upon loading the tool at User talk:Kill Beta M. --Denniss (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this. But according to Special:ListUsers, what the script looks up (therefore the black cross on red background behind the user name), there is no user "Kill Beta M". The username was oversighted: NavPopups tell me Not a registered username, LOCKED, HIDDEN -- RE rillke questions? 14:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. But strange the other Troll accounts of this user are not locked in the same way. --Denniss (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another error

I get the follow error when I want to post an autopatrol welcome message on User talk:Ambross07:

During the execution of AxUserMsg, the following error occured:
API request failed (pagecannotexist): Namespace doesn't allow actual pages

Any idea why? Trijnsteltalk 21:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, fixed. Reedy (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick. Thanks! Trijnsteltalk 22:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to file a DR (template?)

Is there a template which tells users how to file a DR (using AjaxQuickDelete.nominateForDeletion )? --McZusatz (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of one but there is Help:Nominate for deletion. -- Rillke(q?) 16:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is one, please list it at Commons:Message templates. Thank you. -- Rillke(q?) 16:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget not working with my global.js

When I use my global.js on Commons, when I try to use this tool it hangs on "Loading..." on the sidebar. No dialog comes up, and it does nothing. I've have my global javascript in common.js. Techman224Talk 21:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot in your global js... -- Rillke(q?) 13:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to narrow it down for you. Techman224Talk 18:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is with mw.loader.load('//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PiRSquared17/twinkle.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); Techman224Talk 18:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor problem with Blocked

Once selected the cursor becomes active on the second input field (for reason), shouldn't it start on the first field for duration? Duration should always be entered, reason is not a must-have. Using Firefox. --Denniss (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

parameter request : nopenis

Can Template:Nopenis be added? --Isderion (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Available as Nude photos - Please consider reading COM:Project scope and COM:Nudity. -- Rillke(q?) 10:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rillke(q?) 10:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"

This gadget does not work for users with quotation marks in the user name. I tried to notify User:Setra "Homer" with {{subst:dont recreate}} but the notification went to the unrelated User:Setra instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting this issue. It turned out that the code flaw did not only introduce this bug but made the script potentially vulnerable against JS-injection, although unlikely because a user name like " onmouseover="alert('There is a security vulnerable. Please contact the next admin.')" target=".png (with at least 2 double quotes and 2 parentheses would have been required to exploit it. -- Rillke(q?) 23:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rillke(q?) 23:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

dropdown not working

This is maybe related to the last change: I can not get the dropdown menu to work properly because it is empty screenshot --McZusatz (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idem. Gunnex (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was Rillke again. Thanks for the swift and illustrative report. For all who did not customize window.AxUserMsgCustomText, it broke. I regret the inconvenience. -- Rillke(q?) 10:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rillke(q?) 10:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's …

… just not working (appearing it the "Tools" section of the sidebar) for me. Using Vector, the Croptool gadget (which takes the place above VTC in the sidebar) …    FDMS  4    22:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link appears but it's not loading? Does it say it's loading? -- Rillke(q?) 15:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not appearing …    FDMS  4    15:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was recently some ResourceLoader-glitch. Please go to this diagnostic page and tell me what is written behind ext.gadget.UserMessages or if you cannot find it at all. -- Rillke(q?) 15:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
registered …    FDMS  4    15:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should say "loading" at least :( Are you sure the checkbox is still ticked in your preferences? Try unticking, saving and ticking it again. What does UserMessages -> at the diagnostic page say? -- Rillke(q?) 16:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very, very sorry, it seems like I had turned it off in the meantime. I've now rechecked the box (and purged a filespace page to find out it is still not working), and now the diagnostic page says ready. The other value now is ->on -->ready. Also there is (and has always been) a ---- USER MESSAGES ---- section. Are there any requirements I don't know of yet? Should the link show up on every filespace page?    FDMS  4    17:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No point. According to Help:Gadget-UserMessages, at the user's talk page, that link is show. However, it's also shown on contribs and logs; almost each time a user can be guessed; though not on file description pages. -- Rillke(q?) 19:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, very true, I did not read the first section of the helppage (but most of the rest of it). Could you introduce an option to make the link available on any kind of page (even editing this MediaWiki talkpage I still have a VTC link in my sidebar)? The default message target should be the uploader's one, but on one the screenshots I noticed a field for changing user anyway. I thought this might be especially helpful for sending messages such as {{Unfreeflickrnote}} to uploaders …    FDMS  4    20:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you consider QuickDelete? -- Rillke(q?) 20:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the recommendation, that worked (except for the line it always wants to prepend to file pages). Still I think it would be great to have access to the gadget on any page, but that's just a suggestion and I'm thankful for the gadget without as much as with the option.    FDMS  4    21:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget is broken today

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T69243
  • Browser: Chrome 35
  • OS: Ubuntu 64
  • Additional note: I have https enforcement via HSTS in Chrome for everything in the wikipedia and wikimedia domains.

