Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 24

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

Photos provided courtesy to US Navy

I'd like to ask for a speedy deletion of some of the files in Category:General Dynamics Electric Boat Shipyard, specifically those with "-000", "-XXX", "-123" or "-969" in the filename. Those ones all say "Photo provided courtesy General Dynamics" or similiar. Benchill (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please make a mass deletion request. It's not clear at first glance whether these are in fact U.S. Navy photos (and therefore PD) or GD photos and therefore not PD.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I think is is quite clear. Can be marked with {{Copyvio}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, several of those with the text above in the name say
"U.S. Navy photo by General Dynamics Electric Boat"
I would think they are probably General Dynamics photos and therefore not PD, but it certainly isn't crystal clear, therefore an appropriate DR. Those that say
"Photo provided to U.S. Navy courtesy General Dynamics Electric Boat"
seem to be clear copyvios and could use a {{Copyvio}}.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
for this one it says Photo provided courtesy General Dynamics. (RELEASED), I'm not seeing {{Copyvio}} files in the category there is reason to discuss as to whether we can accept Photo provided courtesy General Dynamics. (RELEASED) and if so how to credit the photographs appropriately, Gnangarra 14:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Released" probably only means that it was not a military secret. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    The (Released) is part of the image source its on a US government site thats legislated to release images freely, release refering to military secrets is unlikely given its posted to a public site but we should explore can you please provide something to validate this as an alternative meaning. Gnangarra 14:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    It is closely related to "declassified", except that these photos mayby never were stamped "classified". The military needs to review the photos that their contractor makes, and only they can release them to the public. The decision to release must be documented in the military paperwork. It does not imply anything about copyright status. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    "Released" means - as Kuiper stated - that this image is released to the public which means it can be watched by anybody in the world. This image is a copyright violation. PD-UsGov-Navy does not apply because it was not taken by a US Navy employee on duty. Such cases occured frequently. That's why I disagree a Bot-upload especially from the official US Navy site. It does not automatically mean that a photograph that can be found on US military sites are in the public domain. In this special case: The privacy policy of this US Navy sites states explicitely All information on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. --High Contrast (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Alvinho

Please block Alvinho (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for repeatedly blanking deletion notices from several files with ongoing deletion discussions despite receiving several warnings not to do so. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've closed as Delete the two earlier DRs which were both more than seven days old and obviously scans of recent (less than 70 years old) printed pages. The other two are more recent DRs and not so obvious bad dates. Let's give Alvinho one more chance to stop his bad behavior. That way he could respond if the others are actually OK.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
And here's what they did with that one more chance, unsurprisingly. Now can we have them blocked? —LX (talk, contribs) 05:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree this needs a block. Can a Spanish speaking admin do it so that the user understands the rationale. --99of9 (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
2 weeks, but the user is writing in Portuguese, anyway I gave him/her the standard block notice and left a comment in Spanish (in case that (s|h)he can speak Spanish) and another user left in a warning in Portuguese. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 07:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, Alvinho appears to be a sockpuppet of another user; see Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gomes Netto. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Promotiona pictures ?

How about next pictures Special:Contributions/Adfields and Special:Contributions/Neogeografen, are they out of scope pictures ?--Motopark (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

We have no idea if Neogeografen is allowed to upload this files under a free license. --Polarlys (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Request to remove personal details from image history

Dear administrators, I kindly ask you to remove my full name that appears in the image's history from all my files you see under: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Krisstian . You can leave my user name. Thank you very much. --Krisstian (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your real name using RevisionDelete, but note that it's still visible to Commons administrators. You may ask an oversighter to make your personal information invisible for all. Trycatch (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Many Thanks :) --Krisstian (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Backlog

Hi there! I had a look at our unknown backlog yesterday and as far as I can see, we are four months behind and – even worse – nobody is filling the recent day categories anymore. We had always more than a hundred files tagged day by day. Now it is often less than 50 files. Why should users tag files if they are not deleted after an appropriate period of time anymore? So I ask everybody with exteded rights: Please use them. Some help on Category:Media without a source is appreciated. Thank you, --Polarlys (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at a random file, File:Left of center.jpg, you can see that files are carelessly tagged for unknown reasons, insufficient source, or otherwise because the user doubts it. The job becomes tedious for some admins be motivated for such task, and only admins willing to nuke [carelessly] keep the backlog a bit maintained than worst. ZooFari 21:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Most files are tagged correctly and when you look at other uploads by the same user you regularly can find files that are not tagged but lack source information as well (or are copyvios). --Polarlys (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
That's not correctly tagging a file. The tag is meant to inform the uploader of what they are doing wrong, which is why they are given seven days to correct the issue. It is not to relax users to prevent performing the correct actions. Why not just speedy delete all of a user's contribution because they are not on an imaginative whitelist, rather than lie to them and assume bad faith? The correct procedure would be to open a short deletion request "This user uploaded some non-sourced files and others that are copyvios, all uploads should be nuked for precautionary principle." You might not agree but it is a good reason why people avoid those backlogs. ZooFari 21:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Who wants to prevent users to correct their uploads? Who lies to them? I tag files because I don’t know where a file is from, why there is a user name that does not match the “author” entry or why there is an empty “source” field. This community lost most of its activity over the last years and this becomes a problem when nobody does the work which has to be done to be a free repository of files. --Polarlys (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
People who misuse the tag lie to the user simply through the wording of the tag/notification whether they mean it or not. I maintain the no license category, a category where thankfully users do not complain about "I don't think that's the license, so I will tag it." I have attempted to work with the other two, but it is a give-up-at-first-try kind of thing. What I just told you is part of my analysis that I have concluded while working in those categories, and is my feedback to you since you asked for it. You may or may not be one of my examples but this is not directly to you. ZooFari 21:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your analysis. From my position (and I worked on DRs and the other categories a lot): Our “sophisticated” upload tools make it easy for users to upload formally correct licensed files. Our job is nowadays to prove that “own work” is wrong. A lot of users have a lot of experience in this field, when it comes to EXIF data, printing techniques (scans from not mentioned source), flickr washing, looking up files with Tineye and so on. Unfortunately they have to deal with an {{own}} template that was never set intentionally (in the past it was even added by bots, based on a self-license) but prevails way too often through its misjudged and unrecognized character that makes it an “genuine” upload. --Polarlys (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Polarlys tagged File:Usdau3.jpg immediately after a DR that kept the file. Only a careless admin would nuke it. But it causes problems for those that actually take a look at the history and at the talk page. It is not what the "no source" tag is for. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
This image has no proper source. No link to an archive, no book, no magazine, nothing. Just a name (which is most likely wrong, as I said before, since the photographer was a painter and the painter was not at the front in 1914). BTW: We may disagree in this case but this is no reason to blame me when bringing a serious matter to attention. --Polarlys (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
It is an example of why the queus become longer: far too many cases that are not obvious, and should go through regular DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
No it is not. Ask for a source. Get a valid source = everything fine. Get no source = delete the file after an appropriate period of time.--Polarlys (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Not? Well I stopped cleaning this backlog because I found to many files that did have a source mentioned but with a "no source-tag". I think the proper way is to start a DR if there is a source (except is it is "unknown", "internet" "google" or something like that. --MGA73 (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There are a lot of files have a “source” since our upload tool adds {{own}} to uploads. This is a problem, but who cares? People just click and upload stuff instead of adding a comment on the origin of a file on their own. Most of the copyvios have a valid “source”, too (if you don’t care about the Corbis EXIF or wonder why a 14 year old Argentinian might have met Cristiano Ronaldo on his yacht). --Polarlys (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
A good example of assuming bad faith. That's the problem that I, as well as other admins, don't want to be dragged into. Bad faith = longer backlogs. ZooFari 22:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Its also critical evaluation of the validity of original contents sources. Its not an assumption that users in bad faith upload something as own work (regretably there are some who realy do this), they just upload the quickest way with just clicking through the uplaod form and push their file online or they dont understand what all this means here. Trying to upload without caring or not understanding - both groups regretably not care about the result of their upload. Well, we have to cope with this. --Martin H. (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand. It has been suggested before that we create a new tag, one that we can add a reason to and can categorize into a category of "source not okay" or "source disputed" (suggested by MGA73). Or a process page like Wikipedia's Possibly unfree files. The use of the no source tag at the moment is discouraging for both newbies and admins who want to work with it. ZooFari 22:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we don't need more tags (a lot of people from other Wikimedia projects don’t even know how to request a deletion on Commons or how to handle the existing tags). We need to encourage people to upload quality files with sufficient description and licensing. A lot of files in the no source category are from people who stopped by, uploaded a bunch of pictures and never returned. A small amount of users then spend their time wondering what is shown, where it is from and how to process this contribution. Maybe new users should have to read a short text on free content and then should answer some multiple-choice questions before they are allowed to upload files. This is a helpless idea, but we act more and more helpless as well, when we have to sort and clear and correct and categorize and delete and identify our new uploads.--Polarlys (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC) J
Maybe we add one more step when uploader click own. Free text. The uploader may add link or write my photo or something that could be usful. Geagea (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I have seen and deleted thousands of files that were uploaded this way and were taken from the web. Do you want a double-blinded study before I can make such a statement? I think I have enough practical experience with this project's drawbacks. We changed some upload forms in the past and what happened? People started to upload „screenshots of free software“, since it was the first entry in the license dropdown menu (you will still find portraits and other stuff the GPL category). A lot of users don’t care and are unwilling to read anything before uploading pictures. This project has a certain goal and since I spend my time here to maintain what others often have created thoughtlessly, I am allowed to address. --Polarlys (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
In that case, why not just speedy delete and not lie? Is the confidence to put a nsd tag not enough to speedy instead? ZooFari 23:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Its a bit harsh to use the word to lie because is is within our definition what the NS tag means and people seem to have different opinions concerning that. The good thing about a tag would be, that an other admin deletes the image. So to say a second opinion. Amada44  talk to me 15:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, see my comment below. ZooFari 22:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to demonstrate that uploading depends sometimes on “comfortable clicking” instead of reading and making a decision and that we have to deal with this. I don’t lie to anyone, so please take this word out of this discussion. --Polarlys (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I should have used misinformed? I believe that we do need something established; if several users agree that mistagging happens too frequent then it's controversial. It's not the first nor the second time this topic is seen here. If you don't want more bureaucracy then we should modify this tag so that it has |reason=. If we "cope" with the current system as Martin said, then it shows that there is agreement that the tag is misused and that there is no intent to better our system. If that's the case, then I guess my potential interest in those categories are lost. Anyways, that's my belief. Like I said, I don't work with it and it's man for himself when it comes to disputes. ZooFari 23:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Adding reason parameter will be good idea. Otherwise look at deleted contributions or other uploads of same user will be necessary. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Summary is also good place to add reasoning. However, modifications of Quick Delete necessary to support it. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Damn ...

This image File:Mariahcarey2008.jpg of Mariah Carey has been on Commons for more than 2 years, though everyone of us could easily have deduced the unlikely ownership from the other uploadss of this user. Only now somebody (kudos to User:Fixer23) found it to be from Getty Images[1]. Let's hope no re-user got sued by Getty. --Túrelio (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure we have even older blatant copyright violations hiding in the corners, so that unfortunately does not surprise me. I do, however, wonder why their uploads were not scrutinized when the other two copyright violations were deleted in November 2008 and July 2009. Things are always clearer when seen in context, so that should be standard operating procedure. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

promotional text in picture

See the history in picture File:Illumination in Miami Springs on March, 1976.jpg, someboosy try promo band--Motopark (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions

How'dy. I was wondering if anyone could explain the current rule on Category names in the Wikimedia Commons: I was under the impression that categories were required to be in English primarily, with some exceptions for uniquely transnational words. I have a situation where some non-English words are being introduced into Categories, in place of obvious English-equivalents. I understand that articles are multilingual, and that titles may be reached by consensus, but in Wikimedia Commons picture categories isn't English the lingua franca? Appreciate input.Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your impression is correct, see Commons:Naming categories. This is most obvious in place names such as
Perhaps you could give us examples of the problems you see? The "use English" rule is not hard and fast policy and there will be exceptions.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey Jim, thanks for the quick response. My examples are in the Portuguese names-spaces, where the terms "freguesia", "concelho" are being used in categories, and should be substituted for "civil parish" and "municipality", I refer to the following:
There also seem to be many sub-categories that employ this naming convention, which may have been started by a misguided Portuguese national. I have been trying to complete a renaming process to English, but I get opposition to the removal of the Portuguese terms, siting non-English equivalencies that may or may not exist. I have been successful with the Azores sub-space, and I believe that it has benefited location of images.

There are other instances in the Portuguese name spaces that have also included Portuguese terms (such as Category:Azulejos in the Azores) where this is not possible, since there is no transnational term that suits the subject (Unless "Decorative tile of the Azores" seems more appropriate). But in this case, I feel that this is just an issue of nationalism, since I have encountered several terms "Igreja" (instead of Church), "Ermida" (instead of Chapel", peppered throughout the namespace. What is the best way to approach this? I am willing to rename all the categories and sub-categories. Just don't want conflict. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, not easy questions -- I don't read Portuguese,so I'm not the best help. There are certainly places where it would be silly to insist on English. For example, I just created

If "civil parish" and "municipality" are perfect translations of "freguesia" and "concelho", then I tend to agree that we should use the English. As for "Azulejos", unless I miss something that makes Azulejos a special subset of decorated tiles, I would like to see "Decorative tiles" rather than "Azulejos" throughout. As for consensus, you might raise the issue at Commons:Esplanada, with an argument along the lines that using English for categories would make the beauties of Portugal more accessible to the rest of the world. And remember, this is just one User's opinion. You have surely learned that there are several other opinions here as well, some -- not all -- of which will be equally valid.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the issue of churches and "decorative" aside, since that one might become a little more dangerous: I examined the subdivisions section of all the countries on the Commons, which only further supports my point about the motivation for editor changes. Basically, all the country subdivision categories are in English: there are no kreis, cantons, gminas or comarques as identified in conversations, and further, even other Portuguese-speaking countries' subdivisions are identified as "municipalities" and/or "parishes". Since the naming policy is clear and there is precedent, should I just advise the users (by email or talk pages) and start the process or are there other procedures I should be following, before starting the move? Or is this an issue that requires Administrator authorship? Thanks for the comments. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid that you did not look really deep: Category:Comarcas of Spain, Category:Voivodeships of Poland, Category:Cantons of Switzerland, Category:Cantons of France, Category:Gminas in Poland, Category:Powiats of Poland, Category:Upazilas of Bangladesh, Category:Raions of Georgia, Category:Elderships of Lithuania, Category:Oblasts of Russia, Category:Krais of Russia, Raions in Ukraine, not to mention the various by raion, kreiss (Category:Districts of Germany), Oblast categories. As all those cats are work in progress, they don't necessarily come on the surface yet. And like voivodeships, raions, cantons, gminas, en:freguesia is creeeping in the english language and for many people, its presence in the wikipedia in a non translated form is sufficient to use it here. --Foroa (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Before moving, you might try to revert Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/12/Category:Regions of Spain. --Foroa (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong: I try always to get beginning category trees into a proper English named category. But once it is getting at a certain volume like the freguesias, I give up as I don't want to demotivate and obset (too) much the few categorisation people (especially in Portugal). Even if they know only a bit English, they should feel somehow at home. --Foroa (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Believe me, I have racked my brain around this one for a while. The Wikimedia naming conventions clearly state that English is the language of the Commons. In fact, the Wikimedia also references the fact that they should follow the EN Wikipedia categories system as a reference. In that case, it is obvious that the use of "freguesia" or "concelho" is not "creeping" in anywhere, except as an article. Although it is honourable to motivate people to categorize content in Wikimedia, it does not mean that they should not follow the conventions that were established. I obviously skimmed too fast to pick-up on those categories. But what do those examples really mean? Are other lexicons entering into the English language, or are those examples of people who are: A. not familiar with the English translation, B. not familiar with the Wikimedia Commons naming conventions or C. nationalists with POVs about how they want to see things?

