Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Copyrighted versions in File:Anthony Kennedy Official.jpg

Hi, I had tagged File:Anthony Kennedy Official.jpg (which was then versions 25 February 2006, 3 May 2009, and 23 July 2009) for deletion because it was a work copyrighted to Peter Reid, who is not a government employee.[1] User:FT2 reverted my tag and uploaded a crop of a public domain image to this file name (version 8 November 2010).[2] I do not believe this is good procedure (my personal choice would be to let the copyright violation be deleted, then upload a "good" image under the file name), but now we have a filespace with copyright violations in its history (although the current version is legitimate). Can an administrator please delete the first three versions? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Done I agree with you on procedure, but all's well that ends well. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Abvd5474553543

Please block Abvd5474553543 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, who is yet another Fark sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Blocked and deleted all his copyvios. But watch out: A new account (at minimum) will be created this day and other copyvios will follow. Thanks. --High Contrast (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Next socket puppet neutralized: User:Abvd547455354343. --High Contrast (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

CU'd and caught another one :) Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request

Could I have a deletion of this image, please, uploaded in error? I didn't crop it properly and my screen is visible in the background. I've reuploaded it, so the first one is redundant. Sorry to ask here, but I don't know what the usual procedure is. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. By the way, you can just upload a new version by clicking "Upload a new version of this file" on the file description page. (Or just tag the file with {{Speedy}}.) Jafeluv (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! SlimVirgin (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:202.45.119.53

Please block this user. New account, as there are no edits before today. I'm not sure what category of troll it is, but so far it's only uploaded rubbish. Archolman (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked IP 202.45.119.53 (talk · contribs). Nonsense Galleries (and their talkpages) deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion requests by IP address 174.109.103.21

There are (I think) 12 deletion requests by this anonymous user. See [3]. I don't think they are vandalism but are in fact genuine requests by a FlickR photographer [4]. They are all the denial (or attempted reversal) of free CC licenses on his FlickR images. They all need to be dealt with together as the issues are all the same and the evidence of each photograph bears very much on the others (eg. the period of time images on his site were available as CC-by). Please could an admin merge all these requests so we can consider them as a whole. --Simonxag (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone notice this substituted image? Seems libelous to me. Ww2censor (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah well... at least we know it is the owner of the Flickr account who is making these DRs. (At first I thought that it was random, because other DRs concerned a different account, but that is the same person.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say we can delete most of them without great loss. esp. all those medium quality unused tulip images. Amada44 ^{talk to me} 18:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We should start thinking about how usefull our FlickR-grabbing-bots really are.--Yikrazuul (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Wieliczka-saltmine-kinga.jpg

In this picture File:Wieliczka-saltmine-kinga.jpg are missing source, I find perhaps the original source https://www.flickr.com/photos/puisney/1732232028/, can we upload original size picture and add this source to sourceline.--Motopark (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sexual content poll

I just noticed this edit appear on the poll as an oppose vote, its a new account with no prior edits are there notices outside of commons asking for opinions or is this a Commons community decision only. Before knocking such votes on the head what is the requirements for the poll process. Gnan garra 14:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a small notice on top of en:Special:Watchlist. --Foroa (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Was this so-called content poll properly announced on all relevant Commons boards (VP, Forum, etc.)? A short scan over the voting usernames suggests there was canvassing outside of Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Many man get active when there are stories about sex ;). --Foroa (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been announced at de-wp as well. It think that this is ok as the policy affects other projects. As difficult as it may be to understand the context of this proposed policy at Commons for those users who haven't been active at Commons before, we must acknowledge that we are embedded at the core of the Wikimedia project space. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please delete promotional videos

Please delete promotional videos of Special:Contributions/Bloofmeister, not used and seems to have logos and promotional material.--Motopark (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nominate them for deletion (see COM:MASSDEL), it's not a speedy case. Trycatch (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, now some admin has deleted most of them--Motopark (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerned about Badzil and Whowiki

Badzil (talk · contribs) has tagged for speedy deletion a load of images uploaded by Whowiki (talk · contribs). It seems to centre around Whowiki's re-licencsing of his/her images from the original GNU & CC licences, to one which states "Image may not be reused or modified" e.g. Original with licence and with licence removed. I thought that image licences were given in perpetuity and could not be revoked, so what's happening here? Can this mess be undone? It is affecting a lot of files and really needs an admin to step in and sort things out. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to add COM:L states "The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable." This implies that what Whowiki has done is not allowable, yet the images are being deleted. Why? --Biker Biker (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Related discussions exist.[5][6] I agree with the deletions. The contributions are recent, the uploader does not object and seems not to understand licensing. Commons:Undeletion requests may be used to review deletions. The COM:L provision is used most often in cases when a disgruntled contributor wishes to delete contributions used in many articles. That is disruptive. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Request to delete old file version