I am going to notify the user, and everything looks fine.[2] As soon as I try to select something, the display breaks entirely.[3]

I have cleared my browser cache already and that didn't fix it.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

jQuery UI has been updated. -- Rillke(q?) 07:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a bug in WebKit/Blink as only newer versions of Opera and Chrome are affected at line input.autocomplete( "search", "" );. Cannot test Safari. -- Rillke(q?) 07:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they dig out the error: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=388779 -- Rillke(q?) 17:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what makes you think this is a Webkit/Blink issue instead of a JQueryUI issue. Also, since you're running Windows, you could quite easily just download Safari 5. Granted, it's an unpatched old browser, but you're just using it to test Wikimedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see how a jQuery UI issue could produce this kind of output. It's like part of the dialog's rendering said bye while other parts are still visible and the most strange thing is that all elements and inputs are still accessible with the cursor (note the ULS IME thing behind the grey layer). If it would be jQuery UI, there most likely wouldn’t be these edges of the dialog. When I've time I try to track this down. -- Rillke(q?) 23:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't hurt to report it to them too. As a web programmer, you surely know that the line between "the browser needs to be fixed" and "I need to work around the browser being stupid" is not a fine one. (If you think I'm picking on IE, it's because I am). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, no problem appears in Safari 7.0.4 on OS X 10.9.3 when I follow the steps to reproduce in the Chromium bug report. —RP88 (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rillke: are you going to report this to JQueryUI, or do I need to? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. Note, however that for reproducing, you have to send people to User:Rillke/x as it is now fixed everywhere else. And be prepared that they close it as WONTFIX as it is a browser bug (which jQuery UI should of course work around). -- Rillke(q?) 08:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Magog the Ogre: Any news from jQuery UI? -- Rillke(q?) 10:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't report. They have fixed it since and it just has to be fixed in MW. -- Rillke(q?) 16:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just in time; I was about to report it. Who are they, and what was the fix? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I see now. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting. -- Rillke(q?) 21:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rillke(q?) 21:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sandboxing is broken

The option "Sandboxing - Referral to sandbox for conducting experiments" recently started resulting in the generic edit summary "A new message for you!." (with punctuation as shown here) and an empty preview except for one's signature. The actual result is broken in the same way as the preview. This is the only template I've noticed being affected, but I haven't checked them all. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That should be fixed. If not, let me know :) -- Rillke(q?) 21:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rillke(q?) 21:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Script doesn't like ampersands in the username

Go to Special:Contributions/Charlotte & Marie-Sarah. Click Notify this user, and the script will refuse to continue. User can get around this by replacing %26 with &. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with rev 182192257. Thanks for reporting! -- Rillke(q?) 16:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rillke(q?) 16:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Script is leaving the wrong link for talkback

Per this edit by Natuur12 and this edit by myself, I suspect that it might be corrupting a previous page visited, and placing it as the main link to talk back to when you leave a message. It's not a big deal since our talk pages are linked below, but it could confused a few editors down the road. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Could you clarify what it corrupts and how it relates to a previous page visited using your provided examples? Thanks. -- Rillke(q?) 10:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Natuur could comment on his thing, but he was linked to Dikson from AN, so I suspect it might have linked to AN based on a previous page view. Mine linked to my name, which likely could have happened because I was right on my talk page before that. I can test it on my page a few times to see what happens, but I figured this could be easily fixable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a close look: {{autotranslate|base=end of copyvios}} vs. {{autotranslate|base=end of copyvios|1=Ktr101}}. This is the result following a village pump discussion. I changed {{End of copyvios}} to include the user's name who puts the template on a user's talk page (who subst:s the template to be precise but this is what the user message gadget does). Templates placed before that change needed a fallback solution (because they do not include the user name) and the one that came into my mind was to link to COM:AN. That might not be the perfect place to ask about copyright, however the template puts a threat of being blocked on the user's talk page so it might be the best for them to get an opinion by an individual who is able to block. -- Rillke(q?) 21:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, I had no idea it was implemented so recently. Thanks for clarifying that, as it is much appreciated. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slight bug

When adding 'additional text', the script should add a space between the end of the text and the editor's signature. Currently it does not - you have to remember to put it in the box. Reventtalk 15:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feature request

Please disable "Add template" button when a template is not selected in order to avoid empty notifications, e.g. Special:Diff/240627527. --jdx Re: 03:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broken JavaScript

MediaWiki developers found that this page probably breaks JavaScript for users (example: not seeing the buttons when editing a page). You probably need to edit this .js page and/or MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition as in the examples at phabricator:T122755. List more pages to check.

