Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 12
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please help me remove photo that may possibly cause small or greater problems in Greece
Hello administrators.
Although J.smith explained to me that in Commons we do not self-censore our pictures in case people may freak out, I would like to caution the fact that a photo circulating around the wikimedia projects that have such a great publicity, could harm typically or ethically the people indicated at the picture or cause greater problems in a fragile truce in Greece, after a weak of rioting. In this picture, Image:Dec2008-riot-komotini-2.jpg, students are clearly indicated getting involved in possibly illegal actions in a small town in Greece. Due to the problems in the grounds of democracy in the country and the eruptive atmosphear, I have reasons to believe, after hearing about rumours of filing educators for participating in protests, that such content could be used against them in a similarily not obvious way. Please consider my wish to replace it with a picture of blurred faces and deleting the older editions, as there has been a modification of a cropped copy at the main page of the english wikipedia.
It is true that many pictures have been circulating around the internet during the past days. Nevertheless, I believe that the wiki foundation should not be held responsible for participating in a typical or moral sense in actions against the people indicated, even maybe against their will.
Thank you, --Dimorsitanos (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm opposed to this. A consequence of choosing to riot is that the person might be photographed while engaged in rioting. The consequences of that, foreseeable or not, are on the person who chose to riot. I don't see that Commons bears any special legal or ethical responsibility to protect people who happened to have made poor, and in this case illegal, choices. Dragons flight (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, that's not our problem. We are not participating or endorsing it, we're presenting an educational image. That it is a photo of illegal activities is not relevant. That people could possibly be identified is not relevant. Maybe if they didn't want to be photographed while rioting they shouldn't have been rioting. Besides, it's not as if you can't get this stuff from the news... -mattbuck (Talk) 01:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I know you cannot get this thing out of the news. I just think Wiki foundation should not participate in a possible act of human rights violation, even if the media do so (although the media and the blogs do cover the faces, even of the legal demonstrators). I disagree that the encyclopeadic fact of the clash cannot be indicated without their eyes. I also disagree that the wiki foundation could not be considered responsible for endorsing miscellanous outcomes by circulating such content unedited.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Human rights violation" - Please define that statement. You've said it half a dozen times but you have yet defined that. What exactly is a human rights violation here? --J.smith (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- He probably means that the image could be used to identify the stone-thrower or the by-standers. But, as the image in on Flickr since December 9, being also on Commons probably doesn't add to that risk. --Túrelio (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not done, please continue the discussion where you started it (Commons:Village pump#Please delete older pic - human rights). Multichill (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- He probably means that the image could be used to identify the stone-thrower or the by-standers. But, as the image in on Flickr since December 9, being also on Commons probably doesn't add to that risk. --Túrelio (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Human rights violation" - Please define that statement. You've said it half a dozen times but you have yet defined that. What exactly is a human rights violation here? --J.smith (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I know you cannot get this thing out of the news. I just think Wiki foundation should not participate in a possible act of human rights violation, even if the media do so (although the media and the blogs do cover the faces, even of the legal demonstrators). I disagree that the encyclopeadic fact of the clash cannot be indicated without their eyes. I also disagree that the wiki foundation could not be considered responsible for endorsing miscellanous outcomes by circulating such content unedited.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Minor's Image
Alright, I do not know your policy here for images of underage users. But I would like to request an admin delete this image. It is that of a user who has claimed to be 14 years of age (check en.wikipedia userpage of uploader) and the other issue here for me is that the user is also under suspicion for being a sockpuppet. Which makes me feel that the image is not that of the user. Also the name of the image is rather....questionable. Rgoodermote 05:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually on Commons there are several pictures of Wikipedians who are still minor. A few of them are even used for banners which advertise Wikipedia. After all they are contributors as everybody else, a few of them are even administrators. And after checking your messages on the users talk page I wonder which countries law you applied for him not being allowed to use his real name. At German Wikipedia our youngest admin was also 14 and his account was under his real name (past time because the admin election was nearly 4 years ago) and he is not the only one of our minor admins who use realname and images on his user page. -- Cecil (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Recommended username change. It seems that there is always a change in the username when dealing with minors who use their real names to edit. Just following the same course with that one. As for the image. It is not so much that it is the image of a minor. But more so that it is a suspect sock and really..that is an inappropriate name for an image of a minor. Rgoodermote 05:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- The image is an Orphaned image and the name is highly inappropriate for that of a minor and has been uploaded by a confirmed sockpuppet. I don't know policies here. So I'm just going to saunter off and leave this to you guys. Rgoodermote 06:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've filed a regular rfd; so anybody can comment on it. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear all, I believe that all uploads of Daniel Millais II (talk · contribs) are just copied from various websites, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Mandilo
Jedudedek (talk · contribs), a cswiki administrator, proposed on my talk page [1] that users Mandilo (talk · contribs) and Ignácův čůráček s bradavicema (talk · contribs) be blocked for insulting Cinik (talk · contribs) (cs:User:Cinik = citizen name Ignác P.) here [2]. Name Ignácův čůráček s bradavicema means Ignac's dick with... in Czech. Request in Czech is already in Zirland's discussion. Thanks.--Horst (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, and what second user? --Cinik (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Done Both accounts have already been blocked (indef). --Mormegil (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello all, looking at the upload log of Lennlin (talk · contribs) [3], it seems to me that all his images are copied from various websites where he claims to be creator and the source is often dubious and wrong like in [4] when he claims not to be the author, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 03:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, i also noticed Lennlin for uploading possible unfree images, i deleted a bunch of images from Infected_Shadow from Flickr, i also found some images on other websites and deleted them. Yesterday Lennlin nominated a few images with {{Speedydelete}}, i toke this invitation and deleted them per userrequest, i know that userrequest is a controversial argument but the mixup with missing permissions etc excuses it. Also the self-nomination showed me some understanding, e.g. here, but there are still very doubtful images left, like File:Nanning001ml3.jpg which is blatant. I noticed File:Fa34738d4d7f1801b31bba37.jpg which seems to be from w:en:Baidu Baike (?), a large menace of copyvios that seems to be not searchable with my commons searchengines google, altavista, yahoo, metager2. --Martin H. (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I had not much time for looking into Lennlin's uploads. I found two images with {{PD-PRC-exempt}} licenses which I filed for deletion (see here and here) as I do not see how PD-PRC-exempt could apply in these cases. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to look through Lennlin's other uploads. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done, everything is deleted, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:A17cd113b8fea3115aaf533c.jpg was allready started and user requested speedy deletion on all his uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I had not much time for looking into Lennlin's uploads. I found two images with {{PD-PRC-exempt}} licenses which I filed for deletion (see here and here) as I do not see how PD-PRC-exempt could apply in these cases. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to look through Lennlin's other uploads. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Rename request
I uploaded picture under the name File:Stephanolepis diaspros RO.jpg but now i found out that real name should be Balistes capriscus. As both are fish species, I think that name should be changed accordingly. Please note that I changed category and description and all can stay, only name hvae to be changed. Thanks and sorry for my mistake. --Armchoir (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Armchoir, this is no problem: Just upload this image once again using the correct name and tag the misnamed image with the {{Badname}} template (its first parameter should point to the new upload). The first upload will be deleted then. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Help on en.wikipedia
On en.wikipedia I have been trying to get 3 images deleted that I uploaded as my own, but were not. Bjweeks suddenly decided to delete everything I ever uploaded to that site, even though all the rest of my pictures were my own, were quite good and were used in multiple articles. This has eviscerated articles all of wikipedia creating red links. Most of these could probably be uploaded to commons here. I can't say anything there because Bjweeks also blocked my Username which blocked my IP. Can someone pls help me?
Here is the log of what he's been doing: [5]
- 23:36, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) changed block settings for Ewok Slayer (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)
- 23:35, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Giants Causeway Cliffs 03.JPG" (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
- 23:35, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Liberty Science Center.jpg" (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
- 23:34, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File talk:Kilauea LightHouse Hawaii.jpg" (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
- 23:34, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Kilauea LightHouse Hawaii.jpg" (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
- 23:33, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:ClearLake.jpg" (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)
- 23:33, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Ugly Brute Brazil Woodcarving.jpg" (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
- 23:33, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:800px-Niagara falls in dark 2.jpg" (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
- 23:32, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Grand Falls NB.JPG" (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
- 23:32, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File talk:Giants Causeway Organ.jpg" (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
- 23:32, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Giants Causeway Organ.jpg" (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
- 23:32, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Happy Sheep.jpg" (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
- 23:21, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Hopewell Rocks Main.jpg" (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
- 23:21, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Hopewell Rocks Low Tide.jpg" (I9: Blatant copyright violation) <<-- The only actual violations
- 23:21, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Hopewell Rocks High Tide.jpg" (I9: Blatant copyright violation) <<-- --------------------------
- 23:21, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Hopewell Rocks Flowerpot.jpg" (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
- 23:20, 12 December 2008 Bjweeks (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Aralship2 copy.jpg" (I9: Blatant copyright violation)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk • contribs) 2008-12-12T23:57:08 (UTC)
- Well, without knowing the exact circumstances it's hard to say. Often if you upload a few copyvios, then the rest of your uploads will be nuked as probably also being copyvios. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- In this case, I'm telling people exactly which ones were so those could be deleted. I'm trying to make things right. That doesn't mean they are all copyvios. It's actually pretty obvious if you look at the pictures in question. The 3 copyvios were pictures of pictures and were all fuzzy and low resolution. All of my other images are obviously taken in real life, and you can can tell my the EXIF data. Can someone please post these to WP:DRV or something?--98.213.141.241 00:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, this concerns enwiki, not Commons. You'll have to take the issue up with that community. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, the discussion is here: [6]. I said some things that angered the admin community over there, so if that does not go well, I will be re-uploading all of the files here anyway.
- Please don't... it will just create drama. --J.smith (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Admin feeling his oats
I don't like it when Admins throw their weight around in an attempt to cow editors. A case in point: User:Elcobbola escalated what should have been a minor disagreement and just threatened to take it even farther.
In a nutshell...
- User:Aulyin had two images deleted because of permission problems: File:Python 2.JPG and File:PYTHON 7.JPG.
- Over on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests a request came to undelete them.
- User:Elcobbola restored them but tagged them as having no license again.
- I went and looked at File:Python.JPG, File:Python 3.JPG, File:Python 4.JPG, File:PYTHON 5.JPG, File:PYTHON 6.JPG and saw that they had all been licensed with {{PD-self}}. I then adjusted File:Python 2.JPG and File:PYTHON 7.JPG to reflect what the others had been tagged with.
- I then get a "warning" that what i had done was inappropriate, and I responded that Elcobbola was being "incivil and unneccessary."
Since then Elcobbola has "promised" that this issue could be escalated. Really, I was acting in good faith when I made those edits. I don't appreciate the warning that I view as "over the top," and the pomise to escalate this matter. I think Elcobbola needs to take a deep breath stop being so aggressive.
Thanks. Evrik (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Me being an admin is not pertinent to our discourse; save for an initial reversion, tools have not been nor will they be used by me towards you in this matter. Your note was not civil; mine was. It's unfortunate you've taken offense to having wrong-doing pointed out to you, but you've made the choice to escalate this, not me. The edits speak for themselves. Acting in good faith does not mean acting correctly; only a failure to do the latter was asserted. Эlcobbola talk 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're being an admin is pertinent, because it gives you some authority. You were acting like a bully, not being friendly, or even thorough. I hope this isn't how you treat all editors. I'm fine to let the edits stand for themselves. I've said my piece. Evrik (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- @Evrik, adding a license to an image is a legal act and has consequences for that image (and even may have for the uploader). It is not o.k. to simply change a license of an image not uploaded by oneself, as you did here, surely with all the best intention. Therefore, elcobbola's warning to you[7] was appropriate and necessary, and any user could have made such a warning. I know that seeing a warning suddenly on one's own talkpage is a little shocking in the first moment. However, Elcobbola's wording wasn't incivil at all, but just stated the fact, including that your license-adding edits were inappropriate. In addition, I have to tell you that writing Really, don't you have anything better to do with your time? is at least unfriendly. I'm sure most admins would like to spend their time on Commons with uploading new images, completing descriptions or improving the categorization, instead they have to detect and track copyvios, checking the licensing, etc., things not at all "creative" or fulfilling, but regrettably unavoidable.
- To both of you: when reverting each others edits[8], you should have stated your reasons for reverting in the edit summary, how painful that ever may be. That might have prevented the second round of reverts. Now, please delete all feelings of bad faith (if present) against the other one. We had already too much bad faith spilled over Commons around the de-admin request of Gryffindor. --Túrelio (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- @Túrelio - The permissions on those two images is a prima facie case of an editor placing the images in the public domain. They uploaded seven images, five had the proper licensing and two were left blank. Once the images were deleted there was a request to restore them by an editor who did not understand why they had been deleted, the thing speaks for itself. There should have been a discussion, but the tone and severity of elcobbola's were unneccessary, as was the threat of an escalation. I've said my piece. Thanks for listening. Evrik (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I know that nobody really likes this topic. Fact is that such deletion requests will come again and again (not mentioned this project will be continued and some more "useless" images may appear). Even it's quite long you may want to read the text between both lines and tell me what you think.
thanks --D-Kuru (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- May some more of you want to add some comments.
- --D-Kuru (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
a false author information
Hi I am Shakeh Sarookhanian,recently I signed to open an acount to upload some pictures and artworks of my own works,my addresss in wikimedia is:http://commons.wikimedia.org/user:shakeh the problem is two days ago when I wrote my name and family name in the google or msn or... search engines I saw that link you can saw below with that false information about the author ,coming from wikimedia.org ,that make me to wonder I am not the author of that page,I only upload my own artworks in my userpage can you please fix this problem,here is the link of that false page : Royal Air Force period photo. Source: http://www.lyneham.raf.mod.uk/24sqn/html/history/short_history.htm. Date: 1943-1944; exact date unknown. Author: Shakeh Sarookhanian toolserver.org/~magnus/cgi-bin/flommons.pl?user=&mode=single_image&image=Avro_York.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakeh (talk • contribs) 10:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- It appears to have been fixed. My google search finds numerous instances.[9] The cached version shows the problem you describe, but the current version does not.[10][11] Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Just wonder
Could somebody please explain to me why an insulitng image that was voted to be deleted is still here Commons:Deletion requests/Image:No Israel.svg. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please see the undeletion request. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to thank everybody, who opposed osamak getting adminship (Thank you!!!) because IMO Image:No Israel.svg is a hate propaganda. IMO osamak should have been blocked for creating and uploading such images and not awarded with adminship.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't this ironic that it is written just above the hate image:
"Во имя знания!
— Edward from Israel; donated $30
(For the sake of knowledge!)"
What knowledge Edward from Israel could get from this image? What knowledge anybody could get from this image, except the knowledge that osamak hates Israel and most Commons administrators see no problem with this.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't this ironic that it is written just above the hate image:
Sorry, we've discussed this already. Please don't waste our time with this. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure you did, Mike.lifeguard.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- It was discussed at great length, and a decision was not taken lightly. Now, please stop removing relevant categories from the images - they ARE flags of israel, even with a cross through them - and you will find that people do not welcome the kind of attitude you appear to be bringing to the project. As for your talk page, it's for everyone to use to (guess what) talk to you, whether you like them or not. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree with mattbuck. It's a shame I wasn't around to support OsamaK's recent adminship request, whilst I'm not fully familiar with their contributions, I certainly wouldn't oppose them on the basis of this image. Adambro (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- And I still will fight no value, hate propaganda images, even if it is supported by all commons administrators and all "lifeguards" of the world.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please refrain from argumenting ad hominem and from sweeping judgements. Opinions of admins as of other users are quite divided over anti-flag/country logos/images, as you might see from here and here. There seems to be no easy or fast solution, currently. --Túrelio (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks,Túrelio. Some of your comments like this one, for example,
: I'm totally d'accord with birdy. Anti-logos against ideas, political concepts, etc. may have a place, but not those discriminating against a people, such as File:Azflag.jpg, Image:Israel flag crossed.png, File:Anti Japan.svg, File:Anti Poland.png, File:Flag of the UK crossed.png and File:Us flag crossed.png. --Túrelio (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
do seem to be reasonable.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks,Túrelio. Some of your comments like this one, for example,
- Please refrain from argumenting ad hominem and from sweeping judgements. Opinions of admins as of other users are quite divided over anti-flag/country logos/images, as you might see from here and here. There seems to be no easy or fast solution, currently. --Túrelio (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- And I still will fight no value, hate propaganda images, even if it is supported by all commons administrators and all "lifeguards" of the world.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree with mattbuck. It's a shame I wasn't around to support OsamaK's recent adminship request, whilst I'm not fully familiar with their contributions, I certainly wouldn't oppose them on the basis of this image. Adambro (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've protected two Anti-Israel flags after edit warring. Speedy deletion requests are totally out of line here, and the flags clearly belong in that category. Regardless, edit warring is unacceptable, as always. This nonsense has to stop & it will - one way or another. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- You not only protected hate propaganda image, you also restored the category Flags of Israel. This so called image has nothing to do with Flags of Israel.It is a wrong category!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Note - the file is no longer in that category (& I agree it should not be). --Herby talk thyme 16:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems we have "variations" categories specifically for that purpose, which I didn't know & thanks to AnonMoos for pointing it out. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Note - the file is no longer in that category (& I agree it should not be). --Herby talk thyme 16:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
User requests to have real name purged from description pages
Hi. 24.20.220.204 (talk · contribs), who is en:user:Cgb78, has nominated several images that he contributed for deletion. I emailed him and all he wants to do is have his real name purged - he understands that the license is irrevocable - he just wants a history purge of his real name. Could an admin delete File:Desean-jackson.jpg, File:DeSean Jackson2.jpg, File:Justin forsett.jpg, File:Cal Dance Team at Cal at USC.jpg, File:Justin Forsett.jpg, File:Marshawn Lynch Vegas.jpg then re-upload them without his real name in the description or in the file upload summary? Also, someone used his real name on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Desean-jackson.jpg so please delete or purge its history as well. Thanks. --UserB (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. Pls have him reupload them, he should still have copies. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks - I'm re-uploading them with sanitized descriptions. Can you (or someone) delete or history purge Commons:Deletion requests/File:Desean-jackson.jpg? His real name was used on it. --UserB (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- You guys totally forgot about commonsdelinker. Could you fix this please? Multichill (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks - I'm re-uploading them with sanitized descriptions. Can you (or someone) delete or history purge Commons:Deletion requests/File:Desean-jackson.jpg? His real name was used on it. --UserB (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
shall we delete in this situation the picture
I transfer from english wikipedia File:Clare Thomas.jpg, and it seemd to be some missing information, is it only way to solve this, to delete the picture from commons.--Motopark (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- The source is mentioned, just not in the source field. However, I find the permission insufficient - it would seem like "wikipedia-only" to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Next picture are not possibility to move Commons, needs action
I search with magnus tool [12] pictures to move to Commons and it shows that next picture [13] shall be possible to move Commons. I check original picture and there was all rights reserved. Could somebody help to check, has flicker picture's licence been available to wikipedia when wikipedia picture has been created --Motopark (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- I highly doubt this picture was available under a Creative Commons license, the image having been uploaded just yesterday. The best guess I can do is that the uploader received a private permission by email/private message on Flickr, and didn't have a clue about the existence of OTRS. →Diti the penguin — 10:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
what shall be right licence
I upload picture File:Robert Morse.jpg but I don't find right licence, could somebody help me.--Motopark (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The images on this page can't be displayed, because they're bigger than 12,5 Mio px. Why can Chicago.jpg be displayed although it's much bigger than all the other images? The images from Krafft-Ebing Psychopathia Sexualis also don't get displayed on the image's page ( Krafft-Ebing, Fuchs Psychopathia Sexualis 14 v03.png for example).
thx for help --D-Kuru (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- The thumbnailer can't render PNG files of more than 12.5 million pixels due to PNG file characteristics, but the JPG one doesn't have this limitation. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- To be more precise, it's got nothing in particular to do with the PNG format, except for the fact that the image resizer we're using (ImageMagick) is the suck and insists on loading the entire image in memory at once when resizing PNG images. Since this tends to eat a lot of memory for big images, the Wikimedia server admins have set an arbitrary limit at 12.5 Mpx, above which MediaWiki won't even try to scale the image. This keeps the servers running smoothly, but annoys users who'd like to upload high-resolution PNGs. Hopefully we'll get a better resizer some day, so that this arbitrary restriction can be removed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Can next picture move to Commons
In UK wikipedia are Martyn Ware picture and if check original picture from flicker, UK versio are cropped version and source are self made, could someone check--Motopark (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Request my sysop bit back temporarily
Hello! I would like my sysop bit back for some weeks so that I can properly debug where FlickreviewR went wrong and cleanup the mess it made. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have any objections. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- More than happy & thanks (& good wishes) Bryan --Herby talk thyme 18:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes of course (who is doing it?) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done For the record: Bryan resigned at his own request in a non controversial action, and there is no reason not to restore his bit at his request. I would have preferred to refuse, and insist that you only take it back PERMANENTLY, not temporarily. :) .. but alas :) I shall record this in the archive once I
receive a shrubberyremember to do so.(whichever comes first)++Lar: t/c 19:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)- Thanks :) I'll probably have time to be around here the coming few weeks to watch my bots etc, after which I'll disappear into nowhere ;) -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done For the record: Bryan resigned at his own request in a non controversial action, and there is no reason not to restore his bit at his request. I would have preferred to refuse, and insist that you only take it back PERMANENTLY, not temporarily. :) .. but alas :) I shall record this in the archive once I
Poster project on French-speaking Wikipedia
Hello, to prevent logos of Wikimedia from being sent as posters, I need a small action (put an invisible tag) on the template of copyrigthed pictures.
