Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10

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

Maximiliandrake

Maximiliandrake (talk · contribs) has been uploading some images from flickr which were licenced as all rights reserved. I deleted these, and slapped him with a copyvio warning. Having now checked his history, I see images uploaded almost a year ago which stated the author/source to be someone else, but which were never tagged as missing permissions. It makes me seriously doubt the validity of any "own work" he claims. He tagged Image:Ac_zam_mex2.jpg with {{OTRS-pending}} when there was no such message. Could some spanish-speaking admin please sort this guy out and deal with him as you see fit? Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about JPG vs. PNG

I recently discovered that I need to delete and then re-upload a number of images I posted last month (filenames are tagged with the wrong location information). When I posted them originally I converted them from the original "Super-High Quality" JPGs my 10 megapixel DSLR camera takes to PNG output, which I understand is considered the preferable format. The resulting images are significantly larger than the original in terms of file size, and I noticed that thumbnail images took longer to render than their JPG equivalents. Also, all of the camera-related information embedded within the original JPG is stripped away.

So my question is: is PNG still preferred over JPG past a certain file size?

As a reference, the images I have posted (and which I intend to re-post with the correct location info in the filenames) can be found at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Captmondo/gallery#Paleozoological_Museum_of_China_.28May_2008.29

Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You can read about file formats at Commons:File types#Images. For photos JPG is the preferred file format. If the file already is a JPG, converting it to PNG only makes a larger file size without any improved quality. /Ö 17:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I took the line in that section saying "If you have a choice of file formats in which to save a photograph choose PNG for use on Wikipedia" as being the basis for choosing to save my cropped/edited JPGs in the PNG format. Okay, I get that was not what was intended with that line. Thank you! Captmondo (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Check image

Please check the Image:Mutantes1.jpg. Thanks. Fabiano msg 21:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Recreated copyvio. Deleted along with most of the other uploads from the user. Blocked them again too. Thanks. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

PNG thumb not created after uploading a new version of a SVG image

I uploaded a new version of Image:Treaty of Lisbon ratification.svg and as you can see the software didn't recreate the PNG thumbnail. I've tried to upload the file another time but the software didn't do nothing. Any idea? --Nick84 (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with thumbnail creation, see Special:NewImages. Multichill (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Would explain why I've got the same issue with Image:Yellow Hibiscus 5924.jpg. :( Bidgee (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be fixed now. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

pls block and delete

Once again, the vandal with parsonal attacks has been here. see Image:Jan Koukal, upravenec.jpg (it is a not free given photo of mine) and User:Jan Koukal z Berlína (which is a impostor try of my real name), please delete the image and block the user indef for personal attacks (the usage of the image in the sk.wiki says I was a confident of the communist secret police). Patricia deleted it once or twice in the past already. Thx, -jkb- (cs.source) 14:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Cecil (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Cecil, thanks, see you the next time :) -jkb- (cs.source) 15:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete my pic, pls

I uploaded photo with wrong name (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Belhard_bilding.jpg). Please, delete it. I've uploaded a new one with the right description. --Konstallex (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You can just add {{speedydelete|Reason here with link to the new image}}. Bidgee (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Also you forgot to add == [[Commons:Copyright tags|Licensing]]: == {{self|GFDL|FAL}} to the correctly name image. --Túrelio (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thnx :) --Konstallex (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Your welcome. :) Bidgee (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing edits history for no reason!

Hello, Administrators! I've spent long time while tagging unsourced images. After more than seven days, Maxim has removed some of my edits from page history with "pd-art" as a reason. Can anyone understand this as a reason for removing edits from page history? I asked him, in a friendly way, to restore this very bad usage of administration tool. He gave me invalid reason. I believe that an administrator most be more friendly, flexibility, and away of losing people's time. Another point, there is no rule that says unsourced pd-art (even old) most be kept! Thank you.--OsamaK 14:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a specific example? I can't see a real problem here: There is little practical difference between an edit buried in the history and a deleted edit, so why does it matter here? If you disagree with Maxim's judgement on specific images you can always just send them to COM:DEL...--Nilfanion (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
See this and that.--OsamaK 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll do so, but what about my removed it.--OsamaK 15:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. That may be a misunderstanding. Maxim did delete this images because they were tagged by you. Following reasonable undelete requests[1], [2] on his talkpage, he undeleted them. Eventually your preceding tagging-edit got lost on that way. --Túrelio (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd say Maxim chose not to restore the tagging edit to save time: By doing this he had to do one operation, if he had restored it he would have to restore and then revert it. Is there any actual reason to restore the tagging edit, merely so it can be buried in the history of a page? --Nilfanion (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I think because of the GNU FDL's clause of keeping the history. When I restore stuff, I restore the whole hog and revert. --O (谈 • висчвын) 16:10, 11 July 2008 (GMT)
The GFDL can't reasonably require you to maintain revision history entries for revisions that are not present in the resulting work and have no influence on it. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That is not a valid reason to delete other users tags. I do realize the pressure, yet the reply OsamaK got was not a valid one. I found the source of the Image in question on this page. Nothing there about the image it self. If someone can find any info about the painting it self it then that would be wonderful. I have posted user UV on de.wiki requesting the PD reasoning source [3]> I have "no source-ed" the file again, with today's date, and restored Osamak contributions into the file history. --Tarawneh (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well done. Problem was solved simply. Thank you Tarawneh, Maxim and others.--OsamaK 20:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin rights restored

Collard's back! I see nothing controversial about the relinquishing of his rights & so have granted them again. Experienced & trusted user & good to have on Commons. I am aware giggy was happy to do the same so I hope everyone is ok with it. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was apparently away when he left... -mattbuck (Talk) 16:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 Awesome! Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No objections, good to see that Collard is back. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"I am aware giggy was happy to do the same..." - yup, that's true - glad he's back. —Giggy 09:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

um, yeah

I assume I should just delete this sort of shit when I see it :-)? It's not "yet more genetalia", but not particularly useful either. (Bother with blocking too?)

All sorts of fun stuff in the "needing category" categories... --SB_Johnny | talk 18:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, especially since he's not interested in naming properly I'd say it's a vandalism only account. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done blocked with an expiry time of indefinite. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete my first version please

Hey Admins, can you please delete the first version of the image Oejendorfer_See_01.jpg? It was a wrong file. In the 2nd Version I uploaded the right one.

THX Wikiman7002 (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Gnangarra 14:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you


Again, Excellency in usernames

Should be awarded for excellence in cultural sensitivity, new user Nazimonder. Eventually his real name is Nazim ONDER [4] and he is the father of en:Kaan ONDER, a 11-year old kart racing driver from Istanbul. He has the same username on :en[5]. --Túrelio (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Creating an account that is very similar to another one

Hello, I'd like to create the account Jakob S., but i can't because it is to similar to User:Jakobs. This user didn't edit anything yet. So I think it would be okey to get the account User:Jakob S., the same one I have in the German Wikipedia. Thanks for helping me! --85.177.142.244 10:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons-user User:Jakobs account was created 2 years ago and never had any edits, uploads or deletions. Also, I didn't find an account User:Jakobs/Benutzer:Jakobs on :de or :en. Therefore, it shouldn't be a problem. Ask a Bureaucrat (see the few ones on the list in Commons:Administrators) to do it, or better, got there Commons:Changing username. --Túrelio (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.--85.177.142.244 10:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Think outside the box

It's been over a month since I nominated the images at Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Think outside the box for deletion, and they have not yet been deleted. I tagged them as speedys but that was removed by others and a mass deletion request filed by user:ShakataGaNai, and now no one is responding to me on that page. I asked user:ShakataGaNai about this on July 1 2008 but he ignored me. I would appreciate if someone would please delete them quickly, per the reasons I have given at the deletion page. Think outside the box 10:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted those not in use on other projects. Shakata can handle the rest if necessary. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

mass speedy deletion tool?

Is there a convenient way that I can run a mass speedy deletion? Long story short, I uploaded PNG page scans of a 400 page book, then someone pointed out that they were rubbish quality, so I came up with another source/processing stream for the scans, and uploaded much higher quality JPGs. Now I've figured out how to cram all those pages into a DjVu file < 20Mb. Thanks to my page scan processing newbness, I now have ~800 redundant images :-( Hesperian 01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dump them with links at User:Maxim/d. I have a script that can easily do that. Maxim(talk) 01:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Or just a plain list... I think I might be able to make those into links more quickly with a spreadsheet... Maxim(talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. It will take a few hours for me to get the DjVu sorted out and uploaded.Hesperian 02:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You can always e-mail it to me, and I should be able to delete all of it tomorrow morning. (EST). Maxim(talk) 02:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this message was a bit premature, as I also have to move the corresponding Wikisource pages onto the DjVu. I probably won't have a list for you until tomorrow. Happy to email it if you'd prefer it that way. Hesperian 02:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Are these all in a category or group of categories? If so, that would make it really easy. Rocket000 (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
They are all in a category; but not quite everything in the category is to be deleted. Hesperian 02:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok that wouldn't be so easy then. :) Rocket000 (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I also have tried LicenseToKill in the greek wiki with good results, but that was about a year ago (i.e. dunno if still compatible with current mediawiki version). It's only for Windows tho, but the happy thing is that you can choose which files to delete - Badseed talk 10:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Maxim, others, I should have got back to you on this before now. I did the job with LicenseToKill. It is a bit flaky, but it works. Hesperian 22:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Block messages in different languages

Looking over a recent block of someone who had been confused in a different language, I noticed the block message was a generic note written in English. And not the most simple English either (see MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown for the block options and MediaWiki:Blockedtext for what a blocked user sees when trying to edit).

I'm thinking we should set up a few basic templates to use as block reasons, rather than what is currently done. For instance, we could have one for "Uploading unfree files after warnings" ({{UnfreeBlocked}}), which would be used as the block message. The advantage of this would be that the blocked user, as well as seeing the default English message they currently get, would have translation links, in their own language, to their language (hopefully - translation is sometimes slow but we get there). This would obviously help in cases of confusion, I feel. The other advantage is that if an admin knows a user speaks a certain language, they could use that specific language as the block message; eg. {{UnfreeBlocked/fr}} for French.

The English Wikipedia (w:MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown) currently have some template block options, so it's definitely possible and we have a decent example to copy off. ;-) What are others' thoughts on this? —Giggy 09:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, those are deliberate redlinks for now; it's mainly the page title that is being used as an example.

Much as I hate doing anything en does, I have to agree this is a good idea. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Any other thoughts on this? —Giggy 00:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

can somebody help me to delete some pics

can somebody help me to delete some pics, because there are wrong name in the picture Image:Ariheikkinen1.JPG Image:Ariheikkinen2.JPG Image:Juhalitmanen.JPG thanks--Motopark (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done In future you can use {{Badname}} (click that link for more information) or {{speedydelete|uploader request}}. —Giggy 04:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons has now 3,000,000 media files

We've reason to celebrate (see Special:Statistics), but I think the finishing touch would be a press release :) →Christian.И 12:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

best bet would probably be to poke the wikimania mob they will probably be kicking out some press stuff this week. Geni (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Which user uploaded the 3,000,000th item? Can a developer check that? - Face 11:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a discussion about this at the Commons Village Pump. Kelly (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started a press release. Now you need to add to it and translate it. Find it at Commons:Press releases/3M. Anonymous101 talk 20:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

File Deletion

Sorry, I am not wise in the ways of Commons (or even en:wiki, some might say), and I am looking into Image:James_May.jpg which was deleted as uncategorised per here. If it was non-free, fine, but otherwise is it possible to restore and fix the category? I'll do it myself if necessary. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry but we can't restore that file since it's marked as "All rights reserved" on Flickr. The author should send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org including all needed information (see Commons:OTRS, consider using Commons:Email templates). Thanks for your efforts. →Christian.И 15:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I see there's a long list of correspondence on the image page, so if you just forward that to OTRS, I'd think it would be fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I couldn't see the page since I'm not an Admin here. I'm sure there's a free image out there somewhere, but thanks for looking into it for me. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've undeleted the picture. Looks like everything was on auto pilot. Bot tags incorrect flickr licence, gets tagged with no permission and seven days later (after no reponse) the picture gets deleted. Multichill (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I undeleted the other two, and sent an email to the uploader asking him to forward the permissions to OTRS. why the hell OTRS can't just look at the page I don't know... -mattbuck (Talk) 22:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It's always better to have it archived in the ticket system to avoid possible confusion ;) →Christian.И 14:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
OTRS is often quite backlogged; mattbuck, you should volunteer (m:OTRS) to help out - you'd be good at it. —Giggy 23:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record. I am not a bot. Contrary to popular belief. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you were just programmed to think that. Then one day, when the time is right, your robotic nature will assert itself and you will commence the enslavement of the human race. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Resignation of checkusership

Hello all. Unfortunately I will not have as much time available to spent on Commons as I would want to. Therefore I am resigning my Checkuser tools. I am confident that we have enough competent checkusers to deal with all the requests, so there will be no need to elect a new checkuser in the nearby future as I see it. It has been a pleasure to serve the community as checkuser. I will of course stay around as admin here :) (I'm not going into the blackhole of checkusers ;) -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that sucks. Thanks heaps for all the work you've done in every aspect here, Bryan. —Giggy 09:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Seconded on the sucks, and on the thanks. You've been invaluable in the role, and maybe in future, time permitting, you could take it up again. ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the work you've done already!  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Life is life... But thank you for doing the job! --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks

I started to put things that I asked for deletion on my watchlist and the first few times thanked the person doing the deleting.

I haven't done that recently even though my deletion requests are fullfilled within hours usually.

The first standout for me about this collection of images when I first started poking around to see what was here and what was going on, was the actual collection of images. More than a year later or a year since my first real bookmark or whatever I have that marks the beginning of my experience here and I would like to thank the administration for the fact that the image collection is still the standout here!

It is a difficult balance, I think. The fact that it is still a simple thing about the license and not the quality of the appeal. And on a personal level, I think that there are images that need review that I personally do not want to look at and that there are people who do this (either by willingness or by feelings of duty) and the collection maintains a high degree or percentage of integrity from the people who do this.

I do not think often enough about these things. This is a thank you and not too much else. It is nice that there are actual people driving the software, and it shows. -- carol (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wallis Simpson -1936.JPG

This image looks like a copyright violation of a Getty Images picture [6].

Getty Images reserves the right to pursue unauthorized users of this image or clip. If you violate their intellectual property you may be liable for statutory damages up to $150,000 (USD).

I have tried to tag this image twice, and the tag just gets removed. What gives? DrKiernan (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

twice is nice :-). First you have placed a product of your fantasy (+ speedydelete), secondly you have deleted the anonymous template (+speedydelete). Two big no-no's on commons and elsewhere!
In fact both sites ([7] and the mother site of jamb pictures) have no idea who was the author (English Photographer versus Photographer: Hulton Archive, LOL) and claim now to be the copyright holders :-). Might be interesting, whether we can find some more self styled copyright holders of this pic Mutter Erde (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter the reasoning for the PD claim is invalid UK law doesn't work like that.Geni (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Or to be more exact it sort of works like that but has a higher barrier to unknown that the photo comes close to meeting.Geni (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
It's fairly easy to determine whether this is {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} or not. Just check The Sketch of 9th December 1936 and see whether a photographer is credited. The Wikipedia article gives the names of several Sketch photographers, and the magazine's drawings seem to have been credited to the artists. If I had to guess, and without seeing the original that's all it would be, I'd guess that the photographer would have been credited by name or pseudonym. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. There's no artist listed here: http://www.ilnpictures.co.uk/ProductDetails.asp?ProductDetailID=84068. DrKiernan (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Piotr szmitke1.jpg

Something strange happen when this image got deleted. The image is gone but the description is visible.--Jarekt (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone recreated the image page after the file's deletion, but didn't upload another file. I've deleted it. —Giggy 00:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User name change

Hi, I want to change my user name to User:Jerrch because of privacy issues and consistency with other projects. Thank you.--Jerrypp772000 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Go to COM:CHU and ask there. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:CarolSpears

Some may not be aware that Carol is using Commons to try and score points since she has been banned from Wiki.

