Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 23

Category:Burj Khalifa

I think we have to use speedy delete with the images of this category, because there is not FOP in UAE. I am not sure of this, so I have asked it here. I belive that you answer. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 17:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The category seems clean. The deletion discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa was concluded that construction images with incomplete exterior architecture showing can be permitted. Incoming images like File:BurjAlKhalifaDubaiUAE(P3W,1).jpg and File:BurjAlKhalifaDubaiUAE(P3W,2).jpg should be nominated for deletion, probably with a reason "per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa; no FOP in UAE". I would feel uncomfortable if admins started speedy deleting things. There are exceptions mentioned in the previous DR that admins willing to delete may not be aware of. ZooFari 23:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well... and what does it happen with the images of Eiffel Tower? There is not FOP in France. Luispihormiguero (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Eiffel Tower is out of copyright due to age. Only the lighting patterns displayed upon it are still copyrighted (and then, only under current French legal decisions). Powers (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, Thank you. Luispihormiguero (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:View of I-535 John Blatnik Bridge from US 53 Hill test.jpg

Could an admin revert the move of this file. I was trying out a new link in the move template to see what it would do on one of my files, but now I can't move it back until an Administrator deletes the redirect before moving the file back to it's original name. Also please suppress the redirect on the test page, I don't need that. Thanks. Techman224^Talk 20:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've  Done what you want. Please check and let me know if you need something different.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's fine. Thanks. Techman224^Talk 22:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:SLR 11 aug 275.jpg

I was a bit too fast at the save button. Could somebody please move this file to File:Svenskehuset.jpg. Thanks. Prillen (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Please use the {{rename}} template next time. It will grab the attention of the Administrators and File movers. Techman224^Talk 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I will do so. Thank you. Prillen (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Rename

Hi,

May one admin rename this File:Chiesa di San Nicola a San Polo dei Cavalieri.JPG into File:Chiesa di Santa Lucia a San Polo dei Cavalieri.JPG. I've incorrectly named it. Thx.--LPLT (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please use the {{Rename}} template and an admin or filemover will fix it shortly. Powers (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Done: File:Chiesa di Santa Lucia a San Polo dei Cavalieri.JPG. --Túrelio (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of old versions of image

Hi, would it be possible for someone to delete the first two versions of File:HD10180Orbits.svg (22:25, 24 August 2010 and 16:27, 25 August 2010), an image I uploaded? These versions both contain a significant flaw in the description text contained within the SVG file (it refers to Gliese 876 rather than HD 10180), otherwise they are not significantly different from the current version. Thanks. Icalanise (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Or if this is not the appropriate venue for such a request, where is? Icalanise (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's fine to ask it here. I guess if no one took action, it's just because having mistakes in a file history is not considered a reason for deletion. In fact, most file histories are full or wrong or superseded files; if we wanted to delete all of these, there would be no point in keeping a file history in the first place. So unless you really have a strong reason for wanting these two revisions deleted, I think they should be kept. –Tryphon^☂ 12:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

pragamatic 100 years rule of thumb for unknown authors

Dear all!

I changed the license of this photo File:Proclamation of the Kingdom of Montenegro.jpg from GNU FDL (which was definitively wrong!) to {{PD-old}} using the pragmatic 100 years rule of thumb for unknown authors (changelog: [1]).

Was this ok? --ALE! ¿…? 22:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

10, 9, 8,7, 6, 5... :-( --Wuselig (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, probably not a good idea. I'm not aware of any such rule of thumb. A lot depends on when and where the image was first published. Powers (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This rule of thumb is a rule on German Wikipedia. And it's for images where the author is known to be unknown or at least impossible to identify with any reasonable research effort. If the author is just unknown cause we haven't searched hard enough, it's not okay. And on Commons it's not okay at all. --Slomox (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

more map editwarring

The original File:Pacific Area - The Imperial Powers 1939 - Map.svg was based on a US government map, now there's editwarring, there's been a spate of that lately, please have a look.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

File:06L 2010 5day.gif

Please check this. I can't imagine that uploading of thirtyseven (37!) different images under the same name makes any sense. -- Ies (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It does. Judging by its usage on en:wp, it supposed to show the latest forecast for Hurricane Danielle, so it needs to be updated regularly. –Tryphon^☂ 12:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Delinker misedit: en:File:Osmosis.jpg vs. File:Osmosis.JPG - not duplicates across commons/en

Take a look at this edit - File:Osmosis.JPG was marked as duplicate on commons and Delinker replaced the media with a name that's not a duplicate media on en. Obviously the bot omits a required check against synonymous media names pointing to different content on the local project. Certainly the wrong action - on en I had to revert it, because the new media was completely OT. Such non-duplicate media might be a much more general problem. Regards, --Burkhard (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Are next enough of simple album cover

Are next enough of simple album cover File:V for Volume - Providence.jpg, or shall we ask OTRS.--Motopark (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely original enough to be copyrighted. –Tryphon^☂ 08:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Images in Category:Flaggen der österreichischen Fußballvereine

All images in Category:Flaggen der österreichischen Fußballvereine contain official logos of the team they refer to, which are copyrighted. For example File:Fbc-AUT - FC Red Bull Salzburg.png (and the SVG version File:Fbc-AUT - FC Red Bull Salzburg.png) contains this logo, other logos can be found here. I think they should all be deleted for obvious copyright violation. --Simo82 (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Category must be renamed: Category: e.g. Category:Flags of association football clubs of Austria. --High Contrast (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mistakenly posted at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 23

In Wikimedia Commons page "Category "Adolf Lins"" (artist) the third image of three is incorrectly labeled. The image represents a steel engraving of Adolf's painting "Lieder ohne Worte" (Songs without Words) of 1887, size 8.5 x 11 inches of which I own a copy.

Adolf Lins is my granduncle (brother of my grandfather), and I have a collection of over 250 of his images, i.e. paintings, gouaches and drawings.

For any questions contact me at juanandcarol@yahoo.com.

Regards -

Juan J. Lins-Morstadt, North Kingstown, RI Juanandcarol (talk · contribs)

• Note: the file in question is File:Die Gartenlaube (1889) 065.jpg. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Looks like the image is not mislabeled after all - it's one of a series of scans of the book "Die Gartenlaube" - see Category:Gartenlaube (1889). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Undershirt.jpg

Could someone please remove the first revision of the description page? It contains copyrighted lyrics. Thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 22:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ZooFari! –Tryphon^☂ 22:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem! ZooFari 22:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that image within scope? Jonathunder (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that Vinteresting is uploading plenty of images from flickr around that theme (women in bikini or underwear). This one seamed more or less within scope, but taken together, they mostly look like spam. –Tryphon^☂ 22:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Undelete request (from support team)

Hello, I am working on an OTRS ticket (2010072210003441). Please undelete the following files, since we have the OTRS permission to use them:

Mpp01.jpg Mpphoaxers.jpg Mppmymm.jpg Mppcyborg.jpg Mppmds.jpg

Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. ZooFari 23:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Swimming pool 1996

Resolved

Nasty personal attack on another user with threat to continue. [2] --Sandahl (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked as a sockpuppet of Papa9. Tiptoety ^talk 03:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it must be a sock of some disgruntled user because it didn't seem a random attack for no reason.--Sandahl (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons delinker

This is an example of weird behaviour by commons delinker on English Wikipedia recently (replacing an existing sound file reference with a redlink). Can someone please ascertain what's gone wrong and roll back the faulty edits?--Kotniski (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

More: [3], [4], [5].--Kotniski (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats not a weird behaviour by the bot. The bot is just doing what it was ordered to do, the rename in exactly that form was requested by User:Jarekt, ask him why he renamed it and - I assume he did this in a procedure of renaming - when he wants to finish the renaming. --Martin H. (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So bots around here are just allowed to do anything anyone might order them to do? Is that really a sound policy?--Kotniski (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to edit wikipedia, no matter if he does this with an edit helping tool or not. CommonsDelinker allows Wikimedia Commons Administrators to rename files on all projects so that maintenance done here on Commons will not have negative effects on other wikis. Jarekt in this case did not finish his work so far, Im sure he will finish it soon. --Martin H. (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

But on Wikipedia, we don't allow bots to perform just any task anyone may happen to set it (even admins, as they are fallible too, as this incident has shown). Why should a commons bot that doesn't respect Wikipedia's policies be allowed to operate on Wikipedia? (OK, that's not really a question for here, but still, I would have hoped that Commons had its house in better order than this.) --Kotniski (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact it is not a bot edit, its Jarekts edit who asked the Delinker to do it in his place. So whats your problem? Disallowing people who voluntarily do maintenance work on Commons to care about other projects or to burden them with manual editing on all projects? Jarekt not finished his work yet obviously, ask him when he will finish and not complaint here about him doing maintenance. --Martin H. (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, everyone seems to be shifting the blame at the moment, and no-one seems to be taking responsibility for repairing the damage.--Kotniski (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Jarekt has now done it. But remember, without this bot, all files that we delete would leave a red link in your wiki. Everytime an admin deletes a file here, the bot checks its usage, waits 10 minutes and then removes all usage. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Most projects can have independent policies among themselves because their content is independent. There's hardly anything that may be done at German Wikipedia that may have a direct consequence onEnglish Wikipedia, etc. But Commons is a special case: it features content that is being transcluded into the other projects. So yes, it's technically unavoidable that some things done here will have an effect over other projects. No matter which policies we implement, sooner or later they would conflict with policies applied somewhere else.

Question: what happens when a file uploaded locally in Wikipedia in English is deleted? Are there bots to clean it from articles, or are red links left there until someone cleans them manually? Belgrano (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose there's a bot - but that isn't what happened here. Here, Commons Delinker actually created redlinks where there should have been blue links, and the initial response of the botmeisters seems to have been "oh, that's not our problem, because someone told the bot to do that". Anyway, let's try to get away from arguing about blame - I hope the bot will now be reprogrammed so that this sort of thing can't happen again.--Kotniski (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't count on that. Multichill (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Bots don't think for themselves. People have to tell them what to do. (That is a very comforting thought if you think about it.) The bot isn't malfunctioning so it doesn't need reprogramming. It's not a technical issue, but one of human error. And no, putting arbitrary limits on or otherwise crippling the software doesn't work in preventing errors, it just makes it less useful. I could have easily done the same exact thing with AWB or pywikipedia or some other tool. No matter what the tool, if humans are involved, there will be error. Rocket000 (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You think preventing creating red links (in a bot whose primary purpose is to repair red links anyway) is an arbitrary limit? Honestly, if this was my bot, I'd fix this without a moment's thought, and without trying to shift the blame onto other people. We all make mistakes, but we ought to be working together to prevent the preventible. I'm amazed at some of the attitudes around here.--Kotniski (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you find one wrong edit from a bot and then you turn up here saying: We on en:wp we do things much better; this would never have happend with us and by the looks you guys here are a bunch of amateuers. (This is how I personally interpret your comments). Do you expect people to klap their hands and say, yes you a right? Amada44  ^{talk to me} 08:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's arbitrary. What if I want to create red links? Of course, doing it on a site like Wikipedia without a good reason would be a problem, but it would be a problem with the person that told the bot to do that, i.e. me, not the bot or it's programmer, or the community at large (like you seem to think as you keep saying we're shifting the blame when we had nothing to do with it: we're not the bot, the bot's owner, the bot's programmer, the toolserver where it runs from, the person that asked the bot to perform the task in question, or even the people that allows the bot to run on its site). Putting limits on it like that assumes you know what the user wants, and that's very bad way of thinking when designing software. Rocket000 (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The main problem here seems to be that delinker was used "long" before the file was moved. This isn't ideal, but sometimes not everything can be done at once.  Docu  at 01:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwup on a transfer from en-wiki

I don't normally deal much with transfers from en-wiki, and I'm not sure how to clean up a minor mess I just noticed. File:Centralpark.jpg was transferred from en-wiki. However, before that happened, on en-wiki, someone had uploaded an unrelated image over the one that should have been there. As a result, we got the wrong image.

I'm not sure how best to sort this out, and whether the image we've actually got there now should be in any way salvaged. I'd appreciate it if someone else could fix the mess. - Jmabel ! talk 02:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Asking in #wikipedia-en for an en.wp admin to help out. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I am an en.wp admin (that's how I know the image was overwritten). If you can tell me what should be done on that side, I can do it. - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh right. Well, view the file on en, view deleted revisions, find the old file, save it and then upload it here under a new name. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Clearly, the old file should end up on this page, as it's the one all of the information on the page applies to. The question is what, if anything, to do with the current image: an unidentified building, whose upload history is buried in a now-deleted en.wp page, and whose uploader did not give any separate permission for this unrelated image. - Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Undelete the enwp revisions prior to 2008 01 09 and all is well with the world (or with the bit of it that matters). The outstanding problem is something for Commons admins to worry about. I'd think that the current image on Commons should go (what is it supposed to be?; how was it licensed?). After that, the enwp image can be uploaded and re-deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC) One tiny problem: undelete doesn't find the original image, presumably lost in one of the great image fuckups. The file that's here on Commons should still be deleted (it was uploaded with no license). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Deleted this one for lack of permission, and I'm afraid the original is lost. - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• The file may be available through Internet Archive: [6]. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have twice attempted to access the file, but each time IA returned a "failed connection" error. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet more map edit warring

Could an admin handle the edit warring at these Korea - Japan maps?

• File:North Korea launch site in Sea of Japan map.png, should be protected at [7], which is the same as the original revision. See File talk:Japan sea map.png#Stop edit warring for my suggestion to create separate versions.
• File:North Korea launch site in Sea of Japan map - East Sea parentheses.png, this was created to provide the alternate version ("East Sea" in parentheses after "Sea of Japan") to File:North Korea launch site in Sea of Japan map.png, but appears to be ignored
• File:Japan sea map.png, this needs reverting to this version and then protection

Thank you (the Show Preview buton no longer works for me so I cannot check this post looks Ok). -84user (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Try /Blocks & protections.  Docu  at 03:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try there now with this request. -84user (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandal caught messing up JP-Wikipedia logo

This user User:ばばばばばばばばばばばばばばばばばばばばば has been vandalising a the logo of the Japanese Wikipedia. I suggest running CheckUser to uncover any damages done under different accounts if any. --Computor (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked - I will point this thread to a CU too for their consideration. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 19:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Jáki Béla (talk · contribs)

Can someone have a look at this user's contributions? They look like screenshots from movies, or pictures of theater plays, but I can't pinpoint the exact source for all of them. At any rate, own work seems very doubtful. –Tryphon^☂ 15:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted the images and informed the user. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 20:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 20:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Readable logo

An admin has uploaded a newer "more readable" logo at File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-id.png. Is there any SVG version of this "more readable" logo? If yes, I would like someone to upload it to File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-id.svg. Thanks. ...Kenrick95 09:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Rename

My image has an incorrect name. I would like that it is called "Jilguero.JPG" and not "Colorín.JPG". Could you rename the image? Luispihormiguero (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 Hecho --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 14:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Polish Tongue twisters

I think of a gallery as a page of thumbnails on a subject. Commons:Galleries is broader in its definition, calling a gallery a "collection of media". I just patrolled the subject, which looks like all text, but is, in fact, links to Polish tongue twisters, in effect, thumbnails to sounds. Because it's a little different, I thought I'd pass my reaction by the team here -- it seems to me this is a Gallery, as we define it, no?

Also, it should be Polish tongue twisters, (lower case "tongue") shouldn't it?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hoax etc.

[8] is a photograph of Max Pechstien being paraded on English and Lithuanian Wikipedia as a photograph of Paulius Galaune. I have been blocked on en. wiki because I blanked the article on suspicion of being a hoax. Nefesf9 changed the date and description as part of his host campaign on Galaune - [9]. Anton dvsk (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Obvious nonsense, I reverted the image description. --Martin H. (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Item-bb-400-(bass-banjo)-1398_lg.jpg

I don't understand what happened to File:Item-bb-400-(bass-banjo)-1398_lg.jpg. I uploaded the image to English Wikipedia on 13 Jun 2008, and forwarded the permission email, licensing the image under the GFDL, to OTRS. It was subsequently transferred to Commons. Now it has been deleted from here due to lack of permission. What happened? I tried asking the deleting administrator, but he seems to be away from his desk. I've restored the English Wikipedia version at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Item-bb-400-%28bass-banjo%29-1398_lg.jpg , complete with OTRS ticket, for now. Unfortunately that image was used in German Wikipedia as well and I can't do anything about that. I still have a copy of the original e-mail from the manufacturer licensing the image under the GFDL if that has gottent lost somewhere in the OTRS system.Kww (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, this is a 2D photo of a 3D object which in itself is {{PD-ineligible}} for copyright; at best {{Trademark}} would apply, but an OTRS permission would override any copyright issues. I would forward the email to OTRS once again, for the avoidance of doubt, but I really don't see that it's necessary. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Mola Ali.jpg

I just came across File:Mola Ali.jpg. It was tagged in July and the linked page, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mola Ali.jpg, has three requests to delete, all the standard "it is offensive to Muslims". However, the deletion process was not completed and it didn't get listed at Commons:Deletion requests/2010/07. I would have listed it and let it run the course but I noticed that in the bottom left there is a signature and date "Haraji 2010". If that is correct then it's possible that the image is a copyright violation. CambridgeBayWeather Talk 09:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

{{subst:nsd}}. The deletion request is not a reason for deletion but the file is simply missing source information. --Martin H. (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The uploader hasn't contributed to the Commons for months; however, he does have a registered e-mail. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

edit warring at File:Japan sea map.png, again

It started up just as soon as the protection ended, I was asked to report it if it did. Reporting it-can we fully protect it?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Fully upload protected for I forget how long. Year or something. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Speed deletion file

I do a mistake on uploading a personal photo, I request Someone who could help me to delete the following file in which appear a man with a child File:Dj Khmirs.JPG --م ض (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done by Herby. --Túrelio (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Why have my files been deleted?