I would like to have the old (uncropped) versions of File:Gale Ann Hurd and James Cameron.jpg deleted for copyright issues. A request was made for deletion of this file, but the consensus was to crop out the copyrighted section. Since then, the uploader has reverted it twice and responded to a talk page message about the issue in a fairly uncivil manner (including making accusations of myself and other editors of being "arrogant" and having "nazi attitudes"). I refuse to deal with editors like this, so I was referred to make this deletion request from this page. Dream out loud (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is still being discussed with the uploader. Please wait for a resolution so we can avoid pointless upload-warring and perhaps retain a valuable contributor. Powers (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Signatures

Aren't signatures/autographs of living persons (File:PriyankaChopra Signature.jpg) copyrighted? Not sure myself, so thought I'd ask here before tagging. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It depends. Some guidelines are documented here. Jafeluv (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Judging from the contents of Category:Signatures of people from India it appears that they aren't copyrighted by Indian law (but I haven't a clue). Should the tags be changed from CC-BY to PD-Signature? These signatures shouldn't classify as works of the uploader, right? (I checked a few of the signatures and it appears that CC-BY is used quite often.) SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please change the licenses. Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please close deletion request

Can someone close this case Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yleisradion ensimmäinen tunnus.png, thanks--Motopark (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Done --Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 10:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Pel13

Please block Pel13 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, who is yet another Xraykan sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Wknight94 ^talk 19:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but there was actually no need to delete File:Songül Öden.jpg. Apart from the initial low-resolution upload and the self-appointment to Flickr reviewer, the license was correct for once, and the file came from what appears to be a legit Flickr account. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would've thought we would keep such a thing deleted to deter the banned user, but I restored just in case. Wknight94 ^talk 20:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see where you're coming from on that one. We don't seem to have any clear rules. In a lot of cases, it makes sense to glance at en:Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors for guidance. In the case of a user who's already created 30 puppet accounts, I don't think it's going to make one iota of difference what we do to try to deter them besides whacking the moles as they pop up, so we might as well keep it. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Megadeth1995

Megadeth1995 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) seems to need some help to stop uploading copyvios. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Any time now would be good. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Finally

Done by Manuelt15 after one hour and nine more copyvios. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Out123456

Out123456 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) also needs a timeout. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

One week of timeout. --Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 10:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I also caught a whiff of socks, so: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jakeking12. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Pel14

Please block Pel14 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, who is yet another Xraykan sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? They're still uploading copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to take care of Pel15 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) as well whenever you get around to it. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Wknight94 ^talk 15:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User:AJSC92

AJSC92 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) failed to learn what "own work," "author," and "copyright holder" mean during their last block. Please reapply. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User has been blocked again and images have been removed. Jcb (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Gabriella Wilde as Constance.jpg

Could someone please delete this picture? We received OTRS notice (ticket# 2010121110010113) that it doesn't depict Gabriella Wilde at all, but an extra. It's just a blow-up of a secion of the image Three Musketeers balcony shot.jpg anyway, and since it doesn't show any of the main actors in the movie, there's probably no point in keeping it.

If you do want to keep it, it should be renamed "Nina Eichinger in Three Musketeers". Asav (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tabercil has

Done the second option.--Chaser (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wantonier (talk · contribs)

Help is needed to identify if this chinese user uploads are in scope or probably personal attacks. --GeorgHH • talk 12:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:AmyRose00000

Cross-wiki vandal, please block. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Done tho if cross wiki the account should be locked on Meta? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's just too bad that there is nobody watching meta:Vandalism reports. One hour later and more than twenty vandal edits later on several projects... —LX (talk, contribs) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's global locking you need, try meta:Steward requests/Global. Jafeluv (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I need to have the cross-wiki vandalism that I reported dealt with globally. meta:Vandalism reports claims to offer that and seems to lead to global blocking/global locking in the cases that have been dealt with (it just seems to take several days on average). —LX (talk, contribs) 20:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Sofiaboyd

Please block persistent copyright violator Sofiaboyd (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Done and all uploads deleted as clear copyvio. Wknight94 ^talk 20:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request without giving a reason