See below User:CarolSpears/English wikipedia contains Sarah makes an administrative action and also pads their personal edit history and this Image:2008-07-22-selfserving.png. Bidgee (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for users to come to Commons after they have been banned on their local wiki's. It is one of the few projects that is multi lingual. As user space is user space. As long as users aren't being disruptive, and aren't building pages on commons to attack others - I don't care. As of right now, the page you point out is just documentation, maybe not the best suited place... but User space is still User space. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
You've probably missed the first image Description as it (the image) was deleted as it contained the Wiki logo. Bidgee (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No. I saw it. I even went in to see what the original image was. It was a screen shot of Wikipedia like 100 others. Most people don't realize that while Wikipedia is the "Free Encyclopedia", the logo isn't free. At the same time, Commons still hosts the logo. Most people don't realize that screen shots of WP pages are no no's. Hell, I don't even think we've got an consensus on that one yet. Regardless, one deleted image does not warrant AN attention IMHO. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

New template for new copyvioers

I got annoyed with the number of people who commit a copyvio before they even get the {{Welcome}} message, so I created a new template, {{Wcv}} which adds a copyvionote and the welcome to a talk page. Enjoy. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's useful. Good idea. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and there's now {{Wdw}} which does derivativenote instead of copyvionote. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I moved the category inside the noinclude section and removed the Image: prefix to remain consistent with the usage of {{Copyvionote}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
D'oh on the category, but I preferred it with the Image prefix. Not as if there's anything else around here to copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
True, but then both {{Copyvio}} and {{Wcv}} should be changed, so you don't have to remember which one works which way. Personally, I triple-click the filename at the top of the page before deleting and paste that in later, so I prefer not having to make a partial selection, but the main thing is consistency. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bobry.jpg

Forgotten deletion request. --Jarekt (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, for the record. —Giggy 04:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

not sure what is going on

Special:Contributions/San_Jose_de_Cocodite that came to my attention while looking at Special:Contributions/Weezing -- I perhaps am limited by language to deduce what is going on here; maybe someone who speaks es can determine if this situation needs attention? -- carol 01:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam filtered image

Resolved

Can you take a look at the contribution history of Oparuparu (talk · contribs)? This user is very disruptive. I intended to request for deletion on Image: K o w t o w_ k o r e a n . JPG (due to "spam filter, I insert a space between each alphabet) for dubious copyright status like the below reason. {{delete|Very dubious copyright status. It does not have any EXIF information that other images have. It looks like a copy-scanned image from books published in 80s or 90s or somewhere. Its pixel is very blurred. The uploader [[User:Oparuparu]] is [[:en:User:Pabopa]] that uses it in bad faith. The image itself has programmed with "spam filter" for preventing it to be deleted.}}

However, Oparuparu (talk · contribs), (same as en:User:Pabopa) programmed the image not to be deleted or to be requested for deletion. It can't be even linked. It can't be editable anyway. It is very bad faith edit. Could you look at it and fix the problem? I think it is beyond of image policy here.


Well, the image was a scan I agree (and thus deleted), but the name was fine, and deleting it gave no problems. Possibly you should check your own PC for spam filter problems. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you edit the page? Did you test the image page? I can't edit the page or link it to anywhere with the name. I have not set up any spam filtered.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I could follow Oparuparu contribs to the page, and saw that Mattbuck has deleted the image. Gnangarra 05:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Black Listing Issue

Can someone tell me why the heck the word "kowtow" is blacklisted? If you put it into a page and hit save right now it says: 

The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: Kowtow

I'm only getting away with it because I'm breaking up the word with hidden tags. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the note above, but this does relate directly to the topic above. I don't care about the image though since that has been deal with. Just why we have this work blacklisted and where this blacklist is. I checked MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, and it isn't there. So... Where it is? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Try checking meta's blacklist. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
It is in the configuration files for the wiki. http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/InitialiseSettings.php.html (which is probably not completely up to date) includes that word in 'wgSpamRegex'. A system administrator is needed to remove it. /Ö 09:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone asked the devs about this yet?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Asked JeLuF, no response yet. I suspect that was added in response to a vandal spree, but given that it was 2006 I don't know that it is still needed.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I was interested to know if the word cowtow was allowed so I thought I would type it here to see :) -- carol (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
JeLuF removed the entry just now.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Kedotanto

I think all this users uploads are copyvios, I deleted already two images Special:DeletedContributions/Kedotanto that were screenshots. I think the others are too. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 02:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree & deleted. User has been warned and will be blocked if this continues.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Szczepan1990 and mass deletions

Szczepan1990 (talk · contribs) has mass deleted ~200 photos of bottles, without prior discussion[8]. When I and others ask him to stop, undelete the images and open a proper deletion request (see his talk page), he simply responds “no”[9]. Could somebody help explaining to Szczepan1990 that his actions were inappropriate, and help undeleting these images? --Kjetil_r 14:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll second this: actions like this appear to be a total disregard and violation of COM:D. Once again, the damage has been done, because the CommonsDelinker has already delinked the images. This kind of actions is what makes normal users quite mad at Commons-admins. The images should be restored and a proper explanation has to be given for the deletion of the images. --Tuvic (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The explanation is a derivative work for which the original is copyrighted. Commons can't host copyright violations. --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:14, 23 July 2008 (GMT)
Problem is: I can't check that any more: he just deleted some 200 pictures with the mere comment 'derivative work'. I think it's highly questionable that a regular beer bottle (most of the pictures, I guess?) is a work of art. Further, the guidelines don't allow these derivative work to be speedy deleted, because it's not a clear copyright violation: check the talk page of Szczepan1990 (talk · contribs): nobody get's it. It's a one-man-action with no basis, no consensus, no talk, no discussion. It's one user who can dictate the law, thanks to his admin rights and he even thinks he can be non-communicative and blunt about it. --Tuvic (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Each image is an individual case and he deleted images of originals that had no threshold of originality, without any discussion. See my comment and others on User_talk:Szczepan1990#Beer_and_other_deleted_stuff. This is called abuse of power. --Euku:⇄ 15:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with Tuvic about the no talk. Szczepan1990 should give a better answer then just "no" and should inform the uploader for why it was deleted. Most bottles are patented which means they're a copyvio and then the labeling is also questionable (Since it's trademarked and copyrighted also it's open for debate). Bidgee (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Patents are not copyrights which are not trademarks. You might want to call Amtrak; you need a ticket for the clue train quite urgently. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
As I have stated on User talk:Szczepan1990 The image of mine which he deleted of the 'Image:Yorkshire Warrior Beer Bottle 03.gif, was not a derivative work, I created the original image used for the label and the photograph of the bottle. No opportunity to contest the deletion was provided. This is clearly an infringement of the deletion process and an abuse of admin rights. The talk he claims gave him the right to delete was less than 19 hours old before it was closed with no comments of any kind included in it, let alone any voting consensus; See:- Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Żubr beer.JPG. Why it was closed in that was is also something that should be questioned. I feel this admin should have his ability to use commons delinker removed until he has been given some guidance in its use and understands the process better. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
CommonsDelinker automatically activates when any image is deleted. If you would like to contest this deletion, please see Commons:Undeletion requests. --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:48, 23 July 2008 (GMT)
I'll make a request on that page, then. I still object to the misuse of admin powers and lack for following the proper deletion guidelines.
@Bidgee: I don't think every bottle is patented. Trademarked, maybe. (I'm guessing you meant to say that) But most bottles are basic things, around for a very long time. Because of that, I'm still doubting copyright on them. --Tuvic (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say every bottle but most. I know that some well known soda/softdrink, spirits and even water bottles are patented for the design. Bidgee (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see a design patent for a beer bottle. But in most cases of this deleted images, this does probably not apply. And since there's so much discussion, images should be undeleted and properly requested for deletion. --Tuvic (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's possible for them to be patent since not all beer bottles are the same but I'm not going to dig though along list to find it (Take me sometime :(). Bidgee (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Info for Copyright/ patenting regarding bottles see:- Derivative works. Richard Harvey (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. So it's fine with the bottle so I guess the label should be ok? Bidgee (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
User:O: Your comment was about as useful as “Commons can host free images. The explanation is Commons:Project scope.” --Kjetil_r 16:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I can only unconditionally second Kjetil_r and Tuvic. This admin is going mad with deletions and IMHO should be blocked before he further harms Commons and other Wikimedia projects using our images. --ALE! ¿…? 16:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, obvious things don't need any discussion. EOT for me --Szczepan talk 16:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, you even deleted images were no consensus was found before, like Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Stella Artois Dielectric.jpg. If you delete more images like these without proper discussion, I'll block you (if nobody else does that before me). Obviously there is need for discussion or do you think that people here just have nothing better to do? --ALE! ¿…? 16:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
(after edit conclift) Thanks, Szczepan1990, you just made it clear you don't care about discussion or guidelines. You obviously don't care about other opinions or arguments. As long you think you're right, it's ok. You just proved the point and are looking more and more like an admin gone rogue... --Tuvic (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it is time for a de-sysop request? Making a honest mistake is one thing, but refusing to discuss it after numerous users have pointed out that he shouldn't have deleted the images is completely unacceptable. --Kjetil_r 16:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Szczepan1990 has gone about it (deletions and unwellingness to discuss with other editors) the wrong way. Bidgee (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree with you. --Euku:⇄ 17:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, see also Reprimand_User:Szczepan1990. I gave him the nickname "Offline-Szczepan" (because of his talk-page) Mutter Erde (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see good will in this comment --Euku:⇄ 17:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Not an ideal approach, I agree. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the biggest problems here at commons. Stuff gets deleted without proper discussion. Maybe he's right this pictures are derivative work, but he should have made a deletion request like every other user. This is a clear misuse of admin rights and the reason why many wikipedia users *hate* commons and dont want their pictures transfered to here. Desysop Szczepan1990, undelete all pictures, give commonshelper a kick to restore the picturess and start a deletion request to have a proper discussion at the right place. Multichill (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed: actions like this really make the Wikipedia-users furious about Commons. Szczepan1990's unpolite (to say the least) reactions are only making users more mad. About the casus: it's one image, that we can't see, deleted after 18 hours, without discussion. Not quite concensus, not really a good argument: only 'derivative work'. And somehow this is used as a casus? Quite unacceptable to me: you can't use one uncheckable example as an excuse to delete some 200 images, just because you think it's ok. Furthermore, he didn't look at anything: Richard Harvey's undeletion request statement proves that: no arguments, just blind deletion based on what Szczepan1990 thinks is clear. --Tuvic (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
They can get as angry as they like; although perhaps we should have the decency of dispatching a waaaaaaaaaaaaambulance to aforementioned furious Wikipedians. Commons is not a game where we play "media repository". Commons is a media repository with legal obligations just like any other. Copyright violations have the potential of real-world consequences. As such, they are a cancer on Commons and Wikimedia, and should be executed without trial and with extreme prejudice. If that causes a few Wikipedia drama-whores and crybabies to throw their toys out of their pram, then so be it. Screw them. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of them are casus of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Żubr beer.JPG. What do you propose then? To discuss each of them separately (how many do we have?) ?

I would propose to
  1. open a deletion request and list all the images he thinks should be deleted for the same reason; then people can look through them and discuss whether that reason applies for all or some or none. Not being able to see the images makes an informed discussion rather difficult.
  2. be a little less rash. Image deletion is not a race, neither a holy war; unless the Foundation received a takedown notice, there is no reason why deleting a possible copyright infringement couldn't wait a week. There are, on the other hand, several reasons why it should wait: due to the activity of CommonsDelinker, deletions are hard to undo, and the annoyance caused to users is even harder to undo. Not going through the proper channels (setting up a deletion requeset, which would cause CommonsTicker to post a warning) bars people who are not Commons regulars from participating.
  3. try to have real discussion and real consensus before starting to delete images with a new reason. Two people agreeing with each other, without giving anyone else a chance to comment, is neither consensus nor discussion. Is either of them a legal expert? The scope of copyright is not an obvious question, even when you don't consider that non-US laws could apply.
  4. use an informative deletion message, including a link to the deletion request at the very least.
  5. be less condescending to others. Playing the crusader of free content protecting Commons against the unwashed masses might feel good, but it isn't very adult, and unless you are a copyright expert, you have no reason to shake off the opinion of others without even listening to it. Also, hurt feelings and lost confidence are harder to undelete than images.

More specifically, I would propose to undelete at least a sample of the images so we can see what we talk about, and try to find some sensible criteria for an image of an object being a derivative work. It is not even clear what constituted the original work for the deleted images (the labels or the bottles themselves?), and Szczepan1990's refusal to communicate certainly doesn't help. --Tgr (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

presenting certain trademark products (as a main object) is according to laws of most countries "fair use", which is agains the Commons guidelines

Not that Commons doesn't try to respect the law of all countries, which would be quite impossible; for example, pma 70 images are considered public domain, despite some countries having a longer copyright period. Commons respects the US copyright law (because that's where the servers are) plus it's own consensus about what constitutes a free image. That consensus seems to be that it should either have a free license or be public domain in the US or be public domain in the place where it has been first published. Thus the laws of the country where the bottle has been manufactured should be taken into account too. --Tgr (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

oh boy, the trademark red-herring. . Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
According to Commons consensus, the copyright laws of the source country and the United States. . --O (谈 • висчвын) 21:37, 23 July 2008 (GMT)
Due to the United States law all images not considered as fair use are shown also at Polish Wikipedia where are certainly fair use. That's nonsense and make Polish users idiots as well :P Why? So tell me what I should tell, as an admin, other wikipedians in a problematic issue: "Don't download this photo on pl.wiki, but if you do so on Commons everything wonna be ok"?! No, everything won't be okay at all! Have your cake and eat it, too - quite funny but not fair. Either all Wikimedia projects contain only free media or we accept globally fair-use. EOT for me. Patrol110 dyskusja 08:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite follow your logic, Cleric... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I mean that different countries have different law in fair-use matter. Patrol110 dyskusja 08:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's split out the discussion about the content and Szczepan1990's actions. I propose that any content related discussion is done on an (un)deletion request. I find Szczepan1990's being unwilly to discuss the issue absolutely a problem. Actions and attitude like this are absolutely damaging to Commons and should not happen. I am not really sure what to do now, but I would propose a request for de-adminship if it happends again. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would propose a request for de-adminship, because it happens again. As you can see above there was a big mistake by Szczepan1990 four months ago. He still has learned nothing from the former discussion and is/was not willing to talk about it. He is not willing to talk about anything. Instead of that he reacts with this. --Euku:⇄ 09:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I'm not at all impressed with how Szczepan1990 refuses to participate in discussions following his controversial actions. His “reply” (i.e. “i maded you a piksher – but they deleted it”) is plain and simple childish. --Kjetil_r 15:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that desysop may change the situation because Szczepan will continue to contribute Commons and take into consideration all cases of implicit fair-use violation :/ About the content discussion: imagine the situation that some user watching page of Image:Abtbier12.jpg have read the license which this photo was published under, and she/he released that is able to "modify this document under the terms of the GNU FDL". Okay, everything is well till now. Unfortunately that person copied this photo, cropped the bottle and publish again, only the label on Wikimedia Commons, of course under the free license :P In certain it's fair use but how you will explain the whole situation to a newbie. In contrary, I have a big collection of old beer labels and I wanna publish it at Commons, but it'll be fair-use violation. So now, as a good cheater or well-informed Commons user, I will add the bottles to my photos only to make the background. And now it won't be fair use :P In the way like is now I will take photos of my TV screen (during watching cartoons or tv serials) in order to add some extra media to their articles in Wikipedia. Yeah, that's nice idea and I will use only free licenses :/ Bullshit at all. Patrol110 dyskusja 20:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Your reasoning makes no sense. Of course we allow what you call «implicit fair use»: We have images of Burger King restaurants, Apple hardware, Mercedes Benz cars and so on. One may not necessarily crop these images and publish certain parts under a free license, but the images are not copyright violations themselves. --Kjetil_r 07:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that Szczepanhasn't behaved according to the basic savoir-vivre rules (sts called the netiquette), by which I mean avoiding proper discussion, being simply rude and so on. But desysoping Szczepan won't solve the main problem, which is now the uncertain status of those photos! And according to some of us (when reading the discussion above), they are violating "free" pictures rules. It cannot be, that one can apply democracy (i.e. voting or looking for consensus) to solve such not straight situations - the answer is likely to be one: unfortunately, most of them needs to be deleted, cos uncertainity has to be interpreted to Commons disadvantage, to avoid potential law-breaking. A simple binar system: OK or WRONG. Going back to Szczepan's situation - one can judge his behaviour in two planes: was he right as an law interpreting admin (in my, as well as in other people opinion he was) and was he bahaving well while facing that problem (most of us say no. He could manage it better). And the solution: is desoping Szczepan going to fix the problem with those graphics? Or is Szczepan going to be the Commons' scapegoat and the good opportunity not to talk about those uncertain graphics anymore and forget about all situation? Law and rules vs. good mood of Commons' society? Masur (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
See problem is that as far as I can tell no one has brought up wikisource:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. which is of some significance to the issue.Geni (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits seems to be extremely relevant. Quotation: “We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole--a useful article not subject to copyright protection--and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works.” --Kjetil_r 10:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The images are restored now. Already a few days, actually. Currently, there's a deletion request for one of them, at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Aecht schlenkerla rauchbier.jpg. Some more opinions are always welcome. What has to be done with the other images, is something I don't quite know what to do with. Maybe someone could list them somewhere, so they can be judged on an individual basis, since they're not all the same kind of images. About the other subject: I don't think I'll trust Szczepan1990 (talk · contribs) again soon. --Tuvic (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A main category Category:Infographics renamed without any discussion

User:Timeshifter has renamed Category:Infographics overnight on his own to Category:Information graphics, claiming this first was a bad name. The thing is that both names are common good. I think changing the one to the other should be talked about first? Isn't there a procedure here? Could soembody take a look at this? Thanks you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There is COM:CFD. --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:04, 26 July 2008 (GMT)
Thanks. I am not familiar here. Does this mean, this should have been proposed at Commons:Categories for discussion, and still has to be. On the Dutch Wikipedia in this situation the original situation should be restored first, to give others an impression what the original situation is, which has to be altered or not. Is this correct here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter here. CFD here works either way. --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:15, 27 July 2008 (GMT)
Sorry I not familiar here. Do you mean I can start the CFD procedure here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:26, 27 July 2008 (GMT)
Ok thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kogo

User Kogo deletes cats and other stuff from the description pages of his uploads. I don´t know if there is any reason for this. He even deletes license tags: example. There are still some edits to be undone..--D.W. (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone asked him about this on his talkpage or talkpage of one of the images? Cirt (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously not, as he has blanked both his user and his talkpage on July 4. May be, he wants to leave Commons. Nevertheless, if he repeats his deletion frenzy, he should be blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree w/ Túrelio (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice, expert Túrelio (talk · contribs) revenge for my contributions on [10]--kogo (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Coronellian

User:Coronellian appears to want to delete images he originally added. He has given no indication of why he wants to delete the images. He appears to have marked the images in question as copyvios, but as far as I can tell they were his own work and he uploaded them releasing them with the usual licensing.

