Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 17

Template:Original

Could someone un-protect Template:Original. I don't think it really needs protection, used on about 4000 pages I think, mainly on book page scans. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Commons has 6.7 million pages, so a template with 4,000 uses shouldn't have a preventive protection. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Could someone remove the old version of this picture?

The picture included several copyrighted logos. I removed them, but the old version is still publicly available, so I guess it should be deleted. Or maybe not. I'm not familiar with the customs here on commons. Lampak (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for your fix - Huib talk 19:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Haggerston railway station

Hi! I see you're administrators so I have a query. I tried to upload a picture of the upcoming London Overground station at Haggerston, but it appears that the string "Hagg" is on the blacklist, and I got a Permissions Error. The title I chose was "Haggerston station eastern entrance under construction Aug 2009.JPG". How can one go about uploading pictures of this station? Haggerston is a suburb of inner east London. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As there is Category:Haggerston with several images containing "Haggerston" in their filename, there may be something else behind your upload problem. --Túrelio (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

All of those were created in 2005 or 2007. The Hagger rule was added to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist after that, and I'm guessing it was added to deal with a very persistent vandal, which I remember quite well. It's possible that the rule is too broad. It would probably be sufficient to add the casesensitive directive to the rule so that it matches only all caps entries. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody do this please? Thanks!, best Sunil060902 (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added an exemption for "Haggerston" to the rule which I think was matching it — please let me know if it still doesn't work. I do think a lot of those rules could probably just be removed. They're pretty ancient, and these days we have the abuse filter to deal with vandalism like that. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the last time I recall seeing the Hagger vandal on Commons was TestedToComply (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. On Wikipedia, they're still at it. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, it seems to have worked. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Search engine defective?

Hi everybody, on August 28 i created the categories Monument à Leclerc, Strasbourg ([1]) and Monuments aux morts de la Place de la République, Strasbourg ([2]), but today, September 3, they still do not appear when i do a search ([3]; [4]). How come? Thank you, --87.185.96.31 09:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has changed today, and no one has bothered to answer or even to look into the matter, it seems. How swell! --87.185.73.217 10:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons administrators have no special abilities to control how often the search index is updated. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been updated for over a week now. Commons administrators must know who to tell that something is wrong, musn't they? --87.185.73.217 13:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a known issue. One of the servers needs to have a process restarted by a sysadmin so that the index can update. Hopefully it will be resolved shortly. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've restarted the rsync daemon on searchidx1 per Robert's note in #wikimedia-tech channel; that should let the index updates go through soonish. --brion (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the image's description have to be changed

This image File:South Lebanon refugee.jpg depicts a woman with red eyes. Is she crying? Maybe. Does she have eyes infection? Maybe. Is she suffering from a bad flu/cold? Maybe. If she's crying, why she is crying? Does she lost her purse, does she had an argument with somebody? Does she, does she, does she?... The bottom line we simply do not know. I believe that Commons cannot adopt the speculations of a Flickr photographer. Commons is encyclopedia - not a place for speculations. I believe the image description should be changed to: "woman with red eyes".Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel a media or gallery needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikimedia Commons is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any media and gallery by simply following the Edit link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.. And by the way, Commons is not an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is. Multichill (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Multichill. With my prior record being involved in edit warring I have decided it is better to ask. I've changed the description of the image now. Let us see what happens.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

and it was changed right back.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mbz1 is back... censoring information. I restored the information provided by and attributed to the photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold on. I merged the two descriptions. I hope you can both agree on this. Multichill (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

@Kuiper, not censoring information, but removing speculation.@Multichill, IMO not good enough. The image is linked to the flickr source. Everybody, who is interested in speculations versus information could go there and read it, but anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Commons is not an encyclopedia. And if people can't use their better judgment and realize that image caption are always someone's interpretation of the meaning of the image, then there isn't much we can do. –Tryphon^☂ 15:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"image caption are always someone's interpretation of the meaning of the image" Really? So I could take an image of Golden Gate Bridge, put in the caption that it is Bay Bridge and let readers use their better judgment? IMO in this particular situation the caption of this particular image is nothing more than POV of the flickr photographer on a very sensitive issue, but anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know the famous painting by René Magritte, ceci n'est pas une pipe? I'm not saying that anyone should trick people on purpose by writing non-sense in captions. I'm just saying that whoever wrote the caption, even with the best intentions in the world, had to make some interpretation and assumptions (otherwise, all captions would read "JPEG file composed of colored pixels"). So yes, we have to assume people can use their better judgment, and realize that a caption is never objective, neutral or the absolute truth. –Tryphon^☂ 16:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not know about this painting. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Interesting! Of course it does not mean I have changed my opinion about the caption of the discussed image. At lease I hope that now everybody could see why I posted my question here instead of simply changing the description myself :) BTW when I gave my example with two bridges it was not a complete non-sense. After all they both are bridges over the Bay. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And quoting a third-party isn't nonsense either. It's simply informing people what the photographer said. It's relevant and significant in this case. If anything, saying he's right or wrong takes speculation. Rocket000 (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between speculation and interpretation. According to dictionary.com interpretation is "the act of interpreting; elucidation; explication" while speculation is: "conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise". That's why I believe that the image's description is not an interpretation, but rather a speculation, and that's why I believe that what the photographer said was nothing more than a pure speculation to attract more attention for the image. It is one thing to interpret what an image depicts, it is absolutely another to speculate about it. If one person suggested the caption "A crying woman" while the other suggested a caption: "A woman with red eyes" this would have been interpretation. What we have now is a speculation IMO. On the other hand while keeping my own opinion about the image's caption, I respect the opinion of majority, so let's let it go.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is, but that's what he said. Labeling that as speculation or not takes a judgement, but simply providing the information without further commentary allows the viewer to make that judgement. Don't forget that people can think for themselves. Saying that her eyes are red isn't helpful (unless your colorblind) but knowing what the photographer was thinking at the time is not something can get from the photo itself. Rocket000 (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are speculating that the main subject depicted is, in fact, a woman. It could be a man dressed like a woman. It could be a wax sculpture. It could be a transgendered person. It could be an alien imitating a woman. Furthermore, you are making the speculation that those are in fact her eyes. She might have had an eye injury and had the eyes removed and replaced with glass replicas. She might be wearing a very convincing mask. My point is that stating the flickr description as fact would be a bad idea. Presenting it as it was and is, as a sourced statement, is correct. Or perhaps we should source your caption. "According to Mbz1 this is a woman with red eyes". PS: what if someone else looking at your picture of the Bay Bridge became convinced it was a computer rendering and wasn't, in fact, a photograph?? -Fcb981 (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I almost something to effect. Tryphon's reference brought back memories of an art class I had. Only until years later (in a philosophy class) I realized it completely changed the way I look at things, not just paintings. Rocket000 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

@Fcb981, IMO your points are absurd. Some time ago there was another image uploaded from Flickr by the same user. That image was of a soldier standing on the roof and aiming his gun at the empty, cloudless sky. The Flickr caption said: "Israeli soldier is assassinated a Palestinian boy". That image caption and name were changed. There is no difference between the captions of two images. They both are propaganda, POV and speculations, but as I said quite a few times already, I cannot make you to change your minds, and you cannot make me to change mine. I hope there are some people around, who share my opinion, but they prefer to keep silent, and now I know why.
@Rocket000, I understand your statement about an art class, but IMO here we have an absolutely different story. While the Tryphon's sample is very interesting indeed, it rather has a psychological flavor. The discussed image's caption has POV, propaganda and speculation flavor.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Category naming is getting out of hand in Eastern Europe

This little message to report an escalation in naming that is getting out of hand. When looking for example in Category:Churches in Blansko District, Category:Churches in Prague, Category:Saint Wenceslaus churches in the Czech Republic and Category:Saint Mary's churches in the Czech Republic, one will notice a strong trend in using more and more Czech names (which of course, will be claimed as proper names). If one spends some time, or looks in look here, one can decode the structure of the 300 or so Kostel/churches. Frankly, I don't know how to respond, but I think that we have to do something.

I have personally no problems with church names with a name structure as in English which are easily recognisable (st/saint/san xxx church/kyrka/kirche/kerk) but when the words AND the structure are completely different, I think that we have to react more strongly. I feel that if we don't react, its going to get completely out of hand. A real cooperation from a Czech person seems necessary to tackle this. Any suggestions ? --Foroa (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I echo Foroa's concerns. I questioned a couple recent entries at COM:DL [5][6] but was waiting on responses. Turns out every category under Category:All Saints churches in the Czech Republic uses the "Kostel Všech svatých" wording. According to the interwikis at cs:Kostel Všech svatých, the English version is readily available (en:All Saints Church) so why not use it? Similar question for the subcategories of Category:All Saints churches in Sweden. There are three different varieties under Category:All Saints churches in Poland, including one in Polish, so that further confuses things. And these are just for the All Saints churches - the same goes for other denominations as well. Wknight94 ^talk 18:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Try COM:CFD rather than COM:DL. Sorting buildings by their name is rarely the best way to go. -- User:Docu at 19:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone has a compelling reason, I'll go ahead and move the easy ones to English names. That's where they're supposed to be according to the standards here. The burden of COM:CFD should be on moving them away from the English standard. Wknight94 ^talk 01:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree. Sorry I don't have more time right now. --Foroa (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you already moved it. Why didn't you want to discuss it before? Naming was consistent with Commons:By location category scheme. Do you apply this to Belgium only? -- User:Docu at 12:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Which part of the Commons:By location category scheme proposed guideline are you referring to? And no, I wasn't planning on Belgium only. In fact, Czech Republic is the one bothering me most. I have no idea what those mean at first glance. Wknight94 ^talk 11:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire thing. Additionally, in the way you are doing the renames (moving a series of categories, then deleting the old category (samples: 1, 2 ), we are loosing information. It makes it harder to find any of these images. -- User:Docu at 08:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC), 09:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thumbnail filenames blacklisted

I've added an entry to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist to prevent uploading new files with names beginning with "nnnpx-", where nnn is a number. The MediaWiki software uses such names for image thumbnails, and in my experience attempts to upload such files are almost always the result of accidentally saving the thumbnail rather than the original file when trying to move a file to Commons from another wiki. Since this mistake is easy to make and can be hard to correct later, especially if a careless admin deletes the original file without checking that it was correctly transferred, I believe it's worth trying to catch it early.

(On the other hand, there does exist the risk that some people may simply remove the prefix from the file name but still upload the thumbnail. I hope most users will be smarter than that, and I've tried to write the error message in such a way as to suggest the right way to fix the problem as clearly as possible, but it's still worth keeping an eye out for that. Also note that admins are exempt from the title blacklist, so those of us with the bit are still free to screw up just as easily as before.)

The error message shown to users who try to upload such files is MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-thumbnail. It's available in English and Finnish so far; any translations to other languages would be most welcome. Note that the actual translations are in Template: space — you don't have to be an admin to edit them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Very good idea. It will also catch those PNG files which are in fact a MediaWiki SVG rendition. But maybe we should catch those separately, to give an error message more specific to this case? The regex would be File:\d+px-.*\.(?i:svg)\.png. –Tryphon^☂ 12:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestions! Would be nice if these were implemented. Multichill (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just added a specific rule for SVG-rendered-as-PNG file names, with a slightly different error message. Review and translations are welcome too. –Tryphon^☂ 13:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you autotranslate it like a template? MediaWiki does that automatically. Rocket000 (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? Do you mean I should have created MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-SVG-thumbnail/en, etc. instead? I have actually no clue how it should be implemented in this case, I just mimicked MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-thumbnail. –Tryphon^☂ 17:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't need a /en page because English is the site's language ({{CONTENTLANGUAGE}}), but any other language subpage will automatically be shown to users using that interface. No autotranslate-type of template system is necessary. Rocket000 (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Got it, I'll change that now. Thanks for your explanation. –Tryphon^☂ 18:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

OK it's done, I moved everything to the MediaWiki namespace and updated the links. Since admins are immune to the blacklist, I'm not exactly sure how to test if everything works fine, but if someone notices a problem, please let me know. –Tryphon^☂ 18:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I set up the autotranslation system like that back when I deployed MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-filename. As you can see from the history of that page, I first indeed tried to set it up entirely in MediaWiki space just like Rocket000 suggested, but found that it just didn't work — everyone always got the English message. (This might be considered a bug in MediaWiki and/or the Title Blacklist extension.) Anyway, I didn't look into it more deeply at the time, but just set up the current template-based system, which incidentally also lets non-admins contribute translations and other improvements directly without the use of {{Editprotected}}. For messages like these, I'd judge that to be a good thing. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction: I just tested it again, and the translation does work, after a fashion — it's the fallback mechanism that doesn't work. For example, if you set your interface language to German and try to upload (using a non-admin account) a file named "DSC01234.JPG", you get the message MediaWiki:Senselessimagename/de as expected. But if you instead set it to Austrian German (de-at), for which no separate translation of that message exists, it doesn't fall back to plain German, as it should, but instead straight to English. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Then that's a bug, it should fall back just like the rest of the interface does (maybe it only does that for script variants?). Rocket000 (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Add word to protected template

{{Cc-by-1.0}} reads "This file is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 license." Could someone please add "the" before "Creative", i.e. "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 license"? Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for the notice - Huib talk 01:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

POTY mailing list

Please see this discussion. Further input from the community would be nice. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 08:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in the Upload Formular

Hi, it would be nice if someone could fix the German own work upload formular where it says "Commons hat über vier Million Dateien" instead of "Commons hat über vier Millionen Dateien". Thanks--Zenit (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If you do it change it to fünf Millionen, too. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 13:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Granting a user adminship without Communety consensus.

Please see the discussion here

Best regards, Huib talk 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Protected against recreation

Just a note, I've opened the above deletion request that's very relevant for you all. I also considered opening a section about it here, but I think that non-admins should also be able to comment in this. I admit that the AN can be edited by anyone, but it's rather rare for non-admins to talk in an admin-related discussion on the administrators' noticeboard, than to express one's opinion in a deletion request. I'm looking forward to hear your comments. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your rationale - and have voted accordingly - but I do think this would have been better as a meta-discussion here rather than an immediate DR. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Changed permissions

I noticed suspected edits by Grzegorz_Wysocki as regards free licensing. I believe, free licenses cannot be revoked. Pleease verify it. --ŠJů (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC) [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

These triangles look like {{PD-shape}} to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen all last edits? Hundreds of revoked GFDL and Cc-by-sa licenses. --ŠJů (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone with the right tools should roll these back. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There's already an existing discussion about this at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Grzegorz Wysocki .28talk .E2.80.A2 contribs.29. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Insider manipulation beyond vandalism

The history page [12] for "File:Elementary particles plan-fr en.svg"[13] indicates that I uploaded the image. While I have used this file in my user page, I did NOT upload this file. Repeat: I did not upload this file regradless what the history page says. I wouldn't know where to begin searching for the source to upload sucha file. Be assured that I did not upload this image. This represents the malicious work of somebody inside Wikimedia Commons. I have had disagreements via emails with a time-wasting, uncooperative, trouble-making volunteer regarding several OTRS over the past few months. Henry Delforn (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it sure looks as if you uploaded the image File:Elementary particles plan-fr en.svg on 14 June 2009, at 05:50 UTC, and immediately requested its deletion two minutes later. You also, as far as I can tell, never seem to have used that particular file on any of your user pages. Perhaps you confused it with the original, File:Elementary particles plan-fr.svg, which you do have on your user page at en.wikipedia?

Anyway, since you (or whoever was using your account, if it in fact wasn't you) didn't actually complete the deletion request by adding it to the appropriate daily list, no-one noticed it and so the file never got deleted. I've deleted it now as you (or whoever uploaded it) requested. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jspearmint

Hi, I'm an admin on the English wiki. The above user, who has an account here too, has composed a number of hoax articles, such as Garden City (album) and Letchworth Corset Riot. I've blocked him indefinitely there. However, his uploads here are bogus and are likely under copyright (discussion on AN/I on the en wiki has shown that at least one dates from the late 1920s and not from 1914 as alleged). Copyright vios and incorrect descriptions.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Links to the relevant discussions would certainly be helpful. –Tryphon^☂ 19:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Very sorry

To AN/I discussionon en.wiki: [14]

Jspearmint's talk page:[15]

AfD discussions [16] [17][18]--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I opened a deletion request for all the files uploaded by Jspearmint. –Tryphon^☂ 20:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Lord letchworth2.jpg was uploaded for another Letchworth hoax by User:Deliciouscakes, a sockpuppet of Jspearmint. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OTRS deletion

An admin delete File:Susan lanier-bramlett.jpg please. It's well past it's OTRS "sell by" date (August 11). - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 17:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Could you please give us a OTRS number to attach to the deletion.