The anonymous user 82.17.74.221 (talk · contribs) requested deletion of this image without parsing a reason in the deletion request. Sdrtirs (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Just remove the deletion request. --Martin H. (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe we should investigate further and wonder if there might be a good reason for deletion. Like the picture is of someone named "Teresa May" but uploaded by en:User:Miss-teresa-may. The description says the photographer was "Tania Claire". So unless Tania Claire chose "Miss-teresa-may" as her username on Wikipedia, the author attribution is incorrect. This is the epitome of an image that needs OTRS confirmation. Powers (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(OTRS) Posts by User:7Castle

We've received a couple of OTRS complaints (merged at ticket# 2010121310018273) about copyright violations by 7castle (talk · contribs). S/he usually uploads to en.wikipedia, but some media have been moved to Commons. I initially alerted the WP admins, and it seems all of the images will be removed from en.WP (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard). The user's talk page already has about half a dozen copyright/source alerts. In short, to be on the safe side, you may want to consider deleting these images. Some of them may be mentioned on 7Castle's talk page:

- Asav (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Tabercil (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate category

Please edit File:Wp bn title.PNG is in Category:Sisterproject templates. Please remove it. Thanks. Koavf (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

blocked sockmaster from en wiki

A indef blocked sockmaster from en wiki has opened an account in commons (the next day after getting caught and blocked). Among other things, he has uploaded copyvio pictures in en wiki before. He hasn't done anything disruptive in commons. But if his behaviour in en wiki is any indication, he is upto no good. He is now using openproxies in enwiki to avoid the blocks there. I am not active in Commons and i want to point this to vandalism fighters here. Can someone volunteer to keep an eye on this guy?. If anyone volunteers i will provide the details (including the diffs to prove that he is indeed the sock). --Sodabottle (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It would help a lot if you actually told us which user you are on about - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me.:-) This is the SPI report in en.wiki - en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shinas/Archive. en:User:Anwar saadat is the sockmaster. These are his image uploads in en wiki. Once he was banned he opened the User:Haizum account and uploaded his last two uploads in en wiki to commons. He also opened an account in Tamil Wikipedia. He is currently following me around and disrupting my contributions because i filed the SPI report. He is using open proxies to avoid the block and messing up my uploads and articles created by me. --Sodabottle (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS tag at upload?

The uploader included {{OTRS}} (without any parameters) on File:TİHAK son Logo.jpg at the time of upload. I don't think that is valid -- in fact, I would guess that it is an attempt to sneak something that didn't have permission onto Commons. That thought may seem a little tough, but consider that it is not likely to be a newbie mistake -- how many newbies understand OTRS?

Or am I missing something that I should understand? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see we received nothing. I changed it to {OTRS pending}. Jcb (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(OTRS) Copyvio, please remove images

The following images are confirmed copyright violations reported to OTRS (Ticket# 2010121510017047). Please remove them. Yvette Cooper2010 cropped.jpg Yvette Cooper2010.jpg

The original flickr page contains a copyright notice, and the photographer's web site address has been cropped from the image. Asav (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Damn, no {{Flickrreview}} was made. Its to late now and I overlooked it yesterday that there is no flickrreview template placed so that the bot could not review it as I thought - cause I checked it yesterday and of course it was cc-by on flickr as other images still are. Well, delete it, obviously it was not the flickr users intention to release it and regretably we failed to follow our processes to claim it released under cc-by now. --Martin H. (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

These images still need to be removed. Asav (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, Images deleted, and OTRS ticket closed. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The subject can be closed. Asav (talk) 16:22, 16 December 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)

The policy is there so that other users can't just make judgements such as "you don't need the tools" and take away someone's adminship. The policy deliberately allows for more occasional users to remain admins by explicitly defining limits. Good contributors are still a small minority and treating them badly is of no advantage to the project. If someone thinks it would be better for the project if I wasn't an admin they should go through the proper channels. Again, as the policy was clearly not followed correctly, please could a bureaucrat undo the action. ed g2s • talk 16:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you see adminship as a status symbol or as a tool? Jcb (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