If you have questions or need help, please ask at phabricator:T164242. You can login with your wiki account. Best wishes, Nemo 09:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

End of copyvios

{{Editprotected}} Our current "End of copyvios" template makes some assumptions about predecessor actions, such as "requests from editors", "instructions", and something before a "last warning". We do not appear to have a template in this gadget which is a more polite request from an editor to stop uploading copyvios, with instructions, or with a prior-to-last warning. If there is no such template, there should be. If it is not in this gadget, it should be. The welcome doesn't count, it's not from individual editors. On the other hand, we could just make the current template more true by softening those assumptions, and only assume the standard welcome has been sent. Of course, this is all in English, but I assume the other language versions have similar issues.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally, I would keep the current one and create a second "softer" one. We have 4 options for people making nonsense edits, we could easily have 2 for people uploading copyvios that don't fit other categories and may also be new users you don't want to scare off, or users that don't deserve such a harsh "last warning" edit. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sixflashphoto: I made one at Template:Fcs, what do you think?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I slept on it and I like it. I think it is nicely done. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sixflashphoto: Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Perhelion: What do you think? Can we add this template to the gadget?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I think this new creation needs more support first. We need more opinions, more translations and a documentation. -- User: Perhelion 15:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Perhelion and Sixflashphoto: I documented and tweaked it. Translation will take longer.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Thank you! -- User: Perhelion 00:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to translate phrase "Notify this user"?

Please convert this message into translatable mode. --Kaganer (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kaganer, what about the autotranslation {{int:Echo-category-title-edit-user-talk}} "Edits to my user talk page" or simply the toolname "UserMessages"!? -- User: Perhelion 15:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Perhelion: IMHO, not fine. Need to use standard way for gadget's messages internationalization.--Kaganer (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Error message

Hello, as per this : [4], I tried to use the notification tool for this user but I got this message "During the execution of AxUserMsg, the following error occured: this.umTemplate[$(...).val(...)] is undefined
TypeError @line451" . Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test

{{Editprotected}} Can we add this template, please?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jeff G., this template is already present as "Sandboxing". Should we improve this name as "Test/Sandboxing"!? -- User: Perhelion 02:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Perhelion: Yes, please.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done[5] -- User: Perhelion 16:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Perhelion: After recent changes the script doesn't add full signature, i.e. only username without timestamp, e.g. Special:Diff/340396414. --jdx Re: 18:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ups* Fixed -- User: Perhelion 20:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

{{Editprotected}} Please change "commons" to "Commons." in "Please do not advertise on commons We have the goal of an educative image collection" on MediaWiki:AxUserMsg.js to form "Please do not advertise on Commons. We have the goal of an educative image collection".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Didym (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Didym: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvionote

{{Editprotected}} An additional umsg.umFlag needs to be added to Mediawiki:AxUserMsg.js as the 2= and 3= parameters of {{Copyvionote}} adds the reason to why it’s a copyvio. 1989 (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: what ~riley said – I tried looking at the code but couldn’t figure out what change would need to be made. If I understand the functional change that’s being requested correctly – the person using the gadget should be able to enter additional parameters for the message that’s about to be sent to the user, for the extra {{Copyvionote}} parameters– then it’s not even clear to me that this could be done with simple umsg.umFlag changes: the gadget might need larger changes to support this. (That said, I don’t use the gadget myself, so this is not an especially well-informed opinion.) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucas Werkmeister: if an edit request is unclear, please just change it so it's no longer in Category:Commons protected edit requests for interface administrators. That category should only contain requests that are clear and can be acted on by an (interface) admin. @1989: can you update your request so it's clear what needs to be done? Multichill (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Edit request of MediaWiki:AxUserMsg.js: Rewording of template descriptions

{{Edit request}} In MediaWiki:AxUserMsg.js: change the singular third-person pronouns used in the template descriptions to be gender neutral (e.g., he/him/his to they/them/their).

Because it should be pretty self explanatory, I'm only putting the line number and the changed version of the portion of the string in question. If it's unclear what I meant by any of those changes let me know and I'll clarify.

  • Line 812: please link their images
  • Line 816: please name their images
  • Line 817: please tag their images
  • Line 818: please describe their images
  • Line 839: because they did not stop

Perryprog (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done (in theory MediaWiki can customize messages depending on another user’s gender, but in JS that’s a bit more tricky and probably requires an asynchronous network request to look up the target user’s gender preference, so let’s keep it simple for now and use singular they) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lucas Werkmeister: many thanks. Clearly though, the solution should involve embedded magic words and templates within JS—what better way to leverage MediaWiki's capabilities? Perryprog (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bug: Cannot read properties of undefined

Hi, Trying to send a message to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Md._Rasel_Hossain_-_%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%8B%E0%A6%83_%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B2_%E0%A6%B9%E0%A7%8B%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A8 I get the following:

During the execution of AxUserMsg, the following error occured: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading '3')<br>TypeError