For some unknown reason he sought help from me and seems angry that I can't somehow make this happen. I did my best to explain policy as I understand it, because I was asked. As far as I can tell, that just made him angry. I was wondering if someone else can step in, preferably an admin, since presumably an admin would know Commons policies in more detail than I do. - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Already being handled at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#User:Pérez (header was User:O) --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:09, 28 July 2008 (GMT)

Check image II

Please check the images Image:Paraisotropical.jpg , Image:DuasCarasLogotipo.jpg and contributions of the user who uploaded. Thanks. --Fabiano msg 02:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done I deleted one, the other was deleted by Badseed. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Check the images Image:Record News.jpg, Image:NET TV.jpg. Thanks. Fabiano msg 22:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Darwin-s-tubercle.jpg

Image:Darwin-s-tubercle.jpg was requested for deletion on the grounds that there was a copyvio as a result of it being a derivative work of an unlicensed image. A new, non-infringing version was created. However, the old, infringing image is still accessible on this site and needs to be deleted, and the new version restored. --Selket (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Delete}} and follow the instructions. -- carol (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Selket. I have deleted the original image that was upload and left it with the current version. Thanks for noting this. Bastique demandez 19:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Server hiccups

Our servers had write problems this morning until about 11:50 UTC. This is especially troublesome for uploads, where the upload comments are not put onto the image pages. Even worse, license selections made in the drop-down menu are lost! As a result, we now have a series of files with no description and no license, even if the uploaders did choose a license.

If you see images without description page, check the upload summary in the "File history" section. If it appears complete, edit the page and copy the comment, adding links for categories. If no license is mentioned in the comment, inform the uploader ({{No license}}...)

Affected files can be found by searching through the upload log for red links for which there is no deletion log entry. I've already dealt with files uploaded between 10:30 UTC and 11:50 UTC today, but there may be more uploaded before 10:30 UTC. Lupo 12:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh - Kanonkas and me had some fun trying to work out what happened there. Lupo's advice is good. —Giggy 23:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

See the file history of Image:Lambang Kabupaten Polewali Mandar.png which I transferred via bot yesterday at about that time. There are 4 copies of the image, all with the same timestamp. Bot told me it failed and when I tried again, it said the file existed at which point I canceled the retry and went and edited the description and cats. I got a bunch of wiki has a problem messages around that time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Uggh, what a mess. That said, it seems to have worked out OK in the end, I think - poke us here if there are any issues. —Giggy 10:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
All seems ok; I take it the extra images are not worth doing something about. I'm adding usages of this image out there, now. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

changing my user name

Hi. I'm user:cumulus on HE wiki. I'd like to use SUL, so could my username here please be changed to Cumulus?

thanks, Benherz (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please make a request at Commons:Changing username. —Giggy 23:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

File:LukashenkoB.jpg

I would like to express my sincere and profound indignation arising from the deletion of File:LukashenkoB.jpg by this user on 27 July. Following this deed, I urged him to reconsider his action because of the quoted terms of use of the source (here) which are as straightforward as possible and state:

Русский: "Материалы Портала могут использоваться в средствах массовой информации, распространяться в сети Интернет без каких-либо ограничений по объему и срокам публикации. Единственным условием является ссылка на первоисточник. Никакого предварительного согласия на использование материалов Портала со стороны пресс-службы Президента Республики Беларусь не требуется."
Беларуская: Матэрыялы Партала могуць выкарыстоўвацца ў сродках масавай інфармацыі, распаўсюджвацца ў сетцы Інтэрнэт без якіх-небудзь абмежаванняў па аб’ёму і тэрмінах публікацыі. Адзінай умовай з’яўляецца спасылка на першакрыніцу. Ніякай папярэдняй згоды на выкарыстанне матэрыялаў Партала з боку прэс-службы Прэзідэнта Рэспублікі Беларусь не патрабуецца.

/in nuce, although I am not obliged to translate it, for those unfamiliar with the Russian language: "...all materials can be distributed in Internet without any restrictions concerning date of publishing... The sole condition is a backlink to the source... No preliminary consent from the press-office is exactable."/ The user is showing no reaction to the quoted passage and furthermore, he is evidently unfamiliar with the Russian or Belorussian language. Moreover, he relapses in this rootless deletionist misdeeds as it can be seen here and deletes other images stemming from the same source. A user familiar with the language, who is administrator on the Serbian Wiki, has already joined me in my reprehension at Zscout370's talk page. User:Zscout370 has overtly based his action on dubitable rumours as he himself states in his own comment "I was told...". Therefore I am appealing for other administrators' attention (especially the Russian ones') and for the just reinstatement of the evidently light-mindedly deleted images.

P. S. A Template which describes approximately the status of the image is to be beheld here. I would like to ask which one is its equivalent in Commons and to propose the reinstatement of the images with the due equivalent here. I can, of course, upload the images concerned in the German Wiki intrepidly, but I am combatting for them being available to other Wikipedias as well - as you know, the German Wiki has a restrictive policy towards images and I see no reason why an image which is no logo and is admissible there should be rejected here. Bogorm (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you misinterpret original sentence. Please don't cut part of sentence out of context. On English Content of Portal could be used in mass-media, distributed in Internet without restrictions by volume or time of publication.. Term use still ambiguous and require communication with president's site. Possibility of creation of derivative works still unclear. without restrictions by volume or time of publication could also mean quoting (non-derivative). Quoting is also default usage in copyrights law of Belarus (article 19).
Same unclearness were in case of other government sites on ex-USSR countries.
See also User talk:EugeneZelenko#LukashenkoB.jpg.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to hear another administrator's opinion, because I am explaining already twice that the German Wiki has an exact and succinct template for free usage, if you have any misgivings about the word, you could adress any Benutzer there. I have none and I would rather it were expounded: 1) wherefore an image, which is no logo and is admissible in the German Wiki (according to their template), should be deleted here; 2) which is the equivalent here for the right German Template??? I prefer translating whatever and however much from German to trying to clarify for myself anything concerning copyrights and similar things... and thence I am ready to translate it for this case provided there is no previous one available, which I can not know since I am not knowledgeable about the numerous obfuscations concerning the image uploads and intruded by staunch deletionists. I would highly appreciate another opinions besides the one from the American who deleted (I suppose: gladly) the image and from you and I would rather this kind of rigorous, unsourced (I was told!) and obfuscating deletionism were reprimanded and/or reverted. Bogorm (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I take no pleasure in deleting the images, because if you spoke to Eugene, I been trying to find a few image of President Lukashenko for a few years now. Anyways, as Eugene said, the images from the website of President Lukashenko could be used on websites. However, as Wikimedia keeps on upping their requirements on what is considered a free image, images with a questionable status as this will most likely be rejected. The problem with the images from here is that there is no notice that images can be used for commercial uses and there is no notice that allows images to be modified. The only thing we know so far is we can use as many images without any time limit and without permission. So that means we might have A, but we still need B and C in order to use the images on here. Also, for a little precedent, the terms of Template:Kremlin.ru are exactly the same as the terms on the website of President Lukashenko. While the Kremlin was a little bit more wordy and specific about what websites can use the images, they still have no note about images being used commercially or if they can be modified. Well, those images have been deleted from the Commons a while back. We just need to be consistent. We have told users to contact the website administration and either no one did it yet or we got no responses. User should try again and see what happens. Regardless, I still stand behind my deletions and I will not restore the images from President Lukashenko's website. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"However, as Wikimedia keeps on upping their requirements on what is considered a free image" - well, if you had a look on the Vorlage Bild-frei, there should be no more doubts about the images deleted by you being FREE IMAGES/FREIE BILDER - there is unambiguously written: unbeschränktes Nutzungsrecht ohne jegliche Bedingungen für jedermann (Nutzungsrecht = right to USE and there is not a vestige of another obscure notions like commercial use or right for modifications mentioned by you both). Would you be so kind to elucidate the discrepancy arisen from your last comment between how you imagine a free image and how the German Wikipedia defines it? If this template Kremlin.ru, which now is redirecting towards another template for speedy deletion, was equivalent to the German one, then I should admit that its deletion/redirection is extremely fatuous. Bogorm (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This image is not, actually, free on the German Wikipedia; and even if somehow the German Wikipedia believed it were, that has no bearing on whether Commons considers it free or not. Images from President Lukashenko's site, unless stated otherwise on that site, are considered copyrighted, and not free to use on Commons. Bastique demandez 19:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Vraiment? For everyone familiar with Russian and German language the equivalence of "Der Urheberrechtsinhaber dieser Datei hat ein unbeschränktes Nutzungsrecht ohne jegliche Bedingungen für jedermann eingeräumt. Dieses Nutzungsrecht gilt unabhängig von Ort und Zeit und ist unwiderruflich."(Vorlage:Bild-frei) and "Материалы Портала могут использоваться ... распространяться ... без каких-либо ограничений по объему и срокам публикации." should be blatant... Anyway thanks for your opinion - I will cogitate with ineffable reluctance transferring the images to where they should not incur any pugnacious attitude based on the brandished, ambivalently expounded notion of "free image". Bogorm (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh... If what that template sais was actually true for the image in question, there woule be no problem. The point is that there is no evidence that it does apply to the image. Sysing "...all materials can be distributed in Internet without any restrictions concerning date of publishing... The sole condition is a backlink to the source... No preliminary consent from the press-office is exactable." is simply not good enough -- modification is unclear, and "in Internet" is an unacceptable restriction, content must be usable on CDs, in print, on TV, etc.

Also, to clarify: the German Wikipedia requires commercial use and modifications to be allowed for all content, and this requirement has been there for several years, if not even as long as the project exists. Enforcement varies, as always, but has been gettings stricter with the years, generally. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 21:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(Zu Duesentrieb) Würden Sie erläutern wieso ich das Bild dort angeblich nicht hochladen dürfe? In der Vorlage, auf die ich mich berufen habe, steht GAR NICHTS über kommerzielle Handlungen oder irgendwelche Änderungen und der Inhalt aus der Nutzungsbedingungen der Präsidentenseite stimmt völlig mit dem Inhalt der Vorlage überein. Wenn Sie sich auf etwas Stichhaltendes beriefen, würde ich Ihnen dankbar sein, aber ich würde mir auf keinen Fall Behauptungen wie "Die Deutsche Wikipedia gestattet das und das nicht" ohne jegliche Begründung gefallen lassen. Es würde viel sinnvoller, wenn wir hier den Fall klarlegen, damit Sie sich nicht nach der Hochladung zur Löschung erdreisteten und dadurch meine erneute Beklagung dort heraufbeschwören. MfG Bogorm (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
de:Hilfe:FAQ_zu_Bildern#Rechtliches - Zitat: "Veröffentlichung von Bearbeitungen muss erlaubt sein [...] Kommerzielle Verwendung muss erlaubt sein". Siehe auch definition of free cultural works - das ist der Maßstab für alle Inhalte in allen Projekten der Wikimedia Foundation, also auch Wikipedia und Commons. Die offizielle Richtlinie für die deutsche Wikipedia ist de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte, die entsprechende für Commons ist Commons:Licensing.
Zu dem Template: "unbeschränktes Nutzungsrecht ohne jegliche Bedingungen für jedermann" schließt natürlich die kommerzielle nutzung und die Veröffentlichung von veränderten Versionen ein. Diese muss vom Urheber eindeutig erlaubt sein. Weiter fragen in Bezug auf Bildrechte in der deutschen Wikipedia bitte unter de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 08:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ich bin zufrieden mit Ihren Zitaten und werde sie mir sogleich genauer anschauen. Die Behauptung "schließt natürlich (?!) die kommerzielle nutzung ein" jedoch finde ich anmaßend, da Sie nicht von jedem Leser erwarten dürfen, in der Jurisprudenz bewandert zu sein, genauso wie ich nicht von jedem Administrator die Beherrschung der Russischen Sprache erwarte und demzufolge die Nutzungshinweise der Seite des Präsidenten mit einer minimalen Übersetzung ins Eng. versehen habe. MfG Bogorm (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Unusual deletion request

Hello admins,

On 20 May 2007, I uploaded Image:Chip-pan-fire-2.jpg.

The first version I uploaded was a mistake. I intended to upload a pixellated version in order to disguise the fact that the person in the photo was not wearing safety goggles, so as not to encourage unsafe practice and to save the person pictured from any repercussions.

Today, User:Wereon reinstated the original version I uploaded by mistake, with the comment Wikimedia is not censored.

I know that technically the original, mistaken upload is now in the public domain so I cannot insist it is deleted. But I see no benefit to anyone in keeping it, and there is certainly benefit in masking the lack of eye protection.

Would it be possible for someone to delete the unpixellated versions?

Thanks a lot

Ben (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Not censored doesn't mean not sensitive with our treatment of personal likenesses, and since you uploaded the first version by mistake, I see no problem with deleting it.--ragesoss (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

Ben (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete image.

Image used in vandalism in Wiki-pt. Delete please. Fabiano msg 22:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as an attack picture. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please move Kapellbruecke Tafel 55.ajpg to Image:Kapellbruecke Tafel 55a.jpg, sorry, for the mistake

Could someone please move Kapellbruecke Tafel 55.ajpg to Kapellbruecke Tafel 55a.jpg, sorry, for the mistake. MatthiasKabel (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The image uploader here would not allow that first name to be used. -- carol (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

album covers

If I do search "album", I will found album cover pictures. I will have a knowledge that those pictures must store local wikipedias, not to commons. some examples Image:Teenbeats Surfbound Album Cover.jpg Image:Nirvana album cover.jpg and Image:Behemoth cover.JPG. Am I right and if yes, how we can delete those cover pictures.--Motopark (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated Image:Teenbeats Surfbound Album Cover.jpg for deletion. To nominate other album covers (you are right, it will be a rare cover that is not subject to copyright with all rights reserved) you should review and follow the instructions found at COM:DEL ++Lar: t/c 03:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
and see also Commons:Image casebook#Album covers. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedydelete

Hi fellow admins, every once in a while i see images getting deleted which dont meet the deletion guidelines for speedy deletion, but i didnt see a deletion request. This seems wrong to me. If an admin wants something to be deleted, he or she should make a deletion request like everybody else. Or do we consider this behaviour normal for an admin? Multichill (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an example? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The most recent one i noticed was Image:BER in GC.jpg (got delinked by commonslinker). Eigntlich deleted a lot of similar images. Multichill (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
That image was listed at some special German deletion page. I don't know what deletion criteria are used for listing and deleting pages there, but it looks like the wrong way to do things. /Ö 23:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be more a sort of "to do" list of User:Notschrei.--Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
And another admin deleting stuff without a deletion request. I'm getting tired of this. Multichill (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How are we handling the images that newly returned to copyright under the change in Russian law? Usually the photographer is not named in English language sources. I haven't had luck asking Russian-speaking editors for assistance. So I wrote to a Russian cultural center about a week ago with a query for one of the famous images Image:The Commissar Vanishes 2.jpg and received no response so far. More recently I've dealt with a different image from very late in the window of opportunity (1942). What's a reasonable time frame for handling this sort of matter before moving ahead with deletion requests? Durova (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Photographers is also usually not credited in Russian sources of this time. For example in book "Сталик. К шестидесятилетию со дня рождения" or in "Огонёк" magazine on 1953. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's another problem. So how has Commons been handling this dilemma? Durova (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Segara

Halló all, I have deleted all images uploaded by Segara/del contribs, most were obvious copyvios, album covers. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 13:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. See also COM:AN/U. --Túrelio (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I planned to leave this at Commmons:Media copyright questions until I discovered that there wasn't any such page. Three images, Image:City of Lake View Iowa official logo.jpg, Image:Chief Blackhawk Statue.jpg, and Image:Boating on Blackhawk Lake.jpg were uploaded today by KrazJoe (talk), all with {{PD-ineligible}} licenses, even though none (especially the logo!) can possibly qualify for such licenses. I've removed them from the Lake View article on the English Wikipedia, as they're plainly copyvios, but what should be done here? Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The only one of those three images that was clearly a problem to me was Image:City of Lake View Iowa official logo.jpg. Images with the wrong license applied (which the other two might be) do not seem so clear-cut to me.
For Image:City of Lake View Iowa official logo.jpg, I used {{Copyvio}} on it and read the instructions. The instructions tell to inform the uploader of the image that it is being requested to be deleted by using a template which is displayed when that other template is used. So, using the upload history I arrived quickly at the users talk page which had not been created yet. {{Welcome}} was put there which is full of information but not too much of that. Saved that and then pasted the suggested subst from the template that was put on the image along with an apology for saying welcome and then seconds later, telling of a problem.
If you have a url that proves that the other two images are copyright violations, then {{copyvio|url}} will work to do the same thing only more thoroughly. If you don't have that url, then {{Delete}} and a preview gives several options for ways to proceed. -- carol (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that on the English Wikipedia, these could be tagged for deletion in a few days as being altogether without a necessary license. Is there such an option here? Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Which deletion procedure did you follow? It is my opinion that contributors here do not need to know all of the fine points of the copyright laws before uploading and that a license applied mistakenly is not enough cause to request deletion. Do you have a url that proves the other images are indeed a violation and once again, which of the procedures did you attempt to follow (Administrators noticeboard is not a "procedure" btw). -- carol (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD, Images criterias 3 and 4 would (although this license tag isn't mentioned) give me enough justification to delete this if it were on the English Wikipedia. As you can see at the top of this thread, I didn't know where to go, since Commons procedures are different from those of the English Wikipedia, so I figured an administrator would know where to send me here. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Start by applying the {{Delete}} template and in a preview read that. That template suggests most of the procedures for the different situations. Frankly, I am kind of glad that it is (usually) difficult to get images deleted on the suggestion that there might be a violation. Also, I am not an administrator, just a user who has followed the procedures a few times successfully here. English wikipedia has a different kind of critereon for their images, I have been most involved there with uploading images here that are being stored there. I rather like the idea of only fair use there and everything else here, that is my opinion though. I also like having the image descriptions with the license and not with a huge (almost desperate sounding) treatise about all of the reasons the image can be here. It either qualifies for a license or it doesn't. No amount of shouting, begging or thesis writing on it can change that. -- carol (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
If you think they are from the same author why the wide varation metadata?Geni (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete

Image used in vandalism in Wiki-pt . Delete please. Fabiano msg 21:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This also. Thanks. Fabiano msg 22:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done. Deleted all images and blocked the user. Next time, you can add {{Speedy}} to them. Cheers, KveD (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Rendering issue reported: anyone with insight?

