Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 19

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

Backlog

I've been waiting for a decision on these DR's for a while now. First one's from July 2009 and the other is from December 23, 2009:

I was wonder if a sysop could take a look and make a decision. Thanks, Nat (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Images by User:Corvettec6r that require deleting

A while back several editors along with myself became suspicious of many images User:Corvettec6r was uploading. After much discussion and investigation, we were able to identify 100s of copyright violations. These images can be found in the gallery here: User talk:Corvettec6r/Archive1#Images for deletion. Administrator Bidgee started deleting these images, but most are still undeleted.

Corvettec6r has admitted that the images in the above link are in fact not his own work, so there is no doubt about their status. Discussions related to this can be found here, here, here, here and here.

Please note that Corvettec6r has uploaded many personal images as well, and has provided adequate proof that he is the lawful copyright holder.

If several administrators could these images, that would be much appreciated. This should have been organised a lot earlier, but forgot about it until reminded again by Corvettec6r. OSX (talkcontributions) 13:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll start doing some again. Bidgee (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Done for now, if the photos are still there later I'll try and finish it off as it's currently 2:30am AEDT. Bidgee (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Bidgee. OSX (talkcontributions) 07:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done: All files in the gallery have been deleted. Bidgee (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, thank you very much for that—it must have taken you a while. OSX (talkcontributions) 13:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

An IP has issued a legal threat in Commons:Deletion requests/File:NikhilJassawalla.jpg if File:NikhilJassawalla.jpg is not deleted. As of its upload-history, the image was uploaded from Flickr and Flickr-reviewed the same day (29. September 2008), though the latter happened in two steps as the automatic review first was negative. However, thereafter there image was changed from color to b/w and, in addition, was somewhat photoshopped (part in background removed). About half a year later, the uploader (User:Grantkemp) nominated it for deletion due to missing source (likely it was taken off Flickr). This was rejected (due to positive Flickr-review) twice. Recently deletion was requested by an IP (see first link) and now again by a different IP. As the image isn't used anywhere and as it is a portrait picture of a (likely) living person, courtesy deletion seems to be ok for me, just to prevent unnecessary drama and more conflict. Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against the deletion, as it seem there was a Wiki article by seem not to a notable person (according to the deletion log) thought legal threats are not really a reason to delete and saying the photograph was stolen and put onto this site is a big claim and unsupported claim. Bidgee (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Finally, I've deleted it. --Túrelio (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The incredible "Power of Commons"

Just, before you (may) see it in the evening news, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of herefordshire.PNG. It seems, somebody uploaded a fake flag of some county in the UK to Commons. It was then put into wikipedia articles about that county and thereafter picked up in the real world and resulted in products labeled with the fake claim. Though probably nobody was hurt by that, IMHO there should be some examination of conscience (if thats the correct term) on our side about accepting fake flags and similar and about better safeguards against letting our credibility be damaged. --Túrelio (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If anything, it's the credibility of the people who foolishly reused it without any kind of research or cross-referencing that is being damaged. We are not an encyclopedia, and never claimed that our content was accurate (we require a source only to check the copyright status, not for verifiability). –Tryphon 16:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with calling it "Power of Commons", but rather call it "Power of Wikipedia". I believe no one would have used this image if it wouldn't have been in that article, but only hosted here on Commons. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Have it your way; I just cited Pieter (It shows the power of commons) from the rfd. --Túrelio (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It may be similar to File:Flag of småland.svg, which is a historical region in Sweden. Like the other historical regions of Sweden, it has no administrative significance. So some (botanical?) society assigned flowers to each region (in analogy with State flowers in the US, but there is no regional authority that can adopt these assigned flowers), some ornithological society assigned birds, etcetera. Even "region stars" and "region constellations", and they are listed in "Nationalencyklopedin" (kind of strange). Some private person invented these "region flags". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Images uploaded by User:Celuca

Hello,

I have come across the images uploaded by User:Celuca. Some of them [1] [2] [3] are professional (corporate) photographs of nuclear installations in Switerland, credited to the companies that operate the plants, and licensed under Cc-by-sa. What annoys me is that

  • the user is undisputably of good faith, and probably well-informed; I'd bet that he requested and obtained authorisations to upload these images
  • as they are, these images lack the OTRS justification needed for the licence
  • the user has not contributed here or on en: for a year, does not seem to have an account on it:, and did not register a mail address. He cannot be reached for updates.

What should we do in such cases? Rama (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You could ask here --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No image to restore

I tried to welcome the new year with some Alfons Mucha images - but there are no images to restore, only file descriptions.

Aren't deleted files stored perpetually? --Martin H. (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored a number of Mucha images myself, but noticed some uploads don't have images as well. I think we only started storing deleted images sometime in late 2005? Or are more recent only stored for a certain amount of time? -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted images have been retained since 16 June 2006. Those images were deleted on 22 April 2006 (and File:Alphonse Mucha Dancel lithographie.jpg was re-deleted on 9 June 2006).
I'm curious as to these images' nature and why it would have been appropriate to restore them. —David Levy 02:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Mucha died 1939, on January 1 2010 his works are now in the public domain. Happy new year :) The litho is even e featured picture, picture of the day and still linked on many userpages. Well, there are many sources to find it again . --Martin H. (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
[edit conflict]
Yeah, I just realized that this probably was the case. Thanks, and happy new year! —David Levy 02:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a problem: WMF servers are in the United States, which doesn't use the rule of the shorter term. Was discussing that dilemma last month with regard to Wikisource and W.B. Yeats, whose work entered the public domain in Europe with the start of the year. Apparently only his pre-1923 work qualifies for WMF hosting. It sets my teeth on edge to write this, but we have to be consistent. Durova (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Most of his work came before 1923 from the looks of it, so any of that is fine in the U.S. Additionally, Mucha was a Czech artist, and the Czech Republic had 50pma terms on the URAA date, so any works first published in that country did not have their U.S. copyright restored, and are also OK. (The Czech Republic only later went to 70 pma terms.) Mucha did do a lot of work in France, so works first published there 1923 or later could be issues -- but it seems that he lived in France mostly before 1923. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: some of these images are actually salvageable:

Lupo 14:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of an Image Uploaded in Ignorance

Hi, My apologies for my ignorance as to how this works. I uploaded my own picture, unaware that I can't (apparently) delete it. Not only was I unaware of that, but I was also unaware that it would appear on google searches of my name. Can I plead "inadvertent error" and get rid of it? Or at least get it off google? The file in question is: File:Daniel R. White.JPG

Thanks very much.

Best regards,


Dan White

P.S. I saw something saying I should introduce my name with a series of 4 tildes, but I'll be darned if I can figure out how to insert a tilde here.

✓ Deleted - Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There are still two thing I'm hoping you can help me with (and thanks for your help thus far). (1)I now have two identical pictures in Wikimedia. Frankly, I just as soon get rid of both, but in any event I think we should get rid of one. There's just no point. See for yourself. (2) If you google my name, Daniel R. White, you get the following blurb, which makes no sense, given that there's nothing associated with it. Is there any way to get that removed? Frankly, I feel a little silly having an empty connection with my name on google. Tiptoety, I thank you for your help. (— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwaynecooper (talk • contribs) )

File:Daniel R. White.JPG was deleted, but since it was so recent, Google's cache still has it in the search results. I've sent in a request for them to update their search results, but there's never a specific time given for how long that'll take. Sometimes a few hours, sometimes days. Killiondude (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I've also deleted File:Daniel R. White BtrBusSht-2072i.JPG as a duplicate, if that was what you were referring to in your post. You still have File:DanRWhite2072i.JPG up. Killiondude (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete an old picture

Hello, a long time ago I've created a map of the neighborhoods in Jerusalem: Jer neighborhoods 2.png The map came out extremely ugly, and I gave up on working on it. Recently I've discovered that it has been used in the hebrew wikipedia, and that's a shame, since as I've mentioned it is awful.

Could you please erase this picture? טוקיוני (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Commons does not have editorial control over what files local projects use; as long as it adheres to copyright policies, we can't decide whether or not hewiki utilizes is. If you want to have it removed there, try either starting a discussion if you speak Hebrew, or contact somebody who does. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 03:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing the "self-made" claim on this image. Opinions? Lupo 16:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That some users that have made only a few uploads claim extremely good made images to be their "own work" is a widely spread phenomenon. In this certain case, I'd say that is not own work, but it is hard to find a proof. And deleting this file with reasons like "Most likely not own work" is not optimal, either. Very complicate, I try to help you here. --High Contrast (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. I haven't found an on-line source so far. But the image is taken with a large zoom from a very low position, such as the spots besides the field reserved for professional photographers... Lupo 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Photo by Clive Rose/Getty Images Europe Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Image deleted. Lupo 17:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

New maintenance category: Long file description pages

Based on a recent database report, I started cleaning up or recategorizing pages from Category:Long file description pages for review. I'm still discovering new stuff, so additional subcategories for Long file description pages may be needed. Feel free to participate or comment about it here. -- User:Docu at 15:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote a short conclusion on Commons_talk:Database_reports#Request: long pages on file namespace (5k). -- User:Docu at 05:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

May I please ask for help

To remove a silly file description and unjustified rename request the user insists on.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You might wish to try discussing this first properly on the image's talk page. Neither here or there have you explained what the problem is with what seems to be a more comprehensive description and the suggested name change. No admin action is necessarily now nor does it seem likely to be merited so this doesn't seem to be the appropriate venue to raise this. Adambro (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
First-of-all I did discuss it on the talk page of the image. Second of all the user reverted my original description 3 times in less than 24 hours without answering my direct question on the talk image talk page. Third-of-all IMO the image description should stay as it used to be while the discussion lasts, and not the other way around.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Your question was effectively just "why did you edit this image?". That didn't explain what concerns you had with the changes that were made. Perhaps if you'd explained your concerns you would have got a more useful response. Adambro (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I said that IMO it was a silly and unnecessary edit. The sillier the edit is the harder it is to come up with the arguments to fight it back. If I have done something like that to any of latuff cartoons, I bet I would have been blocked at once, and the description would have been changed back to the way it was imitatively probably by the very same Adambro. Should I try? Of course no. It will be called a disruption wouldn't it? Anybody else sees something wrong with that? I guess, no. I guess it is about time for me to stop looking for fairness here.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
What's unfair here? You've said it is "silly" but why? That is what you should be explaining on the talk page. Adambro (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I tried to do it over and over again, but I guess my English is not good enough to make it satisfactory. That's why I am going to change one of the descriptions of latuff cartoon, not for the disruption, but rather to learn from kuiper, liftran, and maybe Adambro how to fight silly changes to the descriptions of the files :). So not to disrupt, but just to learn. Let's have some fun, shall we?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
w:WP:POINT? Editing to make some kind of point is disruptive surely? What is wrong with properly expressing your concerns with these changes instead of no doubt causing more Latuff related drama? Adambro (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I have only done two reversions, really. Plus one regular edit, of course. I'm not a very active commons user - I'm assuming I have accidentally entered some sort of complicated conflict? Plrk (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
@Adambro, no, it is not for w:WP:POINT, and not to disrupt. It is just for fun. Why are you so boring (please take no offense) sometimes? I saw the other day somebody said to you that she loves you, and in your response you said you will block the user for vandalism :) Poor girl :) We cannot be serious all the time, can we? So, just for fun I changed the description of one of the other cartoons. It took a little bit longer than I expected to take the words "cartoon by .... depicts" out, but it was done now. So, I got my fun. I am not going to change the description of the image ever again. No w:WP:POINT and no disruption.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The image I asked for help with was renamed yesterday by Rama with edit summary "point naming" yet apperantly "Latuff nazi camp" is not considered to be a "point naming" The image was nominated for renaming (not by me of course), but liftran removed rename template as it was expected, and everybody is happy with that. Is there any fairness to be sought out on Commons? I guess, no. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    Have you brought up this on the talk page yet? Adambro (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    Nope, and probably will not. I brought up my matter to the talk page of the file I uploaded and here, and you could see how it ended up. The intend of my last comment before this one was mostly to state the fact for the record to be kept here. I did not expect any actions to be taken. But because you asked, I would like to point out the difference. The rename template of the file I uploaded has stayed in the image's description while the discussion lasted and until the file was renamed. The rename template of nazi camp was removed, and I am sure, will stay removed until yet another endless discussion with liftran and kuiper will last, and never ends.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I have renamed "File:Latuff_nazi_camp_2.png" into "File:West Bank Barrier cartoon by Latuff.png". Mbz1, your attitude is a textbook case of WP:POINT, you should know better.
The climate and behaviour around matters pertaining to Israel, Palestine and the more or less artificial controversies revolving around them has long been depressing. Last week again I had to mop up a transparent provocation on the subject [6] and it begins to annoy me: I am not interested in these issues and I would like it to be even possible not to get dragged into them. The intellectual level of the arguments -- provocations from both "sides", gratuitous accusations of antisemitism from the Israel-happy "side", Godwin points from the Israel-angry "side", etc. -- is an utter disgrace.
I see that valuable contributors are involved on both sides and I find it distressing. That an artist of Mbz1's value could degrade herself like this is reminiscent of the Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and sadly she is not alone. This "topic renders mad" has caused enough damage as it is, and I strongly urge all to remind that we are working together, not against each others; that Commons is here to produce a repository of Free content -- not social justice; and, all else failing, to have mercy of the admins who really hate to block valuable contributors simply because they cannot stop from behaving like bloody children. Rama (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Too many words, too little meaning, not to mention a stupid personal attack comparison to Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Responded at your talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack, I make this comparison regarding a great number of people. Consider this a last shot across the bow for everybody. Rama (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid you cannot think logically. To say "It is not a personal attack, I make this comparison regarding a great number of people." is anyway as to say "I did not steal anything from that store because I've stolen many things from many other stores." :) Anyway I am willing to forgive you that PA, if you could only explain to me what exactly should I do to make you to block others :)--Mbz1 (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Are next picture File:52-05-Puppet-00A.JPG cover of some book or taken from some book. Are licence okay.--Motopark (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You might ask a user who speaks Thai. --Leyo 17:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

deceased user

How about protecting user and user talk page of a deceased user? It was done on de-WP some time ago. --Leyo 09:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it should be protecter, or deleted, if the relatives are asking for that.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone add this to cascading protection to prevent it from being re-created? -Nard the Bard 01:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done (protected) –Juliancolton | Talk 01:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Resolved

This was created by a vandalism only user [7]. Note the author's name is just a nonsense string. I don't know what the best way is to get this removed so am seeking help here. Should I have added a template? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

✓ Deleted as being outside the project's scope. Tiptoety talk 18:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody check are the permission

Could somebody check are the permission ín picture File:Dominique de Villepin et Muhammad Yunus.jpg same than in source in web-side, I'm not sure--Motopark (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagged with no permission however I doubt that the user will reply as they haven't been active since 2008. This isn't the only photo as there are more with the no permission as the site that the photographs are on are copyrighted to the French Republic. Bidgee (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Problems using pictures from Wikimedia Commons

I have recently started a new wiki, and I'm using a lot of pictures from wikimedia Commons in the usuial way. However, at upredictable intervals some of the pictures are not shown. Instead the links are showing in the usual red color. This is most disturbing of course. What can be done about this problem?Harlekin96 (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

By "new wiki" you talk about a Wikimedia foundation project, or a wiki at an unelated page? Belgrano (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

New Palestinian Flag.PNG

What is that file:New Palestinian Flag.PNG ? It seems a hoax to me. Should it be replaced by file:Flag of Palestine.svg using User:CommonsDelinker/commands ‎  ? Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Delinker does not go from PNG to SVG, only SVG to SVG. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Anyways, I undone the edits at the various wikipediae. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I've just opened a DR for it; feel free to leave a comment there. –Tryphon 08:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted all "out of scope + unused" flags created by this user. He seems to think that all country in the pan-turk area should have a turk-like flag, which is obviously POV-pushing. Please have a look at his reaction, if any. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate to get a feedback there. Thanks. --Leyo 09:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible bug in User:CommonsDelinker bot

