Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 11

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

Image:2003-2007 Subaru Outback station wagon 01.jpg

Hi, I accidentally uploaded the wrong image under this file name: Image:2003-2007 Subaru Outback station wagon 01.jpg. I have uploaded the correct file over the top of the incorrect one and am wondering if an admin can delete the other. There are currently three files in the history. The first is the original (keep), the second in the wrong image (delete), and the third is a cropped version of the first (keep). Thanks in advance. OSX (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. →Christian.И 05:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tocino

This user keeps reverting maps to show Kosovo as part of Serbia even though the versions he reverts to already exist (with a different name) and some are sourced from official sources (just look at three last reverts he did on his contributions) --Cradel (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow this is clearly edit warring. I'm not sure what to do with the images, or the ones that are involved. Any admins got some suggestions what to do here? I've watchlisted the images. --Kanonkas(talk) 12:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
In my personal opinion, if he continues to do it, give him warnings or block him at some point. If it gets to this point, I will endorse.Mitch32contribs 17:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And you keep showing Kosovo and Metohija as a fully sovereign independent state. I am not the only person doing the reverting here. --Tocino 02:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cant you see that the versions you are reverting to already exist ? --Cradel (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Commons is not the place to discuss what qualifies as an independent state. There are two point of views here, and thanks to Cradel, there are also two maps available. Tocino: even though you disagree with them, I am sure you can recognize that some people see Kosovo as an independent state, whilst others don't. All Commons can do is offer maps for both points of view; it is then up to the different wikipedias to decide which one they want to use. You should have the discussion there, and let both maps exist on Commons. Pruneautalk 14:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:BernaMarCamp

User has uploaded about a dozen files with sourcing/license problems (no source given, claiming works created in Mexico are PD-US-Gov, etc). When warned with no source/permission tags, user changed license to pd-old (despite the fact that the images are from the 70's and 80's). When I nominated the files for deletion (because the tags had been removed) user resorted to using ip User:189.162.28.27 to remove the tags again. All uploads by this user have sourcing/licensing problems and should be removed and the user and ip's blocked. -Nard the Bard 03:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted all except Image:Carmen Romano (16).png which claims to be US government PD sourced from Jimmy Carter Museum, all the others appear to be scans from books dated as taken 1950-1980's either PD-old or PD-self cant be either as pd-old says athor +70(+100 mexico), pd-self was on scans based on blurring caused by curved pages cant be selfmade works. Gnangarra 12:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This user re-uploaded one of the copyvios AGAIN, and AGAIN with a specious copyright claim (PD-Mexico, pma+100 even though the image is from 1966. This user needs a block. -Nard the Bard 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
and again I have warned the user, saying that further uploads like these will result in a block, it would be appreciated if someone could do a translation to spanish to ensure the message is understood. Gnangarra 04:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Add category to protected imagepage

Hi. I would like to add Category:SVG flags - missing to the protected Image:Flag of None.svg - an image I missed when searching for placeholders in Category:SVG flags. Thanks in advance // Mankash (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 12:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Lukaaz

User has uploaded many copyvios, and has received the endofcopyvios warning twice! Today he uploaded more unsourced/unfree photos. I am not sure what should be done. -Nard the Bard 19:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a while. Giggy (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Anyone want to help go through more than 100 uploads and tag/delete? Giggy (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've zapped a few that I could locate on flickr these were either, non commercial licenses or non free. Gnangarra 05:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Nuked a few. Giggy (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Lukaaz@commons (pt:Usuário:Lukinhaz@pt.wikipedia) has started a few days ago to request help on how to upload and how to ask for permissions of flickr pictures (see here; I'm trying to help him on wikis and with MSN Live Messenger). Please don't delete the remainders uploads from him, wait a bit. Lugusto • ※ 02:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio issues with User:Daniel De Leon Martinez

I just tripped over Image:Bending.png, which turns out to be a ownership stolen (Feb 2006) version of an earlier (December 2004) image on English Wikipedia: en:Image:Beam in Bending.png by (now deleted "as it was on commons" - requires admin to see there) (hope that works for crosswiki link, I don't do that much). Files appear identical. No credit is given to the earlier one, it appears an obvious copyvio.

I just scanned through Mr Martinez' contributions - I am not sure if the others are problematic as well, but once one problem like this is spotted more seem likely. Additional eyes on the problem seems appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aeroflot.svg

The image was nominated for deletion by russavia, which is fine, of course, but he keeps messing with the license tags before any consensus has been reached. Please intervene. Óðinn (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected the page per edit warring. Giggy (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Is the designer of the logo known? Or it is an anonymous creation before 1941? Sv1xv (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Upload-maxfilesize

The mediawiki message seems not working on italian upload page (answers $1 as max upload dimension), but seems ok on other versions. May you fix it? {Sirabder87}Static age 22:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Lupo 06:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Third loading

This image was charged by the same user for the third time. Please take action. 200.102.69.46 21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Giggy (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio/BLP-violating photos

Could an admin please delete Image:2871043506 0e1fea7a43.jpg and Image:2817027641 221fe9aaf3.jpg? They're obvious copyvios, being used by a POV-pusher at en Wikipedia to "prove" some nutty fringe theory that Sarah Palin is not the mother of one of her children. Kelly (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as copyvios. --rimshottalk 06:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing PD-Polish

Someone locked editing of {{PD-Polish}} again. Can it be unblocked? Or can someone change [[:Art.3 of Polish copyright law of March 29, 1926.JPG|Art.3]] to [[:Image:Art.3 of Polish copyright law of March 29, 1926.JPG|Art.3]] ? --Jarekt (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I made the edit. Giggy (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio: Image:C3 Picasso.jpg

Image:C3 Picasso.jpg is definitely an official release picture. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominated it for deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
(Someone allready did --Martin H. (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC))

Image:Sharuiz.jpg

Could somebody else take a look what is going on with this image. New user Trunksoul (talk · contribs) has uploaded, as of yet, 5 different images under the same name (see file versions), and most are looking very private to me. --Túrelio (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done already by abf. --Túrelio (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Logos on sport kits

Hi, the User 190.25.175.33 (talk · contribs) just nominated a bunch of images for deletion, all his requests where incomplete without a subpage and without informing the uploader/creator. I reverted his edits and put a list on the IPs Talkpage, so someone can check the images and say, if they are ok or not. --Martin H. (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

OTRS ticket 2008052310017844

Seems like numerous images spanning 60 years state the same author user:Fondazionefossoli and use the same OTRS ticket number. It is unlikely (but possible) that someone taking photographs in 1942 (see Image:Campo attendato per prigionieri inglesi 1942 - PG73.jpg) is today's wiki user. Also watermark on Image:7.gif lists the photographer as Gealdi Mauro (?) so I hope that is the real name of user:Fondazionefossoli which is mentioned on the OTRS ticket 2008052310017844. --Jarekt (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that ticket is in Italian, so it makes it a bit hard for me to check. From what I can tell the ticket referenced above releases images from the domain fondazionefossoli.org under the GFDL & CC-BY-SA and verifies that user:Fondazionefossoli is the website owner. J.smith (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess we do not need OTRS permissions from website owners but from photographers themselves. All photos with this ticket are marked as self-made by user:Fondazionefossoli. Someone speaking Italian should verify this since it is unlikely that this user was taking photos in 1942. Unfortunatelly it is impossible to tell which images are his and which one are not. --Jarekt (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to {{Bad name}}

I'm not sure if this edit is spam or what, but given that there is much personal information in it, an admin may want to delete the revision. Resolute (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done the cleanup, but maybe we'll need an oversighter here ... →Christian.И 17:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
It's been oversighted. Giggy (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes I got in touch with Lar. --Kanonkas(talk) 09:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Belen21c (talk · contribs): overwriting images still in use

Due to use of really silly file names Belen21c (talk · contribs) has overwritten two images:

which are still used on b.en Please:

  • rename the existing files
  • restore and rename the old files
  • and block these file names for further uploads.

-- 92.226.228.32 08:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done I've now reverted the files & I'm not protecting the images, everybody can make mistakes at all times. Also what should the images be renamed to? Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 09:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 Not done I think that was not what was asked for.
What about the macaw and the butterfly? Where are they gone? It seems to me that you reverted the images to the earlier versions by User:Rj1979, but you discarded User:Belen21c's images.
You failed to keep Belen21c's images with a better name (e.g. rename Image:005.JPG by Belen21c to Image:Hyacinth macaw 005.JPG or whatever.
And with a view to the categories Image:Kayaking on Wisła.JPG might be a good name for Image:005.JPG by Rj1979. It's a wiki! Be creative!
After all this is done locking the file names (like Image:1.jpg) would make sense. -- 85.179.165.71 10:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Belen21c (talk · contribs) should upload the images again under a diff image name. --Kanonkas(talk) 10:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ikillyoubarnstar.png

Image:Ikillyoubarnstar.png was recently used in what appears to be a questionable barnstar, the motivation therefor and meaning thereof are being discussed at en.wiki ANI. The title, to my eyes, is rather tasteless humour and inappropriate for collaborative, respectful projects. I don't know that the image necessarily needs to be deleted, but certainly a name change? What are thoughts? Эlcobbola talk 23:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that en.wp has too much drama. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree; to be clear, I don't care about the meaning or intention. The "Ikillyou" name seems objectively inappropriate. Эlcobbola talk 23:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally I'm itching to delete this one. Humour is fine among folk who are happy with it. To others it is probably offensive. I think it should go. --Herby talk thyme 06:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It's gone. Giggy (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Giggy - dawned on me while I was off line that I would probably block anyone placing the barnstar on someone else pages as "intimidating behaviour" so I'm happy it is gone. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to self: English wikipedia administrators are frightened of things that are less than their own shadow.... -- carol (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Taxonavigation template

A classification article APWebsite needs to be added to Template:Taxonavigation/classification, so for any who have recovered from the scary barnstar ordeal, I would appreciate your "unprotected from" assistance with this. Thank you. -- carol (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done feel free to update now & please post back when you're done. Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Also ✓ Done and in my opinion, good to have that repaired. -- carol (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Communication receivers : please rename

Hello, could someone please rename the gallery Communication receivers to "Communications receivers" ? The current usage is with "communications", see also English WP w:Communications receiver. Thank you. Sv1xv (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done I believe you could have moved the page. Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 19:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Back after break

Hey all fellow admins - just a small note to say I'm back and intend to take up where I left off :) Let me know if there are any particular areas I can assist. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well good to have you back! I bet deletion requests are a good place for you to start on. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Pleased to see you back. Unfortunately, there is no work left, only a bit of dust here and there ... --Foroa (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Great news! Giggy (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Urgedbeing

This individual is uploading images as free-to-use which metadata suggests is from a variety of cameras, and commonsense tells you is the work of a professional lifted from a google search.

Conrawise, this user is also overwriting images with substandard photography (of what I imagine is his own house) as a way to circumvent a block on his ip at the English Wikipedia for disruptive editting to en:Rainhill. Jhamez84 (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

From a CU perspective it seems quite likely to me that this user may be associated with the vandalism referred to on the en wp page above. Equally I think that the editing, possible copyright violation issues here are suspect. If anyone else agrees then a block seems in order. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission

This category has a backlog requiering attention i think, it grows from about 300 Files in July (i think to remember) to now 1.300, maybe a stricter policy could help, the OTRS pending files are mostly images obvious without permission, other images without permission (subst:npd) are deleted after ~ 7 days.

Excursus: Im not sure, but maybe Commons is more used after the SUL login, so maybe the OTRS needs more volunteers or the OTRS process needs to change to spare a lot of comunication and search (now: Upload -> Pending -> Ticket -> Confirmation, my proposal: Ticket -> Uploadinfo per Mail -> Upload with Ticket# -> Confirmation) --Martin H. (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Starting just recently, I've been monitoring this category. What I've been doing is as follows:
  • User uploads image with otrs-pending tags
  • After that image is here for at least 30 days, and there are no edits to the image page, I search the OTRS system for the ticket (I obtain this list of list of images via database query)
  • If a ticket is not found, I contact the uploader
  • After about a week to ten days, the image is deleted if sufficient permission is not received.
The trouble with just deleting them after a week is that there are usually backlogs of permissions tickets on OTRS, so it takes time for tickets sent there to be processed. I think if we had more OTRS people actively doing this, we wouldn't have a problem. Hope this clears things up a bit. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • couple of thing I see is that there are a lot of multiple image from the same source this takes additional time for the OTRS people to process. Uploaders should be encouraged to supply only one image from the source then once its tagged the uploader can place the permission template when they upload the additional image. The other is that images awaiting OTRS confirmation shouldnt have the standard free license templates(cc-by.. & PD etc) on them, we should have a template that clearly indicates that we have yet to confirm the licensing. We should even be cautious about the usage of the image in other Foundation projects. Gnangarra 01:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Think the main reason for the increased numbers is due to the redesign of Special:Upload so that it specifically mentiones {{OTRS pending}}. Even without a deadline of 30 days a timestamp for when the template was added would probably help keeping track of the images that have been OTRS pending for the longest time. /Lokal_Profil 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with volunteering in permissions-commons if you like. My request is here. Cheers, KveD (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

Can bureaucrats please judge this carefully when closing: Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/SterkeBak. It seems like this RfA have been canvassed through e-mail(s). --Kanonkas(talk) 19:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OTRS-ID for Image:Persian local woman.jpg?

Can somebody search for the ID and add it to the description? -- 85.177.185.233 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've searched for it and cannot locate a ticket. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

need for a bot

Sorry if this is not the right place to ask for that, but I think it should be interesting to add a "category:botany" or/and "category:botanica" tag to the Koehler's plant images (go to page [[Category:Koehler1887]]). Since ther are almost 300 of them, it should be done by a bot. Thanks ! Djapipol (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Bot requests would be the best place. Giggy (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Category:Koehler1887 is subcategorized into Category:Botanical illustrations which is subcated into Botany. Productive edits to these images is to categorize them by species which is already happening if they are in a gallery for the species. -- carol (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The contents of Category:Ayacop/Blanco needs to be moved to Category:Flora de Filipinas and this move has already been approved of and encouraged by the uploader of those images. -- carol (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Move going on. --Foroa (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
And it is empty now, yay! with the exception of one gallery that was recategorized to it. Is there a reason not to undo that recategory? -- carol (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Holarrhena pubescens is a species gallery, so not necessarily linked to the book Category:Flora de Filipinas. --Foroa (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Oops, you are right. User:Deadstar added that category to it 13:01, 8 March 2007. I have had the weird experience here of having the suggestion made that community files (not categories but similar) be put into my personal user space, similar to what looks like happened there. The suggestion was/is wrong and I am curious of the origins of it. -- carol (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Rename category

By mistake I created Category:Fortresses in the Romania, the definite article the being an obvious mistake, when the right cat should be Category:Fortresses in Romania . I registered just today on global account (my home wiki is the English one) and I don't know if cats can be moved on Commons. If this can't be done, delete the current cat so I can create the correct one. Baltaci (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

They can't be moved, no, but since there was nothing in that cat I just created a new one and deleted the old one. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.Baltaci (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please edit Commons:Deletion requests/box

I would like to add a small size version of the nominated picture here with the following code :

<includeonly>{{#ifexist:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|[[{{SUBPAGENAME}}|thumb|right|150px|nominated picture]]}}</includeonly>

Teofilo (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This would have a negative effect on page load times and would add little value to the discussion, I feel. Giggy (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
This would appear only on subpages, because Commons:Deletion requests/box is always inserted between "noinclude" tags. You would not see these thumbnails on the [[RFD/year/month/day]] listings. So this has very little impact on pages load time. The value is that when you click on "show preview" after you wrote a comment, you can check that the picture is really the one you have on mind, not having mixed up with another picture you have dealt with a few minutes ago. Teofilo (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Please have a look at the "Images deletion requests" page on the French language Wikipedia : fr:Wikipédia:Images à supprimer, and click on the subpages to see how thumbnails are displayed. Teofilo (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

is this acceptable here?

[[1]] As an en:wiki Admin, I accept some criticism, but taking it to a personal level is hurtful. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

edit reverted and user got indefinite block as it seems it was single purpose account.Sorry for inconvenience --Mardetanha talk 23:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; also indeffed on en:wiki. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Image namespace about to be renamed

Brion has announced that he is about to rename the "Image:" namespace to "File:". "Image:" will remain an alias. The canonical namespace name wgCanonicalNamespace will change from "Image" to "File". Scripts should be rewritten accordingly, or test for wgNamespaceNumber == 6 instead. ("Image talk" is namespace number 7, BTW.) Scripts that test for page names or URLs expecting the prefix "Image:" should be rewritten to also handle the "File:" prefix.