Best regards,

Huib talk 17:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he's saying that since no OTRS permission was received, it's deletable. A quick check of OTRS did find some permissions notes though... not sure why the image didn't get tagged. Is it on en, perhaps? Let me try to sort through the OTRS communication and properly tag the image. ++Lar: t/c 21:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done - The image's deletion tagging has been removed, and replaced with OTRS tagging linking to the ticket granting permission. No further action required I believe. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 02:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Question on deletion nominations

Is it possible to nominate everything a user uploaded for deletion? User:Makks2010 claims everything he/she uploaded was own work, including a picture of the hanging of the first Indian freedom fighter, a close-up of Jawahar Lal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi in 1959, violent protests in 2009, a famous man's first steps out of prison, a painting and portraits of former Prime Ministers Of India. Several contributions were deleted as copyright violations. Pretty much everything looks like professional pictures to me. Hekerui (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. See Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. I agree that it looks fishy. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User's contributions appear to be copyvios

CINDY1983 (talk · contribs)

Folks, not sure where to report this, but all of this user's uploads appear to be copyvios from this website. In view of the user's contributions over at En Wikipedia the user may be connected with the company and may have their permission to upload, but there is no evidence for it. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I can't find any uploads for this username. --Túrelio (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, should be all caps: CINDY1983 (talk · contribs). Now fixed in header. – ukexpat (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I've cv-tagged those I could track down on the given website, but not all. However, it seems possible that the uploader is somehow associated with the watch company. --Túrelio (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ksd5 marking various graphics PD-ineligible

Greetings. Ksd5 appears to be going around marking various simple illustrations as PD-ineligible (for example). Under US law and commons policy the bar for copyright eligibility are fairly low and while pure simplistic symbols with only one reasonable embodiment may not meet the test stylized ones with artistic colouration almost certainly do as those elements reflect a unique creative input.

Moreover, the works being retagged are SVGs and it seems likely to me that a SVG embodiment of a non-copyrightable simplistic symbol may still be copyrightable because of the creative input that may have gone into the SVG code itself, as such I think additional care is required for the licensing of these works.

Also— I'm concerned to see the licensing being changed on the works of active contributors without notice: Some of the works changed in Ksd5's edits were mine, I've changed the licensing when other people have pointed out that other licensing would be more sensible, but I only noticed this in my watchlist… I don't think it's appropriate to make material changes like this on works of active commons users.

Is there some place where this kind of activity has recently been discussed? --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I claim good faith. I simply felt that licensing simple graphics like those I have "unlicensed" would make it harder for people trying to use it outside of the Commons. I do apologize for not informing the content authors of my unlicensing of their works. I did not know that the vector graphics files could still be eligible for copyright even though their content wouldn't. I do urge the content authors, however, to keep my unlicensing and let the images reside in the public domain. I feel that this would benefit more than just the Commons community. But I will respect the wishes of and not protest the author's actions if he rolls back my unlicensing. --Siddharth Patil (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No big deal— If I didn't think it was worth a greater discussion I would have just worked it out with you on your talk page. I wanted to make sure that there wasn't a lack of clarity about this in the greater commons community. --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File history revision

I am the uploader, and original owner, of a file File:Lake Cootharaba.jpg). Originally, I included my name with the file upload (here). I now would prefer for my name not to be associated with the file. I removed the reference (here), but it remains in the file history.

Can somebody revise the history to remove the reference? Cheers, DanielBC (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, as this is in the primary upload-log, I somewhat doubt it can be removed without removing (and re-uploading) the file itself. But you might ask an oversighter. --Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If you re-upload the image, the previous version can be deleted. -- User:Docu at 06:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

But it needs to be a fully new upload, not a version upload. --Túrelio (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless the commons configuration is very different from others, it should be possible to do this under the same image name. -- User:Docu at 08:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but only after deletion of the original file. Otherwise, the original upload-log will remain. As the Toolserver is still down since 22 hours, we can't check the usage of this file. In case the file is in use, it will be a somewhat delicate process to avoid delinking of the image. When usage check is possible again, the uploader should notify an admin that he is ready to re-upload, the image should be deleted and the uploader should immediately re-upload the image under the same filename. --Túrelio (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right, it disappears from the file description page, but not from the log .. -- User:Docu at 08:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Rocket000 (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done. But lets guess, in 2 years, when we all have forgotten this, someone well-meaning will come and ask, hey where is the permission of "User:DanielBC"? --Túrelio (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Also the license tag should be {{PD-user}} instead of {{PD-self}} for this same reason. Sv1xv (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not really done, it's still in the log ([19]). -- User:Docu at 09:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this single log entry might be removable by an oversighter. --Túrelio (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Um, I guess that doesn't affect the upload log... I was thinking about the file history (that's what I thought meant). Has it always been like that? I had to log out to make sure it was really public. [20]. With the prettylog gadget thing I even get a thumbnail of the old version! I'm gonna go look for some other stuff that was deleted.... Rocket000 (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That got to be a new bug/feature. In the past I did this trick for other users. Multichill (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I just deleted it completely and I still see thumbnails. Maybe that's a cache thing but the log itself isn't going anywhere. Rocket000 (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, usually this feature is very welcome, for example to easier recognize the re-upload of legitimately deleted files. --Túrelio (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I didn't know the upload log was as permanently visible as the deletion log. I always thought that went away with the rest of the history. I mean, I saw logs like that before but I never really thought about it, I guess I assumed it was because I was logged in in as an admin. Rocket000 (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

All logs are permanent — the only ways to delete information from the logs are a) oversight or b) direct database manipulation by a Wikimedia system administrator. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I knew that too, I just thought of uploading more like creating an article or something, you know, page history. Rocket000 (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Check it now. I only hid from regular users, admins can still see, but if that's what we want, I can flip the admin bit too so only oversighters can see. ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Works for regulars. -- User:Docu at 18:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Docu! So... DanielBC??? flip it for admins too so only oversighters can see? ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow- thanks for all the assistance here! Didn't mean to cause so much fuss. No need to hide from admins, I'm not that shy. I was mostly just seeking to get Google off my back, as they indexed the description. I'm assuming Google doesn't index the logs, so that wasn't as much of an issue, but I do appreicate the efforts! DanielBC (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Block a Flickr account

Q: how do I go about getting a specific Flickr account tagged so images from it are blocked? I'm specifically referring to this account... the images on seem to Flickrwashed, so rather than keep playing whack-a-mole with uploads, I'd like to prevent them from getting onto Commons in the first place. Tabercil (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

See COM:QFI. –Tryphon^☂ 12:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!  :) Tabercil (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ive already added it yesterday because I came to the same conclusion. --Martin H. (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

File deletion by User:S1

Hi there,

is User:S1 allowed to delete his own pictures without previous discussion, just because he is annoyed by others?

1. 12:50, 11. Sep. 2009 S1 (Diskussion | Beiträge) has deleted „File:Bf-k-loevenich.jpg“ (Uploader request: no kindergarten please)
2. 12:49, 11. Sep. 2009 S1 (Diskussion | Beiträge) has deleted „File:Bf-buchforst.jpg“ (Uploader request: no kindergarten please)
3. 12:48, 11. Sep. 2009 S1 (Diskussion | Beiträge) has deleted „File:Holweidebahnhof.jpg“ (Uploader request: no kindergarten please)

Cite: "By submitting an edit, you irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL."

As I understand this, "irrevocably" means you aren't allowed to change you mind about what you uploaded ... right? axp_de^Hello! 13:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There are actually a lot more than that (per author's request), and not only his own (for example a whole series of maps by Lencer like this one, on 2009-03-04) without any reference to a DR. He also restored some files (including one of his own) yesterday, as far as I can tell without any prior discussion (neither on COM:UNDEL nor on the deleting admin's talk page). I'll leave a note on his talk page to see if he wants to comment on this, but it doesn't look good. –Tryphon^☂ 14:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I did not restore any of my own files yesterday. --S^[1] 22:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I do really dislike the actions taking by this administrator,

When a user uploads material on Commons and he wants it deleted there should be a dr, sometimes long discussions and a community approval (support for deletion). We even have users that gets blocked because they are trying to delete there stuff in a disrupting way and this administrator just deletes all his stuff and gives a bad example because people will now think that a administrator can delete his own stuff when he wants.

He also restored files that where deleted because there is no FOP in Russia, even when the FOP rule would not apply to the files he restored there should be a undeletion request somewhere but there isn't. I'm even wondering, if a user now gets in trouble with the law because his file is here on Commons because he restored it without a discussion is he responsible or will the photographer get in trouble because a administrator takes just actions without community approval or discussion.

I would like to see a response here, and some info why he did it and if he wouldn't do it in the future again, but when the user isn't responding I think his admin right should be revoked because he isn't acting within the Commons policies and it is clearly possible that Commons would get a bad name because of this so I really hope he will respond and undelete all the files by himself, and delete all the files he restored.

Huib talk 16:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not give any declarations on why all actions by user:axpde in the German wikipedia is only a sort of kindergarten, besides this, the three deleted photographs are all fairly old shots taken by myself and have a poor quality so I cannot imagine that someone would find it a pity that they are now deleted. Concerning the FOP case: you say even when the FOP rule would not apply to the files he restored there should be a undeletion request, I think a reverse is true: you should delete that files only by a regular deletion request. It apply especially for pics that can not be protected per definitionem: a simple stone has no copyright and your deletion of that files are against the rule and would be btw a good reason for your de-adminship. --S^[1] 19:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You undeleted the files because you were sure you're right, but the person who deleted them was just as sure he was right, so this could go on forever. That's why we have these processes to delete/undelete files; doing and undoing things silently will just result in misinterpretation and edit-warring.
Besides, even if you think someone didn't play by the rules, in no way does it give you the right to break the rules too. So the fact remains that you didn't follow our deletion policy on several occasions, and I'd be interested to know what makes you think it's okay (in particular, why did you delete the maps I mentioned above?)
I'd hate to see this blow out of proportion, but when admins start to make their own rules, it is a big deal. So I hope you'll take some time to think about it and address the specific issues that were pointed out. Thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 20:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You want to know why I deleted that maps by Lencer? Well, here you have it: Lencer requested me in DE personally a couple of time to delete several maps for the reason that he wanted them to be replaced by a better version which he made. You can read the requests here, here and here. Besides, Lencer is a quite productive user in DE who creates a lot of useful maps; if he has the opinion that one map created by himself has to be deleted since there's a better version of the same map, and he requests me to delete it on commons, I do so without many doubts. I cannot imagine what should be wrong on this, sorry. --S^[1] 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) First of all, if there is an equivalent replacement, it should be linked to in the deletion log, so that people stumbling upon the deleted map can find the new version. And secondly, off-Commons requests are no excuse for not opening a DR. How are people supposed to find out about this discussion, buried deep in some other wiki's archive? And what if someone wanted to oppose the deletion? I'm very worried by the fact that you don't see anything wrong with that. If you think our policies aren't worth following, how can people trust you as an admin? –Tryphon^☂ 21:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not what concern me the most, this admin is saying even after this discussion that he will break all policies if a user ask him to.

I do think if we let a admin act in this way we can delete all our policies because they would become useless.

I think we need to wonder, do we still trust a user admin rights when he say's he will do it again without a doubt, when we keep this in mind I think this user is a danger for the trust people have in admins, because people will start to wonder why there files are kept, and his stuff or the stuff from his friends get deleted without following any policy. Huib talk 21:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

An excellent statement, Abigor. Just as I described that your deletions of some non-copyrighted images was vandalism, you have nothing to say on that and, instead, you start to attack me on my long-ago deletions of that maps. However, I still miss a statement of you why you yesterday deleted a lot of russian images which never can be protected since they have no originality or they are concerned by PD-old. If you cannot describe this behaviour in a rational way, I do not see any reason why the community should trust you as an admin. --S^[1] 22:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Going back at the initial topic of this thread, I opened an undeletion request for the three files mentioned by Axpde. –Tryphon^☂ 22:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it a shame, since that what Axpde does in DE-wikipedia has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. When I make any photographs I presume that there is encyclopedic use for it, and the images are not being misused for illustration of poor non-relevant fan issues by some railway freaks. If most people here on commons think that writing a serious encyclopedia is not the primary scope of wikipedia, I think I'll better quit my participation on commons and will from now upload any of my photographs only in DE-wikipedia. --S^[1] 22:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki drama's should stay were they are. Commons as you would know is a free-use repository and most files located here are not used but are instead in Categories (Not possible to use every single image) so it doesn't mean that the files are useless. Just because you may think the your image serves no interest, you just can't go and delete them (Remember you've given the images ways under a free license which is irrevocable) for what ever reason, which is why you should take it to DR and give a good explanation on why it should be deleted. Having looked at the images I see no issues with them and they are useless (I believe they were used in DE Wiki). Bidgee (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

O my god, what a discussion! I just wanted to know whether the deletion was correct, or if it's possible to restore them. Btw the edits S1 calls "kindergarten" were reverts of some undiscussed changes of a single user. And my primary goal is a serious encyclopedia, which includes to correct inaccuracies and errors wherever I find those!

Furthermore, S1 made pictures of some minor railway stations and "presumed that there is encyclopedic use for it", but now he doesn't want them to illustrate the corresponding articles? And those are quite more substantial than some two-line-railway-station-stubs you may find on english wikipedia! IMHO S1 acts a bit like "you don't play with my shovel the way I want you to play with it, so I take my shovel and leave the sandbox" ... axp_de^Hello! 10:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don't say "X or Y acts like" what as it really doesn't help (This goes for both sides). Bidgee (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Toolserver's downtime log

Wonderful, Toolserver is down again. When checking media usage, all you get is: Database Error: Lost connection to MySQL server at 'reading initial communication packet', system error: 146 (sql) on sql/toolserver - failed to connect to WikiList database. --Túrelio (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

24 hours later, the Toolserver is still not working properly. Instead of the above mentioned error message, now you get the one shown in the screenshot to the right. This is neither funny nor acceptable. A lot of admin work cannot be done without the Toolserver. --Túrelio (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We should really try to work on reducing our toolserver dependence. For example, it should be possible to do things like cross-project file usage checking in a MediaWiki extension — and, if done right, it should even be orders of magnitude faster than the current toolserver-based CheckUsage. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

...and, in fact, turns our that it has already been written. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would very welcome that and I thank you for expressing what I felt but couldn't really express, our toolserver dependence. In regard to admin-work on Commons we are totally dependent on the Toolserver, but at the same time the account on that checkusage is build/installed has even a limit in the number of processes (about 30, I think). And when the toolserver is down or unusable as it is now since >24 hours, we aren't even notified of that in advance (or when it has happened). That gives a sort of feeling that we are the "grace" of the toolserver (people). I'm no longer willing to tolerate that. The WMF got millions of $ in donations, but obviously has no problem to waste volunteer time instead of spending enough in server installations. So, if you have an better alternative than a revolt against the WMF, that would be very welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Toolserver is not owned by the WMF. The Toolserver is operated by Wikimedia Deutschland, and many of the people involved in Toolserver operations are also volunteers. And not every problem can be solved by throwing money at it. Mr.Z-man (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that, but it doesn't help. If the WMF is not willing to provide the necessary means so that we can work here when we can afford the time, then they should close the whole thing. --Túrelio (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

the Wikimedia Foundation (which is not connected with the Toolserver and has no ability to close it even if they wanted to) has recently approved a $40,000 grant to Wikimedia Deutschland for the purpose of improving Toolserver reliability. the money will be used to purchase additional servers to provide redundancy, so failure of one system doesn't cause downtime. it's not enough money to make all the reliability improvements we would like, but it will help with a lot of it. (BTW: everyone involved with the Toolserver is a volunteer; one admin also works for WM-DE, but is not paid to work on the Toolserver, and does that in his spare time.) as for a "revolt against the WMF": as you apparently know, the WMF is not involved with the Toolserver and there are specific legal reasons that they will never be responsible for it; the recent grant was through the chapter grants project. given that, i don't know what you think such a "revolt" would accomplish. on the other hand, if you would like Wikimedia Deutschland to improve funding for the Toolserver, at the expense of other projects they run, i'm sure they would be interested to hear your (by which i means Commons') well-reasoned, rational and non-revolting opinion. Kate (talk)

To close the whole thing was refering to Commons, not to the Toolserver. --Túrelio (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I get toolserver-l (the mailing list) via digest, so I may be behind a bit, but the last digest I got suggests that there are serious hardware problems that the volunteers are working very hard to try to work around in the face of serious bad luck (cascading failures and failures of backups while restoring and the like). I think additional hardware is on order, but the toolserver cluster isn't some sleek rack of the latest modern identical gear, it's a lashup of various things of various vintages. Anyway, this current series of woes might well be the sort of problem that throwing money actually can solve. :) See for yourself, here's the archive link: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/toolserver-l/ ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

well, there was only one failure (zedler's SCSI card); the re-import just takes a long time. (though i admit i didn't expect it to take quite this long.) we are slowly working on replacing old (and cheap) hardware, and redesigning the platform where appropriate at the same time, but it will take a lot of time and money to complete. in the past all our money was spent just on keeping up with demand, so we couldn't afford any redundancy; at this point we have enough capacity for the near future, and next year we expect to spend most money on improving reliability. Kate (talk)

Contrary to what its status page says, Toolserver is still down/unusable, now for 3 full days. --Túrelio (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally, it's working again. --Túrelio (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Monday, September 14, 2009: back to the start, while Toolserver status claims everything to be fine.

• Database Error: Lost connection to MySQL server at 'reading initial communication packet', system error: 146 (sql-toolserver) on sql-toolserver/toolserver - failed to connect to WikiList database.

--Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User argument for Template:BotMoveToCommons

Hello,

can you please add a user argument for the Template:BotMoveToCommons, so that you can say which user start the transfer.