This edit left a space in front of the paragraph following the image, which broke the normal formatting and put the paragraph in plain text. Normally when you place an image inline, you wouldn't think to leave no whitespace before your text on the off chance that a bot will delete it. it would be better if the bot deleted all spaces following the the image. In this case, the page would have looked better with a broken image than with garbled formatting. Thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Try User:Siebrand for that. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa

I don't want to spend half an hour creating a massive deletion request unless I'm sure I haven't missed anything... as there is no freedom of panorama in the UAE, surely the vast majority of images (as well, I would imagine, as the category and page themselves) found at Category:Burj Khalifa and Burj Khalifa should be deleted? J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Yes, that looks like an issue. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wine bottle labels

I was thinking of deleting a photo of a wine bottle label as an unlicensed derivative work. In the process I discovered that we have a category full of similar images. Some are just text and so probably not subject to copyright, but surely the more elaborate ones are copyrightable. Am I right in thinking this? —JeremyA (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There is a lot of cleaing up to do in Commons' bottle categories, most of them are filled with copyvios of the labels. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That's certainly a copyvio. If it's just text describing what year/vineyard/etc. the bottle is from, it probably doesn't hit the threshold of originality. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

pay attention

A lot of fair use and images wihhout sources from one user. I spent not enough time to put correct tags, so for a start just ask admins for attention ) --Алый Король (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

thnks High Contrast for paing attention :) --Алый Король (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Have problem deleting this file with error message: "The requested page title was invalid, empty, or an incorrectly linked inter-language or inter-wiki title. It may contain one or more characters which cannot be used in titles." Not shure what to do and is't a bug or something? -Justass (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I could delete it without any problems. --Leyo 13:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
If you tried to delete it by clicking on the trash bin icon for the deletion template, it would give that error because of the ñ character. If you go to the delete tab at the top of your screen and delete it that way it should be fine. Killiondude (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
As far as I remember, I did it by clicking on the trash bin. --Leyo 06:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems Template:Nuke was broken for a couple of days due to double-encoding. The change was reverted, though, and I've fixed it further to use {{fullurl:}} so that it does the right thing on the secure server too. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have translated Template:Copyvionote to Persian language, would someone please add Farsi (فارسی) link to the template, thanks in advance.   ■ MMXX  talk  20:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Killiondude (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, can you please also add Farsi link for Template:End of copyvios, I just translated it right now.   ■ MMXX  talk  22:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done that too. Regards, — Dferg (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.   ■ MMXX  talk 

Removing PD-old template from uploader-created image

I just observed that File:Denham Springs City Hall.JPG was tagged with {{PD-old}} despite being credited as an own work. I've accordingly removed the PD-old, since the uploader surely hasn't been dead for over 100 years, and tagged the image for deletion in a week because there was and is no valid permissions template on it. Is this correct, or should I have filed a deletion request? Please convert to a deletion request if I'm wrong. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That bit seems fine, although I'm not altogether sure why you feel it's a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Scratch that last bit; the parameter to your copyvio template didn't appear because it contained an = (use {{copyvio|1=http://www.wherever.com?var=value&foo=bar}} next time). Stifle (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
And deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Change links for todays POTD

The current description for todays POTD contains a link to a disambiguation page at English WP. Can somebody change that to a link to the gallery Panthéon de Paris. And also change the other link to the Commons gallery Paris (Commons is about media files not encyclopedic articles, and we don't want to lead people away from Commons the first thing on our main page). The description that need changing is at Template:Potd/2010-01-15 (en) /Ö 15:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough. Done. Killiondude (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing files?

Hi, I'm doing some maintenance on the Category:Crusades and I can't see a couple of files in there: File:Anatolia1200.it.svg and File:SigurdNorwegianCrusade1107-1111OldNorse.svg. Could any admin take a look at them and see if these are OK or need to be deleted? Thank you, Santosga (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The images stored there are actually PNGs, I think. That's why the thumbnailer can't display them. I tried to move them over to the correct file type page, but I got The new file extension does not match its type. Which I believe is wrong... Maybe it has to be manually reuploaded to a file page that ends with .png. Killiondude (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
No. These files are svg files, but try to transclude png files. That won't work. Multichill (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not too good at reading SVG files by hand, but it appears that those include images with paths like "D:\Downloads\WP\Anatolia 1200\Anatolia1200.it.png" and "C:\Users\Jarle Grøhn\Documents\Hobby\Selvlagde Kart\Historiske Kart\SigurdNorwegianCrusade1107-1111Eng.png". That produces SVGs that won't work anywhere except the uploader's own computer. --Carnildo (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Old, stale DR

Hi all, could I get some more comments at Commons:Deletion requests/Maps by 52 Pickup? It's been open for six months or so, with no more recent activity, and frankly I'm not sure how to close it. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 03:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

fa/Persian translation of Template:Idw

I have translated Template:Idw to Persian language, would someone please add Farsi (فارسی) link to the template, thanks in advance.   ■ MMXX  talk  07:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work you've been doing lately. Just added it. Killiondude (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, I just think this translations are needed due to the growing number of Commons' Persian users.   ■ MMXX  talk  09:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin help needed with English Wikipedia image blub for Main page tomorrow.

The image File:Measuring Ketocal.jpg is due to appear on the English WP main page on the 17th in connection with the Ketogenic diet. I'd like to amend the image blurb to make it clear (for anyone clicking on it from the Main page) that formula isn't the normal method of taking this diet. Can we add:

Most patients on the ketogenic diet consume normal food with the overall proportions of fat, carbohydrate and protein altered. Patients who are tube fed or are infants can take a formula like this instead.

Thanks for any help with this. Regards, Colin (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the blurb that you wrote after the current description. I hope this is what you wanted? NW (Talk) 16:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks. Colin (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

UAE FOP

After the recent deletion request, it's become clear that there are several categories that need some heavy reviewing (Category:Architecture of the United Arab Emirates recursive and Category:Buildings in the United Arab Emirates recursive are two examples of categories that need some heavy review). Do we have to go through the motions of deletion requests with all of these, or can they be cleared out quicker? J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Make one big deletion request so discussion is in one place. Multichill (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Requires a lot of tagging and notifying... I guess it could be a project for me if I find myself bored for an hour. J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I could automate them though category by category. If we decide to use one big DR for multiple categories recursively, that would be difficult to assess. Separate DRs grouping similar categories would be nice. ZooFari 04:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
If you make a project of this, you have yourself a friend in me... Can't really offer much more than that :) It'd be great if we could clean all this up rather effeciently. J Milburn (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Must Category:Construction of Burj Khalifa those files deleted also when request Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Category:Burj Khalifa has been closed--Motopark (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Construction images have been nominated for deletion here. ZooFari 05:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Move request

Please move this picture File:M4.jpg to File:Leica M4.jpg. It is conflicting with a picture on wikipedia of Messier 4. Thanks. Arlen22 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

done - and uploaded the image from enWP to Commons under the same name. --h-stt !? 09:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

DeLinker backlog

Hello - it would be much appreciated if some admins could help out at User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Move_requests by transferring the move requests onto the Delinker. After waiting for days and in some cases weeks (?), I have actually started moving some files in incorrect categories by hand individually. Not a very quick business, even with HotCat - that's what bots are for, after all!

So some assistance would be MUCH appreciated. Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything a bit controversial should be removed on sight. People should use {{Move}} more often. If it still contains items tomorrow I'll blank the page because apparently it's to controversial to move to the delinker commands page. Multichill (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Not really controversial I think (controversial moves are removed on sight), just needs time to check and execute it. --Foroa (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


Following problems with Foroa doing some of the controversial ones (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_12#Foroa (talk · contributions)'s use of User:CommonsDelinker/commands), I stopped doing the bulk of them. Maybe Martin H. or User:Multichill want to do them instead. You can also make requests directly at User_talk:Category-bot. -- User:Docu at 08:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Coat of Arms

It would be helpful if we could please get admin input at Template talk:Coat of Arms. Thanks. Wine Guy (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

English on the German upload form

I've just observed that Special:Upload in the formal German version has English in several lines instead of German. Could this be corrected, if by no other means than copying the text from the relevant lines of the normal German version of the page? Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I changed language setting to de. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I noted that when I created the Formal German uploadtext, but didn't get how to change this. Specific translation for Formal German aren't needed as I see it (equivalent to German), but I didn't know how to create the fallback. I wanted to ask Lupo about this, but simply forgot about it. Thanks for fixing it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

picture File:Dubai Skyline and Burj Khalifa - 25072008.jpg must we delete also this picture when case Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Category:Burj Khalifa has been closed ?--Motopark (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

✓ Deleted. Please reopen the deletion request if more files should be deleted. Thank you. – Kwj2772 (msg) 04:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Since the discussion has been reopened. Can this file be undeleted so that ordinary users can check it ? Thank you. — Xavier, 15:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonexistent file system message

When I follow a red link to a File: page, MediaWiki:Newarticletext currently shows a generic message about how I can save, search or check the deletion log. Since a typical use case is creating a red link to a file I'm just about to upload, a convenience link for uploading an image with that name would be nice. --Tgr (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea. Some sort of #if namespace=file magic. If I remember, I can work on it later. Killiondude (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

On normal browsing of en.wiki tonight, I discovered an image on en:Susanoo-no-Mikoto that I recalled seeing before in a book I own, DK's Illustrated Dictionary of Mythology (ISBN 0-7894-3413-X). I went to the book's acknowledgement page and noted that this particular image was not listed as coming from any museum or other institution but is an original illustration for the book. I then looked through all of the rest of the uploads of Gospodar svemira (talk · contribs) and discovered that every image is a scan from this book (including one image where the artist's name is in the filename), all of which are copyrighted by the artist Nilesh Mistry and at least DK Publishing. I have removed every image this user has uploaded from the various Wikipedia projects where they were added, including the scans of images of what are obviously photos from the book of Attic vases and recreations of Egyptian paintings.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have discovered that all of this user's uploads are from either the aforementioned book or have been lifted randomly from the internet or are photos of others' works. They are all of poor quality and certainly not made by the uploader as he has claimed for nearly a year.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you start a multi-image deletion request, similar to what I did at Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by User:Anibalgv. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Panoramio as image source

After a user asked at the Forum about Panoramio as image source, I search our images for "panoramio.com" and found >900 hits. When I checked the first one, it was (C) ARR on Panoramio, as was the second one by the same user. When I checked randomly another panoramio-sourced image from the search list, it was also (C) ARR on its source site. That would be no problem, if our uploader is identical to the credited author on Panoramio, which was actually the case in some images I had checked afterwards. Seems we have a situation or at least another problem. --Túrelio (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to ask such users to update Panoramio licenses too. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Panoramio should be handled in the same way as Flickr. Templates, checking procedures, bots, the works. LX (talk, contribs) 16:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd advocate Flickr-style treatment too here if someone can confirm for me that there is the same problem as with Flickr that users can change the licenses at any time. The full bot procedure may not be necessary in any case at first, due to lower upload numbers. Otherwise its redundant to the standard {{No permission}} approach.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Such a system is already in place, see Category:Panoramio_review_needed. It would be trivial for the existing bots to be programmed to work with Panoramio, I would think. Well except for the reviewing licenses part, you'd need to work that on to the panoramio UI. But auto marking Panoramio photos for review could be handled by bots. -Nard the Bard 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

hmmm

I don't think this person should be closing a deletion request on a file he uploaded, even if there isn't much consensus to delete... [8][9][10]. Also, rofl, he marked the status as deleted, but of course as a non admin he doesn't have that ability. Maybe instead of undoing his improper closure you should make it so... -Nard the Bard 22:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

poster

user uploads film poster, could someone to help to he / she understand --Motopark (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Second opition on debate in DR

I have some disagreement with User:Rtc in Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 3. He told me to "stop this nonsensical and dishonest attempt to keep these nonsensical pictures" and then removed my arguments as being not relevant "Moved MGA73 to discussion page; not relevant here. It was decided in previous DRs that the OTRS stuff is not sufficient, this DR is based on the fact that clarification was unsuccessful.". I told him that I found it not comments like "dishonest" unacceptable and restored the arguments [11] and asked that the closing admin could decise if arguments was good or no good.

If someone is dishonest I think it is Rtc saying that "It was decided in previous DRs that the OTRS stuff is not sufficient" when it was closed with "Kept. This is silly. There was a full debate last time, there have been German speakers here who have backed up the comments of the OTRS ticket. Please accept that we don't always get our way."

Could someone please take a look? --MGA73 (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

MGA73 is manipulating and disrupting the discussion with dishonest arguments. He is repeating wrong arguments that have been made past years ago already, and it was agreed that they are wrong and that clarification is needed (see User_talk:Avatar#Ubisoft_permission_for_using_it's_screenshots_under_the_free_license) . Clarification has not been achieved for years, and the deletion request is based on that simple fact. MGA73 is trying to manipulate the discussion by giving the impression that the state of discussion is different. Instead of simply stating his opinion shortly, he is flooding the DR page with his nonsense and repeating things again and again, ignoring any contradictory facts. Please ban this disruptive editor. --rtc (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Rtc, you need to stop attacking and accusing MGA73 of all sorts of things. You make it look like everyone agrees, but fact is that both Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft and Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft_2 were closed as kept. So stick to arguments, don't attack other users and don't (re)move comments. Multichill (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the records: In 2008, I contacted Giggy who closed the last DR for this template as "kept" after the decision and Giggy replied on my talk page expressing willingness to open a new DR in light of the mail exchange translation ("Again, if you would want to wait for a bit to see if Avatar has any luck, it would be great, but otherwise, with this (excellent) translation, we could discuss the template again if you wanted to." (...) "If we hear nothing from Ubisoft, and if you aren't keen (understandable!) I'd be happy to start one myself.") Well, Giggy didn't start one and I forgot about the matter for a while, but IMHO rtc was fully right in opening a new DR, and furthermore I agree with his opinion regarding the matter - but I don't agree with his harsh, aggressive behaviour which certainly doesn't do any good. Him calling for banning MGA73 as a "disruptive editor" is rather absurd; I'm certain that MGA73 just honestly states his opinion - it's rather rtc who behaves disruptively. But I hope that this doesn't distract admins from the core of rtc's arguments, which are, in my opinion, perfectly sound - though expressed in a disagreaable manner. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Something wrong, that I can't solve. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply too big so no thumbnail is automatically generated, but the uploaded file should be fine. You could upload a scaled down version too, that can be linked to, to show people what the file is. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not the uploader, just simple user. On my computer the file doesn't open at all. That's why. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New request for CheckUser rights

In accordance with Meta policy this is to inform the community that there is a new request for these rights here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Undeletion backlog

Would someone undelete this. It has been open for 2 months now and the deleting admin hasn't explained her/his speedy deletion. -- User:Docu at 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Being threatened and harassed by User:Roberto Mura

He is a bureaucrat at Italian wikipedia and he is harassing me and threatening me. Edit warring, non stop reverting. He banned me for "not being Italian". He deleted all my edits. He sent numerous threatening and harassing messages to my user talk page. He blocked me indefinitely. He sent racist messages to my user talk page. Someone do something about this NOW.74.194.181.141 09:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

@74.194.181.141, are you Wiki Greek Basketball (talk · contribs)? Anyway, Commons is a separate project and cannot interfere with the governance of :it. You should try to solve that problem locally on :it, or eventually, if that is really not possible, at meta. --Túrelio (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
He banned all my email and IP access. How the hell can a bureaucrat be allowed to act like that? Doesn't any admin on the damn wikipedia site do anything right? I NEVER see an admin doing their job. but I ALWAYS see them harassing and threatening me. I am really getting sick of this crap. Threatening and harassing people online is illegal. And it's starting to get to the point where charges need to be pressed against admin at this website. And don't give me any nonsense about making legal threats and that isn't allowed and gets you banned here. The admin are making legal threats to me on a daily basis.74.194.181.141 09:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
He was write-only, insulting administrators of simple.wiki on his userpage, doing not acceptable edits, insulting me and another sysop... I think this is enaugh... --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 09:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
:-) --Melos (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. Stop your lies right now you creep. I was making good and legit edits at Italian wiki and you started harassing and threatening me at my talk page. Accused me of running a bot and all kinds of ridiculous BS. You kept harassing and threatening me.