@ed g2s, why not ask at some time when you know you will be able to contribute more? Wknight94 ^talk 17:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You have received a proper warnig of de-adminship. An E-mail was sent or maybe not, but that's not really relevant as you have seen the notice on your talk page. You reacted to this notice by entering your name to the list. You've been de-admined because you failed to make at least five admin actions after you received the notice (only two file deletions are visible). This was no action to offend you but normal procedure due to inactivity. --Denniss (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Denniss above. The process was followed, and in the six months after the notification you seem to have made only two admin actions, which is below the required five. An e-mail notification should have been sent in February, but considering that you did respond to the message on your talk page I don't think the omission made any difference in this case. Jafeluv (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So the misunderstanding is already in the initial posting. "I was given a de-adminship warning in Feb 2010 at which point I signed the list, and carried out some admin tasks. See Commons:Administrators/De-adminship#De-adminship process as a result of inactivity, point 3. You followed the notice but you only did 2 admin tasks, thats carrying out some admin tasks but it is per the policy not enough. If the Admin fails to make five admin actions within the following six months, the rights will be removed without further notice - that happened in September. --Martin H. (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

After sleeping for full 5 days, CommonsDelinker runs again

Any known reason why the CommonsDelinker is dead/inactive since December 14th? --Túrelio (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

For Category move at least because Siebot is blocked. See COM:AN/U. --Martin H. (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything about it there. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sry, its COM:AN/B#Please block User:SieBot until problem is solved. --Martin H. (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat unlikely the reason as the inactivity "started" 1 day before that block. Anyway, CD is still dead. --Túrelio (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete my user sub page

Can someone please delete User:Edokter/Vector.css, accidentally created with upper case V? Speedy template doesn't stick on the page. Thank you. — Edokter • Talk • 22:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Done - Jcb (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with vandalism

For the past 3 days IP 109.200.6.10 is continuously vandalising this file by changing the source URL to a deadlink; adding a fake author and removing relevant categories. I have reverted him six times already. Can someone please block this IP?--Sodabottle (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of. --Túrelio (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Túrelio--Sodabottle (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Now he is back with another IP -109.200.6.11 and doing the same thing. Please block the IP range (looks like an open proxy) and edit protect the file.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Done - 109.200.6.* blocked for two weeks - Jcb (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

wrong picture upload - please delete

I made a mistake during picture upload and choosed the wrong file. Can someone please delete it? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/2/2a/20101213091649%21Triola_alt.JPG used by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triola_alt.JPG --Toa7d6 (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be in use. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the first incorrectly file uploaded has already been deleted by Túrelio. [7] --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Yes it's done. Thanks. --Toa7d6 (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

File:12 Gochang-Damyang.svg please change name

File:12 Gochang-Damyang.svg please change name to File:253 Gochang-Damyang.svg --Dmthoth (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please use {{Rename}}. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Rename has been done - just a note so others do not need to check. --MGA73 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Фёдор Гусляров

User has editing photo mania. Photo Kremlin star.jpg after his edits absolutely unacceptable. In my talk to him he pose himself as super mega photographer. Please revert the photo and block the maniac.Sergius (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the photo and deleted his version of it. Let's see what he does next before blocking him. I'm at a disadvantage here because I don't read Russian. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Its ok. I m sure he WILL do something else. Can you protect the file? Another example is situation about my request for deletion of file Kremlin_Star_099.jpg, created by him. But..the discussion in Russian too.. You can translate it with the help of google.

I've got the file on my watch list, so we'll see what happens. You might point him, in Russian, to the proposed policy on modifying images, Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files. And yes, Google translate is there, but I find that usually I need another program to translate Googlespeak to English -- it's OK for the general idea, but forget anything subtle or complicated. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Antztheone

It would be good if the speedy I've posted at the above page was acted upon sooner rather than later given the content involved. Please read the speedy rationale.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Done and all images deleted and user indefblocked. Wknight94 ^talk 21:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Too many 14-year-olds with too much unstructured time on their hands.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment

Dear all, this harrassment by a User:Ottava Rima against myself is yet unnoted by sysops, obviously. I did not have the time earlier to read all the comments about my voting there (especially not those of Ottava Rima, as they have been harrassing before already), so this is now back a couple of days already. I'll cite you the part that I'm personally least amused about (there are others, but I don't care much about being threatened):

as you have a long history of actions regarding Commons that makes it seem that your actions might not line up with what is best for the Foundation and its projects as they can put us into serious legal jeopardy.