I uploaded two files last night, DagoDazzler-1.png and DagoDazzler-2.png which were created as illustrations for the Wikipedia article Dago dazzler. I was careful in my licensing of the images, they were not derogatory or defamatory but actually quite complimentary and factually accurate. They seem to have been simply deleted without any notice and without any discussion of the merits of doing so. Is this the normal process on this project?

I would very much like an explanation for what has happened.

--Dago Dazzler (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=382917546#Could_an_admin_please_delete_these_images_and_handle_this_vandal.3F. –Tryphon^☂ 20:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that pointer. I am appealing those actions on Wikipedia. I wish to make use of these images on other Wikimedia projects, perhaps Wikiversity. Does Wikipedia unilaterally determine the fate of content here on Commons or is there some procedure for getting these files undeleted? I could simply upload them again but if they are only going to be deleted again there wouldn't be any point. What are my options here on Wikimedia Commons with respect to these files? --Dago Dazzler (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

COM:UDEL. However, I  Oppose on the basis that it's user-created artwork without any educational use. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say it has no educational value? It's educational value is to illustrate what a modern day dago dazzler would look like. Since we have not alternative illustration available I would argue it provides the stated value. --Dago Dazzler (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

+the photo used in the first upload is a blatant copyvio. --Martin H. (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ on this point as I was quite careful but I may have still missed something. Can you elaborate on what the "blatant copyvio" actually is? It is not the photograph as I clearly indicated where that was licensed from and it's license allows derivative works which this is. --Dago Dazzler (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You uploaded something with the information that you entirely created it yourself - you however not created it entirely yourself but used someone else work to create it. You neither attributed the work nor did you take care that the work you used is even allowed to use here (free content only). --Martin H. (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You are simply incorrect on the facts here so I am at a loss to understand why you are claiming this.

I explicitly licensed DagoDazzler-1.png as a derivative work of "File:Mann4.jpg", I gave attribution to the original author as required by the license at "File:Mann4.jpg", and I made my work available under the CC3.0 license. So you would seem to be incorrect on all points. Have you actually looked or are you just assuming things? For future reference how should I have licensed it if not this way given that it is a derivative work of "File:Mann4.jpg"?

I licensed DagoDazzler-2.png as my own work, which it is, but I did incorporate "File:Emblem of the United Nations.svg" which I explicitly noted was the case, I attributed that portion of my creation to the original author listed, Spiff, and per the terms of the license at "File:Emblem of the United Nations.svg" I likewise licensed my creation as a CC3.0 share alike license. Again, if this is not the correct way to have licensed these works, what is?

Do you dispute my description of these facts? If so, please substantiate your claim. --Dago Dazzler (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, your right I overlooked it, you made everything right. However, why dont you simply use File:Man silhouette silver.svg or similar and a fictional job description instead of just this person? Why do you describe it as an "Artist's rendition" - such an illustration is not expected to be 'artistic' but simply illustrative and factually correct - are you an artist? This two little thinks - anonymous and nonartistic illustration will save our and your time here and it would have prevented me from overlooking this and accusing you wrongly. Im sorry for the accussation, maybe my suggestion helps you with the questions you raised below. --Martin H. (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a basic question regarding the regular process here on commons. Who actually deleted these images? Was there any discussion on this project regarding that deletion? Is it common practice for images to be deleted without discussion or even notification that such has occurred? --Dago Dazzler (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have partially answered my own questions here. I found the deletion log and I see that it was NW that performed the deletion and he only cited a reference to a discussion on Wikipedia. This entire episode seems to be a violation of Commons:Deletion policy because the images in question do not meet the speedy deletion criteria that I see specified there. Should NW's actions here be reviewed with respect to their violating the stated policies? --Dago Dazzler (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The files were deleted in response to an objection that they were a "BLP violation" -- that is, a violation of Wikimedia policy on "biographies of living people," meaning that they included unsourced or questionable statements about living people. BLP issues are treated with considerable urgency on Wikimedia projects and are a legitimate reason for speedy deletion. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that those are the claims that were made. I am here to dispute them. If this is not the correct venue then please direct me to the appropriate place.

These works claimed to be nothing more than a work of fiction to illustrate a very specific item, a dago dazzler. How can an acknowledged work of fiction be said to make any claims at all about a living person? As a work of fiction it explicitly makes no claims at all. But even if we put that fact aside, there are no questionable statements about that individual contained in the work itself. Any statements of "fact" made in this work of fiction regarding Michael Mann are common knowledge in the public domain even in the world of non-fiction. Michael Mann was, in fact, an author for the Third Assessment Report and he is, in fact, a Climatologist. He specializes in paleoclimatology and specifically tree ring studies. Any references or claims related to "Pannslyvenia State University" should be immediately recognizable as being fictional and thus cannot be considered substantive claims from a BLP perspective. Does anyone dispute these facts? So I am left wondering what specific items are a BLP violation in this case? (And where is NW, does he not have to back up his claims in any way?) --Dago Dazzler (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of scope too by the look of them. No issues with deletion - pity the uploader was not informed tho. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think out of scope is debatable but it is at least the most substantive item that has been raised thus far. I have refuted all of the claims made above regarding licensing and BLP. Before we tackle scope I would like to have a rational explanation for how these items are BLP violations, or an acknowledgment that they are not. Thus far no justification has been given beyond bald assertion which is contradicted by the known facts. If anyone disagrees, please provide a rational justification. --Dago Dazzler (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

New page patrolling errors

I realise few folk pay much attention to this area however I do & I've hit three clear errors in patrolling these pages in two day. See here & here. The second user looks rather too new to me to have the rights but maybe that is just me. I've left those two undeleted for now so that the user can see them but they should be deleted. Maybe some system with new page patrolling is not fit for purpose? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose there is already a backlog in monitoring uploads, so patrolling might not be a primary concern.

It's not clear how the second user got patroller rights. Maybe Amada44 can explain.  Docu  at 08:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose occasional glitches can happen even to people who do that with reasonable care. BTW, please delete John4455.  Docu  at 08:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have left it for now so that they can see the error. As with any job - if it is not done properly it would be best left alone. (& I agree with Docu's second point!) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We had a backlog of 10'000 unpatrolled edits lasting about 20 days back and interest of admins and Patrollers in patrolling is very low. Thorjoetunheim is a flatmate and I convinced Thorjoetunheim to help out. I was mostly sitting next to Thorjoetunheim explaining and checking most (but not all) edits. My opinion was, (other than Herby) that it is better to do some cleaning instead of no cleaning at all. Those out of scope edits are imho not good, but nor grave. Feel free though to question the rights I gave Thorjoetunheim. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 12:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be hard to generalize here about interest -- I patrol new Galleries aggressively using [this bookmark] and it is almost always empty several times a day. I think Herby also does this, as I run into his deletes there from time to time. Given our backlog of DRs and other things to do, I can't get excited about patrolling edits. Perhaps we should create more autopatrollers -- or distinguish IP User edits from Named User edits and more aggressively patrol the former?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Krinkle is working on a patroll all edits of destinct IP tool. It works quite well but is still beta and not public.

Nobody patrolls edits of (non autopatrolled) Users and I would strongly suggest that we have auto-autopatroll for users with more than XX (50?) edits because like that we would have a chance to patroll the first 50 edits of those Users too. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 16:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea very much. I might set the number higher, say 200, and see what kind of a backlog that gave us -- and what kind of results we got -- then lower it if necessary.

Or, perhaps, have an automatic list of users with more than X edits (X to be determined) that are not autopatrollers, so we could look at the list, look over a user, and give autopatrol or not....      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Can an image be deleted as no license without exactly a no-license tag?

File:Kurt Ipekkaya bei Dreharbeiten.jpg was nominated for deletion back in June, with the lack of a license tag being a major reason for the nomination; however, the nomination has never been closed. Can we bend the rules slightly and say that this nomination counts as if {{Nld}} had been applied to the image, since it received a deletion tag more than seven days ago that concentrated on its lack of a license? Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• It looks like the author tried to revoke free licensing for his image by blanking it, which is not acceptable practice on Commons. If the file is deletable for any other reason though (scope or what have you) then I think closing it as delete is fine. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, okay; I'd missed that, so I thought that it had been uploaded without a license. What if I come across an image that really has been like I described — nominated for deletion for lack of license, and it never had a license? Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• DRs may be closed after 7 days, especially if they are uncomplicated. If there is no apparent reason a file is free or in scope then a file listed at DR can be deleted and the DR closed by any admin. It doesn't necessarily have to be the same as the nomination reason, if the administrator is using sound judgement and deleting a file that needs to be deleted. Your question about nld vs DR strikes me as funny. nld is a semi-automatic process with no real way for people to comment and it is unadvertised. DRs are open for comment and are advertised. There is no need to slap an nld template on a file that already has a DR, the DR which is more flexible can serve the same purpose. This is like the difference between an SUV and a car. Both can be used to ferry passengers, and in addition the SUV can carry bulky loads. Just because you've offloaded your cargo you don't need to go get the car to pick people up if you were already driving the SUV. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Files moved from en.wikipedia to Commons requiring review

This has now been cleared of backlogs for 2007 but the empty cats do not appear in CAT:O. If someone could delete the empty categories when time permits, at least it would improve the stats on backlogs. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Much obliged. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass DRs

Can we do anything to make it easier to do mass DRs instead of a series of individual ones? As some of you know, I close a lot of DRs. I frequently have to go through and close ten or twenty DRs on the same subject, with different, related, images, which would be perfect mass DRs. Each extra DR takes two page loads and increases the chance of error. Also, of course, any discussion must be repeated ten or twenty times.

I sympathize with the Nominators, as it is much easier to click on the "Nominate for deletion" tool ten or twenty times than to organize a mass DR. If you copy your comment to your clipboard, it's just two keystrokes per image.

Can we organize a script that would take a list of images and do the necessary? I might try using AWB the next time I need to do one, but we can't teach AWB to all our potential nominators.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Although simpler than before, the instructions for COM:MASSDEL are still a bit complicated. What I usually find easier, is to start a normal DR for one image with the standard button, and then add other similar files to it. I then copy the {{Delete}} template from the first file to tag also the others. Maybe this method could be mentioned in the instructions for mass deletions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Image from User:Rowland Goodman

This editor has uploaded a number of high quality pictures here of tennis stars. Wonderful additions. A problem has developed. This photographer has released the images under cc-by-3.0, attribution required. He is insisting that attribution must be placed on every use of an image on any project that uses the images. Case example, see caption of infobox image at [10]. Our crediting standards note "You agree to be credited, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL when your contributions are reused in any form." Further, in submitting an image here the uploader is agreeing to do so with the statement "This donation is non-revocable". Yet, this photographer is now attempting to have a number of his images deleted here for failure of Wikimedia to adhere to his attribution requirements. See Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/09/02#File:Irina_KHROMACHEVA_2579.JPG, and many others down that list.

I do not wish to antagonize this person. However, he is attempting to revoke a donation that he willingly agreed to because he no longer finds it acceptable. As noted, it's not revocable.

Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should grant the request to delete the images. Commons has the right to choose not to delete them, but as they were uploaded in good faith and under a simple misunderstanding of what kind of credit is available, the right thing is to honor his request. I would much prefer that the photographer decide to leave the images up and available, and have been trying to convince him to do so, but have not found that he is willing to engage in discussion. Under the circumstances I am afraid we are better off deleting the photographs, wonderful though they are. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• I tend to agree. With that in mind, couldn't we just do a speedy db-self sort of thing rather than going through a deletion discussion? Sometimes images here are up for deletion for months. If we're going to delete to honor his request, better to do so in a more rapid fashion. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The problem is how the images are used, not their presence on Commons. So they should be removed from the articles where the attribution does not comply with the author's requirements, but I don't see why we should hinder the other projects or external re-users that are willing to comply. And speedy deletion would be highly inappropriate, see COM:SPEEDY. –Tryphon^☂ 15:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• We're dealing with a corner case here. The uploader/photographer thought he could force attribution onto each use of the images on Wikimedia projects. He's since found out he can not, which is why he wants them deleted. It's a misunderstanding. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting - quite a few of the images are freely licensed without the restriction that has been placed on the tennis ones by the look of it. The user obviously "understood" what they were doing at some point. They are freely licensed though whatever else so speedy (particularly as they are used) would not be correct. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well taking a look at the tennis photos, I do agree that they're absolutely lovely and would wish that they remained. But I'm inclined to agree with Tim Pierce above and say let's remove the images per the author's wishes. There's nothing within any of them that makes them irreplaceable. Tabercil (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think we should wait for his reply first before making any decisions here. I agree that the photos are awesome and also would want them to be kept. But if he still opt for deletion then I don't think we have any other options than to just speedy delete them. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 17:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. We had a similar case on dewiki where an user tried to proclaim his own view of how the licensing should work (rather similar case). The outcome however was, that the way Wikipedia uses the images fully complies with the license. There's no indication in the license exactly how the attribution needs to be made. Even the statement by the uploader "attribution required" doesn't say that the attribution must always be visible next to the image. It's one single click away. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• As much as I want Wikipedia to be able to use these photos, I think it would be really unfortunate if we did so in a way that alienated a potential contributor. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• So that is why I think there is really no harm if we do a simple byline. It is used in major newspapers, used in the dead tree encyclopedias. Plus, if you want it look at it another way, it gives users a potential goal to find another free image that might be less restrictive about how credit is given for the image. Either way, we should find a way to give what the user requires but also allow us to keep these images. That is my goal. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What Zscout said. I think the biggest thing here is credit and to be totally honest this is an argument that it reasonable for him to make. Our MOS "guideline" says not to do author credits in the caption but this IS what is frequently standard elsewhere and it is totally understandable to be what a photographer would expect if asked for. To make things worse it IS in the "human readable" version of the license that the author can choose his attribution requirements. The legal code is a bit more complex (it mentions reasonable methods, Mr. Goodman would argue that his request is reasonable, it is, the community counter would likely be that THEY only have to do something reasonable of their own choosing). It also seems to be an incredibly silly thing to fight over for good photos, give him the standard byline :). Jamesofur (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 Keep Tryphon already said it. The reuse in Wikipedia is a problem of Wikipedia. Here on Wikimedia Commons the author is attributed nearby the image as required and requested, so no problem here. Problems of Wikipedia should be discussed and resolved there, not here. --Martin H. (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If en-wiki people prefer to do it in such way, it's not our problem. Btw there are many other pictures with the same restriction on Commons: [11]. Trycatch (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I think this raises an issue that Commons really does need to address. If, as PaterMcFly notes, the CC-BY license does not actually permit authors to specify arbitrary crediting terms (in contradiction of what the "human-readable" license implies), then all of the editors that Trycatch lists are essentially inventing custom licenses, based on CC-BY-3.0 but adding additional restrictions. Commons needs to have a clear policy statement one way or the other about whether this is acceptable behavior, and if so, what kinds of additional restrictions users can add to the CC license. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If I remember the earlier discussion on :de right, the outcome was less clear as PaterMcFly's statement may suggest. For me, the original statement "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" in the CC-BY license deed[12] sounds rather strong in favor of the author to determine how he/she is credited, including the location. But we may ask CC how they interpret their own legal text. --Túrelio (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't exactly remember the outcome, as I didn't follow it very closely. The problem I see is if we allow users to request their name next to the image, probably a lot of people would want that, and that would clutter the articles a lot. Next would be that people that wrote the article text would sign their contributions in the article. Neither is favorable IMO. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well on :no they don't see a problem with putting the photographers name into the image caption. However, don't get me wrong: I'm not a strong advocate for a near-image credit on Wikimedia projects. But there is a big difference to say, on project xyz we don't do/want near-image credits (i.e., take it or leave it) or to say the CC-BY license doesn't include the author's right to request the form/location of the credit. --Túrelio (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There only appear to be five images involved on the English Wikipedia. I've replaced one with a GFDL image, and remove the other four. Nagle (talk · contribs). --76.191.219.152 19:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Football Kit Template Copyright/Trademark issues

I've been going through and updating the categorization for the files in Category:Football_kit_templates and have found several that include sponsor logos, club crests, and manufacturer logos (see examples below). Are these allowed? I would be happy to add a tag to those that require it, I'm just not sure if they're OK or not.