Script and bot writers, please update your programs! Lupo 06:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this going to affect anything immediately besides scripts and bots? rootology (T) 16:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. Ask Brion! I just hope he waits at least 30 days before switching, so that all users have the script changes before the switch occurs. Lupo 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I read on the mailing list Brion's thinking about commiting it this coming week... so it might be faster than that. Patrícia msg 22:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I had seen that, too. My response was bugzilla:44#c32... Lupo 22:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is a little ToDo-List ;-). It looks like there isn't anything left in MediaWiki: namespace. Bots are a different story though. Sigh! --Dschwen (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
We could just send a Bulletin to all users in the search result above. --Dschwen (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I suppose they should also replace any tests for "Image talk" or "Image_talk" with tests on namespace number 7, and they should critically examine all places in their scripts where they assume that a file begins with "Image:" (such as in a URL). Lupo 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Probably an ignorant question: Will this have any immediate effect on templates, which rely on "Image:" for linking and such or does the aliasing of "Image:" imply that this will still work after the transistion, whereafter the templates can be modified over a period of time? -- Slaunger (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The namespace Image: will be redirected to File: (the same for the talkpage) i don't see problems for templates. Sterkebaktalk 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Bulletin sent. There were no cases of Image talk tests. --Dschwen (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Here we can monitor the progress :-) --Dschwen (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Things like "{{ #ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}} | Image |..." or "{{ #switch:{{NAMESPACE}} | Image=..." (both found in Template:Uncategorized) may also be problematic... Lupo 22:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


Snow White Queen

Want to use this as a nickname.--82.151.153.118 09:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said on Kimse's talk page yesterday, please create the account as nobody have created it yet. --Kanonkas(talk) 12:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal about RfA

Hey, I believe the consenus reached here is generally a good idea. Why don't we create a second way of getting the tools? (The regular way via COM:RfA would stay) My proposal is:

  • If a sysop (who is yet sysop for more than 2 month) would like another user to become a sysop he can nominate him on a page like Commons:Administrators/Request and votes/Coach (the page will also be transcluded on COM:RFA) and the community takes a quick vote (e.g. 3 days)
  • If there is minimum 80% support after those days (minimum 8 users must have voted) the user will get the tools
  • The sysop who nominated the user will have to reviev the new admins' contribs and talk discuss them on a page like User talk:X/Admin Coach - all other sysops are welcome to do so as well
  • If the user does not do his job fine and minimum 3 Admins do not agree with his work after 60 days the User will have to go the regular RfA way again with the same points as if he was not a sysop yet. Means over 75% --> sysopship stays; less than 75% --> sysopship lost
  • If there is no evidence the sysopship stays without further election.

Its only an idea, but I believe there are many benefits:

  • We do not buy a pig in a poke, we know how the user uses/abuses the tools
  • The progress of electing is shorter
  • The new sysop has got a fixed "coach" who helps him with the tools

So what do you think? Shall we try it out? (O'course a poll is needed first) I would like to hear your oppinnions. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 11:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Folks should probably checkout Wikiversity's approach to this as this is the way they have done it for quite some time.
There are issues with it - there have been cases where the "coach" becomes inactive I think I recall. Obviously this would be an issue.
The "devil" would be in the detail here. I would like gaining admin to be fairly straightforward but equally I would like loosing it to be the same. Meta style confirmation would be a good idea (IMO) and maybe a review of the whole RfA things would be an idea. --Herby talk thyme 11:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
If the big worry would be on the coach going inactive, maybe just make it a requirement that you have two? rootology (T) 13:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea. But a vote of three day's is to short i think. Because not everybody is online everyday. I would say 5 day's Sterkebaktalk 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The voting time is just too little & then you'll need 8 votes, now it's just 4 (minimum) votes for a normal RfA. I don't really see the problem with the normal RfA process here, this suggestion doesn't sound so good. --Kanonkas(talk) 16:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I agree min. 4 votes & 2 coaches (while one who nominates is enough) and maybe 4-5 days is a good addition. And, Kanonkas, I do not see a problem with the current system, but I believe the one I supposed is a good addition and a way to get good, qualified sysops easyly. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 17:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:PICT0008.JPG

I stumbled across a number of images uploaded by User:Planeti over the top of already existing images, all named "PICT00015" or similarly undescriptive names. What is the policy here?

Image:PICT0007.JPG: I've reverted to the original version, added a "rename" template. Told user:Planeti that this had happened at that I wouldn't be reinstating his picture as I found it to be out of scope. (I might need someone to translate that message into sq/bs/hr/sr).

For Image:PICT0017.JPG I had deleted the intermediate version, but reinstated as I was unable to save the image to my desktop (? might be a local problem) and then I came across Image:PICT0008.JPG where the whole "upload over the top" happened twice. And so - any advice? If the PICT00 whatever images are renamed, could we protect them or something? Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As you did with the first one, I've tagged Image:PICT0008.JPG and Image:PICT0017.JPG for rename. In order to prevent the use of such names, at the end of the renaming sequence an admin can block the name by uploading a special dummy image such as for example in Image:001.JPG. If you notice that a file with a clearly undescriptive (and likely to be used again) name has been finally deleted, you may notify that on Christian's or on my userpage. --Túrelio (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
What did you do with the "other" PICT008s? Did you re-upload them or leave them just in the history? -- Deadstar (msg) 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I've left them in the history. As soon as the current version is renamed (actually copied to the new filename), I'll revert to one of the other file versions and let that again be renamed by the bot. --Túrelio (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of similiar usernames

Yesterday I was checking the upload log and noticed two very similar names, so I checked the username log and saw this [2]. That is a lot of similarity. One of them has some image uploads and the other did yesterday I beleive, so maybe they got deleted. I don't know if it is a problem or that it even needs attention, but considering the potential for damage, I felt I should mention it here. --Paloma Walker (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a physics class at a University in Florida. They were supposed to be working at Wikiversity, but I suspect some might have wandered here from the upload form there. I'll try to track down their mentor at Wikiversity later. MBisanz talk 20:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for looking into it. Let's hope all thirty five of them are good faith editors. There is a bunch of them over there too. --Paloma Walker (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
According to the professor, there are over 200 students in the class. I'll report back in a bit. MBisanz talk 21:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
New accounts have SUL enabled by default, Multichill (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The instructor for the class is v:User:Eml4500.f08. The students were told to create accounts using a User:Eml4500.[term].[group].[surname] format. They are doing great work on wikiversity. Are there problems with copyvio images, or anything? I'm not sure what the concern is. --mikeu talk 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it is uncommon to have such similar accounts created so quickly. Since we now know what's going on there's no problem.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok. BTW, there is also another class by the same instructor, who uses Eas4200c.f08 as the preface for student account usernames. Personally, I would prefer that students be allowed to choose a username themselves, but if this helps the instructor manage the student contributions that is fine with us. I suspect that you will see more of these student accounts as wikiversity grows. But, do let us know if you have any problems and need to contact the instructor. We have had some minor copyvio upload problems in the past at wv from students doing these sort of projects and we try to get them informed about licenses early on. --mikeu talk 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info & I'm glad that you're watching your students carefully. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

SVG to PNG converter fails

Hi,

uploaded SVG files are automatically converted to PNG. I guess, this is done to provide a thumbnail and a fallback for browsers that are unaware of SVG.

This conversion is erroneous for the image Image:Phasendiagramme.svg though the SVG file has passed validator.w3c.org.

Who is to blame? :-) Linesbreak (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of too complicated code in the source, and you are using fonts that are not supported (TimesNewRomanPSMT, TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT). I've fixed some of the errors, hang on... - Erik Baas (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:IslaminNewZealandBookLaunch.jpg

Abdullah@xtra.co.nz (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure if this image is appropriate Image:IslaminNewZealandBookLaunch.jpg. It appears to be a recreation of two images deleted per these entries on the users talkpage 1, 2 and 3. I do not have access to the deleted images, but the image appears to include the cover of a book, albeit held by a person.--JavierMC 11:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the uploader is very likely Abdullah Drury, the author of this book.--Pharos (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Bernard Piette

User removed "no license" tags from images which do not have licenses, and then even more annoyingly, removed deletion tags from his talk page and left just the words "thank you" with my signature! Nuke the files! -Nard the Bard 21:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And another good censoring soul 85.37.190.176

Watch the children by Special:Contributions/85.37.190.176 --Foroa (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Kanonkas(talk) 22:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet another censor

Image:Girl with body piercings .jpg was edited, to hide the girls' breasts. - Erik Baas (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted that version of the image Gnangarra 01:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mic for wiki.jpg und Image:Mic for wiki 2.jpg zusammenführen

Deutsch: Hallo,

ich bitte, dass die Bilder Image:Mic for wiki.jpg und Image:Mic for wiki 2.jpg zusammengeführt werden. Image:Mic for wiki 2.jpg ist eine Kopie aus de.wikiversity, wo ältere Versionen gibt, die nicht verloren gehen sollen.

MfG --Jan Luca (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmmh, Image:Mic for wiki.jpg ist doch einfach nur die aktuellste Version von Image:Mic for wiki 2.jpg, könnte also demnach durch letzteres ersetzt und dann gelöscht werden, oder? --Túrelio (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the uses of Image:Mic for wiki.jpg (by Image:Mic for wiki 2.jpg) and tagged it as dupe for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Mic for wiki.jpg soll auch die aktuelle Version sein, aber die alten Versionen von Image:Mic for wiki 2.jpg sollen erhalten bleiben. MfG --Jan Luca (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

png -> svg

Hi, in most of the subcategories of Category:Maps_of_comarques_of_Catalonia there are lots of images in png format which have already been converted to svg format (caution: NOT ALL!!! you have to check every case and the usage). Since I guess that there are more than 1000 images with this situation, I think it is better if an admin (or a couple of admins) deletes them directly instead of having to change the template in each image, as I already started with this and this examples. Thank you!--Xtv (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe we delete those. --Kanonkas(talk) 12:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Why? I am the one who uploaded them, I was warned that should be in svg format (I didn't know how to) and now they have already been superseded with the svg versions. I see no reason to maintain them. Actually, when the "vector version available" template is used, the png image is always speedy deleted.--Xtv (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Deletion_requests/Superseded. --Kanonkas(talk) 13:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't know. We will have to tag all the png images, however. Any bot available?--Xtv (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
How's the bot going to know if a .svg is already available or not? -Nard the Bard 15:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion request

A higher res copy of Image:Philip V Coin.jpg exists on en.wp. Can this one be deleted so that one can be imported? Thanks, Oreo Priest (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just upload the high res version over the current one. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Is en:Paul Krugman's image really copyrighted free image?

en:Paul Krugman won the 2008 nobel prize in economics and the English article of him has a picture. Image:Krugman FPO.jpg, the image is recently transferred to Commons. However, I wonder the image from the site[3] really falls under the {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} because the image policy of the university website does not specify such "free usage".[4] It just says Photography policies and restrictions • Credit should be given to the photographer/Office of Communications, Princeton University. Could admin confirm that it is really allowed to use for any usages including commercial purposes? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a typical press release photo, not a free license. It should be replaced immediately.--Pharos (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Then the duplicated images should be deleted immediately unless the uploader could obtain email confirmation on it.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thumbnailing problem?

Is anyone else experiencing a thumbnail generation problem tonight? None of my last 10 uploads have thumbnailed properly and I can't suppose why. Durova (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See here: they changed something with the server setup for image scaling. Lupo 08:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's still not fixed, I've had the same problem with the last two image I uploaded. I can't view the link with the padlock by it so have no idea what it says or what is being done to fix the problem. Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also the same problem with the last nine images I've uploaded. Clicking on the question mark shows the image. So the uploading was correctly. Gouwenaar (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm noticing the same thing on today's flickr uploads that I am reviewing, will it eventually fix itself? I've delayed ok-ing the images until the thumbnails render correctly. MBisanz talk 14:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm seeing the same effect. It has happed with both an image of my own that I uploaded (Image:Williton railway station.JPG) and one I tranwikied from WP:en (Image:Williton Station Name Sign Photo By Robert Kilpin.JPG). The images seem to have uploaded ok and can be viewed on their own through the Full resolution link, but no images are showing in any embedded form I've tried. I guess this supports there being a problem in rescaling. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem has been solved, thanks. Gouwenaar (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, they've thumbnailed now. Durova (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Need image protected for en.wp main page

There appears to be a problem with thumbnails so I can't upload it locally and protect it. Would an admin mind fully protecting Image:Brachylophus fasciatus (Fijian Iguana).jpg for about 12 hours? It's about to appear on on the DYK section of en.wp. Thanks Ameliorate! (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done: My chance to test protection, protected 1 day. --Martin H. (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Cheers! Much appreciated. Ameliorate! (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sandino.jpg

In the file history, two versions (12:58, 22 May 2008, 12:47, 22 May 2008) correspond to a copyvio. The first and the last versions are ok. I think the 2 problematic versions have to be removed from the file history, because anyone can reach them. --CHristoPHE 09:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks & ✓ Done. --Herby talk thyme 11:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Richiex

I do realize the encyclopedic value of material that covers nudity and genitalia. I also realize User:Richiex is a long time contributor, but could someone counsel him to use his photographic skills to photograph and upload something other than his genitalia, upload to Flickr or start his own website since Commons is not supposed to be an online image storage base? Virtually all of his image uploads are of his penis, testicles, scrotum [5]and deletion discussions to keep them. [6]. At what level do we consider we have adequate quantities of such images? It could be useful to have views from those of us who review new uploads as well as the deleting admins. --Paloma Walker (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with Paloma here and think there is an issue. The "new" folk who insist on uploading their genitalia are quite easy to deal with (& {{Nopenis}} is helpful). However this user is established in that we have had views of his genitalia over quite a period. I guess I do feel there comes a point in time when we should ask him to stop? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thumbnailing problem, continued

Thumbnailing seems to be broken still for images containing not latin characters in their name. e.g. Image:Ovanåker landskommun vapen.svg, Image:Piteå landskommun vapen.svg. I've uploaded other images without åäö which thumbnailed without any problems though. /Lokal_Profil 23:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is .svgs - nothing to do with the filename.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The svgs I uploaded in the same batch which didn't have any of the Swedish letters thumbnailed without any problems. /Lokal_Profil 12:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a bug report lodged about this issue? /Lokal_Profil 12:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Fo0bar user creation request

Login error: The name "Fo0bar" is very similar to the existing account "Foobar" (contributions • logs • user creation entry). Please choose another name, or request an administrator create this account for you.

Greetings. I attempted to create User:Fo0bar, following my previous long-time accounts on en and meta (and indeed, my online identity for, umm, the last 15 years). Could an administrator go ahead and create "Fo0bar"? Thank you. --24.205.216.167 07:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, just found unification. Nice. --Fo0bar (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

delete a version, please

In regards to this image: Image:Tupperware_in_Design_museum_Gent.jpg - the first version of the file is licensed under CC-BY-NC and the uploader has replaced it with an image under and acceptable license. Can I get someone to please delete the first version of the file? J.smith (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Kanonkas! J.smith (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Tery Fugate-Wilcox

The images in this category have been deleted as copyvios of fvlcrvm gallery. As I understand it from talk on wikipedia they were uploaded by the fvlcrvm gallery. Tyrenius (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That page shows a clear All right reserved at the foot and none of the images had an authorization, futhermore none of them had metadatas what suggest mere copies taken from the page. Anna (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"That page" if you are talking about the web page of either Fvlcrvm Gallery or the web page of Tery Fugate-Wilcox had "All Rights Reserved" by ME. They are MY web pages. I did not take the images from the web pages, I took them from MY OWN ARCHIVES. Many would be the same photos as the ones used on the web pages, because they are the best photos for the things that the article talked about, (which I neither initiated nor wrote). All I did was add some photos that would make what was being described in the article more clear to the reader. They are ENTIRELY my own. Please revert the deletion. fvlcrvm 13:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are they your own? Are you Tery Fugate-Wilcox, Bill Anastasi, Maria Ceppi, Robert Dugrenier, Alexia Nikov or maybe Tony Reason? The images I deleted belong to all those artists if you are not any of them then you need an authorization from all of them, real owners of those works, to upload their pictures here. Please read Commons:Licensing Anna (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The nature of the gallery/artist relationship is such that we, as the representatives of the artists, (and their art) have, inherent in the artist/gallery agreement, the right, even the obligation to publish images of the work we represent and, in this case, own outright. That is how we advertise; offer images for articles about the art, in both printed and web form; make catalogues, brochures, cards, invitations and so on. I thought people would appreciate seeing the kind of art Fvlcrvm represented, when it was in business, as a matter of history. I know all of the artists would appreciate the historical context. However, if you cannot accept that, I will remove all images of art except that of Tery Fugate-Wilcox, my husband of 45 years, who shares this computer with me & has already taken responsibility for uploading his own images of his own work. Personally, I think it would be unfair to the other artists to show only Tery's work, as if to slight them. But if you insist, I will remove them.fvlcrvm 18:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done the research & my use of these photos, which I took, of works which I commissioned, irrespective of the license granted in the gallery/artist relationship, fall into the category of "fair use", both as defined by U.S. Copyright law & by Wikipedia Guidelines, in that they are:

    1. 1. of historical significance;
    2. 2. included for informational purposes only;
    3. 3. significant additions to the article because they make abstract descriptions of the kind of art shown, visually available;
    4. 4. readily available on the internet;
    5. 5. low resolution;
    6. 6. not used for commercial gain;
    7. 7. causing no commercial harm to the artists, in the historical context of the content; and that
    8. 8. The article would be difficult to understand without the use of images, to see what the art described would look like.