In the grand scheme of things, the majority of the subdivision categories are in English, and those that you mention are the exceptions that prove the rule (for example gminas and voivodeships are Polish, and raions and oblasts Russian). While I do agree that some words are "creeping" into the English lexicon, they are few (canton and/or oblast, I feel, although I am really "ify" about the latter). Even in English Wikipedia articles on the subject, note that those divisions have English equivalents, which the original cataloger may have chosen not to use (either unintentionally or not).

Returning to the Portuguese reference: I work for a GIS firm currently working with a government institution in the Azores, and apart from local usage of "freguesia" and "concelho", all publications in English use "municipality" and "parish". The same can be said for the other governmental institutions that produce content for foreign usage. Further, I note, with a little pride (being Portuguese by birth), that Portuguese users know at an >EN-3 level (probably) what a "parish" and "municipality" is, and the use of Portuguese surrogates wil. l not attract new users to the Commons. The reality is, if Wikimedia Commons was intended to be multilingual, then that aspect would have been built into the system from the beginning. Until it is multilingual then it should be be a little consistent in its approach. BTW, the day that it does becomes completely multi-lingual I will be the first one to start rewriting all the categories into their Portuguese equivalent. :) Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no time right now, but I consider the case of the freguesias not worth the fuss around it. For your information, try finding cats starting with gmina or any other name from the list above and you'll find it. If one of the list should be renamed, then it is gminas in the first place, but that is used on the en:wiki. In the first place, we should avoid that additional cases develop, which I try daily. --Foroa (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Spam to me?

I came across these. To me these are here to "promote" the company concerned rather than anything else. The use of dosage info etc suggest to me that they are trying to sell. Looking at some this for example suggests something beyond the contribution of an "image". Others may view it differently? --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

same opinion, promotional pictures, out of scope--Motopark (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the Levonorgestrel page, it's more a copy-pasted usage instruction than promotional text, but in any case inappropriate as an image description. In general it's a pretty bad idea to put medical instructions on a wiki page where they can be edited by anyone, so at least that has to be made clear to the user. Also, we don't allow company names as usernames, do we? Jafeluv (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Promotional - no value. On top of that, the US FDA has strict rules about the information that must accompany drugs -- approved uses, dosage, contraindications, side effects, etc. -- so that whenever you see a drug mentioned more than in passing, it has a page of fine print with it. I wouldn't be surprised if these pages run afoul of those rules.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Taj Pharmaceuticals has been spamming the English Wikipedia for months, abusing multiple accounts as proven by checkuser. See w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ShantanuSingh198/Archive. There are about 15 accounts that have been blocked so far. Many of those blocked sockpuppets (or others) may also be active on Commons. Is it worth a running a checkuser here? Deli nk (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Info appreciated - nothing in the way of puppets here as far as I can see - thanks OK - "wrong" now blocking account per en wp investigations :) Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I've also requested all the accounts be locked on Meta. --Herby talk thyme 14:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

COM:CFD shows not the CFDs from 2010

COM:CFD shows not the CFDs from 2010. No idea when it went wrong. --Foroa (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

See the last line: Commons:Categories for discussion/2010. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that link comes from a transclusion, which the parser does not expand, giving as reason "post-expand include size too large" in an HTML comment in the page source. Lupo 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Transcluding the monthly pages separately seems to work. Jafeluv (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism?

File:Old Indianapolis City Hall in color.jpg uses the {{Other date}} template; its date is given as {{other date|1981|summer}} For no reason that I can understand, absolutely nothing is appearing in the date line; based on experience with a similar date template being blanked at en:wp, I suspect that someone vandalised an unprotected subpage of this template. Could someone check the subpages for vandalism and then protect all of them? Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't see a {{Other date}} template on the file description page. The date displays as "17 October 2010". Are you sure you have the right file? Jafeluv (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you were talking about File:Old Indianapolis City Hall.jpg. There was just a parameter missing. Jafeluv (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, sorry; as you can see, I uploaded the color one today and was editing both of them. The date template was added by a bot, so I'd assumed that it was done properly. Nyttend (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, never mind; I guess I added it. Sorry for the confusion. Nyttend (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

File:HUSAR.L.jpg

Licence and authorship are dubious. Could the uploader support that the source site allows free distribution and copying of its content?Russianname (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Requires understanding of cyrillic. --Túrelio (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Or alternatively clicking the British flag in the top corner ;) The source page doesn't seem to have any mention of the copyright of the picture, and it might not even be their picture in the first place. I'd say remove it if there's no confirmation in 7 days, but it's probably a good idea for someone who knows Ukrainian to double-check. Jafeluv (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert file renaming

I asked for the File:Quebec MRC Le Golfe-du-Saint-Laurent location map.svg to be renamed, or more precisely, to be reverted to its old name File:Quebec MRC Basse-Côte-Nord location map.svg, for which an admin is needed. This map shows the Basse-Côte-Nord territory prior to reorg, whereas the new MRC Le Golfe-du-Saint-Laurent was enlarged as shown on derivative work. Current file name should then be redirected to the derivative file or deleted. --P199 (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Please check the result and the adapted file description. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Another scope query

I do know that using Foundation sites to promote things is something that bothers me so I'll ask for other opinions on this one rather than annoy a new contributor I think. Yesterday I deleted a "user page" which only had a link to a website (the same page is still on en wp and is the only contribution there). Today the same user has uploaded this among other images of himself. Personally I don't think it is within scope and useful to the project (not sure about the others)? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing and don't think the images are in scope. I assume the subject is also MalibuHD (talk · contribs), who created a Wikipedia article about himself last year (see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Malibu). Jafeluv (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
If he can't be bothered to remove the dustspot, he does not deserve to live. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Aha - thanks. Given the deletion of the article that is out of scope for me. I've deleted the image linked above (& blocked last year's account which I guess he has forgotten...). The rest of the "contributions" may well be questionable I guess. One (here) is tagged as OTRS pending though. --Herby talk thyme 08:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of the user page with simple attribution information seems very strange to me. Trycatch (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
A user page that has "The Entertainment Capital of the Internet" and a link on is not "attribution" but advertising to me. --Herby talk thyme 17:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Politologia

I indefinitely blocked User:Politologia on the English Wikipedia for persistent copyvios. These included copyrighted maps and "all-rights reserved" photos taken by professional photographers and found on-line. During our subsequent discussion, Politologia said that all of the images were borrowed from "friends" -- which then required a mass deletion of the uploaded images. Because of their copyright problems here too, I suggest a review of this set of images . (For example, File:Caucasus envsec2 baseb.gif is sourced to an org with an incompatible license, File:Map of adjara.jpg appears to be a tourist bureau map and File:Georgians.jpg is probably a "friend's" photo.) CactusWriter (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I notify the user in his talk page and fount this site, site of Temo blumgardt, that mentioned in part of the files as a source. I did not find the files in this site maybe sombody else can. Geagea (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Change of license

A question for the assembled multitude: Here we have a record album cover which was clearly OK (CC-By-SA 3) when downloaded -- I closed the DR as a keep based on a download of the license information from the band's website and included that in my closing comment.

The band now claims that the license should have been CC:by-nc-sa. While our keep is clearly OK legally and our routine position for changes of licenses is that the licensor is stuck with the license at the time, in the case of a commercial band I wonder if we shouldn't just delete it -- it's a potential litigation trap waiting to spring on a commercial user. Or, should we just add a note to the image description that the band now claims that it is NC?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Obviously, the uploader to commons had good faith. If the copyrightowner has given the licence to the primary website, he cannot retract. But mostly, websites have no copyrights of the images; mostly, they only have licences. If a website publishes a wrong licence for an individual item, the copyrightowner has the right to correct. As it is the copyrightowner who demands here to adapt the licence, it should be done, unless the website produces proof of the (CC-By-SA 3) license.
  • Further  Comment: I see a similarity with website BHIC, which originally had a too large general license; but not being the owner of copyrights of all images, they had to differentiate the licenses. Now there is an interesting sentence on the BHIC-site colofon: <quote>If you have the opinion that the presence of certain pictures on this website encroaches upon any rights you have, please contact us with an argumented notition. In case of a fundated complaint, etc...<end of quote> I like to have a similar sentence on commons; especially usefull if there is only minor doubt about the permissivity of an uploaded image. --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment The album is still licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 US on their official site, and it's still licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 on their official account on Jamendo. Looks like they have no clue about the meaning of the license. Trycatch (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see, the music is officially registered under licence CC-BY-SA 3.0. But the request concerns the image; could the designer have that copyright, and never have given permission for the image being CC-BY-SA 3.0?--Havang(nl) (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The download that I cited in my closing comment explicitly called out "artwork". Note also that the band has not made a takedown request -- the license came up in an email between the uploader and the band after the DR had closed as a keep.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Rohith goura

This user has a copyvio history with image uploads on Saina Nehwal. Please see his talk page for a history of violations. I've welcomed him on en-wiki with a set of laws so as to help him understand the editing policies. Despite this, he uploads another copyvio here and here. Can there be a limited block on his uploads so that he gets to read the image use policy? I've had enough of reporting his copyvio's and reverting the additions on en-wiki. Thanks, Mspraveen (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Warned and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saina_Nehwal&action=watch. --Martin H. (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Mspraveen (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed. His sockpuppet, User:Kaibeyblade, blocked as well. Also using Flickr washing with the same flickr account name - Rohith goura. Geagea (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed. --Martin H. (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Underage nude images uploaded by Justmarc

User has likely uploaded child pornography (by US Law definition), see their contributions: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Justmarc. All should be deleted immediately. 130.64.152.152 16:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes you say with such certainty that they are "child" images? Some quite definitely are not I would say (not that they should not be deleted in some cases but not for that reason). --Herby talk thyme 16:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
None of them seem to be "children", the breasts are fully developed and the penis has a wealth of pubic hair - and the vagina (presumably the same owner as the breast) is listed as "shaved" which would be uncommon and indicate well past puberty. It doesn't necessarily mean the images are useful (the breast one seems to have mild artistic merit, the other four are more doubtful) - but it does seem like scaremongering to demand they be deleted immediately as child pornography. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 17:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"Brigit" should probably get that mole looked at. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Herbythyme, several now-deleted images were put in Category:Adolescent girls. As all of these images are of the uploader, I think it is reasonable to say that they are child porn. 130.64.152.152 17:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In order for an image to be "child pornography", two things need to be true: #1, the image must depict a child, and #2, the image must be pornographic. Are both of these true? Keep in mind that simple nudity is not the same thing as pornography. --Carnildo (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Bulk duplicate deletion request File:Ellipse sign 0.svg to File:Ellipse sign 99.svg

Files File:Ellipse sign 0.svg to File:Ellipse sign 99.svg are duplicates of File:Circle_sign_0.svg to File:Circle_sign_99.svg.

However because there are plans for templates to use file the naming convention File:Ellipse sign 0.svg to File:Ellipse sign 999.svg, I suggest that we delete File:Ellipse sign 0.svg to File:Ellipse sign 99.svg and redirect the files to File:Circle_sign_0.svg to File:Circle_sign_99.svg.--Svgalbertian (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be related to User:Highway Route Marker Bot/Requests#Ellipse sign redux. Sounds reasonable to me, even if I sort of wish you'd all thought of this before the files were uploaded. I have a script somewhere I could probably use for the mass deletion, if no-one else wants to do it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for the lack of forethought before. If it's possible, I'd like to add on some similar moves to this request. The 20 files found on this entry on my Commonist gallery use the Circle sign X.svg nomenclature, they can be moved to Ellipse sign X.svg.
The whole purpose of this is to create a system of road sign images which makes logical sense. Currently, Circle sign 700.svg is an ellipse, while Iowa 700.svg is a circle. Now, images that should fall in the Iowa X.svg scheme have a subtly different design than the rest of the circles (Note the difference between Iowa 70.svg and Iowa 700.svg). Eventually, I will ask for those images to be removed, but that's another request. –Fredddie™ 00:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

a lot of copies with tineye founded

A lot of copies with tineye founded user Special:Contributions/TBAN pictures, pictures are without source information and without permission.--Motopark (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all deleted. Adambro (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Are next user page promotional ?

Are next user page promotional User:Rfkphoto, it has ones before deleted as promotional, what you think ?--Motopark (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the current content as relevantly promotional. IMHO, an important aspect in judging whether potentially promotional userpage content is relevant (for deletion), is whether the user has no or only promotion-related uploads, or has a "normal" upload profile. In the second case, the threshold for deletion can be higher, IMHO. --Túrelio (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thanks--Motopark (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of deleted user pages

The user and talk pages of User:Max Rebo Band were deleted based on a "right to vanish" request made on this board, but the user continues to be an active editor. Would some kind admin please restore them? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue was already addressed, I have requested to be banned as soon as my RTV is complete. Until the RTV is carried out, I am editing only to improve the sourcing and attribution of images I'd previously uploaded - so that they survive deletion requests once I am gone. You can see at User_talk:32X#RtV that I am continuing to harass/remind the administrator who promised to handle my RTV and ban me, to please hurry up and not forget about it. He has said that he will do it, he just needs patience. Unless you have something personal against me, I'm not sure why you couldn't have just asked me personally about what was going on. So to wit, "I am waiting, I have requested to be banned as soon as the RTV is handled". Why you care if I update licensing while waiting to be banned is beyond me...I've broken no rules, transgressed no boundaries, I've voluntarily spent dozens if not hundreds of hours uploading well over a thousand freely-licensed images to Commons and am now asking simply to vanish and be banned...and you're not happy about it? Relax, it'll all be over as soon as 32X gets around to handling the RTV and deleting/banning me. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 01:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
(and my RTV requested my user and talkpages be oversighted, not just deleted. Any user can have their pages deleted...so no, you definitely won't have something like my userpage "undeleted" just because you miss its pretty pictures...) Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 01:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to confirm - there is no reason at all why a user should not have their page deleted and continue to be active. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm more accustomed to how vanishing is handled on English Wikipedia - users who invoke their right to vanish are expected to cease editing alogether or have their pages restored. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
When I first noted that you had decided to exercise your "right to vanish" but continued to edit, your reply was "Don't mind being blocked, only logging in to check on the status of this". I don't think it is customary for editors to have their user and talk pages oversighted, nor is it usual for uploads to be reassigned to another account. Is there some reason why these extreme measures are being considered in your particular case? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is - but I don't particularly feel like discussing it in public to satisfy your strange curiosity. It was agreed that my page would be oversighted, that my uploads redistributed among another username (and there is precedent), and I would be banned. All at my own request. You are seemingly not happy with the fact it is taking a few weeks for the work to get done, and that I am updating licensing on images before I disappear forever, you want me to disappear forever now. But since I've not broken any rules, transgressed any good-taste boundaries or done anything wrong...your strange and random desire for my immediate disappearance, rather than the methodical disappearance and banning I requested myself, belongs among the rantings of a blogpost or similar - not on the administrator's noticeboard. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 13:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
My request was actually that the deleted pages be restored until such time as you decide to stop editing, which is a very straightforward request. You appear to have taken offence where none was intended. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Straight-forward, but without any standing. As others have said, there is no reason for my page/s to be restored - plenty of active users have their pages deleted. You and I are both editing with a red name and a blue talk...or hadn't you looked in a mirror? Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 04:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I had no intention of offending you or anyone else with my comments. I do not understand your argumentative tone. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No rules broken - what Wikipedia does is up to them. Closed --Herby talk thyme 14:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A user who "vanishes" but does not stop editing? All uploads reassigned to a different account? Is this the normal practice on Commons, Herby? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
a) The user has not "vanished" yet, I have asked to be banned once my vanishing is complete. There is a process, one that requires several hours of admin-work which may take days, even weeks to get around to...at the end of it, I am requesting to be banned, and you are complaining because it is not happening fast enough for you? I have provided links to you that prove, even in this public channel, that I am still in contact with the administrator overseeing my uploads and banning - he sees no problem with it, I have no idea why you do.
b) Nobody said it is normal, they said it is acceptable and not against any rules, that there is precedent for it and that each case is decided on its own merits by stewarts, administrators, bureaucrats and the like. Whether or not you think it is normal is of little relevance. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 04:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
My question was addressed to Herby, and I hope that they reply for themselves, but to address your second point, so far as I know there was no discussion of this other than your request which I have already linked. It was not decided "on its own merits" by "stewarts, administrators, bureaucrats" but simply agreed to in response to your request. I see no reason why this decision cannot be questioned given the new circumstances, which are that you are continuing to edit and you have requested some extraordinary measures be taken. What possible reason is there for "banning" you? Banning is not something that should be done at a user's request. Perhaps you mean blocking, but you have certainly been around long enough to know the difference. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replied - there is nothing wrong with this - there is no need to have a user page. No one else has suggested there should be one. This is Commons not Wikipedia. I will happily delete user pages if they request it. --Herby talk thyme 10:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Yet another Paulinho15 sockpuppet