Then I can't send any message to this user. There is a red cross near the username field. I suppose the problem is with the usename in Bengali: User talk:Md. Rasel Hossain - মোঃ রাশেল হোসেন. Clicking on [6], I get User account "Md. Rasel Hossain - মোঃ রাশেল হোসেন" is not registered. Please check if you want to create/edit this page., however I can add a message this way. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user had changed their name manually[7]. They should have requested a username change using m:Special:GlobalRenameRequest rather than moving their talk page manually. I moved back their usertalk to the original name.[8] You should be able to communicate with them there. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism edit summaries

{{Edit request}} The level 1-3 edit summaries for vandalism warnings in MediaWiki:AxUserMsg.js are:

  1. Please do not contribute nonsense-edits.
  2. Please stop making nonsense-edits.
  3. Stop producing nonsense!

"Nonsense" seems the wrong word to use here (not all vandalism is nonsensical), and indeed the warned user gets a talk page section of "Vandalism warning" which opens "You have vandalized the content of Wikimedia Commons", so the concept of vandalism is not being deliberately avoided. Suggest changing these to be more obvious:

  1. Please do not vandalize Wikimedia Commons.
  2. Please stop vandalizing Wikimedia Commons.
  3. Stop vandalizing Wikimedia Commons!

--Lord Belbury (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Awesome! Thank you! —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

add: Commons is not meme place

many users uploading memes here. almost all of them are copyvio and out of project scope. yes, we can give warning about "project scope" but i think we should specify when it is about meme images.

if you planning add more warnings, consider to add this too. 

----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK  15:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warnings give test warning templates

The "Warning for vandalism and request to cease" selection on this gadget puts the {{Test2}} template onto the user's talk page, "Second warning for vandalism and announcement of block if it continues" puts {{Test3}} and "Last warning for vandalism and announcement of block on next violation" puts {{Test4}}.

{{Uw-vandalism4}} redirects to {{Test4}}, so fair enough, but should the first two be using {{Uw-vandalism1}} and {{Uw-vandalism2}} instead of test2 and test3?

The main difference is that uw-vandalism1 is a little more good faith, saying that the edit "did not appear constructive" rather than accusing the editor of deliberate vandalism. Belbury (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Support

Oppose

Suggestions

Feature Requests

put them here

Questions

Other comments

  • I have never used this gadget, so I am unable to comment. Please consider adding a link to a presentation/help page in the Gadget tab of Special:Preferences after "This semiautomagically adds many many template messages to user talk pages, and allows you to specify the language when doing so. Please be careful that you know what the template will say before using a given option, and that you do not spam user talk pages". There are many gadgets I might have already tried if they were presented in an attractive way somewhere beyond the single line of comment available in the gadget tab of Special:Preferences. Isn't the "specify the language" instruction a bit surprising? Aren't the templates using the autotranslate system ? Teofilo (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Setting up an option+translation+... without admin-rights would take me too long. -- RE rillke questions? 15:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never used it and don't intend using it.--Havang(nl) (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tested the script, it's useful and much better and cleaner than what we are using currently. I have some questions and suggestions, but I prefer to put them all in one section :)
    The script preloads the {{Please link images}}, I think it's better if you set the first value blank or it ask users to choose a template.
    The section edit link for the messages might cause problem, can you disable it in the preview?
    I think the script window's is unnecessary high, IMO it could have a max. height and for small templates it can be resized to fit with the template.
    IMO there should be a way for users to disable the preview, maybe a personal user script.
    The field for additional text can have few edit buttons, for example bold text, italic or for inserting line break tag, also it could be resizable.
     ■ MMXX  talk 13:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I put them on my todo list. Did you notice the custon settings? -- RE rillke questions? 15:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm not sure how should I set it to blank.  ■ MMXX  talk 17:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently you can't (or it will throw an error). This will require a new option. Sorry, for the confusion. I expected everything but not that someone wanted a blank form. Well, it was not intended for chatting or sending customized messages but let's see what I can do. -- RE rillke questions? 20:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment mettre une photo et à quelle taille (en français)

J'avoue n'avoir pas trouvé les explications claires et tourne en rond pour participer à ce concours de photos sur les monuments.

Merci d'avance de votre aide et conseils.

Marie-Ange -- 07:04, 3 September 2011 User:Schlisteur Marie-Ange

Demander à Commons talk:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 ou fr:Wikipédia:Wiki Loves Monuments... AnonMoos (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
La taille: maximale, mais ne dépassant pas 10 MB. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS member permissions

Right now if we look at the user rights for the OTRS member group we see that they only get autopatrol, which has led to comments justifiably asking what the point of the group is. Certainly it provides verification of membership for the OTRS userbox and prevents tags by the edit filter for non-OTRS members adding tags to files. However, it's been brought up on the OTRS-permissions mailing list, where OTRS agents who work at both Commons and Wikipedia on getting validation for media content at either location have to deal with the difficulties imposed by deleted content referenced in emails. If a file is deleted the OTRS agent cannot check to see whether conflicting information was placed on the description page for comparison to the email that has come in regarding the file. And for files that have been deleted, OTRS volunteers must continually pester admins or make a request at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests‎, remember which files were requested, keep coming back to check for a restoration, then finally add the proper tags before emailing that the restoration was performed. OTRS agents working with permissions do so for both en.wiki and Commons but in many cases are an admin on one but not the other, despite the fact that files can be uploaded to either.