I find such behaviour quite inacceptable. Thanks, --Thogo (Disk.) 09:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean criticism of you making comments where you attack the Foundation for following US law? Your pushing of extreme political opinions makes your ability to be seen as an unbiased user who is supposed to uphold our privacy related matters is no longer existent. Your use of "harassment" does not follow the definition, and responding to your disregard to law is criticism. It is incivil to label it as harassing. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Thogo is now making it clear anyone who points out problems during his Steward Confirmation should be blocked, as that is "harassment". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If Thogo did feel harassed, why did it take him 8 days before saying anything? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ottava's not banned WMF-wide, yet? Someone should get on that. He's simply not compatible with a collaborative environment. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 08:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this would qualify as harassment, but I would urge Ottava Rima to take a more civil tone, otherwise his behaviour will result in a ban. Kameraad Pjotr 20:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for the roughness of my tone. I was not the only one concerned, and his saying it was none of our business is highly offensive and not something Stewards are supposed to say. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Küb10

Please block Küb10 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, who is yet another Xraykan sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And Küb11 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . —LX (talk, contribs) 13:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Done by Herbythyme (Kameraad Pjotr 21:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC))

Repeated Copyvio

Hi,

Felixforma (talk · contribs) hat been informed twice in the past ([8] and [9]) that he uplaodad pictures of an actress which are in violation of the artist's copyright. He is either unwilling or ignorant, as his reaction shows. Yesterday he uploaded a new pic, again a copyvio from the same source (see [10]). As a DE:WP-admin I will inform the user on de:wp about his actions and the possible resultig consequences and I'd be grateful, if some of you could do this on commons. Regards, -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 10:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, final warning, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:JayLeeds copyright violations

I've noticed that this user has uploaded numerous images under 'PD-Own' yet many of them are from flickr (to numerous different accounts so it clearly isn't their own account). Most of the images on flickr are not released under any license. Example: [11] vs [12]. The non-flickr images also seem to be copyvios, e.g. [13] vs [14] (note that the filename isn't even changed). I haven't been through all of their images because I think it would be a waste of time, when in my mind it is pretty clear that all of the images uploaded by this user are copyright violations. Could someone delete them please. Quantpole (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I deleted all but six. They all passed Tineye so, just in case s/he accidentally nicked a few legitimately free ones, it would be good to manually check the remaining six. (E.g., one of the Flickr examples was Creative Commons, but still non-commercial). Wknight94 ^talk 13:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I did run them through tineye but they didn't show for whatever reason. [15] is [16], [17] is [18] (but I suspect has already been nicked from somewhere else). Do I need to spend another another hour looking through the rest. I'm sure I could find them but to be honest I have better things to do! Quantpole (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well actually I was thinking a few minutes, not hours... but I tried it myself and only found one, so just deleted the remaining on principle.

Done Wknight94 ^talk 15:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Golfing.png

Highly unlikely claim of user creating the image. It is only being used for disruption on en.wikipedia. Active Banana (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it is now deleted. ZooFari 22:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Urgent protection needed

Are all being used on en.wp's main page and are not protected. Can an admin kindly protect them ASAP? Δ 02:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Protected for 1 week. Let us know if you need longer than that. Wknight94 ^talk 02:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Smileys and Co.

Hello, there is a user Drinas who is massively editing only « smileys » and « emoticons ». Also on Wp-En and WP-fr (didn't check more). For what I know, he really look like a payed POV-pusher of some sort about copyright of Smiley. I don't have much time look at all his edits. Can I have help of some administrator to make sur all his claims are purely verifiables and not controversed ? plz. Iluvalar (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

new user copyvio

Can someone check this new user's contributions?. He/she is uploading many pics as "ownwork". Some of them have metadata, while others like this have been photoshopped from other copyrighted images. I don't have much experience in checking for copyvio, so i request someone experienced in this sort of thing to check his/her contributions.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just coming by to report this after noticing this on en.wiki. Some of these images are from forums etc, so while google caches them, getting to the direct link isn't possible and I can't tag them under the copyvios. I think a straight clean up ought to be an option for this. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Editnotice

Is anyone familiar with how editnotices for pages outside the user and user talk namespaces are configured for this project? Help would be appreciated at Commons talk:Undeletion requests#Editnotice. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

are next picture copyvio

Facebook is not generally a good source, but this image appears to have been taken by a Navy photographer as part of his official duty and is therefore PD. Facebook cannot copyright a PD image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Alleged improper deletion by Dschwen

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Forum#Kategorie_f.C3.BCr_wasserzeichen.C3.A4hnliche_Verunstaltungen.3F I do not think that it is evident that the picture is out of scope. --FrobenChristoph (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What is exactly this image? Esby (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This image seemed not realistically useful to me and thus out of project scope. I do not believe commons is improved by undeleting this image, however I realize it would have been tactically smarter to delete it after the discussion in which it was used as an example died down, to avoid knee-jerk opposition and immediate undeletion. --Dschwen (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion archived incorrectly

I nominated this image for deletion (without logging in at the time).