In bugzilla:15005 a rendering issue with Commons:Upload has been reported[11]. Expert insight would be appreciated, so determine if this is a problem related to the way 'we' have configured our wiki, or if this issue resides inside MediaWiki. Cheers! Siebrand 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What? That's not what it's suppose to look like? J/k The user reports that Meta's is affected too. My guess is it's the way the person configured Firefox or something else on their end. Rocket000(talk) 07:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Closing issue as "WORKSFORME". Siebrand 07:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Jjarivera (talk · contribs)

This new user has uploaded a lot of images today. Checking three of them in google-images, yielded three clear copyvios. Instead of checking all the other uploads, it might be justified to nuke them all. --Túrelio (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Some look OK, though most appear to be bogus. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rama (talk · contribs)

Once again, this admin uses personal attacks [12] when he doesn't have any valid arguments in a discussion. See also Commons:Bistro#photo_avec_texte. He must stop that. Yann (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks there. Majorly talk 13:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, there were somewhat person-directed arguments, that would better have been avoided as Rocket000 has clearly pointed out. --Túrelio (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Pingusrojo (talk · contribs)

PLease check next user Pingusrojo (talk · contribs) uploaded pictures, in some are web-address stored and some are duplicate--Motopark (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done they're now deleted. Thanks for the help. Regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 15:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Stethoscopes (talk · contribs)

I'm very wary of this user's contributions. The website mentioned on the user page is a commercial selling site. As such it may be that "promotion" is the intention, equally copyvios from the website are possible. I'll delete the user page as "out of scope" within a day or so probably (there are a lot of user pages that are selling/commercial in the past few days - here if anyone is interested). Any views? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Besides the one URL on the user page, the contributions are "clean" from weblinks and any evident promotion, and seem to be useful. O.k., after some research I found that Image:Doctors stethoscope 2.jpg is actually showing this product, though the image on Commons is not shown on the website. And of course, the images are professionally made. --Túrelio (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes - that is why I left it for now. The bells are only ringing because it is actually a "selling" website. I guess watch & wait. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Gentlelife

Gentlelife (talk · contribs) has been uploading a load of flickrvios, as well as lots of risqué images, and using them to illustrate wikipedia articles. A lot appear to be copyvios, and most are useless for the subject matter. Keep a watch on him. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur - questionable. I've deleted one based on no proof of model's age. --Herby talk thyme 11:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this Image:179802599 f3e8bc8853 b.jpg violates the personality rights of Jelena Jankovic. Though she may be a celebrity, showing her in this situation is demeaning, IMHO. --Túrelio (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I concur. The image is currently on deletion requests - Alison ❤ 21:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lilorbd (talk · contribs)

New user uploading images, mostly promo photos, of mexican music group RBD. Some I could identify as copyvios, others I couldn't find by google.--Túrelio (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done all images deleted as copyvios. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lachora (talk · contribs)

Either we have won a professional photographer or a skilled copyviolater. I wasn't able to find via google-images any one of the highly professional photos of Monserrat Bustamante uploaded by this new user. --Túrelio (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the images when I saw them. Most likely copyright violations. --Kanonkas(talk) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) They were all deleted by Kanonkas (talk · contribs · logs); I just tried to review the uploads myself and the user has no contribs visible and the upload log is all redlinks. Also, FWIW, I noticed one image had a previous upload with the same name by Magl21 (talk · contribs) and the log shows they were both created with "Monserrat Bustamante" in the description. I haven't looked too closely but it could be a sock. (Mag121 is not currently blocked though) --Jeremyb (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe it's a sockpuppet, I can't see any connection at least but let Herby, or Lar see this instead if needed. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely IMO. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protecting Commons:Licensing ?

We might consider semi-protecting Commons:Licensing as it was fully vandalised (complete contents replaced by anti-admin hate slogan) 4 times in the last 3 days. --Túrelio (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I say block first, then protect if it still get vandalism. Maybe they're using open proxies, let me take a look. --Kanonkas(talk) 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
User:88.255.6.61 is an open proxy, port 80 enabled got in. --Kanonkas(talk) 21:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The only IP edits are vandalism. I've s-prot for a month. However I don't feel very strongly so if it is reverted or extended it won't bother me :). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
User:201.14.111.130 is also an open proxy. Looks like all of the last ip's are open proxies but I'll be scanning them. --Kanonkas(talk) 14:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Remains on talkpage

On the talkpage to this page there is still a paragraph with the headline "User Yann is actin against law" from an obviously dismissed claim in December 2006. As this is a (clearly forbidden) legal threat and might even be slander or worse against User:Yann, shouldn't this be either be deleted or archived and then deleted? --Túrelio (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

NewUserMessage (part 2)

Today I had some help from Tim Starling. He reviewed the extension NewUserMessage. Some new features were added (like in-wiki configuration), and proper support for larger environments. I expect that activation of the feature is very near. One (disabled) feature was added that is the main reason for me writing this message.

My assumption is that Wikimedia Commons gets a lot of new users from Wikimedia projects in a specific language (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc.). If these users have a merged account, their user will be created automatically, and they will automatically log in to Commons. This will not lead to the creation of a welcome message for them.

It is possible to set "$wgNewUserMessageOnAutoCreate = true;" in the project configuration to give users that are so-called "autocreated" a welcome message. I propose to request to emable this feature. As this feature was not part of the original design, and not discussed here, I would like to get some opinions. My personal opinion is that any new user on Wikimedia Commons should get a welcome message as soon as possible. Siebrand 12:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the welcome message. I've been trying to get people to place welcome before any other templates for some time now. Thanks for the work Siebrand. --Herby talk thyme 12:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I did request input on the 'autocreation', though :) Siebrand 12:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - to be clearer - autocreation is fine with me. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree too. If possible, it would be nice to put the welcome message directly in the (assumed) native language of the new user on her/his talk page. --Túrelio (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The discussion about adding the welcome template was already closed with 'yes'. The question in this topic is if welcome messages should also be added for autocreated user accounts. Cheers! Siebrand 12:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
$wgNewUserMessageOnAutoCreate = true;
please!  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
What is happens with Commons:Welcome log? Could we still maintain log of new active accounts? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The log of new active accounts should come from Special:Log/newusers or someone (most probably Filnik) will have to adapt welcome.py somehow. As welcome.py no longer makes an edit because the user talk page is not empty, it will no longer update COM:WL. Siebrand 18:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As you can see on Special:Contributions/Wikimedia_Commons_Welcome, the new extension is active. Wee! Siebrand 08:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Great but on that subject? :) Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:2008 Election suffrage poll open

The poll is opened for 31 days at Commons:2008 Election suffrage poll per discussions and has been added to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details so that no one can possibly miss it while it is open, even if they do not log in daily or check Village Pump and Admin noticeboard, where I'm noting it's open. Please weigh in. :) rootology (T) 13:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: based on reviewing all administrators whose usernames begin with "A", 40% of administrators would fail various criteria listed on this poll. Do we really want to ban administrators from voting on new administrators, bureaucrats, etc.? This poll should be closed as soon as possible. --Durin (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that admins were any different from other people - why should they be singled out for special treatment? It is great to have those who are active involved fully in Commons - those who have become inactive maybe will become active again - admins/users/'crat - whoever. I would strongly oppose the closing of this poll. --Herby talk thyme 15:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The point isn't that admins are any different. The point is that we already trust admins with more tools here, but under this proposal we wouldn't trust them to vote. That's insane. Editing patterns on this project are different than encyclopedia projects of Wikimedia. Trying to tack on edit count requirements in this environment is an exceptionally poor idea. --Durin (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not about trust. Rocket000(talk) 02:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonderivative and cc-nd Templates

{{Nonderivative}} and {{Cc-nd}} generate a nice sticker as candidate for speedy deletion and a Category:Against policy is attached. The latter being redirected to a copy violation category. Could this be improved as those images might staty there for ever. --Foroa (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Now hurry up and become an admin so you can do these things. :) Rocket000(talk) 20:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Tog-externaleditor

Can somebody change the link to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:External_editors ? --Isderion (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done per user request. --Kanonkas(talk) 00:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thanks :) --Isderion (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


Photo used with permission from the conservative party

I was given permission per email from the conservative party in UK to upload this photo http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilde:Logo.of.the.conservative.party.in.uk.jpg to wikimedia commons. But I dont know which license to use. Can you help me please? --Stiangutten (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If the permission does not specify license by name or usage details, it's invalid and you cannot upload this picture here. See Commons:Licensing A.J. (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Stiangutten, you should propose them a fitting license such as the most current {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} or one based on or compliant with UK law such as {{Cc-by-sa-2.0-uk}}, and then ask them to give you again permission, eventually by use the email template on Commons:Email templates, and to send it back to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --Túrelio (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos taken by US Gov contractors

Photos taken by contractors of, say, US Navy, are often published on the website of the US Navy, e. g. here. Such photos are marked with (Photo courtesy Lockheed-Martin/Released), with released meaning only that it is approved to be shown to the public. Photos taken by Navy employees are clearly marked as U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley (RELEASED) (e. g. here.

Unfortunately this is pretty confusing and we have some pictures of contractors marked as work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain. en:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government says pretty clearly Unlike works of the U.S. Government, works produced by contractors under government contracts (or submitted in anticipation of such contracts) are protected and restricted under U.S. copyright law.. Recently, the Navy itself answerked to a request This image is provided on Navy.mil for news and information, and as such Wikipedia would be an appropriate venue. However, this is not a U.S. Navy photo. Recommend you at least inform the shipbuilder of your intentions. [13] Clearly this means, we can't use the pictures without a permission for commercial use and stuff.

I would appreciate, if Admins could confirm my point of view about the above said, which would enable me to link this discussion in further del-reqs. Additionaly, please have a look at all the delreq listed below, which are not yet cloded:

  1. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:USS New York City (SSN-696).jpg (june 4)
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:USS Seawolf;08002123.jpg (june 17)
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:USS Kidd DDG-100.jpg (june 20)
  4. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:LCS-1 trial.jpg, + Image:LCS-1 Ladowisko MH-60R-S.jpg and everything in Freedom (LCS-1) first days (july 31, an insufficient permission is given)
  5. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:080728-O-XXXXX-008.jpg (july 31)
  6. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:USS San Antonio LPD17.jpg (august 8)

Thank you, --schlendrian •λ• 12:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

uploading file in spain wikipedia

If I go to spain wikipedia and will upload a file, I go to special pages and select fro list upload file, i'll get information File uploads are disabled on Wikipedia.

If I press from left upload file, I come direct to commons.

And because the system are that kind of, in commons will be a lot of pictures that must delete. Do you know why the system are that kind of.--Motopark (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia decided to host all files on Commons. They only want to use really free works (no fair-use or anything like that) and cause of that only allow files from Commons. Contributors are encouraged to upload their free works on Commons. --Slomox (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, if you can read Spanish, take a look to es:Wikipedia:Sobre el uso legítimo and es:Wikipedia:Votaciones/2004/Usar sólo imágenes libres. Cheers, KveD (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

filetoc

You know that gray bar above images on their description pages. It has the links "Image", "File history", "Links", and sometimes "Metadata". Well, can we make that any more useful? I don't see the point of the image link since it's right there. The others may be useful if you're on a cellphone or something, but still pretty useless, IMO. I would love it if we could put things like checkusage and log links there. (Save some tab space.) Is this possible to change directly (i.e. without JavaScript or CSS). Rocket000(talk) 11:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Paintings in Category:20th century paintings

If somebody has really the time it would be good if he/she could go through Category:20th century paintings and tag all images with {{No permission since}} that are not covered by {{FOP}} and do not show a permission by the author of the painting. I have run into a lot of them but do not have the time to tag them all. --ALE! ¿…? 11:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Musicachina (talk · contribs) uploadings

Please check Musicachina (talk · contribs) uploadings, there are almost one copyvio Image:Marina Rossell.jpg from web, almost one album cover Image:Ginesaflamenca.jpg, one copyvio? Image:Orquestra.jpg but in all pictures are same description English: Photo yielded with the whole assent for picap, so reader can't know which person are in the picture.

What we can do--Motopark (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should block this user (he/she had one copyvio warnings already). Most likely we should nuke his/her uploads. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
All contribs gone. My linguistics skills are not great but picap (quoted by them) does not seem freely licensed to me. Blocked for a week. Let's see what happens. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Malformed deletion requests

New category to clean up. I also gave non-media DRs it's own cat: Category:Non-media deletion requests. Rocket000(talk) 05:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do these 2 Commons templates below differ from the ones on English Wikipedia? They both use the same wikicode. One can't see the "show" or "hide" text on the Commons versions.

At Category talk:Diagrams there is a desire to further condense the international links (see below) in the introduction of Category:Diagrams. It seems impossible to put the links in a simple paragraph that wordwraps. So a show/hide template is a simple solution.

I think the problem with the international links is that they may have line breaks built in. I don't know. Here is the wikicode for the links when placed in a column: 

{{cs|[[:cs:Diagram|Diagram]].}} 
{{de|[[:de:Diagramm|Diagramm]].}} 
{{el|[[:el:Διάγραμμα|Διάγραμμα]].}} 
{{en|[[:en:Diagram|Diagram]].}} 
{{es|[[:es:Diagrama|Diagrama]].}} 
{{eu|[[:eu:Diagrama|Diagrama]].}} 
{{fa|[[:fa:نمودار|نمودار]].}} 
{{fr|[[:fr:Diagramme|Diagramme]].}} 
{{io|[[:io:Diagramo|Diagramo]].}} 
{{it|[[:it:Diagramma|Diagramma]].}} 
{{nl|[[:nl:Diagram|Diagram]].}} 
{{no|[[:no:Diagram|Diagram]].}} 
{{pl|[[:pl:Diagram|Diagram]].}} 
{{pt|[[:pt:Diagrama|Diagrama]].}} 
{{sl|[[:sl:Diagram|Diagram]].}} 
{{fi|[[:fi:Diagrammi|Diagrammi]].}} 
{{sv|[[:sv:Diagram|Diagram]].}}

Putting "nowiki" <nowiki> tags around the above produces this:

{{cs|[[:cs:Diagram|Diagram]].}} {{de|[[:de:Diagramm|Diagramm]].}} {{el|[[:el:Διάγραμμα|Διάγραμμα]].}} {{en|[[:en:Diagram|Diagram]].}} {{es|[[:es:Diagrama|Diagrama]].}} {{eu|[[:eu:Diagrama|Diagrama]].}} {{fa|[[:fa:نمودار|نمودار]].}} {{fr|[[:fr:Diagramme|Diagramme]].}} {{io|[[:io:Diagramo|Diagramo]].}} {{it|[[:it:Diagramma|Diagramma]].}} {{nl|[[:nl:Diagram|Diagram]].}} {{no|[[:no:Diagram|Diagram]].}} {{pl|[[:pl:Diagram|Diagram]].}} {{pt|[[:pt:Diagrama|Diagrama]].}} {{sl|[[:sl:Diagram|Diagram]].}} {{fi|[[:fi:Diagrammi|Diagrammi]].}} {{sv|[[:sv:Diagram|Diagram]].}}

Putting table formatting around it produces this:

International Wikipedia links
Čeština: Diagram.
Deutsch: Diagramm.
Ελληνικά: Διάγραμμα.
English: Diagram.
Español: Diagrama.
Euskara: Diagrama.
فارسی: نمودار.
Français : Diagramme.
Ido: Diagramo.
Italiano: Diagramma.
Nederlands: Diagram.
Norsk bokmål: Diagram.
Polski: Diagram.
Português: Diagrama.
Slovenščina: Diagram.
Suomi: Diagrammi.
Svenska: Diagram.