I hope this will help to resolve the matter. fvlcrvm 20:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello fvlcrvm, first of all fair use is not allowed in Wikimedia Commons, but the English Wikipedia. I suggest you to read Commons:Licensing and Commons:Project scope where this is explained, exactly here. On that same page you can read the sort of material accepted and the licenses allowed. In short, if you accept that your images are free reuse for any purpose (including commercial) and permit the creation of derivative works then they will be wellcome. I nor any of the collaborators here insist on anything that is not written in the project policies. You must understand that we have to respect copyrights. If you accept to license the images freely, then you must write a permission, follow the instructions in Commons:Email templates and then I will restore the images. Anna (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

OTRS checks please

Could someone with OTRS please check if we have permission for [7] and [8]. I would like to copy them to Commons if we do. Thanks. Giggy (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A permission was received on September 4 for Wikipedia use only. The clarification request sent on the same day hasn't been answered. --Para (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Giggy (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please delete some pictures

Hello

Person in the picture don't like those pictures and she ask if it possible to delete them from Commons.

Pictures are

Thanks --Motopark (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Post {{speedy|your reason --~~~~}} in the image pages. That's the way to go. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thumbnailing problem on gif

This file has still a thumbmailing problem: Image:Tughra Mahmuds II.gif. Can somebody tell me, if there is an open ticket for that? Or is this the only one that still doesn't work? --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Rockyobody

User has a history of uploading copyrighted content and claiming it as their own. I issued several warnings and a final to drive the point home, which was ignored with an additional upload under an erroneous license. --BrokenSphere 02:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked one week, after a long stretch of copyvio uploads. All deleted. Giggy (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about this page

Ok it is in user space however this page might have some privacy issues? Or am I wrong, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If she wants to publicize her email address, well that is her problem, but I'm not sure listing all her friends emails is the wisest idea. I doubt they have consented to the publication of their emails on a major website like commons. MBisanz talk 14:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I would say it is not really smart to put that online. But is no real reasson to delete it. Sterkebaktalk 14:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete and remove from history her friends' email addresses. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
i have placed a notice on her/his talkpage. To inform him/her that placing emails online isn't very smart. Sterkebaktalk 19:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Not a friend but a relative and her friends. As the user talks about "My Rubbish family" on his talk page this is very probably harrassment, so suggesting to put email addresses in an image is uhm...very bad. -> speedy delete & delete history. And better block this user, no useful contributions, only odd experiments. Tekstman (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A person giving out their own private is permissable but not the wisest move around. But giving out someone else's info would be a whole other matter. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, he does not give his own email address but from someone else: "Below I have given the email addresses of her and some of her friends."
I've deleted the page, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 03:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrectly named images

Hi, when uploading edited versions of several images, I accidently duplicates of the originals. Is it possible for the "middle" images in the history of the following images be deleted?

Thanks. OSX (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Kanonkas(talk) 11:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To cancel my account

Hi,

I want to cancel my account...how can I do it??? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.34.29.83 (talk • contribs) diff (UTC)

Hi, it is not posible te cancel a account. The software doesn't support deletion of accounts. Is there a reasson you wan't to cancel it? Sterkebaktalk 07:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
However, the account could still be renamed in theory, and personal information could be purged too, technically speaking.
Now the contributions will stay. Esby (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Helo, please explain the exact problem further, while accounts can't be deleted (just as others said already), maybe there is an other solution for You, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 17:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
There is an extension that allows the deletion of accounts, but it is probably not installed. Normally, it is sufficient just to leave a message on your user page that you have left. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. And it will never be installed on WMF wikis.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

protecting of image

It seems that in some image will be continous uploading and reverting, an example Image:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, 2007.jpg, can we in those situation protect image to original version and delete other version, if it's the best version --Motopark (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I upload the crop under a new name. So people can choose with version the wan't to use. I reverted the images to the orginal version. I think where oke now. Sterkebaktalk 11:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thanks, now OK --Motopark (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cw1242 (talk · contribs)

Useless private images:

-- 85.177.32.131 07:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

All deleted. Giggy (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Beer bottles again

Just came across Category:Beers of the Czech Republic. There are many photos of bottles which are Commons:Derivative works from labels. From one side number of such images is too big to discuss every bottle, from other side, previous attempt to clean such categories raised too much controversies. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Poo, not this again! Bastique demandez 18:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chess_z6ver_26.png

The image was missing from the database.(bug?)
I first reuploaded the thumbnail, then upsampled it to reupload it again. I decided to delete the non existing image.
The two files I had uploaded before are not appearing anymore, I restored it, but the files were still not showing up... I reuploaded the last version I had uploaded again,
If someone understands what happened exactly here and what should had been done?

The history of the file is here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Chess_z6ver_26.png

Esby (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fabio02.jpg a copyright violation. Thanks. --201.66.211.169 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think this is true. The image appeared at [9] on 2008-10-18 and apparently didn't appear at Flick ([10]) until the next day. The Flickr member couldn't have taken this image from the Terra website, though, because the version at Flickr is high-resolution. Still, I suppose both the Flickr member and Terra could have gotten the image from some third source (the actor's personal website, perhaps?). —Angr 23:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Both image deleted. Looks like press images to me. Better safe than sorry. Thanks for the notice Sterkebaktalk 02:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

PD-art images from museum websites allowed?

Did I miss something? Can an image of a painting by Leonardo da Vinci for example (which is obviously PD-art) be taken from that museum's website and be uploaded on the Commons, even if the museum claims copyright on that image? I had a specific case here [11], am a little confused now. Gryffindor (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I was certainly under the impression that we are under no obligation to pay attention to museums' copyfraud claims like that. —Angr 23:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought as well. All PD-art images are public domain, regardless which museum might want to claim copyright on it. Gryffindor (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Commons policy was changed in August to allow such photos to be kept even in countries where local copyright is claimed. See COM:ART. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

LiverpoolUNI (talk · contribs)

Looking at this user's uploads here and additions to this en:wiki article it appears that when I nominate for deletion on the basis of possible improper copyright information, he just uploads a new version of the image. However, what concerns me is whether this is a proper username for here as role accounts are not permitted. An admin second opinion would be appreciated. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The user hasn't uploaded anything for a few days now so I'm not inclined to block (and I'm generally pretty lenient with usernames). All his files should be deleted via the DR process in due course. Let us know if he keeps uploading, though. Giggy (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures from some magazines

Severstal87 (talk · contribs) has uploaded plenty of small pictures that shall be scanned from some magazine. --Motopark (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

All deleted, user warned. Giggy (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Lamelle (talk · contribs)

User has uploaded plenty of PDF that are very big, an example Image:GmLs.pdf, side 16.23 Mbytes, if I open it and store it it to new PDF, size was 37.6 kilobytes, what are the extra size in PDF, some code or what, Some of those PDF:s don't open, they are broken.--Motopark (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't tested but can the so called "PDF's" possibly be .rar files? --Kanonkas(talk) 15:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hum - compare here. Blocking I think. --Herby talk thyme 15:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
He was storing files there (contact privately for format details). Platonides (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

delete images

hey, can someone delete my last changes of Image:Wikipedia-logo-he.png from the server? was huge OOPS. :) --Itzike (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The last one or the last two? Sterkebaktalk 22:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
the last two changes. i upload image, and then reverse it. so we need to go to the original status of the page :) --Itzike (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done it think it is oké now. Sterkebaktalk 07:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ch1902

User:Ch1902 has copied at least nine images from Flags of the World without permission (look at User's talk). It should be necessary to check his other images. --Patrick (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we please merge the DRs then? That will be most productive.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, they're {{copyvio}}s - nevermind. Deleted.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Their other contribs don't look obviously bad to me. Perhaps someone else might double-check though.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually I didn't copy them from Flags of the World, I drew them myself using Inkscape in good faith after reading the w:Flag of Lebanon article and noticing the gallery had several raster flags among the svgs. The raster images in the gallery are all public domain, are you saying those are copied from Flags of the World too? Since they are simple geometric shapes (one is just a blank white rectangle for Gods sake, another is 5000 years old) how was I in the wrong to draw them myself and upload them as public domain? It would have been nice for the message on my talk page to explain why they were copyvios. — Ch1902 19:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The images has exactly the sizes of the images on FOTW. It would be a very unusual "accident" to hit such equality. Even, if you just converted the files from FOTW to SVG-Files, it is not allowed to make adaptations for Commons, because the images here are free for commercial use. If you really would draw them, it would be sth else. --Patrick (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Until I read this thread I had never come across Flags of the World. As I said, I drew them based on the raster images in the gallery at Flag of Lebanon, the size is the same for convenience, I could have chosen any 3:2 ratio. None of those flags cite FOTW on their description pages and they are all public domain (so they claim anyway) and that's all I had to go on. Can I get Image:Chehab Emirate Flag.svg, Image:Phoenician Flag.svg and Image:Tanukh Flag.svg un-deleted at least, they contain simple geometric shapes hand drawn by me, regardless of where you say they came from they can't be copyrighted. And can someone sort out the status of the images in the Flag of Lebanon gallery so someone else doesn't innocently vectorize them. — Ch1902 21:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody help to clean

Category:Unknown - October 2008 needs to some deleting, could somebody help to clean it--Motopark (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a very big backlog. So i hope that some admins can help. I did two day's now. Sterkebaktalk 18:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Request help from Admin with OTRS access

Please check the contributions of User:EmilEikS Special:Contributions/EmilEikS, it's somewhat suspect to have a new user uploading lots of files with an OTRS tag. There's also a user with the same name on en and at least sv wiki, all of them created October 20, 2008. --Denniss (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the OTRS tkt#2008102710003369 yes its a permission to use these image, checking the en.user_talk page it appears that the images were originally uploaded there and that after discussion with some editors over licenses the permission was sent. Thanks for taking the time to query this its always good to ask the question when you have a concern. Gnangarra 10:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Invalid delection

I would like asking an administrator to restore Image:Página principal do sinapse.PNG if possible. Nevinho (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am the admin that deleted it. But as far as i know is the toolbar that is used on windows xp and vista not free. And i could not find any proof that the content on the site was free. Sterkebaktalk 18:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Let me say a few words:
  • first of all I can not reach the link of the source, so I cant verify the project is free.
  • second, I can only say sterkebak is right in the point the logos and screen-elements are unfree.
  • third there is a page for it: COM:UDEL
Image stays deleted unless a better reasoning is provided. abf /talk to me/ 18:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Irc admin channel

Hello administrators,

I was just on the irc with ABF and we found a old Channel. That channel can be used by admin's and Me and ABF can give you a invite and voice so you can come in all the time. The name of the channel is #Commons-admin

Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 20:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

channel name changed to #wikimedia-commons-admin --Mardetanha talk 21:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
What's the purpose of the channel?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete request Image:20081102-Aerinon-6401.jpg

Please delete image Image:20081102-Aerinon-6401.jpg, I have uploaded a copy with correct name as Image:20081102-Aerinon-4201.jpg. Sv1xv (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done by SterkeBak. Please use {{Bad name}} next time. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
after editconflict✓ Done - nice photo - Sterkebaktalk 09:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Sv1xv (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

When someone gets a chance...

... can you protect Image:Hong_Kong_Skyline_Restitch_-_Dec_2007.jpg for 24 hours? It is on the Main Page of en.wp, and when I uploaded/protected it locally, all the Commons templates are broken, and it just looks really messy. If you're also an admin on en.wp, can you delete the local copy there as well? Thanks. J.delanoygabsadds 02:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Sterkebaktalk 02:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! J.delanoygabsadds 03:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
...Another day, another protection request... Image:Emblems of USA 1876 (original).jpg for 24 hours, please. J.delanoygabsadds 00:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I just uploaded/protected a local copy. J.delanoygabsadds 01:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia für Firmen-Nutzung (Archivierung)?

Hallo,

ich habe gehört, daß es es Wikipedia-Version geben soll, die man in Firmen für die interne Archivierung/ permanente Ergänzung von Dokumenten/ Daten nutzen kann (als "Mini"--Wikipedia-Version in einem internen Netzwerk). Auf dieser Plattform soll es möglich sein, Lese- und Schreibrechte zu vergeben.

Gibt es eine solche Version? Wenn ja, wie kann man diese erhalten/ aufbauen? Welche Bedinungen sind daran geknüpft?

Danke für Ihre Antwort im Voraus. Mit freundlichen Grüßen NeuAutor1


  • Note - I've translated the following into english. Here is what he is saying.

Hello, I have heard that there is to be it Wikipedia version, one the addition of documents data, permanent in companies for internal archiving, to use can (as if " Mini" --Wikipedia version in an internal network). On this platform it is to be possible to assign reading and write rights. Is there such a version? If, how one can develop these received? Which Bedinungen is attached to it? Thanks for your answer in advance. Yours sincerely NeuAutor1

I hope that helps.Mitch32(UP) 00:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Hello, I have heard that there is to be a version of Wikipedia that one can use in companies for the internal storage/permanent addition of documents/data (like a "mini" version of Wikipedia in an internal network). On this platform, it will be possible to assign read and write permissions. Is there such a version? If so, how one can get or build this? What terms and conditions are attached to it? Thanks for your answer in advance. Yours sincerely, NeuAutor1"


Hi, you can go to http://mediawiki.org. There is the software that is used on Wikipedia and other projects. There is also a manual and you can download the software there. Or is that not wath you mend?

Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 06:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC) P.S Thanks for the translation Mitch

No problem.Mitch32(UP) 16:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably needs review

Came across a fairly obvious copyvio tagged with the rationale that the user was blocked on it wp for copyright violations. As such these probably need reviewing. I'd make a start but I'm off line in a minute. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 19:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Quad madness

The user page sounds more like an advertizing for this users hobby/DVD movie with some personal favourite links. Should this be deleted? --Denniss (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

request for removal real name

Hello, In the past I have upload two images using my real name. I have already replaced my name by my user-name in the description, but you can stil find it in the file history. I would like to ask whether an administrator on this project can delete the versions with my real name mentioned. (the currect versions are exact duplicates). The images are: Image:Lion Artis Zoo.jpg and Image:BactrianCamel.jpg. Thanks very much, Magalhães (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done thanks. --Herby talk thyme 11:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Lang

Please create the following pages in MediaWiki namespace:

Page content
MediaWiki:Lang en
MediaWiki:Lang/de de
MediaWiki:Lang/fr fr
MediaWiki:Lang/it it
MediaWiki:Lang/he he

Usefull for autotranslation.