Please block AbudJacartaBabal (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and delete File:George Coleman Eads.Csi.jpg (Paulinho keeps blanking the copyvio tag). —LX (talk, contribs) 16:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Gone etc. No other obvious ones at present but it is a dynamic range :(. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! If any en, es or fr wiki admins are watching, you may wish to look for cross-wiki activity from AbudJacartaBabal. English Wikipedia admins should also have a look at BurmeisterIlandyg and Pablitinho1, who are sockpuppets of Paulinho15, which are currently not blocked there. TheGustavoReturn and TheLuckAgain are active on a lot of wikis, so they should probably be globally locked. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Posted a link to the CU list :) --Herby talk thyme 16:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked the accounts on en.wp John Vandenberg (chat) 04:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

...and yet another Xraykan sockpuppet

Please block Av66 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 23#Turkish sockpuppets uploading celebrity copyright violations for background. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Again ✓ Done and thanks. I can see no other current ones although it is just possible there is an odd account they have forgotten they have created. Worth keeping an eye (& I know you do). Thanks again --Herby talk thyme 17:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, they don't seem to be going back to old accounts even if they're not blocked, but I still think the Alwasy, ßßusra, Büşra Alman and Xutku accounts should be closed down as a matter of housekeeping. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User page spammers

For info - there have been a few puppet accounts whose sole purpose is to place external links on their user page recently (I've blocked 5 in the past few days). The most recent are coming from just two IP and I have locally blacklisted the two domains concerned (here). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of copyvio pictures

see User talk:Zagap talk page, there are plenty of copyvios--Motopark (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done next time, please use the board for blocks and protections. Thank you, abf «Cabale!» 18:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

damage control for longterm copyvio uploads

I've asked[2] a user who requested the deletion of 2 car images he had uploaded in 2008 and only now confessed were not his own (aka copyvio), 1) to do a Google word and image search for the exact Commons filenames of both images, in order to identify re-users, and 2) then to anonymously warn all these re-users that the images are not free and will be deleted from Commons. Though this requires some work, IMHO it is justified as a compensation for the potential damage he has done to the re-users by uploading these copyvios. Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If the two deleted images were copyvios, then so is File:Mercedes GLK 350 Offroad-Paket Interieur MJ.JPG. (Taken at the same spot, see the background; and clumsy photoshopping in upper right corner). Lupo 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing to that. I've asked the uploader who is the same as mentioned above. --Túrelio (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The wish to guarantee that every image on our server is really free in every country and in every context is just an illusion. --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but these ones were unfree in (likely) every country and every context ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I referred to the idea to inform all usrs on the net when we hostet unfree fotos unintentionally. --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Luckily, in the current case, no uses were found. However, in cases with a high risk of litigation, such as for example Getty images, I think it's even our duty to provide this information, as the re-users did rely on us (Commons). --Túrelio (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

user:Uhhmazinq

I honestly hate to do this, but I have noticed a user that needs to be dealt with by an admin. Five days after user:NuclearWarfare deleted this image [3] user user:Uhhmazinq turned around and re-uploaded it on commons here using the same {{Pd-self}} calim. I tagged it to be deleted here. This user has 11 other images on commons and 15 on Wikipedia that have been tagged for having bad copyright claims. I think he need to be delete with by an admin. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 23:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Necesito un moderador para terminar una discusión.

Solicito un moderador lo antes posible para cerrar la discusión del siguiente archivo, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Chris_Colfer_Portrait.png me gustaría que le diecen termino, ya que sucedió a causa de PROBLEMAS PERSONALES y sin ARGUMENTOS VÁLIDOS del usuario que solicitó el borrado, Ezarate Espero que pronto puedan solucionar esta cuestión innecesaria probocado por este usuario. Gracias ;D Atte. Neo ender (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request discussions stay open for seven days. This will not be ready to close until Friday.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
De acuerdo, sin embargo le pido que no llame trabajo de artista no notable a mi retrato ;) ya que sinceramente aquí en wikipedia no he visto un solo artista de verdad, cuando encuentren un artista de mi talla lo cual dudo llamen fan art que tomo como un insulto, a mi RETRATO ;D
Gracias ;D
Atte. Neo ender (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.artist concept of detector.jpg

I am not able to understand whether this image en:File:Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.artist concept of detector.jpg from english wiki is eligilble to be moved to commons. I have been advised to post this question here by Eusebius. Can any one please help me with this? --Sreejith K (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think not. Among the licensing requirements listed for this image at its source is:
"An e-mail is sent to qusno@sno.phy.queensu.ca detailing the images used and the purposes."
While we permit licensors to request notification when an image is used, we do not allow them to require it. At Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses, we say,
"The following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file:
  • <three bullets omitted>
  • Notification of the creator required, rather than requested, for all or for some uses."

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OTRS queue

A general request for administrators: although the OTRS queue shrank a lot last weeks, due to hard working volunteers, it's still 27 days. Please be aware of that and don't delete images with a pending OTRS status too fast. Jcb (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this warning. --Túrelio (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Atoms

Regarding the self-nomination of Atoms (talk · contribs), I would like to ask some admin to either close the nomination or delete it. This user has previously nominated himself to be the Admin in Thai Wikipedia, twice without proper qualification, and in my opinion, also consider this nomination as spammed nomination with no significant works in either Thai Wikipedia (His home wiki) and here. Thanks for your time. --G(x) (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of. --Túrelio (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again. The user will be notified in his native language about this issue. --G(x) (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Licensing concern?

Looking at this user page the implication is that some uses of images will require further licensing. There is a question about it on their talk page from 18 Oct but the response seems to be the user page. Anyone else see this as an issue? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm... I do not read the contents of the user page as an additional requirement to the CC-BY-SA license as presented, for example, on File:Hungary ajka toxicspill october9 2010 dg.jpg. I think that we accept it when uploaders ask for a notification by email in case of a publication and I understand For media usage of imagery, please contact [..] in this way. I would, however, suggest to obtain a proof of the identity and authorization of this account through OTRS just to be on the safe side. And we could also possibly take the opportunity with the OTRS communication to ask to reword this if there are concerns regarding this phrase on the user page. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't this violate our user name policy on company names? It also reads like a promotional piece falling within COM:PSP#Non-allowable_user_page/gallery/category_content.
With that said, perhaps the Username policy needs review. Having Digitalglobe listed as the User/Uploader will certainly head off some DRs in the future; if the Uploader were a DG employee User:JaneDoe we'd be asking for OTRS on every image she uploaded.
Perhaps we might formally agree to an exception for companies or groups that are sources of images -- we might continue to ban User:RockBandX but permit User:RockBandPhotographers if it was a company that specialized in photographing rock concerts.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Commons has a fair;y relaxed approach to user names compared with en wp (didn't know about that policy :)). The issue to me is "are they contributing (validly licensed) images?". If so some leeway is fine for me (spammers are another matter whatever name they use - see below!). --Herby talk thyme 12:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I've ask Amy Opperman via OTRS - see User talk:Digitalglobe. Nillerdk (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Rear.jpg

Please upload something similar to the "image" currently at File:Logo.jpg and protect this filename, since it's such a generic and non-descriptive name. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and ✓ Done.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete own work

Ho. I uploaded an image of a car, (Morris Oxford Diesel back 03.jpg), but almost immediately I notice that I uploaded a wrong version. I had another in wich I deleted de numbers of the plate because recently there was a problem with a picture that take from internet and use it to make a con. If is possible I want to delete this image, to upload another with fakes numbers. Also, If possible, I wanna know if the logo of this enterprise is allowed or is not possible to uploaded as 3.0. Thanks a lot. --Andrea (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andrea,
do you want File:Morris Oxford Diesel back 03.jpg have deleted or do you want to re-upload it with a retouched car license plate (removal of number)? Both would be possible.
In general I think removal/retouching of car license numbers is to be preferred over adding "fake numbers", though both are a sort of manipulation. But the removal just takes something away from the original photo and can usually easily be recognized, whereas adding a "fake number" adds something alien to the original and something may not be recognized as such.
Re uploading the logo from http://www.cutcsa.com/informacion/showNoticias.php: it's a company website and its content has be regarded as copyrighted, even though it does not carry a visible copyright note (at least I found none). The logo itself has a little bit creativity and therefore may be copyrighted. The safest way would be to contact them, explain why you would like to upload their logo (and for what purpose) and ask them for permission. However, the permission must be valid not only for Wikipedia, but for everybody. As the logo is likely trademarked, we can add a trademark warning to the upload. For a permission template see the second box on Commons:Modelos de mensajes. --Túrelio (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It depends, if reuploaded lost the prior picture, go ahead. The point is, I don´t want to have any problems later because the numer remains over there. About the logo, it is for the article of the company, but in es:WP, so probably the best is not because es:WO not allow Fair Use. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
"I don´t want to have any problems .." - after uploading the retouched version, the original one can be hidden (visible only for sysops) or completetly deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that's great. Is it too many problem if I ask you to do that? I promise to be carefull next time I upload something. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It's no problem; it's one of the things we're here for. Powers (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you already upload the retouched version of File:Morris Oxford Diesel back 03.jpg? --Túrelio (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No, but I can do it, if you want. Should I upload it as "new version"? or an independent one (I mean, a new picture)--Andrea (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As you like. --Túrelio (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. New version--Andrea (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done, old version hidden. --Túrelio (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, so fast and so gentle! It´s a pleasure when every goes so fine. Thank you so much.--Andrea (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

Category:Requests for unblock has a few requests that could use some attending to. Could some admins take a look, and preferably a few native Spanish speakers as some of the requests are in Spanish. Thanks. Tiptoety talk 19:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've handled the Spanish one. Two remaining requests left. --Dferg (talk · meta) 10:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Help close a withdrawn Deletion request

Hi, I have withdrawn my nomination of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of South Africa.svg and would like an administrator to formally close the request and note the result on the image page. Jappalang (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Jafeluv (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Mistake

I've mistakenly added a wrong command at COM:CDC (File:File:). Fearing that the bot will start replacing with the wrong syntax I've placed the {{stop}} template. How can it be deleted from the bot's job queue to prevent that? Regards, --Dferg (talk · meta) 10:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The bot had not moved the file yet. So I just added your request without "File:". --|EPO| da: 12:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --Dferg (talk · meta) 12:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Request

Hello again! Regarding the Logo joa.gif, this is a logo of a school in Thailand. Since logo is not simple enough to ineligible, its existence here is considered copyright violation, and I have marked it as {{Logo}} for deletion through the Speedy Deletion process, however it seems that there were 2 IPs (May connected with Atoms (talk · contribs), the original uploader) trying to remove the logo tag off the file page to avoid deletion in order to use it with userbox represented his school (In which Thai Wikipedia also denied the usage of fair use image in userpage and userboxes.) Thus, I ask some active admin to delete this file here to end all sake related to this issue. If the file still kept like this, some guys will likely remove the deletion tag, and the problem will remain unsolved. Thanks for any help. --G(x) (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Kwj2772. Regards, --Dferg (talk · meta) 19:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Please block Av77

Yet another Xraykan sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Done by Herbythyme. Regards, --Dferg (talk · meta) 19:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Maxwarrior

Maxwarrior (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) has now recreated File:AlainSoral.jpg three times in spite of multiple warnings not to recreate deleted files outside of process. I think a short time-out might be in order. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi LX, thank you for reporting this. I've blocked Maxwarrior for three days. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

My uploads have been removed

Dear Administrators. I had made to photo montages for the city of Manchester, United Kingdom which consisted of what I thought were freely (as in free licensing) available and uploaded them to this site. The images were found at [4] and [5] but have subsequently been removed and I've received no messages explaining why. Would anyone be able to shed any light on this? Thanks. Tong22 (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tong22, your pictures were apparently deleted because they were based on File:Manchester Skyline Image.jpg, which was deleted after a complaint from the copyright holder. Since derivative works of copyrighted content are not allowed on Commons, your images were removed as well based on that complaint. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manchester Skyline Image.jpg. Jafeluv (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the information. I'll remove that particular portion. Tong22 (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please delete

(or hide) every version of File:Reux 1680.JPG, except most recent one (registration plates). Thanks in advance. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 15:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 18:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Request made doesn't appear in the list of asked questions

My request: locator map doesn't appear in the contents list on the village pump page: Graphics_village_pump. Why not? Citypeek (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Because someone created the October 2010 archive page to ask a question, instead of asking a question on the main page and waiting for it to be archived. Powers (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, and can something be done about it? Citypeek (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it's best to leave it for the time being; your question has gotten responses and trying to move the whole discussion now would be more confusing than helpful. If you are dissatisfied with the answers you receive, you may want to create a new discussion on the main page. Powers (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't do much on Commons, so I apologize if I'm in the wrong place. Could someone look at the licensing in the category:United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008:ballots? (here's an example: File:Challenged ballot001.JPG). The editor is claiming "own work", which is highly unlikely, unless he's the Minnesota Secretary of State. Or maybe he's claiming that the photo is his own work, which I'm not sure if it's legit, given that its just a photo of a 2D document. A file at the English Wikipedia, [6], says that the Secretary of State released all the challenged ballots into the public domain. If this is indeed the case, then I suppose it's technically OK for user:Appraiser to release them under a CC license, but it would be better to host them as public domain. Can anyone confirm that the ballots were released into the public domain? I couldn't find much about them at [7], but there is a full list at [8]. If it can be confirmed that the ballots are public domain, I'll probably work on copying them all onto commons. Buddy431 (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A note that File:Challenged ballot001.JPG has a strange computer icon (hand) on the image... Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 05:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Move file request: Fredericksburg-Overview-2.png to Fredericksburg-Overview.png

I have uploaded a retouched version of a diagram used in a few articles related to the US Civil War battle of Fredericksburg, correcting the year for the battle in the legend. My account is too new to allow me to upload a new version directly, and I was told to ask here.

"New" file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fredericksburg-Overview-2.png

Existing file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fredericksburg-Overview.png

Hank314 (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have taken. Thanks! Hank314 (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Non commercial use of images

Please check Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anouchka-van-miltenburg-portret.jpg. Site states: Only non commercial use allowed on http://www.vvd.nl/content/3/disclaimer. User keeps uploading. --Moros y Christianos (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It has {{Delete}} on it and will ordinarily be dealt with on that schedule -- one week from the date of nomination. If you thought it deserved faster treatment, you should have put {{Speedy}} on it instead of {{Delete}}. We handle approximately 30,000 deletions per month. Routine ones, such as this, do not need to be put on this noticeboard.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. My issue was not with the time schedule but with the continuous upload of similar cases after the DR had started. Moros y Christianos (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Derivative work of a band

Hi. I noticed that the image File:La orquesta los satelites .jpg says "own work", wich is probably true, but seems to be a collage of a poster of the band, wich you can find in http://www.lossatelites.es/fotosframeset.html . I think is a composition made from one of the pictures under the section "Afiches" (exactly the first from right). Can someone check this? Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been marked with {{No permission since}}, which seems about right. - Jmabel ! talk 17:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedies lacking OTRS

Is it my imagination or did I notice a posting somewhere about taking care on this category due to backlogs? It is getting kinda "full" (as are copyvios). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're thinking about this. Jafeluv (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks - I've (mostly) been taking out stuff from early September so it should be an issue I guess. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The general Permissions-Commons queue now has a backlog below 24 hours, so I would suggest that copyvio with an age of more than 7 days may be safely deleted. Keep also in mind that nothing is final at Wikipedia. Files can always be restored if necessary. Jcb (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
"below 24 hours" - that's great to hear, thanks! Ähem, well, except my own upload File:MariusSchneider.jpg which is waiting for approval since September 18 (permission sent the same day). --Túrelio (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry my German is not good enough to process the Permissions-Commons-DE queue. I can read German, but my writing skills are bad. The German queues are still a disaster. But knowing that you understand English, I found your ticket and processed it for you. Jcb (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --Túrelio (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dispute regarding both uploading procedure and behavior during resolution

Hi. User:Cirt began a discussion on my Talk Page regarding image uploads. Although what he asserts is at odds with my practices to date, I was open-minded enough to listen to what he had to say, since he for all I knew, what he was saying might have had merit. (This is my standard reaction when someone disagrees with my editing habits or interpretation of policy.) However, whether he was describing an actual policy, guideline or consensus was unclear, as he referred to the upload procedure he insisted upon as a "personal preference", and did not cite an actual policy or guideline. When I posed certain counter-arguments and pointed out some things that appeared to me to call his assertions in question, and asked him to comment on this (such as asking for policy or guideline pages supporting what he said), he appeared to evade my questions repeatedly, and instead simply repeatedly his initial "instructions", which came off as rather condescending to me. Another editor, Tabercil, also joined the discussion to agree to Cirt, but he too did not answer my questions. Cirt's most recent message was to simply point out to me that two users now to "modify [my] inappropriate behavior", again refusing to answer my quite reasonable points, and in a tone that I perceived now to be even more impolite, and more threatening, than in his previous messages.