Could an commons admin help me with that? Thanks Plyd (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Template talk:Copyright by Wikimedia#fr:Projet:Poster/en
Prototopia
I am a new member and I would like to add the word "Prototopia" and "Prototopic Art Initiative" to wikipedia. It is not clear how to do this. In 2008, the Puffin Foundation awarded Billings, Montana it's first grant to the PAI. The PAI has created initiatives in both Montana and Idaho, and is presently the only nonprofit institution featuring contemporary art and artists in Eastern Montana.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JadeBuddha (talk • contribs) 20:39 28/12/08 (UTC)
- Hi. This isn't Wikipedia, this is Wikimedia Commons. I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Help Desk and ask there. But be aware that for your foundation to be included on Wikipedia, it has to be notable and have several sources for said notability. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyright Licenses
I was doing flickr review when I came across this File:1018 113722.jpg. The flickr and Commons licenses don't match, but that's not really a problem as the flickr photostream owner and Commons user appear to be the same person. However, I wasn't sure if the conflicting licensing and permissions language the user chose to use are compatible with Commons' requirements, so removed my 'reviewed' template. Will someone who knows more than I about multi-licensing have a look at it, then leave a note here as to why it's okay or not? Thanks. Brynn (talk!) 00:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Probably simple enough just to ask that he fix the Flickr license. I will notify.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Everything ok here, User insist on uploading to Flickr first and licensing the image under FAL and cc-by-nc-nd for non-comercial reuse. This double licensing is ok: FAL fullfills our requirements, cc is supplementary. Change of Flickr license is definitely not needed, the author of an image can publish the image however he want. I personally suggest a resourcing of the image to "own work" (as it is own work) and a move of the link to flickr to other versions, i recomanded this to Sarkana in the Commons:Forum#Hilfe benötigt and will do so for this image. --Martin H. (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Martin! :D Brynn (talk!) 01:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Protection request
File:Farthing-1948-front.jpg will be displayed on the main page of the English Wikipedia tomorrow, but, despite displaying a template to the contrary, is not currently protected. Could this image be protected, to avoid a vandalized upload while it is on the main page? Thanks. John254 (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done Thanks - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies for the failed protection attempt; I have no idea why it didn't go through. I've never had that happen before, but I'll try to remember to check from now on. —David Levy 06:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this picture a copyvio anyway? If not, why? --Eusebius (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, Eusebius, a license for the photographic work is given (photo of 3d object), but the objects license is missing till it is a derivative work. --Martin H. (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would then invite the English WP not to mess up with the Crown's rights over its work... Do somebody know where to bring up the issue on en:WP? --Eusebius (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the image from tomorrow's English Wikipedia main page. Thanks for the warning! —David Levy 16:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Image deleted... --Eusebius (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Without a formal discussion to verify that a copyright violation existed? Okay, I've removed the English Wikipedia's three mainspace transclusions, and I'll check the other wikis when the Toolserver is back up. —David Levy 16:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- It looked pretty obvious to me, but if you have elements showing that this coin is not protected, please share them and request an undelete. About the links, you're right, I've been lazy, and not only with this file. Thanks for your remark. --Eusebius (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have little knowledge of UK copyright law, so I assume that you're correct in your assessment. Thanks again! —David Levy 22:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
What links here
The What links here does not work correctly. I recognized it before but my last experience with File:Sheikh Hasina Hethrow.JPG shows it again: No page links are shown to me, but there must be at least 2 links: a cropped version and the uploaders talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is weird. There's a known bug (bugzilla:14404) where the trick used to autotranslate templates can cause link table inconsistency, but this doesn't look like it — those links aren't inserted via autotranslated templates. I'd investigate further, but the toolserver appears to be down for maintenance right now, so I can't run any database queries. In the mean time, I'd suggest filing a bug report at bugzilla. (Oh, and in the mean time, could I please ask that no-one try editing File:Sheikh Hasina2.jpg right now? A null edit might well fix this particular instance, but will also make investigating the problem a lot harder.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- fyi: i allready edited the image by adding the no permission template. --Martin H. (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Still getting weirder. Looking at an API query (permalink), it seems as if the entire content of the {{Information}} template was somehow missing from File:Sheikh Hasina2.jpg when it was saved and parsed for links, even though it shows up fine now. The arguments to it got parsed, since {{En}} is in the template list, and clearly some of it got transcluded since the link to Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia, but none of the links in the arguments are there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, {{No permission since}} is missing from the template list, even though the categories it inserts are there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, never mind the last two comments, I was looking at a truncated list. :/ —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I just made a quick test page, and it seems that file links with leading colons aren't creating entries in the link table. I have a vague suspicion that the bug might be my own: I made some changes to MediaWiki's title existence checks last month that might've caused a regression in the parser. Looking into it, filed as bugzilla:16837. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks for your speedy support, i agree with your conclusion: [[:File:xyz does not show up in the what links here, hope this will be fixed soon because the function is very important for the correct working on deletion requests and other things. --Martin H. (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like it was already fixed in SVN earlier today. Now someone just needs to deploy it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks for your speedy support, i agree with your conclusion: [[:File:xyz does not show up in the what links here, hope this will be fixed soon because the function is very important for the correct working on deletion requests and other things. --Martin H. (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Protection request
Could File:Koni crop.jpg be protected, as it will taken from [14] and placed on the English Wikipedia's main page shortly? Thanks. John254 (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I thought the English Wikipedia created local copies for pictures on the main page and protected those then. Did they change this? I also don't quite understand how the queue system for the DYK sections works. Can you please give the exact time frame this will be on the main page? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Usually a bot does this, however the owner of the bot had his computer's power supply break over Christmas, so we are operating in a less than optimal fashion at the moment. If it is a DYK-queue issue, 24 hour protection should cover it. MBisanz talk 20:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done Rjd0060 (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
CommonsDelinker bot malfunction?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AVillagepump&diff=260057237&oldid=252104778
Edit summary read "Removing File:Wikipump.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Maxim because: Missing essential information: license/permission/source."
The image seems to not be deleted, and has source/permission/license info, as far as I can tell. I've reverted the edit. Equazcion (talk)
- No malfunction - the image was deleted but restored. See here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ah got it, thanks. Equazcion (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Revert file change
Okay, new admin here with a dumb question... how do I revert a file change? I'm looking at the change done to File:Jessica Szohr LF.JPG where a cropped version was uploaded over the original one. What I'd like to do is to restore the original image to there, but I don't want to have to go and reupload. How do I roll back? (As for the cropped one, I'll upload a new one myself under a different name). Tabercil (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Use the revert button next to the old image in the file history section. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank yew. :) Tabercil (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
As i saw some minutes ago the discussion about the "seductive" (or however it was called by several users) wikitan in a swimmsuit (of wich I think it's not porn, but should stay deleted [only to those who would have asked for my oppinnion]) and all the other "sexual-releated" deletion requests/speedys/etc. I would like to hear, as I am not involved, if there are stll attempts to make that page policy or something very similar. Thanks & regards, abf /talk to me/ 01:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't seen much as of recent.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 01:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I personally hope such a policy won't be applied, and that we keep discussing on a per-file basis instead of just linking to a policy. You would be surprised to see, as an example, how full should the Category:Yiff be if there were more free pictures of this topic —and trust me, it falls within the project's scope. This was my point of view. →Diti the penguin — 01:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I do not think that page will become policy. In my view, it was an ill considered attempt, by someone not truly familiar with the way Commons does things, to layer new policy on top of old without considering whether the old policy already covered it, or could be tweaked to address the issue. Adding new policy is not a good idea if tweaks to existing policy are all that is needed. Existing policy I think deals with the issues adequately. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I personally hope such a policy won't be applied, and that we keep discussing on a per-file basis instead of just linking to a policy. You would be surprised to see, as an example, how full should the Category:Yiff be if there were more free pictures of this topic —and trust me, it falls within the project's scope. This was my point of view. →Diti the penguin — 01:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Personal attack?
Moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Personal attack?
- It is usually better to crosslink rather than copy, so the discussion stays in one place. ("coming here to explain their edits" in your discussion... is that "here" or "there"? Copying can cause confusion.) ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody speaking German could have a look at it? It is an architectural drawing from 1975 and I fail to see how it can be PD (as it is declared). Maybe there's a subtlety with the given source or description (or the nature of the document), but I don't understand German. Thanks! --Eusebius (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the attention. I've asked the uploader on his/her talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted maps
The following files are copyright violations:
- File:Karte Schlittenweg.jpg
- File:Schlittenweg Waldteil Fallenwies Koenigseiche.jpg
- File:Schlittenweg Waldhaus (Steinenforst) Waldteil Fallenwies.jpg
- File:Schlittenweg Nestelberg Hohenohl.jpg
- File:Schlittenweg Hohenohl Waldhaus (Steinenforst).jpg
- File:Schlittenweg Koenigseiche Abladeplatz Waldteil Glaesersteig.jpg
Uploader has been informed, nothing happened so far. --BerndH (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Bernd,
- thanks for your attention. I've tagged the image as derivatives. However, there was no warning at all on the uploader's talkpage about copyvios (only about missing categories). Next time, leave an appropriate message on the uploaders talkpage. Correction: The message mentioned by BerndH had been posted on the uploader's talkpage on :de. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
User:SEACORD = banned user Jvolkblum
Rampant sockpuppeteer and enwiki-banned en:user:Jvolkblum has returned here as User:SEACORD. See the checkuser results there. (Also, old checkuser results here: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama and Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum). Recommend blocking SEACORD, deleting images (behavior includes massive copyvio to go along with the hundreds of socks), and checkuser for more users here. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked account indef. --Kanonkas(talk) 20:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - placed several blocks & requested some info. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Email notifications for talk?
They not working again? rootology (T) 03:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe. I think we were having server issues earlier today. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- He's twelve?! -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 13:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The server? ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Blocked enwiki sockpuppeteer, User:Fangusu, is here
en:User:Fangusu has been blocked at enwiki for various transgressions including creating dozens of block-evading sockpuppets. See en:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fangusu. Now he is here as User:Fangusu and is already suffering the same lack of clue, having uploaded two blatant copyvios, followed by his usual belligerence. I suggest blocking to prevent inevitable disruption. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- User welcomed and warned. We don't generally block here solely on the basis of what has happened elsewhere, but I or another admin will do so if the warning is not heeded. Thanks for that. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I protected for 1 day this image File:Michael P. Murphy.jpg,
since there was an edit war between two users user:Dual Freq and user:Lilyu.
They don't seem to agree on the captions,
Dual Freq thinking the caption should be full to what is written on the source site
while Lilyu thinks it should be short and explicit.
I noticed that the full caption is already in the exif, so my personnal opinion here is that the full captions are not needed (as being duplicate informations.)
Anyone got opinions about it and what to do?
Esby (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- The text from the US navy is not related to the image, it's just a military propaganda text that is used for every image on that memorial website's page. It's already provided in the metada of the file, and so fully present on the image's page on Wikimedia commons. Thus, i believe a short & clear description of the image and the direct subject of this image should be prefered, as it's more closely related to the image hosted. A link is provided to the wikipedia's article for more informations and background. This second description is not from me, but from admin Rama, my version was quite longer [15] and a kind of mix of both propositions, but i accept the arguments of Rama.
- The main argument of user:Dual Freq is that it's the original caption, so it should be the same description on Commons : no more, no less. Any modification of this caption is refused [16], as for him, it MUST be the original caption. It's the same user that have try 3 times to get this image deleted, as he was feeling it's offensive and desacralising US heroes : Undeletion request & Deletion request following undeletion. So i believe this user have a biased perception on any matter related to en:Michael P. Murphy.
- Though i agree an original caption can be used as an image description, no Commons policy force us to keep it all and unmodified. --Lilyu (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I dislike the idea of the Commons wiki having descriptions that aren't supposed to be edited. The Bundesarchiv lot is one, and this is another example. People should be free to edit descriptions to their heart's content and describe the image, sometimes adding text and sometimes removing it. In this case I don't think the extra text is relevant on Commons, especially as a Wikipedia article exists of the subject. If the information really is notable, it can be mentioned there. --Para (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not surprised that Lilyu has misconstrued my involvement in the deletion of the unidentified dead body image. I nominated the image for deletion 1 time not 3. That nomination was because the image had already been deleted by an admin (not me) and the undelete request, which I did not comment at, ended with another user requesting to get a normal deletion request going. I also never stated anything approaching "offensive and desacralising," I said the image has no provenance and could be an image of anything since we have no idea of the original source and ownership of the video or if it is genuine and that the words placed on the image are 100% original research and not even used in the source video released by the media production house of Al-Qaeda. Based on Lilyu's comments above that mischaracterized my involvement in a procedural nomination, I believe this user has a biased perception on any matter related to Michael P. Murphy. As for the image caption in question, there is nothing controversial in the caption provided by the source and EXIF data is not searchable or indexed. Being overly long is no reason to remove the source's caption, we have no need to conserve the number of bits being used in a caption. I've uploaded around 2,000 images to improve various wikimedia projects around the world. Many of them were DoD images and we are fortunate that US law allows us to use those images. I have seen many images on Commons that have little or no caption, this image has a fully developed caption, which was provided with the image when it was released. If en:wiki or fr.wiki don't want to use the full caption in the encyclopedia, they don't need to because the caption is and should be provided at the point where it is archived, here on the Commons. I don't recall captions for any of the other 2,000 images being arbitrarily stripped and usually keeping the source's description and other information is demanded in deletion discussions. I believe that the full caption should be retained with the archived image on Commons. --Dual Freq (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting we should put the full life resume of Ioannes Paulus II to all images showing him ?
- Imo, you could do as it is done for the Pope Images, look at File:John Paul II and George Bush 2001.jpg, you could put the full captions on the Commons galery and includes all the possibles related images in it.
- Image description should remain as short, considering there might be other language to add. There is really no need to duplicate informations when we can either link to common gallery or to the localized wikis.
- Last remark, would an original image description contain 30k words or typos, would you not try to shorten this text or correct it? Esby (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Esby (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- We're not providing a biography in this case, simply using the caption that was provided by the source when the image was released. As I mentioned before, EXIF is not indexed by the search function. Personally, I find this caption a bit lacking since the image was released prior to the Medal of Honor award. I doubt en.wiki or any others in wikimedia would have an article about Murphy had he not received that award and it would certainly be included in the caption if it were released by the Navy today. However, I do feel strongly about retaining original captions since we are making an archive of images. I have corrected obvious typos in the past and this caption does not even approach 30,000 words. In cases where it has been proven that a DoD archive caption is factually incorrect, I always include the original caption then provide a correction with proper sources. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see one serious issue to the original caption: Long descriptions takes time to read and usually result in people not reading them.
- Thus the goal to transmit valuable informations being hindered by their lengths.
- How about having a short description, possibly in different languages followed by a long description containing the original caption?
- Edit: I merged the two captions and unprotected the page.
- Esby (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have any serious objections to a second, shorter caption. My only comment would be that any image of Murphy released or published today would include his primary point of notability, the fact that he was awarded the Medal of Honor. I doubt there would be a biography on en.wiki for him if he were simply killed in action and received no MoH or other high level medal of valor. I doubt he would be the namesake of a ship without the MoH either. If I was going to write a short caption for an image of Murphy, I would certainly mention the Medal of Honor. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- How about categorizing with Category:Recipients of the Medal of Honor, or the possible appropriate sub category (I don't know which one to use here, I ain't a specialist of that.)? Esby (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming that this text is indeed the original caption of the image, there is no reason for Commons to make it its own. US Military works are in the public domain, which entitles us to use them, but does not bound us to accept propaganda verbatim. Thus, under the rather generous assumption that this text has any sort of historical interest in itself and should be featured at all, it should be properly quarantined between quotation marks. Rama (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
UTCLiveclock bug report
Hi all, does somebody know who maintains this tool? I'd like to report that the purge feature seems not to behave properly when there is a "&" in the page name. --Eusebius (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Turning on the clock imports some text somewhere in the MediaWiki namespace into your personal css and js files. Can't think of where that lives at the moment, though. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- "&" as in quesrystrings or URL encoded %26? →AzaToth 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Found it: MediaWiki:Gadget-UTCLiveClock.js. I can't edit it because I'm not a sysop here (although I don't know what's wrong with it anyway). Stifle (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-UTCLiveClock.js has a fix for that issue. →AzaToth 16:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the links and the remarks, it was an URL encoding issue indeed. I used the same method than on en:WP, seems to be working now. Looks like I've edited a JS script and everybody's still alive. --Eusebius (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hooray! — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the links and the remarks, it was an URL encoding issue indeed. I used the same method than on en:WP, seems to be working now. Looks like I've edited a JS script and everybody's still alive. --Eusebius (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Gadget-UTCLiveClock.js has a fix for that issue. →AzaToth 16:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please make the following changes to that protected template:
- {{cfd}} → {{subst:cfd}}
- uploader → creator of the category
Thanks in advance. --Leyo 17:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done - {{editprotected}} should be fine in the future. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't know that template before. --Leyo 01:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
OTRS-ID for File:Hawker Horsley.jpg?
Can somebody search for the ID and add it to the description? -- 92.226.228.147 11:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can't find any mail in the OTRS. Do you know the exact time/address the confirmation has been sent to? Thanks, →Na·gy 13:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Or, for that matter, the email address it was sent from? The English permissions queue is more or less up to date. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- From the looks of the deleted enwiki pages, it was never filed in OTRS, just stated that it was granted permission for use. MBisanz talk 15:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
CommonMaster
CommonMaster (talk · contribs) appears to be a blatant sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked User:Deathgleaner. I've been dealing with Deathgleaner at En and Simple Wikipedias. He's been spamming his survey frequently, which you can find at the top of CommonMaster's user page (CommonMaster states that his friend Deathgleaner is conducting the survey). Mostly the survey is spammed to the sandboxes (though it's appeared in an article too). I'm not active here, so I don't know the full procedure here, but could some administrators look into this? Thanks, Either way (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Confession that they are indeed the same person. Either way (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Placed some blocks etc. I don't think there's any reason to suspect the uploads are bad, so left those. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the block if he tries to bypass the indef block of User:Deathgleaner, but i dissagree with the indef block of his "first" account Deathgleaner anyway. The only reason for the block is Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Mount Rainier panorama 2.jpg and that is not worth such a strong reaction. I give a favorable opinion on unblocking Deathgleaner with a strong warning to use only one account. --Martin H. (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know what CommonMaster has done on this project to deserve an indef block? --J.smith (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Nevermind. J.smith (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed Deathgleaner's user talk editing prohibition in case he wishes to request {{unblock}}, however I don't think that would be a good idea at present, as he's clearly continuing with the original disruptive behaviour. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
CheckUsage broken?
Dunno where to ask/report this, but it appears the CheckUsage function ain't working properly. I go to search on an image to try and get more details about it (to confirm it's properly out of project scope) and I get a lot of this appearing:
- Database Error: Unknown error on sql-s1/enwiki_p
- Failed to connect to DB enwiki_p!