KIA	Nike	Napoli	Nike Perelli Inter

-Udeezy (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's already been discussed recently there (and people asked again here and there). Bottom line is, they're fine. At this size, most logos are de minimis, and in the example you point out, they're mostly ineligible (text-only). –Tryphon^☂ 07:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks! -Udeezy (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

please help me remove small mistake

Hi, I made a small mistake. I created Title pages from the Netherlands, but I wanted to create the Category:Title pages from the Netherlands. I was not able to move the page. So there is still an empty page. Could you please delete it? Thanks, Dick Bos (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Jafeluv (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Adriana-lima-sexy.JPG

This image was deleted, by the argument that it was copyright infringement, but the source is a site that searches images, so the image was deleted erroneously. This is the site [13]. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it was unlikely deleted erroneously. When a user uploads an image that is found at other places on the web (already at the time of upload), we have strong suspicion that it is not his/her work. The image in question, uploaded by Thales Teles (talk · contribs), had the following Information entries: |Description=

English: LINDAAAA

Português: E NORDESTINAAAAAAAAA

|Source=Americana |Author=Antonio Banderé´ras |Date= |Permission=.

Even from that you can see that it had no verifiable source and that the alleged author was not the uploader. If you provide a verifiable source and proof that it was released under a free license by its author, I will gladly undelete it. --Túrelio (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, a typical upload by ~1/4 of new users who come and edit here and dont care about any basics. This file was a blatant copyvio, funnily enough the uplaoder copied a version including some stupid modifications to Commons while the original can be seen e.g. here. The photo is (C) Copyright by Dave Edwards/DailyCeleb.com. --Martin H. (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome?... I just said that the argument is flawed, because what came to me is that the photo was removed from the site that I have outlined, and it can not be true, since that site only makes searches. Only this. And sorry for my poor writing. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@Rodrigo, as already explained above, while TinEye.com is of course not the source, hits on TinEye.com at time of upload are a very strong suggestion of being a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but try not to do that, "a very strong suggestion" is not sure. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, that (link should be stable) is sure, noone can guarantee that the evidence link is stable for ever, so the evidence will vanish some time but that does not change the fact that the deletion was justified at the moment of deletion. The case was clear on first sight, regretably uploads like this are not unusual here, thats why I said 'welcome', maybe you was not aware of the problems this project has. --Martin H. (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, there seems to be some general misunderstanding. As per our COM:PRP we don't need to be totally sure that a file is a copyvio. To the contrary, the uploader has to convince us (provide evidence/proof) that the file is not a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop, think that treating me as a rookie is not good, I'm OTRS volunteer I know very well what happens and I volunteer for a long time. I just came to say that justification is incorrect, the source is a search engine and should not be used to justify the exclusion of material. Realize that at no time asked to recreate the image. Incidentally, another wrong attitude, you should not assume that the person was wrong, or did something with evil intent, the posture has to be that people have good faith. That was all. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• First, as a matter of fact it was an unfree copyrighted image (and if you want to argue otherwise, the burden of proof is on you); second, this kind of photo montages has no educational value, and no place on the Commons. And third, modifying the image in this way doesn't create a free image you can upload to this project, but rather a still-unfree derivative work. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It ... as if I did not understand about free license ... and you're wrong, edited images can have an educational character, I'm not saying that is the case, but it can. And if not understood until now what I said, give up. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems I have with an administrator's decision

Hallo, I had put a request fpor deletion on File:Anti68.jpg, seeCommons:Deletion_requests/File:Anti68.jpg. The main problem I see with the file is that it combines a real-world picture of a certain, identifiable vehicle with the symbol of a "tidyman". The file suggests that the depicted vehicle would be trash. In my opinion this file violates the rights of the owners of the vehicle on their own picture, and is a joke on their expence. Further, this picture does not serve any educational, or construtive organisational means.

An admin has declined this request for deletion. I did not have the impression, that the admin had understood the request. So I explained it again on his talk page (in German language). But the only answer I received was that my request would be "absurd".

I don't think that my request has been properly proceeded so far, but I don't know where on commons I could further contest the decision. --Rosenkohl (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture doesn’t have to serve only educational, or construtive organisational means. If there a "moral" problem, the author of the bus photo is the one that can ask for deletion.

The request was maybe not properly proceeded (or not) but the result seems pretty fine to me. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 10:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• The argument is that the file is not useful for any educational purpose and, as such, out of scope of the project. (On the other hand, it is used on German Wikipedia as a part of de:User:Antiachtundsechziger's talk page signature, on his user page, and in an unused userbox en:User:Miacek/Userboxes/68.) (The claim that the image indicates that this particular brand of cars is trash is misguided; more likely, it indicates that the hippie movement is trash.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

File:EddieHalliwell.jpg

Does this image need an OTRS ticket? And if not, can someone trim off the verbage for an encyclopedic look? Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also, it has contradictory copyringht information: public domain and CC-BY. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Looks like a plain copyright violation to me. Tag it with {{Copyvio}}, or if you're optimistic {{subst:npd}}. –Tryphon^☂ 22:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio and false permission

These low quality photographs were taken from some web sites without permission, but uploaded by user Imgusername as "own work" and saying "I, the copyright holder of this work":

You can find them in:

• www.anlis.gov.ar
• www.unnoba.edu.ar
• www.inta.gov.ar.
• www.sintesisagraria.com

This is the same person who operates in Wikipedia to IP 201 216 254 229, with several negative history. For example, he caused the protection of an article (one of the places where these photos are used), by an administrator on May 15th. And then another administrator had to block the IP for that he can not enter Wikipedia.

Please proceed to delete these photos as soon as possible. I will try to take new photos of those places myself in order to upload them legally.

Regards, --Paolazaccardi (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use on pt.wp(?)

FYI, pt.wp apparently now allows fair use. I observed that they not installed a 'switch' in their pt:Especial:Carregar_imagem upload form, so pt users will have it harder to find us here on Commons. Already the first uploads were regular uploads that now have a fair use on pt.wp (and a deletion tag). On Commons some work is to do for pt users, e.g. Commons:Upload/pt is now outdated - if my finding is right. And we should, if my finding is confirmed, remember that we not inform pt users that fair use is not allowed in their wiki. Personally im however curious how a project in that stage, >600K articles, and IMO small number of admins - pt:Special:Statistics says 38/5598 users and thats realy not much - will handle both, the massive import of album covers etc and the instruction to new users where they can upload own work files and that Commons is not fair use but free content. --Martin H. (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Image transfer page 2nd category selection bug

There is a problem with the image transfer page category selection at THIS PAGE. When a single category is selected, after the transfer, everything previously specified is there and this speeds up consequent transfers of related images and this is OK.

1. If more than one category is selected, returning to the page after image transfer, all previous information is erased and everything must be re-typed.
2. If the additional category is typed directly in the data window, (instead of using the additional category selection option), then the category stays hidden, unnoticed, and is applied to future unrelated transfers.Ineuw talk page on en.ws 16:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check next userpages

Jacobmacabre, Jimmyhullaballoo, and Tycerollins will have same text in userpage ? --Motopark (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Craigbillings too. I think the text is generated from isthisyour.name. Jafeluv (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 Deleted since it can be copyright violations of text. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

On a closer look the pages also contained an external link that was not part of the original text. That might have been the reason to create the pages in the first place, since none of the accounts have made any other edits. Jafeluv (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Graffiti

Can someone with knowledge on the issue comment on the legality of the two following items:

• Graffiti (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Category:Graffiti (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The majority of the work in these is fairly recent. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

See COM:CB#Graffiti. In short, pictures of illegal graffiti are allowed on Commons. –Tryphon^☂ 14:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Issue with File:MELLOLEITAO.jpg

File:MELLOLEITAO.jpg has a very dubious copyright claim. I'm not sure what the right course of action is here. I don't come to commons that often, sorry. -Selket (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The file was deleted already. So  Done here. The best sollution is always to start a discussion, while the file talkpage is to invisible to start such a discussion the best sollution is to start a deletion request. --Martin H. (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Mblaq2.jpg

The "source" that supposedly released this image with no copyright is a fanblog that is highly unlikely to have permission for what appears to be a promotional image of the band. Is there a way to investigate this? Active Banana (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You can contact the blog author and ask him the photo source. --Dereckson (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The "source" is shurely not the copyright holder, also they not release it with no copyright - its protected by default, they not released it under a free license, thats what matters here. Clear copyvio, didnt I delete this before (albeit the first time it was uploaded as "own work")? The copyright holder is either the photographer or TB Jeans, its their advertising campaign. See goolge. --Martin H. (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)  Done Martin H. (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I create more sub-categories to category FAL

Can I create more sub-categories to category FAL, one to maps, one to ogg-files, one to buildings and so on. After then shall be more easy to find pictures that will needed more info or deleted. If yes, can we use some bot to search all fiiles that are *.ogg and move then to sub-category--Motopark (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Padrealex97

This user has uploaded atleast three copyvio images so far - File:Airporttable.jpg , File:Maduraiairport2.jpg and File:Maduraiairport.jpg - declaring them to be his own work. And he has uploaded several other images with similar copyright tags. Can anyone check this guy's contributions and warn him not to do this? (i tried to talk to him in en. wiki and he ignores my messages)--Sodabottle (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Checked, your finding is right. Uploads deleted, user warned. --Martin H. (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Martin!.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oversight election underway

An oversight election is currently underway, and with just a couple days until its tentative deadline, we need further participation to come to a definitive conclusion. Your input is appreciated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Mfs ha2 organigramm.svg

Could someone please delete the first version of this file? It is unusable because of the visual bugs in the upper part. I already uploaded a new (bugfixed) version. Thank you very much. Regards --NeXXor (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Amada44  ^{talk to me} 18:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio and false permission (II)

This is an extension of the similar request I made on September 7th for these already eliminated images: - Pcinta.JPG - Deleted by High Contrast because: Missing essential information: source and/or license. - Inevhn.jpg - Deleted by High Contrast because: Copyright violation.

With these other two images you should do the same. These low quality photographs were taken from some web sites without permission, but uploaded by user Imgusername as "own work" and saying "I, the copyright holder of this work":

You can find them in:

• www.unnoba.edu.ar
• www.inta.gov.ar.
• www.sintesisagraria.com

This is the same person who operates in Wikipedia to IP 201 216 254 229, with several negative history. For example, he caused the protection of an article (one of the places where these photos are used), by an administrator on May 15th. And then another administrator had to block the IP for that he can not enter Wikipedia.

Please proceed to delete these photos as soon as possible. I will try to take new photos of those places myself in order to upload them legally.

Regards, --Paolazaccardi (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Permissions issue - Flickr

Hi all. Whilst license reviewing I came across an odd problem namely, this and the pages that link to it. I don't think that the permission can be permitted because there is no way to verify that it is genuine; it could be made in a Word type program. I've informed the uploader but given no email and no edits since Jan 2010, it may take a while to get a response. I've wondering if the linked files should be deleted for now however? Thanks! fr33kman -s- 02:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Three images to check for copyrights violation

File:Pipe-from-Sanbruno-explosion.jpg;File:Destroyedhomes-Sanbruno-Fire.jpg;File:SanBrunoFire.jpg This is KRON 4 images. Were they released with a free license, or a Flickr user just took them from the NET and released them with a free license himself? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ownership statement at KRON4 Terms of use does indeed suggest that material might not be free enough. --Túrelio (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Category rename

Category:Gustave Witehead would seem to be misnamed; the majority of files in it refer to "Gustave Whitehead". I can't do this myself, so suggest this here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Next time use {{Move}} for category rename. Geagea (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware of that, but now I am. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mico hk

Please block Mico hk (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, which is an obvious sockpuppet of Kalon macau‎‎ (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Rocket000 (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio for you

I just deleted as a blatant copyvio. The content, including the image, File:Warren-adler-stonehouse.jpg, was all copied from [14], so you might want to get rid of that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

personality rights

Hi all!

Is it necessary to put a {{Personality rights}} warning template in the description page of a photo of a "public person" taken in a public place? One example: Is it necessary to put the template on the description page of the image File:Rafael Nadal – Practice Court.jpg showing Nadal playing tennis in public? I would say no. If you disagree please tell me why we should put the template. --ALE! ¿…? 16:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's any more or less necessary than to have it on any other photo of living people. It's certainly applicable; you can't use a photo of Rafael Nadal to imply endorsement in an advertisement without prior consent. Once added, I don't think it should be removed from such photos. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up privacy rights with personality rights. The public vs. private place distinction is only important regarding privacy rights, but personality rights (not having your image used to imply endorsement, or used in a derogatory manner) apply to all images of living people, regardless of context. –Tryphon^☂ 17:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --ALE! ¿…? 06:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Uploads by Nosliw39 sourced from a Brazilian Portuguese site

Can someone check all content uploaded by Nosliw39 contribs. It is all sourced from a Brazilian site http://www.mdig.com.br/index.php?itemid=2169 which has the text © 2004-2010 Metamorfose Digital at the end of each page. Nosliw39 claims the content 'is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship'. As I don't know a word of Portuguese I have no way of checking the scope of the copyright notice.

--Waugh Bacon (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Move File:Early fall morning.jpg.jpg

Could someone please move File:Early fall morning.jpg.jpg to File:Early fall morning.jpg? The flickr upload bot multiplied the .jpg there. Regards SoWhy 11:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Jafeluv (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jafe. :-) Regards SoWhy 12:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

License and description problems with all content uploaded by Jessemate94

File:Synyster_Gates_Rockstar.jpg and File:Synyster_Gates_Rockstar_2.jpg have a watermark on the images. The site http://www.thrashmag.com/ bears the notice 'Thrash Magazine is a Registered business in the United States ©1998-2010 Thrash Magazine. All rights reserved.'The File:Synyster_Gates_Rockstar_3.jpg is identical, but has the URL croped from the image. License and descriptions appear to be patent nonsense. The description for File:The rev beer.jpg is the URL www.avengedsevenfold.com

--:Waugh Bacon (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

duplicate

How we can find all files in a local wiki that there is a duplicate version of them in Commons? --Ali Esfandiari (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong name

I have made a mistake. I uploaded this image, but I put it a bad name. Its correct name is "LavaderoLosCaños.JPG". Can you change the name, please? Luispihormiguero Any problem? 18:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Here it is now: File:LavaderoLosCaños.JPG. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

incorrect template translation

this redirect page should redirect to here. It is a Persian expression translated incorrect. see here and its interwiki.

Please protect the following redirect pages to avoid editing their redirection. They are sensitive templates:

• template:مالکیت عمومی
• Template:مالکیت عمومی-خود
• Template:مجوز گنو
• Template:مجوز گنو-خود
• template:نگاره قدیمی
• template:نگاره نوشتاری
• template:نگاره عراقی
• template:نگاره بریتانیا
• template:نگاره هابل
• template:نگاره آمریکا
• template:نگاره دولت آمریکا
• template:کک-یاد-دو
• template:کک-یاد-حفظ-دونیم
• template:کک-یاد-سه

--Ali Esfandiari (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh my God! Is there anyone here? --Ali Esfandiari (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm here :) Just wondering whether it's okay to assume that all 20 files that use the template meant to use GFDL and not PD-self. Not sure if it matters, though, considering that if they released it as PD it would still be okay for us to license it under the GFDL. Jafeluv (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I checked the transclusions, and since every file that used the redirect was transferred from fawiki it's pretty safe to assume GFDL is what was meant. I've changed the redirect and protected all the above templates except Template:نگاره بریتانیا, which is currently a double redirect. Please change it to point it to the appropriate target - did you mean Template:PD-UKGov, or something else? Jafeluv (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:نگاره بریتانیا is this. Apparently the is no alternative template in Commons. You may create it! thank you so much --Ali Esfandiari (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That licensee is covered by {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-anon-70}}, I think. Jafeluv (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

deleted userpage

Help? Why was the entire userpage deleted? Ziskachilds

I can't see any deleted contribution made by you. Please notice: Wikimedia Commons is no place for articles. --Polarlys (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(after EC) Which page? This one User:Ziskachilds was never deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Polarys blanked the subject user page with the summary "no articles on Wikimedia Commons". This was, strictly speaking, correct and within policy, since the page was a new article on The Given Institute. However, the first line says, "Test page for the Given Institute", and Ziskachilds had copied it onto WP:EN so it's clear that Ziskachilds was just building a page for WP:EN on his or her Commons user page. Ziskachilds built a different version of the Given page at WP:EN:User:Ziskachilds, so perhaps was just trying different layouts.

Ziskachilds -- next time you can create pages such as

• User:Ziskachilds/sandbox1
• User:Ziskachilds/sandbox2

on either Commons or WP:EN for this kind of testing. Generally test pages for Wiki work ought to be subpages of your WP:EN user page, but it doesn't really matter.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin posted resignation notice

I just wanted to inform you all of this discussion Commons_talk:Administrators#Admin posted resignation notice. There is a debate what to do if an admins say "Goodbye". --MGA73 (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Your attention required!

Hello. You have a user upload non-free images of Arab personalities, and put its on the Wikipedia pages in different languages. I hope to review all his images uploaded, and alert him. Thanks. --Sharaf Al Deen (Talk) 20:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I see a lot of tiny photoshopped images, some with frames, only a few with camera EXIF data (three different cameras). There is a lot suspicious here, the uploader should provide images in higher resolution with camera exif data. Some images are obviously wrong licensed: author unknown but own work. --Polarlys (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I repeat my thanks to you! --Sharaf Al Deen (Talk) 14:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Fernando aguirre y hernandez

 Done

Could someone please delete User talk:Fernando aguirre y hernandez, which contains nothing but spam from the user himself and his open proxy. The user has not managed to produce any useful contributions – just a nonsensical message at Commons:Café and vandalism of {{PD-Mexico-NIP}} back in 2007. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the message and left a note, but unless someone is looking to usurp the username I see no reason to delete the talk page. Gnangarra 12:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio and false permission (II)

Please, I need help with this.