Thanks, ערן (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe we have another trick for that. I'll look it up for you. Multichill (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, was mixing it up with {{#language:en}} = English. Please explain how this is useful. Multichill (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
{{#language}} is something else. It is usefull because {{int:Lang}} returns the user language - so {{GFDL/{{int:Lang}}}} will return the GFDL template in the user language. ערן (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. please see also my request in Template talk:GFDL. ערן (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And some more pages:

Page content
MediaWiki:Lang/ja ja
MediaWiki:Lang/ko ko
MediaWiki:Lang/ar ar
MediaWiki:Lang/pt pt
MediaWiki:Lang/es es
MediaWiki:Lang/ru ru

✓ Done Sterkebaktalk 07:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Would any admin help me with fixing errors in the templates? See this or this for example. Many templates are broking because of that problem for example many nps templates. I suggest no longer auto-translating until all is problems are fixed. --~/w /Talk 14:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok fixed it. ערן (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Vector version

Please remove the protection from Template:Vector version available, because I want to change it to be auto translated (Template talk:Vector version available#auto translation). Thanks, ערן (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In the future, you may use {{editprotected}} on the template's talk page. The category is checked fairly regularly by myself and at least a few other administrators.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Starman322

Please check the contributions of this user. It looks like he is using Commons as webspace to upload a bunch of personal images without any value for Commons or Wikipedia. --Denniss (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You should probably start a DR; it is not obvious to me that all these images are out of scope. Some work will have to be done to determine if there are any that should be kept.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure I've deleted some in the past. The "not personal repository" thing is difficult (& cropping up on many speedies at present). Many users have an image or two which is personal (I have a couple) but a collection of family photos is probably questionable.
You could try tagging a few as speedy & see if they go :) Regards --Herby talk thyme 18:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you ask me, I think most of the photos uploaded by Starman322 (talk · contribs) are clearly out of scope. This user is a single purpose account who only uploaded personal images. My two cents goes for speedy deletion or a {{Vd}} if a DR is opened. Cheers, KveD (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Current_requests

When I checked Commons:Deletion_requests/Current_requests, it was two days late. I suggest adding a refresh link on the top or the bottom of the page, with the following code :

[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Current_requests&action=purge refresh]

Teofilo (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely this would be good. I suggest implementing as soon as consensus is made.Mitch32(UP) 00:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
No objections here. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Teofilo (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Png images that should use vector graphics

On 1 September, User:Rocket000 deleted Category:Png images that should use vector graphics with the explanation that it was an empty category or unused redirect. The category is used by the {{Convert to SVG}} template, however, and is not currently empty. Rocket000 is now inactive and did not respond to my query on his/her talk page. Could I persuade another admin to undelete the category? Powers (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Done Sterkebaktalk 15:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

can you unlocke the Aguas Buenas shield its for a project

Mass Deletion of PD Images

The mass deletion of PD Images this night - a mass deletion again - im my case it concerns images with nobel-prize-winner Theodor Mommsen, is in my opinion not acceptable. The deletion fraction goes actually much too far. I now consider, if it make sense to upload in future images here. If these policy not will change in near future, I will stop my contributions to this project. This destructive love for destroying isn't mine. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a note on Maxim's talk page will fix this here? --Kanonkas(talk) 16:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI: User talk:Marcus Cyron#Bilder von Theodor Mommsen. Multichill (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful - the rest of the Mommsen-Images also nominated for deletion. Is this project actually gone mad? These restrictions are nuts. Problem: nobody knows, what's with these imgages. The Foundations waits for a process to find it out. Maybe we loose. But then we know it. But to delete in a in garman we would say "vorauseilendem Gehorsam" (I hope someone could translate ist) is not the correct way. We don't have a correct policy for that. Only some different meanings. And one side uses the deletion button to produce facts. We can't decide this - that must do the Foundation as Representat of all Wikimedia projects. We shouldn't delete here with our not usable rules. We must force the Foundation to do something here. To force them to do it fast. The Foundation must take responsebility. But I can't work in a project were one side use the force to push through there opinion. Until these mass deletions I ever liked do work here. It was much more friendly than in the other projects. But it seems, the wind has changed. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"vorauseilendem Gehorsam" is a phrase that does not really exist in english, but anticipatory obedience should more or less fit. And you know that on German Wikipedia where pictures are accepted which are 100 years old it is required that you proof first that you have exhausted all sources to check if the author of an image is really unknown. There is no indication that the uploader (oh, just noticed that you were it) of the Mommsen-images did something like that. Just because that one source does not tell any source, it does not mean that there is not another one which knows more about the image. At the current deletion request except one all of the images show him in high age which makes it rather probable that the author did not die in time. E.g. Image:Theodor Mommsen 06.jpg is from 1903 according to the source. Imagine that the photographer got as old as Mommsen. Then he would have to be over 50 at the time of the photo for it to be public domain. At German Wikipedia it would have been requested that you at least write to the owner of the image who is named at the source. Did you do that or did you just upload it without recherche? -- Cecil (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Gaurav, could I have it?

Hey guys, I'm not sure where to go about this. I'm user Gaurav on Wikipedia. There is a user at User:Gaurav here; however, he has only made one contribution, which was subsequently deleted, back in 2006 (log here). I'd hate to have one account name across all Wikipedia sites except this one. Is there any procedure for 'taking over' an unused username? Of course, if policy requires that user accounts be kept around for logging purposes forever, I'll respect that decision, but the temptation of multi-site login is much too much :-). Thanks for your help! -- 124.66.155.70 09:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

To me (ex crat!) usurpable. I'd post the request here is the correct section. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Herby! That's exactly what I was looking for :-). 220.255.7.186 15:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Heraldicos

Persistent copyright violator, tried to remove deletion tags from some of his images, added a fake OTRS tag to another, continues to upload (as we speak) copyrght violations. -Nard the Bard 12:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Distinctly questionable. Placed an "end copvios" tag but my digging has not found me anything on the other uploads that are still there in the time I had. --Herby talk thyme 13:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Website to post ideas

Is there any central webside for the wikimedian system to post ideas?
My idea is to integrate universal shortcuts for important content such as „I“ for „Image“, „T“ for „Template“ and „C“ for „Category“ (Of course more if usefull). So you just can tip in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/T:GFDL Instead of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:GFDL. Same procedure with „I“ and „C“. It's useful if you want to clean up a category or the like. Even some may think that it's not so hard to write „Category“ I'm sometimes tiered of it.
--D-Kuru (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of months ago, I suggested already something simular for such auto-expansion in the search-box (on the left), which should most probably only require some minor expansion of the Java scripts. No reply so far. No idea on what bell you have to ring. --Foroa (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you go to Metawiki. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, auto-expansion in the search-box is implemented already and live on Wikimedia servers.
You may also file improvements suggestions on bugzilla:.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Auto extension for names yes, but for prefixes such as gallery: category: image:, creator; too ? --Foroa (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much, yes, in a nutshell. Example it would would end up being: G: (gallery), I: (image - but I doubt this is necessary) C: Category. Creator is really not necessary. That's my opinion at the least.Mitch32(UP) 21:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I am not sure if this is the right place to make such a request, but I would like the pop-up window, in which you answer the question "Why do you want to nominate to deletion ?", to become wider, or to include more than one line, so that it becomes easier to read/spell-check the whole of what you have written before clicking on the "OK" button. Teofilo (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Right now it uses prompt();, but I'm not sure what an alternative might be. Perhaps leaving a note on the script's talk page would be better if there's no answer forthcoming here...  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps this can be changed on each user's computer by selecting a given Firefox (or any other browser) option ? Teofilo (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, the english Wikipedia uses a lot of different programs that would have to probably be changed on Commons to help on Commons. So, I would contact the English Wikipedia editors who make these, and see if they could come up with a Commons variant.Mitch32(UP) 21:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This script is home-grown - nothing to do with enwiki.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay. (I blame that I never used them for my lack of knowing that). Anyway, Twinkle and Huggle are good examples of what you are looking for.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 22:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Help in recovering broken image

…where is everybody?

Image:Loadeddd.JPG seems to be suffering from something possibly related to the September 2008 image loss bug: the database says it's 667×754 pixels, but the actual image is only 181×205. I was about to nominate it for deletion as an uneducational personal photo, but it turns out that it's actually in use on es:Loaded(!), so I should probably try to find some way to fix it. As it turns out, Image:Erwinloaded.JPG by the same uploader was deleted as a duplicate of it, so I'm hoping it might be possible to recover the larger version from the deleted history of that image.

Since I'm not an admin on Commons, I can't do that myself. So, I'd like to ask someone who can to check the deleted image to see how large it is, and, if it's larger than 181×205 pixels, reupload it over Image:Loadeddd.JPG. Thanks in advance.

(Ps. If anyone here happens to be an admin on the Dutch Wikipedia, I'd have a similar request regarding Image:Florent Gheeraert.jpg.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello... anybody here? I know this isn't the English Wikipedia, but I thought we did have some active admins here on Commons too. Or are they all just busy, or not reading this page? Not that I'm feeling impatient or anything, but this is a kind of a trivial request. It really shouldn't take days, should it? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done :-) Lycaon (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Some pictures

A user has uploaded some pictures. All this pictures seem to come from here. The German article about this fire department was speed deleted. So, this pictures could be a copyright violation. --Sabata (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The website says the images are under a Creative Commons license — but it's BY-NC-ND (or possibly BY-NC, if you believe the text rather than the link), and thus not free. Mind you, it seems at least plausible that the uploader might actually be the copyright holder, in which case they can release the images under any license they want. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OTRS

Hello, I am writing with a question. Yesterday, I uploaded Image:Margaret Thatcher.png after emailing the OTRS system, thus the OTRS was pending. OTRS responded via email to me today, thanked me for submitting the image, but did not update the tagging and licensing information on the image itself. The license is GFDL; I would do it, but I do not know the url of the confirmed image on the OTRS system. Any help provided in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! My best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket indicates that the copyright holder must release it to a specific license. As far as I can tell from reading the ticket, no license is mentioned by the copyright holder. If you re-read the bottom of the e-mail, beginning with "As this image is hosted on Wikimedia Commons, it requires the owner to provide a specific release..." it should explain it more clearly. MBisanz talk 02:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Oops, got it. I'll contact him right away! Thanks for the quick response. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Place words or terms in Wikipedia

How can I place words or terms in Wikipedia?

Thanks

Paul—Preceding unsigned comment added by Psimansky (talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Paul, this is not Wikipedia, but another project of the same foundation. To visit Wikipedia, please see http://www.wikipedia.org and pick your language. Every article has an edit button at the top, just click it and make your changes. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Denise hunter

Hi all,

Please help and watch user:Denise hunter.

This user is uploading album cover's and images from hip hop artist Donald XL Robertson. I found the images on a website with all right reserved.

So i deleted the images here as copyvios. After that i give her a warning and at the end she got blockt for two day's. From that moment she started sending me emails. She say's she is the owner from the site and will send permission to OTRS. Later she asked me if i would lift the block. I told her if you don't upload that stuff again i will lift your block.

She told me she would wait with the images till otrs is round. Please keep a look at her contributions. And warn her when needed. I think that i am to involved.

Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 18:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

On my watchlist
--D-Kuru (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

GFDL Released Image contains copyrighted element

Image:Bush_TV_Yellow.jpg has been released under the GFDL but contains an clearly identifiable frame of a copyrighted television broadcast. What procedure should be followed with this? Exxolon (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO I would blank the TV broadcast (Re-upload and remove the offending image) rather then deleting but leave it up to the Admin's who will have a better idea then I would. Bidgee (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
This does not qualify for COM:DM, thus it is a derivative of the copyrighted image. The screen has to be blanked or the image will probably be deleted. Maybe you could ask the user to take another picture with the screen turned off or some freely licensed movie on it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Logo wk 2018 Be-Ne.png

I changed the licence to {{PD-ineligible}} instead of deleting this image. What do you think (maybe you should write what you think instead of speedy deleting this image, some other admins (including myself) may think different)
thanks for help --D-Kuru (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a logo and as far as I know every logo is copyright protected and therefore not allowed on commons. Except when it is stated explicitly that it is in the public domain. Miho (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I would say that this one has to be deleted. Sterkebaktalk 08:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with SterkeBak, this is not a simple shape. IMHO eligible for copyright. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I tagged the image with copyvio and a link to this discussion. Miho (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mpdc100

Please take a look at today's contributions of Mpdc100; it looks like sabotage to me. - Erik Baas (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done - Uploaded images are reverted by Kanonkas, Erik Baas and me. Some images are protected for the next couple of days. User recieved a warning and is on my watchlist. Thanks for the notice. Sterkebaktalk 16:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Any zh (maybe) folk around?

I came across some uploads yesterday & meant to post but things happened! These I think need looking at. Not at all sure what they are, equally I am concerned about the links in the descriptions - it almost looks like some form of advertising. That number of links in a description seem unlikely to be appropriate to me?

I think it may be commercial but not really knowing what it is makes that a difficult call. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not spam. These are photos of jade artifacts. Given the exif data I'd say it's likely self-made. The links are mostly to pages with more similar photos, which are probably taken by the same person as the uploader. The last link goes to a Yahoo Maps page with an address, although I'm not sure why he added it. (w:en:User:Pegasus) 155.69.19.43 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I've also been helped on this one by KTo288 here which I appreciate. It looks as though the images are validly licensed however the links on them point to where the user is selling them. That to me means that Commons is being used promotionally in some sense of the word.
I accept the fact that the images are of interest however there are quite a large number. So - what is teh community view on this one please? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep the images, ditch the links. The description is for describing the image, thus links to where you can buy the item is not OK. I'll start cleaning.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Damn - why didn't I think of that :(. Thanks Mike - good idea. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrestling copyvios

I deleted a one a few days back & from time to time review my delete logs for things that "re-appear"!

This "seems" ok & I remember checking it before I deleted it (I felt it was a copyvio). This time I dug a bit more. There are a few images transferred here from en wp by this user. They point to uploads on en wp by this user..... who is now blocked for persistent copyvios. I think I smell a rat - review welcome but these are deletable to me. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am suspicious of self-made photos that lack metadata, or a full-version of the photo. The user could have easily taken the pics though. Perhaps he could be asked to provide proof he took the pics? Or perhaps I'm assuming too much good faith here. How do you turn this on (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I think my AGF was stretched by the fact that the original uploader is blocked for copyvios on en wp? (The Commons user/uploader may well not be aware or part of this - although they did recreate a deleted one...) --Herby talk thyme 13:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
If enwp blocked him, no reason why we should automatically. Though with possibly non-free images, it's better to be safe than sorry; they can always be undeleted if it's later found to be in error. Best wishes, How do you turn this on (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes - certainly would not follow en wp blocks necessarily (although a current case of puppets would be an exception to that!). I certainly would not block the Commons user who does not seem to be the same person as the en wp uploader. If you look around here however serial copyvio uploaders tend to stay copyvio uploaders. Certainly the first one (still link & undeleted above - agf) was a copyvio in my view. I've deleted two others & will see what happens... re-uploading without comment would set some bells ringing I guess. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:GFDL

I added there 5 days ago {{editprotected}} and no one yet changed, or respond to my request. Please copy the content from Template:GFDL/autotranslated to Template:GFDL for the template to be in the language of the user interface. Thanks, ערן (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Second Life screenshots

Hello. Please see User talk:Giggy#Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rainbow Leprechaun.png and Template:Second Life. The Second Life template has a deadlink. Could someone please confirm that what the template is saying is true. Also, by my understanding of the GPL, wouldn't all Second Life screenshots have to also be licensed under the GPL? (As opposed to the statement made in small print on the template.)

Clarification appreciated. Thanks, Giggy (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be correct. I changed the dead link to the page at archive.org: [12].
The smallprint text seems to be correct too (at least not wrong in the literal sense). It has to be a GPL-compliant free licence, not just any free licence. The text should be changed accordingly, I guess. --Slomox (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Surely that depends on whether or not the images incorporate copyrightable visual elements that are part of the software. In general, the output of GPLed software is not automatically GPLed; for images that only show user-designed (or PD-ineligible) objects, the creator of the objects should be able to choose any license they want. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sisterheader

Question: The {{Sisterheader}} provides a view of other Wikiprojects interlinks. Does the same function exist except that the links show on the left side, where the normal Wikipedia links show? I have a case here Category:Drie voordrachten over de nieuwe beeldende kunst where the only link I found is on Wikisource, however the link shows up on top, not on the left column. If such a function does not exist, maybe it would be a good idea if someone create it, basically sister links on the left column and not just as header? Gryffindor (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not certain what the purpose of the {{Sisterheader}} was, I do know that I like them now because they separate the links from the wikipedia article intralinks from the wikipedia category intralinks. -- carol (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes they are useful, my question is though if it is possible to also create something similar for the left side with clear borders for each sister? Basically a vertical sister header. Gryffindor (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that I did not understand your question. Depending on the skin used, those intrawiki links appear at different places on the rendered page making that request to be that much more complicated. -- carol (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Uncle Bill

Could someone please take a quick look at User:Uncle Bill (both the page and the user). This new user has been going around posting nonsense to apparently random user talk pages. On his own user page he has someone's (possibly his own) contact info, including an e-mail address. If this was en.wikipedia, I'd just block the user (as a vandalism-only account) and delete the page (as disclosure of personal info and possible attack page) and leave a polite but stern note on the talk page, but of course this isn't enwiki and I'm not an admin here, so I'll just let you handle this any way you like. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

He was warned, and I've just left another note. He hasn't made any edits in a while - no reason to block him unless he starts up again. Thanks for pointing it out. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

date in the picture

How are the rules, I have used film-camera wher was possibily to store date to film, example Image:Mekaanisen8.jpg, must I remove the date or is it allowed to keep--Motopark (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Motopark, this is not a problem. Hardcoding dates and other stuff into images is not recommended, so I would appreciate it, if you would not do it to new images. However, uploading the old ones is fine, someone will eventually remove the watermark, as it already happened with the example image. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure :-). But it is a lot of work when there are many pictures. Lycaon (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice to Graeme Bartlett: Regarding the page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Knife" I see your name in the edits at the bottom. I am a descendant of the Mirando family, and have an image of them from 1937 that I would like to upload. As a new user, I cannot upload files. I'm not even sure if I am posting this in the right place, but I can't seem to locate your contact info on your User Page (maybe I'm just blind?). If you get this, or someone else does that can upload an image for me, please contact me at jp.bernier@gmail.com and I will send you the image. Thanks JP. Bernier

New Version of image problem

I've updated map of polish highways (original file image:PL_motorways_2006.09.01.svg), and i don't have permission to upload it as new version of the old file. XExternalEditor software advised me uploading it with different name, and so i did (new file is called image:PL motorways 2008.11.16.svg) and ask the admins. So please merge my new image to the old one's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secator (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would go ahead and request deletion of the original by either speedy or request via admin. I did you a favor and added categories to the new image.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 22:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

flickr review help please!