- Failed to connect to database for en.wikipedia.org
- Database Error: Unknown error on sql-s3/frwiktionary_p
- Failed to connect to DB frwiktionary_p!
- Failed to connect to database for fr.wiktionary.org
- etc...
As well, besides being so as hell, what results that it does come back aren't 100% accurate. I did a CheckUsage against File:Jennifer Love Hewitt LF2.jpg to test, and the resulting list does not list it being used on EN (which it is, which is why I chose it). Tabercil (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is caused by the fact that the Toolserver is partly down at the moment (see also here and here). --Leyo 02:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah... thank yew. <G> Tabercil (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thats now for 5 days, the fist message was, that it will work again later this day. This day was December 30 last year ;) So if possible pleas speed it up a little bit. --Martin H. (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure the people concerned are doing their very best as we speak. So just have a little patience and everything will be solved soon. Lycaon (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Template protected to prevent bug-related edits
I've fully protected Template:Please name images/it in order to prevent further unintended edits to that template resulting from a still unsolved bug already discussed here and here. --Túrelio (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've protected Template:Dont recreate/it for the same reason.--Trixt (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
No Idea
I have not any idea where i should be posting this request but i am asking that the image "Guyana_regions_numbered.png" be replaced by "Guyana_regions.png" based on the fact that the first image is wrong, the regions are mislabeled. The second image is a correction of the first. This is very important. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanthrax (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please clarify? I did not realize there was an official numbering of the regions of Guyana. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Doubtful pornographic pictures being uploaded
Looks we have an issue brewing over at Klapaucius1990 (talk · contribs). User is uploading several pornographic images with claims of them being his/her cousin, etc. Wknight94 (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted, warned. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
header templates for com:fpc
I've created Template:Fp-log-header as new header for subpages of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log (Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2008 for example). This template includes the "archiv -> do not edit" message (which exists) and category Featured picture candidate archives which I created to seperate the archives. The new category is categorised in Commons votes archives and Featured pictures. Even this template gets deleted or modifyed we should keep that category, because Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2008 for example is not categorised anywhere.
I've also created Template:Fp-log-chron-header for subpages of Commons:Featured pictures/chronological. Maybe someone of you knows how to create that what I'm searching for. A little summary of the used shorcuts: {{{phy}}} = "previous half year", {{{fhy}}} = "following half year", {{{term}}}} = which half year (just "A" or "B"). Because there is no use to create a template if you have to do everything on your own. I want that (if the term is "A") the template includes "(Jan - Jun {{{phy}}}/{{{fhy}}})" (if the term is B it should include "(Jul - Dec {{{phy}}}/{{{fhy}}})") Does anybody know how to creat such order?
thanks for help --D-Kuru (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- How about: previous half year ({{#ifeq: {{{term}}}|A|Jan - Jun|Jul - Dec}} {{{phy}}}) See mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions for more details. Wknight94 (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking for a tool
Hey. When I delete a file, I try to remove all references to the file on the other projects. There can be many of them. Is there a bot which knows how to do that (a CommonsDelinker command maybe)? --Eusebius (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- When a file gets deleted Commonsdelinker tries to remove all references (example). But Commonsdelinker doesn't function properly at the moment because the toolserver is not fully functional. Multichill (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- So basically, we have nothing to do (when databases are ok)? If so, maybe it could be mentionned here, for instance, where it is said "When speedy-deleting files, it is suggested but not required to run CheckUsage in order to fix uses on Wikimedia projects." --Eusebius (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's right. CommonsDelinker should remove all references (except the hidden ones, e.g. in complicated templates) to the image. However, if you speedy delete an image and want it replaced with another image (e.g. because it is a scaled-down version), you need to run the replace command on CommonsDelinker before you delete the bad one. Otherwise CommonsDelinker will start removing the image, which means that references will be gone by the time you try to replace it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, good then. The replacement procedure for badname/duplicate was clear to me already. --Eusebius (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's right. CommonsDelinker should remove all references (except the hidden ones, e.g. in complicated templates) to the image. However, if you speedy delete an image and want it replaced with another image (e.g. because it is a scaled-down version), you need to run the replace command on CommonsDelinker before you delete the bad one. Otherwise CommonsDelinker will start removing the image, which means that references will be gone by the time you try to replace it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- So basically, we have nothing to do (when databases are ok)? If so, maybe it could be mentionned here, for instance, where it is said "When speedy-deleting files, it is suggested but not required to run CheckUsage in order to fix uses on Wikimedia projects." --Eusebius (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Dayana 2540 copyvios
Dayana 2540 (talk · contribs) was blocked recently for uploading nothing but copyvios. S/he is back uploading the same images but claiming to own them, despite various web site watermarks appearing on them. Another block appears to be warranted. Wknight94 (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done by Túrelio. Thanks for reporting and best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Pictures from the Web Gallery of Art
Hi all. I asked this question on the VP some months ago and got no answer, so I'm trying my luck here.
A number of pictures on Commons (including pictures of sculptures) come from the Web Gallery of Art and bear the mention "the Web Gallery of Art has agreed to the use of images on WP" or something to that effect. As anyone ever heard about this? Am I correct in thinking this is a "Wikipedia only" clause, and that we cannot keep that content here (except for PD-Art pictures of course)? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are there any contemporary artists in the Web Gallery of Art? I believe not, almost all paintings are before 1880 therefore they are PD-art. Sv1xv (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Of course. My concern goes to pictures of sculptures such as File:Athamas.jpg, which are not covered by PD-Art. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This user, whose last edit was in November, has uploaded various copyvios from websites (either login-required or public) claiming them to be their own work both here and at en.wikipedia (where I am an admin). I am now sufficiently in doubt that anything this user has ever uploaded, apart from some high definition images taken with a Sony camera and some 1800s images from the State Library which are well beyond Australia's 70 year provision, meets Commons's copyright conditions. I tagged a number of images in *clear* breach of copyright (i.e. could find and link the source image) but the rest are another matter.
What is the best way to deal with this sort of situation? Orderinchaos (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Open a mass deletion request, listing all the images that you think should go. Lupo 09:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Russian-speaking admin needed
I've been asked to check a few pictures, and I'd like someone speaking Russian (or maybe Ukrainian) to have a look at the source of these three pictures, to check the licenses:
Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think {{PD-Ukraine}} is correct for File:BevzIvVas.jpg (person from Ukrainian SSR). For File:Zelenko E.I.jpg we should switch to {{PD-Ukraine}} (person from Ukrainian SSR). Both died in WWII.
- Only File:Babajanian autograf.jpg is doubful, so I marked it as no source.
- EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Removal of deletion requests
User:Elo 1219 reomved deletion request from his files [17], [18], [19] . Is this okay here? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nope - sorting it out & warning the user. Thanks for the info, cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Message template: promotional stuff
is there a message template advising users against upload of promotional stuff/advertisement? Other than {{Project scope}} template? --Eusebius (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've always tended to use the "scope" one. It does actually cover everything. There is a spam one but that is about placing links which is rarely the case here on Commons. Quite a lot of stuff uploaded "looks" promotional & the scope template warns without actually "accusing" to me. Regards --Herby talk thyme 12:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Israel-Gaza conflict copyright violations
Please, please be on the lookout for copyrighted images related to this conflict. Nearly all of those that have been uploaded, especially those depicting Palestinian fatalities, have been copyrighted. Most problematic have been those by a Flickr user named Amir Farshad Ebrahimi. He has been uploading photos under a Creative Commons license, claiming they're his, when in fact they are copyrighted (see http://www.kafteji.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t71689.html for most of them). I tagged them all for speedy deletion yesterday, but they have been re-uploaded (and probably will be repeatedly uploaded by different people unless we ask Flickr or Amir to take them down). That means that (as of now) all images under Category:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, except for File:Kassam hit sderot.jpg, are copyright violations that should be deleted. There was another image uploaded by another user (and not by Amir) that also turned out to be a copyright violation. Keep in mind that it is very difficult -- basically impossible -- to enter and exit Gaza now and for someone to have footage from the area, they most likely have to be living there permanently. -- tariqabjotu 06:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- all gone, and User:Tasja has been warned about uploading further images from Farshad Ebrahimi Flickr accountdiff. Gnangarra 07:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- update for what its worth I have lodged an abuse report on Flickr linking them to our discussion and the image sources hopefully they be able to take action to help address the problem. Gnangarra 07:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Added to Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users (allows check of uploads) and User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors (FlickrreviewR will denie bot-review). --Martin H. (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- update for what its worth I have lodged an abuse report on Flickr linking them to our discussion and the image sources hopefully they be able to take action to help address the problem. Gnangarra 07:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are eleven of these pictures back up again? I thought this Flickr user was put on the bad-author list. Ugh, can an admin please delete them all? (The images have all been uploaded by Gothika (talk · contribs), so they should not be hard to locate.) -- tariqabjotu 20:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Checked it too, seems like the bot ignores the list (and not the bad users). Will ask the operator. --Martin H. (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done. --Kanonkas(talk) 20:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Useless media rename requests
Last night i was browsing Category:Commons backlog and i noticed a lot of coats of arms in Category:Media requiring renaming. For example, it was requested to rename File:Triptis coat of arms.png to File:Wappen Triptis.png. All the current files are not misspelled, incomplete, misleading, cryptic and conform to an established naming convention so i removed {{Rename}} template from most of the files. Looks like most of the requests were done by three German users (Enslin, Flow2 & ChristianBier). Two of them didn't come online yet, but one felt like reverting my edits and asking me what my problem was. I don't like German wikipedia users trying to force their naming conventions on Commons and abusing the renaming system in this way. I would like to hear opinions from other admins. Multichill (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is no Commons standard for file naming, so one has not the right to change a file name from another author unless the name is completely misleading or makes no sense at all. A rename requires significant energy from the system and administrators (rename, duplicate handling, delinker) and should be avoided unless really necessarily. I guess that some German users want to change the names to facilitate auto generation of links in the German wiki templates. We probably should be quicker to reject media renames indeed as these renames seem to become a bad habit. --Foroa (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- (EC) If there exists "a fixed naming scheme" for COA as Christian stated[20], we obviously need a policy or a consensus about whether to rename existing files according to that scheme. --Túrelio (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that it is realistic that Commons could respond for a specific naming convention for each specific country, each specific wikipedia and each specific template (cities, provinces, train stations, politicians, rules, government, ...). --Foroa (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is much easier (and uses far less resources) to alter a template on a local wikipedia (in casu the German one) than to rename hundreds of images here on Commons. Lycaon (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- (EC)I thought we had already dealt with this at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 7#User:ChristianBier. Renaming files without discussion is definitely a bad idea, especially when you know that many people disagree with it. I pointed ChristianBier to this discussion and asked him to stop renaming without a discussion whether and how we want to fulfill rename requests of single projects. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that it is realistic that Commons could respond for a specific naming convention for each specific country, each specific wikipedia and each specific template (cities, provinces, train stations, politicians, rules, government, ...). --Foroa (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
has not the right to change a file name from another author is absolutely nonsense for German COAs because most of them are without any author because the author is not known. German COAs are PD, so if rename by bot is not allowed, so everyone can upload it under a better name and replace all usages and delete the old one. Where is the problem? The original uploaders have no rights on the COAs they uploaded. Why other countries are allowed to get in a naming sheme for COAs? France, Spain, Finland or Danmark user all a specific sheme for the naming of COA files. Why it shouldn't be allowed for the German ones. There is no argument for that. ChristianBier (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Here a small overview for exiting naming conventions for COAs:
Country | COA named like |
---|---|
Denmark | XYZ våben.png |
Sweden | XYZ vapen.png |
Italy | XYZ-stemma.png |
Norway | XYZ våpen.svg |
France | Blason XYZ.svg |
Spain | Escudo XYZ.svg |
Germany | Wappen XYZ.svg ???? |
When a COA in one of the other countries is not named like the others, it will be renamed and the dupe will be deleted. Why theres a difference between Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Norway, France, Spain and Germany? Why other language projects could do renaming and the German Wikipedia is not allowed to do so. --ChristianBier (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's a totally useless waste of resources. If I saw someone doing similarly useless renames to enforce any of the other naming schemes you've described here, I'd have them stop as well. The argument applies equally to all. Please stop - there is a consensus that such renames are not to be undertaken. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- ChristianBier, let's do the Münchhausen test:
- Denmark: Coas in Category:Coats of arms of cities of Denmark (and for the hundreds) are indeed named "XYZs våben.end". But its a bulk upload of User:Valentinian. For al the other, non-bulk-uploaded coas in Category:Coats of arms of Denmark there's no scheme.
- Sweden: Bulk upload from User:Lokal Profil, no naming scheme for other coas.
- Italy: These were not bulk-uploaded. Most coas follow the scheme "XYZ-Stemma.end", but not all. It seems, the scheme was agreed upon before uploading. The naming scheme is _not enforced_ by renaming requests.
- Norway: Have a look at Category:Coats of arms of Norway and tell, whether you still believe, there is a naming scheme.
- France: Some coas are named "Blason XYZ.end", some "Blason ville fr XYZ.end", some "Blason Ville AB XYZ.end" (AB being the number of the departement), some have still other names. No naming scheme is enforced by renaming requests.
- Spain: The same as in France. Some are named "Escudo XYZ.end", some "Escudo de XYZ.end", others "EscudoXYZ.end" or "XYZescudo.end". No naming scheme is enforced.
- You say: When a COA in one of the other countries is not named like the others, it will be renamed and the dupe will be deleted. Please give proof. --Slomox (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree that this seems like a useless waste of resources. Unless a filename is misspelled, incomplete, or misleading then it shouldn't be changed for the sake of it. We have categories so people can find related images. Can't we redirect images now? If the German Wikipedia community want common file names for COA's for whatever reasons then couldn't they be implemented a lot more easily and less disruptively this way. Adambro (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, redirects for images work, the redirects can then be used like the image itself. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please see my posting to the old thread on AN/U (link) for why excessive use of image redirects is bad. If projects really need this, we should IMHO open a bug to allow local redirects to point to Commons images. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, redirects for images work, the redirects can then be used like the image itself. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree that this seems like a useless waste of resources. Unless a filename is misspelled, incomplete, or misleading then it shouldn't be changed for the sake of it. We have categories so people can find related images. Can't we redirect images now? If the German Wikipedia community want common file names for COA's for whatever reasons then couldn't they be implemented a lot more easily and less disruptively this way. Adambro (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I ain't a specialist of canadian copyright law, so I am asking.
According to this site, the commons file is derived from a canadian emblem, used prior 1921.
This page seems to say that candian emblems are protected by canadian federal laws, restricting commercial usage. Now, the page does not say if those restriction only apply to the current arms or to all the arms the Canada used.
If someone know what to do here...
Esby (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- COAs are often restricted by laws in their country of origin. Commercial use normally is permitted. Even if the COAs, it's drawing or the design is pd, it's usage could be restricted. ChristianBier (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Use {{Insignia}} to address non-copyright related restrictions. /Lokal_Profil 13:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
(almost) Universally replaced by CommonsDelinker
Hi. What are we supposed to do with the files which CommonsDelinker failed to replace in a great number of pages, like for instance File:League of Arab States Emblem.svg? Delete anyway? --Eusebius (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've always finished the job manually. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- This seems to me the best way. Fix it yourself and then delete. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tried once with one of the railroad symbol, got lost in never-ending transclusions, gave up. I leave it to you then :-) --Eusebius (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Railroad symbols are notorious, cause often used in protected templates on en:. Others, as the mentioned Arab emblem, are easily, though laboriously done by hand. Lycaon (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I'll only have to be a bit more courageous for the other ones then... And for the railroad symbols, what is done? --Eusebius (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Railroad symbols are notorious, cause often used in protected templates on en:. Others, as the mentioned Arab emblem, are easily, though laboriously done by hand. Lycaon (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tried once with one of the railroad symbol, got lost in never-ending transclusions, gave up. I leave it to you then :-) --Eusebius (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- This seems to me the best way. Fix it yourself and then delete. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like you're trying to rename File:League of Arab States Emblem.svg to File:Emblem of the Arab League.svg. Besides the fact that i don't think this is very useful, you didn't do it right. At File:Emblem of the Arab League.svg you claim own work and you didn't properly source the image. Multichill (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I didn't do anything, I only took this file in example. --Eusebius (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Please be aware that CD is suffering from Replication Lag Syndrome (short: RLS) just as much as CheckUsage and other tools running on the toolserver. If you would ask me, duplicate deletion should be halted until the toolserver is healthy again. Siebrand 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Anybody any idea how long this will take? Days? Weeks? Some days duplicates increase with more than a hundred/day. Lycaon (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- They talked about early february on the toolserver mailing list... They're waiting for a new server. --Eusebius (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe best to follow Siebrand's advice then :-(. Lycaon (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- A lot of the railway ones look dodgy anyway. Duplicates rarely have different authors and the more recent ones have more restrictive licensing. /Lokal_Profil 18:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe best to follow Siebrand's advice then :-(. Lycaon (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- They talked about early february on the toolserver mailing list... They're waiting for a new server. --Eusebius (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Incorrectly named images
Hi, when uploading a new image, I accidently uploaded it over the top of an existing image (File:1996-1999 Mitsubishi TE-TF Magna sedan 02.jpg. I have noew reuploaded it as: File:1996-1999 Mitsubishi TE-TF Magna sedan 04.jpg. Is it possible for the "middle" image of the silver car in "02.jpg" be deleted? Thanks. OSX (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- It sure is! Done. Giggy (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
undeletion request
I'm currently uploading some art images (by Norwegian painters) and therefore i noted that several files from a list have been deleted in 2007/2008. According to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag/Straw Poll and the following policy change, all these images can be undeleted now IMO. Could someone take a look please and undelete them? TIA - EdvardIsle (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please ask the original uploader first. After all, he is the one who will be sued in case the photographers decide to enforce their copyright. As I understand it, he requested deletion because he was afraid of violating the photographers' copyright. We should respect that some people are not willing to take the risk of uploading images with dubious copyright status. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Generally understandable. As far as i can see, all images were copied to English Wikipedia by a bot, e. g. en:Category:Hans Gude paintings, but they are allowed here now (Hans Gude died 1903). Can i or should i reupload them to Commons by hand then? - EdvardIsle (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- IMHO asking the uploader first would be appropriate. If he consents, I do not oppose undeletion. If not, it would be better if you uploaded them yourself. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- i notified him now. Another idea: perhaps the bot that moved the images to en: could simply move them back, so the original uploader won't appear? - EdvardIsle (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- IMHO asking the uploader first would be appropriate. If he consents, I do not oppose undeletion. If not, it would be better if you uploaded them yourself. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Generally understandable. As far as i can see, all images were copied to English Wikipedia by a bot, e. g. en:Category:Hans Gude paintings, but they are allowed here now (Hans Gude died 1903). Can i or should i reupload them to Commons by hand then? - EdvardIsle (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Lots of Norwegian paintings were deleted by Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Jorunn (uploaders request). As the Wikimedia Foundation took its radical policy decision on {{PD-Art}} after that, these images can be undeleted now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we can undelete them by policy now but if Jorunn strongly objects then I suggest we try to find a way to accommodate her. Maybe the image description pages could omit mention of the original uploader or something like that. Haukurth (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason I requested them deleted in the first place was that I had come to belive that they were infingements on the copyright of the photograhers, and I try to respect others copyright. I've now read Erik Möllers statement about the opinion of WMF, and as much as I agree that it should be so, I am not convinced it is so. If you think it is right to undelete the images then you should do so. I still rather wish I hadn't uploaded them in the first place, and if memory serves me right they aren't exactly good scans either. --Jorunn (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Please stop mentioning that this was a Wikimedia Foundation decision on PD-art. It was not. It was a decision made by the Commons community based on an opinion by a WMF employee. It is an important distinction, especially because I wonder if the WMF will intervene if (when?) we have problems for hosting these images. That said, we have a policy on that and according to it, those images could be undeleted, you just have to find a willing admin. Cheers, Patrícia msg 09:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:FPpromotion
Hi, Just a comment... I think the template Template:FPpromotion would need an optional argument to overwrite the subpage of the nomination. Because now it doesn't fit when for example a nomination had resulted on a promoted alternative version instead of the primary one.
Here's a real exemple:
{{FPpromotion|File:Shakedown 2008 Figure 1a.jpg}}
Will show:
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Shakedown 2008 Figure 1a.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shakedown 2008 Figure 1a.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
The thing is that the nomination page was http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Shakedown_2008_Figure_1.jpg
and not http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Shakedown_2008_Figure_1a.jpg.