There are two aspects of this dispute that I would ask for administrators to comment on:

1. a. The issue whether the protocol Cirt and Tabercil insist upon for altered images is a policy, guideline or consensus that I'm required to follow, and not simply their personal preference, which Cirt already indicated.

b. If it is, I would respectfully ask why the tool to upload alternate images over the original is on each original image's page.

2. Cirt's rude, dogmatic, threatening approach to this dispute, and his refusal to discuss it in a civil, transparent matter, or even answer reasonable questions during it.

The discussion has taken place on my Talk Page and on Cirt's Talk Page. I ask that those commenting review the complete exchange before doing so. Thank you for your time. Nightscream (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have spent about ten minutes looking for a policy or guideline citation and can't find one. Perhaps one of my colleagues knows of one. Anyway, this is, therefore, my personal experience and opinion.
To your question (1) -- I think Cirt's position is correct. We seem to use "Upload a new version of this file" only for relatively minor changes -- color correction, rotation of buildings that are not upright, and similar things where the essential composition is not altered. This might include a minor crop, but an aggressive crop, such as both of yours, would usually have a new file with a title such as "Old image name (crop).jpg". The link is there on every file page because there are legitimate reasons to upload a new version over an old one, see for example File:Avestaforsen.jpg, which is essentially the same image, with several subtle corrections applied. Or, for that matter, your changes at File:15th anniversary of Image Comics - seven founders.jpg.
As for the discussion, I would characterize Cirt and Tabercil as polite, certainly not rude, but very firm. While "firm" and "dogmatic" are related, it is certainly OK for them both to say, "this is the way we see it". In the last comment, Cirt issues a warning -- since both Cirt and Tabercil are Administrators, that is appropriate. Threats and warnings are two sides of the same coin -- it's a threat only if it is inappropriate or illegal. It's true that they didn't answer your question, probably because, like me, they couldn't find a specific citation on the issue.
Although you have a lot of edits over a long period, virtually all of them are files or categories -- you have little experience in the day to day ins and outs of Commons. In the future, when you get a suggestion, look to see who it comes from and act on it accordingly. This is not to say that Administrators are always right -- the Lord knows we're not -- but that a suggestion from two Admins that you change your ways deserves serious consideration.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the above analysis by Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs), thank you. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to formalise this recurring problem in a guideline. --Foroa (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree that this would be a good idea. Suggest that Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs) might be the more appropriate party to take a stab at that. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done Take a look at User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox1 and figure out where to put it. I found the notes, help, and policy on the whole general area pretty difficult to wade through.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

James, I appreciate your attempt at polite discussion--it is certainly more direct than Cirt or Tabercil were, but I notice a number of statements you make that do not accurately reflect Cirt and Tabercil's actual statements. I'd like to thank you for explaining a distinction between when to upload alternates over originals. That seems fairly reasonable, though I would still appreciate it if someone could point to a policy or guideline page, partially because I genuinely like to familiarize myself with such pages, often to bookmark them for future reference. As for other aspects of your response:

"To your question I think Cirt's position is correct. We seem to use "Upload a new version of this file" only for relatively minor changes." Cirt did not give this position. What Cirt did was to tell me what to do, because this was his "personal preference", refused to answer my questions, repeated pointing out a tool that was I already familiar with (as if I couldn't read it the first time he spoke of it), made Orwellian comments about "modifying my behavior", and then, threats when I continued to question him, even though I did not revert the images in question. Why attribute a position to him that he did not state? There is nothing "polite" about his conduct, and if you think it is, then you haven't read his messages.

"While "firm" and "dogmatic" are related..." No, they're not. Dogmatism refers to the arrogant, authority-based assertion of an idea as an unquestionable truth or law. Matters of fact or reason, such as the manner in which disputes should be resolved on this project, should be predicated on evidence and reason. Not mere authority. This has nothing to do with being "firm", as that word is completely unrelated to dogmatism.

Whenever I encounter someone violating policy on Wikipedia, I always cite the relevant policies to them, and when they challenge them or express confusion about them, I always address their questions about explaining the wisdom of the policy in a polite, transparent manner, as I did here, for example. Hell, even when I do arguably have cause for administrative action, I try to be initially more polite about it, as when someone left this less-than-civil message on my talk page, and I responded with this explanation of Wikipedia policy. I do not threaten to take administrative action simply because a user posts messages in which he questions my statements. I would only take such actions if he continued to revert the edits in question. You'll notice I did not revert the Daily Show and Snooki images in question, precisely because reverting during a dispute is indeed a violation of policy (at least on Wikipedia), yet Cirt simply said that well, two users disagree with you, so "modify your behavior", and when I continued the discussion, he made his threat about administrative action. This is completely inappropriate behavior for an administrator to exhibit, and has nothing to do with "firmness".

"It is certainly OK for them both to say, "this is the way we see it." And since they did not say this, this is irrelevant to this discussion. Please stop attributing to them euphemistic distortions of their actual statements. Similarly, they did not give me "suggestions", nor advise me to "consider" what they said. What they did, Cirt in particular, was to hand down a dogma, expect me to follow it without question, and when I chose to point out things to him that called his opinion into question, he decided to threaten me with administrative action, even though I never reverted the images in question.

"In the last comment, Cirt issues a warning -- since both Cirt and Tabercil are Administrators, that is appropriate. Threats and warnings are two sides of the same coin -- it's a threat only if it is inappropriate or illegal." And as soon as you can tell me what precisely I did that warranted a "warning", then please do so. The only thing I did that I can see is that I politely disagreed with him.

"It's true that they didn't answer your question, probably because, like me, they couldn't find a specific citation on the issue." Non-sequitur. The response when not knowing of a particular citation is to not respond at all, and keep repeating the same irrelevant statements and dogmatic warnings? No, I'm sorry, but that's wrong. The response, if you don't know of a particular citation, is to say that you don't have one. Not pretend that the other guy has not just asked you a question. You yourself stated above that you could not find one at this time. Why couldn't Cirt, particularly when the question of whether a practice is a required one (i.e.: a policy or guideline), or not? Wasn't that the crux of the matter?

"In the future, when you get a suggestion, look to see who it comes from and act on it accordingly." No, that's not how it works. The way it works is, you see what policy, guideline, or consensus they explain to you, and then act accordingly. The fact that two people dogmatically say, "Do it the way we tell you to do it" is not how it works. The fact that even admins are human, and can make mistakes or be prone to bias, error, etc., as you yourself mention, is precisely why such disputes should be based on site policy, and not the personhood or administrative status of the participants in the conflict. Should the experience of two admins be dismissed? No. Does that mean, however, that others are required to obey them blindly and unquestioningly? No. It does not. Desiring to understand the policies/guidelines that form the basis of such procedures is not only reasonable, it is arguably required. Nightscream (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(Aside, speaking as a non-adminstrator.) Could Commons expand the two existing links after the File history section, something like the following?
  • Upload a new version of this file (very minor changes only, see explanation)
  • Upload a new substantially changed version of this file (or use the derivativeFX tool or these instructions)
  • Edit this file using an external application (See the setup instructions for more information)
I suggest this, prompted not by the original poster, but by the slow edit warring that occurs with certain country maps. -84user (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay folks, we have good intentions all around... both Nightscream and Cirt are valued contributors and I thing further hashing over what happened and what should have happened back then will only result in bruised feelings so let's see if we can wrap this up before we get to that point alright? As Nightscream points out, there's no statement, policy or consensus about what constitutes a "minor" revision - probably because the issue's never come up before this. So let's just be kind and say his actions were an honest mistake, with no animus intended at all. I think what Jameslwoodward put in his sandbox (as adjusted by 84user) is a solid starting point to place consensus. And I think 84user's suggestions are a a good idea but I do think the phrasing could be tweaked slightly:

  • Upload a new version of this file (for very minor changes only, see explanation of what is intended)
  • Upload a new, substantially changed version of this file (or these instructions)
And I would suggest the link for this should directly open up the open up the derivativeFX tool.
  • Edit this file using an external application (See the setup instructions for more information)

Thoughts from the peanut gallery? Tabercil (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  • My only comments on the emotional rhetoric and lawyering are "everyone be mellow" and "help the newcomers understand our complex practices". Regarding writing down the consensus best practice, I've edited the sandbox with my contributions. "Minor improvements" is very easy to define in my opinion, it's all about consensus. If anyone disagrees with an edit, it can be reverted and sent to another filename. That's it. 99of9 (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with 99of9; COM:MELLOW is good advice. The conciliatory comments below are helpful, I think. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Before this discussion is concluded, I would like a resolution regarding Cirt's inappropriate behavior, as indicated in this section's heading, and as detailed in my response to James Woodward above. Nightscream (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs) had already evaluated the comments by myself and by admin Tabercil (talk · contribs), in an above comment in this subsection. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Well I don't know about Cirt, but I am certainly willing to apologize to Nightscream for the tone of my comments if they came across as rude. My intent was be as Jameslwoodward characterized: polite, yet firm. Tabercil (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • In the past, I've used the following words to remind users of the linked template. "To request that another editor not overwrite an existing file, please use {{Dont overwrite}} which is automatically translated." The template was created in 2006, so while not policy or a formal guideline, it has a long history. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
That template is used in cases like File:DSC 0072.JPG. --Martin H. (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I echo the comments by Tabercil (talk · contribs), while it does now indeed seem that the behavior by Nightscream (talk · contribs) was inappropriate, I am willing to acknowledge that the tone by multiple parties involved could have been a bit better. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

James, I do not think that your tone was inappropriate. While I think you were polite and that you intended to be helpful, I am disappointed at the quite disturbing statements you made above, whose rebuttal by me you have not yet answered, as well as Cirt's deliberate evasion of legitimate questions and implied assertion that merely disagreeing with or questioning him somehow constitutes behavior worthy of administrative threats, when transparent discussion is the crux upon which policies and their interpretation are predicated.

Cirt's continued refusal to acknowledge these specifics in his last message, and his use of the euphemistic talking point "tone" in his last message underscores this. The "tone by multiple parties" could have been better? Which parties are these? Was my tone inappropriate somewhere? If so, where? To date, Cirt, you have not explained what I did that was deserving of a legitimate warning, nor responded to any of the other points I have raised. It is for this reason why I question if you intend to continue such behavior in the future with other editors. It's hard not to, when you refuse to acknowledge these points specifically. Nightscream (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want. Seven people -- six Admins and one experienced user (including Cirt and Tabercil) -- have looked at this. It has engendered about 3,000 words of discussion.
  • Were Cirt's comments perfect? -- No.
  • Would I have approached you differently? -- Yes, to a limited extent.
  • Was my analysis perfect? -- No.
  • Was your behavior perfect? -- No.
  • You have asked for a reference to a policy or guideline, even after it became clear that there wasn't one. Commons has remarkably few formal policies -- we operate largely on consensus and precedent. Your request has instigated a beginning of a new formal guideline for Commons, and one of your images is included in it as an example of appropriate action.
  • You have complained, again, that Cirt has not told you why your initial action was wrong. That should be obvious -- there was a template {{Dont overwrite}} already in existence and the new potential guideline, Commons:Avoid overwriting images with new uploads has substantial agreement among those who have read it, with no dissents. It follows almost exactly what Cirt suggested to you. What you did was wrong because it was not consistent with the way that we do things here.
  • Although you have uploaded a great many images, you have very little experience as a member of the community (32 edits in the Commons space, 101 in User talk). We are, you will find, a very heterogeneous group of nationalities, backgrounds, experiences, skills, and languages. Many of us are creators -- either writing or photography, or both -- and are protective of our work. That all leads to occasional rough edges to some of our interactions.
  • Administrators make about 30,000 administrative actions per month. 90% of them are done by fifty people. Occasionally we are not as patient, mellow, or thoughtful as we should be. Sorry about that. We are all volunteers, doing our best to balance limited time against the needs of Commons.
  • You had a legitimate question. It has been addressed at great length. I suggest, therefore, that you drop it and acquire a slightly thicker skin.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
And just to put this into context: Commons has 263 admins (per what COM:A currently says). Of those, 83 are listed as being English speakers. As James points out, you've had 6 of them chime in on this... that's a fairly high proportion of the active ones. Commons simply doesn't have the high number of admins on EN (currently at 1761), probably because the tasks on COM (e.g., copyvio killing and categorization among them) don't quite have the same degree of sex appeal. Tabercil (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"You have complained, again, that Cirt has not told you why your initial action was wrong." No, I did not. I asked what it was that I did that warranted a threat by him of administrative action. I have still not received a response to that question by him, by you, or by any of the people who have chimed in here. All I'm getting is more of the same distortion, as with this little bit of it by you. Is there some reason the people here have trouble reading someone's words accurately, and responding to it directly and honestly?

By refusing to speak of specifics, he gets to crawl away, rather than man up and admit that his behavior was both dogmatic and disrespectful (using euphemistic Orwell-speak like "tone"), and you enable this by doing the same.

You claim that my behavior wasn't perfect, and that it was "obvious" what I did was wrong, yet Cirt never cited that template or that potential guideline, despite the fact that I flat-out asked for this. Instead, he ignored my questions, condescendingly repeated material from his initial message in rote fashion, and then threatened someone with administrative action, simply because I continued to ask questions and challenge him, using the threadbare rationale that I made no indication that I would alter my activities, as if this is somehow a justified use of admin powers. It not only ignores the fact that I made no indication that I would not alter my practices (as well as the fact that I indicated I would continue to investigate the matter), but implies that you can threaten a user for something you think they might do, something that Cirt has not been cautioned for, nor indicated he would cease doing in the future.

The fact that Cirt has refused to discuss the issue of his dogmatism, and that you have refused to discuss the points I rebutted above, with Crit preferring instead to chicken out of answering them, and you going on and on and on about my community experience, the backgrounds of the other users here, how many admins there are, how many admins have chimed in here (when none of them have addressed the issues I raised here) etc., which have nothing to do with this, does not change this.