I’ve been trying to clean out the flickr review needed page, but there are a few that have been sitting in there for a few days because I don’t know what to do with them. Will someone who knows more about old photos, FOP, and photos of wax museum figures have a look at these? Thanks!

  • Image:Jose Leandro Andrade 2949307144 5777c02cf1 o.jpg PD old?
  • Image:TheSodaStream1.jpg do you think this is flickr washing?
  • Image:Torre de profuturo.jpg Fop?
  • Image:Tupac Shakur 2.jpg wax museum figure…no clue what to do with this.

Brynn (talk!) 14:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this can be helpful? --Kanonkas(talk) 15:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
That takes care of the Tupac image. Thanks, Kanonkas! Anyone want to help me with the others? Brynn (talk!) 15:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The Jose Leandro image has to be nominated for deletion, copyright may be a problem here. This may have a date issue with public domain.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 22:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect email on deleted image

When an image is deleted, users who subscribe to email notifications get a message saying the image was created.

When File:Pygmy Tarsier.jpg got the axe for copyright violations, I received something like the following:

Dear Davidwr,
The Wikimedia Commons page Image:Pygmy Tarsier.jpg has been created on
20:37, 20 November 2008 by Polarlys, see
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pygmy_Tarsier.jpg for the
current version.
This is a new page.

Obviously, I should have received a notification of the page's deletion instead.

Could someone with access to the bug-reporting system please submit this as a bug? I'm not sure if it's a Wiki-software bug or a configuration error on the Wikipedia Commons. Davidwr (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There is already a bug report somewhere, though I can't find it at present.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How to get attention of uploader?

What to do to get the attention of a user who is currently uploading but does completely ignore (eventually without any bad intention) any warnings put on his talk or even user page? In case of User:Hkgalbert, who was uploading lots of badly named images, I didn't see anything else than a 2-hour block. Any better proposals or experiences? --Túrelio (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I think a block is the right thing to do, as soon as you warn them on their user page, because they will more likely look at your previous warnings. ;) But to think about it, is it strictly forbidden to upload image with such file names? Diti (talk to the penguin) 13:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
...forbidden... No, but this guy did upload tons of files named Hlp 01.JPG, Hlp 02.JPG, etc. and it is a lot of avoidable work to rename such files. My intent was that he uses better filenames for his future uploads, but he didn't notice or did ignore all notes. --Túrelio (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please Help

Although I tagged Image:Alessandro Allori 003.jpg to be renamed from "Marie de' Medici", I did not expect my separate, newly uploaded image (see the redirect name at the top of that page) to disappear in the process. It is in fact a much better scan than the above and has careful and accurate image notes unlike the present one which is still full of descriptions about Marie de' Medici. This is not a picture of Marie de' Medici, as my documentation on the wrongly deleted image shows. I was intending today to put my new article Eleonora di Garzia di Toledo up for DYK on Wikipedia, using the better image as the thumbnail, but something called CommonsDelinker has exchanged it for this one, and I doubt writing to that bot would work quickly enough. I don't know why the new image had to be caught up in the renaming of this one, since it is not a duplicate but a better scan from a different source. I'd be grateful if someone could restore Image:Eleonora di Don Garzia di Toledo di Pietro de' Medici, by Alessandro Allori.jpg (which only now goes to a redirect). I have to get the DYK in within four and a bit days. Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it. Looks like someone did universal replace the wrong way round. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. I really appreciate it! qp10qp (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:SSK3.jpg, Image:SSK5.jpg

  • Good day, as I know according to Kazakhstani law if a man captured at a picture is against using photo of him in any sources it cannot be used. That is why I ask you to delete these files. Mheidegger (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you please restore the image? Beylinson died in 1936, and the picture was published more than 50 years ago. According to Israeli law, this means the copyright expired long ago. Thank you, Aviados (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, any response..?Aviados (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
the reason the Image was deleted because it is still copyrighted in the US as the image wasnt PD in its home country on the URAA date -- January 1, 1996 for Israel. You'll need to provide information that can show the image was PD in Israel prior to this date as URAA didnt reinstate copyright that had already expired in the country of origin. Gnangarra 01:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
According to Israeli law, a picture is considered free 50 years after its publishing. Since the picture was published prior to Beylinson's death, it was free beore the year 1986. Aviados (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Well..? Aviados (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone.....? Aviados (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, as said, Israeli copyright law does not apply in the shown case. In this case it is applied in U.S. Copyright, which means pre-1923 would be allowed. For now, it would be better to leave it gone, unless there's a found flaw in copyrights, which would be hard.Mitch32(UP) 21:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The Image is not copyright in the US as it is a matter of private international law - the US court will be a foroum non convenience or will be forced to apply the applicable law which is the Israeli Law - and thus will be forced to decide should someone try to claim the image is not free - that it is free, as all the rights are free in the appropreate forum (either that - or delete all images taken outside the US and prior to 1996). Deror avi (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Альма

Vandal (see contribution), block needed.--Blacklake (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Indef Blocked Альма . Didn't deal with the cleanup. As for the other users (Didn't block), I'll leave that to someone who can CU them, If they've got 3 user names, they've probably got more. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted crap files, and a couple admits swooped in and deleted the bad versions. I'd still poke someone who's got CU about the other usernames. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 09:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please edit Template:Anonymous-EU

Please add in the footnotes :

For a work made available to the public in the United Kingdom, please consider using Template:PD-UK-unknown instead.

Teofilo (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Teofilo (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Logo's

Hi guys, i came across this pile of possible copyvio's. Multichill (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Spammy/out of scope uploads?

These caught my eye. There was an obvious copyvio which I've deleted. However delving around a bit the user has edits on mediawiki that have been deleted (according to SUL tool) so I'm guessing they were out of scope there. Nothing on en wp or elsewhere so I think this may be intended as either a personal project or promotional in some way. Thoughts (deletions :)) welcome, cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely outside of the PS. I've deleted them and left the user a note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted them again, because the user uploaded all the images again. I would suggest to block the user if we see the same images again.
--D-Kuru (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks folk - I certainly agree with a block if they reappear. --Herby talk thyme 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd also agree with a block next time. Will keep an eye on it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ies

I've got some problem with User:Ies. He start to create a lot of categories with less then 5 images inside (see Category:Symbols of Germany by city). After speaking with him in his and my mother language German, I see no solutionfor this problem. Coat of arms and flag were putted into maincategory of the city and now he try to improve new system. He also try to categorize images of plaques (no "symbols" just signs). Whats your opinion on this problem? Is there a limit for new category or some other information in our policy? ChristianBier (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there is nowhere in our policies a minimal number of files for a category given. Just categories with no files at all get usually deleted. In this we differ from de-wp which usually asks for at least 10 articles within a category. Whether or not plaques that include a coat of arms should be included in a category of symbols (like this one) is, in my opinion, something that is to be settled in a consensus-seeking approach at the corresponding talk pages, COM:CFD, or elsewhere. I would, for example, suggest to move these categories into the Category:Coats of arms tree and to rename them from Symbols of XXX to Coat of arms of XXX. It is, I think, not a good idea to have Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Germany and Category:Symbols of Germany by city in parallel where the latter apparently includes coats of arms only. And I personally wouldn't mind if images are included in such categories that prominently include a coat of arms like this one. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Coats of Arms - rename requests

Hi, it seems that a few users (but mostly User:Avala) have put a rename template on a lot of coats of arms, renaming them from "Malawi coa.png" to "Coat of Arms of Malawi.png" and similar requests. The bot failed all them, I have approved a number of them already, but thought I'd just check to see if this move is desirable. I don't see the problem with "coa", and even think that the original name is better than the requested move. But if it's part of a wider rename move, then by all means. You can view the requested ones at Category:Media_requiring_renaming and those that failed last time atCategory:Media_renaming_requests_needing_confirmation. Thanks for your input. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well to explain a few, mostly from those still needing confirmation. Coat of arms of Kazakhstan (flat).svg where flat doesn't have any meaning, and is probably from ages ago when someone uploaded a "3D" file which was erased in meantime. Congo rep coa.png is not explanatory enough, "Republic of Congo" is much better then "congo rep". Fm CoA.jpg is even more obscure and should be called Coat of arms of the Federated States of Micronesia.jpg so we can know what it is. Then there is the confusing date addition to the name of file which makes us wonder if that particular coat of arms is still in use, like Guinea coa 1984.png. File named Madeira Portugal.gif doesn't suggest that this is the coat of arms image at all neither does obscure TRNC CoA.svg. And there is a factor of need to have unified names for easier use in other projects, it's not compulsory but if we can have it then why not rename other files, like Malawi coa.png, which might be slightly better than earlier examples, but still not good enough.--Avala (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding Avala, it seems all of them have now been renamed without further incident. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent uploads by ISeeALL

Please take a look at the recent uploads by ISeeALL that include old images from 1946 or 1956 where the uploader claims that these would be his or her own work. The other problem is that all these images depict sculptures by Walentin Andrejewitsch Galotschkin (1928–2006) without any permission notices. Thanks for looking into this, AFBorchert (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

See my message here. --Felistoria (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at the follow-up correspondence here and here. Valentin Galochkin is apparently the father of the uploader and this looks like a case which can be settled by sending the missing permissions to our OTRS team. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot misbehavin on en wiki

CommonsDelinker removed an image that made an article make no sense. Please see: this edit. The user page said to report things about the bot here. Narson (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no bot misbehaviour. CommonsDelinker removed the link to an image that was deleted. Commons can't host non free images that are still protected by copyright.Esby (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The CommonsDelinker bot did the right thing by removing an image link from an article after the image was deleted as copyvio. You are free to open an undeletion request if the copyvio issue can be resolved. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Look carefully at the diff. CommonsDelinker only partially removed the link, and that's the reason Narson posted. I've notified Bryan. Gimmetrow (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but look at that ugly line break in the middle of syntax. This is more a formatting issue then a bot problem. --J.smith (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Given that it's valid MediaWiki syntax, the bot should be able to deal with it. Especially since image captions can contain markup that requires line breaks, such as wiki tables. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the status?

I was running through a Flickr review parade and noticed that:

Have a very confusing/difficult copyright. If someone could fill me in on the status of these?Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"no known copyright restrictions ". Other then that, someone would need to know the history of the picture or subject a lot better. --J.smith (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was told that. Should I request deletion of these two? Really controversial.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Unless we had some kind of specific information about why they might not be PD I'd be inclined to keep them. --J.smith (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OTRS "pending" claims

Came across these with the (to me) unlikely claim that OTRS is pending on images such as this & this for example. Highly unlikely in my view but I'm going for AGF! Views welcome, thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up, i also have had some problems with this, my solution is that i bookmarked the images and will watch them in two weeks or so - not a very good solution ;) The images are also from very different authors and original sources, the user claims that this Mari Bondo (named as author) bought the copyright... not possible because of the various sources, e.g. of this CD inlay. I personally prefer a mass deletion of all images (instead of my mass deletion request in two weeks). --Martin H. (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Aaah (& the talk page generally. I think in indef block may be in order here and a nuke of contributions. I guess some more input from a pt user might be useful but this looks like a history of complete disinterest in copyright issues to me. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The uploader has sent quite a few messages to OTRS. A pt OTRS agent would be helpful. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I see a bunch of tickets (15+) from this user in the OTRS system. It's all in Português, so I can't read them. From what I can gather it will require more communication with the parties involved in order to verify the permissions. --J.smith (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I've checked the OTRS tickets. Apparently Vitor mazuco (talk · contribs) requested authorization for the images to the webmaster of the fansite/weblog http://www.alavigne.com.br/. The webmaster of the site, Mari Bondo, agreed to release the rights for the images... but she isn't the copyright holder of those images; she's only the webmaster of the site, and all the images there are copyvio from other sources. So, I've closed all the OTRS tickets and deleted the images, but still it would be nice if some pt user leaves a message to Vitor mazuco explaining this. I only read Português, not write it. Cheers! KveD (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've tried my best to leave a message in Português in his talk page. At least is something. KveD (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to explain him over at pt.wiki what he's doing wrong. Basically, we have a very confused kid, and not so very copyright-knowledgeful website personnel complicating it. He's quite sorry for all the hassle, but I'll only discuss any unblock if there are tickets being closed as "successful" on OTRS. Patrícia msg 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unusual query

After receiving a heads up from an en:wiki admin who had concerns and doubts about whether noticeboard attention is the right way to deal with an unusual situation, deciding to open this here. The thread may be courtesy blanked afterward. The subject under discussion is a Commons user and a public figure who is a former judge in the Philippines.

The user page User:Judgefloro and wikipedia:Florentino Floro pretty much say it all. Judge Floro lost his position due to mental illness; he believes he is psychic and consulted with magical dwarves to make court decisions. Recently he has been uploading images such as this to our site.