Putting it in one table row produces this:

Čeština: Diagram.
Deutsch: Diagramm.
Ελληνικά: Διάγραμμα.
English: Diagram.
Español: Diagrama.
Euskara: Diagrama.
فارسی: نمودار.
Français : Diagramme.
Ido: Diagramo.
Italiano: Diagramma.
Nederlands: Diagram.
Norsk bokmål: Diagram.
Polski: Diagram.
Português: Diagrama.
Slovenščina: Diagram.
Suomi: Diagrammi.
Svenska: Diagram.

Putting "nowrap" in front of each entry in the table produces this:

Čeština: Diagram.
Deutsch: Diagramm.
Ελληνικά: Διάγραμμα.
English: Diagram.
Español: Diagrama.
Euskara: Diagrama.
فارسی: نمودار.
Français : Diagramme.
Ido: Diagramo.
Italiano: Diagramma.
Nederlands: Diagram.
Norsk bokmål: Diagram.
Polski: Diagram.
Português: Diagrama.
Slovenščina: Diagram.
Suomi: Diagrammi.
Svenska: Diagram.

If the international interwiki templates allowed the language links to wordwrap, then there would be no need for a table. The links would all be in one short paragraph.

A show-hide template could help shorten the introductions of many pages such as this one: Category:Félix Houphouët-Boigny. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Our show/hide templates suck, and until someone with the skills and the willingness to improve them decides to help us out, I can't see a wide acceptance of this. Changes need to be made to the site's javascript and css. I tried to import the version used on en.wp and nearly every other Wikimedia site, but to little success. Rocket000(talk) 08:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. Someone will tell you you can hide the translations with CSS. That is, you can solve the problem for yourself, but not for anyone else.
ya, the actual show/hide is done by a script and such templates are dependent on appropriate stuff being present (common.js && common.css, I think; didn't look today). nb: I just made a slight tweak here and the deprecated en one could use it, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow... yeah, it would help if the templates were actually formatted correctly. Heh, now just get the arrow inside the box. MediaWiki:NavFrame.js. Make it say show/hide instead ugly easy-to-miss arrows. Internationalize that. Make NavigationBarShowDefault work the opposite way it does now. Simplify and reduce the amount of div tags needed. Move the whole script from monobook.js to common.js. Then move on to the CSS. And we're all set! Rocket000(talk) 13:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that; I've saved a copy and will look a bit. fyi, I tend to not focus too hard on pages that say 'view source'. You know what the Bahasa Indonesian word for 'hide' is? 'sembunyikan' — which does not fit well inside the 6em allotted for it in the code; I've tried, without success, to get that changed there. As is, it either hangs out of the box or the ']' drops down below (varys by browser). Also, I believe MediaWiki was adding the trailing quote to the xhtml it emits; it massages things a lot on the way out the door. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think we can default back to the arrows if the word's too long (or not translated yet). I believe we already have a complete set of "show"s and "hide"s since the TOCs have them. Regarding MediaWiki fixing things, it does do a lot of that but it in this case the border was showing up until you fixed it. Rocket000(talk) 15:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The 'sembunyikan' issue on id:wp is in the local Template:Navbox and kin; they're a bit behind the en:wp version, but all have a 6em wide space for the show/hide text. And I've had trouble getting anyone to care much. Anyway, that stuff doesn't support the arrows (which would bypass a whole mess of localization issues, assuming they're universally understood). If the tweak I made above helps, it should be made on en, ah, which I don't edit. I actually don't much care for boxes that collapse and have forced on the order of 10,000 to not collapse on id:wp). see;
which is the last, largest, batch in the process of being converted to a template based implementation. Most of the images I've be transferring from there or uploading off .go.id sites are for use in in these navboxes. I'll take a closer look at the ones here on Commons when I have a chance. Sorry for wandering rather off-topic. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The Atlas introduction could use a show/hide box for the long translations section at the top. I am sure there are many pages that could use the show/hide box. If we already have a complete set of "show"s and "hide"s for the TOCs, then hopefully this would make adapting the show/hide boxes for Commons use easier. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) From Category talk:Diagrams is this table:

The article Diagram in Wikipedia projects: Česky: cs:Diagram. Deutsch: de:Diagramm. Ελληνικά: el:Διάγραμμα. English: en:Diagram. Español: es:Diagrama. Euskara: eu:Diagrama. فارسی: fa:نمودار. Français: fr:Diagramme. Ido: io:Diagramo. Italiano: it:Diagramma. Nederlands: nl:Diagram. ‪Norsk (bokmål): no:Diagram. Polski: pl:Diagram. Português: pt:Diagrama. Slovenščina: sl:Diagram. Suomi: fi:Diagrammi. Svenska: sv:Diagram.

It may be an alternative to show/hiding the non-English article names. That is because the table takes up less vertical space than a column list, and so there is less need to hide it. It can be made into a right-aligned table, and take up effectively no vertical space. See an example here: [14] --Timeshifter (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't just a simple [[fi:Diagrammi]] place the intrawiki link into either the navigation bar (in monobook theme) or along the upper portion of the page (in classic theme)? -- carol (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
These are article names. There are category names in the left sidebar in my browser. See: [15]
The category names are in the form of [[fi:Luokka:Diagrammit]]. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that is kind of aggravating to me while trying to use things. It is almost as if (to have the categories linked to elsewhere) the link says "And if you like this list of images and galleries, then you are sure to enjoy this list of articles...." and the list of articles is kind of useless and demands extra searching and clicking. To understand what the collection of images, galleries and other media are about, the link to the article would be nice to have easy access to. The first thing I was told here (as a warning/suggestion) was that this was an image storage site and that articles were to be written on the "companion" sites that are supposed to be for articles. That being said, many of the plant articles have "Sister project" templates which link to the categories. I wasn't around when those were made, but the template is smallish and not unattractive. Category:Fabaceae is using this template.
A similar situation I had was when I was using the atlas here to help find maps. When I found the location (I was looking for an alternative spelling and the atlas is really good for that) and clicked on the link, I was sent to English wikipedia which the article there did not help with finding a blank map. Had I been wanting information about the location, I would have went to English wikipedia. I blamed this on how similar a good gallery is to an article where categories tend to limit it to just an image collection. I had a gallery which moved to English wikipedia -- I have not yet had an article move to commons though.... -- carol (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC) (PS, oh, dup -- the discussion is about the Atlas....)

Suggestions:

  1. Use the language name as the link.
  2. Use the language code instead of the whole name.
  3. Use sidebar interwiki links when possible.
  4. Use <small> tags and/or adjust the line height.
  5. Change "...in other Wikipedia projects:" to "...in Wikipedia projects:"

Rocket000(talk) 09:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The article Diagram in Wikipedia projects:

Česky. Deutsch. Ελληνικά. English. Español. Euskara. فارسی. Français. Ido. Italiano. Nederlands. ‪Norsk (bokmål). Polski. Português. Slovenščina. Suomi. Svenska.

Some good ideas there, Rocket000. Here is the shortened table to the right. I first tried the <small></small> tags, but they made the text too small to read for me. So I went back to default text sizing. Using the language names shortened the table so much, though, that further shortening is not really needed yet in my opinion. There is room for more entries, too. Shortening the title as you suggested helped make the table title stay on one line. فارسی: fa:نمودار is hard to manipulate. It looks like Carol fixed it for me in the table. Thanks! --Timeshifter (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
it is fridi bidi or whatever they call it -- if your instinct is to use <bksp key> try to use <delete key> instead. And, the other way around also. -- carol (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
lol. It is like driving backwards, I guess. I think what was confusing me is that everything is right-to-left including the order of items in the wikilink. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It certainly is easier to discuss stylized intrawiki links than it is to make that category smaller, isn't it? I did terrible things to that category when I was sorting images. I wonder if it would be alright to delete diagrams which are there, are not being used and have no description? -- carol (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what you mean. This might not be the place to discuss it either since this is about templates. Maybe you could bring this up at Category talk:Diagrams? --Timeshifter (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought of something else. The table is short enough that there is space to include both the translations of "diagram" and the language names. Please see: [16]. Without both of them people may not know what the table is about if they don't read English! Because the title of the table is in English. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
True. That is why I suggested both #2 and #3. If you include the language and the page name, you can use the language code instead of the full name. For example, en: Diagram. Rocket000(talk) 22:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. If <small> is too small, you can try {{Font-size}}. Rocket000(talk) 22:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. I like the {{Font-size}} idea. I changed the right-aligned table higher up so that it is set to 90% {{Font-size}}. See also the variations in table formats here: Category talk:Diagrams#Proposal to add a new table on top of the Category:Diagrams. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

New {{Collapsed}} template

Thanks, Rocket000 for creating {{Collapsed}}, a new show/hide template. It is being discussed and demonstrated here: Category talk:Diagrams. I think it will be especially useful for introductions that have detailed translations in several languages. Such as:

The English introduction could be left visible, and the translations could be put in the show/hide box.

Plus maybe Template:Collapsed could replace Template:Hidden. Template:Hidden has very small arrow icons instead of show/hide text. It is used on some image description pages. See:

Maybe the code from Template:Collapsed could be used to update Template:Hidden so that it has show/hide text. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Unable to get into Account..

I am, being a bit of an idiot, unable to get into my account 'MasterOfHisOwnDomain' after having forgotten the password and having not set an Email Address (because I didn't think I'd be visiting the Commons again). I would naturally just create another account and not care, but I like to keep MOHOD as a recurring theme to my online presence, and I'm really annoyed I can't get back into the account, or create another similarly titled account. I realise that there probably won't be anything I can do to actually prove myself as the account creator and people will probably tell me that I should 'get a grip and just make another account' but it bothers me so badly I felt I had to say something. Any help would be appreciated. 92.21.228.52 21:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to recover your password unless you had a confirmed email on the account. You may, however, be able to request that the account be usurped for you at COM:CHU. No guarantees on that though.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I see there is a user with the same name on the English Wikipedia. Do you know whether you had unified your accounts? If you own the user name on the English Wikipedia, you should be able to usurp it here, since there are no edits under that account on Commons. Pruneautalk 22:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help everyone. I am MasterOfHisOwnDomain on the English Wikipedia as well, as I am on most online things I've signed up for. So you're saying I could get them to usurp (funny word?) the name to a different one and then create a new account? 92.16.19.56 07:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
If you can log in to MasterOfHisOwnDomain on EnWP, leave a note on your talk page there saying "I'm 92.16.19.56 on Commons", then provide a diff to that edit here, and we can try and sort something out in terms of usurping. —Giggy 07:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I have done what you suggested: Talk Page. 92.16.19.56 07:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've renamed MasterOfHisOwnDomain to MasterOfHisOwnDomain2 on this project. You can now recreate the MasterOfHisOwnDomain account. When you've done that, please also consider enabling SUL. Let me know if there are any issues. Cheers. —Giggy 13:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Now noted in rename archives. —Giggy 13:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot everyone for helping me out with this one! 92.18.15.3 15:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for editing protected page

Hi!

Template:PermissionOTRS/lang has full protection. Please add Template:PermissionOTRS/hu to it with "Magyar" label.

And I think the {{edit|Template:PermissionOTRS/lang}} line is unnecessary in case of protected pages.

Thank you! Samat (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done per request. Thank you for your help. Regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 10:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] Added "hu" and left the edit label in place (I think that way it is easier to locate the language template). --Matt314 (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Upload new images with bad name blocked

Hi all, since today it's also for autoconfirmed users not possible to upload images with bad titles, e.g. like Image:PICT4838.JPG. Reupload of images with bad name is furthermore possible. Users which try to upload such a image becomes MediaWiki:Senselessimagename, which is only available in English. I think the message should be available in all languages, for this discussion see here. Greetings, --Luxo 14:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection requests

Please can an admin protect {{NOINDEX}} as fully-protected for me, and semi-protect/move-protect User:Kelsington for me?? Thanks, AP aka --Kelsington (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't normally protect little-used templates or userpages without no history of vandalism or abuse.[17][18] Are there special circumstances of which we should be aware? Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The new MediaWiki software permits the magic word __(space added)NOINDEX__. The template transcludes this. The template is preferred so to track the usage of the __ NOINDEX__ magic word. I assume that as time progresses this will be a high use template. I'm sure from time to time a bot will change occurrences of __ NOINDEX__ to {{NOINDEX}} for tracking usage purposes. This is in reference to . Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

✓ Protected the template  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverse PD-Art deletions

These images were deleted before the recent policy change regarding PD-Art. Should they be undeleted? BJTalk 05:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked BJ to post this after we talked about it... it could help with some restorations, obviously, and we could maybe get someone to bot a crawl through deletion logs later to find all PD-Art deletions for a review backlog. It'll help on situations like this too. rootology (T) 05:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The first two of these images should not be undeleted. They had neither source nor author information. Lupo 06:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Noted, I'll delete from en.wp. BJTalk 07:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Konigstein81.jpg and Image:Basteibrucke78.jpg‎

Scans of old postcards, licensed as anonymous-EU (works published before 1920, only under a corporate name), but marked by user:Rama as "no source". After short discussion with Rama I have put both files on deletion request page (Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Konigstein81.jpg & Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Basteibrucke78.jpg) to ask the community what should we do with it. During the week both the pictures were accepted by community as anonymous-EU and "kept" by user:Anonymous101. After five hours marked as "no source" again by Rama. I really don't understand why somebody breaks Wikimedia-Commons procedures. Julo (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Made a mistake when adding an article

Hello, I just put in an article on Waylande Gregory. It was put in under Wayland Gregory. Is there a way to put it under Waylande Gregory? He also went by Wayland Gregory as well, so perhaps both spellings could be linked together. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldwei (talk • contribs) 01:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi. You seem to be lost - this is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. We host free images, not encyclopaedia articles. I moved your article to en.wikipedia Waylande Gregory. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
See also our project scope. —Giggy 02:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Real name in image history

Hi. My name appear in the history of the file Image:Poster of Gotovina Hitler.jpg per the right to anonymity could you please delete this image. And i will upload it again without this comment. Thanks. Tieum512 (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC). Same for Image:Vukovar water tank.jpg and Image:Tudjman grave mirogoj.jpg and Image:Šibenik.JPG. Thanks. Tieum512 (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you upload over them now? Then I'll delete the old versions. Rocket000(talk) 08:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
We don't need a new version uploaded, just to delete old history revisions. I've done it. Could you please add an {{Information}} template to Image:Šibenik.JPG please, Tieum? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Um... yeah, we need to delete the file history too. I already took care of the page history here. You deleted more than necessary. Rocket000(talk) 10:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
See his name: Image:Šibenik.JPG#filehistory. We need a new version or else we would delete the whole thing. Rocket000(talk) 10:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be OK now, you can suppress the early version. Tieum512 (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Dschwen (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. A lot. Tieum512 (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is ok or not ok?

I've noticed 2 photos (Image:XPT toilet.jpg and Image:XPT sleeper interior.jpg) by User:Dysprosia that are copyrighted and not free-use. I understand that it was uploaded in 2006 (could have been when Commons wasn't totally free-use) but wouldn't this mean it's no longer ok to be on commons until the uploader changes the license to be less restrictive. Bidgee (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think it's not OK.. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 07:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Commons always has been (to the best of my knowledge) fully free use. My reading of the copyright notices on the images is that they release the copyrights and allow reuse. I'm not sure if the third dot point has any (non)commercial issues attached and will wait for another admin's second opinion. —Giggy 07:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I posted it here. :) Bidgee (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
(EC) As User:Dysprosia was active on Commons in March 2008, you might ask him/her directly if he/she would be willing to change the current obviously software-related license text to a better fitting one such as CC-BY 3.0 or similar. --Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Its a BSD license, which is an acceptable free license like the {{GPL}}. However, like the GPL, it is designed for software and its stupid to use it for media files. Like the GPL, it should only be used for screenshots of free software (not that it stops anyone).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The majority of user content here is copyrighted. Please actually read the license, rather than stopping at the word "Copyright" or "All Rights Reserved". Superm401 - Talk 13:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't know who that was directed at. How I understand the licensing is that you can have it copyrighted but have some rights reserved (Not "All Rights Reserved" as it's restrictive) free-use. Maybe there needs to be a set standard of Photo/Image licensing like what has been done to Flickr images on Commons[19]? Bidgee (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. You can put "All rights reserved" on anything copyrighted regardless of the license. When you freely license a work, you do retain your rights, you just give permission to others. Think of a license as a contract with the public. The GFDL (or whatever) is not written into any laws. It works within, and because of, the law. If you didn't retain the rights, you couldn't relicense it. And actually, this is practice is not that uncommon. A few countries still required this phrase up until recently (see w:All rights reserved). Creative Commons is to blame with that "Some rights reserved" stuff. Rocket000(talk) 15:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Rocket000 is correct. "All rights reserved" no longer has any legal effect, and "Some rights reserved" is a slogan, not an actual license. There is a set standard for appropriate licenses, and BSD meets the standard. Please see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses. and Commons:Copyright_tags#Other_free_tags. Superm401 - Talk 15:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Global blocking is live

Hello everyone. Global blocking has been enabled for Stewards. I've created MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked (the message received when you're globally blocked and try to edit here) and added an option to {{Unblock}} for removing a global block. See m:Steward handbook#IP address blocks for some more information. Cheers —Giggy 00:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Now all the CUs should be comparing notes and blocking the hell out of you-know-who; five character user name, starts with a 'G' (and ends with a consonant, not a sometimes-vowel). Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, and he's already requested unblock! —Giggy 10:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
What a surreal thread... rootology (T) 12:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a beer for this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked yesterday for improved logging on this, here. rootology (T) 12:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Welcome log