A code like this would fit better:
{{FPpromotion|File:Shakedown 2008 Figure 1a.jpg|subpage=File:Shakedown 2008 Figure 1.jpg}}
Thanks, --Acarpentier 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's a very good idea! So good, it was already implemented two years ago ;-) It's exactly the code you proposed. Test it:
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Shakedown 2008 Figure 1a.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shakedown 2008 Figure 1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
- --Slomox (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha, ok sorry for that. Funny situation... ok so maybe it should be more clear to people that process the QIC. Thanks Slomox --Acarpentier 15:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- You couldn't know, the template was undocumented. I added documentation now. --Slomox (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks --Acarpentier 17:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- You couldn't know, the template was undocumented. I added documentation now. --Slomox (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Vicious edit by anon
[21]. I've reverted, and the IP doesn't seem to have any other edits, but this is nasty enough that someone may want to work out where it came from. - Jmabel ! talk 05:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- We have nasty vandalism everyday across Wikimedia, I'm not sure if anything more than block-revert-ignore is needed here, but a checkuser might think otherwise. Thanks for the warning. Patrícia msg 09:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see any justification for a check unless there is a pattern of such vandalism (even then it would depend). RBI should suffice. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Questionable Flickr user or not?
Hi everyone, what do you think about the Flickr user ¡Que comunismo!? A lot of very very interesting photos in a good quality including many venezuelan politicians - but:
- 3 or more cameras: EOS 5D, EOS 20D, EOS 1D Mark IIN
- The images are containing Metadata, most images are sourced to the Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, in some cases with author 12, in some cases without author 3, in some cases without information 4.
Any opinions? --Martin H. (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- The agency says: "2008 Derechos Reservados". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- This sounds seems fine. It's 'Bordeaux' being prononciated normally in French. Maybe clear your cache or download the ogg file directly? Esby (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Could everyone using this gadget please force a reload the next time? I made some corrections two days ago, and unfortunately one went wrong. If you happen to have a version from the last two days, the script will, for kept images, add the {{Kept}} not to "File talk:XYZ" but unfortunately to "File talk:File:XYZ". This error has been present since 2009-01-14 11:37 (UTC) and was fixed 2009-01-16 07:18 (UTC). I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Lupo 08:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect name File:Royal Hellenic Airlines1953.jpg
This image has an incorrect name. The plane belonged to the Royal Hellenic Air Force , not Royal Hellenic Airlines . It is not used in any other wiki project outside Commons. Could someone rename it with a more appropriate name? Peter-five (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Next time, you can do that by yourself: {{rename|newname.jpg|reason for rename}}. --Túrelio (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Possible to revoke OTRS?
Is it possible to revoke an OTRS? The ticket in question is https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1360068. A large range of images on Wikipedia and Commons are "approved" by this OTRS, which is attributed to a Lavelk on photobucket.
However, many of the images are questionable (copyviolations), leading to these deletion requests, Commons:Deletion_requests/Series by Nyo and Commons:Deletion requests/Series by Nyo II, by their uploader User:Nyo (who might be Lavelk, according to Commons:Deletion requests/China images). The copyviolations have led to Tom Carter's, a travel journalist and photographer, complaints to this project (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention#Ignored requests for image deletion / copyright violation). Through an ongoing FAC on Wikipedia, I was led to Lavelk's collection of images in Category:Laozi. Most (if not all) are copy violations, scanned from an art book (whose artists are not proven to be dead beyond 70 or 50 years), or from Flickr (see User talk:Nyo for my notices).
Is it possible to revoke the OTRS and delete all images that are attached to this ticket? It is very likely, with the incidences and confessions, that these images are mostly violations of Commons' rules. The goal of Commons is to store free content in respect to the creators and authors. Letting grossly dubious content remain is an affront to that goal. Uploaders are required to show evidence that the contents are free, and everything so far shows that Lavelk's collection is unlikely to be so; his photobucket collection should not be allowed here unless the contents truly are in the public domain or attributed to the correct license holder. Jappalang (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Semantics maybe but it sounds like a reexamination of the (alleged?) permission granted is needed. If an organization has written permissions @ wikimedia.org asserting rights grants they do not control, that needs to be identified, and the consequences to images dealt with. The OTRS itself would not be "revoked" per se. Just invalidated. If that's the right thing to do. Is there more information available? ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- What other information are you looking for? Jappalang (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you could do some sanity checking with the OTRS ticket: If the images clearly have different copyright owners, but the OTRS ticket number is identical, then it is unlikely, that the permission is valid. In this case, you should ask someone with an OTRS account to confirm the permission and check whether the image should be deleted or not. However, this can probably only be done on a case-by-case basis as nobody of the OTRS people will tell you, what the ticket actually says (privacy policy). You won't get much more than "Ticket is valid/invalid for this image". Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- I had contacted admin Stifle before coming to post here. This was what he said,
- Stifle: "OTRS:1360068 says that everything at http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l98/Lavelk/ is released under CC-BY-2.0. However, there is nothing either in that ticket about where he got the images or whether he has the capacity to release them under that license. There's an AN/A thread from earlier this month that may provide further help. I've got nothing else for you on it though. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)"[22]
- Is there going to be any action taken? Jappalang (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- If the permissions are invalid, all the images need to be tagged as needing further review and possible deletion. Is there an easy way to tell which images those are other than via that search? I for one am not quite sure what to do next. What do others think? ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- The permission itself is not neccessarily invalid. It seems the user has released some images, he was in no position to release at all. Thus all images, where it is unlikely, that the owner of the photobucket account is the copyright holder, should be put up for deletion. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- If the permissions are invalid, all the images need to be tagged as needing further review and possible deletion. Is there an easy way to tell which images those are other than via that search? I for one am not quite sure what to do next. What do others think? ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I had contacted admin Stifle before coming to post here. This was what he said,
- Well, you could do some sanity checking with the OTRS ticket: If the images clearly have different copyright owners, but the OTRS ticket number is identical, then it is unlikely, that the permission is valid. In this case, you should ask someone with an OTRS account to confirm the permission and check whether the image should be deleted or not. However, this can probably only be done on a case-by-case basis as nobody of the OTRS people will tell you, what the ticket actually says (privacy policy). You won't get much more than "Ticket is valid/invalid for this image". Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- What other information are you looking for? Jappalang (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I sincerely doubt it is "some" images. Please look at the uploader's talk page. I am finding more and more copyviolations; the photos were taken by various other people, not this Lavelk. The searches were not simple. They take time and energy. There are 194 items from Lavelk's collection on Commons at this moment. Finding 8 of them took me an hour—are we volunteers supposed to spend 24 hours of our time to screen those uploads that took no more than an hour, when an invalidation of all OTRS to Lavelk's claims would save everybody's time, especially in light of all the controversies surrounding the ticket? Does Commons value the false claims of one person to be greater than the efforts it takes to better and improve the image of the project? Jappalang (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Might I add that my flikr searches are restricted to the public photos; I am unable to sift through private photos unless someone post the exact url on the web like what happened in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Laozi statue in Quanzhou.PNG. I am pretty certain several of Lavelk's copyviolations are now private flickr photos. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest that any photos from this photobucket collection would be considered questionable at best. They should be reviewed and nominated for deletion. The photobucket user Lavelk seems very likely to have uploaded images and purported to release them under a free license, but does not seem to have the right to release most of them.
- For the record, I'm not an admin here. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Done, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention#Require immediate attention now. --Martin H. (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with this user's block (he e-mailed me about it). It seems excessively long for what is really, at best, quite minor incivility. I think we should lift it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections#Block of User:Tomascastelazo — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know what to do with this DR. An IP says he's the copyright holder (whose name we know) and wants the image deleted, but the image was uploaded by a user with a username very similar to the copyright holder's. Also, the image is available on the copyright holder's Flickr account with a copyright watermark, but was uploaded here without the watermark (and I don't think it was manually removed, although I may be wrong about that). In doubt, I would delete. I'd like some help here... --Eusebius (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Toolserver seems to be down again
When checking for the Wikimedia use of an image, it's really not nice to have to wait for quite a long time and then to receive messages such as this:
- Database Error: Unknown error on sql-s1/enwiki_p
- Failed to connect to DB enwiki_p!
- Failed to connect to database for en.wikipedia.org
- Database Error: Unknown error on sql-s3/frwiktionary_p
- Failed to connect to DB frwiktionary_p!
- Failed to connect to database for fr.wiktionary.org
- A database error has occurred Query: SELECT * FROM enwiktionary_p.image WHERE img_name = 'Peces.jpg' Function: getImageInfo Error: 2006 MySQL server has gone away (sql-s2)
And then to read as possible explaination:
- Replication of S3 is halted. This means that the data for most wikis is old, and growing older. Only data for some of the larger wikis is still kept up to date. New hardware is being ordered shortly.
We had to read that already 6-8 weeks ago. The foundation received some millions in donations until end of the year. Why aren't they able to buy some lousy harddisks or servers and instead waste our time? --Túrelio (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- The Toolserver gets no money from the WMF fundraiser, thus the recent success has no bearing on the Toolserver. The order has actually been placed now, and should arrive in about 2 weeks. Please try to keep calm, the universe will not implode by then (not even the wiki-universe) as hard as that may be to believe. The errors you're seeing are probably because long-running queries get killed, not because the Toolserver actually has any problem. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Templates created by User:Cool tap
Hi everyone, I just noticed that Cool tap is creating a lot of templates to create icons, such as {{P ball}}, {{WP mad}}, {{WM smile}} and so on. I haven't talked to him about this yet, because I am unsure about our policy regarding such templates. Do we really allow such templates? IMHO those are not neccessary. Thanks for your opinions. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know about policy, but common sense indicates, that they are not useful. I am engaged in reducing redundancy in templates and creating localizable templates (see also Commons:WikiProject Templates), and I have seen many templates that were created once and then forgotten and never used by anyone. And many of them had a purpose much more meaningful than to provide an easy way to insert a laughing ball... --Slomox (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Seems totally useless. I'd ask this user to stop please - clogging up our template namespace with useless junk isn't nice. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, same applies to the category namespace. --Martin H. (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I left a note on his talk page and will delete the remaining templates in a few days, should he not decide to move them to his user namespace. As far as I can see the only category he created is Category:User:Cool tap. It's disputable whether it is of real use, but as long as it remains the only one, I won't interfere with it. After all, we have a lot of similar cats in Category:User categories. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, same applies to the category namespace. --Martin H. (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Seems totally useless. I'd ask this user to stop please - clogging up our template namespace with useless junk isn't nice. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
User uploading duplicates of my uploads and tagging the latter as badname
Not sure if this should be reported at ANB, but I think an admin's perspective would be useful.
I uploaded File:Barack Obama swon in 1-20-09 hires 090120-N-0696M-218a.jpg earlier today, which was tagged 20 minutes later by User:Gage with the badname tag as he subsequently uploaded File:Barack Obama Inauguration Oath.jpg. I realized that my upload does have a badname ("swon" instead of "sworn") so I tagged it as a duplicate.
I also uploaded File:Michelle Obama speaks at Kids' Inaugural 1-19-09 hires 090119-N-1928O-182a.jpg even earlier in the day which Gage again tagged as badname because he uploaded File:Michelle Obama speech.jpg nearly 4 hours later. I reverted the tag and tagged his as a duplicate since it came later.
Now in the first case the duplicate upload is understandable because it does have a bad name, but I am wondering why do it again as he apparently doesn't seem to like my file names or is deliberately ignoring the duplicate warning that appears when you attempt to upload an already existing image. BrokenSphere 00:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I deleted the first upload on the basis of duplicate + typo in file name (I hope you don't mind). I also alerted Gage to this discussion, hopefully he can explain what's going on. Giggy (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- When I first read the image title, I read "hires" as "hires" (like that a person was employed by another) and not as an abbrevamorph or an abbrevomosh for "High resolution". If there is a lowres (Low resolution) version here, it would be deleted for being a duplicate so that word in the very long title is somewhat useless. Also, in my own experiences here, when moving images which had a numeric name at the source -- I tried to put that number into the name thinking that it would appear in a search if ever anyone would search to see if the same image existed here. That number does not get found by the search facility here if it is embedded into a name. There is one inaugeration every 4 years so the whole date is kind of long and useless and is more easily provided by an article on whatever wiki uses the image and there is a place for the date in the information template. File:Michelle Obama Kids' Inaugural speech 2009.jpg seems like a good name, especially if there is only one photograph. For more than two images the name should become a little more complicated, but not too much. File:Michelle Obama speech.jpg seems really too non-descriptive but File:Michelle Obama speaks at Kids' Inaugural 1-19-09 hires 090119-N-1928O-182a.jpg is way too much, in my opinion. -- (not little red riding hood) carol (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- For uploads from government sources where there is an alphanumeric file name I tend to include that as part of the name (above) along with a short description and the date of the event depicted. This hopefully puts an adequate amount of info into a file name without making it too long and convoluted. I haven't yet had issues with the numerous other uploads I've made that are similarly named. I tried running some searches on those alphanumeric file numbers with some of my uploads and the older ones seem to come up (e.g. File:Barack Obama at USS Arizona Memorial 8-14-08 080814-N-9758L-071.jpg comes up in a search for 080814-N-9758L-071, and other files do come up with parts of that 08... sequence are plugged in), however new uploads, like Michelle Obama speaking at the Kids' Inaugural apparently don't. As of this writing not even the term "Kids' Inaugural" is coming up in a search, which also has a category for it now. BrokenSphere 01:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would like an explanation as to what reason (s) there can be in uploading a duplicate of a file that has already been uploaded by bypassing the duplicate warning, and then attempting to get rid of the original file by tagging it as badname, which only the uploader is supposed to do, instead of using say the rename template to make a suggested name change. What I've done when I encounter the duplicate warning is defer to the existing file and leave it alone unless there is something wrong with it or it can be improved on (by finding a higher resolution version, cropping, etc.) or something can be extracted from it. In the first example I mentioned, there is clearly a misnaming of the file, but for the second I am not understanding the rationale for uploading a duplicate and then attempting to supersede the original. BrokenSphere 04:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps the search here should use the same hash list that the duplicate image search uses -- that reacts automatically and has often told me when I made an error. Allow me to apologize for the hacks to the people working together system that is in place here. I don't know who I am apologizing for but I do know I have explored ways to work around the people. Also, I use the badname template for category names and image names that I did not upload. I am curious as to what you think the reason is that this person is hacking around you? -- carol (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would like an explanation as to what reason (s) there can be in uploading a duplicate of a file that has already been uploaded by bypassing the duplicate warning, and then attempting to get rid of the original file by tagging it as badname, which only the uploader is supposed to do, instead of using say the rename template to make a suggested name change. What I've done when I encounter the duplicate warning is defer to the existing file and leave it alone unless there is something wrong with it or it can be improved on (by finding a higher resolution version, cropping, etc.) or something can be extracted from it. In the first example I mentioned, there is clearly a misnaming of the file, but for the second I am not understanding the rationale for uploading a duplicate and then attempting to supersede the original. BrokenSphere 04:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hm, I'm going by the language in the template, which states "Please use {{duplicate|correctly named image}} instead if you are not the uploader of this file, or the file is already used on other projects". I won't speculate on motive (s), which is why I'm asking for an explanation from Gage himself/herself. Personally it comes off as vandalism for another uploader to do such a thing without an apparent reason or any explanation. I'm not sure if there is a policy or guideline statement that says that exact duplicates should not deliberately be uploaded unless there's a valid reason to do. BrokenSphere 17:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Gage has been asked to comment.[23] Please remember to assume good faith (en:AGF). Often actions that appear malicious are well-intended. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Could there be the authoring of Commons:Deserve the Assumption of Good Faith? The pasting of that decree from another wiki always seems to mean that the guilty are protected without the need to prove guilt or innocence. It is a one sided decree (injective and not bijective). -- carol (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- there is no guilt in AGF, its also not a punishment it about saying I dont understand what/why you did xxx could you explain. The inclusion of hires and the date in the file name does appear to be unnecessary though I can the reason for including the file number from the source Gnangarra 02:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Could there be the authoring of Commons:Deserve the Assumption of Good Faith? The pasting of that decree from another wiki always seems to mean that the aggressive and those without reason are protected without an established reason for the aggressive behavior. It is a one sided decree (injective and not bijective). -- carol 08:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Could there be the authoring of Commons:Deserve the Assumption of Good Faith? The pasting of that decree from another wiki always seems to mean that the guilty are protected without the need to prove guilt or innocence. It is a one sided decree (injective and not bijective). -- carol (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
File:Wiki.gif - Deceptive Filename
Can an admin reupload this under a different and more appropriate name and delete the old one. Thanks «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nevermind, it qualified for deletion and has been done :) «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done After irc request. Abigor talk 05:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploading of copyrighted, derivative works
Hi. All Ificouldlistentoyou has done here is upload copyrighted, derivative works (scans of album and single covers), described as "Own work by uploader" and "self-made". On English Wikipedia, this user has been blocked as Flyingmonkeyswithparis. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
can not find inclusion
Dear all!
I want to remove Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Elijah_Abel_drawing.png from the open deletion request, so I checked What links here but could not find anything in Commons:Deletion requests/2008/07. So I am unable to remove it. Can somebody help me and tell me what I am doing wrong? --ALE! ¿…? 13:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see it at Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2008/07/03 as request 30 (the last one). But why do you want to remove it. The request is closed and in a few days a bot will archive it? -- Cecil (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ups, too fast. It is archived. Ok, now I'm confused. From where do you want to remove it. It is not in the open requests AFAIS. -- Cecil (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Creative Commons Attribution Icon
How about changing icon from File:cc-by.svg or File:cc-by white.svg to File:cc-by new.svg? Former one is depreciated and no longer used even on Creative Commons deeds and legalcode. Please consider changing icons. Thanks.--Kwj2772 (d) 14:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- We should do that... probably a bot can't do it since many of the templates will be protected :( — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Only in about 50 templates per [24]. MBisanz talk 16:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- You can find a nice list at Commons:Template i18n/Creative Commons License tags. Multichill (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't it easier to upload the new image into the current namespace and then upload the previous image into a namespace like File:cc-by old.svg? -- carol (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can take care of it, I have time to spend. :) Shall I? →Diti the penguin — 17:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- It would be more farsighted to put the years of service into the name of the retiring icon instead of just calling it "old". Even if there is never another icon for this duty used, the name is still more descriptive. It really does make sense to keep the simple namespace the current namespace.... -- carol (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can take care of it, I have time to spend. :) Shall I? →Diti the penguin — 17:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't it easier to upload the new image into the current namespace and then upload the previous image into a namespace like File:cc-by old.svg? -- carol (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
deletion request issue
I was advised on this board a few weeks ago to make a mass deletion request at Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/01/13#Images_of_Wesley_College_(Melbourne) over possible-to-likely copyright violation issues. The request has been sitting there for 11 days without comment. Is it possible to get someone to look at it? Cheers :) Orderinchaos (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done and deleted. Samulili (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
DRAE.jpg and DPD.jpg
Hello,
Could you please send me by e-mail these two images which were deleted without any reason? (They were taken by me and I uploaded them under PD license.) Thanks. (my e-mail is zolithemexican@gmail.com) --El Mexicano (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. The issue here is that while you may have been willing to release the photo freely, what the photo depicts - book covers - have their own copyright, which would be infringed by allowing them to be kept here. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, but I would need these pictures, because I've deleted them from my computer. Thanks. --El Mexicano (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Please
Please delete Category:Burg Eger and Category:Chebský hrad. I combined this categories to Category:Cheb Castle. It's same Castle. THX. --Zipacna1 (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive user uploading copyvio to Commons
I've blocked Doctorinth3tardis (talk · contribs) at the English-language Wikipedia for disruptive editing (repeatedly inserting a non-free photograph despite warnings). The file (which has been copied from en:File:11thdoctor.jpg) is now on Commons at File:IHAVEEVERYRIGHTTOUPLOADTHISPHOTO.jpg - I tagged for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed by DITTardis. Bencherlite (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- They also removed this section - blocked for 2 weeks now. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
delete own discussion page?