In order to expedite the process, reduce the workload on the limited number of admins, and acknowledge the trust already placed in individuals considered knowledgeable enough with the projects already to answer emails to our readers, it is proposed that the following rights are to be associated with the group to facilitate the operations that OTRS agents would need to perform as part of their duties and which are hindered when content has already been deleted:

  • Undelete a page (undelete)
  • View deleted history entries, without their associated text (deletedhistory)
  • View deleted text and changes between deleted revisions (deletedtext)

Please note that the above does not include the ability to delete in the first place. – Adrignola talk 15:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Could you write or link something about how the users became OTRS members? How we can be sure they do not abuse their new rights? -- RE rillke questions? 15:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about a new usergroup like "advanced OTRS agent" which can be elected without such a high barrier like admins? -- RE rillke questions? 15:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the first, m:OTRS/volunteering is where it is requested, and that page also provides information on what the requirements are. Note that the OTRS admins are "especially interested in users who are entrusted with any special tools on local projects". As to the second, if people think it would be a good idea. I thought I'd try to reduce complexity. – Adrignola talk 15:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Adrignola, would this new permission be granted to all OTRS volunteers or only to Commons-OTRS volunteers, provided they are at all a "separate" group? --Túrelio (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as when most people hear "OTRS volunteer" they're thinking of the people working on permissions for text/images and placing those tags with that orange logo on pages, that's also what I had in mind and probably didn't make very explicit. You only see the OTRS volunteers here with access to the permissions queues anyway. Since we have an OTRS-members group at Commons already and this is just adjusting their rights, it should be hopefully clearer than the parallel proposal at en.wiki as to who this would affect and include. But to answer your question very specifically, Commons-OTRS volunteers accessing the permissions queues (they are a separate group within the OTRS system itself and you can see that some people have publicly listed which queues they have access to at m:OTRS/personnel; the official list is on the private wiki). – Adrignola talk 20:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • (Edit conflict)  Oppose - I may weakly support 'deletedhistory' and 'deletedtext' tho I think only administrators should be able to review such revisions (OTRS agents already have access to private material so it's not that I'm really concerned with that). But 'undelete'? No, that's too much. If undeletions are needed COM:UNDEL is there. Use it. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 15:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support: I never encountered a problem with an OTRS member regarding to the abuse of those rights. They have a hard job and need these rights. Furthermore they are "checked" while becoming a member. -- RE rillke questions? 16:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support as per Adrignola. Yann (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support tool needed for the job, should be part of job's rights.--Havang(nl) (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support at least the assignment of deletedhistory and deletedtext as tools obviously needed for the job. For me, giving OTRS members undelete too is fine, but I could conceive that others may have objections like hinted by Marco Aurelio above, so not assigning undelete while getting the two other rights could be a kind of compromise. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Anatoliy (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Adrignola MorganKevinJ(talk) 21:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - I think deletedhistory and deletedtext are OK, but I'm concerned about undelete. There could have been reasons for deletion apart from permission, reasons for which even admins need to use COM:UDR instead of just undeleting - Jcb (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've suggested over at the parallel discussion on en.wiki that if such a user group were given the ability to view deleted revisions, holders of the right should need to submit the relevant ticket number to a log when viewing deleted revisions. I'm not sure if such a thing would be desired here, but I thought I would mention it. (Note that such a suggestion is dependent on changes to the software) –xeno 03:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be easy to cheat, since looking at deleted revisions isn't logged (and probably there's no need I think). You can simply have a look at a deleted page or file and noone will notice that. And given the fact that until recently images could not be oversighted that's an aditional reason for me to restrict the ability to view deleted materials to few people. Elected people if possible. Of course OTRS agents (I'm one despite not being flagged as such here) work with confidential information and thus, in one hand I'm not very concerned with deletedhistory and deletedtext but on the other hand increasing in a large number (see NVO below) the access to deleted content concerns me for basic privacy reasons. Best regards. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 15:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My suggestion would require the software being updated to have a separate permission for logged viewing of deleted entries. –xeno 17:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support granting deletedhistory and deletedtext;  Oppose granting undelete. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support including undelete. I personally ignore tickets regarding deleted material on Commons because it's annoying to have to continually post undeletion requests. ←fetchcomms 04:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 200 OTRS members who are not administrators. Just make all active OTRS folks ex officio administrators, sort of a mass coronation ;). I mean, one hundred sysops more or one hundred less - no big deal. NVO (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support OTRS voluteers are trustworthy and should have the tools they need to do the job, in my humble opinion. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 07:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose unless the Foundation agrees it's OK, and the process of OTRS access granting is clarified. There are legal implications, potentially, to substantially broadening the base of users with access to deleted material - see WMF comments at en:Wikipedia:Viewing deleted articles. Perhaps more likely than just given everyone access would be an OTRS Advanced User usergroup, given to OTRS users with current rights to view deleted material on other WMF wikis, relying on at least that process of screening. Rd232 (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Weak support for "undelete" right, strong support for the other two rights. SV1XV (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Unneeded. Ask an sysop without details. Ebe123 (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support including undelete. Kropotkine 113 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I do oppose the "undelete"-rights, but I support the other two rights. There are over 250 admins that can help with undeletions. --High Contrast (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This comes up very frequently in the OTRS permissions queues. There are a few dozen OTRS agents, many of whom are admins either here but not on the English Wikipedia (as in Adrignola's case) or on the English Wikipedia but not on Commons, and it's a royal pain in the arse trying to deal with tickets relating to deleted content on the project where you can't see it. A lot of people who email OTRS don't realise the distinction between WP and Commons, and there really isn't that much difference and the difference isn't that much—OTRS agents do much the same job on Commons as they do in the enwiki filespace, and allowing them to view and restore deleted images on both just makes everybody's lives easier. The other clear advantage is that OTRS agents take personal responsibility for the undeletions, rather than asking admins to take responsibility on the basis of a ticket the admin can't see. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support for viewing deleted content, personally I also have no issues with undelete, but I can understand other people's concern, so  Neutral on undelete --Ben.MQ (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support OTRS members often get requests concerning deleted media. On Commons, those requests might be users whose uploads were deleted due to incomplete information being supplied. I trust the OTRS application process. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support At least deletedhistory and deletedtext should be granted because they are neccessary for all OTRS actions referring to files that are already deleted. Undelete also appreciated for the OTRS agents to finish their work without needing admin assistance in every case. --Krd (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm afraid that this is likely to be a problem. :/ Since I'm both an OTRS agent (who is not an admin on Commons) and currently under contract by the WMF, I was hesitant whether I should say anything, but I've been told that it's okay for me to speak up. (I'm still allowed to be a volunteer. :)) I've been involved in some (limited) conversations about this, and I think it's likely that the legal department won't approve this change from the status quo. Given that, I wanted to check on an alternative. What about if we created something like a cross-wiki board for OTRS agents, maybe at the OTRS wiki, where admins on specific projects can be asked to assist in tickets by OTRS agents who are not admins there? That might diminish (if not solve) the problem without risking running afoul of legal concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That might help, but I'm not sure how practical it would be, given OTRS volume of tickets. Knowing nothing about how OTRS works, I'm slightly wondering if the system could be adapted so that a person handling a ticket could flag it as needing input/action from someone with particular permissions. Then people with those permissions can focus on those tickets. Rd232 (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Moonriddengirl, do these concerns affect all three permissions proposed by Adrignola or only the real undeletion? --Túrelio (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Their concerns are for deletedtext. I've also been involved in direct discussions with the legal department in seeking to address their concerns. I don't share the concerns given that administrators are community elected while OTRS agents are privately screened and selected. Admins' actions are subject to public oversight; OTRS members' responses to emails are not. So one could say that on a certain level even more trust is placed in an OTRS volunteer than an admin. So I don't buy the argument that there'd be any higher level of legal liability should anyone but admins have access to deleted revisions, given the group of people we're talking about here. I find it offensive to imply that OTRS agents who deal with confidential information on a daily basis would not be able to keep information that has been deleted private. – Adrignola talk 12:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adrignola, you may know more about this than I do, as I have not been involved in direct discussions with the legal department, only overheard conversation between other staff, but I don't believe that there is any implication intended that OTRS agents are not trustworthy. :) Per conversation on the en OTRS mailing list, it seems to me that the idea is simply clearly defining a specific and limited group that has access to deleted content. (By "limited" I do not mean in terms of numbers, but specifically "this group" as opposed to "this group" and "that group" and "that group".) I'll see if I can get specifics. Another idea I tossed on the en mailing list, if this should not be permitted, is that we might create subqueues into which we could put material that needs specifically admin attention? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ardignola, no one is suggesting that the users aren't trustworthy. Only that the legal department, as risk managers, have identified a risk that this permission may expose us to greater liability. That's not saying people aren't trustworthy, it's lawyers trying to keep us all out of hot water.  :) Don't take it personally, it's their job. Further, this isn't them changing their mind: legal has been very clear through two general counsels that this wouldn't happen. We don't give deleted revs to people who aren't admins. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support OTRS members are trusted not to misuse their rights, also why not give them the tools needed for their job? —stay (sic)! 01:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional discussion

I didn't know where else to put this, so I was bold and created a sub-header!