I tried NUMEROUS times to ignore you and to just blank off your threats and harassment from my talk page. You banned me from the site permanently, blocked my email and my IP. You broke site rules on harassing other editors, deleting good edits fro no reason, falsely accusing me of running a bot, incivility, edit warring, and constantly reverting my edits. And yes I got banned at simple wiki for crap like people like you. I went to simple wiki and I hope EVERY person here reads what i wrote.

I wrote that if you disagree with any admin you will get banned and within seconds they banned me permanently. PROVING what I said is true. And I wrote because of people like you. So you are a bureaucrat? Big freaking deal man. Where the hell do you get off treating other people like that. Wikipedia is not a toy. It is not a playground for psychopaths to do whatever they hell they want with it. It is not a place for you to harass and threaten other people for no reason.

You are the most absurdly out of control admin i have ever seen. You should be banned from all wiki projects immediately and you should never be allowed anywhere near it again. Your actions towards me were that of someone that is suffering from severe personality problems. And for wikipedia all the same BS nonsense. If an regular editor makes an edit to a page an admin watched and does not want changed they can be indef blcoked within seconds. The site also uniformly rounds into form within minutes. The appeal is blocked, the email and IP are blocked and all admins are informed to censor the editor. But if an admin is threatening people, deleting edits, harassing people, and all kinds of crazy nonsense, it's "we can't do anything about that sorry". Do all of the wikipedia admin believe that this site is their own personal playground to threaten and harass others? This site is greatly pushing it right now.10:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

IP was blocked for 31 hours by Abigor‎ and I've blocked Wiki Greek Basketball for a day for bring non-commons issues from Wiki to here but this legal threat make me think may be a indef block is in order? Bidgee (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
As you can see in this link provided by Melos, he made many problems on many wikis. His userpage was deleted (not by me, by another sysop) on it.wiki because its content was an insult to simple.wiki admins (calling them "fascists"); on this page he is like a troll, saying bad things about me, and wrong things also. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 11:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I think an indefinite block is appropriate. No evidence exists that this user has an interest in contributing constructively to Commons. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The same for me, no evidences he wants to partecipate to a collaborative Project such as wiki. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot running times

Rotatebot runs at 00.00, 06.00, 12.00 and 18.00. FlickreviewR runs at 00.16, 06.16, 12.16 and 18.16.

If one uploads a flickr image which needs rotating (quite common for portrait-oriented photos) and tag it at upload with {{rotate|90}}, the result is that Rotatebot gets to it first. This then leaves the image unworkable by FlickreviewR and necessitates an Admin / Trusted User review, unless one uploads in the very short 15-minute window after Rotatebot has just run but before FlickreviewR does.

Can the run times be swapped, so FlickreviewR runs just before Rotatebot instead of the other way round?

MPF (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete Deletion request month log

Hello. I was going through deletion requests I had made in the past and I came across this one. I found it odd that such a simple listing went unclosed so I investigated. I went to the log page for that month's deletion requests, and it appears everything after the 9th on that page was cut off. I was going to post this on the help desk, but since it involved deletions, I'm posting it here instead.--Rockfang (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem seems to be that there is too many DR's (templates) on the page. So only the first ones are showed. I put some closed in the Archive. For some reason the bot has skipped some of the days. If bot does not start to archive then we must do it manually. --MGA73 (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Resignation

Hi, all. I decided to remove my sysop bit. I will be inactive in the next few months, so, it doesn't make sense to keep the bit. I hope that I served Commons community well as an admin. Best wishes to everyone. --Meno25 (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your service. Tiptoety talk 01:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hope to see you back sometime soon! –Juliancolton | Talk 03:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of copyfraud images

Hi everyone, I was just asked to delete an old version of an image, which contains a bogus copyright notice (File:Landseer.doutful.crumbs.jpg). I'm not quite sure what our policy says about this, but AFAIR we don't delete images (or old file versions, for that matter) just for that reason. Is this correct? Thanks and regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  • If the uploader asked you to do so, I don't see why you wouldn't as a courtesy. If someone else asked you, then I don't see why you would do it. Boolean choices! -Nard the Bard 02:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If the image page acknowledges where the image came from anyway, ie they are not trying to hide the source, I see no reason to delete the original upload, especially as the cropping of the notice off the bottom doesn't seem to have been done in a 'lossless' manner (ie the result is smaller than I would expect - the cropped version is a slightly inferioir derivative). Also the 'courtesy' of deleting images at uploaders request is normally given to people who upload their own images - they still have moral rights over their images use. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing the case! I forgot to delete the copyright notice before uploading. The museums often use to set their copyright notices on their photos which you can ignore however in this case. To specify the source is a matter of course, the painting belongs to a collection which has been opened for the publinc since a long time and is a well known museum in London nowadays. Any copyright does not exist in this case, pictures of aged paintings like Doubtul crumbs are public domain. --Felistoria (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 Keep We realise you are invoking en:Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp., but that doesn't seem to be a reason to delete the original source image, we normally keep all revisions of images (it's not as though "deletion" saves any space even). --Tony Wills (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It's the same in Europe (but I am not finormed whether there is a similar act or not). But the user may be irritated by the version with the copyright index. As to say: there are thousands of aged (and therefore: public domain) paintings uploaded to commons from museum's sites. But one shouldn't do this of course with a Museum's "c" still in it. It was my fault in this case. If you delete the version it will be a service for the user. --Felistoria (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I think its probably untested in the courts of most countries, and even in the US it is not clear how far one could take it. Eg can you just take anyones photograph of a public domain work and claim there was no creative input (eg angle, lighting etc)?. That the museum claims copyright on their photograph of a painting (not on the painting) is not something that anyone needs to be irritated by. We just need to be upfront about the fact that we dispute their ability to make such a claim. The original with the "copyright" claim attached is just like thousands of others with some sort of watermark. You did the right thing in uploading the original, in my opinion that is the right way to do it. The dispute of their claim is then open for everyone to see. --Tony Wills (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

keep For the US see http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1542070 (it's NOT only Bridgeman v. Corel!!) --FrobenChristoph (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Toolserver, again

When checking usage of speedy-tagged (and other) files, over the last days I get nothing but the error well-known message in bold and red:

  • Database Error: User 'daniel_www' has exceeded the 'max_user_connections' resource (current value: 15) on sql-s4/commonswiki_p

As checking file-usage is totally indispensable for admin-work, can't anybody ask the Toolserver people to give Commons (or at least Commons' admins) a larger CPU-time "slot" (or number of max_user_connections) to be able to do our work here? --Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not using the alternative? --Leyo 12:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
You can also use Special:GlobalUsage. /Ö 13:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Per Ö, GlobalUsage has not only been created to show the links directly on the file page, but also to not be too dependant of the Toolserver. It would probably be good to replace template links leading to the toolserver with global usage links, as I've done in {{Il}}. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done for all Commons pages, which were easily findable via a link search, and then by regex replacement of http\://(tools\.wikimedia\.de|toolserver\.org)/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage\.php(#end)? CheckUsage using en.wikipedia's Replace tool (which I can only fully recommend). Doing the same with templates probably won't be that easy, as the links of them appear to be more scattered around the pages of Special:LinkSearch. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the input and the support. --Túrelio (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Major sock

Copied to here from my talkpage by me. --Túrelio (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to talk to you regarding one user that have few socks in wikipedia.

Regarding wikipedia edits, all those three are one editor. Can we do something about it. User upload copyrighted pictures of mountains under disputed names, and add them in articles, not listening on any advices. As he changes accounts, it is logical. All best! --Tadija (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The deleted file File:Bayrak 03.gif is my own work and is available on the web for more than 15 years. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is also available in pages like http://erol-cargo.com/torok/ ... You can see the comment in the gif file itself with GIMP. That proves the origin of file. In the best case it is a copyviolation but who violated the copyright? Those Who used the file without mentioning the source or me who created the file? --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Just finding an instance of a file on the web should not suffice for deletion. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please talk directly to User talk:Zscout370, who deleted the file. If he does not restore the file within a few days, get back to me and I will restore it. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --h-stt !? 10:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
This is not the first time that one of my images was deleted due to supposed copyviolation. There are many pages on web who use my images and other images from wikipedias without appropriately attributing the source. Admins should be familiar with this and be carefull while deleting images without notice or discussion. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the nature of your Nevit's obviously professional-quality work, perhaps he should file a generic OTRS covering whatever portion of your work you may choose to upload to Commons, and then routinely include that OTRS in his uploads. (Someone who knows how OTRS works in more detail than I: would there be any problem with doing that?) - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Just undelete the file! Why wait for Zscout? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Execution in China.jpg

Hello ! I think that this file is a copyright violation : File:Execution in China.jpg. Thanks. Luoping (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, we don't have such an image, and never had. I guess you mean en:File:Execution in China.jpg. Lupo 15:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, maybe could you delete this file, as it's a copyright violation from this blog site : http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/03/28/executions-attract-thousands/. Thanks Luoping (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please delete the older version of this image. (I have pixelized the name plate for privacy reasons, but the name is still in the original image, of course). --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --Justass (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

CC license templates gone bad

Something's happened with our CC license templates that make them display HTML instead of the proper text. Consider the current text appearing at {{Cc-by-2.0}}:


<wm-license-cc-by-2.0-text>

<wm-license-cc-free>
<wm-license-cc-free-to-share-header> – <wm-license-cc-free-to-share-text>
<wm-license-cc-free-to-remix-header> – <wm-license-cc-free-to-remix-text>
<wm-license-cc-conditions>
<wm-license-cc-conditions-attribution-header> – <wm-license-cc-conditions-attribution-text>

Not sure what's happening here, but I suspect an accidental mangling of a protected page. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

See Commons:Village pump#MediaWiki software not displaying licensing information correctly? for more discussion. - BanyanTree 05:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

All of these seem to be uploaded on basis of Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic being free licence, but it's not. So all of it is copyright violation? Besides why allowing such confusing templates as Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual, that I've seen making people think that Noncommerical is allowed on Commons. 88.196.241.249 15:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Deleted the files, and left a note to the uploader. –Tryphon 16:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. National Archives joins the Commons!

Just to let you know. See: Flickr.--JotaCartas (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You might want to announce this on the village pump too, as it's of interest to non-admins too. But thanks for the info! –Tryphon 16:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of user

Dear Sir or Madam

How can I remove my user from this site?

Yours sincerely Jelle Verheugen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelle Verheugen (talk • contribs) 11:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your account can't be deleted, because by the terms of our licensing, your edits must be attributed to your account. (It's not even possible to delete account as far as I know.) We could delete your user page if you had one, but you don't have one anyway so there's nothing to delete. If you don't want to contribute to Commons any more, the best thing is to simply stop contributing. —Angr 12:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
A side from this request my only contributions were deletion requests. As far as I'm concerned you may delete these contributions as well. In fact the only reason I have this account was for those deletion requests. I would now like to have no further affiliations with this site. Jelle Verheugen (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
All your contributions other than these two have now been deleted. If you do not want any further affiliations with this site, just stop using it and don't log in any more. Stifle (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but there must be a way to delete my user. Not using the site or not logging in anymore won't delete it I guess? Jelle Verheugen (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The only way of doing so would be tom remove your account directly from the databank, which is only possible by developers. However, what probably can be done is that you rename your account. Your username at least would be gone then. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
At COM:CHU, you may request that your username be changed. You may wish to consider that retaining your username will prevent others from misusing it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Block/delete please

This and the user (look at the image - been uploaded a few times...). --Herby talk thyme 14:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And this one. --Herby talk thyme 14:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Both ✓ Done now. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Massiv speedy delete

Hi, user Bubnavy1 (talk · contribs) uploads lots of useless out of scope images or copyvios. He does not respond to his talkpage or does not understand what is needed for a free screenshot. All images should be speedydeleted. But I get boared marking them. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for bringing that up. Killiondude (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Rename please

In the process of uploading pictures for the article cs:Vojenský hřbitov Adinkerke on Czech Wikipedia, I mistakenly uploaded 4 out of 8 (1, 2, 3, 4) with an incorrect name (which includes the original fie's numeric name forgotten as a part of it). Following the instructions, I have asked for them to be renamed by placing the appropriate template, but while the problem is straightforward, nothing has happened since more than 24 hours and this costs me troubles related to the Wikipedia article where in which I refrain from linking to the pictures before they are named appropriately here. Unfortunately, with some 522 files presently waiting to be renamed in Category:Media requiring renaming, most of which have been there for much longer period than mine, I don't see any real possibility of the renaming happening reasonably soon. I'm sorry to learn that Commons are probably suffering a lock of administrators while I can do nothing to get my files renamed after a routine mistake - but reupload them under the new name, which is explicity discouraged by the guidelines, but which I now start to feel would be the easiest and quickest solution to my problem :-( Although it would mean skipping the queue, I would be very glad if some administrator could help me and process my request sometime soon. Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Probably some "renamer" user group would be good, as renaming a file isn't that more abusable than usual renaming. The only problem is that the renaming process relies on a full protected page. --The Evil IP address (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your assistance! I, too, hope a more general solution will be found soon. Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
A week or two ago it was over 600 images, I think I renamed at least 400 if not more of those images and got it down to 160! Bidgee (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


Move image please?

Not sure where to place a request like this so I'm putting it here. Can someone move my file File:Alfred C.jpg to its correct name, Alfred C. Chapin.jpg? It's a problem with my software that sometimes truncates names to the nearest period. Thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. For future reference, you can request renames by putting {{rename|New name.jpg}} on the image page. –Tryphon 16:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that :) Gatoclass (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Resolved

Repeatedly uploading copyvios with no license, after several warnings. He/she needs to go. ZooFari 19:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Still uploading copyvios. ZooFari 19:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocked for a week, maybe now they will see what they have been doing (uploading copyrighted images) is wrong. I hope they don't do it again and become a constructive contributor to Commons. Bidgee (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Resolved

Could someone please delete the first two versions of this file? I forgot to convert text to lines, which is why the first two charts are broken. Thanks a lot. --NeXXor (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I only see two versions. Perhaps someone has already deleted without commenting here? Requests like this are a little tricky, because they are not idempotent. Could you check to see if this has already been done, and if not could you be more unambiguous about what is to be deleted (e.g. file size, time)? Really, though, it's harmless to leave the bad versions in the history, unless one of them contains information that you want to keep private or don't have the rights to release. - Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it seems that one version was already deleted. This one (91 KB filesize) can be deleted too. Thank you. Regards, --NeXXor (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. - Jmabel ! talk 17:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Similar or identical file names

I am uploading US Military Heraldry Files which have unique names that can be very close to related image names. You have changed the upload routine so that is no longer possible, which will be a continuing problem. This file name: File:U.S. ARMY ARMOR CENTER SSI.png was accepted, but this one: file:US ARMY ARMOR SCHOOL SSI.png wasn't. In the case of military files, similar file names are the rule, not the exception. SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the second file you mentioned. --Leyo 07:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Use proper capitalization and not everything in all caps and it will work. --The Evil IP address (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You might want try to vary your file names by making them descriptive. An alternate solution would be to add numbers at the end. -- User:Docu at 08:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't find the second file because your routine wouldn't let me upload it. As to the variation suggestion, if you look again at the two file names, they are NOT identical. One has SCHOOL in the name, while the other has CENTER. I'll try the change in capitalization and see if that works. SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Forget what I wrote. The Evil IP address seems to say that it doesn't work because you used all caps in:
File:U.S. ARMY ARMOR CENTER SSI.png and
File:US ARMY ARMOR SCHOOL SSI.png
The first one might have escaped the check as it included dots in the file name. Try File:US Army Armor School SSI.png instead. -- User:Docu at 17:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you have done that already. -- User:Docu at 17:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in a poor quality. Did you upsample it? --Leyo 17:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Files by Ri Invisible

Can someone look at the files by Ri Invisible (talk · contribs). Some of them are marked with names of different websites, so I don't think Ri Invisible is really the author. And I doubt the other files too. /Ö 10:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User blocked with some mythical accusation without any evidence

User Stoljaroff (talk · contribs) was blocked by administrator Putnik (talk · contribs) with the reason "crosswiki harassment" without ANY evidence. I request the user to be unblocked. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 19:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is some evidence, it just has been deleted and as such is only viewable to administrators. Unless their is clear evidence that the administrator made a mistake, or Stoljaroff requests an unblock I see no reason to reverse the block. Tiptoety talk 22:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I can only see that there's no reason this user has been blocked. Looks like guilty upon accusation. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 10:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
There was gross violations of Stoljaroff at ru-wiki and en-wiki, and he blocked there. And he upload two abuse images (you saw them, and I know about it) to Commons. I think that I had a reason to block, and I see no reason to unblock him. — putnik 22:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
How do you know that I have seen the images? Are you a clearvoyant? SkyBonTalk\Contributions 10:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter whether or not you have seen the images, they are there. I also confirm that the block is backed up by the deleted files. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Deleted images and pages can be checked by any admin; no additional supernatural powers are needed. Infrogmation (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion requests 2009-06

Not sure if this is discussed elsewhere but I couldn't find it. Deletion requests are left from 2009-06 but they are not listed at Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/06, only in the category Category:Deletion requests June 2009.