This is an extension of the similar request I made on September 7th for these already eliminated images: - Pcinta.JPG - Deleted by High Contrast because: Missing essential information: source and/or license. - Inevhn.jpg - Deleted by High Contrast because: Copyright violation.

With these other two images you should do the same. These low quality photographs were taken from some web sites without permission, but uploaded by user Imgusername as "own work" and saying "I, the copyright holder of this work":

You can find them in:

• www.unnoba.edu.ar
• www.inta.gov.ar.
• www.sintesisagraria.com

This is the same person who operates in Wikipedia to IP 201 216 254 229, with several negative history. For example, he caused the protection of an article (one of the places where these photos are used), by an administrator on May 15th. And then another administrator had to block the IP for that he can not enter Wikipedia.

Please proceed to delete these photos as soon as possible. I will try to take new photos of those places myself in order to upload them legally.

Regards, --Paolazaccardi (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please use normal deletion processes (Commons:Deletion requests, or in this case probably Commons:Deletion requests/Speedy deletion) for this sort of thing instead of coming to the Administrators' noticeboard. - Jmabel ! talk 16:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Imgusername received a warning 11 days ago about uploading copyrighted images. I assume that the admin who gave the warning is keeping an eye on things and is likely to block the account if problems persist. If not, then that is an issue to bring up here. But deletion of a couple of relatively unimportant images is not an appropriate matter for this page. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done deleted copyvios. --Polarlys (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested update to protected image

In case it is overlooked, contributors at the Turkish Wikipedia would like your urgent response to the request posted here (regarding File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-tr.png). Thank you in advance. Pinar (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

File talk:Maria-Theresia van Spanje.jpg

Hey I left a message on the talk page as the picture has been misidentified! Can someone help? Merci Monsieur le Duc (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:RJVB

Someone may want to consider mass-delete for RJVB (talk · contribs) uploads. Wknight94 ^talk 23:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Same for Fma (talk · contribs). Sorry, I'll stop hitting Special:NewFiles soon. Wknight94 ^talk 23:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Gnangarra 01:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Eagles.jpg

Please delete the latest revision of File:Eagles.jpg by User:Jorge isury, who appears to have uploaded nothing but copyright violations, and who overwrote a completely different and perfectly fine photo with this one. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Error

I have made an error. I have nominated for deletion this image. It was a mistake on my part, I did not want to nominate it. Could you keep it? Luispihormiguero Any problem? 19:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

File reset, deletion request cancelled, all's fine! axp_de^Hello! 20:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

User repeatedly uploading copyrighted images

User:Drtony999 has been repeatedly uploading copyrighted images to commons, often these are images from John Whatmough's Extrasolar Visions website [15] taken from the website Sunflower Cosmos [16]. Could someone step in here to help resolve this situation, I'm not entirely confident with explaining the technicalities of copyright law. Thanks. Icalanise (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Stalled deletion of a duplicate image

The image File:GoldenTriangleA.jpg has been tagged as a duplicate image, but the commons de-linker is having trouble. It still think that the image appears at Portal:Pittsburgh/Selected picture, but I replaced it by hand. Could an admin manually delete this image?--GrapedApe (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Geagea (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Imageupload55

User:Imageupload55 is blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia edition as a troll account. They've since continued with their antics here on Commons, uploading copyvios and nonsense files, repeatedly blanking problem tags and talk page discussions in spite of warnings. Please block. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done blocked for 2 weeks; if his abuses continue, I'll prolong the block. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted the CV and nonsense uploads, reverted changes made to File:Nintendo 64.png, apparently the user self reverted File:Location Sweden with Green Blank Map.PNG. Gnangarra 13:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Angela Romeo.jpg

Would be nice if somebody with OTRS-ticket could help to judge this difficult case. --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

deletion request for Nicotera,please

The edit Nicotera have many commons files here without the OTRS-ticket.The final editing here is an "db" from this site uploaded by an IP. I Required an edits deletion and ..."blok".. for uploaders User:Vituzzu and IP 79.43.196.128,two user-problems in en.wiki.But Look this other edit on file Gerace,a "vandalism" with many unlicense commons files and an up template from that IP.

Thanks to the patroller --Alpha (^{my name is nobody...}) 20:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with the photo or the users. Geagea (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Undelete Request: File:Osmosis.JPG (Duplicate)

At en-WP File:Osmosis.JPG must not be replaced by File:Osmosis.jpg! The story is bit complicated - see this (diff link). Osmosis.JPG was recently deleted on Commons as exact duplicate of File:Osmosis.jpg. Unfortunately on en-WP a local file en:File:Osmosis.jpg showing the game en:Osmosis (solitaire) exists by the same name - and is certainly not an exact duplicate of File:Osmosis.JPG.

Please undelete Osmosis.JPG - at least - temporarily on Commons so it could be uploaded to en.wikipedia.org and relinked into en:Osmosis. I guess such name clash needs to be resolved by the local project.

BTW: Shouldn't Delinker check against the existence of local media with the same name before it executes the replacement? Regards, --Burkhard (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done renamed File:Osmosis.jpg to File:Osmosis computer simulation.jpg. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Upload a big file

Bonjour,

Sorry for my English, I hope you could understand me...

I need to upload a djvu file (here) and to replace File:Franck - Dictionnaire des sciences philosophiques, 1875.djvu with it (same edition), because the first djvu file is better and has OCR. But the file is more than 100Mio (100, 9Mio). Yann told me that I have to ask to a developper, but I don't know where to find one. Thank for your help. Marc (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems impossible to have some help on commons. It looks like Kafka's castle. Marc (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Were none of these suggestions helpful? –Tryphon^☂ 09:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The goal is to upload the file ; and that is not a succes. I have contacted a system administrator who has took a quick look on my demand and the answers to it, and then he has said that all is well and that he has nothing to do... I have writen in three different places, and all that one can say to me, is to split the file. Marc (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well then I guess you have to Split the file. TheDJ (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a better idea : I give up. Marc (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I red the Marc message on Commons:Bistro Friday evening and opened bugzilla:25291. The upload is pending but a developer have confirmed he's going to upload the file. Enjoy the happy end. --Dereckson (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible multiple copyvio

Can all the pictures in Category:Birds in Kookherd and Category:Birds of Iran be checked, please? Many (though not all) are obvious scans from books or magazines. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We already had this and I pointed out somewhere on this boards, see the users WhatLinksHere that the user may have uploaded lots of self-created works but also lots of images taken from elsewhere e.g. panoramio (500px filesize). --Martin H. (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Several months ago (it does ring a bell now!), but nothing has been done . . . remembering back about it, I had considered nominating them for a mass deletion, but couldn't work out how to format the mass deletion request (the instructions were far from clear). Anyone know how to do it? - MPF (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The simple way is to do a complete single deletion request, with all four parts, which can be manually or using the "nominate for deletion" tool. Then go to the DR page -- Commons:Deletion requests/File:XYZ.jpg -- and add all the remaining files as a bulleted list -- if there are more than five, Word or Excel can make the formatting faster. Then go to the file you started with, hit "edit", and copy the whole delete template. Paste it on each of the files on the list. Finally, go to the uploader's talk page and add the whole list to the entry there.

If there are more than around twenty, it is possible to save time by using AWB to add the {{Delete}} to the individual files quickly.

If you want to be really elegant, you can change the name of the DR from Commons:Deletion requests/File:XYZ.jpg to Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Uploader:XYZ (or whatever), but that requires changing it in all four places -- the log, the DR subpage, the template, and uploader notice.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletions

Who attend to Commons:Deletion requests/Buildings designed by Guðjón Samúelsson? Fingalo (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of buildings designed by Guðjón Samúelsson is done. Commons:Deletion requests/Buildings designed by Guðjón Samúelsson not yet. Fingalo (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Blatant copyvio

File:Jingwangpicture.jpg is obviously copied from [17] yet is asserted to be PD. it was used in an article on en.WP which I've just deleted as a blatant copyvio of the same page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks for the heads up. In the future, tagging an article with {{Copyvio}} will work just as well. Best, NW (Talk) 03:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

2 users

User:Ninaeva and User:Nina Silaeva seems to same user ?. And how are the page Nina Silaeva, is it out of scope ?--Motopark (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I userfied the gallery Nina Silaeva. --Martin H. (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC) And removed some overcat. Both are the same users obviously, however there is no abuse - asides that this whole looks like a little bit spam. --Martin H. (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Disable Image Annotator

ResolvedImage Annotator re-enabled per Tim's comment

Due to an overzealous use of API action=parse by Image Annotator overloading the servers, this feature was completely disabled on Commons, see bugzilla:25238. Because server admins had the unpleasant experience of being reverted by sysops, they require that this gadget be disabled by a local sysop. Please remove that from MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition ASAP, because the lack of action=parse hurts numerous tools and thousands of reusers. As far as I understand, retaining Image Annotator in its present state is out of the question. Thanks, Max Semenik (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed it from MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition. --32X (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reenabled action=parse on Commons in the hopes that it won't explode again. --Catrope (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Listen to the sysadmins

I'm disconcerted that I have to read in that bugreport the following: "Since certain administrators on Commons like to revert me when I change things there, I will leave action=parse disabled on Commons until a regular Commons administrator removes it from MediaWiki:Common.js." and then half an hour after X32 removes the gadget, User:Raymond reverts the action of X32. He corrects himself, probably AFTER reading the explanation link in X32's edit summary. Perhaps we should read such links in editsummaries before we take actions. I note that if required, sysadmins can and will desysop if needed and have every right and authority to do so, if they feel it is required for the operations of the websites. We have very nice sysadmins who are not in the habit of doing brute things like that unless absolutely required. It would be nice if we could show them a bit more respect, so that they don't change their mind on that policy.

I realize that some people simply don't know anymore who the sysadmins are. I'll ask if they can use a clear label in their edit summaries. Something like WP:OFFICE. TheDJ (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stats

How does one read the statistics in the bug report? Are the numbers a significant share of uses?  Docu  at 20:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What I understand from following some of the discussion in the wikitech IRC channel today, the problem was the caching that image annotator did. When caching parser output, it needs to be written to disk, and apparently the heavy load on action=parse by ImageAnnotator was starting to trip the servers. The suggestion by Platonides was that it should be considered to check if an image has annotations, by using another query. Something like: "http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=templates&generator=images&titles=User:Lupo/FPC2&tllimit=30". The problem is that this has issues when a lot of templates are used. Ideally you want to check for the presence of a "single" specific template in a group of pictures used on a single page. According to Roan, this is possible in the next version of mediawiki API, but not in the currently deployed one.

The final conclusion however was that this should really be a software extension, so that these notes can be added to the page_props of an image, right in the database. The current implementation is unmaintainable with increased usage (Ergo, enabling it by default on the english wikipedia, would probably bring the api servers down). TheDJ (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But what about all the images with annotations, which were added by the ImageAnnotator's old way, wouldn't they fail to work with a new rewritten ImageAnnotator which uses a different method then the previous? Bidgee (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict w/ Jarekt below) Oh, that could be done with a single conversion run. I don't think that'd be something to worry about. Lupo 13:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I am very sad by this development. It seems like a big step back in capabilities. It also makes large amount of image description unaccesible to users. I surly stopped using descriptions like "forth head (with hat) in 6th row is ..." when I can add an annotation. I am sure that if/when we add this capabilities to the software we will be able to translate between storage formats. But that might not happen anytime soon. --Jarekt (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking along other lines to fix this until someone has written an extension to replace its functionality: just get the wikitext of the image description pages (that should be much cheaper), and then look on the client side (in the JS code) if they contain image notes. Subsequently, the gadget would obtain the HTML of the notes to be displayed by using action=render on the image description page, just once whenever the first note on an image (if it has notes) was to be displayed. Also, instead of using an API parse query to get the user interface texts use action "render" on a page that contains these texts; if I understood the problem right, that should be less critical.

I am surprised, however, that (a) cache hits (not misses!) are a problem, and (b) that this problem surfaced only now, when the gadget has been running (apparently without problems) without changes to its query behavior for so long. In particular the fact that cache hits turned out to be problematic is bothering me.

I fully agree that all this functionality should ideally be in core or in an extension, but maybe there are ways to resurrect it until that ever happens. Lupo 13:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you should talk to some sysadmins if you really want to know more about why this problem surfaced. Although I'm not actually sure they themselves figured it out. TheDJ (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The day before bugzilla:25238 was started an image with annotations was POTD and on mainpage, maybe this is one cause - remember that our POTD is used also on various wikis like pt, nl, da, it, hu. Hoewever for me as an layman my emotional impression is that this action not helps us who spent our time here to improve this project, but helps outside reusers who instead of using their own resources use Wikimedia resources to operate their business and not improving this project. Dont like. --Martin H. (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Switching it off for the time being was the right course of action. Mainpage should not have mattered; the gadget was disabled there anyway. But POTD might perhaps have been a cause. Still strange that cache hits caused a problem. We'll see... Lupo 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Log linked by Tim Starling. If the number of requests is normal and the Byte Hit Ratio suddenly peaks, doesn't that mean that somehow an object of immense size got written to the cache and was subsequently served to users from cache thereby clogging the tubes with the gigantic traffic necessary to deliver it? To me it doesn't sound like Image Annotator's fault. But I'm not an expert, I could be totally wrong. --Slomox (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I would expect something like this to be the reason: Image Annotator does some innocent little API request. Just a normal image annotation for a popular image. For some unknown reason the squid cache messes up while storing the parsed string and the "end of" marker of the squid cache entry is lost. Suddenly a little 30 character image annotation turns into a GB-sized heap of random unrelated data. The next request for the same page hits the cache and all the GBs of random data are delivered. Most of the bandwidth is now reserved by this single object, other requests are delayed and the whole site starts to be instable.

So the sysadmins just need to look for a "big baby" in the squid cache and kill it with fire. Problem solved.

But I'm not an expert, I could be totally wrong. --Slomox (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and btw: if my theory is right that means that Image Annotator maybe is completely innocent. Tim Starling spoke of a 1/1000 sample. If a "big baby" squid entry is the reason it could be any other request somewhere hidden in the 999/1000. But I'm not an expert, I could be totally wrong. --Slomox (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's sufficient to remove display of annotations on pages transcluding the POTD.  Docu  at 22:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that POTD is the source of the problem. Actually I see no reason to believe that the problem lies on Commons at all. As Lupo said, it's very odd that cache hits instead of cache misses were responsible. That suggests that the problem is in Florida. --Slomox (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So let's reenable it then.  Docu  at 04:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I reopened Bugzilla:25238.  Docu  at 04:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if an object of "immense size" was served by the backend (I'm not aware of that ever having happened), it wouldn't be cached by squid, since the configuration of the squid servers in question limits the cached object size to 600KB (maximum_object_size), and the COSS storage backend limits the cached object size to 500KB. Thus the most likely reason for a high byte cache hit ratio is a large number of requests for a large number of different objects of around 50KB in size. This could easily happen if someone changed a template commonly used in image annotations to be larger than normal. -- Tim Starling (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to figure out hits on which page triggered that? File:Gallinago delicata Nicolet.jpg didn't have any annotations at all.  Docu  at 05:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

@Tim, would it help if the gadget got the image annotations and its user interface texts through action=render instead of using action=parse&text=... ? Is action=parse&page=... any less critical than action=parse&text=...? How critical would be action=query&prop=revisions&rvprop=content&rvlimit=1&titles=... to get the wikitext of a number of image pages to find out whether the images do have notes at all? Or what about the &query=templates query that was suggested above? Lupo 07:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

@Docu: no, please let's wait with re-enabling it. I won't have much time to do improvements in the gadget until Oct 11, but then I'll have a whole week and a number of ideas how to improve it. I'd hate to see it re-enabled only to discover that it'd cause troubles again. In any case it's certainly a good idea to switch off inline-display of notes within widely-used image templates, such as the POTD template. Lupo 07:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe finding the page that was a problem helps sorting it out. Given the volume of some of the other things listed in the bug report, I'm not too convinced of the explanation given.  Docu  at 11:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If I look at the squid stats the only servers that peaked on Tuesday were sq31, sq32, sq33. The other 13 show no peaks. If these three specifically serve Commons that would be a clear sign that Commons is the problem. I have't found any data which servers serve what.

This could easily happen if someone changed a template commonly used in image annotations to be larger than normal: The hard disk filled up with 1GB of additional data. There are 21,500 images with annotations (Category:Images with annotations). If we combine 21,500 with your 50kB we end up at 1GB. But the ImageAnnotator templates are untouched since 2009 and they do not contain any subtemplates that could have changed the size of the squid entry. I checked several annotations and about 90% of them contain nothing but plain text and most of the rest just simple templates like {{En}}. I couldn't find any evidence that would suggest that a increased-size template is used in so many image annotations that this could amount to 1GB. On the other hand, if a single massively used file like a POTD was the source where did the 1GB of additional data come from? (Or is swap memory counted in?)

If the byte hit ratio went up from 18% to 92% and the number of requests kept the same that means that the average size of the hitting requests increased by the factor 50.

Maybe there is evidence how this all fits together and ImageAnnotator is the culprit. But I don't see it in the data. --Slomox (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Tim Starling for giving permission to re-enable and to Lupo for actually re-enabling Image Annotator. It was indeed a problem on the servers and had nothing to do with Image Annotator or Commons at all. --Slomox (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons link of a de.Wikipedia.org page opens an older version of a Commons page

Hi!