Hello, I want to ask you if it is allowed to delete your own disscusion page in COMMONS, and if I found a user who made this action, how can I report it?. this action is vandalism?. --Heraldicos (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean delete or just blank? I don't think we have a rule about either, though it would certainly not be encouraged. Sure the user didn't just archive it? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
New gadget
See MediaWiki talk:Gadget-PrettyLog.js. Includes image thumbnails in log pages, which means that GalleryDetails now can work also on log pages. Please report any problems at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-PrettyLog.js. Enjoy! Lupo 15:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Neat, and it loads the thumbs fast. Thanks! Patrícia msg 22:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
What to do with deprecated templates (and hence invalid licenses) ?
Any idea what to do with Special:WhatLinksHere/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio ? There are a couple of hundreds of images using an invalid license category:Deprecated templates. --Foroa (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- And for the license and geocode template lovers: see Special:WantedTemplates. --Foroa (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- My suggestion is that we go through them and see if they can be PD for some other reason. If not, tag with npd or delete straight away (if it's for sure copyvio, for example). Oh joy. I'll help with that tomorrow. Patrícia msg 22:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't find a proper source for this picture (FP on en). I think it was once uploaded on de:WP, but I cannot be sure because it was not imported on Commons properly. Would somebody be able to check whether it is the case? Plus, as far as I know the stated author has never confirmed authorship, but I can't speak a word of German. --Eusebius (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes he has, see here. Lupo 14:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not the same picture! No such log for de:Datei:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg. --Eusebius (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- "19:49, 13 July 2008 Mogelzahn (Talk | contribs) deleted "Datei:Weinbergschnecke 01.jpg" (Übertragen nach Wikimedia Commons unter dem Namen: Image:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg)" (emphasis mine)
- This means that when it was uploaded to Commons it was uplaoded with a different file name to the original. However, if we are to believe the log, then it's the same image. A dewp admin can look at the deleted image to see if they are the same. Giggy (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not the same picture! No such log for de:Datei:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg. --Eusebius (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) The picture currently visible is not the one you are looking for. At de:Datei:Weinbergschnecke 01.jpg, you see our file File:Weinbergschnecke 01.jpg. However, in the deletion log I linked above, the original uploader said it was his, and the deletion comment from July 13, 2008 reads "transferred to Wikimedia Commons under the name Image:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg". So yes, the log is for this image. Lupo 14:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Probably the correct picture as the first version was deleted after transfer to commons and later a different one was uploaded by the same author under the same name. Rather confusing but likely kosher. Best thing would be of course to contact the author on de:. Lycaon (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, it looks ok to me, didn't see the renaming between de and here. If anyone wants to check please do, but I'm convinced (and I don't speak German :-P). --Eusebius (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Probably the correct picture as the first version was deleted after transfer to commons and later a different one was uploaded by the same author under the same name. Rather confusing but likely kosher. Best thing would be of course to contact the author on de:. Lycaon (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) The picture currently visible is not the one you are looking for. At de:Datei:Weinbergschnecke 01.jpg, you see our file File:Weinbergschnecke 01.jpg. However, in the deletion log I linked above, the original uploader said it was his, and the deletion comment from July 13, 2008 reads "transferred to Wikimedia Commons under the name Image:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg". So yes, the log is for this image. Lupo 14:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Da mein Englisch zu schlecht ist, auf deutsch: Das heute unter File:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg zu findende Bild war tatsächlich am 4. Juni 2005 von de:Benutzer:Heliodor unter der Bezeichnung „Datei:Weinbergschnecke 01.jpg“ in die deutschsprachige Wikipedia geladen worden. de:Benutzer:Tohma setzte am 7. Juli 2008 den "NocCommons"-Baustein, weil er festgestellt hatte, daß das Bild exakt so auch auf Commons exisiterte. Ich habe es daraufhin mit dem oben zutreffend wiedergegebenen Log-Text gelöscht. Später, nämlich am 2. September 2008, hat dann der Commons-Benutzer "Böhringer" auf Commons eine Datei mit dem Titel File:Weinbergschnecke 01.jpg hochgeladen, daß dann natürlich auch auf dewp abrufbar ist. --Mogelzahn (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
"Out of project scope" and how it's used
I'd like to get some clarification on this. It seems to me that an image should go through it's usual discuss/delete?keep process unless it's obvious vandalism or lacking license info. File:01011674c.jpg didn't as seen here. The file was being used on the Autofellatio article on en:WP. As we all know, WP is not censored. An IP address complained and removed the image from the article. The IP was reverted. 4 days later, the image is deleted from Commons citing "Out of project scope" and the bot removes it from the article on en:WP. Unless some valid reason can be given, and of course within Commons rules and guidelines, this image should be restored to Commons, and to the article on en:WP. Thoughts? ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 09:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's odd... I didn't think it was in use, because I saw it come up on the image blacklist at en.wp. As for out of scope, I deleted it as it was apparently being used as an attack image. Also on the grounds of {{Nopenis}}. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Probably was on the image black for all articles at enwp, with an entry on the image whitelist for a single article. MBisanz talk 14:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Such images often get deleted as beeing out of scope. Many low resoluted dicks get uploaded to Commons even we have nearly the same image in higher resolution in our current stock. Usually it's a nice way to proceed what would be decided on a subpage of COM:DEL. However, this image was in use and it was/is thereby not out of scope! {{Nopenis}} does not apply heare, because all non-illustrated files in category Autofellatio are lower resoluted than 01011674c.jpg.
- I'm not happy to undelete dicks in every case, but in that case the reason of deletion was wrong. However, an ordinary deltion request could be created, because of the missing permission of the guy in the picture.
- --D-Kuru (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Likely copyvio. Standard of photography is higher than the user's other pics and the filename looks like something taken out of a database.Geni (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- A high quality of an image doesn't make it a copyvioimage. You also can't really identify an image as copyvio just because of the filename. Just because the filename and the quality aren't real 'proofs' doesn't make the image a non-copyvioimage. However, I had a look at the other pictures by this user and I don't think that this image is a copyio. Both deleted images were low quality-dicks, but (I claim) no copyvios. I don't think that 01011674c.jpg is a copyvio, because the deleted dicks look the same a the existing one (Even all men genitals look nearly the same there are some little differences).
- --D-Kuru (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I know it was in use on enWP because I placed it in the Autofellatio article since the long time one that was there, got deleted. I came to Commons to find a new one and that's the only 1 that would work. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 02:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Original research
You've got a contributor who has decided to use the Commons as a vehicle for publishing her own original research and tribute here: File:Lincolnatpeace2.jpg She's got a long "history" on Wikipedia - so good luck with this. Rklawton (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Removed the text. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think the text was maybe a little long-winded but educational. Some of it is "original research" and should be trimmed down but providing brief history a specific photograph, with sources, is appropriate. --Jarekt (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Italian CoA
WOnering if one or two admins can take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Italian CoA. Leaning strongly towards closing as delete but since it involves ~1000 images it would be good to have a few more (knowledgable) opinions added to the discussion before it's closed. Also if any Italian speaking user knows about if it.wiki's EDP would allow these images to be transwikied there (it:Template:StemmiComunaliItaliani seems to talk about this) then that would also be useful. Thanks /Lokal_Profil 15:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Old OTRS pending images
I was going through the Latest Files queue looking for copyvios, and I ended up in the Category:OTRS pending (as some of the images needed to be in this cat). I see there are a number of images where they've been tagged as permission pending for a while... in one case since September last year. What should be done about these old images? How long do we let an image sit as "pending" before we treat it as one where permission will never arrive? Tabercil (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is a discussion on the pump about this subject, but no conclusion that I know of. I guess that images like this one should be pointed out to OTRS volunteers for checking, and then either fixed or deleted. --Eusebius (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- OTRS volunteers == people who accepted and who received votes enough to be administrators? -- carol (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- No OTRS volunteers == people who can tell admins whether an "OTRS pending" tag was put rightly or not. --Eusebius (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- In other words: People who have access to OTRS tickets: meta:OTRS/personnel. --Slomox (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- No OTRS volunteers == people who can tell admins whether an "OTRS pending" tag was put rightly or not. --Eusebius (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- OTRS volunteers == people who accepted and who received votes enough to be administrators? -- carol (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just a note that not everyone is listed on Meta - the list is perpetually out of date. The people who have access to OTRS are users trusted by WMF staff and the OTRS admins to respond appropriately to queries from the public - it's not a community-elected position. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have been thinking about the problem that may exist where some of the less exciting tasks of the maintenance of commons are not as eh, appealing as some of the other tasks (like the nomination of personal uploads with the intention of having them appear on the Main Page or the reviewing and discussion of what may or maynot be considered to be pornography -- just to name a few) and I would like to put this idea out for consideration. Perhaps the Featured Picture area of the Main Page could be superceded for a while to acknowledge those trusted users and administrators who have done some of the not so appealing tasks that are here. Perhaps there could even be a vote about it as this seems to be one of the tools of trust that attracts and approves the users who then go on to upload images intended for the main page or who review and vote for against pornography, et al. I should write something intelligent and witty about SCOPE to support this idea which really was motivated by practicality and the channeling of interests to where they are (perhaps) needed. -- carol (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Even OTRS pending exists, I don't think that we need a category for every day for now (maybe in the future). I also thought about that problem for a while, because you could tag every copyvio image with {{OTRS pending}}. If the image gets uploaded the uploader gets notified after two weeks if there is no OTRS ticket. If there is still no OTRS ticket two months after the image got uploaded the uploader gets notified again. The second notification should include that the image will get speedy deleted after 2 month (altogether the image shouldn't be undeleted for four months) and also will get speedy deleted if it gets uploaded again without any OTRS permission (to prevent that the image gets uploaded again and again, but only gets deleted after four months). Even it's a quite long time I don't think that it's too long, because many user don't have a look at their talk pages regularly. I also don't think thst four months are too short, because it's nearly a hlaf year.
May you tell me what you think about my idea
--D-Kuru (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think four months is really too long for a copyvio to remain on Commons. I also think that admins should be notified, not uploaders (or both, I don't mean that uploaders must not be notified...) because uploaders of copyvios (those having tagged them as OTRS pending in the absence of a permission) will just not care about the notifications and leave the image remain on Commons for four months + backlog. Now that we actually have the daily categories, it is actually easy to spot the few dubious ones and ask an OTRS volunteer for verification. --Eusebius (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Even OTRS pending is used for on copyvio images pages, not all images which include OTRS pending are copyviofiles. Which admin you want to notify? I would get mad if I find one day 100 "Hi, user XXX uploaded a image and tagged it with {{OTRS pending}}; until now there is no OTRS ticket. Delete it!"-messages on my talk page. Even four months is a bit too long, the time between upload and deletion shouldn't be shorter than two months.
- --D-Kuru (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have been unclear. No need to notify, admins can just have a look at Category:OTRS pending once in a while. --Eusebius (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just a few thoughts - Keep in mind that the permissions queue is almost always backlogged so wait times can be a bit extreme. If we want to delete these images regularly, I'd suggest waiting a minimum of two months from the upload time, but I'd even go so far as to suggest something like three months. Of course images can always be restored if the permission is later found. As for getting lists of images with {{OTRS pending}} on them that were uploaded over X days ago, that would be as simple as having somebody run a database query; even on a regular basis. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- No need for a query, see Category:OTRS pending. OK, if you say it should be longer than two months, let it be so. Anyway, apparently there are only a few pictures with an overdue OTRS tag. --Eusebius (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The query could be used to get a list of images in Category:OTRS pending that were uploaded more than 60 days ago. Unfortunately, there's no way the category can sort that, unless we start creating new categories for each month.Ah, I hadn't realized that we had subcategories for each month. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)- Yes, but the subcat dates are the dates of apposition of the "OTRS pending" templates, not the upload dates as you suggested. --Eusebius (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- When I saw the discussion at Commons:Village_pump#Keeping_track_of_items_with_OTRS_pending as an OTRS agent I started a discussion on the OTRS mailing list, for some insights from them into the process the conclusion there was that 30 days would be sufficient, suggest maybe we just use a month by grouping and give images upto a month before deletion so that images tagged in January can be deleted after 1st March, February images after 1 April, leaving some discression in the hands of the admin and backlogs as to the exact timing of deletions once the category for the month are empty they can be deleted also. Gnangarra 12:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- No need for a query, see Category:OTRS pending. OK, if you say it should be longer than two months, let it be so. Anyway, apparently there are only a few pictures with an overdue OTRS tag. --Eusebius (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Loves Art, our global museum photo events, will be starting on February 1. I would like to put a notice out to our admins here, though, that the photos should not be uploaded to Commons until we have finished our project with the museums of properly annotating all the photos. This project should be completed sometime in March or April. I would request admins noticing such uploads made before the project is complete to please delete them (see also Commons:Wikipedia Loves Art). Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Will be inactive
Hi! as per the policy on adminship/deadminship on commons, I am placing a notice that I will be completely inactive till late 2010. [Just so that I don't have to go through an RFA process again]. I hope to be active once again before this period, but I cannot commit on a shorter timeframe. Nichalp (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck - Nichalp. --Kanonkas(talk) 20:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio
This File:Nora photo takien by uncle Malachi 1972.jpg came from here and is a pixel by pixel match (scroll to bottom). It's an obvious copyvio because the image is from the movie. The uploader claims to have the negative, so I'd suggest an administrator follow through with the contributer rather than delete the image outright. Rklawton (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio 2
This File:Ernie Kovacs.jpg came from a cover shoot for Life Magazine. The photographer was Ralph Morse (click on the Table of Contents link below the cover photo). Cathytreks, the uploader, claimed:
- "Source: this is from my private collection, originally from my uncle's estate, the late Malachi Throne, who was a noted photographer in Los Angeles, California. It was he who took this photo of Mr Kovacs in Hollywood in 1958. In his will this photo/slide in question has become part of my own private collection as well as others here at wikicommons and elsewhere on and off the web, I thank you."
However, this is demonstrably false. Rklawton (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that those are not the same photos, but that they are very similar and were taken at the same time, very likely by the same photographer. Also I am always suspicious of small size images claiming self-made or self-scan. Likely a copyvio --Jarekt (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- There are some more photos from the same uploader, using similar rationales:
- I don't know about this… usually people who upload copyvios don't make such claims, but it seems likely that Ralph Morse is the photographer of File:Ernie Kovacs.jpg. Maybe you should open a deletion request? --Kjetil_r 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Will do. How? Rklawton (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio 3
This File:Festival-landru.jpg had been deleted twice from Wikipedia (En) because the uploader, Cathytreks, originally claimed that she created the file herself from a screenshot. After its 2nd deletion, she uploaded it here and claimed it was her own work and made no mention of fact that it's a screenshot. Here is a copy of the deleted article's original description as posted by Cathytreks:
- "This artist picture is my own interprative creation and work, published without infringment of the copyright owners, Paramount Pictures Inc. It has been "fair use" published heretofore, and was made by yours truly for several Star Trek fan publications and website articles. This image was placed here on the site in good faith into the Wikipedia as it is without copyright violation(s) or fraud, The artistic interpration created work in question here is for non commercial use only. It is policy that such artistic creations may be exhibited on Wikipedia under the public domain provision of United States copyright law."
Given that this user is also in the habit of claiming screen shots as works by her "uncle" - I suspect this image is also a copyvio. Rklawton (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted. Giggy (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Cool. I just figured out that the boy was actor David Henesy and the girl was Denise Nickerson, so the clip probably came from a "Dark Shadows" episode. Rklawton (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Are {{PD-US}} images allowed on Commons? The templatetext says "This media file is in the public domain in the United States." In other countries that image is may not in the public domain. As I know, only those images are allowed on Commons which could be used in every Wikipedia. That does not include f.e. logos, non-free screenshots, etc. Another example would be (if PD-US is allowed) that I could allow only users in Europe to use my pictuers under a CC licence. All other wikipedias wouldn't be allowed to use it.
Especially I want to know if JamesJoyce1904.jpg should be kept, because it would become a featured picture if it can be kept.
thx for help --D-Kuru (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I understand the issue, picture on Commons must have a compatible license both in the US and in the source country. When PD-US solves the issue for the US, a copyright status usually remains to be found for the source country. If the source country is the US, PS-US is enough for Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify the above question, the query is whether we accept the PD-US licence to an image taken and published outside the US, in a country that observes life +70 law for the work of a photographer who died in 1972. I objected at the featured picture candidacy for the image above, and if the objection is mistaken then some images that are featured pictures at en:wiki should be transwikied and hosted here (they're PD under US law but not under the law of their home countries). Durova (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Like Eusebius wrote above, we allow PD-US only for U.S. works. This is not a U.S. work. It's still copyrighted in its source country (Ireland, I presume). Transwiki to en-WP and delete here. Lupo 23:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Besides, when was this published? If 1923 or later, it might not even be PD in the U.S. (see en:URAA). Lupo 23:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Like Eusebius wrote above, we allow PD-US only for U.S. works. This is not a U.S. work. It's still copyrighted in its source country (Ireland, I presume). Transwiki to en-WP and delete here. Lupo 23:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify the above question, the query is whether we accept the PD-US licence to an image taken and published outside the US, in a country that observes life +70 law for the work of a photographer who died in 1972. I objected at the featured picture candidacy for the image above, and if the objection is mistaken then some images that are featured pictures at en:wiki should be transwikied and hosted here (they're PD under US law but not under the law of their home countries). Durova (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The image descriptionpage says "Photograph of James Joyce taken in Dublin during the summer of 1904 by Constantine P. Curran." so I would say that it was taken before 1923
--D-Kuru (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Taken ≠ published. Though the chances that it was "published" before 1923 may be not too bad. But we don't know (yet). Lupo 13:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
All of this user's uploads appear to be copyvios, but I don't have time to nominate them all. Please assist! 65.96.164.13 17:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted & warned — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Badly named categories
Hi, I noticed that there seem to be large number of categories where all subcategories have names that do not meet our Commons:Naming categories standards. For example, I would prefer all the subcategories of Category:Holocaust photographs by year to follow "Holocaust photographs from 19xx" format or "Holocaust in 19xx" format, instead of current "The Holocaust 19xx". Similar with subcategories of Category:Hitler photographs by year I would prefer "Adolf Hitler in 19xx" format instead of "Hitler 19xx". The same goes with Category:Goebbels photographs by year, Category:Goering photographs by year, Category:Himmler photographs by year, etc. I have 3 questions at this point:
- If it should be fixed? Making sure others agree it is a problem.
- What category name formats to use? Comments on proposed names.
- How should it be fixed? Should one manually put {{Moveto}} template to tens of similar categories or is there a better way?
--Jarekt (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- The categories are created by the same user, inform him on the naming convention and the renaming can be done with with User:CommonsDelinker. Creating a list of delinker commands can be done with Excel within minutes (the years are consecutive, {{move cat|Hitler 19xx|Adolf Hitler in 19xx}}). We have possible good categorization shemes for more recent politicians with many free licensed photos like Category:George W. Bush, Category:Vladimir Putin or Category:Lech Kaczyński. --Martin H. (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- I renamed/renaming the by year categories for Goebbels, Hitler, Göring and Himmler, and i will inform the person who created the categories for this 4 persons. Of course the lot of new images leads to some wrong categorie names but thats better than no categorisation, also the "by year" categorization of important persons of history is a very good thing in my eyes. So i dont think this needs any administrator attention, the time will fix it. --Martin H. (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- This is much better, thank you for repairing it and thank you for keeping the annual category it helps find historical images among other things.Mtsmallwood (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I renamed/renaming the by year categories for Goebbels, Hitler, Göring and Himmler, and i will inform the person who created the categories for this 4 persons. Of course the lot of new images leads to some wrong categorie names but thats better than no categorisation, also the "by year" categorization of important persons of history is a very good thing in my eyes. So i dont think this needs any administrator attention, the time will fix it. --Martin H. (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Welcome
Commons:Welcome was recently move-vandalized to a Persian title, with some text replaced with Persian characters. (By a user with a username in Persian, I should add.) I reverted the move, but the Talk page (Commons talk:Welcome) was double-moved and thus has a history and can't be re-moved over the redirect. An administrator will have to finish the reversion. Powers (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 16:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This needs more checking by someone who can read the text. It appears to be vandalism, and I have blocked the user until that can be checked, but it may just be someone trying their best. Some of the changes are still in place according to the logs. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done, the edits to the fa Mainpage صفحهٔ اصلی are done by User:Mardetanha, all other edits are reverted. Only two images left: File:زنان سوادآموز ایرانی.jpg without license and File:سیّد محمّدحسين طباطبايی.jpg should be marked with "no license" because it is not a free screenshot, and no source is given (the source text entered to fa.wp appears to mean [25] = freedom) --Martin H. (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Something wrong with rfd script?