Several medical images:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:NF2 multiple intramedullary ependymomas 001.jpg

and also these two:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Otto Adolf Eichmann0.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:SimplyMEPIS captura1.png


I'm not sure if they were not listed by mistake and should be listed at Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/06 for further discussion, if the deletion requests are closed already, or if the deletion requests are waiting for some permission or something...

Fred J (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Page mistake

The English-language caption for today's featured picture reads "Topographic Map in french of the island of Hawaii." — could "french" please be capitalised? Nyttend (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Pruneautalk 14:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Rename photos issue

Close to two weeks ago I added series of photos using the bulk uploader and failed to modify the name properly prior to running the uploader. I subsequently added the rename template to all the photos in error but they are still presumably languishing in a queue somewhere (I've looked for them but can not find that queue).

Appears to me that from my experience, and from other posts I read here, the "rename process" is broke. Seems to me that this task should be handled autonomously by a bot. And should be done so with little delay. Aren't there bots that run daily?

Now the error was mine, and the onus to correct these errors should be on me, but I am not allowed to perform this activity. How about enabling a user to rename files that he/she uploaded, with 24 hours of that uploading, if no links have been established to said photos within that 24 hour time frame?

Since there appears to be some difficultly in executing the rename template activity in a timely manor, perhaps the rename template should be suspended until such time that a timely solution can be found to support effective rename activity. Users could be directed to reload a file(s) with the correct name and then mark the erroneous file(s) for speedy delete.

The group of 44 photos in question here are at Category:Tapsa, added and rename requested on January 31. Please advise me if I should be patient for a few more days, or should I just reload the series with the desired file names and get on with life. Thank you. Steve46814 (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been meaning to bring this issue up as well. I think there should be some sort of process where users in good standing can request the technical ability (a user right) to move file pages. The only problem with this, is that the page that is being used by the CommonsDelinkerbot (or whichever bot fixes the global links) is fully protected so only admins can request tasks of the bot. Something needs to change. Killiondude (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Sooo... Let me read between the lines here since only see that you agree with me but offer no solution or advice on waiting. I'm going to assume therefore that my best course of action is to re-load all the bad files and have the originals deleted. Your statements lead me to believe that "bots" are capable of running rename functions. If this is true why is this not automated? Seems like this solution would be simple enough - or maybe I just don't comprehend the magnitude of the issue. Since I see you are an administrator may I assume you are willing to escalate this issue in the hopes of improving the product for all involved. Thank you very much for your time and interest. Steve46814 (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Gday Steve. Rename is simply a long queue, nothing particularly broken though as there have been some server issues, the tool we use has periods of downtime, and we need to wait for someone to restart it. When working through these, I try to work on the older files rather than the newer files. There are a number of steps, and it simply takes time to step through the process.
To your particular issue, if you have files that you would like to see as a priority to move, then politely poke an admin, or to ask here, or within IRC, and happy for you to ask me. Though I would request that you do it civilly, and not in the displayed I bite heads off rats. If there is a priority order, then tell me the priority. Regards. billinghurst sDrewth 01:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The servers are not letting move these, and I have been trying since my last message. Will try again tomorrow. billinghurst sDrewth 11:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC). Now ✓ Donebillinghurst sDrewth

Harassment

Please see my talk page. I suspect it's the same account that has been harassing me on enwiki-- User:The Polka Poker Player and related socks over there. A cross-project CU would help to ferret this person out. Roux (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the user. I think a CU should be along shortly. Killiondude (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I blocked a few other socks and sent an email to the CU mailing list. I am not sure if it is related to The Polka Poker Player or not as that account is not locally registered. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 07:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking into this more, it appears these are socks of User:Papa9. Tiptoety talk 08:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
He's the guy known as User:AtlanticDeep on enwiki. He's a pretty prolific socker & we've recently blocked literally dozens of socks over there - Alison 08:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

CharlesCasiraghi (talk · contribs) has been uploading copyrighted images with no permission, and using the licensing as PD-ineligible. The user has been warned but continues regardless, not to mention that the user is providing insufficient sources (Yahoo, Titanic, etc). ZooFari 07:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

yes, please make this stop, I'm having to revert the user on other wikis where they are putting the images they are uploading into use. -MBK004 07:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I blocked the user for three days and dealt with the copyvios. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 07:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please block Rockfan777

Rockfan777 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log keeps fishing for a block by uploading files and adding fraudulent claims that there are verified OTRS tickets for them (all with the ID of 0000000000000000). This is in spite of a direct warning that this would lead to them being blocked, so please give them what they're asking for. LX (talk, contribs) 11:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Twenty-five minutes and a handful of warnings later, they're still going at it. Please block now. LX (talk, contribs) 12:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your notices. I blocked 1 week to start with. --MGA73 (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

[19] copyvio images uploaded

Could someone please pick through these and label the {{Copyvio}} as relevant. I have done the first couple, however, it needs someone who is not falling asleep at the keyboard. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --Schlurcher (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

old picture with wrong source

what are practices with old picture File:Kevin Federline.jpg with wrong source, I trust that source picture has been changed and there are no author information--Motopark (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

An IP removed the info. The original Flickr source is here. Killiondude (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:SchoolcraftT was blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia because he demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of copyright both there and here. He uploaded a number of images he claimed were his when they were not and he did not change the tags after he was warned they needed corrected. User:Zscout370 subsequently deleted those images.

SchoolcraftT is now re-uploading those same images, plus others. He is now claiming they come from a Stanley Anderson (see image descriptions and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Potato knob.jpg). I've tagged the images as needing permission, but he keeps removing these tags. I'd appreciate it if an administrator could look into this issue and perhaps block him here as well as he still seems to have a willful misunderstanding of copyright and Wikimedia's policies. bmpowell (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP address 4.248.63.25 is also being used by SchoolcraftT. bmpowell (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
IP blocked for three days for block evasion. Tiptoety talk 22:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
And we have another sockpuppet: 4.249.180.228 (talk · contribs). bmpowell (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
SchoolcraftT keeps ranting on and on via his talk page. He's now trying to attack me for assuming that he was actually being truthful in the first place. Would an admin mind looking at this, maybe closing out his unblock request and just shutting him down entirely? This is getting a bit ridiculous. bmpowell (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I have declined the unblock request, and blocked the IP for three days. If he keeps up the socking, a small short range block might be in order. Tiptoety talk 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
He's socking it up again - 4.248.58.234 (talk · contribs) this time. bmpowell (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocked, again. I also protected the users talk page to disallow further IP comments. Tiptoety talk 19:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Can an admin look at SchoolcraftT's recent edits and his second unblock request? I think it's pretty clear he's abusing his edit privileges on his talk page. He's just spinning his wheels and hasn't made any substantive argument to show he understands what he did wrong in the first place to earn the block. Amongst other things, he edited a comment I made [20] and then denied he did it [21], all the while throwing out accusations at me and about his block in the first place. Personally, I think his talk page should be fully protected at this point. bmpowell (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I declined the unblock request, advised the talk page is open for posting the OTRS ticket number when it recieved along with reconsideration of the block at that time. Additionally I warned against making further PA and that the talk page will be protected if they continue, I'll keep an eye on it if the current discussion format continues I'll protect the talk page. Gnangarra 23:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
and the PA continued the talk page has now been protected such that admins only can edit the page. Gnangarra 07:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that using this template system on this page would be good. A lot of things are simple requests that are done in < 1 day and after this only clutter this page. The first five sections, Main Page mistake, Rename photo issue, Harassment, User:CharlesCasaraghi, Please block Rockfan777 and [8] copyvio image upload seem resolved to me, which makes ~ 50 % of this page. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As the template seems buggy and the corresponding bot still has some points to fix, you could use {{Resolved}} for these and reduce the time Miszabot waits. 4 days should be sufficient. -- User:Docu at 23:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat concerning Felix the cat

On File talk:Felix the cat.svg an IP, claiming to be "Mike Oriolo Legal Affairs Felix the Cat Productions", has issued a legal threat against Commons, claiming that "All Felix the Cat items on this website are unauthorized" and "The website is selling illegal Felix the Cat merchandise". Should we simply comply, wait for a formal complaint to OTRS or immediately notify Mike Godwin? --Túrelio (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The gentleman should be directed to info-en-c@wikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The gentleman is in Turkey, Felixthecat.com is in US. Lycaon (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The IP doesn't claim to be Mike Oriolo, only that Mike Oriolo has sent them the message that they have posted on the talk page. Adambro (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
You are likely correct, I may have misread the overall wording. However, if "Felix the Cat Productions" really issued a claim against somebody using images from Commons, that might also be an issue for us. --Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
An issue, perhaps, but I suspect not a legal issue. Our own posting of the images doubtless falls within fair use if they turn out to be copyrighted. Not that that was our intention, but we shouldn't be in any legal danger. We may decide we want to take these down, but I'll also point out that the issue mentioned was "selling illegal Felix the Cat merchandise". That may be a matter of trademark, not copyright. I'm not at all sure most older Felix materials are still copyrighted, and strongly suspect that they are not (lack of renewals and all that). - Jmabel ! talk 20:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Should we then put a {{Trademark}} tag on this (or all FTC) images? --Túrelio (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair use is not applicable to Commons. That is not just as a matter of policy, but a legal consideration. Fair use depends on context, and therefore cannot be legitimately invoked by general media repositories. Also, fraudulently claiming that a copyrighted work is in the public domain is a criminal offense. Of course, the same goes for claiming that a public domain work is copyrighted. LX (talk, contribs) 20:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, fraudulently being the operative word. Fraud requires intent. - Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I only noticed that it is directed against this specific image and none of the other ones that we have of Felix. I do notice this vector drawing is very similar to this one from 2006. I am not sure where this blog got their image from. However, since Felix was created before 1923, the design is public domain in the USA. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of 52 files

This series, beginning with 001 File:Fotothek_df_pk_0000162_001_Porträt,_Erich_Weinert.jpg until 052 File:Fotothek_df_pk_0000162_052_Porträt,_Erich_Weinert.jpg is a documentation of Wilhelm Pieck's 70 birthday. I suggest as new file names "Wilhelm Piecks 70. Geburtstag" or "Celebrating Wilhelm Pieck's 70th birthday in 1946". I guess one/two/three of these pics depict also Erich Weinert, but I couldn't find him on first sight.

Problems with the category movers gadget (Category Above ...)

I believe that:

are interfering with the upload form logic, as they move the categories on top (more or less) of the page, while the title field for categories is maintained in its position in the upload form.

Imo,

  //disabling the gadget on upload form
  if (!wgIsArticle) return;

should be added to the code after the line:

function catsattop() {

To disable those gadgets if the user is in the upload form. Any comments or remarks against this change?

Esby (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If it works, it's ok for me. Fixes a known problem. -- User:Docu at 19:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
It should work (untested) but it should be easy to revert if needed. Gonna test it on a separate page just to be sure. Esby (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tested it was working with User:Esby/Gadget-CategoryAboveAll.js & User:Esby/Gadget-CategoryAboveBelowImage.js Esby (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it seems that testing against 'wgIsArticle' should work better as it would make the change works on all wikis, since "Special:Upload" can change depending the local language of the wiki. Esby (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I tried the second one and it works for me. -- User:Docu at 22:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For me those gadgets were also interfering with proper working of Hot_Cat gadget. --Jarekt (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it adds to load time, but at least since September, I don't think it interfered with my use of HotCat. (BTW you can choose just one of the two ;) -- User:Docu at 22:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The change works for me (Firefox 3.6). About the interference with HotCat: except for the issue with upload form, I didn't notice any (at least not with Firefox 3.5/3.6) -- IANEZZ  (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Those gadgets should not interfere with hotcat: hotcat locates the div structure that contains the categories. It being moved or not, it should still be located in the document. For instance, hotcat perfectly works here with category above all. Maybe it's an issue related with a particular browser? Esby (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes performed. Esby (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. -- User:Docu at 18:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that it stopped working on preview. Maybe it should test if wgCanonicalNamespace isn't "Special" -- User:Docu at 01:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Try with if (!wgIsArticle && wgAction != 'submit') return;. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems the wgIsArticle is defined to false for special pages and for cases like when we edit... just testing versus the titlepage 'special:upload' might work better finally. Gonna revert my change until I am sure the solution works. Esby (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Disable it if (wgCanonicalNamespace=="Special" && wgCanonicalSpecialPageName=="Upload"). These names are canonical, they remain constant even if the user interface language is set to Tagalog. Besides, moving the category bar may well interfere with the working of the upload form, since there, the category bar is added dynamically by HotCat itself inside the table inside the upload form. Moving it out of that table might screw up things. I should think it would in any case screw up the layout, but I didn't try this "move the category bar" gadget. Lupo 09:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It's meant to change the layout ;) . It took me a week to get used to it, but I think it's worth it, if you are interested in categories. Obviously, if one is using "Cologne Blue", categories are already at the top of the page. BTW as we can't use HotCat on Special:Search "yet", we can probably deactivate it for any special page. -- User:Docu at 09:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I implemented a test on special pages here User:Esby/Gadget-CategoryAboveAll.js, if someone feel like testing extensively in various pages, I don't have time for that right now. Esby (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this image permitted ?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supreme.JPG Note that the scripture is written with Microsoft word.

Its not gonna be used in any article, but only my userpage at wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, images created solely for use on userpages are permitted. That said, I have two suggestions: 1) depending on your intent, you might be able to replicate it with text and a touch of wiki-markup, reducing the need for a whole file. 2) You might want to get a more descriptive filename. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I have never found any scripture that looks as good as this at wikipedia, and even if I did, I don't know how to use it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Notices when cleaning Category:Media without a source...