I got a problem with a ({{Commons}}) link within a Wikipedia page.

The german Wikipedia page Sixtyfive Cadillac (this is an older version, because I removed the commons link temporarily) contains a {{Commons}} link to the Wikimedia Commons page of Sixtyfive Cadillac.

The URL of the current page of Sixtyfive Cadillac is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sixtyfive_Cadillac

The ({{Commons}}) link within the german page sets the suffix "?uselang=de" behind the URL. The complete address therefore:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sixtyfive_Cadillac?uselang=de

This URL - surely just to activate the german commons interface - opens an older version of the Wikimedia Commons page since about two weeks. Without suffix "?uselang=de" the current and correct page is displayed.

How to resolve the problem?

Best wishes, -- Fiorellino (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried refreshing your browser cache? Jafeluv (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

de:Hilfe:Cache#Browsercache „leeren“/aktualisieren. --Martin H. (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many times a day - regularily! The same problem occurs on several computers and browsers at several users. With empty cache (and restarting the browser or computer) the URL http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sixtyfive_Cadillac?uselang=de opens an older version of the Commons page. -- Fiorellino (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What older version is shown, what is the difference between this two versions? I ask because maybe you only see that one image is missing, your newest image addition was removed by an IP. I see no difference between Sixtyfive_Cadillac and the uselang=de link. The wrong version link cant be so troublesome that it is required to remove the Commons link from de.wp completely. This does not look like an urgent technical problem. The page definitively exists on Commons and with waiting a few days sooner or later also the server, if this is the troublemaker, will learn to show the correct version. --Martin H. (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the differences is the intro text, but the main problem is the old section "Walter Kohn (bass & management)". The band leader asked me to change it to just "Walter Kohn (bass)" because of urgent commercial and music legal reasons. -- Fiorellino (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

For me, the intro text is the same with ?uselang=de and without it. Also, both versions have just "Walter Kohn (bass)". Jafeluv (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Martin H., I keep on waiting. Many thanks! -- Fiorellino (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If nothing happens you may reopen this question, I can however say that for me the old version is also not shown, same as Jafeluv. The browser cache of IE, own expirience, is very resistent against the users desire to refresh, sometimes I had to delete the temporary files manually. If you use IE a look into that (de: Systemsteuerung->Internetoptionen->Allgemein->Abschnitt Browserverlauf/Einstellungen->Dateien Anzeigen) maybe helps, otherwise waiting cant hurt, be assured that other people see the correct version. --Martin H. (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note I have again re-instated the commons link in the German wikipedia article. I tested the links using both Firefox and Opera, logged out and in, and using proxies to simulate access from different countries, and could not reproduce this problem. However I did once experience a similar situation with a new Opera browser version - after several minutes of Opera always displaying an out of date wikipedia page (cache purges had no effect) I found I had Opera Turbo enabled, which apparently used a cache managed by Opera. After I disabled Opera Turbo all wikipedia pages displayed up to date. -84user (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I just tried Google Chrome not logged in and it was consistently displaying a 9 September version of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sixtyfive_Cadillac?uselang=de. (Opera not logged in was showing 27 September, and Google cache itself showed "This page was last modified on 14 September 2010, at 20:41"). Other language versions of the same Commons page were more up to date (French was "27 septembre 2010 à 03:18" and Italian was "12:13, 23 set 2010"). In Chrome I then applied ?action=purge to the commons URL like this: [18] and now it shows up to date. Do Internet Explorer users now see an up to date German Commons page? -84user (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Hey, it works! Great idea! Many thanks! -- Fiorellino (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Levapk

Please block Levapk (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for uploading a large number of copyright violations, recreating previously deleted copyright violations, and continuing to upload new copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings (including {{Copyvionotice}}, {{Dont recreate}} and {{End of copyvios}}). —LX (talk, contribs) 16:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

They're still at it... —LX (talk, contribs) 20:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and thanks for excellent work in copyvio detection --Justass (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

New proposed namespace Museum:

I would like to propose a new namespace "Museum:" see Category:Museum templates. It is very similar to Creator: namespace and holds infobox templates based on {{Museum}} template, just like Creator: namespace holds infobox templates based on {{Creator}} template. --Jarekt (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, you should probably move this topic to the village pump. This doesn't seem to be very related to adminstrators ;-) Multichill (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok --Jarekt (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on a prominent template

Please help Template:PD-self has the text [libellous content] (edited out by Jastrow (Λέγετε)) on it in red. I have no idea how it's being transcluded or who added it; please delete it as soon as possible. Thanks. Koavf (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This vandalism is now also on Template:Creator. I think this would require an oversight. Litlok (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Update It's not on Creator anymore, but it's still on PD-self (again?) Koavf (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser It's only there when I'm logged in. Can anyone help me here? Koavf (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday there was some serious and intense vandalism on templates, see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Template vandalism, possibly the cause of your problem. --Túrelio (talk) 06:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay It's gone now. Thanks again. Koavf (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Right to Vanish

Per the Right to Vanish, I'd like to request that my userpage and talkpage be both deleted and overwritten, and that if possible - as has been done in the past - that a bot re-upload all my images to remove the presence of my username. (Failing this, I would request that the changes be attributed to a randomly-created pseudonym). I am not asking for my 2400 edits comprising approximately 1000 freely-licensed uploads be deleted; merely that my name not appear anywhere in their logs as much as possible, and that the account be deleted. I think my time with WMF is at an end, and if anybody has any overarcing questions or concerns about my identity or reasons, I ask that they please use eMail and not discuss it in this public forum which is simply requesting the images be re-uploaded by a bot/script, and my account overwritten. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 17:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for good work, it's a real loss to Commons. I hope you'll reconsider sometime. Trycatch (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• +1 --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I dont think an reupload will take place. Such actions are not proportional to the nature of this project and the voluntary decision to edit here. Personally I disagree with dispersing usercontribs to bot accounts. You should request to rename your account, use COM:CHU or send an email request to an bureaucrat to have your problem resolved unbureaucratically. --Martin H. (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Rename doesn't affect past edits, does it? Hence bot/script - and re-uploads have taken place in the past, on my own uploads nonetheless when requested. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 19:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Rename does affect version histories, however it does not affect signatures.

But what's the problem when edits are credited to "Max Rebo Band"? I guess it's not your real name (unless your parents were really big fans), so what's the difference? --Slomox (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's say my employer has discovered I edit under the name Max Rebo Band, and wants to look at my edits? Ta-da, this is why "Right to Vanish" exists ;) And thankfully, I am not cursed with the name, thanks ;) Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 21:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I of course accept your decission to leave, but we normally don't delete talk-pages, as far as I know. If noone opposes, I am going to undelete it. abf «Cabale!» 19:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Meta and WP, talkpages are often deleted - so long as there is no current ongoing scandal that is being hidden. And clearly my talkpage does not show any of that, just bot notices and the occasional "you're wonderful/terrible for uploading that photo" notes. So I would ask you not undelete it. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 21:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

While I sympathize with the User's right to vanish, I don't think we can accomplish what he wants. If we have a bot go through and randomly change all entries of "Max Rebo Band" to something else, then someone wanting to follow the edits of Max Rebo Band would have to know only one of them to discover all of the edits under the new name. If we went further and randomly changed the first occurrence of Max Rebo Band to ASDFGHJ and the second occurrence to SDFGHJI and the third occurrence to something else, and so forth, then we would lose the continuity in all the archived discussions and, I suspect, have to open a large number of new users.

Assuming there no controversy or "important issues" are discussed there, I see no reason to undelete the talk page. We can always get at it if, for some strange reason, it becomes important.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Our icensing requires some degree of continuaty in the method of recording edits, RTV should be via a rename to something generic. The best way for a user to vanish is just vanish because what ever the new name is knowing an old/prior edit one can find the new anyway. RTV is only effective in the long term if the user discontinues editing altogether, and starts fresh at some point in the future without looking back. No issue with deleting user & talk pages. Be proud of your contributions they have helped to create something special Gnangarra 13:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In the past, I have had an administrator simply reupload under his name - so suddenly it is not attributed to "Max Rebo Band" or "ASDFGH", it is attributed to Pieter Kiuper or Hunter23 or whomever. That's largely what I'm asking for here, an administrator able to do so, to please do so. There is no need for the continuity of MRB, and there are IRL issues necessitating this departure from WMF which cannot be discussed publicly. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 14:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with those photos, don't try to hide behind me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not hiding behind you, picked a random admin-name to use against "ASDFGH", sorry if it was interpreted otherwise. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 15:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, it was "Kiuper". A scape-goat is needed ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Max: and this is exactly the reason why this will not be done. You are responsible for the uploads you have done here and any bot operator would have to take that responsibility. If there are specific images which could be problematic, please add a DR to them. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 14:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There are 1200 images that "might be problematic", and I don't necessarily want them deleted - I just don't want my name attached to them. And no, RTV makes it quite clear that my RL identity is not required to be forever linked to these images.

Max: If you can't find anyone to do the tasks, come to my talk page and give some detailed task information. I'll do it then, but it could take some time. --32X (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks mate, appreciate it - it's the cooperation that makes WMF worthwhile. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 15:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to be attributed, you'll need to change the licensing on your works to Public Domain or CC-Zero if you haven't already. Kaldari (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Good thought, but none of the images are my own, they're vintage pre-1923 or Flickr images, so the licensing remains unchanged. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 19:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Max Rebo Band has continued to edit after their participation in this discussion and following the deletion of their user and talk pages. If they continue to edit, I ask that the user either be blocked to ensure that they remain vanished, or that their user and talk pages are restored. Incidentally, their most recent edit is to an image that they uploaded in August. I couldn't help but notice that the original Flickr image is a full colour image of a woman and child running on a beach, whereas the image uploaded by Max Rebo Band is a black and white image that has been cropped to exclude the child. Is this a common practice? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind being blocked, only logging in to check on the status of this - then as I said, I hope the account is blocked/deleted/whatever. Per cropping photos and such, yes it is common practice. Where I remember, I include the "cropped" or "edited" template, but many of them sadly do not yet have that because I was unaware of it until somebody told me about it. Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 19:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable licencing?

I didnt think that this type of licensing [19] was allowed at Wikipedia. Is it allowed on Wikimedia? Active Banana (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The “you avoid using words that can be considered offensive” part is a bit problematic. I think this is not allowed, because it would make the license technically not free. (Otherwise, the license seems fine.) --Mormegil (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Common opinion is, when you request things that are not covered by the license, they can simply be ignored. --Túrelio (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request

Could someone please respond to my editprotected request at Template talk:GFDL? I filed it a day and a half ago, so I was surprised to see that it's still not fulfilled. Olease forgive me if I should have waited longer; it's been ages since the last time I filed an editprotected request, so I could be remembering wrongly on how long it should take. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Serial copyright violator may need block.

See Abcassionchan (talk · contribs). I have blocked them at en.wikipedia for adding copyvio images to articles there, he may also need a block here to stop him from uploading at Commons. His most recent handywork is File:Asa Butterfield and Amber Beattie in 2008.jpg. Thanks. --Jayron32 (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Creating Sub-category

I confess. I've messed it up. I knew how to do it, but can't get it to work now.

Apologies aside, I was trying to create a Sub-category "Roma Street Parkland" under the Category "Gardens in Brisbane, Queensland", but created more problems in the process.

Could you please rectify the problem, and either tell me what I needed to know, or direct me to where I can find out.

Thanks, Fairfieldstation (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Need someone to look into contribs of another editor, heading to bed myself...

See A.howell23 (talk · contribs). He looks like a newbie, based on his contribs here and at en.wikipedia, and is likely unfamiliar with copyright. He's uploaded scans of a bunch of newspaper articles, and is claiming that he owns the rights to them, which he clearly does not. There's a few pics he has uploaded which look OK (portraits and stuff) but if someone could tag the rest for deletion that'd be great. It is WAY past my bedtime, or I'd do it myself. Thanks a bunch! --Jayron32 (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request

Please delete two files uploaded by me:

• File:Kopano Matwla 01.JPG and File:Kopano Matwla.02 (earlier in Category:Kopano Matwla)

Duplicates with correct attribution have been uploaded as: File:Helon Habila 01.JPG and File:Helon Habila.02.JPG in Category:Helon Habila Boberger (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Time to consider

I been watching, commenting on and sometimes closing what appears to be a series of User disputes that have reached a point where the community is divided sufficiently that its unable to act. The point that we now have reached is that we have a group of editors who can act in ways that are not always acceptable but that the community at the noticeborads is unable to deal with. We need to find a new solution for this, while I'm have a preference to the use of community resolutions I think we need to look beyond them and consider something like en.ARBCOM where not only current actions can be consider but also longer term actions, where people can present and respond clearly to actions. It should also be a place where people can respond in their native tongue rather then the default english of the notice boards so as to eliminate some of the misunderstandings due to nuiances of english language. Given that we are a smaller but more diverse community than en I think we should ask for Foundation involvement in it formation and functioning, but have community members in the decision processes. note:this not a finger pointing discussion please dont mention names, link to events, or actions that have occured everyone can view those various events in com:an boards/archives. This is about finding a better process to deal with the currently and continual revolving diputes that are consuming the boards and the community. Gnangarra 01:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

We certainly need some way to deal with people who apparently can't be banned. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons needs some way to deal with admins that apparently cannot be desysopped. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

De-adminship is possible: COM:DESYSOP. --High Contrast (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What he means is that he wants them desysopped but it would end up being speedy closed as spurious. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass copyvios

After having his uploads deleted and being blocked (by myself) on en.Wiki, it seems that PeterRoyce (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user is now uploading copyrighted images here under a highly improbable claim of authorship. If Commons has a Special:Nuke, someone might want to put it to use. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted and warned. Geagea (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Fast work. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please evaluate this deletion request

I'd appreciate it if an administrator could evaluate whether the recently opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:Basler Mässmogge in Trommel.jpg could be expeditiously closed one way or the other. The reason why I am asking this is that an ongoing deletion discussion will prevent this image from being included on the English Wikipedia main page (en:Template_talk:Did_you_know#Mässmogge). Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Done -mattbuck (Talk) 12:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Sandstein (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

While we're on deletion requests...

Can someone look at speedying this Commons:Deletion requests/File:Far East Council Ryukyu Islands.svg? The author made this on my request for en:wp, but inadvertently uploaded it here instead (I think we've all done that at least once). He's asked for help in deletion, I have tried as best I could, but this needs a quickie admin, thanks.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Sandstein (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you sir!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Cristián Berríos is back

The serial copyvio uploader and spammer Cristián Berríos (who edited under the usernames Marcelo Ríos, Seth Garden, amidst others) is back, and has just started to vandalize and nominate for deletion some of my images as "copyvios" (something which obviously they aren't if you check them.) I removed the "notifications" from my talk page, and as you can see, Berríos is using the username Rodrigo Gomez (talk · contribs). Vandalized as IP (blocked by ZooFari, thanks) and then reverted himself using their newly created account. Compare edits. And, for what it is worth, and if you're wondering why is this guy vandalizing and trolling my images, it's because I nominated his spammy articles (de:Cristián Berríos, fr:Cristián Berríos, ca:Cristián Berríos) for deletion on different Wikipedias. That's all. Please take action as soon as possible. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And the beat goes on. Please block Diego Grez The Pig (talk · contribs) for obvious reasons. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 18:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

File:La Verdadera Bandera de España.svg

That image was deleted, but I think that it was an error. I would like that that image is restored, please. Viewing its deletion request, there is not any motive to have deleted the image. It was a satiric flag, that it mixed the republican Spanish flag and franquist flag. There is here, on commons, a category dedicated to store images like that.

Also, look at the deletion request. Motives to delete the image almost were not given. Please, restore the image. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• I see no value in this apparently fictional flag (which was precisely the argument given in favor of deleting it) but if you think it should be restored, then the place to go is Commons:Undeletion requests, not here. - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Diego Grez again

The persistent vandal locked forever in wikipedia Diego Grez is forging licenses http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Diego_Grez recommended on a case study his photos, most belonging to Chilean newspapers. --190.160.159.72 14:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the block log (on ES Wiki [using Google to translate]), it looks like they were banned due to socking also I'm not see anything about their images. Bidgee (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

---

• IP is harassing User:Diego Grez and have blocked the IP who is likely to be User:Rodrigo Gomez and User:Marcelo Ríos (possibly some others), I'll be investigating further and lodging a checkuser. Bidgee (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent vandal spree

Colleagues, the highly organized vandalism spree in the last three nights [20], [21], [22], [23] cannot be accepted forever. Something has to be done. In addition to the persistant criminal defamation of Tiptoety, IMHO, these two threats [24], [25] alone do justify to try to track down the internet provider of the vandal, if possible, and to file a formal abuse complaint. I would even favor a legal action filed by the WMF. --Túrelio (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I was told that it was a persistent vandal who's been attacking Wikimedia for years. If something could be done, I'm pretty sure it would have been by now. But does anyone know why in particular this one user is bearing the brunt of it? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

May be because Tiptoety was effective in preventing/reverting damage by this vandal on :en, just concluding from what now happened to Martin H. and me in a far smaller scale. --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a long term vandal. He has been globally banned, and really the best option is just to block and ignore. Legal action has already been attempted. Tiptoety ^talk 04:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal threats from Asdxczcv (talk · contributions · Statistics)

This user is posting severe personal threats on user pages. Consider block, oversight. --Slaunger (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Done already, see COM:AN/U#Asdxczcv_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. –Tryphon^☂ 09:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Playstation-3-slim.jpg

Please delete File:Playstation-3-slim.jpg. The uploader keeps removing the {{Copyvio}} tag. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

...and File:Playstation3.jpg (tineye). The OTRS pending tag is obviously bogus. (If one doesn't know who the author is and what the license is, one obviously hasn't obtained and forwarded permission information from the author.) —LX (talk, contribs) 08:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Some help please?