There seems to be something wrong or unstable with the script that is called when you click on "Nominate for deletion" in the tool menue on the page of an image you want to request for deletion. Every now and then (too often recently) an "incomplete deletion requests" is produced (see for example: File:3faze1.jpg), though the script seems to have processed all 3 required steps of the rfd and actually has generated all required subpages. Contrary to what is said in the message on the image description page, the subpage Commons:Deletion requests/File:3faze1.jpg has been generated; however the link on the image description page stays red. Any idea/solution? --Túrelio (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Purge the page when it tells you the deletion request is incomplete. In all likelihood this will fix it. Perhaps a note to that effect in the warning (ie so it is displayed only when the nomination is "incomplete") would be a good idea. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that the script creates the page at the same time it edits the file description page. Thus, if the file description edit is processed a few milliseconds before the creation of the DR subpage, the evaluation of the template code will give the warning message about the missing subpage. The page is rendered and cached with that warning message, even thought you already created the subpage by now. The only way to fix this is purging the file description page as that re-evaluates the template code and removes the warning message. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestions. I'll try it. --Túrelio (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, the problem can be avoided. I use an experimental setup that introduces a slight timeout, which appears to be sufficient to avoid this "purge problem". To test it, just add importScript ('User:Lupo/qd.js'); to your monobook.js or other skin-specific user script file. It's backwards-compatible with the current default setup. Problem reports to User talk:Lupo, please. Localisations are done at subpages of MediaWiki:Quick-delete2.js for legacy reasons. If it's deemed stable, we could replace the current code at MediaWiki:Quick-delete-code.js by this rewrite... Lupo 16:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestions. I'll try it. --Túrelio (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is a link to http://theuniversalmatrix.com showing up when this template is included on a page? Cirt (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- The problem was {{OTRS pending/lang}}. To be more accurate, this particular edition from TUMoNSaLC (talk · contribs). I've rollbacked the edition, protected the new template and blocked the user for infinity. Cheers! KveD (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! Cirt (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio 4
Large set of copyright images uploaded by User:Rolandc73 - see User:Rolandc73/gallery. Finavon (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Was Ticket:2006110810005047 found invalid? Also see Commons:Deletion requests/All files by User Terraprints (2006) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coast france map.jpg (2009). Also, it appears as if many files from his gallery have already been deleted. Lupo 14:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- How is anyone supposed to know that an OTRS Ticket is available? There is nothing on the first 6 images in the gallery. Is the ticket valid and does it apply to images uploaded by Rolandc73? Finavon (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'll check and get back to you. It will take me some time to search through the database. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- The ticket is valid for those images, yes. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Re How is anyone supposed to know that an OTRS Ticket is available? True, the user should have placed the OTRS template on the images. But Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coast france map.jpg is linked on the user's talk page, and that DR links to the 2006 DR at Commons:Deletion requests/All files by User Terraprints, which was closed as "keep", giving the ticket as the reason. Lupo 10:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- How is anyone supposed to know that an OTRS Ticket is available? There is nothing on the first 6 images in the gallery. Is the ticket valid and does it apply to images uploaded by Rolandc73? Finavon (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Since all of the images have been properly tagged with the OTRS ticket number by NonvocalScream (talk · contribs), I've closed the nomination and noted the relation between the two accounts. An admin might want to check Rolandc73's deleted uploads to see if they would fall under the same confirmation. There are quite a few redlinks in his log. - auburnpilot talk 15:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- The deleted ones all use a dash as the word separator. I only spot-checked, but it seems they all were moved/reuploaded under the same name but using a blank as the word separator and then deleted as duplicates. See e.g. the log for File:Annapolis-md-satellite-map.jpg. Lupo 15:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yep - I remember doing those deletions, and they were duplicates. I believe the uploader also switched to using the Terraprints user name, perhaps thinking that would make the connection clearer. --dave pape (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- The deleted ones all use a dash as the word separator. I only spot-checked, but it seems they all were moved/reuploaded under the same name but using a blank as the word separator and then deleted as duplicates. See e.g. the log for File:Annapolis-md-satellite-map.jpg. Lupo 15:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt action. Finavon (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
(this is a copy of my recent announcement from the Village pump for those who don't have this on their watchlist)
Dear Commons admins/sysops/whatever you want to be called ;-),
a list of Commons images from Category:Possibly unfree Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR that have been marked by FlickreviewR as having a license not acceptable on the Commons is available here. The list needs to be checked by hand, section by section, basing on this directives. Every pair of hands would be very helpful. Regards, odder 15:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hoping not to put a drop of water in the wine ;-) But has been taken due care of the problem that the license of the original image on Flickr might have been changed to be more restrictive after the image had been uploaded to Commons? (a problem relevant to images uploaded before FlickrReview was installed on Commons). --Túrelio (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Even if that is the case, how do you want to determine whether the license on Commons was ever valid? I'm afraid, we have no other choice but to delete these images. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Borrado de imagenes que contengan imagenes de personas identificables / Deleting images containing pictures of identifiable people
Según la Agencia (Española) de Protección de Datos la captación y divulgación por Internet de imagenes de una persona sin su consentimiento puede ser una infracción grave de la Ley de Protección de Datos que sería sancionada con una multa mínima de 60.000 euros. Es posible que otros paises apliquen ésta o doctrinas similares con lo cual la mera publicación en Wikipedia, o los proyectos hermanos, de fotografías de personas que puedan ser identificadas, y que por tanto pueda afectar a su privacidad, podria suponer un grave daño para estos proyectos. Deberían borrarse todas aquelles imágenes que contengan rostros humanos identificables, de la misma forma que se ha hecho con las imagenes con copyright a fin de evitar futuras reclamaciones a menos que su publicación corresponda a personas muertas con una anterioridad de unos 70 ó 100 años, y siempre que correspondan a un hecho historicamente relevante. Según El Mundo Protección de Datos decidió investigar de oficio por la mera difusión de la imagen de una persona en Internet sin su consentimiento.
Vease: Paloma Díaz Sotero, El Mundo, p. 33, 5 de febrero de 2009. Onda Cero
Vease: Onda Cero
According to the agency (Spanish) Data Protection for the collection and dissemination on Internet of images of a person without their consent may be a serious breach of the Data Protection Act which would be punishable by a minimum fine of 60,000 euros. It is possible that other countries apply this or similar doctrines which the mere publication in Wikipedia, or the sister projects, photographs of people who can be identified, and thus may affect their privacy, could pose a serious harm to these projects. Should delete all those images with recognizable human faces in the same manner as was done with copyrighted images in order to avoid future claims unless your publication reflects people death with a few previously 70 or 100 years, and provided that apply to a relevant historical facts. According toEl Mundo Data Protection decided to investigate ex officio by the mere distribution of the image of a person on the Internet without their consent.
See: Article by Paloma Días Sotero, El Mundo, p. 33, february 5, 2009.
See: Onda Cero
Vibria (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Just making them unidentifiable (ie. blurring) would be enough for that. The consent is only needed for personal data (LOPD 6.1). The point is that it understood as personal data that the person was personally identifiable.
"El artículo 1.4 del Real Decreto 1332/1994, en vigor en el momento en que se constataron los hechos imputados, y el vigente Real Decreto 1720/2007, de 21 de diciembre, por el que se aprueba el Reglamento de desarrollo de la LOPD, coinciden en definir el concepto de datos de carácter personal como cualquier información numérica, alfabética, gráfica, fotográfica, acústica o de cualquier otro tipo, concerniente a una persona física identificada o identificable.
En este mismo sentido se pronuncia el artículo 2.a) de la Directiva 95/46/CE del Parlamento y del Consejo, de 24 de octubre de 1995, relativa a la Protección de las Personas Físicas en lo que respecta al tratamiento de datos personales y a la libre circulación de estos datos, según el cual, a efectos de dicha Directiva, se entiende por dato personal “toda información sobre una persona física identificada o identificable; se considerará identificable toda persona cuya identidad pueda determinarse, directa o indirectamente, en particular mediante un número de identificación o uno o varios elementos específicos, característicos de su identidad física, fisiológica, psíquica, económica, cultural o social”. Asimismo, el Considerando 26 de esta Directiva se refiere a esta cuestión señalando que, para determinar si una persona es identificable, hay que considerar el conjunto de los medios que puedan ser razonablemente utilizados por el responsable del tratamiento o por cualquier otra persona para identificar a aquélla.
El artículo 1.4 del Real Decreto 1332/1994, en vigor en el momento en que se constataron los hechos imputados, y el vigente Real Decreto 1720/2007, de 21 de diciembre, por el que se aprueba el Reglamento de desarrollo de la LOPD, coinciden en definir el concepto de datos de carácter personal como cualquier información numérica, alfabética, gráfica, fotográfica, acústica o de cualquier otro tipo, concerniente a una persona física identificada o identificable.
En este mismo sentido se pronuncia el artículo 2.a) de la Directiva 95/46/CE del Parlamento y del Consejo, de 24 de octubre de 1995, relativa a la Protección de las Personas Físicas en lo que respecta al tratamiento de datos personales y a la libre circulación de estos datos, según el cual, a efectos de dicha Directiva, se entiende por dato personal “toda información sobre una persona física identificada o identificable; se considerará identificable toda persona cuya identidad pueda determinarse, directa o indirectamente, en particular mediante un número de identificación o uno o varios elementos específicos, característicos de su identidad física, fisiológica, psíquica, económica, cultural o social”. Asimismo, el Considerando 26 de esta Directiva se refiere a esta cuestión señalando que, para determinar si una persona es identificable, hay que considerar el conjunto de los medios que puedan ser razonablemente utilizados por el responsable del tratamiento o por cualquier otra persona para identificar a aquélla."
However, thare is a difference to take into account: The video uploaders were mocking of that person. That is compoletely different than the images that commons may host in its scope.
Also interesiting, YouTube wasn't made responsible for that, as it was the uploader's fault, from the ToS.
Platonides (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Según el relato de El Mundo, y otros medios, no se ha tomado en consideración el contenido de las imágenes ni la condición del individuo grabado, sino simplemente la mera captación y difusión de las imágenes. En cuanto a que no se ha hecho responsable a YouTube, se da la circunstancia de que este medio no se hace responsable de la actuación de particulares a través de sus cuentas, mientras que en Wikipedia no hay responsabilidad de ningún usuario de este medio. Una solución podría ser efectivamente hacer borrosa la cara, aunque en este caso muchas fotografias perderían por completo su interés, por ejemplo una foto de un artista famoso borrosa no tendría ningún interés. Tengo entendido que la mayoría de paises dan protección a la propia imagen, por lo que cualquier fotografía de una persona viva, incluso fallecidos recientes, podria desencadenar, si esta fotografía no es del agrado del fotografiado, una reclamación judicial que pondría en peligro el proyecto. En cuanto a que el responsable es el usuario es bastante dudoso, ya que quien decide en última instancia quien es el responsable es un juez, que lo decidirá a su criterio y según las leyes de su jurisdicción. Vibria (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Vease: El caso de la Calle Montera
En la Calle Montera se da la concurrencia de videos tomados en una vía pública y haber hecho borrosas las imágenes, además de que según los autores se hizo con el propósito de disminuir la explotación sexual de unas prostitutas, aún así la Agencia de Protección de Datos sanciona a las personas que han subido los videos. El determinante podría ser la inexistencia del permiso de la persona filmada. Vibria (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is like YouTube in that it is not responsible for what people upload. Administrators do not work for Wikipedia, they are just ordinary users with a few extra privileges. However, that is only a minor point. The question at hand is how should we go about complying with Spanish law? The matter of identifiable people has been raised and resolved previously. However, if we are facing a new ruling from Spanish courts, then we must take this into consideration. Rklawton (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- In most of the countries in the world if anyone is photographied, and this image is loaded on Internet, they could ask in a court to cease the release of their image, and might be ask an indemnity. That is a right of the people, and the Judge could make responsible the user and also the project in Internet. Vibria (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- That statement is simply not true. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- In most of the countries in the world if anyone is photographied, and this image is loaded on Internet, they could ask in a court to cease the release of their image, and might be ask an indemnity. That is a right of the people, and the Judge could make responsible the user and also the project in Internet. Vibria (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
“Are you breaking the law just by taking a person's picture in the street? HL: Yes, because a picture can indentify an individual and under the Data Protection Act (DPA), a person must consent to the capture an storage of any of their personal information. Without this consent, a photographer is at risk of a civil claim by their subject.”
This is not mine this is from [26], this is (I think) the law in U. K., is not only in Spain. Vibria (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but that law only applies if it is a digital camera. Which shows how absurd this all is. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Some real examples
- "The Quebec Charter.
The law in Quebec provides an interesting comparison with Australian law in this area. Unlike the rest of Canada’s provinces, which are governed by a common law system, Quebec’s private law is governed by civil law. Quebec has enacted the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedom. Section 5 guarantees every person a ‘right to respect for his private life’. In the relatively recent case of Aubry v Editions Vice-Versa,[32] the Supreme Court of Canada held that the€ publication of an ordinary citizen’s photograph without consent could, in certain cases, violate his or her right of privacy under Quebec law."
- From [27]
- "Can it be unlawful to take photographs of people in a public place? The New Zealand Court of Appeal recently upheld the conviction of someone who did just that,[1] and it implied that if he had been a paparazzi, he might not have been convicted, because he would then have had a “legitimate purpose” in taking the photographs. "
- From [28]
- "In August 2005, the Australian Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) released a Discussion Paper entitled Unauthorised Photographs on the Internet and Ancillary Privacy Issues and called for public submissions.[1] One of the instances causing concern was the covert photography of hundreds of children at South Bank Parklands (an artificial beach setting) in Queensland and the subsequent publication of the photographs on a website.[2] Even though the photographs did not contain images of the children’s private parts or doing private acts (for example, showering, toileting or changing clothes), it caused community outrage because the photographs were taken without consent of the parents of the children and were placed on a website where a larger audience could view the photographs. "
- From [29]
- "Naomi Campbell is an internationally-known celebrity model. Campbell had, in the past, publicly asserted that she did not take drugs. The Mirror newspaper obtained information that Campbell was attending meetings of Narcotics Anonymous (NA) to treat a drug addiction. The source of the information was either a member of Campbell’s entourage or another attendee at NA meetings. The Mirror published an article revealing that Campbell was a drug addict and praising her for seeking treatment. The article was accompanied by photographs of Campbell depicting her in a public street leaving an NA meeting. The photographs were taken by means a telephoto lens while the freelance photographer was concealed in a parked car. Campbell complained to the Mirror and commenced legal proceedings. The Mirror subsequently published articles that were highly critical of Campbell."..."Campbell initiated proceedings for damages for breach of confidence and for compensation under the Data Protection Act 1998 (UK) (the DPA). At first instance, Morland J held that Campbell was entitled to damages for breach of confidence and compensation under the DPA. He awarded modest damages and an increment for aggravated damages, based on the injury to feelings resulting from hurtful comments in the publications. The Court of Appeal reversed the findings, holding that there was no breach of confidence and that the Mirror was entitled to the media exemption in s32 of the DPA."..."In a 3/2 split decision, the House of Lords held that publication of the articles (and associated photographs ) amounted to a breach of confidence and reinstated the orders of Morland J."
- From [30]
- "You can play like the Paparazzi all you want, but make sure you follow the laws in photography to avoid being sued or criminally charged."..."Before you can take your photography career into the privacy of someone else's home, you need to gain consent from that individual."..."Even when photographing people in public, you have to consider the context of each picture before you decide to print or post them. Privacy laws protect individuals from being rendered out of context in print or electronically, though the laws are very vague. For example, if you take a picture of Britney Spears and place it next to a story about child abuse, she could say that the association between her picture and the story constitutes libel."
- From USA
- "Thanks to increasingly inexpensive computing power, new street level photography is just beginning to be integrated with web-based mapping technology. This photography includes major arteries, downtown cores, tourist attractions, business or commercial centers, airports, high growth and developing neighborhoods, and sports facilities and arenas. While satellite photos, online maps and street level photography have found useful commercial and consumer applications, it remains important that individual privacy rights are considered and respected during the development and implementation of these new technologies.
- en la potestad de impedir a cualquiera retratar sin permiso nuestra imagen y reproducirla o hacer de ella cualquier uso, aun cuando sea inocente.