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Eiffel_tower_and_the_seine_at_night.jpg

For some reason (probably because it's a renomination of an older request for deletion) this has been archived at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2009/02/21 without ever being closed. Examining other archives shows that nothing else is ever archived without being closed, so I conclude this is a mistake. I need an administrator to please close it properly (and I really think it should be deleted, for the reasons given.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Done -mattbuck (Talk) 18:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Self-portrait_with_Bernardino_Campi_by_Sofonisba_Anguissola.jpg

User:CommonsDelinker (a bot) replaced the old image with this "better quality" one. Because this was done by a bot I cannot ask it about the source of this image. My art historian friends and I are wondering if this version, which shows the artist with two left arms, is an actual different version of the painting; if it is a model of how an earlier version looked in relation to the present version (according to x-rays); if it shows another arm uncovered during restoration; or if it is a joke ala 1000words' photoshop contests. The page at User:CommonsDelinker said to address questions here. Merci d'avance, Saudade7 (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Better quality refers to the mere technical quality of the reproduction, not to painting itself. Indeed there is some strange thing with File:Self-portrait with Bernardino Campi by Sofonisba Anguissola.jpg, something that the technically inferior files File:BernardinoCampiPaintingSofonisbaAnguissola.jpg and File:BernardinoCampiPaintingSofonisbaAnguissolaRemastered.jpg not have. We should maybe undo the technical replacement, for the question why there is a second arm the source of the scan should be examined. --Martin H. (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The metainformation of the new file reads: "Software used: Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows". While not conclusive evidence (File:BernardinoCampiPaintingSofonisbaAnguissolaRemastered.jpg has also been edited with Photoshop), it indicates that it's a joke image - I am nominating it for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Such an image is not suitable for speedy deletion. In the future please use deletion requests for this type of image, and notify the uploader (who in this case would be me). As I noted on your talk page, this painting appears to be a different copy of the original painting (the woman not only has two left arms but also has a different dress, etc); it is not Photoshopped, as it is scanned directly from a reputable book of photographs. I should not have requested a universal replacement but didn't notice this difference. I used Photoshop only to mitigate printing artifacts and adjust levels. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Resignation

After two years of adminship, I would like to give back my tools (mostly because I don't have the time anymore to do the job as I think I should do it). I have put a removal request on Meta. --Eusebius (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and merry Christmas/happy new year to everybody. --Eusebius (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's like finding a lump of coal in the bottom of my Christmas stocking -- we will miss you. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not dead... just not an admin anymore. :) --Eusebius (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Have a great Christmas and thanks for all your great contributions here. :-) Maybe you'll be back someday. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Good Luck (end is also beginning). Geagea (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Large number of biased images by Megistias

At en:wp:NORN#Widescale original research it is alleged that User:Megistias has made numerous point of view images by showing areas as Greek in old maps which were not. I don't know what happens here - I guess one would have to have some sort of public debate to decide if there is a case or not and if there is to delete all the images affected. Dmcq (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In general all the mentioned maps are fine considering the Illyrian Greek borders. However, we should take into account that ancient tribes can't have precise borders especially if we take about a 10 centuries long cultural 'border'.Alexikoua (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion is out of the question. The maps are sourced to top-notch sources. There might be a need for some slight adjustments to the maps here or there, but wholesale deletion, well, that would be very destructive. Athens2004 (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As I see the Illyrian-Greek cultural border was in the mouth of Vjose river [[19]][[20]], something that the maps confirm.Alexikoua (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The maps of Wilkes are precise so please don't make or deductions, unless you're saying that his maps aren't correct which is again your own deductions. I've added all the arguments on the en.wikipedia discussion.--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a classic case of Greek editors VS Albanian editors. However, the maps Megistias made and the sources he used do no match. South of Aos means somewhere beneath it not ON it. In order to have a more clear view one should consult the maps cited authors gave, like Wilkes and Hammond (which does not talk about Illyrians in fact). LOOK FOR YOURSELVES: MEGISTIAS1 and MEGISTIAS2 VS WILKES and STIPCEVIC (page 28). —Anna Comnena (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Dw-nsd

Hey everyone, I've created a new template, {{subst:dw-nsd}}, based off a similar in English. I think it's a good template. Just giving you all an FYI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Permission problems with User:Cretanforever

Please see the entry on Cretanforever (talk · contribs) at this page on en Wikipedia. The user has uploaded hundreds of images over several years, sourced to other websites/people, but lacking evidence of permission. The user has an account at Commons, and in addition many of the images uploaded at en Wikipedia have been copied here by various well-meaning people and are widely used across several projects. Click this link to see images associated with this user.