Are you and Cirt going to discuss the actual points I raised here, or do I have to take this to ArbCom? Nightscream (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are unhappy, but there is no ArbCom here. Our practices and culture are similar to, but not the same as that of English Wikipedia. For the most part, these noticeboards have the final say on disputes on Commons. You can be assured that every active administrator is aware of your concerns. I acknowledge that we are imperfect and could oftentimes handle things better, but I cannot see that further discussion will be fruitful. We thank you for bring this issue to our attention. Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files is nearing adoption as a direct result. You may continue to post to this thread, but I think it may be time to conclude this discussion. Also, I would admonish you to avoid excesses in your criticisms. You can make your points without invoking George Orwell or using language like "crawl away", "man up", and "chicken out" to describe a fellow editor. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Cesar.jpg

picture File:Cesar.jpg needs some cleaning, can someone help--Motopark (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Erin Esco.jpg

Resolveddeleted

Could someone deal with this as a BLP violation/out of scope on en:wiki please? Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin problem

I am asking for administrator attention regarding this edit.

diff

Can someone explain, rationally, this action by admin Foroa? Even without question is Kosovo country or not, which is sure, quite a question, but adding Category:Members of the European Union on this page, which is utter nonsense, and protect it right after, including comment "Protect against nationalistic Serbian actions"?! I beg your pardon? Kosovo is not Members of the European Union. I am quite surprised, and sad, as this action does not match the status of administrator. Also, i think that this comment is very offensive and insulting, and per that, i am asking for urgent admin reaction. This is extremely inappropriate. --WhiteWriter speaks 19:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this was incorrect; Kosovo is not (and never was) a member of the EU. I've left Foroa a note to this effect, and Otourly has reveted the addition of the category. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if I can assume good faith here, but this category addition was in the first place intended to restore Kosovo as a country in Europe, as in several cats (see Category:Economy of Kosovo), some people try continously to reduce it to a dependent part of Serbia. A bit childish because there is no problem at Commons to treat it as a country and as a Serbian entity. Why I protected the Kosovo root category.
When looking in the editions of WhiteWriter on for example Kosovo and here, one can hardly say that he is neutral, why he is shouting so loud I guess.
As far as I can see, Kosovo, like Bosnia, is actually more treated like a protectorate/colony to Europe than a real independent state, but strangely enough, they are not connected to the EU. Smells like colonialisme indeed. Anyway, almost all member states accept Kosovo as a member, so will most people see and search it. If you want to be politically more correct, then you have to create a special subcat for those states instead of just throwing it out. We are not defining the European Union on Commons, we only have to facilitate the access. --Foroa (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
You shouldn't use admin tools to further your own position in a content dispute. I think the page should be unprotected. Jafeluv (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted WhiteWriter's edit to the category that Foroa pointed out. Geographic localization to Kosovo subcategories is better than broader Serbia delocalization, irrespective of any political dispute. --99of9 (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I've unprotected and added this to my watchlist. There's no evidence of "nationalistic Serbian actions" on that page history. --99of9 (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There must be something wrong with my eyes. --Foroa (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
You have protected the page because of an edit from March 2008? Trycatch (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Rather an attitude problem of CrniBombarder!!! (talk · contributions · Statistics), so I wanted to have the Kosovo root category safe and stable as reference for other category disputes. I brougth some peace in Spain and the Basque country, but I have no ambition to spend months and months in Serbia or Kosovo. --Foroa (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mikael Ejdemyr

Plase check User:Mikael Ejdemyr pictures, there are in the picture same name in author but different name in uploader?--Motopark (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please delete

Please delete pictures of Special:Contributions/Wolfmanalf, they used in Somnium ubeda which has been deleted--Motopark (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Gone Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Creative Commons Abuse: File:UCbuildinguwo.jpg

Not sure how to go about this (newbie, sorry):

This image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UCbuildinguwo.jpg#Original_upload_log_) was never Creative Commons (it was ripped off Flickr, here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/atwestern/2946348785/ and always Rights Reserved.

I am the owner of the photograph, not either of the two now-deleted accounts responsible for the Wiki entry.

I have no issue with the image being used, or even with it being Creative Commons (I work at the University, and am glad to promote it), but I don't need someone else getting credit.

How do I fix this? Is it possible to have the credit changed to me and, do I, require a Wiki account to do so.

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.130.106 (talk • contribs) 9. November 2010, 22:06 Uhr (UTC)

No, your claim sounds reasonable and is covered by the circumstances (date of upload on flickr, 500px standard thumbnail size upload to Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons). Ill delete the images, warned the uploader and will have a look into his other uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The image in question is File:UCbuildinguwo.jpg.
As per upload log it was uploaded on December 2008 to :en by en:User:Tarekmech.
As per Flickr[9], to where it was uploaded likely in October 2008, the photographer is "Photo: Douglas Keddy", and it is (C) All rights reserved.
@Douglas, if you are willing to release this nice image under a Creative-Commons license (CC-BY-SA recommended), please do so, open an account on Commons and upload it. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help with this. I only became irked when the image showed up on a site for a for-profit magazine yesterday, with a credit to Tarekmech. Much appreciated. Will look into re-uploading the photo - Douglas.

OTRS checks please

Can someone look at these which have an OTRS number on and also these which have the same OTRS number on... It may well be a record company or similar but there are also a few blocked puppet accounts and I'm a little suspicious - thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like those tickets are in info-it rather than the general permissions queues, so it might be worth asking on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard instead. Sorry! Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Deadminship due to inactivity

I was given a de-adminship warning in Feb 2010 at which point I signed the list, and carried out some admin tasks. On September 10 I was stripped of admin rights. I noticed another warning was posted in April, but was reverted by another user before I had a chance to read it (see my talk page history), and also I didn't receive an e-mail warning (as is required by the policy). As it appears the correct procedure has not been followed could someone put me in touch with a bureaucrat to restore my admin rights. (I left a message on the talk page of the admin who told me of my de-adminship, but have had no response). ed g2s • talk 11:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think will be good idea it you'll demonstrate some activity before asking for returning status. Whatever circumstances were, it's good idea to give up status voluntarily in such long inactivity. I think general request for status is appropriate in this case. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Eugene, you don't really seem to need the tools. If you become more active around here again, you can always re-apply for adminship. –Tryphon☂ 17:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please delete wrong version

Please delete wrong version in picture File:Bebel Gilberto.jpg--Motopark (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

reverted. Amada44  talk to me 18:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC) 

✓ Done -mattbuck (Talk) 18:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons mailing list

Hey all. It was recently revealed that a rather important consensus-related decision was implemented on a mailing list. Can we be sure that discussions like this make their way onto the Wiki as well? I'm not a member, and from what I read, the other user involved isn't either, so it really is important that we have a better method of communication for important decisions like this. Please can we ensure that the wider community is consulted before any decisions take place in future. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

+1 — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 15:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It should be common sense not to close early. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I think I have to agree with both Peter and Pieter here. Yes, Commons policy should be decided on Commons. On the other hand, do we really need a "full on-wiki discussion" about whether people should stuff beans up their nose close RfAs as successful before the announced deadline? Maybe we do now, seeing as apparently reasonable people seem to disagree about it, but to me that would've seemed nothing more than an obvious, sensible and straightforward interpretation of existing policy. (Just to avoid misunderstanding, I'd like to note that I don't believe there was any actual harm done by Juliancolton's closure in this case. However, I also don't quite see what possible reason there could've been not to wait until it could be done on time and by the book.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree fully with Ilmari Karonen --Herby talk thyme 09:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record, I wasn't referring specifically to this incident (I linked to it because it is just one example). I've seen "mailing list" used as a justification for other incidents too in the past, and this isn't brilliant practice. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't actually think the issue in question was discussed on the 'crat mailing list... it may have been mentioned in passing, but I might even be misremembering that. The 'crat mailing list is used for discussing things that don't belong on-wiki. There are such things from time to time, believe it or not. They're not usually policy matters but rather application of same where the situation requires sensitivity. While we're on this topic, I'm surprised that PeterSymonds, who claims to be an advocate of transparency, failed to notify me of this discussion even though he's referring to a comment I made. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There is simply no need to be patronising. I'm well aware of the need for privacy where it is needed. However, this was no such case; and even if you made a mistake regarding where it was being discussed, you were the first to mention "mailing list".
I am sorry you weren't notified. It was not so much a post about you but about policy discussions in general. As I mentioned, this is not the first time I've seen "mailing list" used as a justification for certain actions that had no privacy bearings, so it was a gentle reminder to everybody. Falling back on off-wiki mediums for certain decisions is not a practice we want to encourage. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Your participation throughout this (from your very first post, which started with "Heh" and went downhill from there) has struck me as somewhat patronizing in tone, and I'm sure that wasn't what you actually intended, so I guess it's a matter of perception. I will continue to defend use of the mailing list for discussion of private matters, including decisions that are appropriately done there, and in some cases decline to even discuss the particulars of why the decision was discussed there at all, because in those cases even getting into the periphery can give too much away. WMF's record on protecting privacy and on sensitivity to the needs of its volunteers is abysymal, and I'd prefer that Commons not contribute to the problem by excessive and misguided calls for transparency where it wasn't warranted. This particular issue didn't need it, true, but your tone isn't helpful. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

License changes by user Hobe

FYI [10] --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Since he continues to do so I would like to know if he can withdraw PD-self and change it to CC? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

How about this album cover permission

How about this album cover permission File:This Is It Cover.jpg, is it valid or shall we get OTRS-permission--Motopark (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the user edits on en wp I'm guessing it was validly licensed and so permission cannot be withdrawn. Given the user appears to have left en wp any attempt at getting OTRS may not be that fruitful? --Herby talk thyme 18:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker/commands not currently active, now since 3 days

It looks like commands on User:CommonsDelinker/commands are not currently being processed. One I put there has been sitting over 8 hours. - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

CommonsDelinkerHelper (talk · contribs) is currently working. SieBot (talk · contribs) on the other hand it is not since 06:00 6 November 2010 (UTC). Siebrand (talk · contribs) should be able to restart it I think. Don't we have other bots for moving categories in the the meanwhile? --Dferg (talk · meta) 17:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
SieBot seems to be running again. –Krinkletalk 20:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker is inactive since nearly 3 full days. Any reason/explaination for that? --Túrelio (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Why you remove my photos?

In Madurai_Airport page, you have removed my photos stating copyright violation with http://alagukanthavel.blogspot.com/2010/09/madurai-airport-new-terminal-photos. Who is this alagukanthavel! They simply copied all the images from my own forum www.AllAboutMadurai.com Actually We are planning to file a suite against alagukanthavel.blogspot.com. They even don't have their own domain! How they claim copyrights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundar amu (talk • contribs) 05:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Madurai airport new terminal building.jpg was deleted by User talk:Oxam Hartog.[11] You may request undeletion if the image is your work. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Images of statues in the United States

Yesterday, I tagged a large number of images hosted here of statues in the United States. Per Freedom_of_Panorama#United_States, three dimensional works of art in public places in the United States do not enjoy freedom of panorama, and whosoever owns copyright of the original work also owns rights to photographic derivatives of the work, unless such art work is public domain via some other vehicle (such as pre-1923). I was reverted in all of these taggings by User:Pieter Kuiper, a gentleman from the Netherlands currently in Sweden (according to his userpage), and in his edit summaries (example) he said that the {{FOP-cv}} template was to be used only for obvious cases. I attempted to explain the issue on his talk page (see here), then realized he was from a country that enjoyed freedom of panorama (which, again, doesn't exist in the U.S. for these types of works). With that in mind, I reverted his de-taggings, and informed him of this. He undid all of my re-taggings, and informed me that I am being condescending, that I should bring the images to deletion review, and that I should not do so unless I am certain the artworks are copyrighted. Some help, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The {{Copyvio}} tag is for obvious cases only, stuff that an administrator can decide within a few seconds. FOP issues are not so simple, certainly not when it comes to glass windows of uncertain age, or to American sculpture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Images in question:

--Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I also reverted tags on File:Engelberg-Klosterkirche-031944.JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That image isn't party to this. That image was taken in Engelberg Abbey, located in Switzerland, which does have freedom of panorama for works of art. I agree, it should not have been tagged with an fop-cv tag, and I did not tag it, an anon-IP did. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Though only indirectly related, I want to remind interested parties that our current policy/information about (no) FOP in UAE (Dubai etc.) has been fundamentally challenged, see File talk:Dubai 051.JPG. Regrettably there has been no further expert-input since days. Therefore I've put a warning on the FOP page, not to speedy-tag/delete involved images, until this problem has been solved. --Túrelio (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Pieter and I often disagree, but he is certainly knowledgeable about FOP issues. I won't speak to his methods here, but I agree with him that US works should rarely be tagged with a {{Speedy}}, but rather with {{Delete}}. My reason is that many, perhaps most sculptors did not put a copyright notice on their US sculpture and they are therefore PD-no-notice. Some that had notice are PD-no-renewal. Doing and confirming the research necessary to determine this is beyond the scope of investigation by an Admin doing Speedy Deletions, which are, of course, supposed to be Speedy.
I note for example that
File:Untitled by Gary F. Edson (ca. 1973) SOS! Control IAS IN000010.jpg
according to its Smithsonian description does not have notice. While the Smithsonian descriptions are not perfect, they are usually correct.
I would also say that many of us are knowledgeable beyond the places shown on our user pages and Pieter's nationality and residence are not relevant to this discussion. I, for example, have never been to Germany, but I think I have a good understanding of its FOP rules, for which (the understanding, not the rules) Pieter is partly responsible.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Further to my comment above, all of these are listed by the Smithsonian as "Unsigned" and therefore are PD-no-notice:
Various images of other versions of the Indiana "LOVE" of this have been discussed a number of times and have been kept on the grounds that there is no notice. While this copy may have notice, it seems unlikely --
The Nashville Parthenon piece is apparently a copy of an ancient work. While the ancient work no longer exists, so this cannot be an exact copy, philosophically it is a copy, so its copyright has to be questionable.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand what you're saying, but that effectively asserts that we must prove it's copyrighted first, and then delete. That's backwards. We don't presume things are free of copyright until proven otherwise. We must have evidence it is. Otherwise, we'd just accept almost all uploads asserted as free without proof. We don't work that way. Further, many of these works were erected post 1978. I've added notices about these in the above list. There's no question these must be deleted, even if you believe in the backwards application of proof of copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
An admin cannot see when a statue was erected. You did not point out the years in your tagging. You wordy copyvio tags were all the same. It is much better to make a deletion request. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not quite as Hammersoft says. The difference between a speedy and a DR is the division of labor, not the presumption of copyright. If you hang a speedy on something that isn't completely obvious -- and none of the files above are -- then the Admin going through the speedies has four choices:
  • delete incorrectly (in at least 5 of the 14 above),
  • leave it to sit in Category:Other speedy deletions, where it might be for months
  • do the research that you might have done, which takes time, or
  • convert it from a speedy to a DR, which also takes time.
Fifty admins make approximately 27,000 administrative actions a month (the other 3,000 are done by the other 230 Admins), and I think it's inappropriate to ask us to spend time doing research that you might have done, or could be done during a DR.
As for Hammersoft's comment
"There's no question these must be deleted...",
there certainly is a question. Two of them were erected in the eighties. Were they registered? If not, there is no copyright. Someone has to do that research and it isn't going be an Admin doing speedies.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Pieter here. Most of these need to go through full deletion discussions, for better or worse. Yes, it is time and labor consuming, but the research needs to be done for each case. Kaldari (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • So we're to take an image through deletion request when the image is of a sculpture erected post 1978 in the United States with no evidence that the rights holder of the sculpture has released rights? Are you serious? There's no ambiguity here. It's just as blatant as uploading a copyrighted logo of a company here, and then saying we have to spend months and months and months deliberating about whether it should be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've now nominated the most blatantly obvious cases. Happy bureaucracy! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As you will see, it turns out that none of these are particularly obvious.
I have deleted the following as copyvios -- not on the FOP issue, on which they appear to be OK, but because the images were lifted from the Smithsonian web site and are not free for commercial use:
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 Comment I've opened a DR for these pictures: Commons:Deletion requests/Photos from SIRIS, there are a lot of them. Trycatch (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hammersoft, I am joining Pieter Kuiper, Jameslwoodward and others here: Please do not tag FOP cases as speedy but open regular deletion requests for it. This is not a point of proving its PD status vs. proving that it is copyrighted. In case of a regular deletion request, a file will be deleted if there remains doubt about its copyright status. This is not much different from a speedy deletion. However, in case of a regular deletion request

  • we invite a wider community to research a specific case and to save this image (in case of a speedy deletion just the uploader gets notified but other editors who aren't admins are usually less inclined to watch the speedy categories),
  • we have more time (in many cases there is no rush, this is particularly true if keeping the image at Commons is legally possible but possibly unwanted per COM:L if just commercial reuse is prohibited),
  • it allows us to sort FOP cases under Category:Undeletion requests which permits us to restore them as soon as the depicted object becomes PD,
  • it allows us to restore FOP cases more easily if the FOP situation in a country changes or gets clarified, and
  • it allows to use mass deletion requests for cases that are related.