Jan Luca (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely good idea to implement. At least administrators will know whom to blame :-) --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK bots put this information somewhere else in the file description. I'm not sure it's a good idea to move this to this template as the template (and all the params) should be removed once the cleanup is done and the information would be lost. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use images

Could an admin go over Category:Millennium Park and its subcategories and delete the images of artistic works? The fair use rationales for similar images on Wikipedia states "This is a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture, statue or any other three-dimensional work of art. As such it is a derivative work of art, and per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2) whoever holds copyright of the original has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works." Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with censorship

Hi. I want an opinion from administrators: I recently improved several Atlas pages of Balkanic countries, including Atlas of Kosovo and User:Megistias just removing maps from that article because they are wrong by his opinion, see this and this. As far as I understand, Wikimedia Commons is here to keep media files and not to deal with different opinions about accuracy of such files, so if these files exist and if they show territory of Kosovo they certainly should be in the "Atlas of Kosovo" page. So, is it violation of Wikimedia Commons rules if an user start to remove files from page because of his personal opinion about accuracy of such files? PANONIAN (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

2 maps with license issues(this and another) and the others in Kosovo atlas were in Italian,i put one in English.I dont understand what is wrong here.Megistias (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In your second diff especially i removed the file that has a bad license and i put a new on in English that has a good license.So where is the bullying.Megistias (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That is the point: it is not questionable whether you included few new maps into article, but the problem is that you removed several maps from it and these maps that you removed are very different from those that you included into article and, if I understand purpose of Wikimedia correctly, it is here to keep and present ALL files, not just those that you like more. As for your stated reasons for map removals: 1. Wikimedia is multilingual project, so the fact that maps are in Italian is not a good reason for them to be deleted, especially because English versions of such maps do not exist, and 2. maps with licence problems are proposed for deletion, but they are not deleted yet, so, until they are here they deserve to be in the article (if I am not wrong about Wikimedia policy here). PANONIAN (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• You 1st diff.
• I put a map in English that has is the same as all three and better diff
• Your 2nd diff diff.I removed a file with License issues deletion.And put one that does not have license issues.
• ?Megistias (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If this map that you included into article is same as 5 maps that you removed (one of which was not in Italian, by the way) then something is very wrong with my eyes and I will go to see a doctor first thing tomorrow... PANONIAN (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a map I MADE(GreatIllyrianRevolt.jpg) by the way and does not indicate Dardania but shows part of the Balkans.Its not informative at all on the issue of Dardania and concentrates on the war.The other four maps of Revolta Pannonica are in Italian were removed because All the data on the Dardani on those maps are included in the one in English i replaced them with.

Man, please stop insulting my inteligence: no matter if you made GreatIllyrianRevolt.jpg map or not, territory of Kosovo is shown on that map and that is a reason to be a part of "Atlas of Kosovo" page (or perhaps you want to say that your map is incorrect and show wrong info?). as for Italian language maps, they show situation in Dardania in each year of Illyrian uprising and, thus, new map that you included into article that do not show Illyrian uprising at all cannot and does not contain all data from 4 Italian language maps. PANONIAN (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Its called optimizing. Megistias (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

According to what you say every and any map that shows the region where Dardania even if it does not indicate it like (GreatIllyrianRevolt.jpg) should go in that gallery.If we do that on all articles and keep this vague correlation gallery pages will be full of irrelevant or partly irrelevant maps.

GreatIllyrianRevolt.jpg map DOES show Dardania within area involved in Illyrian uprising and, thus, it is relevant for the article. Your claim that it is irrelevant is a clear proof of your censorship attempts which are against the spirit of this project. PANONIAN (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I understand putting maps of geographically related events to see the grand scheme of things but some things are superfluous.If we do that in Atlas of Kosovo for example we would have to put 100+ more maps on the page.

No. But we have to put there all relevant maps related to the history of the peoples that lives in Kosovo, i.e. Albanians, Serbs, Gorani, etc (and hence also Illyrians, old Slavs, etc) and maps of Illyrian uprising are clearly related to the history of the peoples of Kosovo. PANONIAN (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• If commons will function like that than ok, everything relevant even if a little(like GreatIllyrianRevolt.jpg) would go to a Kosovo related gallery.
• Of course i dont get any reason for you to report me as i explained myself and i did not diminish the data on the gallery as i replaced what removed.
• This seems to have happened because you may be somewhat displeased because of this deletion.Megistias (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • First, I did not reported you, but only asked opinion from administrators about the issue, so if you stop repeating yourself over and over maybe administrators will find a free space to answer. As for things with which I am displeased, I am displeased with users that instead to do something useful are trying to destroy work of other users or want to push their strong POV about something. In this specific case, you clearly stated that you are against existence of this map because of political reasons, i.e. you believe that existence of this map will exclude northern Greece from Greek state and attach it to Greater Albania or Greater Yugoslavia: [21] - this is a good example of your agenda and intentions, and maps of Illyrian revolt might also show something that you dislike, I just wonder what. PANONIAN (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So thats why this happened.Well that map and its variants has been deleted many times from the Commons.The Historical fallacyof the map is another thing.You obviously in that discussion support it.diff.

• You call it among other things(See below).
• "that is valid historical view for presentation in Wikipedia"

When its not and you quoted an article Pelasgians that states that its not.So this is not really communicating.Its somethiing else.You were hoping that I or some other user would not read that article....

• This is all irrelevant and there is no issue other than you being annoyed and in the end you are the one that supported that file.No historian accepts this ,its unlicensed ,fringe and nationalistic and pointless to carry this on here but you show that you began this because of it. Megistias (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

" and maps of Illyrian revolt might also show something that you dislike, I just wonder what." You write this knowing that i made a map that has that info from those maps and in English and knowing that i have made maps that show the location of Dardanians for many years now and still do ....Megistias (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Mystic Treatises

Could a bot operator delete all the images in Category:Mystic Treatises? As explained in the DR, this work is not PD yet, and the files will be re-uploaded as PNG once the copyright has expired (provided we still tolerate {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} files by then). –Tryphon^☂ 13:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

done, not really by a bot but I used a nice firefox extension. Huib talk 17:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Magz (talk · contribs)

ResolvedBlocked for three days by Tryphon

Hello - Magz (talk · contribs)'s gallery is essentially product images of common things from the store where he lives. As far as I am concerned they are all derivative works of copyrighted products, and need to be deleted. Maybe I am wrong, but I would like a second pair of eyes. Thanks --Admrboltz (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and deleted the files, going to leave a note on the talkpage for this user. Huib talk 18:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

He has gone back and re-uploaded a lot of images again... --Admrboltz (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for three days by Tryphon, I deleted some files that where left again. Huib talk 20:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was going to say. –Tryphon^☂ 20:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:P Huib talk 20:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks a million guys :) --Admrboltz (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is the roughest copyright breach hunter on commons ?

I like copyvios

Hi, I need someone really (and I do mean REALLY) rough and thourough commons militiaman who can review images I've uploaded to commons to detect those which depict trademarked logos and such so they can be speedy deleted. It appears that I'm biased because of being the author of those photographs and would hesitate deleting them. Please help. Wmigda (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please take it easy. Trademarked logos are ok, as long as they are not covered by a copyright. Instead of deleting them, just tag them with {{Trademark}}. See also COM:NCR. Sv1xv (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

To Slaunger

I was lead to believe that Slaunger is taking a wikibreak at least partly because of me, and that the user is deeply affected by some of my comments. I would like to ask him to come back as soon as he could, and I would like to tell him that I am sorry that I overreacted in some of my comments about him. I am afraid everybody here knows me quite well by now, and knows I could overreact sometimes. I'll try to improve this in order do not hurt anybody in the feature.
I've decided to post it here because I made my comment in public, so if I am to say that I am sorry, it should also be done in public.user:Two+two=4 and --Mbz1 (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi mila and Two+two=4,

Thank you very much for this apology you two (is that a plural apologies when it is coming from both of you;-) ). It takes some courage and guts to apologize in public. Mila is correct in what she says about how it has been for me here recently. The hurting has unfortunately been mutual although I never had that intention and along the binary decision path leading to all this mess I have also taken some wrong turns. We have had a good off-line talk about this and I greatly appreciate that we have gotten to a normalized situation. I will probably extend my wikibreak a bit longer, but I can assure you, mila, that my break has nothing to do with you anylonger. Last but not least, I should tell you, Mila, that I have been a stinking liar all along: 2+2=11 in the ternary numeral system, not 10 as I have claimed previously ! --Slaunger (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Kim, for accepting mine our with 2+2=4 :) apology, and just... come back. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The cool thing about having two accounts and when speaking of "our" is that you never know if you are referring to the two accounts or just using Pluralis maiestatis for the single user behind them, or, it could be an editorial we for the mutual apologizing between two users. OK, I guess the subject is exhausted now... --Slaunger (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

To Kim and everybody. I'd like to stress out one more time please that I have never used two accounts at the same time. When I started using mine old Mbz1 account I changed password for 2+2=4 to a random numbers and letters and forgot it. I still miss that 2+2=4 a little bit. For a single month 2+2=4 uploaded six FP, stayed out of troubles (read AN/U) :) , and was a nice guy :) by all means , but... maybe I was evading my block, when I was using my husband's account, so I am back to my old self now with a great hope to stay out of all administrator noticeboards at least for a few consecutive months and now only --Mbz1 (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Assistance on a Deletion Request

Can I get a couple more people to take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Waffen-SS Sinimäed? I'd like to close it out ASAP just because of the potential for contentiousness since there are two editors present who are staking out diametrically opposed positions. As well, there is a strong tangent to a request for arbitration on EN which from the sounds involved some rather wild edit warring... which I think we definitely don't want occurring here on Commons. Tabercil (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with image deletion nominations.

I tried to nominate an image for deletion and it didn't get beyond the first part. I got the following error message:

TypeError: wgRestrictionEdit.join is not a function http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:QuickMod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript (60)

Server software issue? Multixfer (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting it too when trying to use the speedy delete tool... --Admrboltz (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

TypeError: wgRestrictionEdit.join is not a function http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:QuickMod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript (60)

Appears to be fixed now, must have been a hiccup from the software upgrades. --Admrboltz (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, quite a few of the scripts were having issues after last night's server updates. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Village pump#Problem with javascript gadgets. Yes, it was caused by a bug in the recent server-side changes, and yes, it's already been fixed and the correction has been deployed on the live wikis. Lupo 14:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand ...

This morning I noticed Category:Other speedy deletions to be filled with about 50 Commons-categories and some templates related to the Picture of the day. The categories/templates I've checked, hadn't been edited for at least a month, and they hadn't been tagged for speedy deletion 8 hours ago. So, obviously something "outside" resulted in their sd-tagging. As the deletion of all these categories is likely to be deleterious, could one of our "coders" look into that? --Túrelio (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Since those speedy category is a little bit of my playground (I have been busy with it all day's).. It happends like once in a month that cat's, templates or even images get there, normally it has to do with vandalism, people create a template that is included on the potd system, a user tag it for speedy and all pages where it is included go in the speedy cat, a admin delete the vandal page and all other pages stay in the deletion category... The fix included undeletion of the vandal page, remove the speedy and delete it again.. But it is a lot of work looking and stuff, if there is a fix that it will not happen again it would make our life more easy. Huib talk 07:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Potd/2009-09-30 (eo) caused this problem. Just wait or thouch all the affected pages. Multichill (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No hurry. Anyway, I've put a big do not delete note to admins into the sd-cat. --Túrelio (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Spam images cleanup

Hello, I would like to direct your attention to the following users:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Deraiatin
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/IstvanGomera
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Amedan

See this link for more information [22]. They are a big sockfarm adding spam for pay. The images are claimed as "own work by uploader" when the users are infact paid editors adding spam. Triplestop (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

When I look at the casefile on the English Wikipedia I see a lot different when you look at Commons, On the English Wikipedia there where articles about those people that waren't good enough by policy or something else or the started spamming there.

You are giving two links here to files that aren't really spam, it are great images that could be used in Wikimedia now or in the future, all those files are checked and have permission for this license confirmed in OTRS, I would say its a bad thing to just delete those images now.

two of those accounts have one upload and a edit, I'm not sure if we should block them because the accounts are a little bit inactive and a block would not work if the account isn't used in the future anymore, so I don't really know what to do with this here on Commons but it could be a option to block all account and keep the last one open, but more imput is needed on that.

The last link could be different, that account uploaded a lot of images that are still OTRS pending, I guess we should wait and see if there is OTRS because that would mean we have a lot of nice pictures.

Huib talk 12:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that he misrepresented himself as the person who made the images himself. Triplestop (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted abuse filters

Hello, as you're probably aware, we already have some deleted abusefilters. However, I'm wondering if they really need to be deleted. We could also just blank the filters, disable them and call them something like "Please use this filter first before creating new ones!". This way, there wouldn't suddenly be a gap between the numbers, which is better for structure and the like, and furthermore we could save a bit memory with not deleting them. Would it be ok for you that I restore the filters, blank them and call them "Use this filter first before creating new ones" and also to use this for the future? Let me know what you think. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I guess it wouldn't make a big difference if we delete them or blank them, but when they are deleted we could always check back the stuff that was in the filter, when we blank the filter that isn't possible.

I would say just keep them deleted, I don't see a big issue with the numbering messed up so undeleting and blanking is a kind of waste of time. Huib talk 15:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, we can still see how the filters once were, because every filter has its own history. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

But than way should we blank them, it would only give more history. Huib talk 15:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, we should not. This just unneccessarily fills up the history. We don't blank pages and move them to a new name, just to prevent creating a new page, do we? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on mainpage?

Hello,

I just received a email that our mainpage has been targeted by vandalism or by a bad joke. I'm hoping that somebody can please explain what hapend with our mainpage?

The current text is:

A galleon of 5,069,703 freely usable media dubloons to which any scurvy dog can contribute, even on International Talk Like a Pirate Day!

I guess when we are a serious project we should keep our mainpage also serious, is there any specific reason why this is and how long does it stay, but also where is the note that somebody was going to do this?

Huib talk 11:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's really no vandalism. It was introduced by this edit for International Talk Like a Pirate Day, and is supposed to be reverted by the end of the day. I think it's a nice idea to do something a little out of the ordinary for special occasions. –Tryphon^☂ 11:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this. I don't think we should do this, at least not without prior discussion. Yann (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would rather see some discussion about this first before it happend, I mean it is our main page all our visitors come by there, its protected against edits because stuff that happend there needs to be discussed before it happend.

Im happy to see some events go on our main page, but are we going to make it orange on 31 april? Or make a note on it about the world aids day, I dont think we should use our mainpage for this kind of stuff. Huib talk 12:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing against a bit fun, but some pages (e.g. the Main Page) should remain serious. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's spelled doubloon by the way. -- Soap (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like an overblown response. It even had a link to the talk like a pirate day, so, it should have been obvious as to the intent. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Edit summaries like "rv vandalism" isn't AGFing. Anyway, this is being overdone, it was clearly a joke. Pmlinediter (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not a question of good faith. Most people who are not in the known will see this as vandalism. So even if the intent is not to disrupt the project, it will be seen as vandalism by most people. Yann (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Still, it's very rude and disrespectful to call this change vandalism. And maybe your mind went directly to that conclusion, but don't assume it would be seen this way by everyone. It's a wiki, there is no rule that says one should ask for permission to edit the main page (although it's technically the case for non-admins). And of course, you're also allowed to revert the change, but try and think of a better rationale than reverting vandalism. If every attempt at being spontaneous and original is regarded as vandalism, this is bound to be the most static and boring wiki ever. –Tryphon^☂ 16:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with Tryphon here, calling it "vandalism" is not appropriate. The edit itself was a mistake and shouldn't have been happened, and if it had been discussed beforehand it wouldn't have happened. Calling this an "inappropriate edit" would be a much more sensible way of looking at it, as it does not imply the intent of the edit was to do harm - vandalism is only bad faith edits.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
      • What they said. Really, Vandalism is different from good faith edits which are inappropriate. The idea of an admin and an admin at many projects vandalizing is ridiculous. Pmlinediter (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, the first thought was that the account was compromised. So I didn't think that Adam Cuerden was vandalising the Main Page... You are lucky, I didn't block it. ;o) Yann (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind to have a bit of fun sometimes, but if you want that all goes well, here are my 3 little advises: put enough people in the known so that they will enjoy rather than revert, 2. provide some information what the joke is about, 3. if it is supposed to be fun, make it really funny (this seems obvious, but...). What was this all about BTW? Yann (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

International Talk Like a Pirate Day –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read Commons:Guide_to_adminship#Vandalism_and_vandal_fighting. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange error message while trying to upload new versions

Both upload new version of BSicon_etKRZ.svg and upload new version of BSicon_xtKRZ.svg won't allow me to succeed, by simply saying "file exists" and I had to choose another name (??) for

File:$1
$1

What's going wrong here?? axp_de^Hello! 13:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see COM:VP#Problem_with_uploading_a_new_version_over_an_old_one. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, admins, note that this bug only bugs non-admins! Me too :( axp_de^Hello! 14:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

any ideas?

Yes we know. And it is not possible to fix with admin right. Only system administrator can fix this. Very sorry. Kwj2772 (msg) 14:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

@Axpde, if it's some consolation for you: the extremely slow network access to/on Commons since yesterday affects admins the same (if not worse) as all other users. And even we weren't notified about that in advance. --Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So you think running for adminship is no good idea? ;-) axp_de^Hello! 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy rename of files?