I uploaded this file on wikipedia, but someone moved it to the commons. I have since changed my username on wikipedia, and was able to change it in the image. The problem I have is that the file history still displays my old username. Would it be possible to change/remove the comment in file history? If not could you delete the file so I can re-upload it? Thanks Grenadier (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you change your username, ie get a new one, or was your user account renamed? You can just edit the page to remove the original upload log. If it's the file history you're worried about, you could just upload over it and we can selectively delete the old version. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Delinker

It looks like the tasks at [[--190.160.24.224 19:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)User:CommonsDelinker/commands]] have ground to a halt. I'm not sure of exactly when, but it looks to me like there are tasks that have been queued up there for at least five or six hours. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Still broken. - Jmabel ! talk 16:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, he works fine for single file relinking, but seems to "hesitate" with moving the content of cats. --Túrelio (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons link on Wikipedia opens an older version II

Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 23#Commons link of a de.Wikipedia.org page opens an older version of a Commons page for a related discussion (a few days/weeks ago).

Today I noted that this issue still is a problem. Example:

1. The article Olev Mihkelmaa links/linked to Category:Olev Mihkelmaa which contains Category:Photos by Olev Mihkelmaa with (as of today) 169 files.
2. The {{Commonscat|Foo}} template on et.wikipedia uses the ?uselang=et link structure which leads to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Olev_Mihkelmaa?uselang=et – but this shows only "0 files", an obviously outdated cached version.
3. Please note that ?uselang=de or other language forms work well and show the correct number of files. Purging the category pages doesn't have any effect, see e.g. [26].
4. As a workaround I changed the link on et.wikipedia to directly point to the subcategory [27], but this isn't possible in other cases where there is no such subcategory.
5. Some users tested the link in question on different machines with different OS/browsers for me, but all of them reported the above mentioned "0 files".

So what to do now? Did I miss some esoteric purging method? --:bdk: 10:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Estonian language version is set to only count subcategories, not files. If you look at, for example, Category:Municipalities of Germany (Estonian version), you'll notice that the English version shows both the number of subcats and the number of files, while the Estonian one only shows the number of subcategories. So it doesn't have anything to do with outdated versions. Jafeluv (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Yay! That was a neat hint. Many thanks, Jafeluv :-) --:bdk: 20:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

en:File:Pont1839.jpg

I tried to upload en:File:Pont1839.jpg to Commons giving it the new name "Angers bridge 1838": It created a "Permission error". Please move/rename the file for me. It should have Category:Pont de la Basse-Chaîne. Thank you. --AHert (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I now realised that my uploading trial apparently had no result whatsoever. So I uploaded the file with its original name which is OK. --AHert (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate image / User:POVPosse

File:Screenshot20101007at826.png seems to be somewhat inappropriate, especially given the caption. Similarly, User:POVPossee may need review... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've deleted it, uploaded only for vandalism in en-wiki. Use template {{Speedy}} in such cases. Trycatch (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I will attempt to remember that template for use here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User uploads same picture again after deletion

user] uploads same picture again after deletion, could somebody help--Motopark (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Done and blocked for 3 days. Bidgee (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of 5 icons

Is there a way I can get rid of the 5 icons that now show up on image pages? I find them hopelessly annoying and ugly. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

See here. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 13:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Tried that but I still get the tool bar even with a purge. Bidgee (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, works for me after purging with FireFox. And I don't even get the toolbar. Why they keep forcing this crap upon us is beyond me. I still use monobook too. Vector has some nice features but the navigation and gui is atrocious. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Two-Click Duplicate remover

Per request by User:99of9, I made a duplicate remover (similar to the quickmove tool). Try it out by clearing your cache. Please post comments/bug reports here --DieBuche (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it deletes images right after ordering at CDC. I hope that images used by other wikis are universally replaced before being delinked. :) And I think "File renamed" link should disappear because it is not actually renaming a file using move tab. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It immidiately creates a redirect, so the delinker should pose no problem--DieBuche (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And the File renamed link is gone as well--DieBuche (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to black out the signature from a document scan

Please remove the initial version of this scan. I forgot to black out the issuer's signature. I'm not sure if I should have reported this via "speedy deletion", because only one version is to be deleted. Thanks in advance. Aphranius (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok,  Done. J.smith (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

edit war over relicensing

Xanderliptak (talk · contribs) vs everyone. e.g. File:Coat of arms of John Kennedy by Alexander Liptak.png. See User_talk:Xanderliptak#Danger Will Robinson! License incompatibility! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The other editors have no reason to randomly delete portions of the permission information. John Vandenberg, for instance, insists on deleting the attribution information because it "is already a requirement of the Cc-by-sa license, so there is no need or benefit in it being mentioned", but the CC license states one "must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". I am merely trying to show how I wish to be attributed, and it states in the license such information is needed, leaving no reasonable cause for John Vandenberg to remove it. The other information he finds redundant and wants removed is information that is part of the license I wish to stress in the permission section, about my moral rights. While he may find it redundant, there is no reason that portions of the license can not be repeated on the image page, it is merely one sentence and makes me more comfortable about the license being used correctly if that portion is reiterated. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Restrictions put on images recently, changes the very essence of freedom to work upon, by disallowing derivatives and restricting content "not defame, demean or in any other manner reflect negatively". Licenses are non-revocable and should not be changed to more restrictive. --Justass (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that while the edit-warring has primarily been about this specific image, Xanderliptak has within the last day or so added similar language to all his past uplaods, so its a general problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this, the current version of the text, is entirely acceptable:

"Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use and any other use is permitted so long as proper attribution is given to the original author, Alexander Liptak. All subsequent adaptations, remixes and other derivative works must likewise attribute the original author, Alexander Liptak."

As Liptak says, it simply sets forth how he is to be credited, with his full name, not his User Name.

On the other hand this, the last version written by Liptak, is unacceptable:

"Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use and any other use is permitted so long as proper attribution is given to the original author, Alexander Liptak. All adaptations, remixes and other derivative works, including their subsequent adaptations, remixes and derivative works, are permitted so long as they do not meet with disapproval of the original artist and do not defame, demean or in any other manner reflect negatively upon the original author or his work, and must likewise attribute the original author."

The italicized words do not meet our requirements. When you release an image to Commons, you release it, and have no control over what is done later. If subsequent changes actually defame the artist, he or she may have an action for libel, but no control.

I propose that, where required we change the language on all the files at issue to that shown in the first paragraph in this comment, and warn Liptak that if he changes them again, he will be blocked and they will be protected.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have every right to demand that derivative works are not used in any negative way, because the license tells me I can. Please go here to the license itself. See under "With the understanding that" towards the bottom? Click on moral rights, and you will see anything derogatory, demeaning and so forth is forbidden. What everyone is referring to, where I have no rights whatsoever to control anything, is public domain. This image is not public domain, though. If a person wishes to use this in a derogatory way, it is forbidden per the license. If a person comes to me to ask if they can do it anyways, and it meets my disapproval, that person is forbidden per the CC agreement. If I approve, then the person can use it in the derogatory way. That is what the text refers to, that unless I approve the derogatory or demeaning use, any and all negative uses of my work are forbidden. It is in the license, and I am merely stating that forthright. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you have exactly what the license grants, no more. You cannot restate the license requirements in stronger terms and you cannot demand approval of modifications. All you may do is to specify the form of the attribution. Anything more is a change in your license and that is not permitted here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I know. That is why I did not do that. That is why I included only what is already included in the license. AnonMoos claimed I added restrictions and otr thigns to win some argument at a deletion page, and you are echoing those claims, but these claims are not based on anything. So please stop spreading falsehoods. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You're both kind of right moral rights do give the author grounds to deny use of the work under certain circumstances, the wording being used implies restrictions greater then the license itself. What you can state is please contact the author if you wish to vary this license including any moral rights Gnangarra 00:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording states that it should not meet with my disapproval and be demeaning. It says nothing about needing my approval, just that if someone wants to use the image negatively it can not do so if I do not approve, per the moral rights granted by the CC. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"my disapproval" is an approval process, and it is not acceptable legal language because you do not define disapproval.

If you don't like a derivative work, you can't simply revoke their ability to reuse your work. If you believe your moral rights have been imposed upon by a derivative work, your redress is within the moral rights section(s) of the laws in your jurisdiction. i.e. you can take action against someone who is abusing your image, but it is a civil matter to be decided by a judge, and their license is valid until a judge agrees with you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've written on Xanderliptak's user talk page, if he really didn't think through what all the consequences might be when he chose to upload his images under a valid CC-BY-SA license, then his only recourse is to petition for deletion of his images (and the pros and cons of doing so could then be debated). However, the attempt to retroactively alter licensing terms to introduce terms incompatible with Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses, and not allowed under the terms of CC-BY-SA-3.0, must stop immediately. AnonMoos (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, no one is doing anything retroactively. Please post a diff were I claimed anything took hold retroactively, or stop spreading that lie. I am posting my moral rights forthright, and you can not deny me my moral rights. If you wish to do so, you are violating the CC. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Too bad that you're resorting to ad-hoc wikilawyering that you make up as you go along, instead of trying to find out how things really work. AnonMoos (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop it. It is in the license. Read the licensing agreement. I don't care if you think exerting my rights is "wikilawyering" because they are my rights and I am allowed to express them. Stop trying to steal my copyright, stop trying to release my images int public domain or whatever your end goal is. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Do I have or do I not have moral rights?

Several editors are claiming that a CC causes me to loose any and all control over my images. This sounds like public domain to me, and not CC, which grants me moral rights and still gives me copyright. If you go to [the license], towards the bottom, the moral rights describe that images can not be used in a derogatory fashion if the original author does not approve. An admin has claimed while I do have these rights, I can not express them, and even blocked me for attempting to express them.

So is CC a rouse to cause copyright holders to loose their rights? Or do I actually have my moral rights as is stated in the CC? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Creative Commons licenses (with the exception of Canada) do not affect any moral rights licensor may have. Any derivative work you think is prejudicial to your honor or reputation(4d) can be / or can not disputes to the fully extent of your national law. But it is not by any means covered by CC license --Justass (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That assessment by Justass seems basically correct. In Commons in general, we ignore the issue of moral rights. We only deal with the licensing of actual copyright, and all these little tertiary rights that differ greatly per country are not taken into account. Such rights are also very hard to enforce internationally (for instance the United States hardly knows the concept) and in many countries, the exercise of such rights is often very difficult as well. I mean, someone really has to start a defamation campaign against a person, using your material, before you will have even the slightest shot at winning. There are many things that are illegal in many countries, and we don't go adding entire books of law to all our images.

P.S. I just noticed the words you added to those images, and they are not acceptable. First of all "meet with disapproval of the original artist", isn't even enforceable as a moral right as far as I know and the rest is not a proper reflection of the various states of moral rights in countries around the world (at the very least requires country of origin specification). There is a reason why CC kept these issues out of the CC licenses. They hardly affect any of the reuses, yet work very stifling in the sharing of material and can be very confusing. All in all, I do not support that people go and rewrite the CC license like this. The CC licenses is clear. They can go read it on the link. If they fail to do that and you feel the need to exercise your moral rights, then just sue the reuser. TheDJ (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You are only quoting half of the statement. I can quote half statements, too, and make people look like they said things they did not say. Moral rights require approval from the artist if the work is to be used negatively. So if I disapprove of a derogatory derivative work, then by definition of my moral rights the work is not allowed. So what is wrong with stating my moral rights suddenly? Since moral rights are often iffy, why can I not outright state that I assert them? Since it is not under the jurisdiction of Commons, how can Commons deny me my moral rights, or at least assert that I am aware and will seek to enforce them if ever necessary? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

What you did give up was the right to act as gatekeeper, or to demand "approval" for derived versions of your images made by others. It's unfortunate if you didn't fully think things through, but every time you go to upload an image, the Four Freedoms are prominently listed at the upper left of the upload form, including "4. The freedom to create and distribute derivative works"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That is nice, but I did not demand that I approve. So your comment is not quite germane to the conversation and will only distract people from the actual comments. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

@Xanderliptak: You reverted an admin's overturn of your inappropriate changes to the upload license on your images, after a clear consensus at here told you you were wrong, and the admin gave you an attention-getting 2 hour block, and your response is... to revert the admin's changes again? Are you trying to get yourself indef blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You are following my edits on here and at the English Wikipedia, you are interjecting yourself into every conversation I have, ones that have nothing to do with you. You are hounding, stalking and harassing me. How many times do I have to plead with you to stop? Seriously, this is getting a bit creepy. Our content dispute was a week ago, there is no reason to keep following me around and harassing me. I reverted nothing. There is no clear consensus above either, which I assume you are referring to, with some saying I have rights, others say I don't and still others say I have them but can't say I do. That is not clear anything. Stop lying about things, and stop harassing me. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I am commenting on an issue of interest to me, because you made it of interest to me. That you don't like the fact that I've pointed out your egregious behavior is understandable, but the way to stop it is to stop misbehaving. Pretty simple. Stop refusing to accept consensus when it is brought forward, and stop going from admin to admin on en.wiki looking for someone who will come here and tell you other than what the participants here -- in clear and obvious consensus -- have already told you, that you cannot change the upload license after you upload the image, and that the language you're trying to add is not compatible with the license. Just... stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Really, can I have an admin intercede here? Beyond My Ken just said that anything I do is of interest to him, he said above that he is following my edits here and he is also following my edits elsewhere. He is harassing me and continually bringing up the content dispute from a week ago. He just pops into conversations and basically says, "Oh, don't help that Xanderliptak guy, did you know he challenged me on something, just look". Can someone tell him to stop following me? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an admin's attention is needed here, but not for the reason you seem to think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is this: Xanderliptak keeps opening discussions on this same matter in various places, but when he does, he misrepresents the situation. (A small example of this can be seen above. XL says "Beyond My Ken just said that anything I do is of interest to him" when what I said is "I am commenting on an issue of interest to me". I don't care that there's some kind of problem with the coat of arms of Ghana, or that Xanderliptak is edit warring on en:Mary (Mother of God))

This editor came into my life when he turned a simple talk page inquiry into why the Roosevelt coat of arms, which was listed as originating in the 17th century, had the American stars and stripes in it, and he turned that discussion into a bizarre marathon. Then he brought the issue here by trying to delete two images I contributed which displeased him, before attempting to retroactively change his upload license. I'd love to see this issue cleared up, and then see the back of XL forever, but as long as the issue remains alive, and he keeps forum-shopping looking for someone -- anyone -- to agree with him, I feel obliged to make folks aware when he distorts the facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't know anything about CC licensing, you already stated your opinion, you do not need to keep interjecting yourself. I am not looking for opinion, I am looking for fact. And you said "I am commenting on an issue of interest to me, because you made it of interest to me", that sounds like anything I do suddenly becomes an interest to you. That little "because you made it of interest to me" part. You are nothing to do with this conversation, so stop saying this is about you. This has nothing to do with anything about you, SO JUST STOP. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I get back to my question? So if moral rights are normally ignored by Commons, and the CC does not affect my moral rights, then it should not be an issue if I wish to assert my moral rights. Since everyone likes to quote half a statement, then make issue with a fragmented statement, tell me what would be preferred? Of course, I would prefer if the statement was reviewed in whole. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The restriction you attempt to impose states that "All adaptations ... are permitted so long as they do not meet with disapproval of the original artist and do not ... reflect negatively upon the original author or his work..." That means that you are reserving the right to consider the license void if you think that the licensee has failed to comply with either of these two conditions. For this reason, it is perfectly relevant to focus on each half of the statement independently. The requirement that adaptations are only permitted so long as you do not disapprove implies that you reserve the right to declare any adaptation a copyright infringement after the fact, based solely on your subjective disapproval for any reason whatsoever. This is fundamentally incompatible with the license you have chosen and with Commons' licensing requirements. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It says and not or, so they are not two independent statements, but one conjoined statement. If I said it can not meet with disapproval or be demeaning, then that would be two restrictions. The way it reads now is it can not meet with my disapproval and be demeaning, implying any derogatory display of the work would first need to be approved to meet my moral rights which are allowed in the CC license. Would you prefer it read something like "all adaptations are permitted so long as they are not demeaning, derogatory or reflect negatively upon the original author or his work, such renditions needing approval from the original artist to comply with his moral rights"? That would still be an accurate summary of the moral rights, and would not be confused for artist approval of every new rendition. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your wording says "so long as they do not meet with disapproval of the original artist and do not defame, demean or in any other manner reflect negatively upon the original author or his work". That would require both 1) that the derivative work not meet with your disapproval and 2) that they do not demean, reflect negatively etc. Jafeluv (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It is one statement, they are linked. It says and not or. If it were or, it would mean two things, but because it says and it means one. You have to put them together. I understand that many of you are separating the statement as though it were two, but it is not. If I say I am going to buy you a cake that is chocolate flavour and has a butter creme frosting, it does not mean that 1) anything that is chocolate flavour is acceptable and 2) anything with a butter creme frosting is acceptable, but only 1) anything chocolate with a butter creme frosting is only acceptable. Everyone is focusing on the first section without applying the second to it, treating as if it said or, and that one or the other terms can be applies when that is not the case. Anyways, I understand that, and we can keep going over what it says and what you think it says, but I did ask about a rewording to avoid these misconceptions. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if you say "I'm going to buy a cake that is not chocolate flavour and does not have butter creme frosting", it means that the cake is allowed to have neither chocolate flavour nor butter creme frosting. I think you're confusing "not (A and B)" with "(not A) and (not B)". Jafeluv (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and what is the problem with that example? They are still tied together. I can but a vanilla cake and meet the first requirement, but I can't buy a vanilla cake with butter creme and meet both. So, too, one can meet with my disapproval, but if the work is not derogatory it is still acceptable per the license and moral rights. Contrary to that, if it meets with my approval but is still demeaning, it s acceptable per license and moral rights. The only time moral rights forbid a rendition if it is both. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Your misconceptions of conjunctions and negations aside, do you expect or require anyone reusing your content to attach those conditions to the work in addition to the CC-by-sa 3.0 license notice? This would contradict sections 4(a) of the license. Furthermore, section 8(e) of the license renders your additional provisions void. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Really, you want to argue conjunctions and negations now? 'Aight. Since we can not move on to the new statement and want to focus on the old, tell me where I was wrong. Where am I mistaken that and means and? If I say it can't be A and B, that somehow it means it can not be A or B? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't say "it can't be A and B". You said "it's permitted so long as it's not A and not B", which is a very different statement. The first one only requires one (A or B) to be false; the second one requires both. Jafeluv (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement refers to moral rights kicking in if 'it doesn't have this and is that'. So how is it to be worded more clearly to link them? THey seem pretty linked to me. So help me where I am missing this? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