At the end this helps us to save more images, to more easily restore images, and to reduce the workload of the admins. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Missvain

And now Missvain (talk · contribs) is doing the same thing. With the same very long "template". Might be the same user. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack via PD US Navy template

There was a personal attack on User:Tiptoety made via Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy/lang, Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy/layout, Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy/en. I'd like to ask these be protected against vandalism, and the accounts that made the attack be blocked. Benchill (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Could please somebody investigate this? User Tiptoety is mentioned. I'm shocked! Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
These templates were also vandalised:
The history ought to be expunged also. Benchill (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

also Template:Check categories/lang was infected --Herzi Pinki (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Just revert the vandalism. A checkuser/oversighter will clean up the rest. ZooFari 01:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Please delete Simpsons pictures

Plaease delete Simsons pictures from Special:Contributions/HeinzDoofenshmirtz--Motopark (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Martin H. (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

File:대한민국의 삼권분립 및 투표제도.svg

please change name to File:ROK_election_system_and_separation_of_powers.SVG Thanks ;) --Dmthoth (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? The legend is in Korean, and I'm pretty sure that file names don't have to be in English. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you can rename as uploader request (file from 13 November 2010). Anyway add temple {{Rename}} and write the reason. Geagea (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I entirely missed the fact that you're the uploader; I thought that you were asking for someone else's image to be renamed. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cover pictures via Flicker

What you think about Special:Contributions/Lord_Ozzy uploads, are their licence valid or needs they OTRS.--Motopark (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like plain old Flickr washing to me. I recommend purging them and blocking the offender unless he's able to explain himself. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I second that. Multiple bands, lots of different resolutions and photo styles, same username here and on Flickr and a long history of uploading copyvios and persistently recreating deleted copyvios. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Per LX and others. Previously deleted content now gone and on that basis and the fact that they have been warned I've blocked them. Gives us a chance to sort things out but they do have a track record of such behaviour. --Herby talk thyme 10:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Bşr16

Please block Bşr16 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , who is yet another sockpuppet of Xraykan. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And Aw67 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . —LX (talk, contribs) 12:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked, nuked, no other accounts at present. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request

This image is a violation of copyright and the uploader is claiming false ownership (it seems he has a history of doing so). This image should be on wikipedia with a fair use rationale and NOT on commons. Can someone please delete it? Thanks - 74.13.203.47 15:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ gone. --Túrelio (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. - 74.13.203.47 15:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please delete a duplicate photo for me

Please delete a duplicate photo for me? I uploaded a photo and gave it the wrong drummer's name for the article. It was uploaded two days ago, I believe, with the name Bill Legend, of the band T-Rex. It was not the correct name, which is Mickey Finn. Thus I uploaded it twice, and I placed the photo on Mickey Finn's biography page in en.Wikipedia, but the one saying Bill Legend is not correct: [File:T-Rex drummer Bill Legend.jpg]-- this is the one I need deleted. Thanks!

✓ Done ZooFari 17:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Los Satelites.jpg

Some time ago you deleted La orquesta los satelites .jpg because it was a collage from a poster taken from the official website of the band, http://www.lossatelites.es/fotosframeset.html, exactly from the "Afiches" section. Then the author uploaded a new version of the old deleted file, Los Satelites.jpg. When it was labbeled with "no permission since" template, the user delete the advise and restore the pic in the article. I already explain all of this, but she not listen. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Promotional picture

I have tryed to ask OTRS-permsission to this picture File:Los Satelites.jpg but uploader removes it. What are your opinion in this case.--Motopark (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, is exactly what I was talking here above. Same file. --Andrea (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the behaviour of the user (the file history showed it). As the time for permission is now over I've deleted it anyway. --Herby talk thyme 08:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request

I do not know how to properly tag this image and this image. They are copyright violations of this website (see copyright notice) and hosted here on Commons with 1) an invalid license, 2) a false claim by the author that he is the copyright holder of this work. It should be deleted from Commons asap. Thanks - 74.13.203.47 18:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? - 74.13.203.47 02:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Inter3200, Inter8600 and Inter8800

Please block Inter3200 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , Inter8600 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  and Inter8800 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  who are JAT67 sockpuppets, and nuke their uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ DoneMartin H. (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Abusedkidfireman

Please block Abusedkidfireman (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , who is yet another Paulinho15 sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, blocked, deleted, CU'd etc etc. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 20:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:MdupontBot

Would someone help this uploader. I don't have time right now.  Docu  at 07:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


waste bin icon lost

Any idea why the waste bin icon is missing on all pages tagged for speedy deletion? (seems not to be browser-specific, same problem in IE8 and Opera10) --Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

TOR gateway blocking

Can a Commons admin please take a look at this en.wp. page. A user is claiming that they are blocked on commons for being on a TOR gateway, but not on other projects. I suspect this is because they are IP block exempt on en.wp. Can an admin or crat review, and take the appropriate actions. Thanks. 7 (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't find either a local or a global block for that IP so I assume this is some sort of an automagic action related to the TorBlock extension. I've given Androstachys IP block exemption here as well, that should enable them to edit when logged in regardless of the IP block. Jafeluv (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Jafeluv. 7 (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Main page en Wiki switch

Hi. File:Sebastianvettel2010 (cropped).jpg was featured on the main page of En Wiki, but is no longer, as it is suspected to be a copyright problem. It's still protected, though; can somebody tag it to indicate that it is now up for deletion debate here? Also, I don't know if it's now necessary since we have a local protected copy, but File:Burma 3 150.jpg is now on the main page instead, in case it needs protection. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Sebastianvettel2010 (cropped).jpg has been deleted and I've protected File:Burma 3 150.jpg for a week due to the amount of pages it is in and the high profile. Bidgee (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of images?!

Hello, I recently had a discussion about publuc domain usage of images of my father, an opera singer Arnold Azrikan. It was just a discussion but today I have found out that all his images were deleted "upon request" (I never asked for it!) by someone supposedly with whom I discussed my frustration over public domain usage. I have never ever requested to delete his artistic photos from my personal family archives. It was done with no reason, it was just a discussion. Please, return all images back to his biography. I spent a lot of time of doing it and I am very upset of what you have done. Why did you do this?! Thank you. --Rozochka (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the related deletion discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Azrikan images. --Túrelio (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
As Túrelio points out, the permission statement was somewhat on the ambiguous side. My advice? Follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS on how to email the photos to the OTRS queue with a clear statement of permission. Once that's done, the photos will be put back up on Commons for use on Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them and we'll be happy to help out. Tabercil (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone who is not owning the copyright but who is just owning a few old images cant give a permission statement. Thats sad but thats how it is. You cant upload old family photographs taken by others because the copyright is owned by others (and the respective legal heirs in the family of the photographer) no matter if they even know this, no matter they have any use of this rights or not. --Martin H. (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
So the key question is who took the photographs of Arnold Azrikan?? Tabercil (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 Comment Most of the pictures are likely {{PD-Russia-2008}} or {{PD-Ukraine}}. Trycatch (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 Comment I was the Admin who closed the DR as delete. It is self serving of me to say so, but it is clear that Martin H. is correct. We need to know who the photographer was, when he or she died, and when the photographs were taken. That will give us the information needed to see if {{PD-Russia-2008}} can be correct here. Without that information, OTRS permission does not help, because it will not come from the right person, which must be the photographer or the photographer's heirs.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I was able to review the files that had been deleted, three works were dated post 1943 Otello, German, Azrikan.jpg none of these are PD under any condition on {{PD-Russia-2008}} two others(varkula , andrii) were without any dates(where doubt we have a least harm basis) neither of these can be {{PD-Russia-2008}} either. The rest are dated as; 2 with 1934-1941, 1 with 1930-1940, and one 1930 if you show these were published pre 1943 then {{PD-Russia-2008}} could apply. {{PD-Ukraine}} requires published before 1951 and the author died before 1951, {{PD-OLD}} applies to pre 1923 works, or pd in Country of origin on 1/1/96. I can find no license options that applies to unknown or unpublished works in Russia or Ukraine for us to be able to apply that option.The key is we need the author or publication details to apply the appropriate license Gnangarra 07:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks to you all who are trying to clear this situation out. I just want to add that in addition to some theater backstage taken photos many of this singer's photos were taken by his wife and his son. All photographs have been published many times in many different publications. Our family owns the archives. This is the example how a good intention to send a message about this singer has become such a red tape. I only asked a very naive question and ended up with all files deleted. I greatly thank you for your desire to solve this problem but I still very much confused about our photos which belonged entirely to us and we just wanted to share them with the music world. So sad but I thank you again for your attention. I hope it will be put back. Or I can put another photo with a right description. If you look back to my questions you will see that I asked many questions during my photo contributions and your recommendation was that there would not be any problems with my copyright on it. All photos in his published in US biography which copyright I own. Thank you very much.--129.105.19.103 15:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I can supply the names of the family members who took the photos. Thank you.--129.105.19.103 15:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I propose to undelete these pictures and to reopen the DR to make possible for Rozochka to fix the descriptions. Trycatch (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You are all having my deepest gratitude for discussing this issue the result regardless. Whatever instructions you have for the descriptions I will follow this time if you allow me to. The goal of our family was to let this singer enter the Western world of opera lovers he was never allowed to be due to the totalitarian rules of the country he lived in. Thank you. --129.105.19.103 15:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)--Rozochka (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Reopen and undeletes done. Fix the descriptions and then we'll see where we are.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I will try to fix them over weekend. I greatly appreciate your cooperation. --Rozochka (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I am confused with the reopened files because the boxes for the files still show "nominated for deletion". Do I need to wait till these boxes disappear and we will be free to fix the description? I am afraid to mess it up, thank you. I will wait for your instructions. --Rozochka (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The boxes will remain until we close this Deletion Request. Ignore the boxes, make your changes, and then the community will have an opportunity to comment -- the discussion above suggests that all should be OK for you. Then we will close this DR -- the boxes are removed as part of the closing process.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Jim, thank you. I understand now. --Rozochka (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have fixed and edited 5 (five) images in the A.A. file. The box 'comments' still show the old Russian version but I understand that if you approve my editing then the updated version will go automatically to the comments (?). As for the rest four images: Mazepa, Godun, Don Jose, and Otello (Kyev opera) then you are free to delete them. These photos were taken backstage by those who perished during the World War II. I think that if you approve the remaining five images it will be enough to illustrate this singer's biographical material. I am kindly asking you to please let me know if I need to do/fix/add anything else. I appreciate your time, cooperation, understanding of our goals and help. Thank you. --Rozochka (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I am not sure whether I can upload the images back into the article, or not. I think I have to wait for your decision - is this correct? Thank you. --Rozochka (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

rename request

I tried -- really, I did! -- to not give my upload a camera filename, but something went wrong, and a camera filename is what it ended up with. File:IMG 3914a.jpg. Rename template inserted. Thanks for fixing. Sorry for the nuisance. —Scs (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Not sure what went wrong with your upload form. Let us know if it happens again. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! (What happened was, I got too clever, I guess. I was uploading two near-identical images, and rather than starting all over again on the second one, I used the browser's Back button to go back to the upload form and tweak it slightly, basically changing just the source and upload filenames, and although it looked like it was going to use the specified upload filename again, and even warned me that it would overwrite an existing file unless I changed it, somehow it ignored it.) —Scs (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Musicintime

Hello, I noticed that the user Musicintime (talk · contribs) has uploaded several times a picture of a musician, which is permanently deleted as a copyvio as it comes from the artist's website. The user is either unable to understand the concept of copyright or is just ignorant. Could some admin please take a look into this case? Thanks. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 07:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted and he has been pointed to COM:OTRS. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 08:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Xraykann

Please block Xraykann (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , who is yet another Xraykan sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Update picture of the day caption

{{Editprotected}} Please update the caption for picture of today (Template:Potd/2010-11-17 (en) to "Picture of Nymphaea alba taken in Duisburg in August 2010." see discussion at Commons talk:Picture of the day#November 17, 2010 English caption. /Ö 10:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Lupo 12:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Policy Question

Since I spend most of my time on DRs and not on disciplining bad actors, I am not clear about what to do in the following case.

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barack Obama Parliament of India.jpg, I smelled a problem, noted that 24 of the user's 30 uploads had been deleted, and put a DR tag on the image. The uploader, Vrghs jacob (talk · contribs), responded with a clear and detailed description of how he had managed to take the photo himself from the floor of the Indian Parliament.

However, SpacemanSpiff found:

  • User:Vrghs jacob was in the USA at the time, as shown by IP addresses.
  • A web image from which this image was copied -- this image has remnants of the web image's watermark.

So, while there might, remotely, be a possibility that User:Vrghs jacob did, in fact, take the image, it appears that he told us a flat, direct, and detailed lie. So, what do we do? At the very least, should we somehow mark the uploader for an extra careful look on every image? Or, do we just say that he is not worth the trouble and put an indefinite block on the account?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Time for a block of some sort whatever else. I'd not indef for now but go for a week. The history will speak for itself when others pass by if he continues to do it (& the file is a copy vio to me!). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
While you splendid folks are investigating this, could you also take a look at Perumalnadar (talk · contribs) and Hellosooraj (talk · contribs). Both are very similar in nature to the above case, and we keep having to delete their images from en.wiki. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Wandered around with the broom. 1 blocked, the other a final warning. Thanks for pointing them out, cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

EU_image

Thanks for the above, James. New issue: I see that this:

was removed from Commons:Copyright tags. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:EU_image was deleted (rationale: "(Could easily be mistaken for {{tl:PD-Old}}, the way that images in the EU become PD.)")

I'd like this decision reversed. The actual copyright notice is very permissive: http://europa.eu/geninfo/legal_notices_en.htm states: © European Union, 1995-2010 Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.), such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use.

Thoughts? Sure, templates can be misused, as {{tl:PD-ineligible}} was, but such misuse can be corrected, as James just did, above, at my suggestion. The existence of such templates enables editors to make commons better at dealing with copyright issues, not worse. We don't delete PD-USGov just because a few USGov-generated images have restricted use (e.g. the FBI logo)... (Yes, it does now occur to me to do an undeletion request, but the connection to the above entry led me to ask here.) --Elvey (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of PD-ineligible

{{tl:PD-ineligible}} in use by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Szyizm on photographs. I'd be surpassed if all uploads aren't either copyvios or incorrectly tagged. Could an admin take a closer look?--Elvey (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Tagged all but one for DR. Under these circumstance, there is no reason why you could not have tagged these for DR -- it doesn't take an Admin.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
True. An admin will have to take a closer look at some point, so why is DR tagging best? I'm confused. Why are your 34 edits better than my one? Seriously, if I'm trying to suggest a shortcut that shouldn't be taken I'd like to know. (I suppose if I want to be an admin, 34 edits is good; no wonder my edit count is so low, despite so much editing.) Why not handle the 7 of the 8 edits as set? --Elvey (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question (what 34 edits?), so I'll take the part I do understand -- at least I think I understand it. I don't think these images meet the standard for {{Speedy}} deletion -- they are not obvious, at a glance deletes -- so they need a DR. Since you've already looked at them, you could have hung the DR on them. Since I hung the DR on them, I won't close the DRs next week -- I don't close my own nominations. As for not using a Mass Delete, it's true that it is easier to handel and close, but it takes a lot longer to nominate a Mass Dr than half a dozen singles -- I usually switch to a MAss Dr at ten or twelve images.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Suspect image

Could someone take a look at this? It may not be what it appears to be, but it's still apparently an image (prob. from a mobile phone) of a minor. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted as out of scope. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Musicintime (reloaded)

Hi,

after having reported User Musicintime (talk · contribs) yesterday for a copyvio, a commons admin deleted the file and left him a message asking to stop futher copyvios. The user is obviously ignorant. He uploaded a new picture from the same source. It may be possible that the user is managing the artist. However, this is no excuse for ignoring all hints, recommendations and warnings. I thus recommend stopping him permanently. Since I am am admin in de.wp I will see to it that the user will be blocked on de.wp as well. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 09:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes agreed. Blocked with the very strong suggestion that OTRS be used (& if so they could be unblocked) and if they do not do that and ignore policy further the block should be indef. Hope that is ok - regards and thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. FYI: User was blocked on DE indef. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 10:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I would disagree - I must be in a good mood today :) --Herby talk thyme 10:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry. How would Arnie say: He'll be back. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 11:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Different issue maybe then. It may be worth looking at getting the account locked on Meta? (there are no other obviously accounts here currently)? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
ACK. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 11:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Gisele Bündchen.jpg