What's the fastest way to rename a given set of files? We don't have any kind of move capability for Files on Commons, reuploading under the new name is out as I don't want to lose the original uploader information and while {{rename}} is convenient, it doesn't seem too fast to me... Tabercil (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no fast way to rename files at the moment. Either use the rename template or re-upload all the files yourself. You might be able to find a bot owner who would be willing to process your rename requests, but that's all I can think of to decrease the waiting time. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What is in a name? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Image renaming apparently reactivated for admins! the use of {{Rename}} should be a bit faster now, since we can do this manually. If you have an image that requires fast renaming, just bug us here... --Eusebius (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Speak of the devil! Image renaming has been enabled for admins since 2009-09-21 19:07:31 UTC. Regards -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Better keep that secret, because otherwise we admins may be overrun with personal renaming requests. ;-) Túrelio (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Are the file names changed on other Wikimedia projects by User:CommonsDelinker using this new rename file feature? Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that a bot could do the job. It just uses the operators sysop-login. --MGA73 (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I was gonna say something to that effect... I went to tag a file for {{rename}}, and imagine my surprise when I see a link under there saying "Do the suggested rename". <G> Tabercil (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Did it! Rather user-friendly. But do we really need to keep such a redirect when the original file had been uploaded just a few minutes ago and wasn't used anywhere? --Túrelio (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say no. --MGA73 (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few redirects that should be deleted, e.g. the ones where file name consisted mainly of numbers and the ones where there was a discussion if the file should be deleted because of its name, check Special:Log/move. I wouldn't mind helping, but the feature seems limited to administrators. -- User:Docu at 10:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We need to be careful when deleting redirects. It's obviously OK when the move is done shortly after the upload, but take for example File:IMG 1344.JPG: the name was very bad, but it was like that for four and a half years, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone outside of Wikimedia linked to it in that time. Some redirects with numbers should stay. Pruneau^talk 10:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should this change now compared to when BetaCommandBot did the inefficient re-upload thing? One could argue that these files shouldn't be renamed though. -- User:Docu at 10:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Photo

Nifanion:

Emails were provided on Sept 8, 2009 (in two separate mailings), to the permissions-commons@wikimedia.org email address, as follows:

To: Wikipedia Commons @Wikipedia Commons.........re: File:Martha_Cohen.jpg I represent Martha Cohen (age 88) and by virtue of this email, I declare that the photo “Martha Cohen” is owned by her, and Martha Cohen has full rights to grant its usage as she sees fit. As such, I am granting permission to Wikipedia to exhibit the following photo at its site:

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

David Cohen C. Correspondents (6) Please note the C. memorialization at the bottom, a step that was taken so that various "concerned parties" could be apprised of the fact that permission was granted, then sent to Wikimedia Commons. I am now providing those same concerned parties with memorialization of this message to you. C. Correspondents (11) Guest disputant (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Nifanion:

Emails were provided on Sept 8, 2009 (in two separate mailings), to the permissions-commons@wikimedia.org email address, as follows:

@Wikipedia Commons.........re: File:CohenBrothers.jpg To: Wikipedia Commons

I represent the Harry B. Cohen estate and by virtue of this email, I declare that the photo “Cohen Brothers of Canada” is owned by the estate, and the estate has full rights to grant its usage as it sees fit. As such, I am granting permission to Wikipedia to exhibit the following photo at its site: File:CohenBrothers.jpg Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

David Cohen C. Correspondents (6)

Please note the C. memorialization at the bottom, a step that was taken so that various "concerned parties" could be apprised of the fact that permission was granted, then sent to Wikimedia Commons. I am now providing those same concerned parties with memorialization of this message to you. C. Correspondents (11) Guest disputant (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit]Memorialization of a Discussion with WIkipedia Editor Vejvančický Concerning Photo Permissions (Martha Cohen and Cohen Brothers of Canada)

Here is the memorialization taken from the discussion page of WIkipedia Editor Vejvančický pertaining to emails sent to permissions-commons on Sept. 8, 2009. Obviously this Wikipedia editor erred in his assessment of Wikimedia Commons competence since they either failed to receive the emails or chose to ignore them. Maybe you could explain what happened????

[edit]Wikimedia Commons Vejvančický: As requested by Wikimedia, emails granting permission for use of the following pictures were sent to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Sept. 8, 2009, yet WikiMedia has yet to remove the labels threatening removal by Sept. 13 of the two pictures listed below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Martha_Cohen.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CohenBrothers.jpg

Is there any way you can check to ensure that the emails were received by Wikimedia granting permission to use the photos? Would hate to see the photos removed, then have to go through the trouble of placing them up again. Thanks very much. CanadianBiographies111 (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Canadian, the files were "prodded" on 6 September, so if you've sent the e-mail two days later, it should be OK. I can't check it, but I have some experience with this procedure, and it has always worked well. The correct procedure is described in the "How to Obtain a Free Image" guide, check it, please. We'll see. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Guest disputant (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Guest disputant (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please don't split discussion over several places by always copying the complete story over and over again. The e-mail only specifies that the image can be used on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons, this is insufficient as that is not a free license. The OTRS team will send this as an answer to the mail and negotiate a free license with the sender. If that is successful, the images will be restored. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons and personal details

Joc boy (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) appears to have put a phone number on his user and talk pages, but I'm not totally clear on Commons' stance towards voluntarily adding personal details. If it's disallowed, then [23] and [24] will have to be oversighted. cflm (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Block review

Dwayneflanders (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) has requested an unblock. As blocking admin, I request that someone review the request and do whatever they feel is appropriate. I don't have time right now. Dwayne has been uploading images that he reportedly redrew, but they are identical in composition with other copyrighted images found all over the internet. He has been using them on his userpage on the English Wikipedia, not for encyclopedic content. He certainly needs to learn about what content is appropriate here. He repeatedly uploaded these copyrighted images after warnings here and on the English Wikipedia. Royalbroil 12:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be an accurate block. Based on a quick review of their deleted uploads, I've declined the unblock request. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 Support Juliancolton, I agree with your decision. Sv1xv (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Close a Deletion request so we can list an FAC

I'm not sure how to request this, but I was hoping that an administrator could look at the Deletion request here for File:Virginia_sign.JPG and either keep or delete it. The FAC director on the English Wikipedia has asked about the status of the images before potentially listing the article , and this is the only outstanding issue with that. I put my comments about the image on the Deletion page, and another user showed that it should be out of copyright, so I hope it can be kept.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 00:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's been closed out. Tabercil (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 04:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki's in search index database

After a number of tests, I come to the conclusion that interwiki's are not included in the search index database. This would be extremely helpful as translation database for many languages. Any idea how we can get such a wikimedia modification request going ? --Foroa (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Spanish speaker please

Could somebody who speaks spanish please translate my text in "links" on the talk page of User:Progenie_of_the_great_apocalypse (see [25]). It seems that the links he adds as source at his uploads often do not work. -- Cecil (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The Sources he uploades work, but not forever. He searched the images on some image repository. The site gives an ID to each search and the results - I guess - are not saved forever. So after some time they do not work any more. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thats my assumption too, but I'm not able to communicate with him since my spanish is not good enough to form sentences. -- Cecil (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User Saltassine

Hello, can someone check the uploads from Saltassine (talk · contribs). She (?) uploaded a lot of logos and they are all in my opinion copyvios and not her own work. In that context I also do not belive that she created the other files. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done by me and other admins. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Copacetic

If you look at this edit, you'll see a link to User:Kuebi/MyTag. My question: Is that tag compatible with the commons? Evrik (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So what is your problem? It just explains the license and the terms of CC-by-3.0 / GNU for using this picture (and for others as well). You can find these templates on many user sites, (e.g. User:EvaK/License or User:Fir0002/17 or User:Raymond/licence). --Kuebi (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Evrik, which part of it concerns you? Wknight94 ^talk 17:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. I think Kuebi is correct. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• My concern was that the restrictions in the tage seem to ... restrictive. "If you want to use this picture (even commercially), you can use it free of charge — if you comply with the license under which this image is released. " Later it talks about negotiating "terms & conditions for a less restrictive commercial license" Somehow, it seems a tad too constraining than the others cited. Evrik (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• None of these is constraining the other: The first part complies to CC-by-3.0 and GNU and in second part, I, as the copyright owner of this picture, can grant whatever conditions or claim I want for usage outside this license agreement (less restrictive). E.g. can I sell the usage of this picture — without the necessity of labelling it with my name or the text of the license — for a price I can negotiate with the user. --Kuebi (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Selective deletion request

Hello !

Is it possible to perform a selective history deletion on the following file : File:Dipole H2O.svg so that my name does not appear anymore (or at least find a way to hide it) ?

I know this may be a problem as NEUROtiker did a (very nice) job after my upload on this picture, so I can if necessary “give” him the rights.

A derivative work here was made by Matt here and presents the same problem.

What is possible to fix this ? Thank you for helping Xzapro4 (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You need oversight to remove these entries. Multichill (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I forgot. So, Xzapro4, you have to ask (best per email) one of the people listed here. --Túrelio (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thumbnail purge and old version delete

I'm not completely sure this is the right place to ask this, but could someone delete the useless earlier versions of File:Isotopes and half-life.svg, and purge the thumbnail cache? (The method in the FAQ appears to have no effect.) While I'm at it, could someone purge the cache of File:MediaWiki SVG fonts.svg since most of the standard sizes are still showing the version from March? Thanks. -- BenRG (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if someone already purged the cache, but both files seem to be fine now. As for deleting the older revision of File:Isotopes and half-life.svg, I don't think it's necessary (it won't save space anyway), so I'll leave it as is for now. –Tryphon^☂ 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There used to be four revisions but Túrelio deleted the middle two. The thumbnails seem to be fixed. Thanks all. -- BenRG (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Circa

Something problematic is happening in the image "Date" field -- "c." is being displayed as "January" (eg a date of c. 1895 is rendered as "January 1895". Why? And more importantly, how can we stop this? Wondering, Infrogmation (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm… Indeed, {{ISOdate|c. 1895}} renders “c. 1895”. Do somebody have a wikimarkup debugger…? :-/ --Mormegil (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, reading that source code is a real challenge. I have dropped the template creator a note, maybe he can fix this. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's because that's the wrong template. Use {{Other date|~|1895}} and it will give you “circa 1895

date QS:P,+1895-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1480,Q5727902

” in your preferred language. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If you come across any "c. YYYY" strings in the future, please use the function suggested by The Evil IP address. It allows to localize the string and will always be unproblematic.

The wrong rendering of "c. 1895" is caused by the fact, that {{#time: c. 1895 }} is recognized as "1895" by the parser function. It just strips any leading single letters and single dots. I don't know the reason for this behaviour, IMHO it shouldn't do this and I regard this a bug. But it's implemented in the underlying PHP functions and not the fault of the Mediawiki code. So we have to work around it. I added another test case in {{ISOdate}}. It adds a single character at the beginning of the checked string. This should do no harm to correct dates (cause the additional character is stripped), but it should sort out all problematic strings starting with single letters (cause two leading letters are not stripped). So the problem should be fixed. If there are any new issues introduced by this fix, please report it (I don't think there are any, but I haven't imagined the leading single character strip issue too ;-) ). --Slomox (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

FA photo

File:2008 Yukon Quest start.jpg (protected) is currently featured on the main page of en.wiki. It is a snapshot of poor quality, please consider replacing it with this cleaned up version. Cheers, ˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you should bring this up on AN over at en.wp as those are the people who can edit that main page. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidates for deletion ? File:AutismAnthro6.jpg and similar ones

This file is from a series of files - someone has uploaded his powerpoints from a lecture about Autism. All files need categories. Is there any use for these files??? I think they should be deleted? (I have nearly no idea about the deletion policy here.) Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say deletion as it is rather worthless ;) Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 02:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Done - deleted - Huib talk 04:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Huib talk 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

File:HAL Dhruv Avionics.JPG

Apology if this is not the right forum, I tagged image File:HAL Dhruv Avionics.JPG with a no permission notice as it had no OTRS ticket and the link and text from the source just says you're most welcome to use them on Wikipedia. which is not really a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 release. The tag was removed by uploader User:Chitresh verma with a message on my talk page to say read the link. I re-applied the tag and explained it still had no evidence of release. An IP user has removed the tag again and decided I must be an ass hole as I cant read and other comments. Dont really appreciate the uncivil behaviour but can somebody look at the licence issue on this image (and perhaps other images from this uploader.source!). Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I left Chitresh verma a message and restored the tag. Hopefully he will understand and follow due process now. Let us now if the personal attacks continue and require admin intervention. –Tryphon^☂ 15:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tryphon. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Image usage for book I'm writing....

Hello-

I am helping my 88 year old father write and publish his Memoirs of WWII. MANY MANY items that he mentions are things that I have to look up. Joe Foss, is an example. He was an Ace, but was also governor of South Dakota. There is a great picture of him in your "commons.wikimedia.org" page.

The fine print says that the picture is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, as it was originally posted by the US Marine Corps.

If the picture is PUBLIC DOMAIN - am I allowed to just copy and paste it into my Dad's book? Should I have a PHOTO CREDITS page and list that it was found at the "commons.wikimedia.org" site or just say nothing?

Also, I want to have links to the wonderful webpages I'm finding in case someone wants to learn more about the person or plane or whatever. Having a WEBSITE LISTING page with the URLs would be ok, right?

Second part: sorry... If an IMAGE search comes up - and it is a cover of LIFE MAGAZINE - then I have to contact Life Magazine for permission, right?

If no major company is the obvious owner, then under FAIR USE rights, or COMMONS rights, can I copy and paste the picture, and give credit as to where it was found, i.e. URL

Thanks - that's it!!!

Candy

There are quite detailed instructions at Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia.

A few short notes (note I am not a lawyer):

1. Images marked as Public domain are (simply said) not copyrighted, so that you can use them without any further obligations; a credit page stating the source and/or the original photographer would be nice, though (and, in some countries, including EU, it might be required by law).
2. If you are talking about Commons-hosted cover image of Life, like e.g. File:LIFE 06191944 Eisenhower cover.jpg, the same applies: the image is probably in the public domain (otherwise it would not be here), usually because the copyright has already expired. (You obviously cannot infringe the rights to the trademark in the Life logo, but that would usually not be an issue.)
3. In other cases, be sure to check the license of the image (stated on every image description page). Most of the licenses here require (at least) attribution (naming the author(s) – not only “commons.wikimedia.org” as a source, but the real author of the photograph – also noted on the image description page) and stating the license. For more details, see the above linked page.

--Mormegil (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

quick note

File:Morakat 2009 track.png needs to be renamed to File:Morakot 2009 track.png, as the actual storm was named "Morakot." --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 01:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would move it, but if I leave a redirect, will all the pages that use the misspelled name still show the picture (due to the redirect being there)...? Has anybody tested that? Killiondude (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I just did, and no, it doesn't work. :( Seems we still need CommonsDelinker for something. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Rules question

Hi. Is there some kind of rule saying that when a problem tag (say, missing permission) has been applied, and a user has been given 7 days to solve an issue, the image shouldn't be deleted in the interval? --Eusebius (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be implied by giving the 7 days? Obviously, unless another issue comes up. -- User:Docu at 13:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently admins sometimes speedy delete when a problem tag is here (with no further reason given), and above all regular users nominate as speedy (often without parameter). A little guideline about that kind of thing would be nice (actually, a clear howto about problem tags is probably necessary). Leaving the tagged image alone for 7 days seems better to me, because it is 1) more fair to the warned user and 2) it prevents speedy deletion with limited or no reasons in the deletion summary. Actually, I sometimes revert such speedy nominations (with a word to the nominator) but I'd like the opinion of other admins about that. --Eusebius (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wait for 7 days unless it is an obvious copyright violation: many times, I think that {{Copyvio}} would be more appropriate that {{Npd}} because the permission will never come (book/DVD/CD covers, posters, non free screenshot, etc.). Yann (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

But deleting an image using the trash button of the problem tag gives more information in the summary than just deleting with a "copyvio" summary. The trash button says what kind of information is missing (even when it is impossible to obtain), it says that the uploader has been asked for it and that he didn't provide it. I think a delete with a plain "copyright violation" (without argument, e.g. URL) looks much more arbitrary (and therefore attackable) and will provide less feedback to the other admins if the image gets re-uploaded. --Eusebius (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, agreed, I will use the trash buttom. To the reason above, I add logos, and source: Google/Internet/Facebook/Youtube. Yann (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have seen cases where explaining the problem to the uploader got him to obtain an OTRS authorization for the logo, so I tend to flag as missing permission (but I have nothing against a speedy when there's no tag yet). --Eusebius (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Also agreed, but obviously it depends of the logo. There is no real possibility to get a logo from a big corporation under a free license, there is too much at stake. There is a possibility for non commercial organisations. Yann (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Svg version of protected file 174px-Wikipedia-word1 7.png

Hi, could someone change the {{svg}} to {{Vector version available|Wikipedia-word1 7.svg}} in File:174px-Wikipedia-word1 7.png? --Beao (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is protection still needed for this image? It's in use on only two archive pages at en.wp. Hardly widely used on Wikimedia projects. –Tryphon^☂ 21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The protection summary says "Used on www.wikipedia.org." Perhaps that should be noted more clearly? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So I guess it was used in a prominent location or on a lot of different pages at some point; but as I said, it's now only used on two archive pages, so it seems to me that protection is not necessary anymore. Am I missing something? –Tryphon^☂ 21:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing that the text "Wikipedia" at the top of http://www.wikipedia.org actually is this image. I don't think there are many locations that are more prominent than that. /Ö 00:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please edit Gadget description

I translated Gadget description into Japanese. Please edit pages below. Don't put colons at the first of each page's content.