The question is whether we should keep such images. On the one hand, these illustrate Judge Floro's beliefs and his career and have some potential for encyclopedic use at his biography. On the other hand, would it exploit the man's illness to serve as a repository if he was clearly not in a proper frame of mind when he posed and uploaded the material? Durova (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  • My solution: Ask him to prove his identity. If he cannot, block him for defamation and misrepresentation (even if it actually is him). If he does successfully prove his identity, then I suppose we could keep the files (well, some of them, I've previously nominated some of his dwarf pictures for deletion as derivatives). -Nard the Bard 19:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    • There doesn't seem to be doubt that it is him. Unless he's hired an incredible look-alike to pose in robes and stolen Judge Floro's academic records. Durova (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I was suggesting to mindlessly apply bureaucracy in order to achieve a stated goal, not using common sense :P The pictures do seem a bit out of scope, and anything we use them for would most likely violate Wikipedia's policies on original research and biographies of living persons. -Nard the Bard 19:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather not block him for "defamation and misrepresentation" as it stands now. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a positive thing. He is a former judge with all the training and experience that comes with that. Dwarfs or not, he could be a valuable member of our team here. --J.smith (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone should perhaps take a very close look at his talk page. I see lots of warnings, and lots of deleted copyright violations. The user should perhaps be blocked.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that he's responsive and willing to communicate. All but a few of the warnings are from nearly a year ago. Of the 4 more recent ones, he apologized for 1 and has a reasonable rebuttal for another (someone with more knowledge of Filipino copyright law would need to evaluate that). --J.smith (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, he hasn't even been active for a month now. :) --J.smith (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
So do we keep the dwarves or delete them? Durova (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please leave word here if this or any user shows up with a magical histogram tool they are unable to describe or define publicly. If imaginations and the demand of faith of beliefs is a problem, it should be given impartial consideration as a problem then.... -- carol (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There are two ways that this could go, because each side could have their way, either hurting our (Wikimedia Commons) or this guy (Judge Floro's) reputation. If we let the pictures stay, we could get accused of hurting his reputation, and look where that puts us. If remove the images, I really feel that we would help him, but we would still get told we are censoring things, which Commons is not supposed to do. As far as the judge's account, I would lean towards blocking him. The risks mentioned before are way too high, and he is a continuous disrupter as far as his contributions go. I would suggest blocking him or sancitioning him, because right now, things don't look good for either direction. However, this I do believe that if he returns, this would be necessary. If he is gone for good, then I would go ahead and just do what you guys believe is best with the pictures that he put up. That's just my 2 cents.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 21:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why block someone who haven't been even been active for 1 month? What would a block help in this case? --Kanonkas(talk) 13:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Several paragraphs of User:Judgefloro are copied from a June 6, 2006 article in The Times ("I used to be a judge but I'm all right now . . ." by David Pannick QC).[14][15] That article is cited under the heading "sources", but it is an egregious copyright violation. Further, it suggests an inability to abide by the policies of Commons. It can hardly be due to ignorance given his background and his history with Wikipedia (6600 edits over 18 months).[16] The discussions at en:WP:ANI does not encourage me.[17][18] A user who cannot be trusted to edit in accordance with our policies is disruptive and harmful. He has been indefinitely blocked on enwiki.[19] That is likely to be the solution here, as well.
On the original query: It isn't clear that the uploader is competent or trustworthy. Without a valid license, the pictures must be deleted. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. After another review of the sister project admin board it's clear multiple people have attempted to mentor him and he's unable to adapt. No particular reason to block his account while it's unactive. If we presume he is unable to create a valid license due to competency issues, would that justify deleting all his uploads? Or would you limit that on a discretionary basis to things like the 'dwarf' pic linked above? Durova (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I would delete them all. Without clear licenses, they could cause problems in the future. I note that J.smith (as above) seems not to share my opinion, however. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The images have already been gone though. The ones that were problematic (newspaper scans, etc) have been deleted. As far as I can see (and I have not checked every one) the rest are fine. They are licensed in the public domain and within the scope of our project. If individual images are problematic for whatever reason, please nominate them at DR... however, I heartily oppose deleting this guy's images outside of our normal process just because of who he is. --J.smith (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
WP editor here, just a heads up that he's edited his user page to reflect his old user page on Wikipedia before it was blanked. I'm not sure what the rules are regarding that but this is probably a sign that you may want to keep tabs on him--if he's decided to concentrate his efforts here instead of making his usual sockpuppets on Wikipedia then he probably bears watching. --121.54.29.117 12:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Marc Chagall

Has there ever been a thorough discussion about deleting or keeping photographs of windows by Marc Chagall? This Russian-French artist died in 1985, whereby his works are protected until end of 2055. Despite this fact and despite a big warning on Category:Marc Chagall, this cat is quite full of images. If there hasn't been any final decision, we might take the current rfd Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wiki-1009-Kurt-Salzmann-Chagall.jpg as an opportunity for that. --Túrelio (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked those images after closing Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chagall.jpg and most of them are covered by FOP. There were only two non-free images (1 2), which have already been deleted. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. Until now I thought FOP applies only to images of works of art taken from outside. But at least UK law seems to be broader and eventually law of Switzerland seems also broad enough to include image from inside if it is on public accessible ground. Therefore I've "voted" Keep in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wiki-1009-Kurt-Salzmann-Chagall.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Does Swiss FOP law also apply to 2D works? Is it actually the case that any painting permanently displayed in a place accessible to the public (e.g. a museum) falls under FOP? That would be huge. Pruneautalk 10:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
My statement above is just my opinion and I'm no lawyer. A broader discussion with expert input is welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that FOP applies to paintings. These are not fixed to the place they are displayed and can be moved outside of public view. If you want FOP to apply to a painting, you would probably need a painting on a wall. Just my 2 cents, IANAL and I know that other peopl think differently. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, Swiss FOP appears to apply also to 2D works, at least the law makes no restriction to 3D. The only restriction is that the reproduction must not be 3D, and cannot be used for the same purpose as the original (Art. 27, in German). But Swiss FOP applies in general only outdoors, not within museums. Lupo 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
@Lupo, are you sure about "outdoors". I think that might be a too restrictive interpretation of the word of law "das sich bleibend an oder auf allgemein zugänglichem Grund befindet". Take for example within a church: IMHO that is still "allgemein zugänglich". Isn't it? --Túrelio (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Pretty sure, yes.
  1. The German word "Grund" in the phrase "allgemein zugänglicher Grund" already implies outdoors. Construing it to mean "premises open to the public" would be a stretch, they'd have written "allgemein zugängliche Orte" or "Örtlichkeiten".
  2. The French official text (not translation—this is Switzerland, after all!) uses the phrasing "sur une voie ou une place accessible au public" ("on a road or square accessible to the public"). From the explicit mention of "voie" (road) it is clear that the French "place" must be translated as the restrictive "square" instead of the more permissive "place" (as "place" in English could indeed be construed to include indoor locations in its general sense).
  3. The Swiss Press Association in its brief overview of Swiss copyright law writes in section II.1.b that art. 27 applied only outdoors. The say in a footnote (p. 5) that it was unclear whether it also applied to rooms in buildings if those rooms were accessible to the public and promote the opinion that FOP applied in closed spaces serving transit purposes such as train station halls or malls. (But not within the shops inside such a mall, I presume). They also point out that a park that is closed at night is still a square accessible by the public.
I don't think we can extend that to the interior of churches: the transit aspect is clearly missing, and it's clearly not an outdoor location. Lupo 20:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the details. Though the consequence is :( --Túrelio (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: but Swiss art. 27 can be used for graffiti: Image:Naegeli_undine.jpg. Lupo 16:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion

I can find no discussion that led to the apparent deletion of an original photo I took (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Badagnani&diff=0&oldid=12166224), and the deleting editor (User:Zirland) gave me no chance to comment. In light of the misguided speedy-mass deletion of dozens of original beer bottle photos last year (which was quickly overturned), I ask in all sincerity that this editor be censured for this abuse of our policy. Please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Derivative_works#Packaging_with_logos for discussion showing that all photos showing commercial products such as jam are certainly not prohibited on Commons. Thank you for your consideration. 24.29.228.33 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I necessarily disagree with the deletion, but a DR wouldn't be out of order. Censured? For speedy deleting copyvio? Err... no. --J.smith (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The mode of discourse you employ in your final sentence shows the same disregard for community and contempt for other long-time, productive and sincere editors as exemplified by the deletion of an original photograph without giving the editor a chance to comment. If this manner of dealing with fellow editors has become a systemic "culture" at Commons, we have a problem. I ask again, in all sincerity, that this issue be addressed in a conscientious manner. The photograph was original and not a copyvio, as the beer bottles that were mass deleted by the dozens, then restored last year were not. 24.29.228.33 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The speedy deletion was correct, as the jar has a large copyright label on the front which is pretty clearly not incidental. If you wanted to keep this image you could blank out or otherwise obsure the printed label. See COM:CB#Product packaging. I recall that some of the beer bottles have been kept on the basis that the label designs are old and out of copyright, and others as the label designs are too simple to attract copyright protection. Neither applies here, I am afraid. If you have a legally-based argument for restoration, could you say what it is, please? Using emotive terms such as "disregard" and "contempt" does not it seems to me advance your case. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the first of the images mentioned on the talk page you refer to is under deletion request (I have just nominated it), the second has been deleted, and the third shows a barn with non-copyrightable text on it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have a disregard for community and contempt for others. You know, if your going to attack people's character instead of engaging in respectful conversation your not to get much sympathy. Read up on the concept of Commons:De minimis. That's part of why sometimes a copyrighted bottle logo is fine and often times it is not. --J.smith (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, J.smith, did you note that MichaelMaggs is the main author of the Commons:De minimis page? --AFBorchert (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Hm... apparently is your comment an response to 24.29.228.33 and not to MichaelMaggs. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The mode of discourse is again needlessly contemptuous; would you kindly moderate your tone? If my photo of a jar of jam falls into such a "gray area," why would the kindness of a simple note and discussion for a few days be unwarranted? I believe that the feverish campaign of instant deletion I see in the edit history was unwarranted and asked for the simple consideration of a note and discussion, as a long-time, productive and sincere editor on several of the WikiProjects. I hope this is not too much to ask (and, no, it's not too late to admit that one has made a mistake; our project can accommodate all kinds of views, but consideration of one another's contributions and a civil tone is always of paramount importance). 24.29.228.33 21:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi 24.29.228.33, undeletion requests can be filed here but I do not think that it is neither helpful nor mellow to open such requests with a remark that this editor be censured for this abuse of our policy. Yes, at times an image gets deleted which we could have been kept. In such a case it is best to go to the undeletion page which allows other admins to review such a case. (But please note that MichaelMaggs already reviewed this particular image above.) --AFBorchert (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This deletion was appropriate. The nominating editor did place a speedy warning template on the uploader's talk page [20], which is all the notice that is required. The uploader, further, had long since retired (with a personal attack, nonetheless) [21], making any expectation that either the nominating editor or deleting administrator solicit further "chance to comment" entirely unreasonable. The uploader has not edited since June and his/her user page explicitly states "this user quit Wikimedia Commons"; it is unrealistic to expect anyone to have waited for a comment from the uploader in this circumstance. Эlcobbola talk 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The essence of these comments seems to be "we aim, through the intentional failure to inform the uploading editors of original photographs, combined with a lack of concern whether the uploading editor is able to comment on the deletion proposal, with the end result that we intend to drive editors away from Commons." This is highly problematic. The common courtesy of a notice to the uploading editor, as well as an actual deletion proposal to allow for comments by the uploading editor and others, is not too much to ask for. The above comments go even further to highlight this peculiar "culture" of discourtesy and speedy deletion with impunity of the original work of long-time, productive, and sincere editors. As such, this mode of operation needs to be ameliorated. In some extreme cases (such as such frenzies of deletion that my photo of a jar of jam was deleted without seeking any comments), the request for censure can be quite in order, and this is such a case. Such censure serves to uphold our project's fundamentally collaborative and civil culture. 24.29.228.33 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what "an essence" of an exchange is nor the balls to define it for all; but some information was presented. That is that the image simply needs to have the copyrighted logo blurred and then it can be re-uploaded here safely. -- No claims of having balls 23:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The beer bottles that were mass-deleted last year, then restored, did not have any labels obscured (in fact, the labels are clearly legible because they are illustrating particular brands of beer). I think I've mentioned this at least two or three times already, yet it has not been responded to; instead, the "speedy" deletion without the allowing of comment has been roundly supported, the photographer who contributed his own original photo in good faith was impugned, and a dismissive, sarcastic, and in some cases intimidating tone was utilized, nearly without exception. This "culture" needs to be changed. Again, requesting that a modicum of consideration be exercised in informing the uploading editor and allowing time for comment is not too much to ask. It is never too late to improve--in fact, that is a hallmark of our project. I ask again, in all sincerity, that such a manner of editing not be engaged in in the future, and that this situation be made right. 24.29.228.33 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been deletions here without discussion, but this set was discussed a lot -- enough that I got bored with it. Not being available/active to join into the discussion is perhaps a culture problem, perhaps a problem with a lack of actual participation, perhaps another wrongly applied administrative action. If you have the original image of that single image which started this thread, please upload it, mark it for deletion (the kind of deletion request that gets discussed) and tell me of it and I will blur the label for you. Note, I am not saying that the decision was correct but I am saying that taking great offense at the outcome so many months later is kind of ho-hum. I am saying that at least you were given a solution to this problem and I am also saying that there have been other deletions that really did not have notice given to the uploader for reasons that were hardly acceptable and also without any discussion. It is not the situation that this group of images was involved in. It does tend to smell like the "free beer" part of free software -- but perhaps you are smelling imaginary beer as the situation you are describing did not actually happen. You are welcome to all of the imaginary beer you can carry....

I will wait for your notice that the original image has been uploaded. -- carol (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is the mention of "imaginary beer" sarcasm? I am not following you. I had asked, several times, for editors to avoid such a tone, yet you chose to do so anyway rather than actually address the issue of why my jam photo was deleted without discussion, but the numerous unblurred photos of beer bottles (which were deleted last year, then restored) remain? I see no diffs, only a highly dismissive and sarcastic posting. 24.29.228.33 02:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trying to direct this discussion on the editors as opposed to the actions or the fact. Please stop attacking people.
The "free beer" reference is a common analogy in the free-media movement. The "free" in "free images" means "Free as in freedom", not free as in "free as in beer". The concept is talked a bit more about in the discussion that I have linked to.
People have given you the links to the relevant policies. Please read up on them so you can discuss this within the context of our policies. --J.smith (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I had mentioned the numerous photos showing unblurred beer bottles, which have not been speedily deleted, yet my jar of Filipino jam was summarily deleted with no opportunity for input or comment. Rather than address either of these serious issues you simply choose to make humorous references to beer, which has nothing to do with the actual issues I have raised? And neither is the dismissive rhetoric the other commenting editors have been using addressed. Kindly read my above comments and actually respond to their content. Part of the genius of our project is that we can continuously improve, and address deficiencies. This cannot be done unless the actual content of such comments is carefully read and responded to with thoughtfulness. Such would be appreciated, as I would expect to do the same for other editors pointing out issues that need to be addressed. 24.29.228.33 05:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I and others have responded carefully with regard to your image, and suggestions have been made as to how you can restore it. I am sorry you did not agree with the beer bottle discussions but that has little to do with the specifics of your image. I really feel further reference to that is not getting anywhere. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 Info The uploader of this image was User:Badagnani, who now appears to be editing anonymously. A review of the user's previous discussions shows a similar response to offers of help from the community. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did approve of the beer bottle decision (to restore the dozens of photographs that had been speedily deleted en masse, without discussion and without allowing their uploaders to comment). Why do you suppose I would not have approved of the restoration of those images, which serve an immense educational value in illustrating various brands of beer, on our many projects (as my original photo of a jar of Filipino jam did)? Editors above seem more interested in prying out an individual user's RL identity (a no-no) and informing him or her how to undelete an image rather than addressing the fundamental problem: that the deleting editor was so intent on deleting an image that s/he failed to take the moment or two it would have taken to inform the uploading editor, and allow him/her and the community at large to comment before it was deleted. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, and, so far, has not been (I've seen comments such as "...err, no," jokes about beer, advice about how to proceed with Deletion Review, etc.). Again, this is not the issue; the issue is the fundamental lack of attention to our collaborative process, having enough consideration for long-time, productive, and sincere editors to provide them the opportunity to comment before summarily deleting an original photo. The fact that this problem has not yet been addressed nor corrected shows that the "culture" of Commons has a long way to go in living up to our community's ideals. I would like to see this corrected and ask that the subject not be changed yet again. 24.29.228.33 05:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop selectively ignoring what you don't want to hear. Deletions are not permanent and they are not irreversible. Yes, the admin could have nominated it DR, however speedily deleting it what is recommended by our policies for copyright violations. Despite all of that, we can have the discussion after the deletions. If you want discussion... well, you already have the largest active discussion on the noticeboard. Anyway, feel free to open another discussion in deletion review. If you do, I will be happy to comment on the image within the context of the image's virtues. If you wish to propose a change to our copyright policies I will be happy to respond to those suggestions as well. However, this discussion is heading nowhere and I won't be dedicating any more time pursuing it. --J.smith (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What's up with User:CommonsDelinker?

What's up with User:CommonsDelinker? Seems to me it doesn't respond to commands, and only delinks already deleted images [22] Finn Rindahl (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your best bet would be to ask on User talk:Siebrand - the bot's operator. I checked some of the commands from yesterday and they do not appear to have been acted on. I wonder if there is a backlog or something? --J.smith (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Dropping me a line on my talk page or by e-mail if it is down works best. Siebrand 16:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

image discussion lost, please restore

Please restore the text which earlier was found at Image_talk:Pinus_sylvestris_wood.jpg and include it in Image talk:Holz Kiefer1.jpg. Thanks. Taxelson (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done, moved the old discussion to preserve the pages history, hope thats ok. --Martin H. (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing password for old account.

Hi, tried to set up an account to parallel the one that I have on en.wikipedia, only to find that it is already here. Subsequent examination indicates that User:Coro was never actually used. I think that it may be mine, but the email account that I would have used no longer exists. If there is someone who can check it, the email would be set to coro@pcmagic.net. I am now at coro@lanset.com.