Guys, the image in question does not infringe copyright, as it has been authorized via OTRS, this image was transferred after several years of negotiations with the Gisele's press agent. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

which one of the two images deleted has a OTRS ticket? Have you got a Ticketnumber?. Amada44  talk to me 16:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Restored for now anyway - doesn't seem to have had a pending ticket on it though. --Herby talk thyme 17:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Why did you overwrite the original image with a cropped version of it? --High Contrast (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. 2010100710009155, the second. The first was placed under another name, Gisele_B%C3%BCndchen_2006.jpg. The e-mail authorization is dated as October 7, the date of publication of the second photo. I'll see if they can put images in high resolution. really do not know why not put the photo in the original. But do not come up with conspiracy theories.Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

@Rodrigo, shouldn't you get a OTRS-Member flag then? Btw. I have put you on autopatroll. Amada44  talk to me 17:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I never knew I had it :P.Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This picture look like it's scanned from some magazine, see the raster in her face.--Motopark (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
It does not matter. The copyright holder can sell the pictures for a magazine and then put them under a free license. He is the owner, can do whatever he wants. Unless he sold the copyright, or hurt in some way the "image rights" of the person photographed. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

File:TIC 2010.jpg

Can someone check, are this picture same that has been deleted as copyvio before from uploader--Motopark (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In these five edits - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - CommonsDelinker didn't remove the entire file link. Could the bot logic be changed to make better edits in the future? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Franciscolopes.jpg

Could someone restore orinial size and delete other sizes versions.--Motopark (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Restored, but added a no-permission tag as photographers name in EXIF didn't resemble uploaders'. --Túrelio (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Same site copyvios

Image uploads by Gobade.abhay1 (talk · contribs) are (I've checked 4 so far) are uploads of "clipped versions" of images from Rediff movies. Do I need to tag them all or can someone just do a mass delete, they're all the same resolution/size. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, SpacemanSpiff, for spotting this. I've nuked the whole set with the exception of File:KK Menon.JPG and File:KK Menon 2.JPG which appear to be different from the other images (larger resolution, EXIF data) and which I haven't found on the movies.rediff.com site. Do you have any idea where these files could have been copied from? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Here you go. BTW, I'm cleaning out Indian film related copyvios on en.wiki and I will be tagging a lot out here over the next few days, so if you see an abnormally high level of activity from me out here, don't be alarmed, it's not a bot, I'm just checking and tagging :). cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again, SpacemanSpiff, I've deleted them as well. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
my mistake :) Wont happen again Gobade.abhay1 (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Too much is tooooo much

There are already two versions of the file:

I think the PNG version is toooooo much. --Createaccount 17:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please poste on the wiki where it is used. But at the moment the picture is not used, so maby the problem is already solved? --Schlurcher (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
You could file a bugzilla: report about the png version.  Docu  at 05:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It is already reported in Bugzilla:9497. /Ö 10:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Remember, please, that Commons is a repository of images for many uses. Some of those uses are not on the web, using an ancient process known as printing where images are shown on paper without the benefit of electronics. For a printer, an image of a map that is 4,500 x 7,500 pixels is a good size -- even bigger would be better -- in order to be able to hold quality in the various typefaces used on it.
Also, please remember that our needs are also changing -- my two screens total about 4,000 pixels wide, up from 2,500 two years ago. How long will it be before we routinely have 7,500 pixel-wide screens on our desks? (And yes, I see that the image is 7,500 vertical, not horizontal, but the same question applies).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to store two versions (png, jpg) of the same original image (djvu). If I need a bmp version of the map in order to be printed, changed, or any other work done, then I download the djvu version to my PC, convert it to bmp (or what I need) and the do the work. There are so many diferent graphic formats, it seems to me not very useful to store all them "in case of ...". Long time ago here I represented a similar point of view as you. I wanted to store in the same format diferent sizes of the image (300x500, 1000x1500 etc). They told to me to store it in djvu format only once, and I think now it is the right way. That is the reason why we are asked to store the best available resolution of the image. --Createaccount 21:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
But DjVu, unlike PNG, is a lossy image format. So any conversion to an other format or retouching will lead to degradation of quality. –Tryphon☂ 22:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, You live and learn. PNG is better because its "children" will have the same quality. But in this case the original image is a djvu file and the existing png/jpg is generated (with loss) from the djvu file. So, the "children" of the png/jpg images will never achieve the quality of the original djvu file. Why should we store images that can not be better than the already stored djvu?. --Createaccount 01:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I created the files because the DJVU rendering is very bad, and djvu support in browsers/image viewers(default ones)is limited. I created not only a jpg but also a png file because the image could really use some editing (the creases), and having a png source file would be beneficial. I propose that we at least keep the jpg version, and keep the superseded tag on the djvu file because having a jpg version on the commons servers really is beneficial (see reasons above). Also, for editing, and, as Jim pointed out, for easy acces of a lossless copy(png) of the original may be useful(most people do not have the skills to convert/find an image viewer for djvu). Richardprins (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Createaccount, I would have preferred if you had contacted me first before editing the description pages of the files like this.
I would have preferred if you had contacted me before, during, or after editing pages of the files like this, but you didn't it. I did it. Best regards, --Createaccount 20:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
? Anyways, a user called Ö has deleted the deletion requests from the pages, and if no one else is in support of Createaccount I think this issue should be dropped Richardprins (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Editor uploading copyvio images

See [12] e.g. File:Tiger-ranthambhore-04 edited-1.jpg which has a copyright tag. Others without tags look like obvious copyvio, and editor is adding text on en.wiki that is copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Files found to be not the user's work and has been deleted. Bidgee (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That was fast and thorough. I suspect I'll be blocking the editor soon on en.Wiki as I've given them a final warning for copyvio there. Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Similar files separately claimed

When I see duplicate images with separate authors I tend to get suspicious that it was sourced at a third point … File:Patocrator Albertiniano.jpg and File:Religiosi Albertiniani.jpg File:Religiosi Albertiniani.jpg and found here. To me it seems more likely both have appropriated the image. Other thoughts?  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyleft or copyright?

File:GalaxyPictTinoHamid.jpg, File:2Galaxyopalhands.jpg and File:OPAL42.jpg were all uploaded to commons yesterday under a copyleft license, but with no source information of any kind. In the w:Galaxy Opal article on Wikipedia (the existence of which is questionable in itself, but that's an enwp issue), the three images are claimed to be copyrighted. What would the logical next step be here? Nominate for deletion/speedy? Any advice? Strange Passerby (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

While it has a source to the author, I've marked it with "missing essential source information" since it is likely to have come from somewhere online. License is also questionable. Bidgee (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Kl44

Please block Kl44 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , who is yet another Xraykan sockpupppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Extra account blocked too - thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Inter9200

Please block Inter9200 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , who is yet another JAT67 sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Could some comment this discussion

Could some comment this discussion [13], are the permission valid ?--Motopark (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done and no. --Túrelio (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian --> Serbian+English ???

123iti (talk · contribs) I have a discussion with User:123iti about the hungarian and serbian filenames. 123iti changed the name of more dozen of pictures with the reason "more descriptive name". The pictures was uploaded in 2005-'7 by a this time inactive Hungarian author Sors bona (talk · contribs), who gave his pictures compact hungarian names: Bikács1.jpg, etc, with serbian and english description. 123iti renamesed the filenames into serbian form with english description in the filenames.

I think this is not the fair way of contributing. The anihilation of hungarian names is the only work by 123iti. I ask the administrators to not fulfill the rename proposals by USER:123iti. --Beroesz (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, most of the files that I proposed for renaming did not had compact hungarian names. For example, name of this file is Nagyg, while proper Hungarian name of that place is Nagygájon. I only tried to propose file names more understandable for everybody and to use common English names and English descriptions for files. Author released these images into public domain which means that everybody can change anything in these images, including filenames. I do not understand what problem user Beroesz have with this since the only reason why some of these files are in Hungarian is that author of images speaks that language but subjects of these files are not at all related to Hungary or to Hungarian speaking area. Most of these files are showing Serb, Slovak and German churches in Serbia, in settlements that are mainly inhabited by Serbs, Slovaks and formerly by Germans (I only used official names of the country that are also common names used in English language). Usage of Hungarian names for these files would be same if we use Serbian names for settlements in Brazil. I would ask user Beroesz to say valid reason why these files should be named in Hungarian (aside from the fact that it is his language and that he might prefer to see everything named in that language). I believe that we should to follow objective and not subjective reasons. 123iti (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Small supplement: 123iti did not changed the filenames where the hungarian and serbiannames are same. This is more than telltale. --Beroesz (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

So you now accusing me for not changing filenames? I would change them if you did not come to disrupt my work. 123iti (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


Let's take File:Nagybikacs2.jpg: It's a German gravestone in a village with Hungarian majority in Serbia uploaded on an international project. There's no clear choice which language is the most useful designation. Therefore, in my opinion, the only reasonable solution is to accept the creator's will and keep the language he has chosen. If that is Hungarian the name should stay in Hungarian. The easiest solution however is to keep the current name and not renaming at all. It's just a name. Not even a name, but just a technical designator. Just a string of characters that enables computers to adress the file. It's good to have designators that are meaningful to humans too, but if it leads to conflicts then having a less human-readable designator is just fine. --Slomox (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. It's a German gravestone in a village with Serb majority in Serbia (where you got idea that this village has Hungarian majority?). 123iti (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, if it's not, en:Bikač should be updated, cause it is misleading then. It tells that the village was inhabited by Germans and Hungarians (Serbians are not even mentioned). Well, the time was early 20th century so that may have changed (in the case of the Germans I know that they left - forced or semi-voluntarily). --Slomox (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
As the village is part of en:Bašaid which according to its article has just 100 Hungarians, apparently the Hungarians were forced to leave too. So no Hungarian majority in Bikač. --Slomox (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, Bikač was mainly inhabited by Germans before WW2 (see this 1910 ethnic map) and mainly by Serbs after WW2 (see this 1971 ethnic map). By 1981, village was joined with neighbouring Bašaid and today it is a sub-village that is part of Bašaid and this joined village has serb majority too (see this 2002 ethnic map). We should resolve actual problems with actual demographic data, not with historical one. 123iti (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
And I also proposed to user Beroesz that I will not use rename proposals for files that are showing Hungarian majority settlements if that means so much to him, but I still do not see reason why files that are showing Serb, Slovak, German or Croat churches or settlements in Serbia should be named in Hungarian? 123iti (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The reason would be that the person who created the images named them in Hungarian. The uploader's choice is not necessarily the only language to consider, but you can also not push it aside altogether. Therefore I'd say: stick with the original name. --Slomox (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I working as sysop in the huwiki, we have many ethnic hungarian contributors, living not in Hungary. I promote regularly the using of Commons for picture uploading. My activity was refused several times. The majority of huwiki users think that wikipictures made by hungarian users and for the huwiki must be uploaded to Commons with hungarian name. We will losse this contributors if we canot esteem his/her wish. Without this people User:123iti would have 0 pictures of serbian curches. And what is 123iti's gratitude for the unknown aurhors? He changed the "ethnic identity" of the work. I think tis is not fair behavior.

Many people working for Commons from many countries. They generously published the pictures under a free license with some very-very narrow limitation. I think we have to keep so many content from the original (inculding ethnic identity) as possible. --Beroesz (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not know for other authors, but the author of these images relased his work into public domain and that mean that anybody is free to change anything there. And author himself did not objected to any of my renaming proposals. I do not see that user Beroesz has right to speak in the name of an author that is no longer here. I do not think that author of these images had nationalistim intentions when he used Hungarian names for Serb churches but behaviour of user Beroesz is a clear example of ethnic/linguistic nationalism due to which he forcing names only because they are in his own language. And what "ethnic identity" of the work he speaks about? How an image created by camera can have such "ethnic identity"? It is really shame that my work where I tried to make file names undoubtly better is disrupted by pure nationalism. 123iti (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The commons had no directives about filenames, when the pictures were uploaded, the uploader tought everything is OK. (Yes, it is very possible, he chose a hungarian name, because he is an ethnic hungarian contributor. Is this pure nationalism?) You came after four years (and without an own picture) and put into the trash the identity of other contributors. This is unfair. Beroesz (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, 123iti free licenses allow you to modify images, but that doesn't necessarily mean that your edit is well-directed.
You are accusing Beroesz of nationalism, but it was you who started changing the language of file names. Isn't it also nationalistic to say that an image of a place in Serbia cannot have a Hungarian filename? --Slomox (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I have not say that an image showing place in Serbia cannot have a Hungarian filename. My only intention was to propose better and more descriptive English file names which are understandable by everybody in the world. In fact I recently proposed some files with Serbian names to be renamed into more descriptive English forms too. See this one as example: [14]. It is not important is original file name in Hungarian or Serbian. I think that files should have best possible description of its subject and that such description should be in English language. But, I am only somebody who proposing these files for renaming. It is up to admins to decide will they accept or decline my proposals. I think I am not the one who violate rules here. In this file, user Beroesz simply blanked my proposal and not allowed to admins to examine it. I think that he has no right to remove that if he is not an admin. I will say only something more about claim stated by user Beroesz that file names are reflecting ethnic identity of the uploader. User sors bona whose images I proposed for renaming uploaded much of these images under undefined working names, not even under proper Hungarian name. Here are some examples: Egyhzker1.jpg (it should be Egyházaskér in proper Hungarian),[ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ftto1.jpg Ftto1.jpg] (Feketetó in proper Hungarian),[ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oromh2.jpg Oromh2.jpg] (Oromhegyes in proper Hungarian), etc. Usage of these working titles imply that file titles were not of any importance to the uploader and that he used these titles in simple technical way. I do not see how somebody can be hurt if such working titles without any meaning in any language are changed into English descriptions understable by everybody. Anyway, as a sort of compromise, I will not propose name change of files that showing settlements with Hungarian majority (these 3 examples that I elaborated are also settlements with Hungarian majority and if user Beroesz love these working titles without meaning in any language I will let him have them). However, I have right to propose few other files for renaming, and it is up to admins to accept or refuse my proposals. 123iti (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Some silliness going on currently - relating to this (fprot for now - should be changed later) but also there have been vandal edits to user templates (the affected ones are now sprot). I'll be offline shortly - thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Idiots are still around. I've probably protected a few too many templates but I guess the user type ones sprot should be ok for maybe. Feel free to revert but worth watching for a bit. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I am watching all new IP edits for a bit. Amada44  talk to me 09:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - much appreciated --Herby talk thyme 11:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
This is going for weeks now already. We had it on september 30, October 3, 12, 14, ... many more times. Looks like many edits and accounts are oversighted(?), only a few traces left. I can reconstruct it with my protection log, all this templates have been vandalized. He found them via Templates used on this page in edit modus, the vandalism was reverted, the edit was hidden with RevisionDelete, the template was protected. The actions have been oversighted (I think) so most edits disappeared. The sum of accounts must be ~50 in this recent vandal spree, I think some accounts are also removed from the logs, but I dont know if I not checked the logs correctly or if account removal is possible with oversight. And honestly I dont care, the world is better without this guy. Watch template namespace edits. --Martin H. (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Must be someone who has nothing better to do, surely they will have to get sick of it soon? I'm keeping my eye on it but soon as I see it someone has already dealt with it. Bidgee (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Bit of an update. I've now rangeblocked a /18 which had almost nothing but this vandal's accounts on. I'm not a fan of rangeblocks but I've blocked his before and it may be worth extending it beyond my current block of two weeks. I need to dig a bit deeper for other ranges. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Napa1111

Please block Napa1111 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for failing to get a clue before they make an even bigger mess than they already have. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

They're yet another sockpuppet of Fark (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , by the way. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked it - again. Thanks for helping out! --High Contrast (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Deletion of images":
I am still waiting for your approval to restore the images - please, see the above discussion "Deletion of images" - Azrikan. I will appreciate if you let me know if I can upload the images again. Many thanks. --Rozochka (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)--Rozochka (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

rename File:Frisia 600-734-la.svg

Could someone please rename this file to File:Frisia 716-la.svg? I created this file and was alerted later on that the original dating I gave wasn't correct. I changed the date in the image itself but the name is still the same. Thank you Richardprins (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