• MediaWiki:Gadget-OldUploadForm/ja:以前のアップロードページのレイアウトを使用する
• MediaWiki:Gadget-ChooseResolution/ja:Choose Resolution: 画像を再使用しやすいよう違う解像度で表示するリンクを追加します。
• MediaWiki:Gadget-Gallerypreview/ja:Gallerypreview: 画像ページにカテゴリとギャラリーのプレビューを表示します。（ノート）
• MediaWiki:Gadget-Slideshow/ja:Slideshow: ギャラリーの画像によるスライドショーを表示します。（ノート）
• MediaWiki:Gadget-addsection-plus/ja:「+comment」のタブの文字を「+」に変更する（インターフェースの言語を日本語にしている場合は意味がありません）
• MediaWiki:Gadget-DefaultSearch/ja:検索ボックスでEnter/Returnキーを押したときの動作を「表示」から「検索」に変更する
• MediaWiki:Gadget-section-Interface/ja:インターフェース変更
• MediaWiki:Gadget-purgetab/ja:ページの上部にページのキャッシュを破棄する「*」タブを追加する
• MediaWiki:Gadget-Gmaps/ja:Googleマップでカテゴリを表示: Googleマップでカテゴリの位置情報が付けられた画像を見るリンクを追加します。
• MediaWiki:Gadget-QPreview/ja:Quick Preview: ページを更新せずにプレビューをするボタンを追加します。（ノート）
• MediaWiki:Gadget-ClassicMonobook/ja:Classic Monobook: 昔のMonobookの背景に戻します。
• MediaWiki:Gadget-PrettyLog/ja:Pretty log: Special:Logのリストのレイアウトを検索 (Special:Search) 結果ページと同じものにします。表示されているログにファイルのアップロードが含まれている場合は、サムネイルを表示します。
• MediaWiki:Gadget-Geotoolbox/ja:Geocoding tools: 最近の更新、日単位のエラーログ、検索の3つの位置情報に関するリンクをツールボックスに追加します。
• MediaWiki:Gadget-Geocodecattodo/ja:カテゴリ内の位置情報の無い画像: カテゴリページに、位置情報が付けられていない画像を表示するツールにリンクしているタブを追加します
• MediaWiki:Gadget-DisableImageAnnotator/ja:画像の注釈を無効にする。この注釈に問題が発生した利用者のための非常用のガジェットです。チェックを入れた場合、画像の注釈は見ることができなくなります。開発者が問題を修正できるように、必ず問題を報告してください。
• MediaWiki:Gadget-section-Maintenance/ja:メンテナンスツール
• MediaWiki:Gadget-ThumbnailPurger/ja:Thumbnail Purger: ツールボックスにサムネイルの再作成/キャッシュの破棄をするリンクを追加します。
• MediaWiki:Gadget-AddInformation/ja:Add Information: {{Information}} テンプレートが使われていない画像ページのサイドバーに「Add {{Information}}」という新しいリンクを表示します。
• MediaWiki:Gadget-QuickDelete/ja:Quick Delete: 出典やライセンスの無いような削除すべき画像にテンプレートを貼り、それに応じてアップロードした利用者に知らせるとても便利なリンクを追加します（ヘルプ）。
• MediaWiki:Gadget-RemoveImageTools/ja:Remove Image Tools: 画像のツール（迷子、非明記、ギャラリー、カテゴリ付け、ja、利用調査のタブ）を無くします。
• MediaWiki:Gadget-Tineye/ja:Tineye: Tineyeを使って、表示している画像をインターネット上で検索します
• MediaWiki:Gadget-CSSValidate/ja:CSS-Validate: スタイルシートページにCSS検証サービスにリンクしているタブを追加します。
• MediaWiki:Gadget-section-Categories/ja:カテゴリ・ツール
• MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot/ja:Cat-a-lot: 画像をカテゴリ間で移動するのを助けるツール（ヘルプページ）
• MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat/ja:Hot Cat: ページ上で簡単にカテゴリを付与/除去/変更できます。カテゴリ名の候補表示機能付きです [説明 / 例]
• MediaWiki:Gadget-CategoryAboveAll/ja:カテゴリをページの上部に表示する
• MediaWiki:Gadget-CategoryAboveBelowImage/ja:カテゴリをファイルの説明ページでは画像の下に、それ以外のページではページの上部に表示する
• MediaWiki:Gadget-section-LanguageSupport/ja:言語支援
• MediaWiki:Gadget-BiDiEditing/ja:書字方向コントロールガジェット（作者はBrionとSplarka）
• MediaWiki:Gadget-ShortLink/ja:ShortLink: このガジェットはUTF-8でエンコードされた長いタイトルを特定の版への固定リンクから除去するためのものです。（ソース）
• MediaWiki:Gadget-MyLangNotify/ja:MyLangNotify: インターフェースを表示している言語で書かれた説明を強調します。それが無い場合は付け加えるよう表示します。
• MediaWiki:Gadget-section-Admins/ja:管理者や特定の利用者のためのツール

MediaWiki:Gadget-UTCLiveClock/ja is the same text with ja:MediaWiki:Gadget-UTCLiveClock, and MediaWiki:Gadget-contribsrange/ja is the same with ja:MediaWiki:Gadget-contribsrange.

Thank you.--Widehawk (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you edit the pages yourself? --Eusebius (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's in admin namespace. Abigor or Rocket000 usually do these. -- User:Docu at 07:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I guess I'm not fully awake yet. --Eusebius (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done a few. --Eusebius (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done - All MediaWiki pages are done now, thank you very very much for the time you spend with translating those pages, when something is wrong please contact us here or on my talk page so we can fix it. Huib talk 16:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Friends eating lunch at the home of Michael Lucas on Fire Island.jpg

Howdy everyone. The subject image is not used anywhere in Wikimedia, yet its history shows that it has been very controversial. Recently, the Wikipedia Review has launched a harassment campaign related to me that 1) tried to have me topic banned on Wikipedia; 2) blacklist my blog; and 3) edit-war over this photo. Through OR on the Wikipedia Review a person in the photograph is being identified without any evidence ("looks like him"). The edit summaries are full of accusations against me, OR and BLP violations. Could someone please protect the image to remove the OR?

Second, User:Swusr is banned editor User:Ionas68224. Ionas68224 claims on Swusr's user page that User:RedCoat is allowing him to use the Swusr account while he appeals a ban here on Commons (which doesn't appear to be happening). Ionas/Swusr is also banned on the English Wikipedia[26] and Simple English Wikipedia[27] for exactly the behavior he is currently undertaking here as Swusr. I doubt RedCoat actually meant for Ionas68224/Swusr to be allowed to edit so that he could carry on his harassment campaign here off English Wikipedia and Meta, but I ask the account be blocked regardless. Yesterday on English Wikipedia he was blocked as an abusive sock puppet for using the IP w:User:216.241.55.204 to harass me, which he is now doing here. --David Shankbone (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the file and it will stay protected for a while now, I could handle the OR because I don't really know what it means.

I didn't block or review any of the users involved I would say its better if a other admin handle that part, I closed the global blacklog request yesterday and if I would make a block now it will put me in a strange position. Huib talk 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Abigor :-) --David Shankbone (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm unclear how adding a caption for W:David Saranga, by far the most notable person in the photograph, constitutes "harassment" of David Shankbone. Like Shankbone, I was banned from Wikipedia Review - in my case for exposing the dishonesty of WR's staff - so I'm puzzled to hear now that I'm doing their bidding. He is David Saranga, David Shankbone knows this first-hand, and identified him in the caption for this very photograph on his blog. I can see no good reason why he shouldn't be properly captioned as such; if there is a good reason, please share it.Proabivouac (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Proabivouac is tarantino on the Wikipedia Review, and after not having edited here for years came back to lead this campaign off there. He's never contributed a single file here, and has only come here to have files deleted (and do this bizarre stuff). --David Shankbone (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not Tarantino on the Wikipedia Review. That is David Saranga, though.Proabivouac (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that Proabivouac and Tarantino are both quite distinct individuals - Alison ^❤ 02:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Same person in File:David Shankbone and David Saranga.jpg - I do not quite understand the problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the person in this file is unidentified. --David Shankbone (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"De-identified"? He is still there on google. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pieter. I was initially asked as a common courtesy to remove the name, but the request is no longer relevant. I still ask that the sock User:Swusr be blocked, as he is banned on Commons as User:Ionas68224, and this episode makes Commons the third project he has followed me on. --David Shankbone (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support honoring such a request were this a private citizen, but removing inconvenient information at the behest of foreign ambassadors takes it a bit too far. We don't want a situation where contributors are airbrushing Wikimedia projects' coverage of international political figures in exchange for access.Proabivouac (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, such a dramatic interpretation! lol. --David Shankbone (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In your own words - bearing in mind that User:WatchingWhales is one of your alternate accounts - “David Saranga...is an Israeli diplomat, who serves as the Consul for Media and Public Affairs of Israel in the United States. Saranga is responsible for Israel’s image in the United States and is the liaison person of Israel to the American media.”[28] It appears that he’s edited en.wp, including his own biography, under the alias, “Carmen Smith Jones,”[29][30] so while arguably dramatic, the concern here is not far-fetched.Proabivouac (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• In regards to Swusr (talk · contribs), I have blocked him/her as a sockpuppet. I see no indication on their talk page that any form of agreement was set up between RedCoat (talk · contribs) and Swusr (talk · contribs), and if there was edit warring was not part of the terms. Tiptoety ^talk 02:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• On a side note, Swusr (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock. I would appreciate if another administrator would review it. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 02:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Request Denied ::waves hand:: This is not the drama you are looking for. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 03:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, ShakataGaNai's block review was solicited via IRC.Proabivouac (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, my wording was the same there as it was here. I did not ask him specifically, but posed the question to any online administrator. Tiptoety ^talk 07:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"I did not ask him specifically…"[31]

"I asked him to review the block…"[32]

Releasing the logs would help clear this up.Proabivouac (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

←Really now, stop trying to stir up drama. I asked him to review the block after he answered my request for an administrator. Tiptoety ^talk 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It pains me that my first edit here is in order to defend myself against David Shankbone's attack. I am the editor who initiated the thread about the perception of a conflict of interest on en.wiki. I was very clear in that discussion that I was not asking for a topic ban, but was asking that Shankbone voluntarily agree to follow the suggestions in WP:COI to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. I also made it clear that starting that thread was unrelated to any off-wiki discussions. En.wiki admin Peteforsyth, who says he is "a good friend" of Shankbone, went so far as to say "The thread was opened in good faith, wanting some additional eyes on a situation that appeared questionable". While I cannot control Shankbone's perception, I can assure you that no harassment was intended. I am asking that Shankbone strike his comments here relating to me, and I will follow this up on en.wiki. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing file

Media of the day for 2009-10-09 (Media:Ravel - Brian Young - Ma Mere l'Oye - Pavane de la Belle au bois dormant.ogg) missing. --Tlusťa (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

The file isn't really missing but it has been deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Music of Ravel, so thats why its now a red link.

Best regards,

Huib talk 18:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that it is deleted :) But need to put another file. --Tlusťa (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Provisional unblock of Swusr (talk · contribs)

For those who did not follow the above thread (found here), I will summarize. Please note I have started a new thread instead of adding to the other one in an attempt steer away from the drama occurring there.

Swusr (talk · contribs) is a self declared sockpuppet of indef blocked Ionas68224 (talk · contribs). I recently block him for abusing multiple accounts stemming from some revert warring that occurred at File:Friends eating lunch at the home of Michael Lucas on Fire Island.jpg (page history), and for alleged harassment towards David Shankbone (talk · contribs). Swusr posted an unblock request, which after I asked for a review was denied. Earlier today Swusr contacted DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) via an off-wiki medium and requested that he review the block. After a short conversation with DragonflySixtyseven, this was the result.

Because a user whom I trust (DragonflySixtyseven) has indicated that the block should be overturned, I am putting this to the larger community for review. I am willing to unblock (though, I am of the opinion he should remain blocked) Swusr under the following conditions:

1. Swusr (talk · contribs) aka Ionas68224 (talk · contribs) refrains from the use of any other accounts, and continues to openly declare that the Swusr account is a sock of indef blocked Ionas68224;
2. That he refrians from any further revert warring;
3. That he stays away from David Shankbone (talk · contribs) (unless David Shankbone engages him).

Should he violate any of these terms, his account will be reblocked for a period of indefinite.

I will note that Ionas68224 has been blocked on a number of other wikis, and that his Swusr account has been indef blocked on every wiki it is on. I am not convinced that anything has changed, but have been known to be wrong. As such, I would like wider community input.

Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 02:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tiptoety. I'm not up to speed on the "legacy issues" surrounding Ionas' participation here, or on other wikiprojects, so can’t usefully comment about them. On the incidents which led to his block here, though, I highlight a few points:

1. It was David Shankbone who, to my surprise, began edit-warring to remove what should have been a wholly uncontroversial identification of Saranga in the caption. Swusr reverted him twice; Shankbone reverted three times.[33]
2. Shankbone's discussion of the content lacked candor, and prolonged the dispute. He pretended not to know that it was Saranga until Pieter Kuiper presented proof to the contrary,[34] at which point he offered a vague explanation and changed the subject to disputes on other wikis.[35]
3. Shankbone's insistence that the most notable person in the photograph remain unidentified hid salient information from readers, substantially degrading the value of the image. Swusr’s readdition of that information added value to Commons and served Wikimedia readers.

So, I can’t see that Swusr did anything wrong, other than log a few blunt (and apparently accurate) edit summaries. If Shankbone had acted transparently and reasonably, there would have been no dispute.Proabivouac (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place (This section) to discuss who did what. This is for a community view of unblocking Swusr, who is a sock of a blocked editor Ionas68224. It doesn't really matter if David started it as the editor (Swusr) already violated Commons policy by socking. Bidgee (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I haven't really looked into the details here (nor am I going to) - to me the obvious bottom line here is that if Swusr is a sock of indef. blocked Ionas68224 they should remain blocked - for abusing multiple accounts to evade a block, regardless of the character of the contributions from account Swusr. If the user as Swusr have given significant valuable contributions that may count as a positive factor for a future unblock of Ionas68224 (however, socking is normally a rather strong argument against unblocking). So I would have endorsed the original block and declined the proposal to unblock made by Dragonfly (but then again I'm no longer an admin here :). Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I will leave Probivouac's "worst possible faith" interpretation to stand on its own, as he seems intent on just stirring up drama and making accusations despite having never contributed anything to this project. Ionas is not banned on multiple projects for nothing, and ultimately he twisted User:RedCoat's words around to create a sock puppet, that was then used to harass me here after he harassed me both on English Wikipedia and Meta. He followed no process to join Commons again; he deceptively used RedCoat's name to support his socking; and for someone who has matured, took a harassment campaign that got him blocked on enwiki as w:Special:Contributions/216.241.55.204 over here. Now we are being asked to say, "He's matured and is not so bad, let's bring him back." The evidence doesn't support that statement. Regarding his agreement to stop harassing me, he was warned by an admin to stop socking on English Wikipedia, and the next day he was back to harassing me[36] and editing contentious articles. --David Shankbone (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I was unaware of this situation which David just pointed out above. This makes me very doubtful that an unblock would be a good choice. Tiptoety ^talk 16:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It’s odd, David Shankbone, that you’d accuse me of assuming bad faith, when you’re saying that the only reason Ionas, Delicious Carbuncle, Tarantino, etc. are alleging that you have a conflict of interest is in order to cause drama and harass you. Isn't it possible that they really do think that you have a COI, and are trying to improve Wikimedia projects by addressing it? It’s obvious that you have some kind of relationship, at least, with both Lucas and Saranga, and as long as you remain the number one contributor to these subjects, questions are bound to arise, particularly when it’s done with alternate accounts - strikes me that the easiest way to put them to rest is to just avoid editing those topics.(Normally, Commons wouldn’t be the place to discuss the merits of disputes on en.wp, but so long as they’re being invoked as the reason to block a user over here, it seems unavoidable.)Proabivouac (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian Churches and Places / Categories

User:LeeKeoma has uploaded about 200 files with Bulgarian churches and places - about half of them is without categories, see galery [37] - do you have a portal of bulgarian users to add categories and to translate the description? The files are OK, most of them are used in the Bulgarian wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cholo Aleman (talk • contribs) 10:55, 2009 October 8 (UTC)

If these images are in use my bot should be able to suggest some categories. I'll fire it up. Multichill (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File names is quite reasonable, so you could use them. It'll be much better then bot's guessing.