In addition to the permission problems, a lot of images were originally published in Turkey (which is life+70) but have US license tags.

Some of the images I checked have OTRS templates, but they were added by the uploader, not by an OTRS volunteer. These should likely be double-checked. Kelly (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I personally checked a lot of his files. found only one OTRS permission problematic that was fixed. He upload the files a long time ago. befor the OTRS system obliged. I think it understanable. But he have take care for OTRS permission. Tag the file with {{subst:npd}}. Geagea (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

See Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 11#Ticket:2007032610005277, Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 11#Ticket:2008032610018431 and Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 11#Ticket:2010020610021891 already checked. Geagea (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the user's OTRS tickets have been previously discussed here and removed from several images. From that conversation (particularly the website wowturkey.com), it appears the copyright holder released a single image and the ticket was applied to multiple images from that site.
The following images had OTRS tickets added by the uploader instead of an OTRS volunteer:

There are many more, I'll come back to this later and help clean up depending on what people here think. Kelly (talk)

I do not share your impression. I already checked tickets that ending with 5277, 8431, 1891 as mentioned. Big part of them uploaded from 2007. The user trying to get OTRS permissions the rest can be tagd with {{subst:npd}}. You can also check with John Vandenberg about the ticket ending 8431 that ask him: could more clearly release all of his photos on wowturkey. If you suspicious with other ticket, you can check Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. I don't see major problem her. Geagea (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

ro.wp image galleries to transwiki

At ro.wp, a user has created a series of galleries whose place is at Commons, I think. Along with other similar galleries, these pages are included in this list, all of which are just galleries of coats of arms. It would be great if someone would be able to transwiki these pages here; they should be placed in the category tree under Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Romania (but I can do that once the transwiki is completed).—Andrei S. _Talk 10:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at some of the galleries I've yet to find any coats of arms that are not already here on commons many are in Category:Coats_of_arms_of_capital_cities_of_Romania and 5 sub categories, could you be mre specific on which files arent here. If you just want to duplicate the galleries here then copy paste the formatting <gallery>Imagine:Actual Arad CoA.png|[[Arad]]</gallery> Gnan garra 03:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The question seems to be about the galleries, not the files themselves. I look at one (ro:Galeria de steme şi steaguri ale judeţului Bihor) and it seems to link mostly inexistant files. As such, it's not useful as a gallery on Commons. It could obviously be a to do list, but for this, it could remain at ro: wiki just as well. -- Docu at 12:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please delete oldest revision

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 16#Question for the reason.

--HAH (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Gnan garra 03:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --HAH (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Küb14

Please block Küb14 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, who is yet another Xraykan sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

sorted --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Biblia Fjellstedt II (1890) 892.jpg

Please, delete File:Biblia Fjellstedt II (1890) 892.jpg, that I can upload a new page from the book!

The top of the page tells I can upload a new page, but I can't. -- Lavallen (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Done - it was actually not a file, but a redirect to a file - Jcb (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tack! -- Lavallen (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Templates

Should we protect some templates to prevent edits like this? Jcb (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as Template:No license since has the lang-links at the bottom that people will visit to read their language that pages should have semi protection imo. --Martin H. (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just don't go for full protection for templates like this. I've stumbled upon lots of examples of templates where I have to ask permission to add a translation, even though the template in question has never been the target of vandalism. That gets rather annoying in the long run. Most of these templates could probably go without any protection level at all if people used their watchlists a bit more. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Homepage of Google Demo Slam.JPG

I don't understand why this image has a license that calls it free software, is that correct? It's an image of the home page of a Google product. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a copyvio. The uploader seems to slap random Free Art License and GPL claims onto files found on the Internet. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

He's been adding text copyvio to a number of articles also. Can someone please delete this and at least warn the uploader? I'll see what I can do at enwiki, I may be blocking him if he ignores the warnings I've already given him. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Note he says he's a child (15): [21]. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Broom images

The widely used and thus protected broom images have several errors in their source and author information. Since I am an admin at the English Wikipedia I have updated the source, date and author information of the versions there: w:en:File:Ambox style.png and w:en:File:Imbox style.png. And I updated File:Broom icon.png. But some admin here at Commons need to update the versions here: File:Broom icon.svg, File:Ambox style.png and File:Imbox style.png.