These users uploaded screenshots or table data (unlikely to be useful and in scope). Will be good to check these users (pattern of uploads are same and other account possible) and do mass deletion.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be linked to a project on Wikiversity. I found one image being used in http://es.wikiversity.org/wiki/Naturaleza_qu%C3%ADmica_de_los_pol%C3%ADmeros -- User:Docu at 16:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Most images I looked at (randomly) were used at http://es.wikiversity.org in spanish language articles. It seems like by definitions those files are useful and in scope. If there are any questions related to sources or licenses I would ask them at http://es.wikiversity.org. The usernames seem to be the same as on commons, but talk pages seem to be unused - may be we should try article talk pages. Some pages like http://es.wikiversity.org/wiki/Principios_del_procesado_de_los_pol%C3%ADmeros._Procesados_de_pol%C3%ADmeros have multiple edits from different Esi.us? accounts. I wonder if this is yet another class project. --Jarekt (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a list of students at http://es.wikiversity.org/wiki/Departamento_de_Ingeniería_de_Materiales#Participantes -- User:Docu at 16:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The 3 pictures show a difference between uploader and name's contribution in this category, the category-contributer is again someone else. See also the licensing (2007!): this might be a copyright violence? --Felistoria (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd hope people wont categorize just their own images.
Still, the uploader doesn't seem to be the artist (according to en:Talk:Michael Jäger). He should be requested to send a permission to OTRS. -- User:Docu at 23:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The pictures in this category have a copyright notice now. The German remark says that the copyright is with the "VG-Bild Kunst". That means that these three pictures are a copyright violence and should be deleted. --Felistoria (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done, as we don't want any violence (surely meant violation) here ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, violation, nobody wants violence:-) Thanks for your help, --Felistoria (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
In the meantime this was speedied. Shouldn't we ask the uploader first? He seems to know the artist. Besides, the log identifies the artist. This doesn't need to be mixed up in a content dispute at WP. -- User:Docu at 16:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
In his speedy-rationale, User:Artmax, who is also active on the Art portal on :de, wrote that the artist has given away his copyright for online-use to the de:Verwertungsgesellschaft Bild-Kunst, which is incompatible with free licenses, as to my knowledge. --Túrelio (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Would the artist have to cancel this for all his works or just notify them to exclude these files? Otherwise the uploader might have to check if he can upload them to enwiki and claim FU. -- User:Docu at 18:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I am afraid. See here (-->Rechte-->Rechte im Internet). VG Bild Kunst's admission is an obligation in any case (it's no longer the artist's one), and the VG Bild Kunst don't offer any license which is compatible to the Commons' or Wikipedia's policies. --Felistoria (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Is it compulsory for the artist to have his entire work processed through them? -- User:Docu at 11:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Weird behaviour by commons delinker

See here. Seems to be a serious bug; the bot's talkpage directed me here, so please can someone have a look at it or get in touch with whoever runs the bot.--Kotniski (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  • This does look like a screw-up. I know little about the delinker, though. Can someone please look into this? - Jmabel ! talk 05:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I know why the bot did it. Common Good deleted File:A (perfectly fine) and the CommonsDelinker then removed the image instances (not good). We would need to ask Siebrand for a bot fix, but in my opinion such titles (with no extension) shouldn't even be creatable. It might be good to black list file pages without extensions, but I have honestly no idea which regexp could do that. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I was the one who deleted "File:A" [sic], which has been created by an IP on 1 February 2010 (containing a single letter: "a"). I didn't mentioned that this "file" was linked from en.wp and zh.wp. Sorry for that.
I reverted the edit by CommonsDelinker at zh.wp.
One question remains: Why is an IP allowed to create such a page in the file namespace? -- Common Good (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting 12 of my own files. (done)

I want to delete 12 of my own files. They have never been used,they are of very bad quality and are pretty useless, as they were not needed. [22] , [23], [24], and 9 more of the same type. Megistias (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. Just being unused is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Wknight94 talk 23:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought they would be needed for Albanian Nationalism, but i had made them en-masse and in haste and they turned out to be scrawls, worst files i ever made.Megistias (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thankou.Megistias (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Bad maps don't have any benefits for our projects. --32X (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange photos

At first: Sorry for my bad english.

Hi there, after hosting 2 pictures I found a picture with strange content: File:!!!!!!BOXING GLOVES AND HANDCUFFS!!!!!.JPG I think it has no educational purpose. It seems to be a profile-picture for wikipedia. But this user never changed or add anything to wikipedia.

Why it isn't erased and why grab wiki-commons all these facebook pictures?

Thank you for reading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackerking (talk • contribs) 11:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

See Commons:Project scope#File in use in another Wikimedia project. Your assertion that the uploader has made no edits to Wikipedia is incorrect. en:User:Endlessdan has nearly ten thousand edits on the English Wikipedia edition. LX (talk, contribs) 11:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Is it me, or does recent changes not look right? Here's a screenshot at imageshackSmallman12q (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've put up a copy of the clearly vandalized html at User:Smallman12q/Recent_changes.Smallman12q (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone stop User:Toast Chee? -- User:Docu at 00:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked him. Starting to rv. If the broken recent changes is causing problems change language - en-GB is working just fine for example.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I did a hard refresh and it still looks broken to me.Smallman12q (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Fixed now (problem was one unreverted vandal edit. Above was temporary workaround (changing interface language).--Nilfanion (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks fine now. Thanks!Smallman12q (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Throttling pagemoves

Can we create an abuse filter that throttles pagemoves for nonadmins or users with less than X contribs? We need to be more preventative, and protecting everything with full move protection probably isn't an option. Killiondude (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I was about to suggest that, does commons not have a page-move thottle for auto-confirmed?--Jac16888 (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I am designing a filter. – Kwj2772 (msg) 01:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
See Special:AbuseFilter/59 and Special:AbuseFilter/60. Tell me if you want me to import any more from enwiki. NW (Talk) 01:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
This filter does not match any of moves by Toast Chee. Regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 01:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Although 59 doesn't help for that, 60 would have caught it and at least limited it. NW (Talk) 01:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I can help you. Bambifan101 (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
He uses modified templates from Willy on Wheels, more specifically he gets them from WoW's ED article. I know two more of his that I can give you the code to put it in the abuse filter but in return I want my global account unlocked and unbanned from Wikipedia. Bambifan101 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
As an administrator on the English Wikipedia, I would unblock you there if agree to stop vandalizing there and on every other WMF project. That's not a matter for this noticeboard though. NW (Talk) 16:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I do love "good faith" and "mellow" but I guess I ought to point any passing admin to this and suggest any passing CU may care to take an interest. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that since you have not blocked me, I might just give you the code. Problem is that I don't know how to make the code not affect the page and show you the text at the same time. Bambifan101 (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Easy way to mass revert page moves

This script, if you use it while looking at the Special:Log of a particular user, will block them with talk page and email access disabled and then revert their page moves with redirects disabled. Please use it wisely. NW (Talk) 01:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Idea

Looking at [25], the number of pages moved for legitimate reasons (if you exclude files, which only sysops can move), is very low. Has the community here considered making all the page move right sysop only? It doesn't look like it would increase sysop workload that much to do so. Just an idea--Jac16888 (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, of course not everyone who uses it abuses it. But how often are pages actually moved for legitimate reasons? It doesn't look very common--Jac16888 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you provide some examples, with the exception of vandalism, of pages that were not legitimate moves? ZooFari 20:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Well from the last 500 hundred moves in the log, going back 9 days, and if you take away vandalism, renamed users and files there are maybe 30-40 legitimate page moves, a fair few of those are by a bot. As for none vandalism/none legitimate, there appears to be a fair few instances of this [26], [27], [28] This isn't my home wiki, all I'm saying is that, as an objective outsider, it looks like the move function is not used very often for pages that aren't files. So making it admin only won't increase the workload all that much, and it will stop trolls like the guy who started this. And I doubt you've seen the last of him--Jac16888 (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I would be more concerned about the template vandalism AND the move vandalism. PBML already has shown that he is capable of pulling a Grawp and WoW at the same time. Bambifan101 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Moreover, he isn't a dumbass, he already has a target ready. Bambifan101 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A message from the Committee of Users of Wikimedia Commons

I will be starting the Commons CoU as a direct result of last night's attack. In the event that PBML and his ally John254 attack this project, I will help you counter move any changes he makes. We might have him down in template vandalism, but reuploading files and page moves will still require the help of a group against it. This is the least I can do to repay for any damage that I have caused in the past. Bambifan101 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

See Committee of Users to vote for it's approval/opposition. Bambifan101 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Rejected. Might be a good idea (even though we have 100rds of better ideas to channel maintenance affine users), however implementing this with stupid sockpuppetry and childish vandalism is a bad idea. I refer to en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101. --Martin H. (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with it Martin - it was rather obvious. --Herby talk thyme 09:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

allowed?

are users allowed to change the description of other peoples uploaded images? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that technically, once a picture is uploaded to the commons, the version on the commons belongs to the commons and is open to editing by all project members. Of course, common sense applies and persistent incorrect descriptions is vandalism, but if a more accurate or more descriptive caption/description is applied, I believe that is allowed. -- Avi (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If it is more descriptive and accurate, it is allowed and encouraged to edit it. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I do it from time to time... it's to be encouraged when it's elaboration and improvement. ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Category:Media lacking a description, happy editing :P --Martin H. (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

restricion on wikipedia apply here?

If I have a restriction or a topic ban on wikipedia, does that same restriction and topic ban also apply here at wikimedia commons? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but it would be wise for you to carefully consider whether you'd be able to edit here without running into similar problems that you may have encountered on Wikipedia. Adambro (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Restrictions/bans on other projects do not carry over to this one. However, you should avoid the sorts of behavior that led to your editing restriction/topic ban on enwiki (en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_concerning_Supreme_Deliciousness). When you know that a description may be disputed, please mention the opposing view. For File:Al_Quneitra.jpg, Brambley's complete description read, "Al Quneitra is a town on the border ofthe Golan Heights that was levelled by Isreal and is now preserved by the Syrians as a propaganda exhibit. This was taken from the top of the Hospital, one of the only buildings left standing." You deleted, "and is now preserved by the Syrians as a propaganda exhibit". I think it is more helpful to the user of these pictures to copy the entire caption faithfully, and comment as you see fit. In this case, you may dispute the words "propaganda exhibit", for example. Also, a leveled town contains no standing structures so nearly leveled may be more accurate. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad user name and Fair use violation

Please check this image and uploader username--Amir (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we have better log of deleted files

Do we have better log of deleted files tjan deletion log

It will be nice if there are only the files that will be exist after deletion, then can be founded better pictures that has been deleted as copyvio but created again.--Motopark (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See bugzilla:14417 and bugzilla:14171. Unfortunately still in report stage :-( --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
For a temporary solution for bugzilla:14417, you could try COM:DBR (a list of all duplicates files sorted by last upload date might do). -- User:Docu at 16:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for info--Motopark (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This file claims to have been taken from Flickr's The Commons but that is not correct. It is from a Flickr user account with the all rights reserved designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.156.170 (talk • contribs)

Whether it is flickr or not, the issue is that it is probably just copyright violation, full stop, whether it be on Flickr or on Commons. billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The image is stated to originally be from a 1933 publication, and from my investigation it looks as if it is not a copyright violation. My reasoning which some may wish to review. billinghurst sDrewth 01:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional to Nards finding User:Flavius92 is obvioulsy an continuation of User:Flavinhoadler, the disruption is worser and for a longer time. I not run a check, so I cant say Flavius92 range, but a Rangeblock on the IP listed for Nards diff wouldnt be sufficient, the range is relatively large and the ISP is on other /14 ranges too and I know of high variance in use of IP ranges with this ISP, this is regretably not the first and not the only problematic user from Brazil. However, the deletion request is filled at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olivia De Haviland 1933.jpg, also the other images are listed, I fully agree that they have been taken from random sources with false own work claims (look at the size of File:Chinese Theatre courtyard Olivia de Havilland.jpg...). So images are cared, what to do with the user? --Martin H. (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So if noone else does it: Both blocked. Also File:Chinese Theatre courtyard Olivia de Havilland.jpg is clearly from flickr (image size), but not from the account he now claims it from. --Martin H. (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Advice required I think

Hopefully a few folk will remember the Lycaon RFCU case at the end of last year (not got time to link it). In the absence of any explanation at all over the matter, by the end of the year/early Jan there was agreement that there should be a note on his page indicating an association with another user on his IP address. There were arguments about the wording of this however in the end Maedin placed a neutral explanation there. This was removed by Lycaon here with some pov/attack effectively. Slaunger made a reasonable comment which was promptly archived. I reverted Lycaon user page today here and placed a polite note on his talk page. He has reverted my change and archived my message.