Short dictionary:

• Sv -> Saint
• Arhangel.Mihail -> Michael (archangel)
• Nikola -> Nicholas
• Bogoroditza -> Holy Virgin
• Trifon -> Tryphon
• Petar&Pavel -> Peter and Paul
• Troitsa -> Trinity
• Georgi -> George
• Uspenie.Bogorodichno -> Dormition

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please

This user insists on uploading images is not the author, an administrator can check. Thanks. Fabiano ^msg 23:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

He was just warned by Martin H. (talk · contribs), if he continues I assume he will block, if not I will. Tiptoety ^talk 23:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• blocked Huib talk 19:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with identifying copyvios

I would need some help to identify possibly mass copyright problem , made by User:Corvettec6r, almost every picture he has uploaded is different size in pixel and different quality, which hints about those being copied from elsewhere, I have tagged some as copyvios, but comments /help would be needed, what to do and try to find more evidence about copyvios... --Typ932 (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think that the lack of meta details is one clue that they might be copyvios. --David Shankbone (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove image tagging/notes

Can we please disable the new image notes function? I've seen barely any use of it other than vandalism, and generally can't see the point in it. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hear hear. I believe we should restrict its use to autoconfirmed users at a very minimum. -Nard the Bard 19:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• YES! - on my photos they have only been used for nonsense; and with discussion pages there is no need for them. --David Shankbone (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Only for non-autoconfirmed please. A lot of people have made very good use of the functionality - scan Category:Images with annotations for some examples. Even some IPs do good work annotating. How about using the abuse filter to lock most out but allowing exceptions on request? Wknight94 ^talk 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Did any of you check [38] and went through the image notes? Those are only the ones by new users. I do agree that quite a few of them are not useful, but there are also useful ones, I'd say about 50%. Does that warrant semi-protection for image notes? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's at least have semi-protection. I'm fed up of seeing "Tag: image notes by new users" and knowing that someone's written penis on a map of Montana. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at my contribs - I know all about the image note vandalism. But it would be a pity to lose so many good ones. We need some kind of middle ground. Wknight94 ^talk 20:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, one or the other words could be worked into the edit filters.

Another thing that it shows, IMHO, is that talk pages are rarely used to comment on images. Compare the link ChrisiPK gave to Special:RecentChanges/File talk (IP edits) -- User:Docu at 20:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW Lupo plans to implement version 2 later this month. This will include a feature asking for an edit summary at the removal of annotations. This might reduced this type of edit. -- User:Docu at 20:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The way I check, I only see additions of notes, not removals. I don't know how much removal vandalism there is. I'm not sure how much it would reduce vandalism anyway. Wknight94 ^talk 20:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that it's vandalism, as the removal is currently a bit too easy (compared to other edits). Even if someone notices that he/she removed a note by error and would like to undo that, it's rather complicated (at least for new editors, IMHO). -- User:Docu at 20:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense for removed notes. But there is still the issue of added note vandalism - the original issue mentioned above. I think a few people monitoring links like I do (see the http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&hideliu=1&target=Category%3AImages_with_annotations link on my user page) would help that issue a lot. There really isn't as much as it seems. But I wouldn't be entirely opposed to shutting it off to anyone not autoconfirmed. Wknight94 ^talk 01:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems easier to spot than other things, but it's a bit hard to coordinate when several are trying to do this. The annotation function makes Commons a bit more like a wiki. -- User:Docu at 02:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have just worked my way through a few hundred entries on the Abuse filter log [39] and am actually surprised how few vandalism edits are shown there. There are many useful annotations. One problem that I do note is that some edits are really just added description entries, and don't need to be linked to some part of the image. Perhaps a better name for the button would help. It probably just represents new users unsure of how to edit image descriptions. I do not think that impeding removal of annotations in any way is necessary, I certainly saw no vandalism removal of notes. If some users image's are targeted, I suspect that reflects the rate of vandalism of those images, and is not this tools general usage. In my opinion one of the things that Commons needs is more descriptions on images, this tool certainly allows easy addition of descriptions to images, perhaps what it shows is that we need a shortcut button to edit the description field of the information template directly and simply. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Image needs to be moved

Can that be done her, too? I know they enabled it on Wikipedia (as I've moved several images there), but you have to be an admin to do so. I assume the same is true here if it's enabled. File:ModernShintoShrine.PNG needs to be moved to File:Modern Buddhist temple.png as it's a Buddhist temple, not a Shinto shrine. Thanks! ···日本穣^{Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I made sure it wasn't being used anywhere, too, so no image links to fix. ···日本穣^{Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done - Huib talk 06:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the very speedy service. :) ···日本穣^{Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

File redirects should neither be suppressed nor deleted since files are transcluded in many websites outside the wikipedia, see also Brion's statement. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This particluar one should be broken as the previous name was patently false since it was a picture of a Buddhist temple being listed as a Shinto shrine. Files are deleted all the time from Commons without regard to how many places it may be used elsewhere on the net, so I don't see this as any different. I can see leaving a redirect in place if it's just clarifying the name (say, "DSCF-12345.jpg" being moved to "Mount Fuji at sunrise from Yokohama.jpg"), but there's no reason to leave a redirect in place when the previous file name was completely misleading. Not having the redirect is the surest way of making sure anyone stealing the Foundation's bandwidth knows the image is no longer there. ···日本穣^{Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Just my opinion:

I didn't read the statement before so I can say I was aware of it, but Brion Vibber doesn't make a policy by just saying something every thing on the internet is dynamic and can come and go whenever the site owner wants to, a user linking to a Commons file or even hotlinking a Commons file shouldn't expect Commons to never move the file or delete the file, and if a user now travels to the file page he sees a note about the file move and can easy change the link on his site.

On the other hand, I supressed the link because the box was already choosen, I didn't select leave no redirect behind so it was done by error or by misconfriguration, Commons is already discussion what we will do with redirects and I'm sure I will act like however the outcome is for that discussion, but your reaction placed here on this noticeboard feels like that you are trying to say I broke policies, atleast so do I see the message I'm happy to recieve comments and try to change things but please say things in a bigger way than only one sentence. Huib talk 14:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

And it is not clear to you that you can do damages to the projects? Just because you think so you will do it? Nice. -jkb- (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What damage did I cause? Huib talk 19:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The reputation and good name of the Wiki projects. Just like MatthiasB linked above: not only what Brion argues, the same is being duscussed on the German Wiki at present as well - Commons does not provide images to the WMF projects only but to external projects as well. And, when somebody says "delete it, I did not find any broken links to be fixed" (see here some paragraphs above), so it is nonsence. He canot know it. Regards, and keep well, -jkb- (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Mass image and linkspam accounts

• Commons Accounts

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Usgeowiki (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Usgeowiki ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Usgeowiki ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Usgeowiki ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Usgeowiki Image spamming account
• User:Usgeowiki/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Askgeowiki (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Askgeowiki ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Askgeowiki ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Askgeowiki ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Askgeowiki Image spamming account
• User:Askgeowiki/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Autauga County Alabama (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Autauga County Alabama ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Autauga County Alabama ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Autauga County Alabama ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Autauga County Alabama Image spamming account
• User:Autauga County Alabama/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Ksademap (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Ksademap ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Ksademap ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Ksademap ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Ksademap Image spamming account
• User:Ksademap/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Sakhani (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Sakhani ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Sakhani ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Sakhani ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Sakhani Image spamming account

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Autaugaalgeo (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Autaugaalgeo ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Autaugaalgeo ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Autaugaalgeo ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Autaugaalgeo Image spamming account

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Alabamaalwiki (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Alabamaalwiki ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Alabamaalwiki ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Alabamaalwiki ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Alabamaalwiki Image spamming account

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Barbour_County_Alabam (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Barbour_County_Alabam ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Barbour_County_Alabam ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Barbour_County_Alabam ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Barbour_County_Alabam Image spamming account
• User:Barbour_County_Alabama/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Adams_County_Colorado (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Adams_County_Colorado ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Adams_County_Colorado ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Adams_County_Colorado ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Adams_County_Colorado Image spamming account
• User:Adams_County_Colorado/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Apache County Arizona (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Apache County Arizona ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Apache County Arizona ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Apache County Arizona ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Apache County Arizona Image spamming account
• User:Apache County Arizona/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Autauga County Alabama (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Autauga County Alabama ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Autauga County Alabama ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Autauga County Alabama ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Autauga County Alabama Image spamming account
• User:Autauga County Alabama/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Butler County Alabama (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Butler County Alabama ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Butler County Alabama ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Butler County Alabama ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Butler County Alabama Image spamming account
• User:Butler County Alabama/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Colbert County Alabama (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Colbert County Alabama ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Colbert County Alabama ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Colbert County Alabama ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Colbert County Alabama Image spamming account
• User:Colbert County Alabama/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Butte County California (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Butte County California ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Butte County California ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Butte County California ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Butte County California Image spamming account
• User:Butte County California/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Dekalb County Alabama (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Dekalb County Alabama ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Dekalb County Alabama ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Dekalb County Alabama ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Dekalb County Alabama Image spamming account
• User:Dekalb County Alabama/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Dale County Alabama (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Dale County Alabama ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Dale County Alabama ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Dale County Alabama ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Dale County Alabama Image spamming account
• User:Dale County Alabama/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Cache County Utah (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Cache County Utah ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Cache County Utah ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Cache County Utah ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Cache County Utah Image spamming account
• User:Cache County Utah/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Chilton County Alabama (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Chilton County Alabama ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Chilton County Alabama ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Chilton County Alabama ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Chilton County Alabama Image spamming account
• User:Chilton County Alabama/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Fremont County Wyoming (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Fremont County Wyoming ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Fremont County Wyoming ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Fremont County Wyoming ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Fremont County Wyoming Image spamming account
• User:Fremont County Wyoming/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Franklin County Florida (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Franklin County Florida ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Franklin County Florida ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Franklin County Florida ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Franklin County Florida Image spamming account
• User:Franklin County Florida/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Baldwin County Alabama (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Baldwin County Alabama ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Baldwin County Alabama ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Baldwin County Alabama ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Baldwin County Alabama Image spamming account
• User:Baldwin County Alabama/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Boone County Arkansas (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Boone County Arkansas ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Boone County Arkansas ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Boone County Arkansas ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Boone County Arkansas Image spamming account
• User:Boone County Arkansas/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Custer County Idaho (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Custer County Idaho ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Custer County Idaho ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Custer County Idaho ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Custer County Idaho Image spamming account
• User:Custer County Idaho/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Crenshaw County Alabama (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Crenshaw County Alabama ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Crenshaw County Alabama ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Crenshaw County Alabama ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Crenshaw County Alabama Image spamming account
• User:Crenshaw County Alabama/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Baxter County Arkansas (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Baxter County Arkansas ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Baxter County Arkansas ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Baxter County Arkansas ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Baxter County Arkansas Image spamming account
• User:Baxter County Arkansas/gallery repository

----

(Reports: COIBot | archivesearch | noticeboards | LinkWatcher) User:Blount County Alabama (Google) (Luxo's | VVV's | CentralAuth)

meta: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Blount County Alabama ← logs || links to meta userpage || search meta

commons: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Blount County Alabama ← logs || links to commons userpage || search commons

enwiki: userpage (talk) | contribs | deleted | edit count | logs ← Blount County Alabama ← logs || link to en userpage || search en

---

• Special:Contributions/Blount County Alabama Image spamming account
• User:Blount County Alabama/gallery repository

We caught this yesterday, mass link and image spamming on the en.Wikipedia. Its a scraper site of ripped content from bea.gov, and claiming copyright to the sites generated images and data. We've dealt with the problem as best we could on EN, however these accounts and "repositories" remain;

• User:Usgeowiki/gallery repository
• User:Askgeowiki/gallery repository
• User:Autauga County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Ksademap/gallery repository
• Special:Contributions/Sakhani
• Special:Contributions/Autaugaalgeo
• Special:Contributions/Alabamaalwiki
• User:Barbour_County_Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Adams_County_Colorado/gallery repository
• User:Apache County Arizona/gallery repository
• User:Autauga County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Butler County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Colbert County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Butte County California/gallery repository
• User:Dekalb County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Dale County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Cache County Utah/gallery repository
• User:Chilton County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Fremont County Wyoming/gallery repository
• User:Franklin County Florida/gallery repository
• User:Baldwin County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Boone County Arkansas/gallery repository
• User:Custer County Idaho/gallery repository
• User:Crenshaw County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Baxter County Arkansas/gallery repository
• User:Blount County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Alleghany County Virginia/gallery repository
• User:Alameda_County_California/gallery repository
• User:Fulton County New York/gallery repository
• User:Bailey County Texas/gallery repository
• User:Shelby County Ohio/gallery repository
• User:Ontonagon County Michigan/gallery repository
• User:Cullman County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Covington County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Coosa County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Conecuh County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Coffee County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Cleburne County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Clay County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Clarke County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Choctaw County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Cherokee County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Chambers County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Bullock County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Calhoun County Alabama/gallery repository
• User:Bibb County Alabama/gallery repository
• ECT.....

See also;

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Mass_spamming_of_askgeo.org
• User_talk:Hu12#askgeo.org_links

thanks --Hu12 (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• There are so many of these, it best to track them down with a linksearch of askgeo.org--Hu12 (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on this (thank you for telling us). This is some big spam.... — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 19:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. Sadly, that very openness sometimes attracts people like this who seek to exploit the site. --Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I think we got it all. Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 20:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I have blocked the several spam accounts too. A CU should take a further look. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

← I am filing a RFCU right now. Tiptoety ^talk 20:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Usgeowiki. Tiptoety ^talk 20:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[OK] Added on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Kwj2772 (msg) 02:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Intervention

Intervention is needed. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes#edit war. --Snek01 (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep this discussion in ~1 place, rather than spread it across multiple noticeboards, so as to avoid confusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

File:MyNewBanner.jpg

Could someone please take care of this spam for an adult website? It's been around for a while and probably wouldn't be noticed, but the uploader was stupid enough to spam it on the English Wikipedia Help Desk. I would tag it for deletion but I'm not too familiar with Commons policy in that area. Thanks. Xenon54 (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 File deleted - Tiptoety ^talk 01:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion_policy#Detailed_guidelines for the applicable deletion tags on Commons. Thank you for the information. --Martin H. (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:75.92.143.26

It would appear that User:75.92.143.26 was just blocked (and her edits reverted) for correctly identifying a bunch of roller derby competitors by their noms de guerre. I am in the process of restoring her edits. She should be unblocked. - Jmabel ! talk 06:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK Kwj2772 (msg) 07:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

editconflictAs the one who reverted and requested the block I'm fine with this It looks like Abigor is gone at the moment when I pinged him on IRC but if someone else is willing to do so that may be appropriate. Looks like it just got doneJamesofur (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How to add new agreement from copyrightholder?

I try to ask here, since I´m not familiar with Commons. Feel free to move this to a preferred place.

I´ve just got asked for, and got, a new agreement from the copyrightholder of some of the images Ive uploded. I´v realised there was a problem spring 2009, since on image was deleted and I couldn´t specify in what way the mail I´v uploded was a agreement good enough for the license.

Know I want to change the old agreement to the new email I got, so the images want be obejcts for discussions in the future. But, how do I do that, the easiest way? Do I really have to upload the whole file again? Because that was a heck to do he last time, I´m no programmer and don´t really have the time for the moment.--Godfellow (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What you should do is to forward that e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and be sure to mention which files this permission concerns. Then it would be dealt with by OTRS-volunteers (many of whom understand Swedish/Scandinavian). Until the OTRS-people have had time to read and verify the content of the permission, you should tag the files concerned with {{OTRS-pending}}. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree images. A lot of them.

This person Progenie of the great apocalypse2 (talk · contribs) has uploaded a lot of images claiming that the copyright holder has agreed to license them, even claiming that some is his under a Norwegian name. He wrote a message here in Spanish, so we can safely assume that this person is not Norwegian. At his talk page he's trying to communicate with people who speaks English in Spanish, so we can draw the conclusion that he has not been in contact with the copyright holders due to the language barrier. These are some of examples of the different authors, [40], [41], [42].

On top of this, he has been uploading logos with a license tag claiming that it's his own work, such as these [43], [44], [45].