Vibria (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Overwritten image
Hi, User:Blurpeace has overwritten File:1970-1971 Holden HG Monaro GTS 01.jpg with (presumably) one of his/her own images. Could an administrator please move the new file (uploaded 23:44, February 5, 2009) to File:1970-1971 Holden HG Monaro GTS coupe 01.jpg. Thanks in advance. OSX (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done -- Avi (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Help with offensive image title please
Hi. Would someone please change the name of this image, File:Scilon in action.jpg. "Scilon" is an offensive term for a Scientologist coined by enemies of Scientology. I am sure that you can think of analogies on your own so I will spare you that. I would appreciate it if the title and description were made neutral, i.e. do not simply make it "Scientologist in action" as there is no proof that the one lady is a Scientologist nor that the other is a protester nor what the sign says nor exactly what is happening in that picture. You get the idea. "Protest at London Premier" or something neutral like that please. If you could also edit out the unsupported claim in the description that the center lady is a Scientologist that would be appreciated. We should be careful when importing images from Flickr that we do not also import the bias and unsupported claims that accompany them. Thank you. --Justanother (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Two items. #1 Neither Wikipedia nor Wiktionary have entries for "Scilon", never heard of the term. Besides, we can't possibly "coined offensive terms". If I stared claiming that "Photo" was an offensive term coined by the enemies of the Church of ShakataGaNai, would you really expect commons to remove every time instance of the word "photo"? #2 Commons is not censored nor is it have an unbais clause like Wikipedia. (PS. You history on en.wp is known, I'd advise you play very very nice here) --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh please, just Google "Scilon". Though if you are not already familiar with the term and its use then I might say that you are unqualified to make the judgment call here and your ridiculous analogy re "photo" supports that claim. --Justanother (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just do as they say or they may sue you. What's in a name? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am not a "they". --Justanother (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but if it hasn't passed in to common usage (worthy enough of at least wiktionary, let alone a real dictionary) then I'm sorry, but it's not a real word. You can associate any meaning with any word you want, it doesn't mean we agree. I don't think Scilon is offensive, because I see no definition that it is. If you want an example of a word that is derogatory and made it into common usage, see Nigger. And my anology with "photo" isn't ridiculous, it is the same concept. I'm sorry. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your (artificial, IMO) distinction makes my case another way then (although the Urban Dictionary shows it as derogatory). If the word "scilon" does not exist then it has no place in the title; e.g. if I uploaded a picture of George Bush and labeled it "Nurflehead at a press conference" don't you think that would be inappropriate? The RS (MSN video) calls the lady in gray a "Cruise supporter". Why not just change it to that? --Justanother (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm asking you to {{cite}} your source that your term is derogatory, so there is no artificial distinction. As for urban dictionary, sorry, I think. UB also defines "paper boy" as "noun, slang, technical. Someone who still reads books on paper instead of an e-book reader. ". Really now? Anyways. If you don't like the caption, feel free to edit that, mainly because it doesn't make sense. But maybe it does. Maybe the girl was holding up an "I LOVE TOM CRUISE" sign 15 seconds before this picture was taken. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your (artificial, IMO) distinction makes my case another way then (although the Urban Dictionary shows it as derogatory). If the word "scilon" does not exist then it has no place in the title; e.g. if I uploaded a picture of George Bush and labeled it "Nurflehead at a press conference" don't you think that would be inappropriate? The RS (MSN video) calls the lady in gray a "Cruise supporter". Why not just change it to that? --Justanother (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but if it hasn't passed in to common usage (worthy enough of at least wiktionary, let alone a real dictionary) then I'm sorry, but it's not a real word. You can associate any meaning with any word you want, it doesn't mean we agree. I don't think Scilon is offensive, because I see no definition that it is. If you want an example of a word that is derogatory and made it into common usage, see Nigger. And my anology with "photo" isn't ridiculous, it is the same concept. I'm sorry. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am not a "they". --Justanother (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just do as they say or they may sue you. What's in a name? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh please, just Google "Scilon". Though if you are not already familiar with the term and its use then I might say that you are unqualified to make the judgment call here and your ridiculous analogy re "photo" supports that claim. --Justanother (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The photo title is the same as the one used in Flickr. Perhaps we should ask the Flickr user to change the name first - so the titles match? Rklawton (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Flickr is not WikiMedia. The title for an image on Commons carries over to Wikipedia so bias here carries over to a site that DOES have NPOV rules. The simple point is that anyone familiar with the term knows that it is a derogatory term for a Scientologist and the fact that some here (and the clear majority so far) seem to think that Scientologists are deserving of derogatory terms and we should argue semantics rather than do the right (and very simple) thing is telling. But it is not the subject of this post. Just change the title, please. --Justanother (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, but that's not how it works. It could be named "1235345348.jpg" here, doesn't mean anything to Wikipedia. In fact image names don't how up. Commons does _not_ have an unbiased rule. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please, ShakataGaNai, if you disagree with the ideology of Scientology or Justanother or both, that's okay. I do too. But Commons policies are true for Scientologists too. Images should use descriptive names. Scilon _is_ a derogatory term for a Scientologist. Googling the term is enough proof for that. So the request is valid. I inserted the appropiate template. --Slomox (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously I dont care about scientology, I dont even know what the hell "scilon" is, and that's my point. If you want to rename it on the basis of not being descriptive enough, be my guest. But as of yet, noone in this convo has shown a reliable source of the meaning of "scilon" and that it is a derogatory term. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. Just google it. Do you think, there is an elected gremium that officially decides whether terms are derogatory or not that can be cited as a "source"? --Slomox (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's a problem with the term "Scientologist", too. When I hear the word, I think "idiot", "moron", "creten", "dupe", "fool", etc. As in "don't mind him, he's just a scientologist." Clearly, we shouldn't apply this word to a person in an image as it is defamatory - just as we wouldn't title a photo "prostitute" without some sort of solid evidence that this is true. Rklawton (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think you mean "cretin"? --Justanother (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's a problem with the term "Scientologist", too. When I hear the word, I think "idiot", "moron", "creten", "dupe", "fool", etc. As in "don't mind him, he's just a scientologist." Clearly, we shouldn't apply this word to a person in an image as it is defamatory - just as we wouldn't title a photo "prostitute" without some sort of solid evidence that this is true. Rklawton (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- For God's sake, upload under a different title. Stop poking the Scientologists needlessly. Bastique demandez 20:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Rklawton, replace 'Scientologist' with 'Hindu' or 'Baptist' in that post and see how it reads. A statement like that about any religion isn't really appropriate, is it? 'Scilon' is a new word to most of us, probably. I had no idea it existed, let alone whether it was pejorative. But the response to perceived offense--whether the complaint is merited or not--should not be to give unambiguous offense. Durova (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would think it reads the same: If I were in the photo, I wouldn't like to be called something I am not. Besides, I associate Hindu with "Ghandi" - hardly a negative connotation. I associate "Scientologist" with "Tom Cruise" (a
well knownfruit cake). Big difference. Rklawton (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)- With respect, please consider a refactor. Durova (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- (facepalm) Durova (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- So what's stopping you from changing the file name? It shouldn't be all that big a deal. Rklawton (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I happen to be a named party at an active arbitration case about Scientology at a sister WMF site. The person who requested this change is also a named party. So of course that merits recusal from direct action upon his request. Please reconsider this tone; the dispute is heated enough already. Durova (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- So what's stopping you from changing the file name? It shouldn't be all that big a deal. Rklawton (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- (facepalm) Durova (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- With respect, please consider a refactor. Durova (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would think it reads the same: If I were in the photo, I wouldn't like to be called something I am not. Besides, I associate Hindu with "Ghandi" - hardly a negative connotation. I associate "Scientologist" with "Tom Cruise" (a
- Rklawton, replace 'Scientologist' with 'Hindu' or 'Baptist' in that post and see how it reads. A statement like that about any religion isn't really appropriate, is it? 'Scilon' is a new word to most of us, probably. I had no idea it existed, let alone whether it was pejorative. But the response to perceived offense--whether the complaint is merited or not--should not be to give unambiguous offense. Durova (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Rklawton, I inserted a rename request in the page. The request will be dealt with by a bot in the next hours or days. There's nothing more to be said in this thread. --Slomox (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Durova & Slomox. All is now clear in my fuzzy gray head. For the while, at least. I'm guessing that with my Tom Cruise comments, I'm not going to be of much assistance with the other arbitration. More's the pity. Rklawton (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Rollback
Does Commons have non-admin rollback configured? If so, can an admin assign me to that group? Thanks. --UserB (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hello,
- We don't have that activated on Commons, so I can't give it to you.
- It could however be a idea to activate it, maybe time for village pump discussion about it.
- Best regards,
- Abigor talk 21:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dang. I don't do nearly enough here to need adminship, (about the only time it would be useful is when I am cleaning out a user's collection of copyvios on en and find that some of them have been blindly moved to Commons), but on the occasion that I see vandalism, it would be nice to have the rollback button instead of having to wait for my slow internet connection. --UserB (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Added to Commons:Village_pump#Rollback for discussion. --UserB (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dang. I don't do nearly enough here to need adminship, (about the only time it would be useful is when I am cleaning out a user's collection of copyvios on en and find that some of them have been blindly moved to Commons), but on the occasion that I see vandalism, it would be nice to have the rollback button instead of having to wait for my slow internet connection. --UserB (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
POTY 2008
Hey, all. Voting's going to begin soon, and we've ended up stuck doing a somewhat low-tech method this year. Can I ask for a few volunteers to help monitor the voting pages? If we have enough of us, we can probably divide up the work, and it won't be too much of a problem.
Adminship probably isn't required, but I think being an established user would have to be. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, does anyone know whether this is normally advertised on the Wikipedias as well, and how one goes about sorting that out? I kind of ended up with this because I didn't want to see the tradition die when the old committee disappeared, but I've not been involved with past years. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be a problem for me to watch some pages...
- I think it would be a good idea to spam the message on the projects. I will place a message on projects where I am active. Abigor talk 15:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- You can request a global message on m:Global notifications/requests. However, posting a note to Signposts on the projects where people are active cannot hurt, I guess. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
What was that?? Lupo 15:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Poaching prevention ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the image and placed some information on his talkpage. Abigor talk 15:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Protected templates with cascading protection
Please undo cascading protection by AVRS. Because of cascading protection, we cannot even correct misspelled letter or retranslate more naturally. Thanks.--Kwj2772 (d) 07:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- You have a link please? Abigor talk 08:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. Too many templates are cascading-protected. You may see [31]. Thanks.--Kwj2772 (d) 14:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- These are widely used templates. They shouldn't be protected through cascading, but they probably should be protected individually. I guess you should use {{Editprotected}}. --Eusebius (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. Too many templates are cascading-protected. You may see [31]. Thanks.--Kwj2772 (d) 14:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Deficient control of image transfers
When by chance I checked the contributions of Utopies (talk · contribs), I realized how deficient our control mechanisms still are. This user has uploaded/copied quite some images (taken by others) from :en, in some changed the licensing from PD to GFDL (in File:Big Bear Lake1.jpg that was originally double-licensed he removed the CC license), put his own username in the author entry, removed the original meta data, changed the photo date to his upload date and replaced the usually english description by a french one. For details see his talkpage and his upload history. I'm not sure whether the wrongly licensed images should be "license-corrected" or deleted and re-transfered. If those wrongly transfered images had been already deleted on :en, probably nobody could have detected the wrongful changes.--Túrelio (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunatly this happens a lot. Things that go wrong most often:
- Wrong licence
- Wrong author
- Not original image (thumbnail)
- If the image is not deleted yet, use Commonshelper to get the correct text (you might want to stick to User:Multichill/Moving to Commons to get the right description). Multichill (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ideally, an image transfer would include description, edit history, and talk pages. And especially now with many universal usernames images should be uploaded under original uploader's name instead of under the name of person doing the transfer. The only way to do it correctly is in much more automatic way. Where person is only involved in verifying that license is still correct and possibly fixing / adding categories afterwords. But I am sure I am preaching to the choir here. --Jarekt (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just for your motivation [not ;)]: the prefix search. I hate this special page. --Martin H. (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Next case: Bazov (talk · contribs) changed the license of en:File:Peev.jpg and of en:File:Ivankov.jpg when copying it to Commons (File:Peev.jpg and File:Ivankov.jpg) from CC-BY to GFDL.--Túrelio (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, transfered them again (File:Georgi Peev.jpg & File:Dimitar Ivankov.jpg). Would anyone be interested in forming a raiding party? A group to transfer and clean up a lot of free files from enwp to Commons. I can bot transfer a lot of files per hour, but the proper checking and clean up is a lot of work. Multichill (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- @Multichill, thanks for the re-uploads with correct license.--Túrelio (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Search default passed - next step
Defaulting our search box to "Search" instead of "Go" has passed unanimously. Does anyone know the next step to institute the change? --David Shankbone (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I placed the bug on Bugzilla. Abigor talk 21:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- You rock. That is what you do. --David Shankbone (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
help needed
Hello. I tried to upload a newer version of 'Hat riddle.svg', but the picture didn't change. Eventually I uploaded the newer version under the name 'Hat riddle2.svg', could you please delete the old version: 'Hat riddle.svg'. gratefully yours, טוקיוני (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done. --Túrelio (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
So new at Wikipedia it hurts
OK, so if I new anything less about being a Wikipedia user I would probably be banned from the site. I am hoping to have a pretty pedestrian relationship with Wikipedia and simply want to add an occassional image now and again. Here is the problem, the images I have were supplied to me via the airlines when I wrote to them as a kid - decades before today's world wide web was even a sparkle in someone's eye. I just asked for pictures of their planes and they sent them to me with a thank you note. At eight years old I would never have asked "does this include the copyright?" - conversely I don't think the airlines ever would have imagined this medium when they supplied them and no copyright information - what I could and couldn't do with them was every supplied, expressed, or implied. Needless to say, these images are of historical significance and I believe they would be beneficial to the Wikipedia community. Some of these companies have not been around for years - or decades, how would I ever casually know if I am infringing on a copyright? Please help as I feel like the last kid on the block without a television set and so want to "tune in" and share in the excitement of being part of the Wikipedia experience. Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmnlge (talk • contribs) 00:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
- Well, if no copyright status is known, there's no way we can host those images at Commons. That's annoying, but we cannot do anything about it. I'm sorry that my answer doesn't turn out more positive. --Slomox (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Promotional and publicity photos are generally not acceptable for Wikimedia Commons, unless specifically released under a free license, or having expired copyright -- see Commons:Problematic_sources#Promotional_photos... AnonMoos (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Racist subcategorization?
I was quite surprised to see that Category:Jewish people of the United States is a subcat to Category:Ethnic groups in the United States. The same is true for Category:Ethnic groups in Poland. The categorization of Jewish as ethnic group looks somewhat racist to me. But being a German, I may be a little over-sensitive. Other opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Turelio, it can beter be changed. Abigor talk 15:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- In the US, few people regard this as a sensitive issue for living individuals, but the Polish category is mainly old b/w photos, often of groups. I think commons will have to live with this difference in attitudes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- According to w:ethnic group: An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on a presumed or real common heritage. Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits, real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups. I my opinion Category:Jewish people of the United States or Category:Jewish people of Poland meet this definition and are classified properly. However I can image a situation when someone start labeling famous people as either Jewish or not-Jewish by using categories like Category:Jewish people of Poland. IMO that would not be correct use of those categories. For example I remember seeing discussions in polish wikipedia over famous polish poet w:Julian Tuwim and if/how one should mention his Jewish heritage. We should have similar discussions about current and future subcategores of this tree. --Jarekt (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- In the U.S. we have something called "Black History Month". Our public schools celebrate the lives and accomplishments of African-Americans. To do this, we need to "categorize" people as such. That is, we need to know if someone is African-American or not. Is this racist? Rklawton (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I guess it all comes down to intentions. Including someone in an ethnic group for purposes of celebrating this group achievements, is certainly fine. On the other end of the spectrum are discussions about suspected Jewish ancestry of Sarah Palin or some other famous people. --Jarekt (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- In the U.S. we have something called "Black History Month". Our public schools celebrate the lives and accomplishments of African-Americans. To do this, we need to "categorize" people as such. That is, we need to know if someone is African-American or not. Is this racist? Rklawton (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- According to w:ethnic group: An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on a presumed or real common heritage. Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits, real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups. I my opinion Category:Jewish people of the United States or Category:Jewish people of Poland meet this definition and are classified properly. However I can image a situation when someone start labeling famous people as either Jewish or not-Jewish by using categories like Category:Jewish people of Poland. IMO that would not be correct use of those categories. For example I remember seeing discussions in polish wikipedia over famous polish poet w:Julian Tuwim and if/how one should mention his Jewish heritage. We should have similar discussions about current and future subcategores of this tree. --Jarekt (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- In the US, few people regard this as a sensitive issue for living individuals, but the Polish category is mainly old b/w photos, often of groups. I think commons will have to live with this difference in attitudes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
In some countries, Judaism may be a purely religious categorization, but in other countries (such as the United States and the former Soviet Union), Jews are also widely considered to be an ethnic group on the same level as other ethnic groups (e.g. Jewish Americans alongside Italian Americans, etc.). So it really depends on the country involved... AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
{{shortcut|CAT:CAT}} is used in Category:Categories and in Category:Felis silvestris catus. --85.177.185.36 09:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
BSicons to be deleted
Good morning everyone,
during the last weeks I tagged several railroad symbols as {{duplicate}}d or {{bad name}}d. One ofter another I checked and changed any occurance of those worldwide (aside in AlisonW's list of everything, she's quite picky about others changing her "private" list) and hoped, they'll get deleted once this was done as announced in the template documentation. But unfortunaly only very few get deleted, most stay just as I left them, noone caring ... and even worse: getting back into use again!
To be on the safe side I added {{speedydelete}} to all icons I substituted, but still only some icons were deleted, most remain:
- File:BSicon HHST.svg (bad name/duplicate, universally replaced, speedydelete)
- File:BSicon eABZlxfg.svg (bad name, not used, speedydelete)
- File:BSicon emuKRZ.svg (bad name, not used, speedydelete)
- File:BSicon exHBHF.svg (bad name/duplicate, universally replaced, speedydelete) note (4)
- File:BSicon kABZ3lgx svg.png (wrong format, not used, speedydelete)
- File:BSicon tHBHF.svg (bad name/duplicate, universally replaced, speedydelete) note (2)
- File:BSicon tHSTR.svg (bad name/duplicate, universally replaced, speedydelete) note (2)
- File:BSicon xABZ3gl+xr.svg (bad name, not used, speedydelete)
- File:BSicon xlgrfKRZ.svg (bad name/duplicate, not used, speedydelete)
note: the noted count of servers with stopped replication still list those icons as used based on obsolete data!
Additionally, on November, 27th 2008 (i.e. neary three months ago) I nominated File:BSicon KRZ5d.svg to be deleted, the author of the file aggreed on this, but no reaction 'til then!
Please have a look at Category:Icons for railway descriptions/delete candidate, all those icons should safely be deleted! axpdeHello! 09:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I deleted the ones you requested. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Many thanks, you helped a lot cleaning up! axpdeHello! 18:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Overwritten image
Hi, I incorrectly uploaded File:2008 Holden EP Epica (MY09) CDXi sedan 01.jpg /02.jpg/03.jpg. These images (showing the black car) are now found at File:2008 Holden EP Epica (MY09) CDX sedan 01.jpg /02.jpg/03.jpg. However, image 03 in the first batch was not deleted while 01 and 02 were. Could the image of the black car found at File:2008 Holden EP Epica (MY09) CDXi sedan 03.jpg please be deleted so only the images of the car interior remain? OSX (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done --Sfu (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Take a look
User:Alpacaman666. --CopperKettle (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done by User:Martin H..--Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Contacting Other Users:
I would like to contact user "altairisfar" in order to get information about a home she photographed. How can I send her an email or text?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessb (talk • contribs) 16:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
- Hello, that's a good idea. You can leave her a new message on her talk page. →Diti the penguin — 16:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Shocked to be blocked
My account User:Qp10qp seems to have been blocked. I'd be grateful if an administrator could reverse this, please, as it must have been a mistake (I'm a long-standing and innocuous uploader of old art!) Many thanks.
The reason given in the block log is abusing multiple accounts. My guess is that it's something to do with aol's shared IPs, but I always thought Mozilla got round that issue (I've never been blocked before). This is my only account. 92.16.243.117 18:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, but this is being looked at. — Mike.lifeguard 22:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi qp10qp, I have lifted the block. The checkuserinvestigation that was performed and led to your account being blocked is still being looked at, and there is so far not a positive conclusion so as to why your account was included in this. I feel that it is right to let you have the benefit of the doubt in this case, and therefore I'm lifting this block (the users performing the CU-investigation has been informed). Apologies for the delay. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers! qp10qp (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Another backlog
I was notified by an attentive user that Category:Unknown - January 2009 currently has a backlog of >6.000 files. Being already from January means, they are ready to delete if the missing source or whatever hasn't been found or provided.--Túrelio (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done The counter is not correct, the number only goes upwards for categories >200 files. The Category needs permanent attention, but the backlog in Category:Unknown is ok at the moment. --Martin H. (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Policy question about personality rights on voyeur topless beach photos
I have a policy question (personality rights) re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topless woman walking on Coral Beach, Jamaica.jpg. This deletion discussion was summarily-kept (even though there was no consensus) without addressing the personality rights issue (of this being a self-described voyeur shot with face, taken using zoom from a long distance). I'm not posting this here to canvass, but rather to ask for clarification on the policy. I already nommed this (only to turn it into a 2nd-nom once i found out there was a previous nom, and then merged it into the 1st nom once i found out the 1st nom never was closed, only that no deletion notice was on the file page, and it was not listed on any deletion log pages) I'm not 3rd-nomming this :-P . Just asking for policy clarification. Thanks, Outsider80 (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- As I understand it, photos like this are OK when they're taken in a public place where the person has no expectation of privacy. A public beach would be such a place. —Angr 11:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but subject wasn't marching in some parade where one would expect to be photographed. Subject was photographed on a beach by some creep using a high zoom. In cases like this, doesn't possible negative impact on the person's life (i.e. becoming a possible internet celebrity against her will) outweigh any positive value this particular photo has for Wikimedia projects? Am 2nd-nomming this file to address this issue. Thanks, Outsider80 (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of a declared "own work" image on grounds of "no permission"
Hi
This is not necessarily the best place to ask this, but I'm not familiar with the ways here at commons. Feel free to point me to a better place to discuss this.
File:Sarah pic.jpg, a work that was declared "own work" by the uploader, has been tagged with {{no permission}}. I have two issues with that:
First, while the uploader has previously uploaded a professional picture and, IIRC, declared that she owns copyright, from the look of the new picture and her statement "I'm now working on getting a pic of her that doesn't violate any copyright laws." half an hour before she uploaded it I personally do believe that she took that picture herself, and learned from her first attempt. She appears to have access to the topic. Second, even if we doubted the copyright status of the image, I haven't found in any policy page here that tagging such an image with {{no permission}} and unilaterally deleting it is acceptable. Despite a long discussion with Rama and Okki at User talk:Okki#Sarah pic.jpg, I could not be pointed to any policy page supporting it either.
My two questions are
- Is it common practise to delete such images, where source and licensing are technically in order, and where there is no strong suspicion of a copyright violation, without a proper deletion discussion?
- Why doesn't the Commons:Deletion policy mention the {{npd}} tag, and that it is acceptable to unilaterally delete an image without permission after seven days, while it explicitly mentions {{nsd}} and {{nld}}
As mentioned, feel free to move this question to a more appropriate place, or point me towards such a page.
Thank you, Amalthea (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Without commenting on principle, the image is identical to this one on Sarah Siskind's MySpace page (©2003-2009 MySpace.com. Alle Rechte vorbehalten). --Túrelio (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Aargh ... OK, it could have been that easy, and Rama's and Okki's intuition was dead-on. Nevertheless, answers to the questions above would still interest me, for the future. :) --Amalthea (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- 1. NPD tags are to be used for images that are clearly lacking permission. To be honest, I would not have used it in this case as it is not obvious to the admin what the problem is. In this particular case, a deletion request would IMHO have been the better option.