I'm wondering if people might feel less concerned about this if it were only to be granted to OTRS agents who are already admins on the English Wikipedia (or other "big" WMF wikis, but most OTRS tickets seem to relate to enwiki content)? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there seems to be pretty good support for the current proposal here without any qualifications added to it. This might be something to suggest at the parallel proposal at en.wiki. Can't quite agree with your last statement, as most tickets sent to permissions-en would be en.wiki content, most sent to permissions-commons would be Commons content (and OTRS people with access to one have access to the other). Then there's tickets linking to the en.wiki mirror location of Commons content sent to permissions-en or linking to the place where the mirror used to be. And maybe I keep taking all the Commons tickets, leaving few for you. :) – Adrignola talk 00:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does all the OTRS members have the same knowledge of Commons' policies?  ■ MMXX  talk 14:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Anyone in the OTRS-members group here (those with access to the permissions-commons queues) would never have gotten access to them in the first place otherwise. Perhaps this concern is why you opposed undeletion? OTRS volunteers would be restoring files marked as lacking permission or violating copyright. So more important than policies is knowledge of copyright. As the guide to adminship says, "Copyright law is not by any means a simple area, and you are not expected to know everything, but admins should have a decent understanding of our current policies and practices". So admins don't have to be copyright experts, but OTRS volunteers practically must be, as nobody else will check a ticket to verify an OTRS agent's claim that everything is good unless the ticket is questioned, input is solicited, or someone is curious. – Adrignola talk 14:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I opposed, I somehow agree with the HJ Mitchell's comment above, I'm not concern about OTRS members who are already admin on other big projects but I'm not sure about giving this right just to anyone, on the other hand, I agree that it's easier and faster that OTRS members could be able to handle undeletion requests by their own.  ■ MMXX  talk 16:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are OTRS user trust worthy well my quick checking shows some are doubtful, others clearly dont the experience on Commons to show that they even understand our policies and requirements(see below). Additionally this has the appearance of a backdoor approach to the perennial request for admins on other projects to be given automatic admin rights on Commons something this community has rejected many time before. Gnangarra 01:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Log

I know that one can watch a file without actually undelte it.

  1. Does the "undelte" right enable this functionality, too?
  2. Is this event logged somewhere to see abuse?

-- RE rillke questions? 09:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Anyone can watch any file, whether it has ever existed or never existed. Undeletions are logged like deletions. In the same log, in fact. – Adrignola talk 03:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I expressed myself unclearly. With watch, I meant view. I read this and my question is whether viewing a deleted image is logged. -- RE rillke questions? 07:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The viewing of deleted revisions is not currently logged in the software (for admins or otherwise), but it's been mentioned as something that some people would like to have. – Adrignola talk 13:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few bugs about "undeletion" and "log" on bugzilla but not what I was looking for. Should I file a bug (feature request)? Or did I miss something? Thanks. -- RE rillke questions? 13:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What feature? as Adrignola said, viewing of deleted revisions (page or file history} is not logged and IMO it doesn't need to be logged, but undelete actions are logged.  ■ MMXX  talk 14:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may call me a control-freak. But I would appreciate logging viewing deleted content to see abuse if the undelete-right is granted to OTRS-members. But let's see whether other users have the same desire. -- RE rillke questions? 17:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse by viewing or undeleting? because these two are different.  ■ MMXX  talk 18:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want a log-event being triggered when someone looks at a deleted file or file-revision and when restoring (the latter is implemented, I know). I don't know what terminology MW uses for this. -- RE rillke questions? 18:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? deleted contents were once accessible for everyone and IMO there is no risk of misusing, also OTRS members are trusted and they already have access to nonpublic information.  ■ MMXX  talk 19:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, there is no logging of viewing content or logs in MediaWiki at all, on the grounds of fundamental principles of privacy. Logging the views (even of deleted contents) sounds absolutely unacceptable. Logs can only be taken on actions that change content or metadata. --Krd (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of privacy of users who upload the wrong image etc. is much more important than cover up an admin's or OTRS member's action. There is nothing to protect and I can see absolutely no problem with logging it. Whether this log is public or for admins only visible is another question. Logs were always a good method to unveil problems without actually showing the content. Viewing deleted content requires elevated privileges and use of them should be logged. -- RE rillke questions? 19:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Krd - I see absolutelly no need to log who looks at deleted revisions. Other "risky" log views are not (at least publicy) logged, either. I recommend reading Commons:Privacy_policy#Reading_projects. Logging publicy what I look or leave to look is unnaceptable for me. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 13:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using admin's button is not "reading". It is viewing deleted content which is not publicly visible. Checkuser is also logged and it is just a "viewing something without changing content", too. And it is good that it is logged. -- RE rillke questions? 10:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By viewing a deleted page I am, in fact, reading it's content deleted or not. Using CheckUser is logged of course (and it's good as you say) but for example viewing the CU log or the OS logs are not logged (not publicy at least, maybe in non-public raw database logs). That's what I intended to say. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 10:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested logging viewing of a log. That really makes no sense. Since the deleted contend is not visible and there is maybe room for abuse, I thought it's better to have a log. When viewing deleted content, one has a specific reason given and reasoned by the function as administrator for doing so, therefore I see no problem with logging it. The undelete feature is not for "private reading". -- RE rillke questions? 14:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Instead of giving OTRS users permissions on Commons why cant Commons Admins, Crats(subject to id requirements) be given automatic access to the OTRS commons queues, this would be simpler solution. Gnangarra 07:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone could clarify how common it is for Commons admins not to have OTRS access; that's certainly one area that would make sense to address if it's common. This might also complement my thought above, that the OTRS system could perhaps be adapted so that a person handling a ticket could flag it as needing input/action from someone with particular permissions. Then people with those permissions can focus on those tickets. Rd232 (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just compare Commons:Administratoren and Category:Commons OTRS volunteers. --Túrelio (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well a detailed comparison would be some work :) but the headline numbers are 263 admins and 175 OTRS volunteers, so clearly there is some room for improvement. Rd232 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The manual listing and category may not be accurate since you have to add yourself or add a userbox. Better to look at Special:ListUsers/OTRS-member and note how many do not have admin access. I recently asked for removal of inactive OTRS members at the bureaucrats' noticeboard, so this list also contains only active members to boot. – Adrignola talk 13:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC) – Adrignola talk 13:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That OTRS list isnt all well that maintained, I can readily identify 2 editors who have previously had RFA declined, another editor who has made two edits on commons since May 2010, another who had made 1 edit since Mar 2009. I also can identify a user who left a chapter committee under questionable circumstances. What would be more useful is for that list to show what queues these members have access to and remove the OTRS rights from users who dont have access to the commons queues. Do some much needed house keeping, show us that its being maintained appropriately before asking us extend trust to this user group. Gnangarra 01:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for those who no longer have access to OTRS to be removed from the list. Everyone in that list has access to OTRS regardless of how much or little they do on Commons currently or whether they failed an RFA. I am not an OTRS admin so I have no power to force anyone out of the system if they aren't pulling their weight. Only those with access to the permissions-commons queues should be a member of this group. – Adrignola talk 01:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then that list needs to be addressed as editors who dont have the experience or the knowledge of Commons policies should not be answering those questions, and they definately should not be given permission to undelete files. Gnangarra 01:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