Is there anyone who can scour his uploads and deal with the obviously erroneously licensed uploads? (Some of them looks okay from Flickr) Thanks. Elizabeth Bathory (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He first uploaded many images with wrong licenses or as own work. I already fixed most of his uploads and attributed them to http://www.cmisje.no/. In deed the website gave this attribution permission, also the website owner himself, User:Cmisje, uploaded a lot of this images. The first mistake of Progenie of the great apocalypse2 was to copy the edits of Cmisje instead of providing correct source information. I already asked at the website if the Attribution permission includes every purpose and all images. --Martin H. (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. That's a great source of photos then. What about all the logos he claims he's the copyright holder of? Elizabeth Bathory (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Can somebody help me change my username? Thank you in advance, Tilmandralle (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

COM:CHU gives all the info on that process, and you'd post your request there (with the name you want to change to). Good luck. :-) Killiondude (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Tilmandralle (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Update to protected file

I made some slight modifications to File:Crystal personal.svg and per instructions at Commons:Requested updates to protected images uploaded it as a seperate file, File:Crystal personal2.svg. But it appears that the original file isn't actually protected (just the page), so would it be OK for me to upload the new version there and request deletion of the duplicate? PC78 (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted my comment on Commons:Requested updates to protected images. Best regards. Kwj2772 (msg) 14:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What is meant by "invalid SVG format"? PC78 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I've fixed it. Can you check the file again? PC78 (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK for upload. Kwj2772 (msg) 05:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not OK for duplicate file deletion due to a problem in CheckUsage. Kwj2772 (msg) 05:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

:-( Toolserver is down again, this time due to "hardware failure".--Túrelio (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Toolserver is back up now. CheckUsage shows that the duplicate file isn't being used anywhere. PC78 (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion requests that need fixing

Resolved

A small batch of deletion requests has just been filed, see Special:Contributions/II...Richard...II. The user has incorrectly created pages like Lucky-luke.png and attached the DR there, instead of editing file:Lucky-luke.png which seem to have been the intention. Same error then of course carried over to the transcluded pages at COM:DR. When I went to their talk page to ask them to sort this out, it turns out even the talk page has been requested for deletion some weeks ago. Could someone please try to help this person out. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I went through and deleted the pages/files that needed to be deleted and fixed the other ones. I also left the user a message. Thanks. Tiptoety ^talk 05:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tiptoety! Finn Rindahl (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Superseded

Can somebody please repair the template? Template:SupersededPNG is not wrking anymore. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The template needs an if function, when people use file: or image:. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Eva Kowalewska

Hi. I just wanted to alert folks to Category:Eva Kowalewska (I am likely to forget before long). The uploader has claimed that Eva Kowalewska has approved the artwork for publication on Wikipedia and Commons - the images are even watermarked as such. 1.) I am worried that the uploader is not aware of downstream use as well, 2.) I have asked the uploader to use the COM:OTRS system to verify the license. I didn't want to flood the uploader with {{Npd}} notices, but also didn't want to lose track of them. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 11:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To avoid forgetting it, I think you should add a template to the images. -- User:Docu at 16:17, 2009 October 16

minor thing, but don't know where to ask

This is not a major crisis, but someone uploaded a new image over the top of an existing one at file:Cowboy.jpg with no change to the file info, which now sounds ridiculous. The problem is that the old image is a historic photo from 1887 or 1888 and is linked on a number of articles throughout wikipedia for historical uses, and the new image is obviously just a modern image, and a small-sized one at that. The old image is also at File:TheCowBoy-1888.jpg and another cropped version elsewhere, so I don't know if the solution is to go across all language wikis and swap the image or just restore this one to the old image that was there. But help! Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted. It seems like possibly image vandalism. If they really want that image, they can upload it under a new filename. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith I would conclude, that with the generic name "Cowboy.jpg" such accidents might happen again in the future. That is why a more specific name like "TheCowBoy-1888.jpg" is prefarable. --Wuselig (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to separate files - maybe someone knows how it works easier? Delete the whole file, restore the latter upload made by Dog348 (1 file and 1 edit), move the file to an appropriate filename supressing redirect, restore the rest of Cowboy.jpg. However, only the information template is logged, not the license, so the moved file must be marked as {{subst:nld}} and the uploader must correct this. --Martin H. (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

None of which is within my ability, but if you guys can fix this, the main thing is that this image is linked to an awful lot of wiki articles and to change the name and track down all the links will be a real PITA. That said, I myself will use the alternately-named copies in the future. Montanabw (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we set delinker to universal replace cowboy with the alternate name version. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

id user

hi there, I want to copy some articles in wikipedia and I need to put a footnote about the source (writer of that articles) but I just got their username, how can I get their real name? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.164.206.253 (talk) 22:25, 2009 October 15 (UTC)

Hi. This question seems better suited for w:Wikipedia:Help Desk, as Commons does not deal with Wikipedia issues. However, note that most contributors are entirely anonymous, and do not disclose their real identity. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

stormfront.org not on forbidden list?

Today an IP correctly noted on the talkpage of File:Capture of Kazan by Ivan IV.jpeg that this image is sourced to the neo-nazi website stormfront.org and thereby sort of advertises for this website. Though I could easily remove the problematic link because stormfront.org was only a tertiary source as it linked to imageshack, I somewhat wonder why this website (stormfront.org) isn't on our "forbidden" URL list that contains far less problematic websites? Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's probably because we simply cannot blacklist every nazi website out there. Our blacklist is only used to prevent spamming, so a page does not get on there unless it is spammed agressively. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh and about the source: Imageshack is not really a good source for this file. Usually we want to have a source that tells us about the author and/or date. In this case, the information is believable, but there are others where such verification is needed. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chromium logo.png

Would someone please take a look at this and decide what to do (my take is delete the file in question)? Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:GoogleChrome.svg. People keep trying to push this logo onto Commons, and it keeps getting deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

I'd like to find out, if it is a good idea to completely delete a user talk page history after most of it was archived as it was done here? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The talkpage is not deleted (except one redirect after vandalism in 2006) but archived via pagemove, see the log. Only the last move (redlink) was a bit unconcentrated, follow the red links to its final destination. I do the same with my talkpage and I think it is the only correct way to archive something including all version history. Ok, it breaks difflinks, but you can easily restore them. See w:en:Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page#Move_procedure.--Martin H. (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Description with no image? File:Sabine.jpg

As of now, this file: File:Sabine.jpg shows up as being an image description page with no image. The most recent log entry is an upload in May 2009. Can someone look into this? JesseW (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

 Deleted as a file page with no media. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 07:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I've had this happen because of server-side screw-ups on upload. When you see this, I strongly suggest contacting the person who created the file, because they may well have the image available and be unaware there was a problem uploading it. - Jmabel ! talk 07:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

self-made Flickrreview

Just to be sure before admonishing a user, Horst-schlaemma (talk · contribs) uploaded a image from Flickr and 3 minutes later added[46] {{flickrreview|File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)|October 18, 2009}}, thereby suggested that the image had been sucessfully Flickrreviewed. Do I assume correctly that there is no way this action might have been legitimate? Luckily, 9 hours later Multichill found the image to be licensed NC+ND on its source. --Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not allowed. Only people on Commons:Flickr files/reviewers and administrators may add that tag. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

File history

Is it possible to delete files from the file history without deleting the file itself? Or would I have to delete the file and re-upload it again? I would like to remove past files of this file, if possible. Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 13:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That's possible. I've deleted the file in question. Please do ask if you have any further questions and/or requests. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 13:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Need help about changing copyright laws

Hello, I'm a sysop from vi.wiki. Vietnamese intellectual property law (IP law) has been revised by Law No. 36/2009/QH12 in June 2009 and will be effect from 1 January 2010 (Vietnamese Law page from Vietnam Ministry of Justice, there are no official English translations yet, but you can try Google Translate). I would like to summarize some important revised articles about term of copyright protection:

• Article 27. Term of copyright protection:

  2. a) All cinematography, photography, applied art, anonymous works enter public domain seventy-five years after they first published. If work of cinematography, photography, applied art wasn't published in 25 years after it was created, the protection term will be 100 years after they were created. In case of anonymous works, when the author is revealed, then applied as Section b.

  2. b) All other works apart from Section a has protection term is author's life + 50 years after he/she died. If it has multiple authors, it is 50 years after the last author die.

• Article 220. Article of Transition

  1. Author's right in the protection of other laws which was in effect before the effect day of This Law, if was still protected in the day This Law begin to be effect, then will continue to be protected by This Law.

For the summary, the major change which affect to our projects is the Article 27, Section 2a, the photography will be protected 75 years after it was published (the unrevised is 50 years), and the Article 220 says that this law is not retroactive, i.e., if a work is in public domain in Vietnam before 1 January 2010, it is still in public domain.

I would like some help about how to implement this change to all Wikimedia projects, like {{PD-Russia}} before. Could anyone tell me what should I do? Tân (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No advice? Tân (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The best place to go is Commons talk:Licensing. There is no section Commons:Licensing#Vietnam so far, the only relevant places are Template:PD-Vietnam and the coresponding Category:PD Vietnam. --Martin H. (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be necessary to amend the template on the 1st of January to state that photographs published before 1st January 1960 or created more than 100 years ago in Vietnam are public domain there. Effectively, no (or very few) photographs will enter the public domain there for 25 years, starting from 2010-01-01. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Blacklist override

Could an admin create my monobook.js page? Currently the global blacklist prohibits me from doing so, and as I am not an admin on this wiki, it blocks me from doing so. (*Rschen7754* was put on the list because of abuse by other users). --Rschen7754 (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. --Martin H. (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Categorizing NOINDEX

As a new software "feature", any use of the magic word __NOINDEX__ will now be categorized into Category:Noindexed pages. I think that's against the whole sense of NOINDEX. The people don't want that their pages can be easily navigated to, but the category exactly does that. Thus, I'd propose to do it like de.wikipedia and to turn this category off. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't mind my talk page being in a category. BTW Category:Noindexed pages needed __NOINDEX__. I don't think images/files, galleries or categories should generally be using __NOINDEX__. So a way to check this helps. -- User:Docu at 16:17, 2009 October 16

I'd prefer turning off like dewiki. I don't understand why this category is needed. Kwj2772 (msg) 15:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This category gives us the possibility to see on what pages this tag is set. Right now there are a few images in there, those should not have this tag. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If so, I think we should use special page rather than category. If someone removes NOINDEX from Category:Noindexed pages, it will be easy to get a list of noindexed pages using robot. But special pages have <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" /> so text in special page is hardly shown in search engine. Kwj2772 (msg) 12:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point. What about excluding user and user talk pages from this category with {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:2}}|{{ns:3}}=<>|#default=Noindexed pages}}. I think if people don't want their pages to be indexed, then they also shouldn't be indexed, for other pages though, this category might be useful. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good excluding those two if possible. To address the issue Kwj brought up, we could also edit protect the category description. I'm less enthusiastic about Special pages - even if we could do much more with special pages - there aren't that many that work for Commons. -- User:Docu at 15:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Hopefully, that'll work. --The Evil IP address (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I refreshed some of the pages last week. It seems that the remainder doesn't get cleared without. If still needed, I will do the remainder next week. -- User:Docu at 14:06, 2009 October 26

Self drawn maps / layouts based on with information from elswere

Sorry if that's the wrong place to ask. Its a question about uploading self-made layouts, in this case a subway layout/map:
I found a map about the Suzhou Subway here [47] and redraw it by myself, using its information.

What do my self drawn layout and the source have in common?
1. The basic four lines in the way they run.
2. Tho basic colors of those four lines (might be changed, as I think those colors are not the planned ones).
3. The "wording" of the Chinese station names.

What do they not have in common?
1. The font of the Chinese station names - all station names rewritten by myself with an open font.
2. I added the latin letter transcription (Pinyin) for the Chinese station names.
3. The lines themselves have been drawn by myself (no copy+paste) although I used the mentioned source to know how they go.
4. I skipped the normal train line (grey) as it does not belong to the subway network.
5. I skipped the disply of the rivers in downtown as they do not belong to the network.
6. Size: As the picture I am going to upload is completely redrawn, it can be read in fullscreen mode in clear and good quality. Size: 3432x3161pixels.
7. Overview of line numbers in lower right corner is replaced by simple Arabic numbers directly at the lines.

The whole layout was redrawn by me, from an empty white file, without any copy+paste from the above mentioned source.
For sure using the Chinese station names does not violate anything, but what about the rest?

Can I upload my file and if yes, which license should I use?

Thanks for your help
YYK

It's a tricky question, because I assume, that, at some point, you have imitated the generalization from the copyrighted map. I don't think there is a definite answer to that question, you might try asking at Commons talk:Licensing. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well...

We seem to agree that you cannot copyright database entries. Thus, if you take a look at google Earth, and then use that to make an outline, that is NOT a copyvio as you're just using the coords of the landscape features, which Google can't claim to own. In another place, the picture for Wikiproject Disney is clearly an imitation of a copyrighted logo, and while it uses the same basic features, it's not the same, and we allow it. I'd say that it sounds like a combination - you can't claim copyright on the existence of the tube lines, nor the station names. The combination colour/lines might be tricky, but it also may be PD-shape or PD-ineligible. I'd personally go for it being OK if you straightened out the lines somewhat, so it isn't such a direct copying. Without the river, you don't need the bends anyway. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Chinese, so I don't know if this might apply: openstreetmap:Copyright Easter Eggs.

Also: openstreetmap:Copyright in deriving from aerial photography.

--AVRS (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys - I think I will change the style of the map to become even more individual, adapt the last "official" colors from the government city planning office for the subway lines and mark some station names as "to be confirmed" as for 5 stations I did not find an area on the map with the same name close by (I checked each single one of them). Then I think we should be totally safe, right? In the article which I am also going to edit, I'll anyway mention [48] as one source for information. You think that'll be OK?

Anyway, thanks a lot for your advice!

You are never really safe, as there is much copyright paranoia on Commons. However, the following are facts and cannot be copyrighted: names and locations of the stations, topology of the newtork (connectivity), standarized colors of lines. See the maps in London Underground geographic maps to get the general idea. Sv1xv (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello again,

would you mind to check below picture. I uploaded the map to commons but did not yet link it somewhere.
I think it should be fine right now. Its now obvious that the map is self drawn, the colors are different (and fit more to the ones of the city planning department), the displaying of the lines' way through the city has also changed and information have been added which are not in the "original". Basically the only thing taken from the original are some station names which were missing in the test of the original government page.
Thanks again for your patience.

Portuguese-speaking admin

Before anything gets even more heated at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rollo desenhos 2.jpg, could I please request that an administrator with decent Portuguese and at least a reading knowledge of English translate what I wrote there and keep an eye on the discussion? A Portuguese-speaker is taking a deletion discussion personally. Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 02:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please? It would really help for someone Portuguese speaking to reassure this user that no one is diminishing Brazilian culture by rejecting Brazilian images that may have rights issues. - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you aren't being ignored, but there is only a small handful of admins who speak Portuguese. Perhaps you should check the list at Commons:Administrators and contact one directly. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • As for example User:Waldir, who has been active today. --Túrelio (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Will do. - Jmabel ! talk 01:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Out of scope

I think that Template:Out of scope could be very useful but the Category:Possibly out of scope where it puts the image tagged with this template, does not exits. --ALE! ¿…? 21:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need that template? We already have a template for out-of-scope material: {{Delete}}. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need {{Derivative}} or {{Fair use}} then? For giving a more specific reason. That's why! --ALE! ¿…? 15:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case, change the template so that it also includes the speedy deletion template. I don't think that we need yet another speedy template, but if that's what you think is needed, go ahead. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please change it, if really necessary, to a speedy deletion template like {{speedydelete|reason}} and remember to add "Template:Out of scope" into a line of the {{switch:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template:Fair use|Template:Derivative|...}} construct of Template:Speedydelete, as to avoid having the template categorized. However, I'm not sure if we should speedily delete out of project scope images. I once thought about creating a deletion process similar to {{subst:nsd}} for these images, but I've given that up because sometimes images seem out of scope, but aren't, which is why they should better be nominated for deletion, even if that sometimes seems redundant. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe somebody who really knows how to change these templates shoudl do it. --ALE! ¿…? 12:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

png preview of a svg file not updated

Hi folks, maybe you know what can be done else ...

Yesterday I did an upload of a new version of File:BSicon exBUE.svg along with several other updates, but on the description page of this file the png preview is still the old version, instead of what I get when requesting the 500px png version of this file. I tried to reload, purge, I even deleted my cache, no change :(

My last idea would be to try another reload, but this will result in an additional version in history ... what can be done else? axp_de^Hello! 07:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I just purged it, and it's fine now, isn't it? –Tryphon^☂ 07:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Already tried that, maybe done by an admin purge is more successful ;-) Thanks axp_de^Hello! 12:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You also need to remember to clear your cache (Shift-Reload in Firefox), otherwise the newly generated preview will not show up. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As said before, I even deleted the whole browser cache, but it didn't work! axp_de^Hello! 18:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Circuit fantasies

The User:Circuit-fantasist (a bulgarian electrical engineer) is uploading hand-drawn images of electric circuits (examples at the right, more than 500 files, including fotos of his students) - all of them (as far as I see) are uncategorized. He has started a wikibook about electrical engineering (linked at his homepage). I have no idea about the educational value of these "circuit fantasies". Do you have a policy about it? It all looks a bit strange. Perhaps it will be the best to create own categories? Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I am just looking at the use of these files: most of them are used in the wikibook "Circuit idea" see [49]. It looks strange too (selfdescription "more an art than science"), but they are used. But the question for the categories remain. Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit in the style of "The Art of Electronics" by Horowitz and Hill - Category:Teaching illustrations of electronics. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea - it is from the same user Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Next question with uncategorized files ...

The user "Haas-Fertigbau", obviously a German company, has added several logos, see his contributions [50], all without categories. For my intention they are all advertisement, and out of scope, but I'm not sure... Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, German company, according to the website the group makes the quite high de.wp inclusion criterias (>1000 employees, given this number and the high material usage in their industry I assume >100Mio gross income) so they are in scope of Wikipeda and Commons, even if the images are not included in any article at the moment. Create a company category similar to other Category:Companies of Germany. --Martin H. (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Did i Transfer from Wikipedia correctly?

Firstly, I must admit I debated with myself as to whether this question should be directed to Wikipedia, or Commons and ultimately decided here. My apologies if this decision is incorrect.

I have occupied much of my Wiki time in editing (usually grammar and spelling) Wikipedia pages for the past 2 or so years. I have previously though, created and heavily modified pages, including adding images and would like to go back to that task. I noticed today that one of my images had been edited with the "to commons" tag.