I personally think that is is right that there should be some declaration when users edit from the same IP address - such transparency saves possible misunderstandings. However I have no idea what should be done now - hence this posting :(. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this development is regrettable. For those who do not recall the link is here: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Estrilda. Unfortuantely, Lyacon has never (to my knowledge) publicly commented at all on this case, tried to provide any explanations execpt for a single very short statement in the case. I think we are several users who are interested in seeing Lycaon active again, but pulling these tricks with repeatedly removing a cross-link with no explanation is disruptive. I can only urge and appeal Lycaon to step forward, and tell us explicitly what his thoughts are, instead of replacing a crosslink with, e.g., subtle comment and backlinking to arbcom cases on en. If you have something you want to tell us, something we should know, somthing you want to apologize, please step forward Lycaon. We are listening. I think we are all interested in moving forward. For the block-trigger-eager: Please don't! Besides the repeated removals of the crosslinks and his user page and rather inconsiderate archiving of good-faith comments given with the best of intents, Lycaon has begun to do constructive work here again. Something which pleases me immensely. If this parody with the crosslink removal continues without any explanations given whatsoever, I would suggest protecting Lycaons user page, but I would rather not see it come to that point, as I find it a humiliating step, which should not be necessary. --Slaunger (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
With thanks to Slaunger for the link. Can I stress I would not consider blocking appropriate here & now just for clarity. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Estrilda is blocked and there is not a real hurry. There might be a privacy issue. I am sure that the thaw in spring will solve that. --Foroa (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Nod. I'd rather see both accounts unblocked and contributing productively and peacefully. But rather than engaging constructively, Lycaon has called me "judge, jury and executioner" at my steward confirmation, left links to various irrelevant matters in comments, and generally refused to address the community's legitimate concerns in this matter. That's not what I'd call "contributing productively and peacefully". We've let this matter go on for months, as is our usual way, this community prefers to let matters work themselves out (and that is goodness for the most part). So a few more weeks or months... sure. But eventually some resolution is needed. I'd strongly prefer that not be a block of Lycaon, but rather a lifting of Estrilda's. ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You are such a hypocrite. I send you an e-mail with full explanations and even an apology for actions that were totally unintentional the first days of December 2009. You choose to ignore them for over a month. This 'issue' could've been resolved for ages. If you don't want my contributions or images, then just say so. The only thing you do is stir and set up people against each other. and then you are the one talking about trust... I don't need this, there are other wiki's where my help is still appreciated.[33] Lycaon (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
It is very good indeed to see you engaging here Lycaon. I realise that you feel that you have issues with Lar however - to me - this is about your communication with our community here on Commons and this is the first we have actually heard from you.
Your images/work here is very welcome indeed and it would be good if you were able to continue working here amicably. Please bear in mind that the edit you removed from your user page was not made by Lar but by Maedin. I would still be of the view that the link (again removed) is something that should be here rather than there be any misunderstandings in the future.
That you apologise is fine but please dear in mind you have chosen to ignore the community here for quite a period now sadly. --Herby talk thyme 13:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
(A technicality; the link was added by Lar, I only made the wording less offensive in the interests of keeping Lycaon unblocked.) Maedin\talk 17:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
@Lycaon: I'm sorry I didn't see and respond to your note right away, (as I have said before) but the point is this matter arose in October, not December, and it's apparently still festering. I don't think casting aspersions on me is going to resolve the issues that others have, is it? I further don't think it's correct to conclude that we "don't want my contributions" and to suggest it is the desired outcome? Well, it seems rather unseemly. But as Herby said, I'm glad you're engaging. What do you think a good resolution would be, given that folk had concerns about double voting and confusion about who was who? ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment - In my humble opinion and with due respect, Lycaon has all the reasons to be angry. As far as I know, it is not part of the official Commons policy to oblige users to declare any IP associations in their user pages. Then, the note that was forced on Lycaon's page is not legitimate and can only be regarded as a punishment. For the record, let me reproduce the conclusion of the RFC/Case/Estrilda: I am going to close this request with no action taken against the accounts involved per the consensus above. Keeping this open any longer seems a bit unfair to Lycaon. Tiptoety 02:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC). Do you see here any approved action of the type that was taken? I don’t. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That "consensus" referred to by Tiptoey included the crosslink requirement, in my view. It was rather a long and involved discussion. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
(after EC) @Alvesgaspar, the crosslink/note had been added on October 22nd and therefore was long in place when Tiptoety closed the RFC. --Túrelio (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • This confirms my impression that the cross-link adition is not supported by Commons policy and was not legitimate. Also, if a consensus were reached on this matter it would evidently be referred to in the conclusion of the RFC discussion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a delicate exercise touching privacy, personal life and personal feelings. I suggest that this discussion is taken off-line by email, moderated by for example user Slaunger. In the mean time, the world will not collapse or stop rotating. --Foroa (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  • As much as I'd like to help. I do not think it would be a good idea to let me moderate an offline resolution. I tried to mediate offline between Lycaon and Mbz1 last summer, and it was unsuccessful. --Slaunger (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Alvesgaspar; I personally don't think that the crosslink is, or should be, a requirement. I also don't think that the supposed double voting and confusion was an issue. This kind of thing happens to exactly the same mild degree all the time between wiki-friends and other users that communicate offline. The fact that they are related is irrelevant. Considering the situation between Lycaon and Mbz1, I perfectly happily believe that Estrilda acted on her own. What I would like to know is why "the community" (apparently so upset by this) was never informed of Lycaon's apology and explanation? That would have been a pretty cool thing to have been told about, seeing as we've all been waiting for it. The time difference between October and December is probably easily explained by Lycaon's being at sea at that time. I say drop it. Maedin\talk 17:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If Lycaon has chosen to send a private message to Lar, I suppose it is because it should stay private, otherwise he could have used the wiki. Thus I do not consider it strange if the community has not heard anything about the private communication, because, it is, well, meant to be private. Secondly, I think that if Lycaon has a problem with how lar has handled that private message, it is a matter that should be settled between the two of them - in private. Instead of indirectly referring to an old private message in public and referring to what it contains without knowing if the opposite party actually agrees with that intrepretation is not the right thing to do IMO. If there is a disagreement about the perception of such a message how could lar possibly respond without compromising the discretion related to the private communication? Instead of providing the community with riddles in terms of subtle commented links to arccom cases, indirect referrals to private communications, then what is the problem in stating directly to the community what Lycaon finds wrong? If there were unintentional actions to apologize for and full explanations, then why can they not be given in a form to the community, where private details are hidden? Whereas several us of would like to move on, I would really appreciate if Lycaon would bring a statement to the community. --Slaunger (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't buy the argument that Lycaon was unavailable for comments until December. Estrilda wrote on October 19, that "My husband cannot answer now because he has no internet access until friday (or earliest maybe thursday)." So was certainly available late October for comments, but chose not to comment at all. --Slaunger (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
As Alves notes it is correct that we do not have a written policy regarding cross-linking on Commons. I think that is becasue the community is quite small and this is the first time this has been a problem. When we do not have a writen policy we often have a look at what is done elsewhere as it could give a hint of the right thing to do. Thus, for instance on en:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Sharing an IP address it is stated:
If editors live or work together and share a computer or an internet connection, or use a public computer or shared network, their accounts may be linked by CheckUser. To avoid accusations of sock puppetry, users in that position should declare the connection on their user pages.
Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.
This is not official Comons policy, but does it not make sense?
Given that Estrilda and Lycaon were accused of sockpuppetry because they "edited with the same objectives", it makes very good sense for me to have the crosslink to avoid future accusation of sockpuppetry. We have several examples of this being a practise on Commons, i.e., Lar & Josette, some time back Sanchezn and Benh who were both active in the FPC circuitry had the same IP, and also declared that via a crosslink on their respective user pages. And because they did that, they stayed out of trouble on FPC. It is entirely normal and non-controversial to do so.--Slaunger (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
When Mbz was editing as 2+2=4, I quoted en wikipedia policy on sockpuppetry and was frankly told that en wikipedia rules don't have to apply here. I appreciate your comments on the topic, Slaunger, but being able to think of two pairs of users that provide crosslinks hardly indicates that it's "normal", and there are probably dozens and dozens who don't declare it. Also, using Lar & Josette isn't a valid example, because Lar suggested/placed the crosslink; we already know he does it for his own situation and doesn't find it to be a problem.
I don't think a crosslink is required either if the two editors "...avoid editing in the same areas...". That is right, you can often get told that en policy does not literally apply here. But it interesting that it is expressed as clearly as this elsewhere. If we were to have a Commons policy on the matter, I would be surprised if it was not similar in spirit to the en one, but with emphasis on different aspects. I agree with you that the lar/Josette connection is only of slight relevance for providing examples. I have not tried to trawl thorugh Commons to look for crosslinks. I just happened to recall the user names of these four. I am sure I have seen other crosslinks here, I just do not recall the user names. --Slaunger (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I was not implying in my earlier comment that we should have been informed of the contents of the private communication, only that private communication had been received. A lot of the fuss about this has all been the fact that there was no response from Lycaon, and a note on the checkuser case (for those of us who have been watching it) would at least have cleared up that misunderstanding. Maedin\talk 11:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for clarifying. Well, I still think that if a message is send privately it would seem odd to mention it in public. I do not see why the CU should act as message carrier in that case (as long as the user giving the message is not blocked or banned). If the user has something to say, then say it! --Slaunger (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
When I was editing as 2+2=4, my other account was blocked by my request, and I informed a check user via private email as soon as I started using 2+2=4 account. He/she told me it was OK. In no time I have voted two times on any of the nominations. It is funny, but I've done it to run from lycaon :) I only wish he talked to me, when I begged him to talk. Many things that happened later could have been avoided then.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't at all suggesting that you made any inappropriate edits; I was only referring to having been told that EN wikipedia policies on these matters don't apply here. I'm attempting to suggest (in response to Slaunger) that we can't pick and choose when to enforce what EN wiki has to say about certain things. Maedin\talk 12:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
You are right about that Maedin. My point is only that when a scenario occurs for which we have no written policy (because it is the first time we see this kind of thing), that does not mean it is "forbidden" to do something which is not written down in policies and guidelines, if a consensus is reached in the community on a per-case basis of what to do. And that is the case here IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought about the policies, and the thing is that, if two persons (roommates, co-workers, relatives) are allowed to vote on the same nominations without declaring they use the same IP, Commons does not need a check user services at all. I'd also like to say that not only slaunger, but at least two other users tried to arrange meditation between lycaon and me via private emails. All attempts have failed because of lycaon unwillingness to do it. I still believe that me and he should talk either publicly or via emails because IMO to resolve the situation that we have now, is better to start from the very beginning.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- Two clarifications. First, there was no clear consensus on the action. If that were the case it should have been mentioned in the conclusion. At most, a small group of people agreed among them (probably with the best intentions) on inserting the note in Lycaon’s page. Second, I don’t think that such a consensus could legitimate that kind of action. There is a non-written policy in Commons that a userpage is a ‘user castle’, as long as the basic rules are respected. If we read carefully the Wikipedia text above we easily conclude that the insertion of a crosslink in a userpage is considered as a voluntary action to avoid suspicions. Nothing in the norm suggests that such action should be enforced against the user’s will. Ahh, I almost forgot: why is Estrilda's page blocked? - Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I do not understand why Estrilda is blocked either. Estrilda acknowledged early on do have done something wrong, she apologized and reassured that it would not happen again. I see no reason why Estrilda should not be given a chance to show a compliance to these well meant intentions. --Slaunger (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I confess I have not had time to follow this much (which is why I posted). However I think the issues was that as there was no response from Lycaon at the time it was felt that the "other" (Estrilda) account should be blocked. I did not keep up with the case particularly but that seems to be it.
Again from memory - there was some apology from Estrilda with the note that Lycaon was away & would be back by... (can't recall). The case was then dormant. It was only re-opened some time later when the time indicated for Lycaon being back and commenting was long past.
In the event that only one account is being used then I see no need for links I guess. However if both accounts were working in the same area of Commons (& voting maybe) then I think it only fair to acknowledge a connection. The fact that two people are on one IP does not mean they agree with one another however were my partner to contribute here (one of the things we do not agree on is wiki work :)) I would certainly expect to cross link to prevent possible misunderstandings.
However - none of this suggests to me that Lycaon should be able to use his user page to effectively attack another user I'm afraid. That at the very least should be sorted out in my mind. (longer than I was planning on typing for - sorry) --Herby talk thyme 16:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      • What lycaon has done with double voting is wrong, but of course I agree about Estrilda unblock too. My concerns is about lycaon, and those are not old concerns, but rather new ones. I tried and failed to understand why lycaon has added to his user page the link to an old arbitration case involving Lar. It is commented out at lycaon's page, but still what that link from English wikipedia is doing at lycaon's user page at Commons? That's why I believe that lycaon still has some problems, which should be addressed IMO. From my own experience I know that the problems that are left alone will come back to hunt us later on.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Since the checkuser result Lycaon has done very little other than edit war--both in his userspace and with image categories. Lycaon's current userpage appears to be a quiet dig at Lar; read the hidden text. That's uncalled-for. We expect administrators to set a better example than spending four months in a pique. On principle, I wouldn't lighten restrictions on anybody in return for this behavior. The question is whether he deserves to remain an administrator. If Lycaon weren't a sysop he would probably have been blocked by now. Durova (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Really not kept up with this but I think he resigned sometime back. --Herby talk thyme 16:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I do not think it is a fair representation of Lycaons recent edits. In this year, all his edits (except for those in user space) has been justified in my opion. He has battled some vandalism on some of his images, uploaded new (interesting) photos, has done uncontroversial and useful categorization work and is participating in COM:VIC with his usual professionalism and know-how. I think we should be careful not to blow things out of proportions. So please be balanced. --Slaunger (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
      • He knows as well as anybody that mass edit warring without discussion is not appropriate. The technical rightness or wrongness of either side's preferred edit is irrelevant. People shouldn't settle differences by attrition. Durova (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
        • And besides he abused administative tools, when he protected the page he was edit warring at.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Agree that edit could be considered an abuse of admin tools, but hardly relevant now, as Hans resigned the day after and thus cannot abuse those tools anymore. It is a matter which would undoubtedly pop up during a new RFA in case he wanted to reapply for adminship at some later stage. For me the resignation indicates an intention to make a fresh start. From the day of resignation and on, all edits outside user space have been constructive, except, perhaps the outburst towards lar in this very thread, but it seems like this is not perceived as a big problem by lar, see below. --Slaunger (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

 Comment - This looks like a discussion between deaf people! Could we please focus on the central issue? Yes, there is a lot of resentment among parts but the objective of this discussion is to advice Herby about the best line of action (please read the beginning!). The facts are: Lycaon came back and removed the crosslink; in the meantime (I’m not sure when) Estrilda was blocked against the conclusion of the previous RFCU. What to do next? We have two points to decide:

  1. If the removal of the crosslink by Lycaon is acceptable in the light of Commons’ policy;
  2. If Estrilda should remain blocked.

My opinion is: Yes and No, for the reasons stated above. - Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cannot agree with you, Alvesgaspar. I would have understood, if lycaon removed the crosslink from his user page - his castle, and probably not would have commented on this post at all. But I cannot understand why while removing the crosslink he added the link to an old (2008) English wikipedia arbitration case involving Lar. Was it done to make lycaon "castle" stronger? IMO that kind of behavior shows that lycaon behaves as... well as lycaon has done on so many occasions in the past. IMO these issues should be addressed once and for all.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 Question - What link? The page is blanked! (I don't like meddling in hidden text) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This link is commented out. That's why you cannot see it, but it is still there. It was put there by lycaon two times (second time after Herby removed it) for the last two days.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The central issue has been addressed: edit warring in defiance of an unusually mild restriction is never grounds for removing that or any other related remedy. One doesn't sway community consensus by disruption. Durova (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with Alvesgaspar on this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Wait a sec, it's looking like this person resigned the tools voluntarily after getting caught by checkuser, dodging questions, and then misusing the page protection button while he edit warred. So he remains eligible to regain the admin bit at any time upon request. Why is there a discussion of rolling out the vested contributor red carpet? Is his photography that good? Some of us have been patient for months but the reasoning just doesn't follow. Durova (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Lycaon is an absolutely great contributor, one of the best. His images are unique, his knowledge is great. He has some problems, which IMO could be resolved once and for all, if he talks to us starting from the very beginning (his issues with me), but knowing lycaon I doubt that he will ever talk, and IMO it is the problem.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
He's an absolutely great photographer. As a contributor he has serious problems. One doesn't excuse the other. Durova (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
If there's any evidence that Lycaon shouldn't be trusted with the tools, (aside from Durova's point above which is also highly relevant) it is the clearly retaliatory and unhelpful Lycaon has been focusing on Lar. Simply put, sockpuppetry, multiple abuses of the tools, and then trying to blame the person who caught you doesn't engender confidence. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Nod. And yet... you know what? At one level anyway, I don't much care that he's focusing on me. I can take it. If I had to choose, I'd rather he was mad at me but otherwise a good contributor (and that Estrilda came back, assuming she's a real person which, despite the socking evidence, is my preferred assumption) than that he left. Of course I'd rather he got along with everyone including me, but I can be the whipping boy if it will help. If there's a way to work through this to a resolution that makes everyone happy, I'm all for it. I said it before, I'll say it again, I'm sorry I missed his mail to me and didn't respond to it right away. But I think there's more to this than just that... I think it's reasonable to ask people to engage in dialog in a fairly timely manner and in a fairly direct/clear manner (not via html comments and edit warring). This matter has went on for the better part of half a year now. It's not a big crisis but clearly it's got people upset. And that's not good. ++Lar: t/c 23:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Comment What is the purpose of the cross-link: Is it to punish Lycaon or to prevent further disruption? Action purely for the sake of punishment isn't appropriate, any action taken should be to protect the wiki (or its users) from further harm. The disruption at the centre of this is (apparent) sockpuppetry for the purpose of votestacking. At present there are two sanctions: The cross-link and the block of Estrilda. Having both in place is redundant, as one negates the utility of the other. Therefore at most 1 of these sanctions is necessary. Of the two, I'd suggest the block is the more useful as it cannot be overturned by Lycaon, whilst he can remove the cross-link (like he did).

Is either sanction really necessary? If Estrilda never returns, definitely not. If both accounts do return, I think its unlikely that further collusion will take place on votes. And if that did occur, I'm certain it will be noticed by other users almost immediately and brought straight back here, and action would be appropriate at that point. Therefore I don't really see any need to either keep Estrilda blocked or impose the cross-link on Lycaon against his will.

Irrespective of this Lycaon's recent actions are still problematic: The lack of communication, the edit-warring and associated abuse of page protection and the apparent attack on Lar on his user page. These are not the sort of actions I would want to see from any user, nevermind an administrator. Lycaon voluntarily had +sysop removed in January, with Bastique saying it can be restored upon request. IMO, the circumstances surrounding the request are contraversial and if Lycaon wants to be an admin again he should have to make another RFA, a note to that effect should be made at Commons:List of former administrators. As for the html comment, there is no productive purpose for it so it should be removed.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cross-link is not a punishement. Lar has it on his user page, and nobody "punished" him, yet I agree that, if lycaon takes it as a punishement, let's it have removed, and let's unblock estrilda. Let's do everything we could to bring him back as a contributor. Yet IMO there are some issues that nobody, but lycaon himself should address. I am much more concern with what you, Nilfanion, call "recent actions". Those are not "recent actions", but rather a pattern of behavior, and IMO it has to be addressed, otherwise sooner or later lycaon would be discussed on that board yet another time.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Nilfanion, the cross link was implemented because checkuser connected two undisclosed accounts that had both voted identically at the same featured content candidacies. Durova (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It is yet my another appeal to lycaon: Lycaon I wanted you to come back very, very much. I hoped you will come back with a different attitude than the one you left with, and I am disappointed it is not the case. Please, lycaon, let us have a dispute resolution, I agree on each and every condition you'd like to ask for, and on any moderator of your choice. I am not saying that I am all right and you are all wrong, not at all, I just believe we need to talk. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The standard solution to CU-confirmed administrator socking at projects where that has a history of happening is involuntary desysopping unless the administrator has a very good explanation. Not only has Lycaon's explanation fallen far short, he subesquently misused his admin buttons. We have already been lenient to an unprecedented degree. Durova (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
With respect to cross-link, yes its standard practice (standard practice would probably involve the use of {{Sockpuppet}}). I'd strongly encourage Lycaon to accept some form of cross-link, but forcing it on him against his will is a punitive measure. As I said initially, the continued existence of the link won't act to reduce disruption in future, as users will notice if Estrilda and Lycaon vote-stack again, whether the cross-link is there or not. The cross-link also won't help if another 'related' user is created and abused in a similar manner. Therefore, whilst I'd would prefer the link in place, if Lycaon doesn't want it it does more harm by forcing it on him (both the loss of a contributor, even if he needs reform, and causing threads like this one are harmful) than any benefit that may derive from it (which IMO is minimal).
The desysop portion of this: He resigned voluntarily, but under controversial circumstances. Elsewhere, that would be equivalent to an involuntary desysop in terms of what it means for him to regain the bit. I suggest we do the same here and require him to go through a full request if and when he desires +sysop again.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
That seems reasonable enough. How would Commons enact that? Durova (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree - though I'd oppose such a request if I saw it (which I wouldn't, I don't follow RFA), lycaon has often exhibited aggressive/uncivil behaviour in my interactions with him. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

 Comment For what it is worth, when I closed the RFCU the consensus I was referring to was that of leaving the accounts unblocked and placing cross-links on each of their userpages. That said, things have changed since then and it appears one of the two have been blocked, which is regrettable. I would really like to see both accounts unblocked. Also, in the future could someone give me a heads up when a thread "involving" me pops up. Thanks! Tiptoety talk 09:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  •  Comment I've thought about lycaon, and came to conclusion that maybe we just have to let him be, and leave him alone. I hope he will do the right thing and remove the link about old arbitration case from his user page. Sometimes the only thing that a user needs is just some kindness and understanding. Maybe it is the time to give it to lycaon. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A wrap up?