- 2. I don't know why it's not in there, I added it now. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. ++Lar: t/c 12:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)t
- Aargh ... OK, it could have been that easy, and Rama's and Okki's intuition was dead-on. Nevertheless, answers to the questions above would still interest me, for the future. :) --Amalthea (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the question asking for the relevant policy: COM:PRP, i.e. if there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted. It is indeed not uncommon that images are correctly licensed and described and still rise suspicion. The problem is that it is likewise common that uploads are claimed to be "own works" etc even if this is not the case. This is the reason why we ask for confirmations in these cases, typically through OTRS. Whenever you think that a legitimate case has been tagged, please help the uploaders through the necessary process which can be quite challenging for a newcomer. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes... it is unfortunate that the process is difficult. Easier process would be nice but we have to balance easy against making sure that there is sufficient documentation to establish rights can be granted. Anything that more experienced hands can do to help newcomers is greatly appreciated. ++Lar: t/c
Photos from skijumping.pl
I just came accross Commons:Deletion requests/Image:4wiki romoeren bjoern einar.jpg and noticed, that nearly ALL uploads from skijumping.pl are missing a deeplink source and a proof that this two persons covered by OTRS #2007032510013279 are the authors. Can one of our polish language administrators inform w:pl:Wikiprojekt:Skoki narciarskie that this need to be fixed? What would you suggest, marking the image as "no source" since we dont have a verifiable source for that images? --Martin H. (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- The deletion may have been a bit hasty but better safe than sorry, and we can easily restore this once things are sorted... second the request for a Polish speaking admin (or user, since it's really a matter of helping steer through the path) to assist. ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Azerbaijan blank
Recently File:Azerbaijan blank.png was modified to show the disputed territory of w:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Users Baki66 and Azeri started a revert war, with offensive edit summaries and are yet to comment on the talkpage despite my numerous calls to do so. Nagorno Karabakh is a self declared de-facto independent country, but is still de-jure part of Azerbaijan. VartanM (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted the image to its original version and protected the image for 2 weeks pending discussion - and I hope consensus. Siebrand 10:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Image old version deletion
Is it possible to delete an old version of a file? I ask because the an image I uploaded contains potentially confidential information. I later modified the image so it's okay, but the older versions are of course still shown. If this is possible, then I'll elabourate on the image. Thanks, --MPD T / C 03:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Should be doable. Which image? Tabercil (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- An administrator can delete old versions, but administrators will still be able to view it for awhile. If that is satisfactory, please email me or another administrator the file name and the justification, if it is not obvious. Select the "E-mail this user" link from the sidebar of the administrator's userpage. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done; please email me if you have any questions. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Failure to upload
I was trying to upload a PNG image, and had successfully uploaded two other, slightly larger PNGs from earlier in the restoration to other filenames.
However, when trying to upload the final, restored and cropped image, I got the message:
Files of the MIME type "application/x-php" are not allowed to be uploaded.
This happened every one of three tries at uploading. What does it mean?
If it matters, the planned filename was Image:Hiroshige II - Kishu kumano iwatake tori - Shokoku meisho hyakkei.png, and five other images with similar proposed filenames had uploaded (see the links on that prepared description page).
And, yes, while Wikimedia software is unable to display PNGs above 12 megapixels, this small constellation of files is the only way to make my work be accessible to other restorationists, while also displayable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
User BanRay
User BanRay reverts lots of my edits, without even giving a reason:
- I put a "crop" template on an image with large white borders ([32]), he removes it ([33])
- Idem for File:EgliseduMont.jpg and File:NuagesMont.jpg
- I placed a "watermark" template on File:Goisern-Dachstein.JPG ([34]), he removes it ([35])
- I put a "remove border" template on File:F-Lampard.jpg ([36]), he removes it again ([37]). The same is true for a dozen or so other images. And now I found out that I've been doing the same files over and over again; what a waste of time...
- I upload a new version of a File:S-Pareiko.jpg, without borders, like the original version ([38]), he reverts it ([39])
- It's not about me (I think), because he also reverted File:A-Arshavin.jpg when the borders were removed by User:Andrea 93 ([40]) and ([41]).
Looking at Special:Contributions/BanRay I found that all he does is reverting other people's edits: all I see is "rm tag", "rv" "undo revision", etc... Please, help ? - Erik Baas (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted all the edits again and asked the user why he keeps reverting it and told him this can be seen as vandalism and that he can be blocked if he continues. But Erik Baas can you please stop reverting him also, it starting to look like a big editwar. Abigor talk 21:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK, of course. And: thank you. - Erik Baas (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- The good old play victim tactics huh? User:Erik Baas has performed an overall of over 200 reverts on the images I uploaded. Contrary to his statement above, Erik clearly knew he was repeatedly doing the same images, but intentionally continued to edit-war with me. The three bad faith reverts (and another one Eric didn't mention) on my behalf, were directed precisely against Eric and are now merely used by the user in his hypocrite attempt to turn things upside down. My initial request stands, once someone points me to the consensus (I'm not familiar with the local policies whatsoever) that clearly states that no bordered images can be used on Wikimedia Commons, I will cease to revert Eric or any other user tagging "my" images and move them to the English Wikipedia instead. Cheers. BanRay
- Borders are deprecated and should be removed, when found in an image. The template basically says it all: Where borders are desired they should be added with wikimarkup or code. Hardcoding stuff in images (borders, copyright notes etc.) is always a bad idea as it limits the freedom people have when illustrating Wikipedia or other text with images. Also note that you don't have some sort of right deciding what happens with "your" images. You handed out a free content license, meaning everyone can edit the images just as he likes without you being able to do anything about it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Unless there is a formal consensus/policy that states that no borders can be used on Wikimedia Commons, that's just an opinion. As for the images, in theory, I shouldn't have any control over "my" images once they are released under a free license, in practice, however, I can get them deleted any minute, although all I said was that I will move them to the en wiki if that's what it takes to keep them bordered. Obviously, in that case I will also refrain from using the commons project anywhere in the future, regards. BanRay 00:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and one more thing, just to make myself clear. I'ts not like I'm arguing against the general trend to remove borders from images, it's just those particular images were designed for a very specific infobox use. Borders certainly do limit the freedom of use of such images, in general, and if you check my uploads you may notice that not all of "my" images have such borders. As for those that do, they didn't come bordered, the borders were added intentionally and for a reason. After all you can always upload a separate "clean" version of the very same image if you feel the need to. Why go and edit an already existing image without even trying to understand the reasoning behind it. It's not about the images, it's about being nice or being a dick. BanRay 01:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Borders are deprecated and should be removed, when found in an image. The template basically says it all: Where borders are desired they should be added with wikimarkup or code. Hardcoding stuff in images (borders, copyright notes etc.) is always a bad idea as it limits the freedom people have when illustrating Wikipedia or other text with images. Also note that you don't have some sort of right deciding what happens with "your" images. You handed out a free content license, meaning everyone can edit the images just as he likes without you being able to do anything about it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- The good old play victim tactics huh? User:Erik Baas has performed an overall of over 200 reverts on the images I uploaded. Contrary to his statement above, Erik clearly knew he was repeatedly doing the same images, but intentionally continued to edit-war with me. The three bad faith reverts (and another one Eric didn't mention) on my behalf, were directed precisely against Eric and are now merely used by the user in his hypocrite attempt to turn things upside down. My initial request stands, once someone points me to the consensus (I'm not familiar with the local policies whatsoever) that clearly states that no bordered images can be used on Wikimedia Commons, I will cease to revert Eric or any other user tagging "my" images and move them to the English Wikipedia instead. Cheers. BanRay
- OK, of course. And: thank you. - Erik Baas (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Guys, please upload versions without borders. Some uses call for images with borders; some uses call for images without borders. What's not acceptable is uploading one over the other, nor edit warring about it. — Mike.lifeguard 02:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn't only on your images. There where uploads from other people where you just reverted the actions. And NO you can't get all your images deleted if you ask for it. Abigor talk 04:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Why not? Rklawton (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You can't get your images deleted because the are released under a free license. That license can't be revoked. So the images can stay on Commons because of the free license and because the author released it he can't get the images deleted. Abigor talk 05:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- These copyrights apply to the user (Commons) of the image and not to the image. The copyright holder could change the copyrights, and any user of the image would have to prove they obtained the image prior to the date of change. This would work against the Common's goal of providing a free resource. Here's an interesting write-up on the subject.[42] I don't pretend to understand the legal bits. But I would think that Commons would rather err on the side of caution and remove images that have become non-free (especially if so requested) in order to save future users a legal headache. Mind you, I'm making no such request. Rklawton (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I am no legal advisor but we keep a history so I think it would be easy to proof the change of license because we have a log when its uploaded and when all the edits did happen. But I am not going to delete if people ask me to because the don't agree that other people can edit the picture. If people have a good reason I will have no problems with deleting a image. Abigor talk 08:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Abigor, read over the fourth sentence of my first comment, I performed a mere four reverts on the images I did not upload, all in the space of the last couple of days, compared to over 200 reverts on "my" images. Call it trolling (which it quite frankly was) or whatever you like, but Eric's attempt to deny intentional edit-warring on his behalf was far worse In-My-Humble-Opinion. Going back to the images, in this particular case I would be able to get those images deleted, although, as I've said I have no intention of actually doing it, I was responding to Chris' comment and was speaking only theoretically. Anyway, as per mine and Mike's suggestion, (given there are no objections) I will now proceed to remove the cleanup tags from the images, and whoever feels we need "clean" versions of the same images, just feel free to reupload them under the same license, it's not like we're running short on web space, right? Additionally, I will add short talk page comments with rationale to the images, just to avoid any such confusion in the future. BanRay 09:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am wrong but I told you to stop and told Erik Baas to stop now with reverting. So its not only you. But don't understand me wrong. When you keep removing clean up tags I will see that as vandalism and editwarring. Abigor talk 09:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Now correct ME if I'm wrong, but what you just said pretty much means:"No I'm not gonna let you keep them bordered, not on this project". Correcte? BanRay 10:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope I can make my self clear now: If you remove a clean up tag from a image not uploaded by you I will see that as vandalism. If you remove one more tag from any of the images like yesterday I will see that as a editwar. Abigor talk 10:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, you aren't making yourself any clearer. Although I do seem to have a right to upload "bordered" images, by threatening me with your near-boilerplate warnings, you are basically authorizing anyone to go and remove the border without any consensus or rationale, as long as the tag remains in place. BanRay 10:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus is not to have bordered images and to remove borders from images. If you need a border around an image, use HTML code. So yes, we are basically authorizing anyone to go and remove the border, which is quite what we want. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- And yet my numerous requests to point me to that mythical consensus have all been successfully ignored. BanRay 12:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gosh. Try Commons:Media for cleanup. Lupo 12:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Do I need to define the word consensus for you? BanRay 17:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gosh. Try Commons:Media for cleanup. Lupo 12:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- And yet my numerous requests to point me to that mythical consensus have all been successfully ignored. BanRay 12:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus is not to have bordered images and to remove borders from images. If you need a border around an image, use HTML code. So yes, we are basically authorizing anyone to go and remove the border, which is quite what we want. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
User is blocked for two hours because he was still busy with his editwar that started yesterday. Abigor talk 12:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I was blocked? What the heck? Now care to elaborate which part of my edit was a revert? From the official wikipedia policy: "An edit war occurs when contributors repeatedly revert each other's contributions". Actually you know what, don't bother responding, going from your previous comments on here, which were not quite the epitome of logical sobriety, the odds of me getting a decent response on here are next to zero. As I've said I'm just gonna drop it, I have another 40-50 quality pics which I haven't had time to upload. I'm just gonna upload them directly to the en wiki, fortunately the words "consensus" and "policy" still mean something there. As for this project, quite sadly it is run by a small bunch of people with admin badges and way too much spare time at their hands. Not to sound too rude, but anyone who spends three hours a day tagging images with {{Watermark}}, {{Crop}} and {{Remove border}} has a problem. BanRay 17:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Several users told you about the consensus, there are even policy pages telling you about the consensus. What else do you want? Not every consensus has a discussion linked to it, because it is too old or it is just a natural understanding. You didn't really do a revert, instead you created {{Keep border}} in order to circumvent the consensus about removing borders from images. Also, you still haven't told us why you don't want to follow Commons guidelines, remove the frame and just use HTML code. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
anti-border fanaticism considered harmful
I don't really understand this apparent hatred and vehement passionate loathing of borders, but when it oversteps the bounds by ignoring certain considerations of common sense and basic courtesy involved in not unnecesarily degrading the quality of other people's images, then it really needs to be restrained and kept in check. The texts of Template:Remove border and Commons:Media_for_cleanup#Pictures_that_need_to_be_retouched.2C_trimmed_and_scaled contain the following quotes -- "If cropping a JPEG, consider using a lossless cropping tool such as jpegtran" and "If cropping (only) a JPEG, consider using a lossless cropping tool such as jpegtran", respectively -- for a reason. That reason is that editing a JPEG file always involves degradation of image quality unless certain highly specialized lossless JPEG editing and cropping tools are used. Sometimes there's no real choice to incurring this JPEG "generation loss" penalty, such as when you're doing major image-editing that involves a significant enhancement of image quality (such as rebalancing the colors, increasing contrast, sharpening, etc.) However, merely shaving the last few pixels of border off an image is clearly not such a major image edit which justifies degrading an image's quality.
Due to certain technicalities of the JPEG image format, lossless JPEG editing tools can only crop an image to within the nearest 8-pixel unit (or sometimes with color images, only to the nearest 16-pixel unit, depending on the exact sampling parameters of a particular image). Users Abigor and Erik Bass have been very insistent on degrading the image qualities of File:White Bikini.jpg and File:White bikini.jpg merely to shave off the last few pixels which cannot be cropped using specialized lossless JPEG editing tools. I'm sorry, but I think that's rather nonsensical, in addition to not really being compliant with Wikimedia Commons policies. If they place such extreme value on degrading image quality in order to shave off the last few pixels of boundary from a 2,750-pixel wide image (pixels which are barely if at all visible unless the images are viewed at a much larger size than they would be typically used in Wikipedia articles anyway), then they should upload their own versions of the images under separate names -- but not overwrite the original or carefully losslessly-cropped image versions with their own lower-quality versions, and also not add annoying templates which encourage other people to overwrite the original or carefully losslessly-cropped image versions with other lower-quality versions.
Frankly, from the point of view of Wikimedia Commons policies, as far as I can ascertain them (not to mention the previously referred-to basic principles of common courtesy in not lessening the quality of someone else's photographs without a strong valid reason), shaving the last few pixels of border off an image is simply not as important a priority as preserving overall image quality. AnonMoos (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- After being advised what to do by Walter Siegmund, I saved both versions of both files (with and without borders), and created links on all 4 description pages to link the images together. But even that is reverted by Anonmoos - thus creating duplicates ! Now, does he want an edit war ??? I certainly don't, and I thought I did a good job here... Please, help... - Erik Baas (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dude, I've been telling you all along from the beginning many times for a while now DO NOT OVERWRITE THE ORIGINAL VERSIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE'S IMAGES WITH LOWER QUALITY VERSIONS, yet when you tried to "resolve" the situation, you didn't upload your own altered lower-quality image versions under new names (as Wikimedia Commons policy suggests), but instead you overwrote the originals by using the original names. Frankly, I really wonder why you sometimes seem to set about to do things in the way that will create the greatest amount of controversy -- instead of doing something else which would accomplish the same functional goal, and would take about the same amount of effort on your part, and yet would have the benefit of causing a lot less difficulties with other people over site policies. Do you have a reasonable explanation for this? AnonMoos (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with the quality of the cropped images
- Images do not need a border
- If you want a border to be displayed, you can use wiki markup code to accomplish that
- I saved the original version (that is with border), so there shouldn't be any problem
- Other images get cropped by the dozen every day, why all the fuzz about these two ?
- Please don't call me "dude"
Users who upload images with borders or watermarks should expect that their images will be tagged with {{Remove border}} or {{Watermark}} messages and eventually modified. There is nothing personal here it is just what is done to all images and we should not have special treatment for different images. I agree lossless tools should be used if possible, but even with those the cropped image might not be as good as the original. The best thing an author of such images could do is to reupload the original image without border or watermark, as I have seen on some occasions. --Jarekt (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed a consistent appearance significantly adds to the overall appearance of professionalism. Indeed, if the uploader can't upload a high quality borderless image, I'd have significant doubts about the uploader's rights to the image in the first place. Oh, and the nice thing about a wiki is that if one user uploads a poor quality crop, another user can come along, access the original, and make a better job of it. Rklawton (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure all your comments are quite well-intentioned, but they seem to show some factual misconceptions about the JPEG format. If an image is decompressed from JPEG format to a buffer, and this buffer is then recompressed from scratch using the JPEG compression, then there will basically always be technical loss of image quality due to certain roundings involved in the mathematical JPEG algorithms. This is mathematically unavoidable when decompressing then recompressing JPEGs. There's simply no way to "fix" this, unless specialized lossless tools -- which don't decompress and recompress at all, but directly manipulate the image data in JPEG-compressed form -- are used. Due to the fact that these specialized lossless tools don't decompress and recompress the data, there are some restrictions on the way that they can operate, such as only being able to crop images in increments of 8 pixels (or in some cases, increments of 16 pixels). However such specialized lossless tools do in fact strictly preserve image quality. So it's really pretty simple -- lossy means image quality not fully preserved, lossless means image quality is fully preserved. So far, no one has been able to point to a policy that says shaving the last few pixels off an image is more important than preserving image quality -- and the wording of the relevant policy pages and templates suggests the reverse, in fact. AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S. A border is not a watermark, and the situations of a border and a watermark should not be discussed identically. AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any loss of quality, and I would like a second opinion (or more): anyone, please compare [43] and [44]; thank you. - Erik Baas (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed - even the grain made it over from one image to the next. Maybe an algorithm can detect the difference, but I can't - not even zoomed in. No borders! Rklawton (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's nice -- the JPEG format is specifically designed with the purpose of minimizing (as far as is realistically possible with the technology available in 1990) image degradation that is clearly or obviously visible to the human eye. But mathematically, decompressing JPEG-encoded data and recompressing it from scratch always involves loss of image quality (except in some highly-special "degenerate" cases which would never occur in real-world photographs). If you feel what I say is incorrect, then go to the relevant talk pages of Wikipedia article sections en:JPEG#Quantization and en:Generation_loss#Techniques_that_cause_generation_loss_in_digital_systems and suggest changes there -- though if you do so, those who know about the subject-matter will definitely object.
- Also, any time that you shave an amount of pixels off the top or the left of an image which is not an multiple of 8 (or a multiple of 16, depending on the exact parameters), you're completely redoing the boundaries involved in the division of the overall image into small pixel blocks, which is the basic foundation of the JPEG format. It may or may not be easily visible to the naked eye, but it's a very radical transformation in terms of image compression parameters, which can easily create subtle image quality problems of a number of types.
- You could say that the loss in image quality is relatively "small", but the main point here is that it's a simple matter of common sense and basic courtesy not to unnecessarily decrease the quality of images which are not your own, unless there is a strong valid reason to do so. Who are you (or any person other than the original photographer) to decide how much loss in image quality is "acceptable"? What if your view of "acceptable" image quality loss differs from the photographer's? AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- You're willing to favor something we can't see over something we can. You've now ventured passed redundant and entered pedantic. Rklawton (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with AnonMoos that jpeg compression always introduces artifacts, which were designed to be hard to notice to humans. It is something to be avoided. But for an uploder the best way to avoid it is to not upload images with borders, which he/she should expect that will be overwritten.--Jarekt (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- The specific problem here is that every time you decompress then recompress a JPEG, you overlay another layer of artefacts onto the the original artefacts. That's what generation loss means. AnonMoos (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Rklawton -- The reason why the differences are not always obvious, is that often times even after handling a JPEG fairly roughly (decompressing it then recompressing it with different compression parameters, recutting the pixel block boundaries, etc.), the general features of the JPEG format concerned with minimizing differences perceptible to the human eye will still sometimes partially compensate -- but not always, and not all the way. However, the basic question still stands: why handle a JPEG roughly in the first place, if it's not done for a truly important reason, and who are we to casually roughly handle other people's images? AnonMoos (talk)
P.S. A general comment -- looking at one image, and then (after a few seconds) looking at the other image, or looking at them side by side, is not the way to truly examine image quality differences. The only two ways that really tell you what's going on are "blink" comparison (repeatedly switching back and forth quickly between the two different images, which both have the exact same pixel alignment on your screen), or preparing a special image which displays the mathematical differences between the two images. The planet Pluto was discovered by "blink" comparison on photographic plates -- if Clyde Tombaugh had been looking at the photographs side-by-side, it might have taken him a few more decades... AnonMoos (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)