Could anybody take a look to bot code and adjust it for New User Message extension? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Eichbaum Kellerbier 2007.jpg

Hi! What happened to this beer photo made by me: Image:Eichbaum Kellerbier 2007.jpg?? It just disappeared, but the description page is still there. The picture is used now at least in de:Eichbaum-Brauereien, en:Mannheim and it was a selected picture at Portal:Beer. Would you please check what happened to this image. Thanks in advance! Alex Ex (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange, even the deletion log is empty. --Túrelio (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It is? Rocket000(talk) 08:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, nevermind. I see what you mean. Weird. Rocket000(talk) 08:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Very odd! Must have happened not long ago since the image shows on Google Images but just not here since it seems to have been removed from the image server[20]. Bidgee (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Database/server issue or has an oversighter taken a rather "strong" approach to discourage alcohol use? Well, there's two old revisions (that were not deleted!) so I'll restore them. Rocket000(talk) 10:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Well at least it was still floating around! Gives a new meaning to X-Files! Bidgee (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
:D Rocket000(talk) 10:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a bug where things are not logged properly (& note that oversighters cannot make images disappear).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, the image is back ;-)! Alex Ex (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Similar issue

There appears to be a similar issue with Image:Verkehrsmuseum Nbg.jpg. The description page is there, but the image is not. As I am not a commons admin, I can't check the deletion logs. The description page indicates that it was uploaded and released by the image creator. Thanks. Slambo (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:KaschePuzia Logo.png

It seems that somebody try to empty request from picture, see history, what we can do with this picture--Motopark (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sahilkhan (talk · contribs) uploadings

Please check Sahilkhan (talk · contribs) uploadings, it will seems that all are out of scope text--Motopark (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons talk:MediaMoveBot/CheckPage

I'm requesting that some willing admins add this page to their watchlist and check it occasionally. News seems to be spreading about the renaming bot. There are many files out there that need a good renaming, but as anyone who works in this area knows, bots don't do all the work. As more and more users have access to this service, the more work us admins will have. Trivial name changes should be avoided for numerous reasons and I'm afraid the majority of the users applying for this trusted status do not understand them. I'm also seeing an increase in non-Commons' regulars who may come with language/project-specific ideas about how files should be named and then are not around to see the impact renaming files has. They don't think anything of it. Now, this is a bit preemptive as there's not a huge problem yet but it seems very likely one will develop if we don't do anything. Concerns have been raised by others (for example, Commons talk:MediaMoveBot/CheckPage#Control). More watchful eyes would be appreciated. If we can get the activity the Flickr review page gets, that would be awesome (but with the 'voting' more like how it is on bot flag requests :). It's not really a big deal, it's just a little bit more of a deal than most people think. Thanks guys. Rocket000(talk) 16:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try checking it more now, hope that helps! --Kanonkas(talk) 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a situation where "trusted users" are people who have some experience manually renaming images. By the time I learned about the rename bot, I was honestly glad to have the task automated and I am quite certain that just verbalizing the task or imagining it is not the same as the dreary business of manually downloading and reuploading with the different name and changing the names on all of the wiki pages -- I did this because I wanted to make the deletion part of the operation easier for the people who are also the administration here. Knowing how much the bot does has been a really good thing for me -- at least it should have been. I think it should be good for any "trusted user" also. No amount of voting will make trust or understanding a fact. -- carol (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Marciabellrca.JPG

This image has a PD-self tag on it but also an RCA logo, so I suspect it's non-free. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done: It appears to be a variant of this album cover - definitely not self-made. Deleted as copyvio. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Thomas Gun

This user has been banned twice, indefinately by arbitration committees on the English Wikipedia (see User:Yorkshirian). Can we ban him here too? At very least I'd like to see a committment to non-distruptive editing. To be clear, this user is a chronic bully, sockpuppetteer and has driven several quality WP editors away in his time. Jhamez84 (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No ban yet. Why should we? So far his edits here have been constructive. Lupo 14:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
To an extent they have been constructive. Alot of Yorkshirian's distruption revolved around his strange views on British geography, particularly surrounding Yorkshire. Some of his descriptions and categorisation fit the same pattern, and I'm concerned that this may escalate.
You ask why should he be banned? Well, you don't get banned indefinately twice for fun, I can assure you. Yorkshirian is one of Wikipedia's most prolific sockpuppetteers and bullies. Evidence (including his several hundred sockpuppets, racism and the unanimous decision to ban him) can be traced through the links at User:Yorkshirian.
Fine if there is consensus not to ban him here, but I would like a committment that someone is prepared to manage any misconduct and distruption that subsequently arises here (I have to do it on WP). Jhamez84 (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I can assure you that we have other editors who are indef banned on more than one Wikipedia, yet make valuable contributions here. If there's a problem with Yorkshire geography, I wouldn't be able to spot it. Lupo 14:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
So going forwards, what do we do? I'm tempted to leave the project myself. I'm here to contribute, not to manage Yorkshirian's stupid behavior every day. Jhamez84 (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome to leave if you don't want to contribute, nobody is stopping you. Also calling people "stupid" because you are jealous of them is a personal attack. Please don't do it. - Thomas Gun (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please delete

in the picture Image:Bitchindemos cd1.jpg, are now information to delete this picture, can someone help to delete this picture--Motopark (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyvios

If Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:SlovakCityCOA AND Image:Coat of arms of something THEN Lots of copyvios from http://obce.info/ or from elsewhere. We don't have permissions from authors - It's only a vectorized versions (or similar technique) of originals created by de:Benutzer:Rauenstein for de.wiki. —Kandy Talbot 07:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Get this guy off Wikicommons

User:Thomas Gun is bringing his special brand of miscategorisation and edit warring from the English Wikipedia, here. He needs to be blocked. Simple as that. This guy will distrupt the categorisation of UK articles. Jhamez84 (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One single user cannot even consider competing with the categorization problems here that are introduced via upload bots from other wikipedias. I suggest that if this problem that you are having persists that you rid yourself of all that negative energy by cleaning up some of the real category problems that can be found at Category:Media needing category review. By the time you have completed the sections Category:Media needing category review as of 15 August 2008 through Category:Media needing category review as of 23 August 2008 let me know and I will see if the upload bots have categories here that need review from much longer ago. I am sorry about all of this negative feelings you brought with you from your involvement elsewhere, there is so much that actually needs to be done though and aiming that energy someplace that is effective and productive will be much better than continuing to leave messages here, in my humble opinion. -- carol (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That was not a challenge to User:Thomas Gun to try to compete with the maintenance cruft here either, btw. -- carol (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with UserJhamez84 in his comments here and further up the page. I have already had problems with him and now as I revert his recategorisation of my images I find he is attempting to also bully me in the same way as he has others on the English wikipedia, See the:- Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. I have produced what I feel are good images for the Commons which are used in many articles and also some from other countries. I have no wish to start edit warring with him either and if he continues to disrupt my work I will simply refrain from making any further contributions. User:Thomas Gun will start off by seeming to do good work then will go off at a tangent and start to cause problems. He has been barred on more than on occasion and that should be an obvious sign that he will generate severe problems on commons. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I have never been banned from Wikimedia Commons. You are correct about you causing problems with cat maintanence though; where you en masse undid the placing of images into more specific cats, back into the main Yorkshire cat. The report on your behaviour in this area, including personal attacks in edit summaries is still waiting for admin attention here - Thomas Gun (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps not under the Guise of Thomas Gun however as you do seem to have a propensity for using multiple accounts and sockpuppets you have been banned as User:Yorkshirian User:Yorkshirian, your attempts to direct people away from that fact are poor and you really need to be banned from Wikicommons as well before you get too disruptive. Now as stated on the other page you have kindly provided a link to I will refrain from feeding your perverse form of trouble making by curtailing my replies to you. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is not the English Wikipedia. I have never been banned from Commons, nor have any diffs for "disruptive" editing being shown here. - Thomas Gun (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Richard Harvey, I suspect that UserJhamez84 needs some assistance with that cruft I pointed out earlier. After those are cleaned, then there will be time to review any problems you might still have in your mind.... -- carol (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why Jhamez84's removing content form pages without even an edit summery, but we don't do that here. If there's a problem, let's deal with it. And no, being baned on en.wp is not a problem here (hell, they ban everyone nowadays). Rocket000(talk) 23:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

please delete those also

in my talk page are wish that somebody can delete those files. Can someone help me--Motopark (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure which images you are referring to? They appear to have been deleted already... Cirt (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems that somebody has deleted them before you--Motopark (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. Cirt (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Full protect

This picture:



Must be permanently protected because it is widely used on other wikimedia projects. --Frogger3140 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not rely on the Javascript CheckUsage

Compare the both methods of CheckUsage on Image:Weg-jrp1.PNG. One shows 0 results, the other (tab) shows a lot. Unfortunately, it took deleting a heavily used image to discover this. Who knows what else was deleted based on faulty information. I really hope someone can fix it (and HotCat while they're at it). Rocket000(talk) 10:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-Check-usage.js still uses query.php and thus doesn't work anymore. What is your problem with MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js? Lupo 12:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Gadget-Check-usage.js should be depreciated if not already done...  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
No chance of switching it over to use the API? HotCat doesn't add the category and auto save anymore. All it does is go to the edit screen. Rocket000(talk) 06:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Switch to API: probably not, as I've explained on its talk page. Unless the API would be extended to offer the proxying capability from the old query.php. HotCat: I cannot reproduce the behavior you described; it works flawlessly for me. Lupo 07:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Crap. You're saying the problem's on my end? Well, let me try in a different browser. Rocket000(talk) 07:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
That's weird it works now. Cool. Rocket000(talk) 07:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
So, which browser was giving you problems? Lupo 07:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Or were you ctrl-clicking the OK button? Crtl-click does just that: it takes you to the edit screen, but doesn't autosave. Lupo 07:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It was Firefox 2, which I always use, and I wasn't ctrl-clicking. I didn't change any bowser extensions or settings lately, so I have no idea what was going on. Rocket000(talk) 07:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Help with categories

I've created a category called 'Moldular Origami', and only then noticed that there all ready exists a category called 'Modular origami'. Can anybody unite the two categories? Tokyoni (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Rocket000(talk) 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded copyvios

Mahler1780 (talk · contribs) has apparently just uploaded six copyvios. Each image is from Flickr and was uploaded yesterday, but the Flickr pages all say they're copyrighted (all rights reserved). Would an admin please have a look and delete all the images or followup on the post I'm about to put on the user talk page, as appropriate. Thanks. BTW, I couldn't find any OTRS email permission for the images, either.--Chaser (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also quite interesting that the author name placed by the uploader on the description pages varies from image to image and is not identical to the name of the Flickr user mickey1969_2000. That suggests that these images aren't at all made by the Flickr user but taken from somewhere else. Therefore, it might be more productive to find the original sources for the images (and then check whether they are free). --Túrelio (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
All taken from various U.S. state (not "federal government"!) web sites. All but one marked as {{Copyvio}}; for the last one, there is now Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Yellow Bass.gif. Lupo 07:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion without review

Hey, I've got a problem with a wayward administrator - not enough that I want to create a stink and demand de-adminship or anything, but User:Zscout370 randomly deleted Image:KHadr5.png without notice; despite it having (I assume, can't check) proper licensing. (It's a work of a US soldier in commission of his duties; entered as evidence at a Guantanamo Bay military commission, most definitely public domain). I asked him to please restore the image and let me know what he wanted clarified about the image, and he refused. He also then listed another image of the same Afghanistan battle for deletion, removing my source that it was a photo of either the 82d or 19th SFG forces and said that we don't accept images without a url for a source...this seems ridiculous, that I can't scan actual physical photographs where the source is known and detailed, the licensing is clearly public domain -- but User:Zscout370 can just randomly delete the images because he doesn't like the topic. I would appreciate if another administrator would please restore the image, and if there is a problem with it, notify me on my talk page and I'll clarify whatever details are necessary. Sherurcij (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

First, images without a source can be deleted without review/notice. This is common. Second, without looking into it yet, where did you get these photos from? "US Army" is not good enough. Rocket000(talk) 03:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned, I scanned the images from copies of the originals handed out at the Military Tribunal in Cuba. You can look around the internet and find them widely reproduced since then. The same administrator has now started (seemingly for childish revenge) deleting all images related to the case of w:Omar Khadr, rather than asking for clarification. At this point it borders on vandalism, since he's been asked to simply notify the uploader (myself) if he has any issue with the images; I can even give you the phone number for JTF GTMO press office to speak with an officer to confirm these images are, as I say, Public Domain. I don't know if you want "Source: "US Army", "Source: Guantanamo tribunal" or what -- but wantonly deleting them when he's been asked to just let the uploader know if there are any problems or clarification needed is definitely bordering on vandalism. Sherurcij (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, a better source would be something like "Scanned by uploader. Originally from ...". It helps to give explain why there's no url. If the images do exist online elsewhere, a link to them may help verify the PD status. But ok, I'll look into it and see if there's an agenda here or just routine maintenance. Rocket000(talk) 04:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, per the individual deletion comments
  1. (Deletion log); 04:05 . . Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Omar Khadr getting battlefield first aid.jpg" (Copyright violation: the photo is from a book "Guantanamo’s Child" and it has no assertion by the author that the photo was taken by the US military)
...the fact it also appeared in a book does not make it copyright of that book, it also appeared in dozens of newspapers; and I'm in frequent contact with the author of the book, with JTF GTMO and others...all sources agree the image is Public Domain, that's why it's used in books/newspapers/etc so freely without copyright notice.


  1. (Deletion log); 03:57 . . Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Khadr40.png" (Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission: the author is not identified and we cannot use something as "some soldier")
...we don't need to know the soldier's name, we have hundreds if not thousands of images taken by unknown soldiers over the years; just as we have images from the w:American Civil War that we don't know the photographer, we just know that the image is PD by virtue of what we do know about the photographer. (That he died 100+ years ago, or in this case, is a US soldier with either the 82d or 19th SFG unit)
  1. (Deletion log); 03:53 . . Zscout370 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Med57th July 22002 Citation team.jpg" (No fair use at Commons: photos run by news agency are copyrighted)
...I...who uploaded it as fair use? A wire ran is at a Sikorsky photograph, I contacted Sikorsky's press office and they said it had been misattributed and was a Department of Defense photograph...source on the image should explain that as I recall, but possibly not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherurcij (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 Aug 2008 (UTC)
I left him a message suggesting to go the regular deletion route. It seems further discussion (with other's input) may be necessary. Rocket000(talk) 04:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, here you go: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Image:Omar_Khadr_getting_battlefield_first_aid.jpg. Rocket000(talk) 05:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing the images, I think that the problem is that there is no obvious reason to state that these images were taken by US servicemen. They could very easily have been made by so-called "embedded journalists". Their appearance during the so-called "Guantanamo Bay military commission" are irrelevant. Rama (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, there were no embedded journalists with the unit; and if your theory were true, all the newspapers (and books, as pointed out) around the world wouldn't be printing them as Public Domain DoD photographs - Reuters would be having a shitfest. The Department of Defence, the Journalists who print these images, and the family of the wounded combatant have all told me these are DoD images that are public domain. Random evidence leaning towards conspiracy theory "omg what if" seems counter-productive. Sherurcij (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Then back your "no embedded journalists with the unit" with a reliable source, and we're all set. "The Department of Defence, the Journalists who print these images, and the family of the wounded combatant have all told me" are not reliable sources, unfortunately. Rama (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The OC-1 statement I already posted on Wikisource in its entirety should make it clear there were no embedded journalists, you may also turn to the book Guantanamo's Child by w:Michelle Shephard (specifically pp 1-16 for the w:Order of Battle), and the fact the statement says that the Department of Defence believes them to be DoD photographs. Sherurcij (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Wait... the DOD "believes" it was a DOD Photog? So... you are saying they don't even know? Then how are we supposed to know? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep this together. The current undeletion request page is a better place to continue discussion. Rocket000(talk) 08:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

After the previous four images were all undeleted by less-biased administrators who recognised they were clearly Public Domain, ZScout again randomly deleted images from the same w:Omar Khadr article, including Image:Speer at Bagram being unloaded by the 396th Medical.jpg and Image:Bound, hooded captives, being flown to Guantanamo.gif even though both clearly are Public Domain images; but he suggests that because the New York Times (as well as every other newspaper in existence...) published them from the US Army, therefore they now own copyright. I'm at my wit's end here, between his obnoxious borderline vandalism, and his apparently complete ignorance of copyright law, how is he an administrator? Sherurcij (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Restored both of those as they are clearly in the public domain. Adding some more detailed {{Information}} should help in future. —Giggy 01:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I found a better version of the one. [21] Rocket000(talk) 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrative help needed

I uploaded a number of images of paintings by Nikolai Getman. They have an OTRS ticket (please also see my talk page for details about my E-mail communications with Jamestown Foundation, which is a copyright holder for the images). However, one of the users (someone Miyokan) marked these images for a speedy deletion [22]. This user is also registered in wikipedia and has multiple blocks [23]. He is up to something at the WP/ANI right now. What should I do? I also asked an advice here [24]. Please note that I am using here my real name.VanishedUser19 (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributor. He already mentioned the OTRS ticket argument at the request for deletion in this image which had exactly the same details and still the image was deleted. FYI, VanishedUser19 been pretending to be two different people and here, where he commented both as User:Biophys and User:VanishedUser19 - User:Biophys and VanishedUser19 are the same person, User:Biophys has mentioned in wikipedia that he is also a biophysic from Russia that moved to the United States, just as VanishedUser19's userpage says - both users are bent on keeping these images in. VanishedUser19's userpage says "We have recently designed Orientations of Proteins in Membranes (OPM) database PMID 16397007,PMID 17603894,PMID 16731967, see our database and article in Wikipedia." - the wikipedia article was created and entirely written by User:Biophys [25]--Miyokan (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Could anyone please delete my user account (but keep the contributions)? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
You mean your user page? Rocket000(talk) 15:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would like to stop editing as "Biophys" in Commons to avoid accusations made by Miyokan above. Also, could you please look at the images marked for the speedy deletion above? All of them have OTRS ticket and therefore suppose to be fine if I understand this correctly. Thanks a lot.Biophys (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Punishment By Mosquitoes.jpg and the OTRS information, further information is needed - specifically confirmation that the website is the copyright holder of the images and therefore has the right to license them under a license appropriate for Wikimedia Commons. If VanishedUser19 (talk · contribs) asserts he is in the process of obtaining further information on that then at this point this issue is pending regarding the status of these images. Now both of you, please stop edit warring. Cirt (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for help from vandal

A vandal who keeps removing a description from one of my photos has vandalized it three times. I just gave a second warning. Could someone please help? --David Shankbone (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That IP appears to be a multi user AOL proxy server. (rdns: cache-mtc-ah15.proxy.aol.com, in netblock 64.12.96.0/19 which is listed at AOL's proxy info page as being a proxy server netblock) As I understand it, edits from that IP should not be possible given the WMF <-> AOL agreement to send an X-Forwarded-For header with the request originator's IP when proxying requests. (and that IP is then the one used to attribute edits in place of the proxy's IP) --Jeremyb (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I had another AOL proxy just write a message on my Talk page, seemingly giving sympathy for death threats I've been receiving on English Wikipedia. Have you alerted anyone to this issue? If not, I will...let me know. And thanks for the response, Jeremy. --David Shankbone (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Huh. No, I haven't discussed this anywhere else yet. --Jeremyb (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected the image for 24 hours and warned the IP. Cirt (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

image:Dutch_OPV_4.JPG

The picture in the middle gives reason for doubt if the up loader truly made the picture, because it says Defensie Materiaal Organisatie. Which is a part of the Dutch Ministry of Defence and so the copyright would also be with the Defence department.DirkV (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Cirt (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Need review of photos

Would an admin please be able to review the following photos, and place notices on the images confirming that they are available to use under the used licence.