A	B	not A	not B	not A and not B
false	false	true	true	true
false	true	true	false	false
true	false	false	true	false
true	true	false	false	false

Once again: if you say "All adaptations [...] are permitted so long as they do not meet with disapproval of the original artist and do not defame [etc.]"^[28] Right? So if we have A as "the image meets with your disapproval" and B as "the image defames or [any of the conditions that follow]", then you say that adaptations are permitted if "not A and not B". Correct? Now, for "not A and not B" to be true, we need both "not A" (ie. "the image does not meet with your disapproval" and "not B" (ie. "the image does not defame etc."). Therefore, if an image meets with your disapproval, that would make preposition A true, thus making "not A and not B" false. See table on the right. Jafeluv (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, moral rights require a rendition be negative in some way and the artist not approve it, and only when those both coincide do moral rights come into play. If only one comes into play, then moral rights are not an issue. Your table shows this. So what's the problem? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary

As I understand the consensus of this discussion, it is that:

• (1) An uploader cannot change the wording of the upload license on an image once it has been uploaded
• (2) The language which Xanderliptak wishes to add is, in any case, incompatible with the license he is using, and therefore ut cannot be used for any future uploads
• (3) The "moral rights" of an image's creator are not a matter of licensing, or something that Commons is involved with, the moral rights are protected through legal action initiated by the creator in the courts of the proper jurisdiction

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Back to editwarring

Back to the original topic of discussion, Xanderliptak's editwarring, which he has started again. On some of these images, he's been reverted by 4 or 5 editors, but he continues attempting to alter the upload license. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been and are continuing to try and create discord, please stop. You are not familiar with CC licensing, and this matter does not concern you. You have already stated your opinion, now let the issue be resolved with fact. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not the comment you originally posted. What you put up and then deleted was[29]:

Anyway, let's take a look at one example, File:Coat of arms of John Kennedy by Alexander Liptak.png:

• (cur | prev) 00:10, 11 October 2010 Xanderliptak (talk | contribs) (2,109 bytes) updated since my last visit (undo)
• (cur | prev) 23:10, 10 October 2010 Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) (1,781 bytes) (per discussion on COM:AN, cannot change the wording of the upload license after the fact) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 23:01, 10 October 2010 Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) (1,782 bytes) (Undo revision 44911820 by Xanderliptak (talk) per COM:AN discussion, you cannot change the wording of the upload license after the fac) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 22:58, 10 October 2010 Xanderliptak (talk | contribs) (2,109 bytes) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 02:30, 9 October 2010 Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) (1,782 bytes) (rem o.v. nominated for deletion as duplicate) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 15:37, 8 October 2010 Justass (talk | contribs) m (1,857 bytes) (Reverted edits by Xanderliptak (talk) to last revision by Justass) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 15:12, 8 October 2010 Xanderliptak (talk | contribs) (2,050 bytes) (Undo revision 44838471 by Justass (talk) This was discussed, this was not found to be the case.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 15:09, 8 October 2010 Justass (talk | contribs) (1,857 bytes) (-unappropriated restrictions) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 15:02, 8 October 2010 Xanderliptak (talk | contribs) (2,050 bytes) (Undo revision 44837475 by AnonMoos (talk)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:28, 8 October 2010 AnonMoos (talk | contribs) (1,835 bytes) (rvv) (undo)
• cur | prev) 14:07, 8 October 2010 Xanderliptak (talk | contribs) (2,050 bytes) (uploaded a new version of File:Coat of arms of John Kennedy by Alexander Liptak.png: Crop.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 13:37, 8 October 2010 Xanderliptak (talk | contribs) (2,050 bytes) (Undo revision 44822696 by AnonMoos (talk) You are not the copyright holder, do not change info you have no right to change.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 06:10, 8 October 2010 AnonMoos (talk | contribs) (1,835 bytes) (rvv) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 03:17, 8 October 2010 Xanderliptak (talk | contribs) (2,050 bytes) (Undo revision 44813409 by Beyond My Ken (talk) Discussion has not ended. Only copyright holder can alter permission.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 23:03, 7 October 2010 Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) (1,835 bytes) (Undo revision 44811621 by Xanderliptak (talk) Per discussion at Com:AN) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 20:35, 7 October 2010 Xanderliptak (talk | contribs) (2,050 bytes) (Undo revision 44810794 by AnonMoos (talk) Copyright holder only has rights to permissions, please do not edit.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 19:19, 7 October 2010 AnonMoos (talk | contribs) (1,835 bytes) (rvv) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 15:23, 7 October 2010 Xanderliptak (talk | contribs) (2,050 bytes) (undo)

So, you change the language of the license, against the consensus of this discussion, and three editors (one of them an admin), acting seperately, revert you, and you continue to make those some or other changes 8 times. The admin blocks you for 2-hours to get your attention so that you will stop, and you jump right in and make the changes again. You are a pip. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

---

The latest wording added by Xanderliptak doesn't violate Wikinedia Commons licensing policy or attempt to rewrite the CC-BY-SA3.0 license, as far as I can tell (I'm not a lawyer). However, it's somewhat pointless -- and "moral rights" cannot be extended into gatekeeper rights (i.e. the right to approve or disapprove derived image versions by others). AnonMoos (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AnonMoos. Now that the extra wording is an acceptable restatement of the true legal status & conditions, this war should end. --99of9 (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your attention and help. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments

Hello, I would like to kindly ask for experienced commentary to one deletion request. The deletion discussion is long and complicated, but as an end result, the legality of the photo can not be established with certainty. This is possibly a test, where user uploads a portrait of an anonymous person from Finland to see if it gets deleted. Needless to say, the picture is of low technical quality and I just can not imagine a way in which it could ever come to real use. --Hydrox (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Closed by Jameslwoodward. Jafeluv (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Waalsprong verstedelijking 1999.jpg‎

This image was deleted following our deletion policy, after a deletion request. Someone re-uploaded it, and is now removing speedy deletion tags [30]; I tried explaining COM:UNDEL was the right procedure [31], unsuccessfully [32]. Can someone please delete this image? Anyone is welcome to make an undeletion request, but simply ignoring the result of a DR is not acceptable. –Tryphon^☂ 08:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have been a misunderstanding; see User talk:Tryphon#File:Waalsprong verstedelijking 1999.jpg. –Tryphon^☂ 09:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So where does that leave us? It seems to me that the image should be deleted, misunderstanding or not.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I just meant that the small "dispute" about the speedy tag was a misunderstanding, and we now both agree the image should be deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 10:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems I have with an administrator's decision

Hallo, I had put a request fpor deletion on File:Anti68.jpg, seeCommons:Deletion_requests/File:Anti68.jpg. The main problem I see with the file is that it combines a real-world picture of a certain, identifiable vehicle with the symbol of a "tidyman". The file suggests that the depicted vehicle would be trash. In my opinion this file violates the rights of the owners of the vehicle on their own picture, and is a joke on their expence. Further, this picture does not serve any educational, or construtive organisational means.

An admin has declined this request for deletion. I did not have the impression, that the admin had understood the request. So I explained it again on his talk page (in German language). But the only answer I received was that my request would be "absurd".

I don't think that my request has been properly proceeded so far, but I don't know where on commons I could further contest the decision. --Rosenkohl (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture doesn’t have to serve only educational, or construtive organisational means. If there a "moral" problem, the author of the bus photo is the one that can ask for deletion.

The request was maybe not properly proceeded (or not) but the result seems pretty fine to me. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 10:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• The argument is that the file is not useful for any educational purpose and, as such, out of scope of the project. (On the other hand, it is used on German Wikipedia as a part of de:User:Antiachtundsechziger's talk page signature, on his user page, and in an unused userbox en:User:Miacek/Userboxes/68.) (The claim that the image indicates that this particular brand of cars is trash is misguided; more likely, it indicates that the hippie movement is trash.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not claim that the image indicates that this particular brand of cars would be trash, nor do I want to censor general statements about the hippie movement. But I claim that the image indicates that this individual and recognizable car is trash. Also I think the problem is less a "moral" and more a juridical, since the rights on the own picture of the owners of this particular car are violated, Greetings --Rosenkohl (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No real problem here, IMHO. As somebody proposed in the deletion discussion, the license plate of the original photo of the car could be retouched to obscure the number. As this photo was taken 6 years ago, the car might indeed have gone to the car-shredder since then. --Túrelio (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Even if the license plate would be covered, the car could be easily recognized from the individual painting, and from the date and place of the shot. Furthermore, the original picture can always easily be retrieved in the commons.wikimedia database.

• The right on your own picture does not vanish within 6 years. The right on your own picturs also doesn't vanish if your car is shreddered.

• OK, even if we forget the right of the owners of the particular car on their own picture for a minute. Then there could indeed stil exist a moral obligation of the wikimedia.commons project not to mock at depicted people or at depicted property of people,

Greeting, --Rosenkohl (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I've been informed by another user of commons.wikimedia that the File:Anti68.jpg probably has not been used according to the license of File:Flower-Power Bus.jpg. File:Flower-Power Bus.jpg has been loaded up under GNU Free Documentation License and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, with Johannes Aubele as the author and August 2004 as the date of creation. Both of these licenses demand that the file, if used, shared or remixed must always be attributed to the author.

File:Anti68.jpg is part of a signature on about 60 pages of the German language Wikipedia. But if you click on the picture in the signature, e.g. on de:Diskussion:Feminismus, you are redirected to the page de:Benutzer Diskussion:Antiachtundsechziger, where no license information about file:Anti68 can be found.

Especially, on de:Benutzer Diskussion:Antiachtundsechziger, no attribution and no link to an attribution to the author of File:Flower-Power Bus.jpg can be found.

--Rosenkohl (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is no hint on the author and date of creation in License File:Anti68.jpg#Licensing. Only yesterday, after my last remark here, there has been added some information in File:Anti68.jpg#Summary by another user, however stil not the date of creation "August 2004" which nevertheless is part of the information on authorship in the license of Flower-Power Bus.jpg.

Anyway, a "Summary" only sums up something else, but is not a license itself. So the File:Anti68.jpg has been loaded up and exists now stil without proper attribution to the information on authorpship which is part of the license for Flower-Power Bus.jpg.

But this license question should not distract from my initial arguments that the file should be deleted since it violates the right of the car owners on there own image and is out of the project scope, --Rosenkohl (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"August 2004" is in no way part of the required author credit/attribution. Anyway, here is clearly the wrong place for your request. If you think you have other arguments for deletion than presented in the first rfd, file a new rfd. --Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"Author: Johannes Aubele" and "Date: August 2004" are part of the license of Flowe-Power Bus.jpg, thats why both have to be included again into the license of Anti68.jpg to my understanding of the licenses of Flower-Power Bus.jpg.

I did not come to this page with the intention to present other arguments for deletion, or to request to immediately delete the file.

Some of the arguments from the request for deletion have been explained again serveral times here by me. After some users here seemed to misunderstand parts of my arguments, and after I had the impression that you Túrelio would not care, or have much interest for the right on the own picture of the owners of the car, I've reworded and explained some of my old arguments again, the last time at 12:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

All these arguments were part of my request of deletion but as I explained above have not been read or understood by the administrator who closed the request. That is why I came to this page to ask were I could further contest the administrator's decision.

--Rosenkohl (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, I would likely have made the same decision as the closing admin. While your statement about missing author names was true, this doesn't require deletion, but simply doing what I've done, adding the missing name. Also, I don't follow your statement "Date: August 2004" are part of the license. You did not provide any evidence why that should be so, and I doubt you would find any. But even if there were, the same would apply what I've written about the missing names. The same is true for the license plate. Though it was hardly recognizable, the easiest way to solve this problem would have been to obscure it, which I have done now (including hiding of the original version). Let's be plain and honest: you want that file deleted, for whatever reason. I have no stake in this image, which IMHO is a rather ill-done implementation of the idea it wants to express. But I don't want to have it deleted for invalid reasons. --Túrelio (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, closing admin told that the request would be absurd, you didn't tell this, but have now obscured the license plate. I don't understand why you work on a file in which you have no stake.

I've never demanded the license plate to be obscured, and this does not solve any problem. The original picture is still part of the wikmedia.commons database, and easily to be retrieved by clicking on the picture. And of course, it also must be retrievable due to the lincense of file:Flower-Power Bus.jpg. Further, as stated above, the bus can already by recognized on File:Anti68.jpg by the individual painting, and the place and date of the shot (obivously an anti war rally in the center of a French city in summer 2004).

I didn't expect to be confronted with insinuations when I came to this noticeboard. I don't want the file to be deleted for what reason ever, but for the reason stated in my request for deletion.

"Date:August 2004" is part of the page File:Flower-Power_Bus.jpg. The information "Author: Johannes Aubele" and "Date: August 2004" had been added together by the same editor on 17:02, 24 January 2006.

--Rosenkohl (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I got an idea. How about you back up your claims with citations. That way one of us might learn something. Rocket000 (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Bill Andriette pic.jpg

File:Bill Andriette pic.jpg This file is from a movie but is of a living person and the whole article is created to connect Bill Andriette to a group only known for pedophilia. He joined as a 15-year-old and likely does not want to be used in this way. Also the file likely is copy violation.

It could easily be replaced by a free image, since he is a living person, and therefore doesn't belong here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

some problem in npd-template

Are the some problem in npd-template, I can't add information to uploaders discussion page--Motopark (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

same problem are with nsd-template,

Also, use

Motopark (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

to notify the uploader.

when using template there are missing the the file name--Motopark (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it already. Template:Tlxs was blanked by new user. Geagea (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Where's the usage tab?!?

There used to be a tab "usage" (zu deutsch "Nutzung") on the top of each file page, now the last tab reads "Move & Replace"! Where's the usage gone? I need that button dozens of times a day!! axp_de^Hello! 10:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: Still using "monobook" skin ... axp_de^Hello! 10:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Try near the bottom - that lists usage on all projects now. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Dunno why I had to login again, but now the tab is back, right beside "Move & Replace" where it used to be. But now it reads "Global usage" instead of "Nutzung" ... however ... axp_de^Hello! 15:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

File:PwCLondon.jpg

I am not sure if this is the correct place to post here, so please forgive if it is not. Can an admin please have a look at this File:PwCLondon.jpg, which has been tagged with source issues for nearly 2 weeks and copyvio tag for 2 days. Codf1977 (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Thank you for the tip. --MGA73 (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

I just ask an administrator to delete the video File:MoselfraenikschZeit.ogg because a Copyright infringement (the original text is by another author).

Thanks in advance --HelgeRieder (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

promotional username ?