biological resources management

Commons have many photos of animal and plants, sometimes of high quality. Yet, the way they are managed is not very well fully standardized and I think some improvements would be easy to do. Data about biological species are plentiful on Wikipedia and Wikispecies and it should be easy for a bot to import them on Commons in a machine readable format. I think that something similar to {{Creator}} could be useful both for contributors and users. I have tried a very coarse version of it at template:Taxon. See Taxon:Gorilla, Taxon:Gorilla beringei and File:Gorilla Eating.jpg for possible implementations]].

In a way, this very similar to what is already on Wikispecies and may seem redundant. But interwiki transclusion are still not active, and the longer we wait the harder it will become to convert exisintg files to the new format. Additionnaly Wikispecies pages could only be used in the way I propose after substantial syntax modification, so I think it is simpler for now to have our own template on Commons to cater to our own needs. Any thoughts about that ?--Zolo (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see multiple problems with your idea:
  1. The source wikispecies is not really appreciated here. They never provide their source or the classification they follow (For example, go to a botanic article and try to determine if they follow APGII, APGIII or stomething else).
  2. For each taxon, (we have arround 100.000) you would create an article :Taxon:XXX:
    • That would be expensive in term of database storage.
    • That would be a lot of work (as wikispecies cannot be our source)
    • We might loose all our previous work.
  3. We don't really need to describe the species in each file (for example, in File:Gorilla.jpg we don't need the description of Gorilla beringei, we just need to have a link to Category:Gorilla beringei that would contain all the information.
Amitiés Liné1 (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts:
We could create the taxon pages giving precedence to info from Commons over info from Species so that nothing would be lost.
Once the transition is completed -and I think a bot can do most of the job- this should not be more work than the current system. I imagined it would be useful to have additional information in the taxon namespace but if this is too complicated, we can do without it.
I agree that we don't necessarily need information about Gorialla berginei in File:Gorilla.jpg but I don't think the template adds anything bothering. If it does, the template layout can be changed. Most of the informaton the templates adds in files are collapsed by default so they should not be obtrusive. I think the few that are visible can be useful (vernacular name in the user's language, link to Wikispecies though we could imagine a link to Wikipedia instead). The whole thing is very similar to the creator system that seems to be appreciated for artworks (We don't really need info about Leonardo in a picture of Mona Lisa either but there is no harm in having it in File:Mona_Lisa,_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci,_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg).
I don't know about database expensiveness. Given that Commons welcome hundreds of thousand of high resolution image, I don't think hundreds of thousands of short texts would have a high impacet but true using templates increases computational complexity.--Zolo (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reasons to complicate things when all information is in its category. It is not like creators and museums that are crossreferenced in many different places and categories. --Foroa (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals&oldid=59445831"