Lycaon has removed the aforementioned commented link from his user page, which is good news. I think we could wrap this up now and give Lycaon some room to breath. Does anyone disagree with the following conclusion?

Estrilda block
There seems to be no valid arguments for keeping Estrilda locked, so Estrilda should be unblocked.
Crosslink
As Nilfanion wizely argued above (the argument convinced me at least), the present crosslink does not really serve a purpose, and if Lycaon does not want it, it is accepted.
Lycaons admin role
Lycaon has voluntarily given up his admin rights. If Lycaons wants to become a Commons admin again, he would have to pass a new RFA, given the controversy related to his previous adminship.
Commons:Sockpuppetry
It is evident that a lack of clear guidelines have been a confusing element and difficult element in this case. I think we need to establish such a policy, to avoid similar confuion in the future.

--Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I endorse Slaungers conclusions. Let's move on please. Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The primary purpose of the user space notice would be to alert the community in case of future instances of double voting. So keeping the notice while the Estrilda account is blocked might be redundant, but with Estrilda unblocked it wouldn't be redundant. A fairly small portion of the Commons community is aware of this situation and people constantly join and retire. If there's a way around that which is satisfactory to everybody, the rest of Slaunger's solution looks fine. Durova (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I endorse Slauger's points. The linkage of the two accounts is noted elsewhere and suffices, in my opinion.[34] Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I am absolutely sure that never again there will be double voting by lycaon and estrilda, and although cross-link is not a punishment, and it might be the right thing to do, but I believe that sometimes there's a time, when one should do what is the kind thing to do versus what is the right thing to do. I believe it is that time now. That's why I support unblocking estrilda, and leaving lycaon's user page the way he wants it to be. Maybe, with time he would add the cross-link himself, and if he will not, so it be. The suffering of a real person cannot be justified by a need of enforcing of any Commons policy, and I know both lycaon and estrilda have suffered a lot. I also believe that although lycaon had abused some administrative tools in the past, he should be allowed to get back his administrator-ship without a new RFA, if he wants to get it back. The thing is that lycon is doing so much useful work that requires to have the tools. He rarely, almost never used the tools to do something else, but his work on improving Commons. I am glad he's back. Let's move on.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Slaunger's proposed resolution works for me as well, with the proviso that if there is an issue of double voting again in the future, at that point I'd want the crosslink placed. But for now I think we can let this be without requiring it in both directions... it is sufficient that it is in one direction, and Estrilda should be unblocked. On the matter of adminship I do not agree with Mbz1, no readminship without an RfA, since the circumstances surrounding the resignation are controversial. As I said above, I would like to see everyone return to peaceful and productive editing. ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I've asked Abigor, the blocking admin, to consider unblocking Estrilda and to participate here... give it a bit of course but let's see if we can get that part sorted too. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Abigor has not edited the last 8 days, and from the note on his user page it seems likely that he will not be able to respond soon. The block reason Abigor placed on Estrildas talk pages solely refers to crosslinking issues and the decision in the RFCU case. It seems unlikely for me, that Abigor had other reasons for blocking that what is stated in the block message. Thus, I do not think we need to wait for Abigor to get back on this issue to raise the block on Estrilda. --Slaunger (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I pinged him via email, failing a response soon, someone else should unblock, I think. I will do so if no one else beats me to it by this time tomorrow, unless there is a clear consensus not to (which I would be surprised by, to say the least). ++Lar: t/c 05:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreeing with Lar. Durova (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Strongly disagreeing with Lar. Or is this a general requirement, that contributors disclose partners? Why then is anonymous editing allowed? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
To kuiper here's a quote by Esby just for you "I mean I am tired of reading idiocy like that one"--Mbz1 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course discloseure is not a general requirement, Pieter. But when a previously undisclosed "spouse" votes identically with an administrator in featured content discussions, and both accounts dodge questions for months afterward while presenting no substantial reason other than their say-so that two separate people exist, that's a problem. And experienced administrators are expected to understand and respect what type of doubts that raises. Durova (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Lar, I withdraw my proposal about readminship without an RfA mostly because of Noodle snacks comment: "lycaon has often exhibited aggressive/uncivil behaviour in my interactions with him." If lycaon "exhibited aggressive/uncivil behaviour" towards one of the nicest user on Commons there's a bigger problem I thought it was.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with Slaunger's comments. Adambro (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


  •  Support I support an unblock. Let us be happy that both wants to contribute to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support of Slaunger's summary, Lar's comment, and Durova's response to Pieter. It is not a general requirement but it quite unfortunate for a couple and for the community if a partnership gets disclosed through a checkuser check. And please unblock Estrilda. I do not expect the pattern that led to the checkuser case to be repeated. In my opinion, crosslinks are no longer necessary because this is now well known to most admins and other senior users. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Crosslinks are no longer necessary in this particular case, but I still think they are a reasonable requirement in the general case, when confusion is likely. This isn't en:wp but I've, as the checkuser investigating the matter or the blocking admin, often required them as a condition of an unblock there, when confusion would otherwise result. We need to clarify this part of our policy at some point, as was pointed out above, so we can avoid this sort of thing happening again. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Hi Lar, I think that we concur. I agree with you that crosslinks shall be given when confusion would otherwise result. Hence, the crosslinks are not necessary in a case where the activities are disjoint which was not the case here. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I have removed the block Huib talk 05:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Lycaon's vote stacking, stifling of dissent and refusal to respond to the important and legitimate concerns the community raised, all with no apology to the community show profound disrespect for the community. What does it say about our own self-respect if we allow such behaviour by an administrator? It would show we don't have much self-respect. And what would it say about the administrators if they allow such behaviour?

I infer that the private email to Lar was not something most folks would actually consider to be a real 'apology' for the behaviour of most concern. I think Lycaon most certainly must go through an RFA to get his adminship back, and that we should have a record that shows we agree on that. (The unblock I agree with.) --Elvey (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, some people believe that vote stacking went on only on my FP nominations because lycaon and me have some disagreements, but it is not the case. The vote stacking is going as far back as 2007 POTY contest that was run in early 2008. I do believe it would have been great, if lycaon talked to the community, and to me personally, but from my own experience with him, I know that, if he does not want to talk, he will not. That's why I am glad that estrilda was unblocked, and the cross-link notice was taken off lycaon's page. I do hope it is the end of that. Welcome back, Estrilda :)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Does the commons accept licenses from people who are minors in their jurisdictions? This person is most likely a minor, can he release the image legally? -- Avi (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My view, licenses are a form of contract, and minors are not competent to enter into contracts (by definition), and any "licenses" they grant are therefore unenforceable in their jurisdiction. ++Lar: t/c 05:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
By submitting an edit, you irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL.
Then any minor's edits are "unenforceable in their jurisdiction". I'll have to humbly disagree with Lar. Killiondude (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I think all edits by minors are "unenforceable in their jurisdiction", actually. It's just something we've conveniently ignored. Minors are not competent to enter into contracts. That includes terms and conditions of websites, which the text you cite happens to be. The way around the difficulty is to require parental consent and parental acknoweldgement of responsibility for what the minor does. Whether that's a practical or workable requirement is a different question, you have to start constructing the website from the get go with a view to getting round the issue. Which Wikipedia (from whence Commons evolved), IMHO, did not. ++Lar: t/c 06:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
My point was that we allow articles (text) written primarily by minors (some of which prove to be very good content producers on Wikipedia, for example) to be licensed under a free license. What is different with images? Looking at my previous post, I'm not sure why I quoted the "unenforceable" part... I think I was preoccupied and let my fingers type without thinking. Killiondude (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The fact that we ignore an issue when it is convenient for us does not mean thatthe issue has disappeared :( There is the further issue of protecting the minor from stalkers etc. Someone who is not of legal majority is not expected to understand or be responsible for the ramifications of his or her actions. This minor released an image together with the neighborhood in which they live. That is dangerous. At least, a major is assumed to be aware of the risks; a minor is not, which is another reason I think this image should be deleted and quickly. -- Avi (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Nod. Ignorance is no defense. I'm just observing that it's what we do, in rebuttal to Killiondude, and that doing it doesn't make it correct. Consensus here cannot overturn law. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
There are several photographers on Wikimedia Commons that are considered minors in the region they reside in (regular contributors, some are even admins). Do you propose we delete all their images? Killiondude (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(<-) For safety issues, I have deleted the image while the discussion is ongoing. I will not re-delete should someone else restore the image, but if anyone does, please understand the the effects of your actions on this child may be deleterious in the extreme. Perhaps I am somewhat paranoid, but dealing with oversight issues on EnWiki constantly, I have seen cases of stalking and am willing to err on the side of wikimedian safety. -- Avi (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Good call. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get it. Sure, the image may not be in the project scope; that's the only reason I can see to delete it though. There are thousands of images uploaded by minors, and like Killiondude I'm curious as to whether that's really an issue. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of them, I hope, do not contain images of themselves and discuss where they live. If they do, they are a danger to the minor. -- Avi (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, certainly. If that's the issue, I completely agree, although I was under the impression that this thread proposes all self-made images uploaded by minors are dangerous. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily dangerous (whether they are or not is a function of what the image is of, and what narrative text is included with the description), just potentially not validly licensed, since minors are not competent to enter into contracts. It seems to me that we have defacto accepted that exposure. ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I started a VP thread about this (yesterday I think?) here. People knowledgeable about legal situations in other countries have responded. Killiondude (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuing dispute from wikipedia

On wikipedia there has been a dispute lasting almost one year, there has been an arbitration case, on the 21th I added link to wikimedia on my user page at wikipedia.

An Ip address, of course either Arab Cowboy or an account which is exclusively used to perform same edits as him Nefeer Tweety has now shown up at wikimedia to continue this dispute: [35] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like both sides need to take a chill-pill. We have an image, with a name about a person. If you wish to have a descriptive text that addresses either viewpoint, then do it on the talk page. The recent edit, while not being particularly helpful, may or not be factually-based. We could remove all information about nationality and just have personal details if there is a looming battle. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It was an edit without any kind of interest in improving the description of the image, he added text in the licensing section, not really caring what he does, just to push his own pov.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please remove initial version of "Antwort auf Petition A-17-99-1030-003430.pdf"

Please remove the first version of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antwort_auf_Petition_A-17-99-1030-003430.pdf. The first version contains private address information which habe been removed in the second version. --Fasten (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

✓ DoneKwj2772 (msg) 14:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --Fasten (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer is back

User:Flavius92 is back as User:Flavioadln (see [36]) and is up to his old tricks of uploading copyright violations and forging licenses[37]. -Nard the Bard 02:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Processed by Martin H. – Kwj2772 (msg) 03:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I ask to delete respective image as copyvio or to reopen the discussion at least.

  1. Julo is interested party. So, I don't think he cann't close such discussion.
  2. He is mistaken. The works created by official agencies are not always official works by default. This map was created by official agency, but it is not official work, because this work hasn't got legislative, administrative and judicial character. Alex Spade (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, he could have skipped the comment and just closed it as "Kept" with the same rationale, but it's common practice not to close something you're involved with. Feel free to re-open that. Rocket000 (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

en:wiki Indef blocked user lanches nationalistic campaign

Recently User:Sarandioti made his come back in wikipedia trying to add unsourced comments on a map I've recently created [[38]]. Above mentioned user is indef blocked from en:wiki [[39]], after launching nationalistic sockpuppet campaigns. [[40]] with endless wp:npa, wp:civility violations.Alexikoua (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I just added a note in order to explain the situation User:Alexikoua deliberately tries to not mention. The map uses for modern estimates as a primary source a 1918 map. The note I added is wp:obvious, and therefore asking source for it is wikilaweyring. User:Alexikoua should stop vandalizing it therefore.--Sarandioti (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dont change the creator's map when he explicitly rejects such a change. You can talk and have him disagree or agree, but dont force changes like that. Megistias (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The new map should be uploaded under another filename. Up to users at WP to decide which one to include. -- User:Docu at 12:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua created a map adding the area of Gjirokaster inhabited by greeks, although as the source used in en-wiki for the minority in Gjirokaster city the greek population is minority of 4000 in a total population of 30000.[41]. There is a similar situation in all the other major cities and districts, and because of that I added the explanatory note, that although there is presence of non-Albanian populations, Albanians form the majority. Alexikoua well-known for his nationalist editing(and also blocked for it several times) tries to mislead the readers without mentioning which population forms the majority. Also note that he has been tagteaming with several users like Megistias.--Sarandioti (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You did not follow rules at wiki and go indefinetely banned, follow the rules here. This is not en:wikiMegistias (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Will you disprove my sources or continue making personal attacks?? Why does it bother you and your tagteaming friend Alexikoua the addition of a fully sourced note?? Greeks do not form the majority in any district, and I can present much more sources than that, so stop vandalizing and tagteaming.--Sarandioti (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I have all of Alexikoua's files in my watchlist just like i have thousands of other files...Such a discussion belongs in en:wiki not here as Docu has informed you.Megistias (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Flickr: PEOSoldier

FlickReview irrelevant? -- 78.55.206.47 06:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Flickr user claims to be an official branch of the U.S. Army; see his Flickr profile. Hence their "© All rights reserved" appears to be wrong; their materials would be PD-USGov. Lupo 17:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
In fact it is photostream of https://peosoldier.army.mil/, press at any image on the website, it will lead to Flickr --Justass (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Administrators, please replace Página with Galeria in this message, which is shown for users that have defined Brazilian Portuguese (pt-br) as a language in the preferences. --Francisco (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Done by Rocket000 (talk · contribs). — Dferg (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Attempted outing

Resolved

See here [42]. Crossposted from the board on en:Wikipedia, as this user probably wants to be blocked in both places. See here for background. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

vandalized page deleted, Truthseekers666 (talk · contribs) warned --Justass (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocked by User:NuclearWarfare NativeForeigner (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet policy

Hi Administrators,

As was recently discussed here we need a dedicated Commons policy regarding sockpuppetry and I think it would be natural if administrator(s) were involved in drafting it. I have opened at thread about it at Commons:Village pump#Commons:Sockpuppetry. --Slaunger (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Uploads by Ahsaninam

Resolved

After dealing with an editor uploading copyrighted images on false licences on en.wiki I discovered that he may have been operating here under a different username. Ahsaninam (talk · contribs) seems to have uploaded a substantial number of copyrighted images. Many of them have already been deleted, and starting from his earliest remaining uploads I have already identified six out of seven checked as copyright violations. Do I need to waste my time finding the rest, or would anyone be willing to just delete all his remaining uploads? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor was previously blocked at Commons for copyvio and resumed copyvios with falsified sources, including claiming that a 1971 news photograph was his own work. Efforts at dialog over image copyvios at two WMF projects have been unsuccessful (problems and dialog have been attempted for 11 months). The other project indeffed today; I've nuked the uploads and indeffed also. Durova (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename of picture

This picture here: File:Quenitra destroyed by the israelis.jpg

I understand why someone wanted it renamed, (see talkpage) so I can accept that the image be renamed to "Quneitra destroyed", would appreciate it if some admin could carry out the rename. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page earlier this week. Carry out your discussion on the talk page, reach an agreement on the preferred name (or agreement on the least unpreferred name) and it will be undertaken. It is not for discussion here. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion requested

User talk:Simongad has uploaded already several photos all of which have been deleted for copyright violation. There are still a dozen or more in his contribution list all of which appear to have been uploaded from the photo galleries at this site. The latest that I have found are:

At this point, all the other photos in this user's contribution list -- all of which are of the same subject -- can probably be suspected as copyright violations, too. Rather than searching through the hundreds of photos on that website, so that these others can be tagged, I think an administrator can delete the rest of these files as copyright violations. CactusWriter (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If it was published elsewhere before, you should ask the uploader to send a permission to COM:OTRS. BTW, the tag to use is "permission missiong", not copyvio. -- User:Docu at 20:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, copyvio is the correct template to use in this case. If there was a template which temporarily blanked the photograph from public view, then a permission discussion could be initiated with the uploader directing them through the OTRS permission procedure. (This is the way we handle some copyvios on en.Wikipedia) However, uploading photos which are clearly unlicensed for free use are copyright violations and should be the speedily deleted. If you look at the photos which have already been deleted, you will see that the user is uploading other material which is clearly not their own (copyrighted posters, other facebook page photos, etc), but still claiming it is their own work. CactusWriter (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The template is at Template:Image permission. -- User:Docu at 01:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, {{Copyvio}} was the right tag for this case. {{Npd}} can be used when it is reasonably conceivable that a valid permission could be obtained, but one certainly isn't confined to it as the only option simply because the uploader added complete but clearly bogus information on a file. An obvious copyvio is still an obvious copyvio. LX (talk, contribs) 06:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't that depend on the link between the uploader and that website? -- User:Docu at 07:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
There were photos from various different sites in this case. LX (talk, contribs) 07:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally an answer from Ubisoft

The nearly endless story of the "Ubisoft template" is coming to an end. Wikimédia France, the French local Wikimedia chapter, contacted Ubisoft headquarters and got a very clear answer. Jean-Frédéric wrote at the end of the long, long and still open deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 3:

This means that Template:Attribution-Ubisoft and all images using it have to be deleted, and best speedily, as these are unlicensed material, simply a copyvio based on a misinterpreted mail exchange. And why am I posting this here? Well, it's a lot. 753 images in Category:Ubisoft images that all have to go. And it certainly affects lots of Wikipedias who are currently using these images. Maybe some of them can upload some of the images locally under "fair use" instead (e.g. the English Wikipedia; however, others don't have this option, like the German one). So the admin doing the deletion should be prepared to receive quite a lot of feedback/questions, I suppose. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, the "Attribution-Ubisoft" template needs to be deleted where it exists separately in Wikipedia language versions, too, of course. It seems to be used at least in the English and in the Russian Wikipedia (en:Template:Attribution-Ubisoft and ru:Шаблон:Attribution-Ubisoft); however, I'm not familiar with deletion procedures over there (especially as it involves deleting "local" images as well, resp. deciding whether some can/should be kept under "fair use") - maybe I'll manage appropriate deletion requests in the English Wikipedia, but I don't understand Russian (and Babelfish/Google Translate doesn't work too well for communication). Gestumblindi (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I closed it. For the English language Wikipedia, I'd recommend going to Templates for deletion. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, template DR in English Wikipedia opened. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
These are great news. Don’t get me wrong, I fight for every piece of true free content on Wikimedia Commons. But finally we have an official statement on this case and an insight how difficult it is to obtain free licenses from someone who is entitled to decide. For too long have some of us avoided to ask again and again to avoid misunderstanding, making us believe that everything is just okay. rtc brought this up again and again over the past years and a lot of users never get tired of bashing his person and his concerns. Maybe it’s time for little apology? And thanks to all the other users involved in this case, helping to bring it to an end. --Polarlys (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we should mark these images as no permission, that would give the uploaders some warning and a chance to move the files to other wikis. -Nard the Bard 22:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What about User:Avatar/Ubisoft, User:Avatar/Ubisoft/es and User:Avatar/Ubisoft/pl? For the time being, I have placed a warning box at the top of these pages. But probably they should be deleted as well? I'm not sure, would a DR be appropriate? User Avatar hasn't been active on Commons for several months now, but I see he was recently active in the German Wikipedia, so I'll post a pointer at his discussion page there. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted these permissions and notified User:Avatar. We don’t need a DR here, since it can’t change anything about this invalid permission. --Polarlys (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is a pretty big hit for Commons. :( On the other hand, we'll probably get like ten new images for each one that is deleted! :) --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could an administrator please grant the renaming of File:BlackRock wordmark.svg so that I can upload the new version of the logo? --Beao 17:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell: Cyr uploaded the images at full res, say 3000x2000 but forbids distribution higher than 1024x768. I should point out that technically commons is violating this license as well, since it's distributing them in full resolution.

Previous discussion took place here: [47] and here. There didn't seem to be any resolution (pun) of the issue though. I came across one of these today and noticed the license terms incompatible with commons. It's a wide range of high quality images, so I don't know how you all want to handle this. Gigs (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Basque

I use Commons in Basque language (eu:) and some words of the sidebar are still in english and not in basque. There are also some mistakes in Basque. These are the corrections needed:

  • Welcome ----> Ongietorria
  • Txokoa (or community portal) ----> Komunitatearen ataria
  • Village pump ----> Txokoa
  • participate ----> parte hartu
  • Latest files ----> Azken fitxategiak
  • Random file ----> Ausazko fitxategia
  • Contact page ----> Harremanetan jarri
  • Subpages ----> Azpiorrialdeak

Thanks.--An13sa (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in making Commons easier to use. I don't work in this area, but COM:INT has some information of localization. "Translatewiki.net is a localisation platform for translation communities, language communities, and open source projects."[48] Basque is listed in the pulldown menu on Translatewiki.net. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Right, but these strings are Commons-specific translations, defined by MediaWiki:Sidebar, and the subpages translation is in MediaWiki:Common.js. I'm gonna create them by now. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Eskerrikasko. Thanks.--An13sa (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nosey Parker (sock-puppet suspicion)

I'm not too sure of your guys page structure and I know WMF wikis do their own thing, but: from the en:wiki perspective, User:s Caro 08, Caro7440, Caro100 and Quebec7440 are almost certainly the same person and are all currently indefblocked. A large part of the disruption there was about a desire to include images they'd uploaded here. Based on the similarities between the Caro 08 and Quebec7440 accounts here, if y'all have a sock investigation process or such-like, I'd suggest this is a good candidate. Franamax (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done That was already adressed on one other Checkusers user talk and just done by me as I know the case of this en:Canada image vandal. Confirmed and blocked. The CU process for such cases is placed on COM:RFCU. --Martin H. (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Old images to be deleted/kept

Could a friendly admin please take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07, and conclude the discussion? It is not good to have such requests sitting around for 8 months.

Additionally, there are a lot of images in Commons:Deletion requests/2009/09. This is such a long time ago that no more discussion will be taking place. Shouldn't there be a guideline that says requests should be closed with delete or keep after 3 months or something? That would prevent old stale request from building up and causing mini-nightmares for someone who has to deal with them, especially since many of them are inconclusive. This, that and the other (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}} -- User:Docu at 07:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I would, but I'm not an admin. So I can't delete things, and I'm not entitled to close controversial requests as keep. This, that and the other (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I closed the only DR for July 2009 as keep. I still need to remove the templates, but my browser is acting up. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Docu's getting a little sassy lately. Too bad we have a tendency to discourage non-admins from closing DRs. :-) Killiondude (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Have a look at Category:Deletion requests July 2009 - lots of unlogged ones. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I logged all those in the category in the 2010-03-01 page. This, that and the other (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm working through September until I get bored or it comes time to go to church. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Organizing upload watch

I want YOU for recent uploads patrol

Hi all. What would you think about organizing our informal watch of recent uploads in the kind of way RC patrols can be set up in some WPs? I am thinking of a page where admins (or trusted users) would sign up for a given time range on a given day, according to their availability (either for real-time watching or for coming back in upload history to the selected range). I think it would help us improve the "input filter" on Commons. It would also give some kind of visibility (and legitimacy?) to this upload watch. Finally, we (the few admins often working on recent uploads) could avoid losing time by all going to the same images at the same time, and go directly to an unwatched time range (and inform others about that by filling the "register"). --Eusebius (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, though I've no idea how RC patrols are organized on wikipedias. --Túrelio (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I've only a dim idea, I've never been part of any, but I'm not sure that we need, to start with, much more organization that I've described. --Eusebius (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just made Commons:Recent uploads patrol, to start the thing... --Eusebius (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Would be nice if the patrols would look for material for QI-pictures, too, specially from good new photographers. --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll add that. --Eusebius (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Our upload watch really needs some improvement. Today an IP left a note and proof that File:Highcourtcuttack.jpg wasn’t as claimed by uploader Cuttack Shines (talk · contribs), but taken from Flickr without permission (and actually licensed NC). When I then checked the other uploads of this user, I found that nearly all carried a description “collected from internet”, placed there by the uploader himself, though at the same time he had claimed them as own work. However, despite this contradictory information, all these images had remained unnoticed since October 27/28, 2009. --Túrelio (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Then sign up now, people! It's not a job! It's an adventure! --Eusebius (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If anyone's got a spare moment, could they please rename the above file for me? I'd be awfully grateful! Thanks. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 01:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done by User:Billinghurst. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I did. Getting the list closer to 200. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 12:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but when uploading it with Brian's Tool I missed to change the file's name into something senseful. Tanks for fixing. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama and deletion of images

On a large number of occasions, I have tagged images of statues and other 3d works of art erected in the U.S. post 1923 and other various clauses of copyright in the U.S. I.e., protected works. Under Freedom of Panorama provisions in US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2) whoever holds copyright of the original has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works of that artwork. Therefore, any photographs of those sculptures where the sculpture is not de minimis to the photograph, but the focus of the photograph, are encumbered with rights held by the holder of the rights to the artwork.

Recently, I tagged several photographs of sculptures produced by Dale Chihuly and installed at locations in the United States. These are:

  1. File:Missouri Botanical Garden - Climatron with artworks by Dale Chihuly.JPG, which was subsequently deleted by administrator Túrelio.
  2. File:Phipps - 003.JPG [49]
  3. File:Phipps - 001.JPG [50]
  4. File:Chiluly at PHX Botanical Garden.jpg [51]

In cases 2 and 3, administrator Sv1xv reverted the taggings [52][53], indicating in edit summaries that these were not obvious copyright violations. I raised the issue with him on his talk page here, and some other discussion has occurred on my talk page here. I've attempted to explain the freedom of panorama issues with this administrator, and also pointed to two tightly related cases at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chihuly glass in the Phoenix Botanical Garden.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chihuly glass in milwaukee.JPG.

Despite this, and having been informed of the deletion request of (what is probably) the same work at the Phoenix Botanical Garden which closed as delete, administrator Sv1xv removed the copyright violation tag in case 4 above [54], stating that a regular deletion request is more appropriate for this request.

These images are blatant copyright violations. We have {{Fop-cv}} for a reason, and this is it. In the two deletion requests on similar work that I noted above, it took five months...FIVE MONTHS...for those deletion requests to be closed. Meanwhile, Commons hosted blatant derivatives of copyrighted work. Why must these blatant copyright violations have to suffer through a several months long quagmire of bureaucratic red tape? And for what purpose? We have plenty of other examples of this artist's work at Dale Chihuly, with de minimis examples and plenty of examples of installations in countries where freedom of panorama does apply to works of art.

I am of course not looking for any sanction upon administrator Sv1xv, but would appreciate it if an administrator would be so kind as to delete these blatant violations and take the opportunity to cordially educate Sv1xv about freedom of panorama law in the United States as opposed to his native country, which has substantially different law.

Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed your message here. I have already submitted a regular deletion request for these images. I believe that you misused the speedy deletion procedure. The uploaders of these images have also the right to post their comments and objections. SV1XV (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I just noted this. I would agree with your reasons, but you created an incomplete deletion request, which will take at least half a year to get noticed by administrators that clean up old DRs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
For some reason either Perhaps I was distracted and did not finish it or the other pages were not saved due to a computer problem. So what? Does it really mean anything relevant to this discussion ? SV1XV (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
@SV1XV, as I've stated already in the above mentioned RFD, if an image that would only be legal if covered by FOP, but is clearly not covered by FOP due to its location (country without FOP or not for that kind of object), then it's a copyvio and should be speedy-deleted. If the case is unclear, for example due to eventually being de minimis, then it should go in a RFD, of course. --Túrelio (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
You stated but I strongly disagree with your view. Speedy deletion should be restricted to really blatant abuses like scans magazine covers and pages, screen captures, album covers, internet harvesting and similar. We already have lots of them. SV1XV (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
While you are free to disagree with me, our deletion policy clearly states that speedy-deletion is required for "obvious copyright violations", which is true in many of these copyrighted-and-no-FOP cases. And "We already have ..." is rather irrelevant in view of our duty to remove a copyvio which not only violates the rights of the author but also may mislead re-users and expose them to litigation. --Túrelio (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
In this case you state not only the policy but also your interpretation of it. I don't disagree that these images should go. However I have the right to request a discussion about them instead of a speedy deletion and to allow the uploaders to reply. SV1XV (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Photos where the main subject is a copyrighted non-free work not covered by freedom of panorama are obvious copyright violations. Copyright violations are to be deleted on sight per Commons policies. There really isn't anything more subjective about this than album covers. If the uploader would like to object they can do so at COM:UNDEL, but a response from an uploader isn't going to change copyright laws or Commons policies. LX (talk, contribs) 13:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleting on sight... What comes next? There is no need to continue this discussion, this simple phrase made your views and intentions absolutely clear. SV1XV (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
My "views and intentions"? It's a direct quote from Commons:Deletion requests/Speedy deletion. LX (talk, contribs) 16:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Túrelio. There are some ambiguous cases such as File:Millau-Viaduct-France-20070909.jpg (is the object of the picture protected or not?) or De minimis issues. However, most copyrighted-and-no-FOP cases are straightforward, blatant abuses and as such should be deleted on sight, as per our policy. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Turelio as well. I've noticed that some people get upset when admins speedy delete images that are clear violations of FOP. I'm glad this topic was brought up. Killiondude (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sv1xv, could you please explain, in which case a picture of a copyrighted object which could only be justified by FOP should not be deleted when it is taken in a country without FOP? Perhaps by an example? --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, is there some bot we can use to transwiki copyrighted-and-no-FOP pictures to Wikipedias allowing Fair Use, such as en:? I suspect that more often than not, admins wait for the pictures to be uploaded elsewhere. Sometimes it never happens. We can't do everything by hand when there are lots of pictures involved (see for instance Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Korean War Veterans Memorial), plus all of us don't always know the proper en: procedures. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear colleagues, I usually don’t ask anyone to do close my requests for deletion. In this case, some IPs always remove my rationale. The files are widely used and maybe some people are disappointed about losing their derivative works. Please have a look at this request and decide in the near future. Thank you. --Polarlys (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Earthquake in Chile

Please pay attention to several (flickr washing?) attemps to upload images mostly displayed at http://www.boston.com/bigpicture. The stuff is “freely” licensed here for example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rlinfati/ --Polarlys (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like unintentional flickrwashing; he gives the sources here. Probably he's just not aware that he shouldn't tag these as CC-BY-SA. He seems to license his own photos normally under that license and may have just forgotten to change his default settings for these earthquake uploads. But of course it's still a problem for us... Lupo 12:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Ill add a link to COM:QFI refering to this posting to keep track of this earthquake images. --Martin H. (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done, deleted the speedy nominated 1 and 2 images. The mentioned famous picture was already deleted, regretably at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A man holds up a Chilean flag in a flooded area after an earthquake in Pelluhue.jpg :/ Now there is with File:Kiosko plaza cauquenes.jpg only 1 valid image by that user on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, in this case it is unintentional and our user only uploaded one image. We can't blame him for anything, trust has to start somewhere and if it's not your daily business looking at photos of current events, this can happen. But it's not the first earthquake upload from flickr these days, one was a candidate on Commons:Featured pictures. Is there the possibility of a blacklist for the flickr control bot? Maybe a list every sysop can edit here on Commons? --Polarlys (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC) PS: Just found User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors. --Polarlys (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, got a flickr account now to talk to people directly who upload whole sets of images under wrong licenses. --Polarlys (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)