Are next username User:Www.grupdus.de promotional ?--Motopark (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Blocked now. Jafeluv (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ask to remove personal details from image history

I kindly ask from administrators to remove my full name (that appears in the image's history) from File:Ehud Barak260808.jpg and leave only my user name if needed. thanks,Carny (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. —JeremyA (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Carny (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Licensing tutorial for new users

Hi there. Just wanted to point to the following message on the village pump, in case you haven't already seen it: Commons:Village pump#The Licensing tutorial needs you. guillom 18:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of admin rights by User:Mardetanha

User:Mardetanha has banned my account User:Truth Seeker (fawiki) with an expiry time of infinite with the reason that I have banned in fa wiki! He has banned me in fa wiki because of content dispute 2 years ago and since then he has abused his admin powers over several wikis by using the support of a network of his friends who are also admins. I have not done anything wrong in Wikimedia Commons. Anyone can check it that all of my contributions were totally constructive. I request an immediate unblock and punishment for User:Mardetanha because of admin rights abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.204.91.82 (talk • contribs) 15:38, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Are these so called Administrators actually dead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.182.149.2 (talk • contribs) 18:50, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

It might help if you weren't evading the block to post this. I'll turn this into an unblock request on your talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah? He has disabled the ability to edit my own talk page. How could I place an unblock request in it? The ability is still disabled.--94.182.132.79 01:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you (a) be polite, (b) be patient, and (c) sign your posts. Rudely demanding instant response will not get you what you want.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am polite. The admins here are not polite because they ignored my request, although there are so many of them in the Wiki. One of these admins should also tell User:Mardetanha(a) you can not block people because they are your enemies outside Wikimedia Commons (b) You can not block people and disable their own talk pages.--94.182.132.79 01:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You are globally locked, so your unblock here is meaningless. Trycatch (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And who has given the right to this crap to globally block people without any reason? This community must decide; whether they want to have users like me on board who generously upload their invaluable images free of charge on this website, or they want to give unlimited rights to a retarded administrator like this guy, who blocks the people whom he has personal problems with them, whenever and wherever he wants?--94.182.132.79 01:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you ask the admin in question. Some helpful advice: calling people retarded or demanding anything won't get you far. The way you say things can really have an effect on people. Apparently you were abusing multiple accounts and it's clear you have no issue with evading blocks. Nothing we can do here. Rocket000 (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just checked SUL-account of User:Truth Seeker (fawiki). He was neither blocked on commons (as claimed by Mardetanha), nor on en-WP (only seven edits yet) on de-WP (no edit at all!). The reason given on blocking is not valid, therefore I unblocked the user (although I don't like to see a picture of Adolf Hitler on his user page). If there are other, valid reasons to block this user, then please tell us, Mardetanha! Regards axp_de^Hello! 18:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S.: Asked Mardetanha on meta about the reasons for the global block. axp_de^Hello! 18:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In my view, it would be appreciated to tell User:Truth Seeker (fawiki) on his talk page about his luck. There is still the declined unblock request. --High Contrast (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

He globally blocked. That was the only reason I declined. Feel free to remove it or something. Rocket000 (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see me involved in this discussion. I was not declining the request, I did not block truth seeker and I did not unblock him. In short, Axpde should tell truth seeker what he did and why he did this - that fulfills the Commons standard. That's all. --High Contrast (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did as suggested, but with Rocket000 it's irrespective what we do here as long as the user is globally blocked at meta ... axp_de^Hello! 07:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Truth Seeker/IP: As was explained above, an unblock on Commons would not solve anything because your account is globally locked. You can request unlocking by posting a request on this page. Jafeluv (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, some IP was improperly accusing Mardetanha on his user talk page at meta, I'm beginning to believe that the block was ok, only the reason was a bit irreproducible ... axp_de^Hello! 08:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

How did you know those were improper accusations?! I am beginning to believe that Wikimedia Commons doesn't worth spending my time and uploading my pictures on it. Because not only it is not appreciated, but also the admins of this site suddenly begin to speculate total nonsense without having any facts about it. By the way, I don't give a damn whether you like to see the picture of Adolf Hitler in my user page or not. And hopefully there is no Verfassungsschutz here to censor the history and historical documents. I just posted a comment here to see how do people react about blocking a Commons user without any reason by someone outside Commons. A username means nothing to me, it is just several bytes of worthless data on a memory. It really doesn't worth wasting my time. I just wanted to see if these so-called system administrators in Commons appreciate the efforts of people who upload their valuable data totally free of charge on this site to make it publicly available?. The answer was no, there is no appreciation!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.182.155.90 (talk • contribs) , 17:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

IMHO "bullshit" and "mafia of power" don't fit a proper discussion! And if you need to find someone to assist you, you should watch your speech!

I don't censor anything, Hitler is part of German History(not presence!), and I accept his pictures in historical background, but on a user page I have personal objections.

And I'm no CU so I have to trust their judgement. axp_de^Hello! 12:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I knew that he never opens my account. He is ready to do whatever it takes to block me. Proper discussion is only good with proper people, not with the ones that hatred has blinded their eyes. I am not political correct, I just said the truth whether he likes or not. And about the Hitler; he is a part of history of the World, not only Germany. It is not about the past. He was at times the most powerful man of the world. His being has changed the course of the world for ever. Whether you like it or not, Hitler, just like anybody else, has done many good and bad things. The world is not black and white. It is gray! Regarding his dark sides, there have been and still are much worse people in the world and also in Europe. One example at the heart of Europe was King Leopold II of Belgium who massacred half of the population of Congo. But his statues are everywhere in Belgium. None of these political correct so-called Western Democracies make one billionth of negative propaganda about Leopold that they do about Hitler. The only reason is that Leopold just like many other criminals in the World, never objected the rule of Capitalism and Communism at the same time! Unfortunately the heavy propaganda of the US-puppet government of BRD had a devastating effect on courage of the German people. Germans are even afraid of thinking of their national values and fatherland!

•  Comment I think it is really hard to see if this block was ever ok or not. The block reason is just "sockpupt of blocked user (user has been blocked in en/fa/de/commons". There is no link to what the account of the "original user" so how shall we see if block was ok? I therefore support the unblock. If User:Mardetanha or anyone else thinks that this user should be blocked I think that we should require that a good reason is provided. --MGA73 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing of several images

We've got several images uploaded here regarding the Category:2010 Copiapó mining accident that have a conflicted license situation. The source of the images are all from flickr, and all have a cc-by-2.0 license on them, both on the flickr hosting pages and here. The problem is that all of the images on flickr also have on their description pages the note "NO SALES. EDITORIAL USE ONLY." This conflicts with the stated license, as it does not permit commercial use.

The images in question are:

• File:Alex Vega after being rescued.jpg (flickr page)
• File:Mario Gomez being rescued from the San José mine.jpg ([ flickr page])
• File:Franklin Lobos.jpg (flickr page)
• File:Franklin lobos.jpg (flickr page)
• File:Juan Aguilar with President Piñera.jpg (flickr page)
• File:Daniel Herrera - Chilean miner.jpg (flickr page)
• File:Mario Gomez cropped.jpg (flickr page) (crop of the second image in this list)
• File:Victor Segovia - Chilean miner.jpg (flickr page)
• File:Rescue of Chilean miners - Rescue worker Patricio Sepúlveda inside capsule.jpg (flickr page)

The first image in this list is currently hosted on the main page of en.wikipedia.

Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've sent the flickr user a message asking for clarification. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged them all with {{Disputed}}, our weakest problem tag. Wikipedias may upload them locally and add an appropriate warning tag. --Túrelio (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Something is definately odd here - look at the licensing of this image - Attribution & No Derivitives. So I'm wondering just which way the uploader wanted these all to be licensed. Have you heard anything back yet Matt? Tabercil (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Matt,

The purpose of posting the images on Flickr was so that the press and bloggers could use our images. The Government of Chile does not want sales made from these images.

The CC license of the images was chosen because there was no other option between All Rights Reserved and any of the CC licenses. This was the best choice we had among the licence options.

If Wikimedia Commons requires commercial usage rights, then we would opt out for inclusion in the commons.

Thanks.

There you have it. Add the user to the bad flickr user list imo and delete. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Signing a license agreement and disagreeing to that agreements conditions the same time sounds naive. They should not license the images (All rights reserved) and underwrite it with a text that editorial reuse is allowed, not that strange combination they now did. --Martin H. (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above already, for some Wikipedias it might be possible to use (and store) these images locally. Do we have any simple mechanism to notify them about that? (These images are far too heavily used to leave a note on every talkpage.) --Túrelio (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyrights & File Descriptions

I was curious if a copyright owner of an image here on commons, also had some sort of control over the description he or she gives the image. For instance, say an editor uploads a photo they took of a Religious Shrine under the CC license and labels it as being in "Taipei, Taiwan, ROC (Republic of China)" However another editor comes along chooses to change the file's description to say "Taipei, Taiwan (province of People's Republic of China [PRC])", because they disagree with the copyright holder that the "ROC" is a legitimate entity.

I realize that "Mainland China" (PRC) does not recognize Taiwan as anything but a renegade province, and no major country (or the United Nations itself) has officially recognized Taiwan ROC as an independent nation, but does the copyright holder have any say in which version of a photo's description is allowed to stand? --nsaum75^¡שיחת! 16:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Without making any comment on the example you give, the general answer is "NO". Descriptions on Commons are much like text on the Wikipedias -- ultimately Commons policy and consensus will govern what goes on the page.

As to your specific example, if you look at Category:Taiwan and its various parent and sub categories, you will get an idea how such a dispute might come out.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What about file names? If someone wants to rename a file to something that the copyright holder disagrees with? --nsaum75^¡שיחת! 19:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Same rules apply, although only an Admin or FileMover can move a file to a new name, so it's not as likely to happen. We are generally reluctant to change file names unless it violates policy at Commons:File naming.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by Happyanger

Please speedily block this vandalism-only account! Check: Happyanger (talk · contributions · Statistics) Hekerui (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, cheers for reverting that quickly--DieBuche (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Please the same for Cexcy (talk · contributions · Statistics) Hekerui (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Done & also locked on meta. --Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 22:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Xanderliptak / User:Alexander Liptak

I noticed that this user has been getting in some disputes here lately, and over on Wikipedia as well. I've got some of his images on my watchlist, and he's requesting speedy deletion of many (most?) of his uploads. Over on Wikipedia, he's mass removing his images from articles. Isn't there something in place to keep contributors from spitefully removing their own content every time things don't go there way? He tried to pull the same stunt almost exactly a year ago on Wikipedia. It's ridiculous. He's citing "Delete per request of original author", I don't see that on Commons:Deletion policy. Can someone look into this?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Brianann, while we take care that deletion requests follow proper procedures, we have no influence on the local use of images. This has to be decided by the respective editors/community. However, image contributors who want to leave the project may try to remove the Wikipedia-uses of their images in order to support their deletion from Commons (using the rationale "unused/out of scope"). Of course, I don't know if that is true in this case. Therefore, I would recommend to re-insert the removed images into the articles where they had been used, if there is agreement among the editors. --Túrelio (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I realise the Commons is separate from Wikipedia. I was just trying to enlighten people here who wouldn't realise what was happening over there. I agree that removing images over there can be part of a process to 'speed up' deletions over here. I noticed he removed his userpage over there, and here; and put up his personal category here for deletion Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Alexander Liptak saying: "I am the original author of the images, they were meant to be temporary until I could create more detailed images, but are causing quite a few issues so I thought I would just petition to delete them all". It's like he's decided to leave the project and is taking everything with him. So... isn't there anything in place to keep editors from doing things like this? Is "Delete per request of original author" valid for speedy deletions, or even deletions?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: your last question. No, for neither. Sometimes, we do courtesy deletions (but not speedy), depending on the overall situation. In case you got a wrong impression from my first answer: your notification is very welcome as it may help to prevent inappropriate deletions. --Túrelio (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I have reverted the speedies, and told him not to do this. There are some existing DRs, and if they close as deletions (unlikely), the rest can be evaluated then. --99of9 (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is covered in great detail above at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#edit war over relicensing.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Chhora

I went through some of the uploads of this new user. The user is uploading copyrighted images and releasing under his own copyright (or falsely as own work). I request an admin to go through all the uploads of the user and immediately delete all clear copyright violations (Source other than own work). Some images tagged as own work are also copyright violations. I have not been able to detect the source of each of them. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of. As of his userpage, he is a "very young boy". So he may lack understanding. --Túrelio (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

File:BrahmaPushkarGurjarPilgrimage.jpg uploaded by another user on English wikipedia and others exist, most from the following site: [33]. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Rotaract Userbox

On January 15th 2010, 23:45, User:CommonsDelinker (a bot) deleted Rotaract_Logo.svg from my userbox, citing that permission was required to use it from Rotary international.

As an ex commitee member of Rotaract in Great Britain and Ireland - I feel that I already do have implied permission to use this image on my page, If this could be discussed 'offline' somehow, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.254.79 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons only hosts files which can be used freely by anyone for any purpose; see Commons:Licensing. File:Rotaract Logo.svg was deleted from Commons because it does not meet those requirements. The removal of the red link from the userbox is simply a consequence of that. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Japan and Korea maps edit warring - yet again

Sadly, the Japan and Korea maps edit warring just not stop. The usual suspects. The usual conflicts. Even protecting the wrong version would be a plus. File:Korea south map.png is one example. Slower edit warring can be found by following the warriors' uploads. -84user (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the two warriors for a week to cool off. Can you create alt versions? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have now created three versions - a hopefully innocent admin had uploaded yet another in the meantime. My attempt at reverting to the very first version failed with the message: Could not find file "public/archive/7/7e/20080826130026!Korea_south_map.png". Can an admin help recover it from File:Korea south map.png or from the original English wikipedia file? -84user (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't had to split my version. Because I was only interested in fixing wrong name of place, Jeongju to w:Cheongju. Jeongju is in NK. (Please note that Jeongju is Rev. Romanization used in S Korea while Chŏngju is McCune-Reischauer romanization used in N Korea) Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

initial version stored in Internet Archive – Kwj2772 (msg) 03:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Turkish sockpuppets uploading celebrity copyright violations

There is an ongoing sockpuppet case that I'd like to bring to the attention of all administrators and anyone else watching Special:NewFiles, so that people know what to look for. Some admin actions are also needed; more on that later.

The M.O. consists of

• uploading non-free photos of celebrities including Lindsay Lohan, Avril Lavigne and Kelly Rowland, often from Flickr
• providing false authorship and licensing information
• falsifying claims in the name of authorized Flickr reviewers, stating that the files have been reviewed
• including the files in Turkish Wikipedia articles
• including the files in Commons gallery pages
• problem tag blanking
• talk page blanking

The following involved accounts have been active here, on Turkish Wikipedia, or both during the dates shown:

• Xraykan (talk · contribs · log · Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2009-11-20 to 2010-05-30 here and on Turkish Wikipedia; blocked indefinitely here but only temporarily there
• Xbşr (talk · contribs · log · Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2009-12-23 to 2010-04-11 here and on Turkish Wikipedia; not blocked there
• 85.107.149.239 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-02-28 on Turkish Wikipedia
• Alwasy (talk · contribs · log · Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-04-11 to 2010-04-19 here and on Turkish Wikipedia; not blocked
• 85.107.155.111 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-05-03 on Turkish Wikipedia
• 85.107.149.5 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-05-05 on Turkish Wikipedia
• 85.107.239.160 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-05-08 on Turkish Wikipedia
• 85.107.137.63 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-05-17 on Turkish Wikipedia
• 85.107.168.209 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-05-21 on Turkish Wikipedia
• 85.107.233.45 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-05-22 on Turkish Wikipedia
• Xutku (talk · contribs · log · Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-05-24 to 2010-06-19 here and on Turkish Wikipedia; not blocked here
• 85.107.235.253 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-05-27 on Turkish Wikipedia
• 85.107.250.208 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-05-28 on Turkish Wikipedia
• 85.107.153.225 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-06-01 on Turkish Wikipedia
• 85.103.118.183 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-06-13 on Turkish Wikipedia
• ßßusra (talk · contribs · log · Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-05-29 to 2010-06-25 here and on Turkish Wikipedia; not blocked here
• 85.103.94.226 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-06-16 to 2010-06-17 on Turkish Wikipedia
• Büşra Alman (talk · contribs · log · Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-06-27 to 2010-06-30 here and on Turkish Wikipedia; not blocked here
• 88.244.85.68 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-06-30 on Turkish Wikipedia
• Bıdıkk (talk · contribs · log · Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-07-06 to 2010-09-30 here and on Turkish Wikipedia; not blocked there
• Melinaa (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-09-29 to 2010-10-16 on Turkish Wikipedia; not blocked
• Evrıl (talk · contribs · log · Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-10-01 to 2010-10-02 here and on Turkish Wikipedia; not blocked there
• Lindss (talk · contribs · log) 2010-10-02 here
• 85.103.80.140 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-10-02 on Turkish Wikipedia
• 85.98.221.77 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-10-08 on Turkish Wikipedia
• 85.103.114.29 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-10-09 on Turkish Wikipedia
• Buuu (talk · contribs · log · Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-10-15 to 2010-10-16 here; only blocked temporarily here Indefinite now. --Martin H. (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• 85.103.123.218 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-10-15 on Turkish Wikipedia
• 88.240.40.233 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-10-16 on Turkish Wikipedia
• 85.107.185.152 (Turkish Wikipedia contributions) 2010-10-16 on Turkish Wikipedia

See also:

• Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 21#Büşra Alman
• tr:Vikipedi:Denetçi isteği/Dava/Xutku
• Category:Sockpuppets of Xutku
• Category:Sockpuppets of Bıdıkk

With this in mind, I think it's time to review the decision from last time and actually block the Büşra Alman puppet. The Alwasy, Xutku, and ßßusra puppets also need to be blocked, and the Buuu account needs to have its block changed from temporary to permanent.

I will direct Turkish Wikipedia admins to this entry as well, and they should consider blocking Xbşr, Alwasy, Bıdıkk, and Evrıl as well as changing the block of Xraykan from temporary to permanent.

—LX (talk, contribs) 21:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)