User:Coro at en.wikipedia --99.137.88.45 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Please go to COM:CHU and request the account be usurped. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, 2007.jpg

An edit war seems to be going on at Image:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, 2007.jpg. - Erik Baas (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A more specific page for blocks/protections exists here, if you didn't know. Best wishes, How do you turn this on (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I knew that, but I'm not sure if a block and/or protection is appropriate in this case. - Erik Baas (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike Lifeguard has protected the image. How do you turn this on (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't really know what's going on, this seems to be the most ridiculous upload warring I've seen yet. I've therefore warned all users who have uploaded since July 2008 to take outstanding issues to the talk page.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, even the Flickr source page[23] hints at a row about that monument. --Túrelio (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I've seen this on the news, take a look at Bronze Soldier of Tallinn & Bronze Night. Multichill (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker

CommonsDelinker (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  removes image links. If these links were within an infobox parameter, and there are certain non-printing characters (mostly \u200e) on the same line, the infobox is left garbled.[24] [25] If commons admins value CommonsDelinker, please encourage the bot operator to adjust the code to remove these extra characters too. Gimmetrow (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The characters most likely to be causing problems are U+200E, U+200F, U+202A, U+202B, U+202C, U+202D, and U+202E (the Unicode writing-direction control characters). They show up when someone copies and pastes across scripts (say, Hebrew to English), and Mediawiki sometimes treats them as whitespace, sometimes as non-whitespace. --Carnildo (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed I think -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

But ultimately MW should handle this more consistently. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
This is still not fixed. Gimmetrow (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should tell the bot's operator. --J.smith (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyvio by Oct11988duh

Special:Contributions/Oct11988duh has uploaded a large number of photos, claiming to be the photographer of these images. But at his/her own admission, one of them is a scan from a magazine. After it was speedily deleted, the user hastily reuploaded it and claimed this to be from the user's own work flickr account.

I checked this user's flickr account, and many of the photos there are glamour photographs of Indian actresses dating back to early eighties, and are magazine scans. For example this is definitely a magazine scan.

So, I believe the photos (not all but most) from this user and his/her Flickr account are magazine scans and are copyright violations. --Ragib (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say delete the lot. A couple have camera exifs intact - but if the user doesn't understand the concept of "own work" then that can't really trusted. Megapixie (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that my suspicion is correct. The user uploaded image:Indian Bride.jpg, claiming it to be own work from his/her flickr account. Actually, a quick google search shows the image was taken from here. I suggest immediate removal of all the uploads by this user. --Ragib (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi together. Is it forbidden to link a topic (here: User:Gryffindor's de-admin), which relates all wikipedia projects, on the commons Village Pump?

  • YES/NO ?
  • Examples:
  1. reverted by Mike Lifeguard
  2. reverted by an upcoming admin (referring to Mike Lifeguard)
  3. reverted by Mike Lifeguard

This has been noted several times but you might want to take a look at canvassing. Also why is it needed to be put on VP? One doesn't file that their is an ongoing RfA on VP and we would like to have your input. Most people who do want to vote do see this, without more notes about this case. Also posting this on other wikis is again something I do not encourage anybody to try at all. --Kanonkas(talk) 11:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Übersetzung ins Deutsche auf Wunsch des Schreibenden: Es wurde schon ein paarmal drauf hingewiesen, aber Du könntest mal canvassing nachlesen. Und überhaupt, warum muss das auf dem Autorenportal gepostet werden? Es ist nicht üblich, dort aktuelle Administratorenwahlen zu melden und um Teilnahme zu bitten. Die meisten Leute, die wählen wollen, finden die Wahl schon ohne solche Hinweise. Und ich würde jedem vom Versuch abraten, auf anderen Wikis Stimmung zu machen. -- Arcimboldo (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hallo Mutter Erde, es ist in jedem Falle schlechter Stil. Normalerweise wird es geschätzt, wenn Benutzerprobleme, Admin- oder De-Admin-Verfahren nur auf den entsprechenden Seiten auftauchen, da dann der Kreis der Teilnehmer sich auf diejenigen beschränkt, die hier an diesem Projekt aktiv teilnehmen und das aktuelle Geschehen verfolgen. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Aber hier wird das verhindert, damit umso eleganter die Mär von einer Hunneninvasion gestrickt werden kann. Das ist der feine Unterschied. Magst du mir vielleicht den Beitrag von Kanonkas übersetzen. Hab ihn nicht ganz verstanden (ausser der Tendenz). Gruss Mutter Erde (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Aber bitte wie weit wollt Ihr noch gehen? Vielleicht noch eine site notice, die oben wie der Spendenaufruf überall auf den laufenden Deadmin-Antrag verweist? Das Unheil wird doch nicht verbessert, indem an noch weiteren Stellen auf das laufende Verfahren aufmerksam gemacht wird. So etwas ist doch auch auf de-wp unüblich. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
What contribution of mine do you want translated? The above note? --Kanonkas(talk) 11:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes please, your contribution above Mutter Erde (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Meine Übersetzung des Hinweises von Kanonkas: Das ist mehrfach angemerkt worden, jedoch magst Du vielleicht ein Blick auf canvassing werfen. Und warum muss es auf der VP veröffentlicht werden? Man weist auf der VP nicht darauf hin, dass ein RfA läuft und man gerne dazu Kommentare hätte. Die meisten Leute, die abstimmen möchten, sehen dies ohnehin ohne weitere Hinweise auf so einen Fall. Auch das Veröffentlichen solcher Hinweise auf anderen Wikis ist wiederum etwas, zu dem ich nicht irgendjemanden ermutigen möchte. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Nein, Mutter Erde, es ist eine Empfehlung, er sagt "not encourage", d.h. er "ermutigt nicht" dazu. So etwas ist keine Drohung. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. As this is cleared: Why is this case not on the village pump? Mutter Erde (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Weil, wie ausgeführt, es nicht üblich ist, zur Teilnahme an RfAs oder Deadmins auf anderen Seiten aufzurufen. Auf de-wp läuft es doch genauso, abgesehen von der Vorlage Beteiligen. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Und wie vermeidet man dann den Eindruck, dass nur die Hunnen seinen Kopf wollen? Muss ich wirklich den Fall 301 mal verlinken (inklusive Jimbo)?. Ich habe eigentlich was besseres zu tun, als mich um klare Fälle zu kümmern. Gruss Mutter Erde (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Indem so etwas eben nicht in den Kurier gesetzt wird wie geschehen. Die Milch ist verschüttet, der angerichtete Schaden lässt sich leider nicht mehr gut machen. Es erscheint nicht sinnvoll, dies durch das Auslösen eines noch größeren Aufruhrs ändern zu wollen. Im übrigen kann ich nur empfehlen, den Fall auf der entsprechenden Seite weiter sachlich zu diskutieren bzw. abzustimmen und im übrigen das Urteil der Bürokraten abzuwarten. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ich halte die Art und Weise, wie hier mit Deadmin-Verfahren umgegangen wird für grob undemokratisch und unfair. Es ist ziemlich schäbig und bevormundend, die Abberufung von Administratoren der Willkür von Bürokraten zu überlassen --Historiograf (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Keine Sorge, das ist auch so nicht der Fall. Auf Commons gibt es, anders als auf de-wp, keine formale Wahlberechtigung für Admin- oder Deadmin-Verfahren. In nicht eindeutigen Fällen finden dann die Bürokraten dann einen Konsens, wie der Ausgang der Wahl zu interpretieren ist. Dies erfolgt natürlich auch in Würdigung davon, inwiefern die Abstimmenden in Commons involviert sind. Hierbei sind die Spielräume natürlich recht eng und somit kann von Willkür keine Rede sein. Umgesetzt wird das am Ende von einem Steward, der natürlich sicherstellen muss, dass es wirklich einen entsprechenden Konsens in der Gemeinschaft gibt. Hierbei ist die Interpretation der Bürokraten eine wesentliche Stütze. Es ist also alles ein wenig differenzierter und entspricht dem auf Commons üblichen Weg, gemeinschaftlich im Konsens vorzugehen. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Duplicate

This has almost 4000 items backlogged. Can we get some help? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, there seem to be something strange here. While the index claims there are 268 categories and 3.181 files here (from Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion (268 C, 22 P, 3181 F)), there's really only less than 1000 files and two categories (5 views with "next 200"). It's still a backlog that needs attention and help, but not quite as bad as it seems. Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Those database counters got easily corrupted, especially when template defined categories and bot changes are around. --Foroa (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I was just going to say that - The counter seems to be out, there seem to be under 600 there at the moment. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious changes from PD-Russia to PD-Ukraine

I noticed several users (Soroka (talk · contribs), Shatnga (talk · contribs)) who replaced {{PD-Russia}} with {{PD-Ukraine}} without any reasonable justification.

Since such renames are massive and more users could be involved, so bot help needed with assembling list of such images and putting them on Commons:Deletion requests.

Will be good idea to collect list of images tagged with {{PD-Russia}} on older Commons dumps.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that we shouldn't. Wikimedia Policy is to discuss before putting into action, so I would suggest getting more input.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Good idea Eugene. I have already started nominating for deletion a heap of the images, due to people changing from PD-RUS to PD-UKR, only to get around the date of the new Russian law. Many of these are available at Commons:Deletion requests/2008/12/06. --russavia (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I've undone all these changes by Български (talk · contribs) and tagged all those that also didn't have a minimal source as {{Nsd}}. Some with known photographers also ended up at COM:DEL. Lupo 09:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted categories still linked to

Just a quick note that folks are rightly deleting categories after the contents are moved to better locations, but the old categories are still being linked to in some cases, from within Commons and from other projects. If admins could please leave a note in the deletion log about the new location, that would be very helpful. Otherwise, people from other projects may have no idea how to find them.

Outside of that, what is the best approach for fixing links? It would seem to me that, since bots are doing many of the deletions, bots could fix links here at least, and elsewhere if possible. Thoughts? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean, like CommonsDelinker does for images, but in this case it would work with other pages (such as categories) too? Patrícia msg 14:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
That would help, yes. Although I figure each project has its own way of linking here - w:Template:Commons and w:Template:Commonscat at enwiki, but other wikis might use some other method, so a bot would need to know each wiki's method.
Maybe we need to discourage other projects from linking to categories here, because we don't usually do category redirects. An example: this revision at enwiki linked to Category:Pinacoteca di Brera here. But that category was deleted on October 2 and re-created at Category:Pinacoteca di Brera (Milan). The only way I could figure that out from the deletion log was by clicking on one of the listed categories and searching for a similar name - but first clicked on the similarly-named Category:Pinacoteca ambrosiana (Milan). I got confused, and I've been around here for years - imagine all the poor newbies that clicked on that link in the last two months? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the guideline was to NOT delete categories unless it's an obvious typo. Cats should be redirected to the new name - so {{cat redirect|Pinacoteca di Brera (Milan)}} should have been added to the deleted one, to avoid situations like you describe. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
My two cents: I think that the Commons and Commonscat templates (which, BTW, are as far as I know quite universally used across all projects) are quite important pointers from the Wikipedia projects to the treasures at Commons. Losing these cross-project pointers through renames of categories without soft category redirects at Commons or corresponding updates at the individual projects are unfortunate and not as quickly noticed as in cases of moved or deleted images. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be possible to have some sort of CheckUsage for checking anything that is linked to Commons, not just images. In that way, the name could be corrected, even if the category (or other page) would not be deleted (I don't think it's very useful either for a newbie to click and arrive to a soft-redirect, but it's certainly better than a red link). Patrícia msg 15:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
That would be very handy indeed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Category redirects are our friends

The "Category redirect" is often a useful navigational tool, not always a horror to be destroyed as quickly as possible whenever encountered.

I have seen categories in use for years disappear with no discussion nor warning. I have sometimes been confused by this and I'm sure some users who don't have admin access to see who deleted the categories can be even more confused. Category redirects are useful. When categories have been in use or there are alternative names that some people might reasonably expect the category to be at, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with leaving a category redirect. I object to these being unilaterally speedy deleted. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sadly enough, I've also been seeing these perfectly legit category redirects be scrapped. What's saddening me more, however, are category redirects in languages other than English being deleted. --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:15, 10 December 2008 (GMT)

Category redirects can be evil

See Commons:Category redirects suck, User_talk:Foroa#cat_suppression_and_cat_redirects and referred discussions. But indeed, it would be a good idea if the move bot could insert a "moved to ..." text on the top of the source category text, so it would appear in the deletion log. If the bot cannot repair broken links, it could at least report them. --Foroa (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

From that writeup, the worst thing is that people put photos in the wrong category. To me, that's far preferable to breaking the chain from other projects to the correct category. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Attack images against User:DerHexer

XDepiclulz (talk · contribs) has uploaded two very demeaning modifications of the userpage portrait image of User:DerHexer. I've blocked him on the spot for 1 day (increased to indef, after realizing that there was more than that). Both images have been deleted by Spacebirdy. Afterwards I've blocked (prohibited image dummy) the filename Arnold.jpg as being too generic. --Túrelio (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Alleged breach of privacy

I have learnt today that my Real Life identity has been discovered by a CheckUser, who has spread this information to several other CheckUsers. In his/her doing so, I no longer feel comfortable editing under this name. I ask that an admin delete everything in my user and user talk space, as I intend to leave this account indefinitely – with the possible exception of adding free images I have obtained from Flickr. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time here (and on Wikipedia), but violations like this cannot be ignored.

Thanks to everyone who has made my time here wonderful, I wish everybody a happy holiday and a prosperous new year.

– amicon 23:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User page scrapped; leaving talk as-is until another administrator feels it is appropriate to delete the talk. --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:12, 10 December 2008 (GMT)

For the information of Commons folk who may be interested. I was one of the CUs involved in this. So from my perspective I saw someone purporting to be a simple new user whose edits suggested that may well have not been the case. That is of no relevance generally however in view of the RfA request there was the possibility of disruption to Commons (& the fact that Commons users were being mislead). The Poetlister (& all those puppets) case is still quite recent and at least one of the IDs had indicated they wanted to be a Commons admin (Londoneye for what it is worth). That, coupled with the uncertainty about this user's newness and the fact that it seemed likely they were UK based, was reason enough to check to me.

The results were checked by another CU and then one of the project CUs interacted with the user to establish the truth. Only project CUs were involved in this and initially not all of them to ensure that any risk of privacy issues were minimised. While the CUs were discussing the issue by email the user withdrew the RfA. There has been no disclosure even to the CU list of this investigation or the user's other account never mind identity. Most CU work is carried out as discreetly as possible.

I have always taken the view that the community wished me to use the right with discretion, to ensure disruption to Commons was minimised and at my discretion. Should the community wish me to do otherwise I do hope they will say so. I make a number of checks when I see they are warranted, where I find nothing no one else knows anything, where it is obvious I deal with it, where it is more complex I consult other CUs. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see there is no need for you to go into defense Herby, you were just doing your CU-job. --Dschwen (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Mass upload from German Federal Archive (part 2)

Why default search engine is unable to search through any of the German Federal Archive uploads? For example search for "Warschauer Ghetto-Aufstand" does not show Category:Images from the German Federal Archive, location Warschauer Ghetto-Aufstand or Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-41636-0002, Warschauer Ghetto-Aufstand, Verhaftungen.jpg but does show links to that image in Image:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06.jpg. Is there a way to fix it? --Jarekt (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know the search is completely broken for new content on all Wikimedia projects except English Wikipedia. This has to do with the switch to new Lucene search engine which is active on English Wikipedia and was planned to be activated on all projects. But there were technical problems that stopped the implementation. That's the state of the affair since october.
On my homewiki of nds.wikipedia the search went out of work at some time between 2008-10-07T01:58 and 2008-10-07T11:29.
Is there a way to fix it? Kick the ass of the developers. --Slomox (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
yes it's broken, but you can use the english (or german) wikipedia search [26] -- Gorgo (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Press images

Hi, im unsure about Image:Stelios baby+grandparents.jpg from http://www.easy.com/stelios/gallery_older.html, free of charge Press photos like this are often restricted in the kinds of commercial use (maybe here: Media are free to download, not everyone is free to download) and derivatives are not allowed. --Martin H. (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

✓ Deleted. Download for “general use” and redistribution with attribution were granted, but derivative works weren't mentioned, so I take it they were not allowed. →Diti the penguin — 18:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Oct11988duh redux

I had earlier reported repeated copyvio by the Special:Contributions/Oct11988duh. However, now he is taking suspect photos from flickr and uploading them under fake licenses.

For example:

  • Image:Gayatri_Devi.jpg it is claimed to be a painting painted in 1938. However, per Indian copyright law, copyright of paintings last for (author's death+60 years). There is no proof that the author died in 1948 or before. Yet, the source (Flickr account Ramesh_Thakur) and the user Oct11988duh claimed this under PD.