At the bottom of each set photos on the source page you will see the following text:

Эти работы распространяется на условиях лицензии Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 (CC-BY-SA).

Вы можете без ограничений распространять данные работы, изменять и использовать её в любых (в том числе коммерческих) целях при условии указания оригинального авторства и сохранения данной лицензии в производных работах.

Источник - ИА ОСинформ.

In short it is affirming that the works on that page are available for licencing under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 (CC-BY-SA), and under the terms of the licence you can use the materials for all works (including commercial and derivative) so long as authorship is acknowledged, the author being IA OSInform.

It is imperative that these photos are available and kept, however, not knowing how long the site will be available for in the future, I would hate for the photos to be deleted some time down the track because the page no longer exists.

So could an admin please review these photos, and confirm on the image page that they are available under CC-BY-SA, in order to prevent them being deleted without question in the future. Thanks --russavia (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Manhattan 2 and StreetsWiki collaboration

Wikipedia Takes Manhattan is returning on September 27. This time, we are running the event in collaboration with StreetsWiki, a project of the non-profit The Open Planning Project, and for the sake of convenience and also potential value to Wikimedia projects, we may also upload the StreetsWiki photos to Commons (a lot of these will be transportation infrastructure, e.g. bike paths). These will of course also be under a free license, just as the Wikipedia photos. I'm posting this ahead of time in the hope that people are okay with this arrangement. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image issues reported on enwiki

Resolvedimages deleted - Alison ❤ 05:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. There appears to be a complex issue with the following images. This has been reported on the English wikipedia by User:Proabivouac who informs us that the subject is being impersonated and that an editor is claiming those pictures to be of themselves, though this may not actually be the case. From what I can see, this was reported over two years back but somehow didn't get followed up. Either way, this is bound to be controversial as the alleged subject, User:Taxwoman had been involved in sockpuppetry issues on enwiki. I'm not concerned about this history of this issue on WP, but about the images' status on Commons. While I know this isn't enwiki, I believe there is sufficient concern over the images to have them reviewed here. They are:

The relevant threads "over there" can be read at w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Letter from Chris Selwood to the community and w:User talk:Proabivouac#The Letter. There is also some relevant commentary on Commons here. Thoughts? - Alison ❤ 23:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm deleting them all as out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm also deleting Image:Poetlister.JPG, Image:Poetlister2.jpg, Image:Londoneye user.jpg and Image:RachelBrown.jpg for the same reason, as they're also connected to this incident (and two are orphaned) - Alison ❤ 01:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted Image:UserLondoneye2.jpg as well, as it was also listed here. --John Vandenberg (chat) 02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I think that's the lot, too. I had a dig through page histories and think we're clean now, at least as far as commons goes - Alison ❤ 05:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
That would appear to be all of them. Giggy (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection for image which will be on enwiki mainpage in 30 minutes or so

Hi all, I can't upload to enwiki temporarily, so can some admin temporarily fully protect Image:Frederick Hollyer self-portrait c. 1890.jpg for 12 hours? thanks in advance. Casliber (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. Cirt (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


Empty and redirect categories

Hi fellow admins, for categorization i'm creating a lot of empty categories. Please dont delete them, images will be added to these categories soon.

As for redirect categories. You might have noticed that me and some other people added a lot of {{Commonscat}} templates to wikipedia's (statistics over here). When you delete a category this might cause a broken link at some wikipedia. I now modified the bot to be able to correct these links, but the bot needs one working link in the set of interwiki pages (can be to a redirect category). For example nl:Categorie:Premier van Japan pointed to Category:Prime Ministers of Japan. Category:Prime Ministers of Japan was deleted but en:Category:Prime Ministers of Japan (in the interwiki set of the nl category) pointed to Category:Prime ministers of Japan so my bot was able to correct this link. Another example, nl:Categorie:Indiaas wiskundige pointed to Category:Indian mathematicians, this is a redirect so my bot changed it to Category:Mathematicians from India. I would be really grateful if you leave {{Category redirect}} on a category for some time so my bot is able to pick up the redirect. If you want to delete it quicker, please check that at least one wikipedia category is pointing to the redirect target. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

New Meta Logo - Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg

Hey, can someone update the meta logo on Template:Sisterprojects-en and all similar to the latest logo ([[Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg]]), thanks   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done by Mike.lifeguard (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes). --Kanonkas(talk) 16:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Speedy Protection of Image:Wikimedia Community Logo.svg

This image is now highly transcluded across all projects as it is the image used on the "sister projects" template on all wikimedia projects (because its the new meta logo), Requesting Full protection per high visibilty. 203.122.240.118 15:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done by Mike.lifeguard (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes). --Kanonkas(talk) 16:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Undefined

Hello, each of my recently uploaded photos was automatic categorised undefined. Actually that category collects only recently uploaded images from many more users. Kindly stop that nonsense. Thanks! -- Ies (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange, do you have MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js installed? (just a wild guess). Multichill (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a typo in HotCat caused this. The bug was active from 21:04 UTC yesterday evening to 06:48 UTC this morning, when it was fixed. If it happens to you, do a forced reload of the scripts: shift-reload in Firefox, crtl-reload in IE. Sorry. I'm planning to go through the upload log for that time span and remove any of these "Undefined" categories I find, but I don't have the time to do this right now. Lupo 08:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Problem found and solved, i'm cleaning out the cat now (easy bot job). Multichill (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The category is empty now, i checked the images for uncategorized images and tagged them. I'm waiting with deleting this category because images are still showing up in this category. You can safely remove the category, my bot monitors the recentchanges so if you remove the last category the images will be tagged as uncategorized. Multichill (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Unfortunately, due to the 30 days client-side caching of scripts, images may appear in that category for the next 30 days. Lupo 19:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please delete copyvios

Hello there, please delete Image:Arshavin.jpg, Image:Gabi Milito.jpg, and Image:Maynor Figueroa.jpg. Notifyng here because the uploader is removing the tags. Conscious (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They're all gone now. Would you make sure the uploader gets the message?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
He's cleaning his talk page. He uploaded four copyvios again. Conscious (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done and blocked for 2 weeks. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Contacing another user

I've read the pages on unifying my accounts, but can't find out how to contact the user who has "Nion" on the Commons. I am the owner of "Nion" on both en.wikipedia.org and meta.wikipedia.org and would like to politely ask the owner of Nion on commons to change their name... but I can't figure out how. Any assistance greatly appreciated. Thank you. --JohnSettino (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You can leave a note at User talk:Nion. However, as the user has no edits, you can simply get the username usurped. Check the instructions at Commons:Changing username for info on how to do that. Giggy (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I submitted a usurp request. Thank you for the info. --JohnSettino (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded image of me has a licence issue

Free Cultural Works

Please advice. I am new at this. I uploaded my image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/96/20080831185411!Nenad_Bach_wikipedia.jpg

and didn't chose right license. I wanted to say that the copyright is mine but naybody could use it as Free Cultural Works.

I tried but couldn't find the way how to change that.

Please help and advice,

Thank you,

Nenad Bach tel: 914 271 7771 email: nenad@nenadbach.com

User:Pandaned

User has re-uploaded the same copyvio for a third time. I think he's a good faith contributor who just doesn't understand our policies but he hasn't responded to any of his talk page notices. I think maybe if someone addressed him in Dutch (which I suspect is his native language) he might get it. Anyone wanna take a shot at it? :) -Nard the Bard 16:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What else

Aside from setting permissions, what other work needs to be done? I can help. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Were you a flickreviewer yet? Thats often backed up... I usually use this page as a jump off to run through them: User:Rootology/Flickrreview. Category:Incomplete deletion requests is always semi-backed up as well--when I would take passes at that, I'd usually end up just firing up the DR for about 75% of them, and split the rest give or take between a speedy deletion request and taking down the DR since it was a good file that had no valid reason at all to delete, plus it was in use (on a good day--usually almost all would be live DRs). Special:WantedCategories is always a mess, too. Sometimes its delinking a cat on a lot of stuff, sometimes its just figuring out what parent cat to put something to. Sometimes Commons feels like the biggest Jenga puzzle ever. rootology (T) 23:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet from enwiki making trouble here

I just blocked enwiki editor Shrekclear and I think an admin here ought to do the same with local User:Shrekclear. SUL links the accounts [26]. The behavior matches socks of Gerald Gonzalez, including an interest in images from this Flickr URL and in images of Marian Riviera and Angel Locsin. Editor appears to be involved in Flickr whitewashing. See Commons:Deletion requests/Angel Locsin images. I can't find the URL where this editor's one upload came from yet, so perhaps a checkuser is in order first.--Chaser (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Something I just found on enwiki is editing of w:Land Down Under (2008 film) and the AFD. A Gerald Gonzalez sock created that article.--Chaser (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename/Move a Page/Gallery

Hi all, I recently started a page regarding Wesley College (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wesley_college) in response to our Wikipedia article GA review advice, however i have accidentally named it "Wesley college", there are currently 13 institutions named Wesley College around the world, to cause less confusion, disambiguation and convenience to wikipedians, i was wondering if it is possible like wikipedia to move/rename a page/gallery and if so how? If it is doable please name it "Wesley College, Melbourne". Thanks in advance for your assistance! Cheers Sheepunderscore (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You can rename (=move) a gallery by using the move tab. I've done it for you. Please add interwiki's to it, so people can find out easily when in doubt. --Foroa (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see this thread on my talk. (and any possible followups). I'm not sure I totally understand the diff showing the yellow box, my machine translation of that box didn't help me understand what it was doing, or what User:Ralf Roletschek 's role is, but there may be an issue brewing here. I'm not putting it in user problems because hopefully talking things through will sort this. The license template being used (User:Steschke/licence ) did seem incompatible with GFDL to me, as it requires too much notice/control. ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

PS if this is being discussed elsewhere please advise, a quick search didn't turn it up. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Steschke needs to read paragraph 7b of CC-by-SA's legal code. The problem in the diff Cecil provided first was a whole replacemente of the license, from a CC to GFDL - and that, as far as I can interpret things, is not allowed. He can of course add his license as dual licensing; he can even add a non-free license if he feels like; but not at the cost of taking back CC-by-SA. As for threats, legal or not, it's the usual: ask to be civil, if that does not work, ask to avoid the conflict altogether, if that doesn't work, a block is in order. Patrícia msg 13:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The CC-pics he left alone after that one fight. I also informed him that he can add a second licence and so on (I will not translate his comments from that discussion). Later he just changed his private licence-template which was included in nearly all pics from GFDL1.2+ to GFDL1.2only. There is always a little bit of silence then suddenly he awakes again and chances it. He gets reverted and the quarrel starts. In August a user started the discussion about him in the mailing list after which I substed his template in beginning of August (those images before his started to change where substed with the old version, the ones he uploaded later with the new version). That's why now I am his main goal (oh, and also because I've blocked him when he tried to revert the substing; that also lead to a short block on German WP where he expressed his opinion about me and the incompetence of Commons admins). -- Cecil (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok I am pretty inactive at present. However I would certainly support a block of Steschke if this behaviour goes on. We are all volunteers, we do the best we can, abuse is unacceptable any any event and certainly when the user is trying to get around actually policies/practices. --Herby talk thyme 13:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have just unblocked him a few minutes ago to enable him to participate here at this discussion. But I'm not sure how good his English is. We probably will need a neutral translator. -- Cecil (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This seems to be a quite complex issue. I've tried to understand why and how User:Steschke wants to revoke the {{Cc-by-sa-2.0-de}} license for his earlier uploads and found this this edit where he claims that at least the change from {{GFDL}} to {{GFDL-1.2}} is legally possible on base of German law (he references BGB § 119 Abs. 2). The other issue is that he thinks that he is unable to express his reasoning in English at Commons.

As far as I know him from the German wikipedia, he is no troll but a long-time admin with quite some experience in German copyright law. I know very well that his edits are in conflict with our policies and accepted legal positions regarding revoking granted licenses. Nevertheless, I think that we should at least try to communicate with him regarding his concerns and for this reason I have offered him to translate his position from German to English. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be awesome. THANKS! I absolutely would like to see this worked out amicably if at all possible. See also User_talk:Lar#Question_concerning_lawsuit where more background has been given (I'll probably copy that over here if it doesn't get copied by Lupo)... I think we all can agree we'd rather not see licenses get changed, it adds to confusion. Even if law allows it, we may nevertheless want to make it a useage condition here that licenses only get added to, not changed. Let's definitely move away from blocking and toward talking. Thanks all for your efforts to help sort this. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse please, my engish is very bad. I have speak with Steschke and he wad said, that i edit the user-page, because he can't it. Thats all. I was only a tool for him. I hope, you understand my words. --Marcela (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be OK to understand. Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Category names

I can understand the policy on using a cat name like "Coins of France" instead of "French coins", but why do we have "Air Force of the United States" and "Army of the United States" when those organizations are actually named "United States Air Force" and "United States Army"? Those two real cat names are redirected to the artificial cat names. The cat naming of the world's militaries isn't even consistent here on Commons. These cats should use the organizations actual names. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. United States Army (or US Army) is correct, especially that's what they use in commercials. They should be moved to correct names asap.Mitch32contribs 00:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course. We just get names like that because of the multilingualism and multiculturalism. Not everyone knows better. Rocket000(talk) 01:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I put two things in United States Air Force cat an they instantly got move to the other one. Will removing the redir fix this or must something else be done? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Those redirects are there respectively since almost one and two years. Obviously, the proper name is accepted here, so you are welcome to change that and initiate the move back to the proper name. --Foroa (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the answer folks to how it was done: [27], I'm changing it to its proper name per this thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

why is the format for paintings "Paintings of X"?

hi everyone, why is the format for paintings "Paintings of X in.....", see Category:Paintings of Bruegel d. Ä. in the Kunsthistorisches Museum? Isn't correct English "Paintings by X...."? It makes sense if I paint a painting "of" someone, however the painting would be "by" me, right? Gryffindor (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's wrong. I'll correct that. Siebrand 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Job is running. Renaming 162 cats in Category:Paintings in the Kunsthistorisches Museum. Siebrand 16:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done Siebrand 21:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Series of baseball statues that probably need to be deleted

Per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2) who owns copyright of the original has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works. Category:Baseball statues contains 20 images that are therefore copyrighted. All images in this category should be deleted, unless a given statue is in the public domain due to age or other release. Also, Category:Statues of sportspeople needs to be reviewed for similar violations. Comments? --Durin (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

An alternative to delete as "no COM:FOP for sculptures in the U.S." would be to try to get the artists to authorize the publication of these photos under their respective free licenses. Has been done for Image:Babe Ruth statue.jpg (which was once deleted because of this, and then restored when we got the artist's permission). Lupo 20:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This having sat for a week, I'm going to start deleting these images. I'm fine with them being deleted, to spur people to gain release. I suspect most will not be released anyways. Off to delete... --Durin (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Done, leaving two that exist outside the United States. --Durin (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Importing a page here

Resolvednot needed Graham87 (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone import en:Gallery of works by Johann Sebastian Bach here, to the title Audio by Johann Sebastian Bach? It contains significant edit history, and I don't want that to be lost while copying the page to Wikimedia Commons. Also any cleanup for style or formatting for the Commons would be appreciated. Thanks, Graham87 (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And the talk page would probably be worth importing as well. Graham87 (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Never mind that, see en:Talk:Gallery of works by Johann Sebastian Bach. I've made enough changes in the merge with en.wp's list of JS Bach compositions that importing the page history into Commons would make no sense. Graham87 (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pes Filipes

Is uploading pornography over featured pictures. Jhamez84 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done indef blocked. --Kanonkas(talk) 14:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

images renaming requests

See here: User_talk:Esby/renaming Basically, there are a few images that needs renaming since they are labeled incorrectly. (The author is missing a 'Jean' for each of those in the full name.) The images needs approbation from a trusted user and have failed the bot once already.