User:B79

Please block B79 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , who is yet another Xraykan sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You would think they would get bored by now. Found an extra one (& blocked it). There might be one or two they have created and forgotten but there is not enough info for me to be sure. Thanks as always --Herby talk thyme 15:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bearly Decent Bill Drea Bear-1980-82.jpg

Nominated over three months ago, still no OTRS permission, and still no admin decision. Hello!? Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done, by mattbuck. --Túrelio (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

File:AlexanderBoarman.jpg

I just uploaded this image and noticed the wrong spelling of the man's name which is indeed Boarman, not Boardman. Could someone move this to the correct name? Or do I have to upload it another time? Regards, --Scooter (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request

I have uploaded back the images of Azrikan (see the previous discussion "Deletion of images?") with the corrected copyright sources. I have also decided not to use all images in the articles. Please, delete the following files from the wikimedia (which are not used in the articles and I don't want them for the public domain either): File:File:Azrikan as Andrii in Mazepa.jpg File:Azrikan as Godun in Razlom.jpg File:Azrikan as Otello in Kiev opera theater.jpg File:Azrikan as Don José in Carmen.jpg

Many thanks for all your help. I apologize for asking so many questions during this process which is a difficult one for me. Please, let me know if I need to do anything else for these files. Many thanks.--Rozochka (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Rename/delete image

There's a pornographic image, Marys.jpg (of a vulva), that shows up when searching Mary (o_O). Please can someone remove or rename this image? Richardprins (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. However, image probably a copyvio anyway. --Túrelio (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Danke! Richardprins (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Pedro Fernandez walmart.jpg

In the original page http://soundcheck.walmart.com/acceso-total/ are © 2009 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., can someone check lisence.--Motopark (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The user profile of the Flickr source says "Lunchbox (aka Lunchbox Studios) is a shopper engagement agency that creates and connects custom content to be used throughout retail: in-store video displays, in-store retail television networks, point of purchase and online shopping web sites." and the agencies website mentions Walmart among their clients. Overall it sounds credible. --Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer to see OTRS given such a specific copyright statement? --Herby talk thyme 13:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User:JosuéBatista30

Please convert the one-week block of JosuéBatista30 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  to indefinite; they are yet another Paulinho15 sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
For the record: Confirmed sockpuppet. --Martin H. (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Diputado raul joaquin perez.jpg

This "own work" seems to be the same that appears in the official web site of the politician, http://www.raulperez.com/acerca-de/. It is used in es:Raúl Pérez (diputado argentino) wich is a candidate for deletion. --Andrea (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Tagged as likely copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion

There's quite a backlog in resolving discussions at Commons:Categories for discussion. With much help from User:Docu, I've added a section to the page explaining how to close a discussion. If anyone's looking for a task, I'm sure any work there would be much appreciated (though doubtless occasionally complained about). - Jmabel ! talk 02:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Since it's easier to nominate categories, we get quite a few requests for typos that could just be speedily deleted. If admins could close and delete these once in a while, that would help reduce the list.  Docu  at 11:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

account "JiWales"

As of today, an account JiWales (talk · contribs) was opened. I find that username rather inappropriate. Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with you. --Herby talk thyme 11:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 Info No activity from the account on other projects, but they seem to be editing anonymously on the Russian Wikipedia edition as 94.153.44.187. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Thats the Armenian sock who kindly shares web grabbed images of armenian personalities with us. Blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I must be getting past it - never thought to check :(. Thanks Martin --Herby talk thyme 13:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Without Kirk Kerkorian and without the favorite target article on ru.wp, an OR project subpage on famous Armenians, beeing deleted it is not a duck anymore. Was surprised myself to see him again ;) --Martin H. (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone close request

Old request Commons:Deletion requests/File:NordeaLogo.svg, please close it, thanks--Motopark (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done -- but we have hundreds of old DRs, and not enough Admins. This was a logo that might or might not have been PD-text and didn't have much debate. Let's not get into the habit of adding relatively minor DRs to this noticeboard. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

to the spam-list

Though I somewhat hate our spam-list, could this be added to it: www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ban-wikipedia/ . --Túrelio (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done - not needed on here as far as I can see. --Herby talk thyme 13:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion request by uploader

Please have a look at the helpme request at User_talk:Tomruen#Help_batch_deleting. Thanks. -- Orionist ★ talk 01:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done (or at least in process -- need to know exactly what the uploader wants)      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In need of review

I found these and this first one I looked at was an obvious copyvio. Inadequate time at present and a few other things to to but if anyone else has the time...? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done, also thank you to who ever was also helping out with the images! :) Bidgee (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - appreciated - I had other stuff to do. Regards --Herby talk thyme 13:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Huge mass of suspicious images

Hello fellas, I would like to please ask for eyes on a large number of highly suspicious Commons images that appeared on enWiki's balkans articles, and which seem to me to be completely lacking basic verifiable source info and/or licensing.

Thanks, regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I reporting this in the wrong place? :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It looks like some are tagged with {{No source since}}, so someone should eventually deal with them. You could definitely tag the rest the same way (& follow up with the uploaders). - Jmabel ! talk 02:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


Its not only that, but there's no licensing. {{PD-Yugoslavia}} which is exclusively used under "permission" explicitly states:

This template must not be used on its own. To establish PD status it must be used only with an appropriate license template such as {{PD-Croatia}}. You must make sure the file content has been declared as public domain by the laws of the relevant successor state.

No source, no licensing. They're a veritable flood of unsourced, unlicensed images uploaded by the same User:Свифт, who just continues uploading. Here's a few more:
I'm just sayin' something should be done. Are you guys gonna take care of this? We're expanding the article where the images are being used and I don't know what to do with them. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Tagged them all.--DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello. What do you do when you find a picture like this? It's not Lagos, and I don't know where was taken... Thank you, Gons (¿Digame?) 12:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

✓ Done I guess it's Lagos Portugal, I've just changed the category it's in. Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
All the rest of this uploader's images are from Nigeria, so Lagos in Portugal seems extremely unlikely. Ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
True, and I can't locate it in Lagos, Portugal, but it does not look like an African city -- buildings, weather, dress, clothes, people -- all feel like the center of a European city. The other two possibilities for Lagos -- France and Greece -- are both way too small.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Your observations are correct but I can't find it in Portugal either, so maybe it is just misnamed and misdescribed in the first place. Maybe one of the individual country project can help us. Lagos, France is far too small. I don't know the Greek one. Ww2censor (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

speedy of Quality images?

Do we have any special guideline or SOP if a quality image is requested for speedy-deletion to be replaced by an "improved version" by the original uploader/photographer. The case is File:Quito Acordion player.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed my comment as it wans't really helpful :) Amada44  talk to me 20:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC) 
The potential issue here isn't admin-related but is QI-related. The QI status of an image is "eternal", but that status only applies to the version promoted. The edit is a new version, not the promoted version, so its an open question as to if it is a QI.
In this case, I think it is - the edit probably doesn't make a real difference, but in the general case its possible that the "improved" version is not actually QI (for example may be over-sharpened).
Also, its QI - not FP - there is not a delist procedure for QI. I suppose easiest resolution would be for the new version to be submitted to QI. If it passes, it can then replace the old version etc.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I've forwarded it to the requester. --Túrelio (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Company logos

Creeganm is indiscriminately uploading company logos, some of which do not pass the threshold of originality (e.g., File:Aig.jpg, although we already have a better version). Others include graphics and clearly pass the threshold. Could someone please delete as appropriate? Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless you think there is something about them that is very different from the other 3,000 items we delete monthly, rather than raise the issue here, why don't you tag them with {{Speedy}} or {{Delete}} as you think appropriate. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Edition of a protected template

Hello,

I think there is a problem with {{CC-Layout}}, see File:Wgretz.jpg for an example. Something is not working properly. I wanted to fix it but the page is protected. Could you have a look at it ? thanks. Udufruduhu (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed File:Wgretz.jpg --Leyo 10:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Stale deletion discussion needs closing

Could someone please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Javad Nekounam.jpg? The discussion has been open since September 19. Nsk92 (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass delete questions

I've just finished cleaning up a couple of hundred upload mistakes at the request of the uploader, see above Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mass_deletion_request_by_uploader.

I first tried Special:Nuke, but in this case that came up with over 2,000 uploads by this prolific editor and it defaults to "delete all". You can uncheck the boxes for those you don't want deleted, but not 1,800 of them.

So, I created a DR and used DelReqHandler to make a one click per image delete, still a lot of clicks.

So, two questions:

  • Is there now a better way to do this that I don't know about? I know we can get a bot to do it for very large deletes, but for a few hundred, that seems overkill.
  • What is the procedure to request a change to Special:Nuke? I would like to see a button for Select All (as it now defaults) and another for Select None. Of course, adding dates or other selection criteria would be good as well.

Thoughts?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Should be easy to implement. File a bug in bugzilla and I'll take it. Kaldari (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done, thanks. Bug 26185 - Addition to Special:Nuke function.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
New code checked in: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/77538 Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

** self

For some reason the template Template:** self is used in some files. I think it can come from a license selection form using bullet points. Im however not able to locate the source of the problem, it must come from edit before November 25. It appears for various license selections, {{** self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}, {{** self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0}} and maybe more. So maybe it is a technical problem.

Note that one user created the template, I substituted his contrib in one file and deleted the template because various users placed that template on their files and one user can not make an explantion (in russian) for other users. --Martin H. (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe the problem is related to this edit? Would need to test this on the upload form to be sure. Jafeluv (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Nvm, found it. Jafeluv (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thx, was a copy&paste mistake [15], I fixed the other forms. Usage of Template:** self is left for cleanup... --Martin H. (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
...✓ Done. I assumed it a valid license selection and just removed the "** ". --Martin H. (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please delete album covers

Please delete album covers uploaded by Special:Contributions/Lord_Ozzy--Motopark (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Album covers done     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


User:Tony Castle requiring a lesson

Is there any speaking this user's language (Spanish or Portuguese?) who can teach him categorizing? User:High Contrast and I failed in English language. See for instance the categories of File:BAVIERA. MÚNICH. Hofbräuhaus.jpg. -- Ies (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It is Spanish. Why not asking at Commons:Café? --Leyo 17:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I was politely asked...

... to "please f… off", what to do about that ? - Erik Baas (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have asked the Swedish photographer to grant this picture to Wikipedia, with the pic of the studded tyre inside the action picture. It is essential to demonstrate the tyres the competitors use in Scandinavian iceracing. Nobody has asked to crop the picture and nobody else but me has used it so far in an article. I have no problem with two versions, one cropped and one uncropped. But do not continue to ruin the information in the article I wrote by replacing the picture with the cropped one! --RX-Guru (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Could you please provide a link to the involved image? Please be specific instead of rude. Jcb (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Resolved, imo. The frame, watermark and the image-in-image was realy not so good - a question of time how long it will take untill someone removes at least the watermark and frame. The article text however refered to this image-in-image, so simply removing it wasnt good either. It is splitted in two images now. --Martin H. (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

Always nice to be at Commons.

But can you plz, speed up the deletion of File:Biblia Fjellstedt II (1890) 962.jpg and File:Biblia Fjellstedt II (1890) 961.jpg that I am free to finish my uploads for today and go to the next project, tack! -- Lavallen (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Jafeluv (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Tusen tack!!! -- Lavallen (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

delete redir

Please delete this redir for renaming: File:Bácsújlak Szent Anna templom5.jpg! Thanks and gratitude: Beroesz (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done by Túrelio. Jafeluv (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Pel12

Please block Pel12 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , who is yet another Xraykan sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, nuked, CU'd and blocked another :) Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Miryam.jpg

Please delete the latest revision of File:Miryam.jpg. The original file was overwritten by copyright violator Multicentrum (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log). —LX (talk, contribs) 15:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 17:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Abvd5474576756

Please block Abvd5474576756 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , who is yet another Fark sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Done by Martin H by the look of it. --Herby talk thyme 17:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, done (and confirmed). One of the files was on my watchlist and I noted the copyvio taggings. --Martin H. (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of files in Category:Media without a source

I ask the admins who work with files with unclear or without source information to check and delete the images they have marked nsd. It´s a lot of work to check files from Category:Media without a source (backlog more than three month) again before deleting. Files should deleted by the admin who have tagged with nsd, in my eyes. The reason is that he knows why he has marked the file, and maybe after this he has contact with the uploader. --GeorgHH • talk   13:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that many of these files are tagged as "no source" when a source is given. Or when the absence of a source is no reason for deletion anyway. I sometimes revert the tags, but often the tagger refuses to take this to an ordinary DR, and reinstates the tag. So now there is a half year backlog. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Martin H. is worst. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
An unreliable or completely false source claim is no source. Read Commons:Licensing and stop making false license claims based on nothing. --Martin H. (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The expert on licensing should fix the fields that he feels need fixing, instead of deleting photos that are perfectly fine. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
But that's the point – files without correct source information are not "perfectly fine" for Commons. Commons licensing policy states: "Specifically, the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not: … The Source of the material. … The primary source should be provided." Note: Commons licensing policy. Not Commons licensing things-we-feel-would-be-nice-to-fix. An "expert on licensing" (whatever that means) typically doesn't possess telepathic skills, and can't guess where the uploader sourced it from. Therefore, it is up to the uploader to add this. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
We've had this discussion a lot of times now. Like I've said over and over, it is not usually about the whether or not a source is "perfectly fine". It is about users who do not want to take things to discussion when their taggings are contested. In previous discussions, there have been consensus to do this. ZooFari 17:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
What most files without correct source information need is not discussion, but for the uploaders to provide truthful information about where they sourced them from. Not to mention that tags are often removed without any notice whatsoever, which doesn't exactly seem to invite discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
See this for an example of Martin H.'s edit warring, which he believes is more "efficient" than an ordinary DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
With that particular file, I doubt a deletion request would be efficient either, since the uploader, despite being unusually willing to remove the false assertion of authorship that they originally made and to discuss the matter (unlike you – stealthy blanking being more your style), stubbornly refused to state where they sourced it from. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Right. A simple piece of information - a reference - is missing, we can not invent this information in a discussion. Someone scanned this from a book or newspaper, the file was not first published on an internet server in Somalia or suddenly or magically appeared on the uplaoders computer. The uplaoder provided tons of information why from Somalia is PD but the source informtion is still missing. In case the uploader not scanned it, not even an immidiate source is provided. --Martin H. (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to your relentless stubborness, these images clog Category:Media without a source. Why are you edit warring instead of making an ordinary DR? Certainly, this is not "efficient". Is it because this is the only way to get this deleted? I am quite certain that it would survive a regular DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
"Survive", to "get it deleted"... what are you talking about? This project is not a game where some people try to delete something and some others try to push half-baked informtion through filters or invent their own information based on assumptions. We try to build a media repository with files published under a free license and files that are doubtlessly public domain. For other "media repository" you may visit http://images.google.com. That media repository is a great opportunity to import files if they are doubtlessly public domain or the other way around, to recommit files if the copyright status is not clear enough. I have little doubt if you relay understood this project, we are not creating informtion or invent legal information, we only collect them. --Martin H. (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Why not make a DR? It would be your chance to educate the rest of us ignoramuses. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Why not tag with {{subst:nsd}} as that is the sole and only problem and tagging so is exactly what Commons:Deletion_policy#Regular_deletion suggests? --Martin H. (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The intention of my posting here was to say: If (e.g.) Martin H. tagging a file nsd he also have to check the file again after about one week. And if the file is still missing correct or complete source information it has to be deleted bei Martin H. because tagging nsd was his action. --GeorgHH • talk   11:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The deleting admin should be different from the user who added the tag. That way two different users has looked at the file and mistakes are less likely. /Ö 11:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree, and thats the reson why Pieter comes to the impression to declare me the "worst" because I support this four eyes principle. Most of the older files in the no source category are tagged by me because files tagged by other users are already deleted or fixed - by me. --Martin H. (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the cases are difficult to decide without further information, for instance if the author gives "own" as source and the picture is tagged "missing source" like in File:Muriatferrellkickoff.jpg. Here it means a lot of work to find a proper solution. --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_24&oldid=372570657"