I freely admit to being not very computer savvy. I have moved to files to commons - File:Hanoi_Tuktuk.jpg and File:Catalina_Engine.jpg. But I cannot tell if the transfer was made correctly. The Wikipedia pages linked appear to point at the old image. I have added the tag "subst:ncd " but don't know if that is sufficient to a) remove the original image, or b) ensure the original pages now point to commons. Secondly, the image Catalina_Engine had been copied by an other user to commons, but as I understand it, not all the referring Wikipedia pages were linked. I think i have fixed that using TUSC, albeit it mentioned at one point creating image Catalina_Engine1.jpg - which i cannot locate so believe it does not exist.

Giving me further cause for concern, I have an image in Wikipedia I haven't yet touched; :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lang_De_Girls.jpg which has had added the discussion tag: "WPCHINA|class=Image". I am scared that moving this image will cause all sorts of broken links. Please forgive me, but I am quite confused and desperately want to do this right. L-Bit (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured images advice

I uploaded some pictures from the Malayalam Wikipedia. Some, like File:Oriental Magpie Robin by Challiyan.jpg and File:Lalitha Mahal 2009.jpg attained featured status on the ml-wiki, but Template:Assessments doesn't provide for an "ml" parameter to note this. I don't want to fool around with the template, it's semi-protected anyway, so could an admin advise on what to do? Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done my best, but given that I cannot read Malayalam (no Commons admin can), there's a good chance I got mixed up somewhere. The syntax should be the same as for any other language. Could you give it a try and warn me if it doesn't behave as expected? By the way, is there a specific reason why you have a local copy of the images on ml.wp under a different name? Pruneau^talk 14:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The names that are Malayalam I made into English names because it works much better for Commons that way (better Oriental Magpie Robin by Challiyan.jpg than മണ്ണാത്തിപ്പുള്ള്.jpg), but with Kumbalangy palms.jpg and Lalitha Mahal 2009.jpg you're right, no need to use new names with those two - I uploaded the originals, please feel free to delete the two, I reuploaded them under their original names. Hekerui (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-copyright restriction on logo displayed in protected template

The template Template:PD-USGov-FWS contains the official logo for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, which is subject to a non-copyright restriction set out here (see also) and currently under discussion at the VP.

The USFWS offers an alternate logo without restrictions -- File:USFWS alt graphic A.svg -- but the template is protected so I can't swap out the logo. Is there an admin who'd consider doing it? Rrburke (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've notified User:AVRS who had last edited that template. --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I’ve replaced the logo, but the shape is different, so the template's layout probably needs to be adapted. --AVRS (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why interference Category:Gastronomy?

See also Why interference Category:Gastronomy? (Category:Gastronomy --> Category talk:Gastronomy)--Tom778 (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• (Those where there is about 24 articles. There gastronomy schools (I do not think courses) -

state and private - There is even a university - in Italy - Università di Scienze Gastronomiche [51])

• PS: I did not know that there is - Commons:Administrators' noticeboard‎‎. If I knew that Administrators' noticeboard‎‎ there was a way I choose this path and not just what he did. Thanks User:AVRS a notice to Administrators' noticeboard‎‎.--Tom778 (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

category:Unknown

Hello,

I woke up this morning like always but this time a noticed that the Category:Unknown is completely empty and its not the first time I noticed it.

I would like to give a reminder that all files in the Unknown category can be deleted after 7 day's, this category should never be empty :)

Best regards, Huib talk 11:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a recategorization, see Category:Media missing permission etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess I and all the mediawiki pages missed the note? Huib talk 12:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Huib. Killiondude has recategorized these files, see COM:VP#Proposal for CAT:Unknown. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Huib, I spoke with you on IRC regarding my proposal since I knew you were active in that area. I also sent you a private message at one point, asking for you to state your opinion on the thread. I even waited awhile (a little over a week, maybe?) before making any changes. Since nobody voiced any opposition, I took that as there being no dissenting opinion. To say "I guess I and all the mediwiki pages missed the note?" is melodramatic and not the truth. In any case, the only thing left to do is to get DumbBOT to stop working with the old category system. I've emailed the bot's account, but the bot owner is no longer active and has disabled the email on his own account. If anyone knows how to fix the bot that'd be great. If not, we could just block it and create a new bot. (I've never worked with bots myself). In a related matter, I've created User:Killiondude/sandbox which points out the deletion backlog. If anybody thinks there should be more categories shown in there, feel free to add them. I've modeled it off of the deletion backlog table in w:en:template:admindashboard. Killiondude (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I added something to User:DumbBOT/CatCreate and created the starter templates, maybe it will work tomorrow. --Martin H. (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Killiondude,

I remember now, you did contact me and I wrote it on my todo list but never had the time to do it and forgot all about it, I'm sorry I left this message it was kind of confusing when I wanted to work on the backlog again and the category was complete empty. I have some templates that need to be updated, shall we work on that together? I could make a list and post it on your talk. Huib talk 17:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: This bot realy sucks. Ill ask the operator on his en.wp talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A bit more work is needed with this recategorisation (I'm neutral as to the value of the change). The new subcategories such as Category:Media without a source are poorly sorted: As the subcategories - the daily pages - are listed in alphabetical order not date order. This means the "too recent to delete yet" pages are mixed in with the "month old" categories. Splitting the categories has a marginal benefit, the lack of the strong ordering is much more harmful.

I guess using #time tags correctly should address my concern (but I can't figure out the syntax to do it myself).--Nilfanion (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

{{UnknownHeader}} should be updated and used on all categories. This will give an uniform look and solves the sorting problem. Multichill (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've used the template that Multichill suggested in the newest days for the subcategories (since they have to be manually created for the time being). MZMcBride suggested to me, off-wiki, that we do [[Category:X|20091020]] for the October 20 2009 subcat, etc. What do you guys think? It could be a temporary solution to the organization problem that Nilfanion brought up. I hope that the bot runner replies soon... :-/ Killiondude (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ive added catsorts (| yyyymmdd) to the categories. Sooner or later the bot will be fixed, however, creating 3 categories per day is not that much work. I strongly prefer the separation of Category:Unknown into the three problems (no license/source/permission), it finally will help to make this categories a workspace instead of the black hole of Commons it currently is. At the moment you can nominate an image with {{subst:nsd}} and it will be deleted - thats not that good, sometimes it is possible to find the (free) source. The separation allows people to look for this images without beeing disturbed by the images without license or permission. Or people can check the images without license for old images or wrong transwikis or whatever. Ok, the danger is that admins will handle the no license and no permission images speedyly and dont care about the more complicated no source images... We will see what happens. --Martin H. (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

← Okay, so the bot is working with the new system and is making it so the date subcategories are listed in chronological order in their respective categories. I just want to make another plug for admins maybe put User:Killiondude/deletion backlog on their user pages or just bookmark it, as it makes it easier to see what needs to be worked on. Some of the links in the section titles are a little screwey, but the links in the drop down menu itself (the date subcats) function and update correctly due to MZMcBride's efforts. Killiondude (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible set of copyvios

All the photos in Category:Birds in Kookherd are uploaded by a single contributor; some at least (e.g. File:A.Qom.Kookherd.5.jpg) show very clear signs of being scans from a book or magazine and are likely copyvio, others at least look OK but may still be copied. Can someone good at this sort of detective work take a look, please? Knowledge of Farsi language would definitely be a help! - Thanks, MPF (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the date (if it is 1989) it is of course scanned. But there are some evidences with other uploads (File:JANAH.3.jpg, File:Kookherd.a. 46 كوخرد.jpg). Worth a look. --Martin H. (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Bakhshe Kookherd.1.jpg is from https://www.panoramio.com/photo/24774347 - without any doubt it was downloaded from panoramio/google earth and is not user created. Given this first hit I have the suspicion, that there are many many more - but Im not interested in checking all of the 738 uploads upload for positivs - so how to proceede? --Martin H. (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! That panoramio pic is -nc licensed so not legitimate here. I don't see any other significant correlation between User:سبأ's gallery and kookherd's gallery on panoramio, which strongly suggests they're not the same person. My inclination would be to delete the whole lot as all likely copyvio, but let's see what others say. - MPF (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone who speaks that language opens the problem to User:سبأ and tell him, that it is suspected that many of his uploads are taken from other sources and not his own work and that his colaboration is required to sort this out. Otherwise Commons Administrators tend to act precautionary once the suspicion becomes substantiated. --Martin H. (talk)

I've asked admin Tarawneh to take a look. --Túrelio (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

uploaded a copyrighted image

Hello, by mistake, I uploaded a copyrighted photograph, could you delete it asap, please? --Catfisheye (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Leyo 22:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Catfisheye (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion

Is there a gadget that helps with the closure of CFD like in the case of DR? --Leyo 23:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Accidental upload

Hey, please remove the wrong file version of File:STA72508.JPG. Pitke (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Normally there is no need to delete such files. Sv1xv (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Any idea ...

...about the files from User:1099pro, see [52] - tentative statistics of wikipedia-use or something like this. Unused, as far as I see. Is it in the scope of the Commons? Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Finding Photographer With No Talk Page, No email

Photographer listed as User:Bill has helped with the Natural Arch/Natural Bridge Project but has no message path, no email listed, nothing on his "Talk-Page" -but- his lic. requires a by line or credit for his Photo of The Natural Bridge in Virginia (USA) - so, do I just put the name "Bill" under the photo or keep trying to find him? My page is listed as -Iam2cricket

Refers your question to use inside or outside of Wikimedia projects? Anyway, you should somehow link to his userpage for online use and might write something like "Wikimedia Commons user:Bill" for offline use. --Túrelio (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding licence

Hi,

I recently uploaded some images while on a trip. But forgot to add licence. Can any admin or someone with a bot add licence to the images? Dual Licence GFDL+CC3 ....

Here is list of images. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Antep_1250495.jpg File:Antep_1250496.jpg File:Antep_1250497.jpg File:Antep_1250498.jpg File:Antep_1250499.jpg File:Antep_1250500.jpg File:Antep_1250501.jpg File:Antep_1250505.jpg File:Antep_1250506.jpg File:Antep_1250523.jpg File:Antep_1250524.jpg File:Antep_1250525.jpg File:Antep_1250526.jpg File:Antep_1250527.jpg File:Antep_1250528.jpg File:Antep_1250529.jpg File:Antep_1250531.jpg File:Antep_1250532.jpg File:Antep_1250533.jpg File:Antep_1250534.jpg File:Antep_1250535.jpg File:Antep_1250536.jpg File:Antep_1250537.jpg File:Antep_1250538.jpg File:Antep_1250552.jpg File:Antep_1250553.jpg File:Antep_1250554.jpg File:Antep_1250555.jpg File:Antep_1250556.jpg File:Antep_1250557.jpg File:Antep_1250558.jpg File:Antep_1250559.jpg File:Antep_1250560.jpg File:Antep_1250561.jpg File:Antep_1250562.jpg File:Antep_1250563.jpg File:Antep_1250564.jpg File:Antep_1250565.jpg File:Antep_1250566.jpg File:Antep_1250567.jpg File:Antep_1250569.jpg File:Antep_1250570.jpg File:Antep_1250571.jpg File:Antep_1250572.jpg File:Antep_1250573.jpg File:Antep_1250574.jpg File:Antep_1250575.jpg File:Antep_1250578.jpg File:Antep_1250557_cr.jpg File:Antep_1250558_cr.jpg File:Antep_1250559_cr.jpg File:Antep_1250560_cr.jpg File:Antep_1250562_cr.jpg File:Antep_1250575_cr.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250444.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250445.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250446.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250447.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250448.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250449.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250450.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250451.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250452.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250453.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250454.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250455.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250456.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250457.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250458.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250459.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250460.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250461.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250462.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250463.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250464.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250465.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250466.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250467.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250468.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250469.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250470.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250478.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250479.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250480.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250481.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250482.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250483.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250491.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250493.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250494.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250590.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250602.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250606.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250608.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250610.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250613.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250614.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250615.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250617.jpg File:Gaziantep_1250619.jpg

Nevit, I'm not sure that would be wise or even possible, because adding a license is actually a legal act that IMHO can be done only by the copyright holder. --Túrelio (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss it before deleting images. I hereby give the admins the right. There are valuable images of Zeugma and Gaziantep museum. I tried to re-upload with Commonist but it did not update the images. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe we could add a link to the permanent version of this page in the edit summary while adding the licenses... If other people don't think that's okay, then maybe Nevit, you can use COM:AWB to add it to all those. Killiondude (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it would be ok to do with a bot. We have proof in the system that uploader choose the license. We should just be sure to add the right one so please confirm that it is {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}. If not please write down the exact license. --MGA73 (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done, already added. --Martin H. (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A neutral opinion needed in some CfD/DR

Hi there. As I participated myself in these CfD/DR (1, 2, 3), I do not want to make the decision whether to keep or the delete discussed category/images. Is there an unbiased admin willing to close these cases? Thank you. --Leyo 14:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Need a copyvio review

User:Marcosama has recently uploaded a few dozen photos of bog bodies as his own work. Because of the familiar occurence of these in many sources, as well as them having to be taken in museums in Peru, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, etc., I was surprised to think one photographer had taken them all. A brief review of a few shows:

• File:Iron-09-osterby.jpg has the same MD5sum as this PBS photo.
• File:Museo Nacional de Irlanda-Dublin Hombre de Clonycavan.jpeg has the same MD5sum as the photo on this page (uploaded in 2008)
• File:Archaologisches Landesmuseum-Schleswig Niño de Windeby.jpg and File:Archaologisches Landesmuseum Niño de Windeby (1-200 DC).jpg have the same metadata as this Flickr set uploaded in 2006.

I would appreciate if an administrator would review this large group of photos. If the above examples are copyright violations, I would tend to suspect them all. CactusWriter (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Clear copyvios. The first two in particular appear to have been taken under studio conditions.Geni (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted all images uploaded by this user as a copyright violation, and will leave a stern warning on his talk page to not upload copyright violations again. NW (Talk) 15:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What was the explicit reason for the deletion of the image Boy_from_Kayhausen_X-ray.jpg I have made the image personally at the Museum in Oldenburg on 26.11.2006. Just allowing me to provide the suitable licence or to apply for a propper authorisation. --Bullenwächter ↑  12:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This question is not related to the above topic, so wrong place here. To answer the question: The image was deleted as a Commons:Derivative work, a photograph of non-free content not permanently located at a public place. Ergänzend auf Deutsch: Das Foto ist nicht frei von Rechten Dritter da es ein wahrscheinlich urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk beinhaltet, die Lizenzierung des Fotos unter einer freien Lizenz ist durch COM:FOP#Germany nicht gedeckt. --Martin H. (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Attribution and image links on template and form pages on Commons

Please see this discussion:

• Commons:Village pump#Why are some people making template and upload form image links unclickable?

People can disagree on whether unlinking images is a good idea or not for templates, upload forms, etc..

But all images on the Commons except for public domain images, require attribution. And so there has to be a link somewhere on those templates and upload forms that leads to a linked list of all the images used on that template, upload form, etc..

Even public domain images need to be on that image link list. Because "public domain" claims for an image require some kind of proof too, and that is found on the image page.

Personally, I think it is simpler just to require that all images individually link back to the image page without exception. But if that is not done than a substitute method must be used for attribution.

Until then the image unlinking needs to be reverted. Respecting attribution is a core principle of Wikipedia and the Commons. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Glaciers and Icebergs at Cape York.jpg

[53]. The page is protected today. --Спас Колев (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted, thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 07:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Large undeletion needed

I'd like to go through the images that were deleted because {{PD-FLGov}}, used for over 100 commons images and many en images were, for a while, considered invalid. As they're now on solid legal ground, I'd like to go through these images looking for ones that should be undeleted. But I'm not an admin, so I can't, and I don't have the access needed to be able to make specific undeletion requests as a user. example. Should I file an RfA, or is someone up to doing this? --Elvey (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

How would you generate the list of files to undelete exactly? The ideal solution would be to do a bulk undeletion request, referencing the files that need restoring. However, I'm not sure if that can easily be obtained. The actual restoration of the files is trivial compared to identifying them...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm an admin on another MediaWiki site, where I can find deleted pages with the equivalent of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions. I'm not an admin, so I can't say for sure! (With help searching deletion archives for PD-FLGov, I can find a few of the files. But would miss most. How do you see your ideal solution being implemented? (Creation of the list is to be considered part of the problem to be solved.) Perhaps a DB dump is needed. --Elvey (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is DeletedContributions can only turn up the results of a given user, and the images in question aren't from a single user. The deletion log is similarly useless for this purpose as its unlikely that PD-FLGov is mentioned in the log. The deletion archives will contain some I'm sure (but not all as some will have been deleted with {{No permission since}}. I suspect that a DB dump is the best way forward for you (I'm not familiar enough with them to advise on that). Once the list is generated, just putting it somewhere on-wiki and linking from COM:UNDEL would get them restored.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

They're now on solid legal ground, eh? Says who? Stifle (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Says the Supreme Court. And the constitution. As the template documents. With reliable sources. Why are you even asking a question with such an obviously easy-to-find answer? --Elvey (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Does {{No permission since}} make undeletion technically impossible? How? If so, it's not well documented.--Elvey (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If the files were deleted as being tagged with {{No permission since}}, then the log will not indicate if they were ever tagged with PD-FLGov. This means the deletion log will be useless for IDing any files that were uploaded as FLGov but deleted.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)