Esby (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done but this image is stale. I'm not sure about that image so I'll let some other admin/trusted user do it. Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that the image should be deleted(main subject stopping being the author's hand or the author and being the dedication) then nominate it for deletion.

I took about 500 photos over 3 days, I filtered some, but I still might have done some error in filtering them out.

The whole category is Category:Festival BD Sollies Ville 2008 if some people want to do a check over again. We had a talk in french on the Bistrot here: Commons:Bistro#Category:Festival_BD_Sollies_Ville_2008 

Esby (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Help for creating new account

Hi, I am "Kar.ma" on italian Wikipedia, and english Wikipedia. I'm trying to create an account, and I'd like to be able to use this name here in Commons too, but it tells me:
Login error: The name "Kar.ma" is very similar to the existing account "Karma" (contributions • logs • user creation entry). Please choose another name, or request an administrator create this account for you.

How can I get some help? Thank you. --213.140.19.120 13:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

An admin will have to create that account for you. --Kanonkas(talk) 13:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If you unify your account (at it:Special:MergeAccount), you should be able to login to commons with the same account name and password as you use on Italian Wikipedia. /Ö 13:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Ö, the "Merge Account" function seems very interesting. But I couldn't figure out if my "User contributions" will be unified between italian and english wiki. It is quite important to me. Does anyone know the answer to this question? Thanks. --213.140.19.120 19:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
No, not the contributions will be unified, only the login, ergo your password. With it and your username you can log in to all wikimedia projects (including commons) after "Merge Account".--Luxo 20:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
All done! Everything's ok, my login is now unified. --Kar.ma (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Barack Obama.jpg

Recommend full protection on this image. It's repeatedly being photoshopped, and is a vandalism target, anyway. I think it would also be a good idea to preemptively fully protect the lead images for the en Wikipedia articles on John McCain, Joe Biden, and Sarah Palin as a common-sense measure. Kelly (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I protected the Obama image, seems to be used a lot (691 wikis searched. Barack_Obama.jpg is used on at least 291 pages in 89 projects.), Multichill (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
You should post this on COM:AN/P but I do not agree with the protection that Multichill just did. We're protecting an image which haven't got any vandalism yet. We should be open to other contribs, not prevent them to help our project, I'm wondering if we can get that fully protection removed from that image. --Kanonkas(talk) 13:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, it has been vandalized at least twice already. Kelly (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
"Vandalism" is a big word for a disagreement as to whether his mole should be photoshopped out. Pruneautalk 17:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pruneau. I doubt the re-uploads were vandalism, more like good faith uploads. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, unprotected. Multichill (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I endorse Multichill's actions and am against unprotecting. The upload warring was silly. Thankfully, it appears to have stopped. I've semi protected the image until after the election as, considering its high use, the likelihood of vandalism will increase steadily in the next few months. Giggy (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

However, I've semi-protected Image:Sarah Palin Kuwait 14.jpg after repeated partisan vandalism by IP on the image description page. --Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Kyūshū

I don't know if this is the proper place to ask this but the word "Kyūshū" <--are those letters members of the Japanese character set and that is the reason they are being used for this category name? -- carol 17:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The best place to ask is probably the village pump. I believe those characters are used because it's the region's actual name, but I'm unsure. Giggy (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me where to go, heh. -- carol (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:VAwebteam

A note for information. VAwebteam is the accredited representative of the Victoria and Albert Museum per OTRS.[28] He has been working in liaison with established editors on en WP[29] and has uploaded a lot of images under GFDL from the museum.[30] He will now, following a suggestion to do so, be uploading directly to Commons and has created a number of sub categories (some currently empty) at Category:Victoria and Albert Museum, to anticipate this process and make organisation easier. The images at en WP can of course be transferred if anyone cares to do so, but it has been agreed that his priority should be to upload new images to Commons. Tyrenius (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I had been asked to corroborate this on enwiki per the OTRS ticket, and now do so here, too :) - Alison ❤ 05:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I know. Thanks for announcing it here, too. I've taken the liberty to clarify this on his user page. Lupo 06:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fr speaking admin needed

Would someone with better French than my poor fr-1 level give some guidance to user Bernard Piette (talk · contribs)? He has uploaded many images of old postcards and seems to not understand that we need more info about the images. Thanks, Patrícia msg 11:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yann (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes) left the user a message. --Kanonkas(talk) 11:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
That user seems pretty dense. he says [31] "I wanted to share (free) my photos (legally) and my stories ... corrections already made with the belgian palace ... damn ... all that time (spent) for nothing! you can delete all my work." ... and then, apparently resumed his uploads... I don't get it.
Darkoneko (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyvios User:Specs212

I have a suspicion that every photo that this user has uploaded to Category:David Blaine is a copyvio, unless this guy is Blaine's official photographer and licensing all of his professional work, including ABC News adverts, CC 2.5. Instead, it appears this guy is uploading Blaine photos to Flickr at such, and currently the only free photo on enwiki is mine, which this person keeps replacing with non-free content. A lot of it. --David Shankbone (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request backlog

Deletion requests are really starting to back-up (back to May at least) - does anyone have time to pickup the broom ? Megapixie (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try doing some this weekend. I ranted a bit on a related subject (sorry for the shameless spam). Patrícia msg 11:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/2008/03 has one left! Giggy (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Čurákjaxvin.jpg

I'm not feeling comfortable with Image:Čurákjaxvin.jpg, uploaded today by a single-edit user, because the depicted is called a "Nazipunk" in the image description. Any opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done deleted as it's out of project scope. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Grondin

User is trying to revoke permissions. abf /talk to me/ 11:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked at this one too.
One day we are going to have to tackle this. We all know that licenses are irrevocable, we all know we delete some stuff on the request of users, we all know how annoyed users get when we don't delete their files when they request it. I think there should be some discussion somewhere on this?
As to this one - some images look to me as though they could be deleted without detriment to the project, some less so. Do we know why the user has taken this view? There is some history of misunderstanding/unhappiness on their talk page. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Étant soumis, en la matière, au droit français, le code de propriété intellectuelle dispose notamment que « Nonobstant la cession de son droit d'exploitation, l'auteur, même postérieurement à la publication de son oeuvre, jouit d'un droit de repentir ou de retrait vis-à-vis du cessionnaire. ». Ce code précise, en outre, dans son article L. 121-1 que « L'auteur jouit du droit au respect de son nom, de sa qualité et de son œuvre.

Ce droit est attaché à sa personne.

Il est perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible.

Il est transmissible à cause de mort aux héritiers de l'auteur.

L'exercice peut être conféré à un tiers en vertu de dispositions testamentaires. ».

Sauf erreur de ma part, je suis le seul contributeur sur ces images, c'est donc en pleine conformité de ces dispositions législatives que je demande leur suppression. Je suis à votre pleine et entière disposition pour en discuter plus calmement et plus longuement et vous prie d'agréer l'expression de mes sentiments les plus distingués.--Bertrand GRONDIN (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Vous avez omis de L121-4 la phrase "Il ne peut toutefois exercer ce droit qu'à charge d'indemniser préalablement le cessionnaire du préjudice que ce repentir ou ce retrait peut lui causer." (In English: "He [the author, Lupo] cannot, however, exercise this right before having reimbursed the licensee for any damages this retraction may cause him.") Vous avez indemnifiée tout le monde qui utilise vos images? Y compris la WMF? En plus, l'article L121-4 ne dit pas que ce droit était "perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible." Cela s'applique seulement au droit à l'intégrité de l'œuvre et du nom (L121-1). Le fait que vous avez publiée vos images sous la license CC-BY-SA-2.5 constitue une cession de ce droit de retraction. Voir article 7b de la license CC-BY-SA-2.5. Lupo 12:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
De telle clauses sont réputées non écrites en tant qu'elle s'écartent des principes du code de la propriété intellectuelle. En outre, il faut encore qu'il y ait préjudice. D'ores et déjà, les images orphelines peuvent être supprimées sans autre forme de procès. --Bertrand GRONDIN (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Herby: to answer your question, Grondin has been quite angry with Commons since Commons:Deletion requests/French architects (look also at the history, he wanted to edit the archive, got reverted, etc.). Since then, he's been continuously denigrating Commons, especially on the administrators' noticeboard of the French-language Wikipedia (even in threads that were not related to this case, see this thread and this one). I would recommend to politely decline his request. That said, most of the pictures are of very poor quality (see Image:Cerisier 04.jpg or Image:Chatons 11.JPG for example), so we could probably get rid of those without problem. guillom 17:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Je ne fais qu'appliquer mon droit de repentir.--Bertrand GRONDIN (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This user is taking deletion requests personally or at least believes they are deliberate efforts to sabotage wikimedia projects. For anyone who speaks French you should read Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coat of arms of South Africa.gif it reveals a lot about his set of mind: "Cela commence à bien faire que de saboter les autres projets Wikimédia" (It is starting to be a bit much all this sabotaging of other wikimedia projects.) Hope this helps understand why he is making this request. Jackaranga (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Avoir bien regardé un texte idoine !--Bertrand GRONDIN (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Air_Canada_Center.jpg

I don't quite know exactly where to write, but my photo is being used without my authorization. Image:Air_Canada_Center.jpg

Can you please let me know what I can do about this?

Thank you, Andrew.

✓ Deleted --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection for Image:1989 Newcastle earthquake map.png

Can someone protect the page of Image:1989 Newcastle earthquake map.png due to vandalism[32]? Bidgee (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for two weeks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Eugène Gigout 1910.jpg

I am not quite sure what to do about this image. It was kept after a deletion request. 10 minutes later Rama put a no source tag on it. When I reverted and removed the tag, he accused the deletion request of being essentially a popularity contest[33]. Surely this isn't allowed? (Incidentally I think my argument in the deletion discussion was quite clever, even if no one commented on it. French law presumes the author is the person whose name is affixed to the work, so in the case of autographed picture the name affixed to the work is the person in the photo). -Nard the Bard 22:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is quite known that Rama applies rules and procedures as he likes. He lacks the courage to accept his own responsibilities, and would rely on the illusion that there is some bright line behind which they could feel absolutely protected. I reverted him. Yann (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This image has no author, and it is recent. Therefore, per standing policy, it must be tagged with nsd, as any unsourced image is. Deletion requests about undocumented images are irrelevant, it is not the question.
I notice that Yann is furthering his pattern of provocative behaviour [34] [35] [36] in his personal crusade against copyright that goes beyond Wikimedia projects and attempts to instrumentalise them. Rama (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
French law presumes the author is the name affixed to the work unless proved otherwise. There is a name affixed to this work. Prove he is not the copyright holder. -Nard the Bard 23:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
And independent from that I do not think that {{No source since}} is appropriate in this case as the source link is provided to Gallica at the Bibliothèque Nationale and the author is simply unknown or, as Nard the Bard has pointed out, Eugène Gigout is technically the copyright holder in this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Nard the Bard, you are acting in deliberate bad faith, not towards Commons, but towards French law. How could the subject of the photograph be the author, in a photograph of 1910? Rationals are not supposed to be lame excuses, they are to be, you know, true. Your behaviour is reminiscent of the worst of what can be seen with Fair Use in the Wikipedias that autorise it.
AFBorchert, the nsd template is used to request a source or an author. Here, the author is not given. It is not my fault if the template is named like this.
Yann, as for "applies rules and procedures as he likes",
  • I do not like deleting images. I would like to keep as many images as possible. The problem is the images we cannot keep. I am applying rules as I dislike.
  • I am not the one who's been desysoped from his home project for abuse of admin right [37][38], nor have I been unilaterally restoring deleted images uploaded by me on Commons [39]. I refrain from taking decisions about the matters in which I am involved, and I am not furthering an agenda [40]. If you see what I mean.
This image is part of a general pattern of activism for our acceptance of works of unknown status older simply if older than 70 years, in the framework of a campaign to bend and game copyright laws that goes well beyond Wikimedia projects, and for which Commons is being intrumentalised. For this, people like Yann are willing to deliberately upload undocumented photographs, and fight any questioning of the copyright status of offending images by
  • gaming licence templates: for instance, stating simultaneously "the author of the image has been dead for over 70 years" and "author unknown" (!)
  • changing nsd tags into delete tags, effectively changing the question from "who is the author of the image" into "hey buddies, do ya wanna keep that picture"; some images are then "voted" for keeping without their status being known even after supposed scrutiny! (the problem is not so much the "popularity contest"; it is that a question is being asked, left unanswered in complete disregard for rules, and people satisfy themselves with that)
  • vote for keeping offending images by arguing precedents, kept images then constituting a corpus of images of unknown status that serve as precedents, in a vicious circle.
What is at stakes, here, is the highjacking of respectable but naive sentiments that we want images by a politically motivated minority. There is a very deliberate and calculated attempt to induce Commons into acting irresponsibly with images between 70 and 170 old. If some people can seriously argue that an author that they do not know has "probably been dead for over 70 years", what stops them from uploading random contemporary images as "probably under a Free licence"? What next, Fair Use on Commons? This nonsensical subversion has to stop. Rama (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The French National Library (BNF) has a very strict rule on copyright issues. The BNF doesn't publish anything without mentioning the author if it is known, and without carefully checking the copyright status of a work. So you pretend that you know better than the BNF what is the copyright status of their work? That you know better than the BNF what copyright rules should be apply to this image? You are just making yourself ridiculous.
The problem is your crusade against orphan images, not mine. The problem is your aggressive behaviour towards almost everybody. Rama, you should restrain yourself to subject you know. Here you don't know what you are talking about. Your attacks against me on completely unrelated subjects do not prove anything.
You are not even consistent with yourself. There are thousands of orphan works on Commons. Picking a few images here and there won't lead you anywhere. Yann (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting how the strict policies of Commons about copyright become "[my] crusade against orphan images" in your mouth. Orphan images do not belong on Commons, and that has nothing to with me.
The so-called "completely unrelated subjects" are an answer to your contention that I "appl[y] rules and procedures as [I] like"; coming from you (sanctioned abuser of sysop rights on fr:, further abusing your sysop rights on Commons), that accusation is especially funny.
That the BNF be serious about copyright does not warrant tagging an image as "author unknown" and "author dead for over 70 years" simultaneously. It must be possible to verify and check licences and their rational. Putting such incoherent and deceptive rationals prevents these checks, but also shows how you think only in terms of lame excuses and wishful thinking, rather than truth and solid facts. Rama (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

While I generally agree that such recent photos are most problematic if we can't provide evidence for the work being PD (such as unknown author), I think in this particular case we may keep the image. If the Bibliothèque Nationale de France says "Copyright:domaine public", I consider that sufficient, even if I don't know how they determined that. (Click on "Full record" (top-left) here to see that statement.) Like the U.S. Library of Congress, I consider the BNF a reliable source. If they say the image was PD in France, I won't second-guess them. (And since the image was published in 1900, it's also PD in the U.S.) Lupo 09:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a case of "anonymous" author where we could not decide that the work is public domain, but where we could shelter ourselves behind the fact that the BNF says so ("so sue them"). I would be agreed with that, but with three caveat:
1) the image must be properly documented to reflect the actual reason that makes us keep it. "The author, whom we do not know, is dead for over 70 years" is pure non-sense. We should have a PD-because or PD-BNF template for such cases
2) there are cases where an institution similar to the BNF will tag as Public Domain works that clearly cannot be public domain. I am thinking of if the photographs of the Scharnhorst. The present case is not akin, but critical distance must be kept.
3) images kept for this sort of reason must not be used as excuses to keep about anything. That joins point 1).
And in general, the state of mind must be to find the actual copyright status of the images, not make up lame excuses. Rama (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree about the BNF. Their digitization people are very concerned about copyright and I think we can rely on them. I've been in meetings with some of these people and they kept emphasizing their conservative approach to copyright issues. This is in contrast to some of the Eastern-European national libraries. One digitization guy from there told me that the unofficial slogan of his department was: "We break the law, for your convenience" :) Haukurth (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I reopened the deletion request, please continue your debate over there. Multichill (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

166.109.0.238

✓ Done https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.109.0.238. Block time, no question about it. Have been in contact with organisation, seems they are dealing with it so threats will most likly increase untill the person is caught. Threats have also been made on wikipedia, this IP was consequently blocked hence why it is now threatening the same user here. Requesting 1 month block   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

slightly older but still [41] Probably the same person, but from his home computer. Probably dynamic IP, 1-2 week block requested as interim so that I can do an abuse report to the ISP without further incident202.58.54.187 00:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also blocked for 3 months. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_10&oldid=264577641"