I recommend blocking User:Oct11988duh. He performed a series of copyvios in en wiki, where I had blocked him for 48 hours and requested him not to continue this. Yet, he has continued adding the above, and some other copyvio images (uploaded by others) to various en-wiki articles. I recommend blocking him until he promises not to upload such copyvio or suspect copyright images. --Ragib (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


The copyvio images still remain in commons. Especially, the Jackie Kennedy photo is such an obvious copyvio!! The flickr page falsely claims it was taken in 1945, but Jackie was born in 1929, and in the photo she is obviously in a state visit to India in the 1960s. Admins, please take action. --Ragib (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Rotatebot broken by namespace change

It seems the recent rename of the "Image" namespace to "File" has broken Rotatebot; it's now reuploading images under titles with the first character chopped off. I've left a message at Luxo's talk page, but someone might want to block the bot until it's fixed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. The first character is probably removed because File is one letter less than Image. Platonides (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have thoughts on how to close this? It's the oldest outstanding DR now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Mass upload from German Federal Archive

Some 90thousand images will be uploaded by User:BArchBot in the next couple of days. They have been released by the German Federal Archive. See Commons:Bundesarchiv for more information. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 08:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Great news! Congratulations! But a stupid question: Does the Bundesarchiv also own the Urheberrecht on the sculptural works of de:Fritz Röll (d. 1956) shown in the images Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 111-086-025, "Adam und Eva", Bronzefiguren von Prof. Fritz Röll.jpg, Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 111-086-84, "Keuscheit und Schönheit" von Prof. Fritz Röll.jpg, Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 111-086-84A, "Keuscheit und Schönheit" von Prof. Fritz Röll.jpg, Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 111-086-026, "Landmann", Bronze von Prof. Fritz Röll.jpg, Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 111-086-027, "Gräfin York", Bronze von Professor Fritz Röll.jpg? Were such cases considered when they declared that they held sufficient rights to release these images under a free license? Lupo 13:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: same question also asked at de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Bilderspende Bundesarchiv. Lupo 14:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Quite interesting is also Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1978-043-13, Erwin v. Witzleben.jpg, compare en:Image:Vwitzleben.jpg... it's indeed a Hoffmann photo (ID hoff-4041 at the Bavarian State Library). Lupo 15:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1983-0210-507, Berlin, Staatsakt für Admiral von Trotha.jpg is another Hoffmann photo. Haukurth (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that Bundesarchiv has the rights. For the FOP question: it is a misunderstanding that the rights in the image and the rights in the image content are'nt independent. One can put a picture of a copyrighted content under a free license (e.g. for fair use cases until the copyright expires). Correctly we need in such cases 2 templates: one for the picture and one for the content in the representation of the picture. --Historiograf (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Without any documentation I would certainly hesitate to reuse these images. Is the blanket CC license here really credible? Did all those photographers really transfer their rights completely to the Archive in such a way as would allow them to publish the material under that license? Is that even possible under German law? And I'm not just talking about the sculptures. Where's the documentation which explains how any of this makes any sense? Haukurth (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Historiograf, I don't think it's a FOP question—it doesn't look as if these statues were placed outdoors... Lupo 19:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi guys. Why do you rack other people's heads? Anyone here, who doubts that the Bundesarchiv does not know what they are doing? Funny idea :-). Thank you, Bundesarchiv. And hash-hash, there's a lot of work to categorize all these people from the 1940s - 1980s with currently no blue cat. Mutter Erde (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure the Bundesarchiv knows what they are doing but they don't necessarily understand what we are doing. Haukurth (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Why does not the Bundesarchiv write on their own website that the images are in the public domain and that anybody can use them ? Is it because they have no idea of the copyright status of the images ? I think we should by default suppose that the Bundesarchiv is not the copyright owner of the work and that the provisions written in the terms of use apply, including : "However, the protection of the rights of third parties, especially obtaining publication permissions from the owner of the rights, generally rests with the user". In particular do we have any Idea whether the pictures from "Allgemeinen Deutschen Nachrichtendienstes (ADN)" are in the public domain ? Teofilo (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    To be consistent with earlier policy decisions we should probably not accept these images. At first sight, there appear to be even more problematic aspects here than in the Library of Congress case. How does this compare with the "no known copyright restrictions" on Flickr? Haukurth (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The Bundesarchiv knows very well what they do. They have all rights for all images from this upload. We do not get images where the Bundesarchiv does not have sufficient rights. A contract was undersigned between the Federal Republic of Germany for the Bundesarchiv and Wikimedia Germany. The images are not public domain but licenced as CC-by-SA-3.0/de. Today this contract was presented on a press conference in Berlin: http://www.bundesarchiv.de/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/00264/index.html Raymond Disc. 22:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This press release adds almost nothing, if anything all the "kostenfrei" talk makes me more skeptical. Haukurth (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Has the full signed contract been published? It will be interesting to see the warranties, if any, that are given that these images are not encumbered by third party rights. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
"A contract was undersigned between the Federal Republic of Germany for the Bundesarchiv and Wikimedia Germany" : this is at best a "Wikipedia only" permission, not a free license release. If it were a true free license release, there would be no need for such a contract in the first place. All they would need to do is add a "creative commons" tag on their own website. The wording "Wikipedia kostenfrei zur Verfügung" (available costless to Wikipedia) in the press release, is also similar to a "Wikipedia only" permission. In 2005, Jimbo said :"All images which are (...) by permission only are not acceptable for Wikipedia and will be deleted". Teofilo (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
If the Bundesarchiv signed a contract with Wikimedia Germany that they release their images under a Free licence, I really cannot imagine about what what we could possibly complain.
As for the press release, it is only that: a press release. The images are uploaded under Cc-by-sa-3.0-de, this is what is legally binding.
You are very transparently insinuating that the people of Wikimedia Germany must be incompetent cretins, and I really fail to see what warrants this presumption of yours. Rama (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The contract states that a) the Federal Republic of Germany has the rights of use on this images and b) that they release them under the Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0/de license. --Avatar (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Does the Archive consider the attribution on the image itself part of their CC-BY right to attribution? Is the crop I did on Image:Bundesarchiv N 1310 Bild-135, Konstantin von Neurath.jpg a problem? If so, that needs to be stated very clearly on the template! Our natural inclination would be not to include the text on the images, just on the image description pages. Haukurth (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As everybody is allowed to create derivatives of the images, I cannot see a problem arising from our cropping the images. I would recommend using a bot to do that, it can recognize the white bar and losslessly crop the images. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that noone will consider this crop as a problem. On the other side I would consider it very dumb to think about an auto-crop bot or cropping all pics by hand because of various reasons. --Avatar (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
What reasons? Auto-crop sounds like a good idea for me if there is no legal impediment. Haukurth (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how often you deal with other parties where both parties are interested in a win-win situation. It's in our best interest that the cooperation is useful for the commons and for the Bundesarchiv. There are 10 million more images we're interested in and resolutions higher than 800px... A good way of working together is to show the cooperation partner that it's in his own interest to create images in the resolution/shape we prefer. But this is a slow process. It's definitly unwise to cut the embedded description text automatically right after we got the pics. YMMV. --Avatar (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
So they don't want us to crop the images? I'm not sure how often you deal with other parties where the other parties are cats and you're trying to herd them but look, we need to know this and if there's some reason we shouldn't crop the images then, at a minimum, that should be stated in the template. If it isn't stated there then the natural inclination of our users will be to make a crop. The most used images will be quickly cropped unless some effort is made to stop that. Haukurth (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
There are really a lot of things you're allowed to do, but it might be unwise to do them. Because of the licence, we're allowed to crop them of course, if we want to. --Avatar (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
That's not obvious to me. The CC-BY-SA license allows the copyright holder to insist on a particular way for them to be attributed. Do you have any knowledge of the contract details? Have you been in contact with the Archive, do you know what their expectations are? And again, if it is for some reason unwise to crop the images then that should be stated in the template because otherwise they will be cropped. Haukurth (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I do have knowledge of the contract details, but IANAL. Expectation from the Bundesarchiv is that every image should be accompanied by the following information: 1) source, 2) Bundesarchiv-Bildssignatur (the inventory number), 3) author, 4) metadata aka description. Personally I also don't see a problem by cropping (heavily) used images if this enhances the illustration. But this differs from an automagical bot run covering all images. --Avatar (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Spiegel says: "Privatnutzer können fortan Bilder aus dem Bundesarchiv, unter Angabe von Quelle und Urheber, kostenlos in ihre Website oder eine persönliche Präsentation einbinden. Gewerbliche Nutzer müssen ein Entgelt entrichten."[27] What? Commercial users must pay? I sure hope that's not a (mis)understanding that extends to the Bundesarchiv. Haukurth (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Typical press error. Two possible origins: a) the shop on the website of the BArch (with more photos) b) they misunderstood the 800px barrier and thought "you can't use images < 800px for commercial uses". --Avatar (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's go back to the basics of copyright law : Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bundesarchiv B 422 Bild-0063, Bonn, Franz Stadler, Hans-Dietrich Genscher.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How does the Bundesarchiv hold a copyright to anonymous images from more than 70 years ago? Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R36070, Luftpost.jpg for example. Haukurth (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Or this one from 1860: Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-J0827-500-002, Ferdinand Lassalle.jpg Haukurth (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It was argued on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bundesarchiv B 422 Bild-0063, Bonn, Franz Stadler, Hans-Dietrich Genscher.jpg that The Bundesarchiv made contracts with every single photographer to own the sufficient rights to publish them and that a lawyer was consulted. Did the Bundesarchiv transmit a list of photographers who signed such a contract ? Did the lawyer of Wikimedia Deutschland have an opportunity to review at least one or two such contracts ? Teofilo (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That claim was made about photographers from ADN-Zentralbild, not every photographer, if I understood correctly. Haukurth (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
ADN-Zentralbild seems to be a photo agency from East Germany, while Image:Bundesarchiv B 422 Bild-0063, Bonn, Franz Stadler, Hans-Dietrich Genscher.jpg seems to be a picture from West Germany. Teofilo (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
We do not require such "hard evidence". Every single "self made" description ist accepted without any request for "proof". This is especially true for pictures of private property, we don't know if the photographer had the permission to take pictures and we do not require review of such contracts. Although there might be reasonable doubt in some cases (e.g. anonymous works) we are not supposed to be oversensitive in this case.--Wiggum (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


Duesentrieb ⇌ 11:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC) : That's a standard part of a typical employment contract (including mine) : I don't know exactly what your job is, but perhaps you are a software engineer. The employers of software engineers enjoy the special provisions of Article 69b. There is no 69b for photographers. Teofilo (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point of 69b is that the default condition for software developers is for the employer to get the exploitation rights. This is different from the default condition for, say, photographers but either can be overwritten by an explicit agreement. Haukurth (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
An explicit agreement subject to the limitations of 31(4) and 31(5). In foundation:Wikimedia Quarto/2/En-5, Lawrence Lessig said this : "For example, in Germany, a copyright owner can't sign away rights to technologies that don't exist.". Teofilo (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this retroactive, though? Does it affect photographs created before this law came into being? I don't know. There are lots of issues here that I would like some reassurances on and I wish the Bundesarchiv and Wikimedia Deutschland would make more of an effort to tell us what they know. For a long time here we've been trying to build a culture where we're concerned with all the nitty-gritty details of copyright and it's a bit frustrating to have to take it 100% on faith that the Bundesarchiv has looked into all the issues - e.g. the copyright of photographs of sculptures. Haukurth (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Also I wish someone could tell us the details of the copyright status of works created by employees in the German Democratic Republic. Does anyone know if the copyright law of the GDR is available somewhere on the internet ? Or does the law of the Federal Republic apply retroactively to works created in the GDR ?
The text we can read on the WIPO website seems to apply more or less to works created after September 9, 1965 in the Federal Republic (West Germany). Teofilo (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
see Anlage I Kap III E II Anlage I Kapitel III Sachgebiet E Abschnitt II §1 Abs.1 EinigVtr, German law applies retroactively. --Martin H. (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Does it mean that all contracts made in GDR were terminated, and that publishers were required to sign new contracts with authors under unified Germany's law ? I wish someone would write something about this in the English Wikipedia article en:German copyright law. Also, I would like to know if the GDR law had provisions like the "work for hire" provision in the US law, or if "Rechteinhaber" means necessarily the author himself or his heirs. Teofilo (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know the provisions of the late GDR, but there is and was no work made for hire doctrine in the (western) german law. As Duesentrieb pointed out, it is a common provision of employment contracts to assign the commercial rights of all works created within the scope of the contract to the employer (the outcome is the same as with the work made for hire doctrine but it's not copyright law). But this is completely irrelevant for us because we (usually) don't know the exact provisions of individual contracts and there is no ground for reasonable assumptions.--Wiggum (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I also have questions on how the state-owned East German en:Allgemeiner Deutscher Nachrichtendienst came into possession of pre-1945 works, not to speak of contracts. Teofilo (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
"publishers were required to sign new contracts" this is correct as pointed out before. All photographers (or heirs) signed new contracts, the Bundesarchiv especially mentioned pictures where the photographer didn't sign a new contract are not donated to wp (not released under cc-by-sa) -- Gorgo (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-09367, Staatsvertag zwischen Preussen und dem Vatikan.jpg ! Teofilo (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
What's your point? This is the concordat between Prussia and the Holy See from 1929, it's not the Reichskonkordat of 1933. Or was your point that it should be {{PD-GermanGov}}? Lupo 20:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mass upload - categories

Before starting a mass upload, it might be a good idea to check if there is not a way to try to upload those images directly with the right categories (or make intermediate redirected categories). With a backlog of several hundreds of thousands of uncategorised or bot categorised images, we have no need to discourage even further the people working on categories. --Foroa (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I created a category for the uncategorized files (Category:Images from the German Federal Archive needing categories, 20K uncategorized files). I did some suggestions on how to get stuff categorized at Commons talk:Bundesarchiv#Categorization, but i didn't get any respone. Multichill (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
There's also an ongoing project of mapping people shown in those images to Articles on the German WIkipedia. Once that is done, we can assigne/create commons categories based on that. I'd be happy to work with Multichil on that. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 20:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The bulk is up

The bulk upload of images from the Bundesarchive is done now. Some uploads failed due to various errors, I'll see to it that the images are uploaded later. Also, we are supposed to get a few hundred new images every month. But the big flood is over, so... start digging :) -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 12:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Jeune taureau.JPG and File:Jeunes taureaux.JPG

Something is realy wrong here: Images without image pages, the uploads do not appear in the uploaders contributions but in his log on September 20, 2008. Thats realy strange for me, what is the reason? --Martin H. (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to the image page, but the file upload does show up in the user's logs. Special:Log. It would only show up in the contributions if the page had been created at the same time. I don't see anything in the deletion log either. --J.smith (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

old deletionrequest need some help

old request Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Cathyoslo need some help, could someone check--Motopark (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hard-to-find deletion requests

Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded is filled with deletion request pages where the software can't handle all the includes. As a result, anyone browsing the old monthly pages of still-open requests can't see the transcluded requests. To see this, scroll down to the bottom of the page on eg Commons:Deletion requests/2008/08. Most of these requests are not getting dealt with as people don't see them once they have moved up into the monthly pages. What can be done? If the software can't handle 31 transclusions, one per day, maybe two pages are needed per month. Is this new? I first noticed it a few months ago, perhaps when the DR archiving was being tweaked. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Balkline table2.jpg

Can someone please delete the above page? I tagged it two days ago when, for reasons unknown, the image edge was cut off. I have had the image prepared for a re-upload since I tagged and expected the speedy tag would result in deletion before the heat death of the universe:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done abf /talk to me/ 18:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Now that was speedy. Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Grrrr. The image I uploaded again has the edge cut off. It must be something to do with the file size or the format I have it saved in my computer. I have marked for speedy again. I'd appreciate deletion again but any suggestions regarding why the image edge keeps getting cut off and how to avoid this would also be appreciated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
✓ deleted but I still don't get the real problem concerning the image. abf /talk to me/ 18:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Well if you can view the deleted version, you'll see that the left edge of the table rail is almost entirely cut off. Take a look at File:Balkline table.jpg, which is the vertical version of the same image, which I am attempting here to upload in horizontal orientation. All four rails are present with the diamonds marked (the dots on the rails; they are called diamonds regardless of their actual shape).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to request deletion of an earlier version; simply load the new version over the old version. Regarding the file problem, please open the copy of the file stored on your disk that you uploaded using your web browser. Also, you might try a re-edit of the original file, or open the edited file in another image editing program and save it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Aha! I was not aware you could upload over an older version. Well that certainly simplies matters. I think I have it now: I used paint to rotate, rather than the program I was using, and I think that has solved the edge cut off problem. The weird thing that was happening was that when I rotated it looked fine. It was only after closing and reopening that the edge was cut off, which is why I was fooled into thinking the version I had rotated and saved was the full image. Crossing my fingers and reuploading now. Thanks for all the help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_11&oldid=263559340"