Here is the comment that brought this to my attention: w:en:File talk:Ambox content.png#Please correct author credit on this logo. There are more details at that discussion. The original is an SVG uploaded to kde-look.org by a user named gg3po (Tony Tony). The image can be downloaded from there both as svg and png. (So the original is not a raster image, but a vector image. But Wikipedia/Commons received them in the other order, first the png then the svg, which probably is why some think the svg is a derivative of the png.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Сёмин Дмитрий Анатольевич

Please block this user and delete all his contributions as spam. Thanks. JenVan (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

File rename requested

File:Annunaki.jpg has a misleading name, used to back some fringe claims sourced to Zechariah Sitchin. It needs a more generic name, eg 'Mesopotamian cylinder seal impression'. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

en:File:Nobel medal dsc06171.png

I think that the image en:File:Nobel medal dsc06171.png in English wikipedia can be moved to commons. Can someone please check? --Sreejith K (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Nobel Prize says: "The Nobel Prize medal is a copyrighted artistic work by the Swedish sculptor and engraver Erik Lindberg (1873–1966). Do not upload photos and other pictures of the medal." /Ö 14:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Comparaciónletras.jpg

This picture is a screenshoot of two song's lyrics. Shouldn´t be CR as well? Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

same user page with both users

same user page with both users [22] before blanking his user page and with new user User:Giacomo_della_Chiesa --Motopark (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion needs closing

Could someone please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Javad Nekounam.jpg? It has been open since September 19, 2010. There is a sockpuppeteer at en-wiki who keeps re-adding the image there, and I'd like some kind of a resolution for the deletion nomination. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Wikileaks-op.png

Taking a look at File:Wikileaks-op.png... the page is advocating an illegal activity... it certainly could serve encyclopedic purpose, but I'm thinking maybe we should put up some kind template on the page clarifying that we don't support the activity advocated on the image. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want you can add it. I think it's pretty clear just by looking at the format of the webpage that we don't advocate what it says but are treating it as a media resource. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely and completely disagree! This is such a slippery slope. The day we start to add templates to images that promote "illegal activities" (Where? By whose standards? By whose jurisdiction?) Wikimedia is in big trouble! Asav (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Corrupt file

Hi, I was wondering if I could have some help with File:Trawscambria at Cardiff Central.JPG, a file which has obviously corrupted, probably during the transfer from en.Wiki. The transfer does not appear to have been done very well at all as can be seen by the mess on the description page.

I'm hoping that someone who is an admin here and on English Wikipedia, could undelete the old file on Wikipedia, take the file, upload it here over the corrupt file, delete the corrupt version, and then delete the en.Wiki file. Would that work? Thanks for any help, Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I came across this while looking for help with something else; I'm an en:wp admin, so I undeleted the file there, uploaded it here, and have now deleted it there. I suspect that no admin intervention is needed here. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you uploaded the 800x600px preview file, so I just replaced it with the full 3,264x2,448px version.

For future reference, you needn't undelete an image to view/retrieve it; it's accessible to sysops via the View and restore deleted pages page (under the File history heading). —David Levy 21:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right; I've been an admin for three years, but that didn't occur to me. Sorry for uploading the wrong size, and thanks for fixing it. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem; that's one of the easiest mistakes to make. :) —David Levy 14:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with this, it's excellent! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Zakir naik.jpg

Uploader claims it's their own creation but then gives a source. I note that User talk:Farnawmah has a history of copyright violations and one block. Perhaps it's time to say goodbye to this editor. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect identification of a photograph

I was searching for am image of mountain in northeastern New Mexico that I had seen this spring from the train heading east from Albaquerque. I came across this image on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Mexico_Landscape.jpg). It is incorrectly identified. It is the view at the intersection of Utah Rt. 261 and Rt. 163. this intersection is approximately 130 miles from Chaco Culture National Historical Park if you flew and 230 miles driving from Utah, through Arizona to New Mexico. I was just there this spring with my Mom, and we were both taken by the wavy pattern in the layers in the hillside; and I recognize a number of the other features that I have in three photos that I took at that spot.

I believe the other photograph with a similiar URL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Mexico_Landscape2.jpg) is also incorrectly identified as New Mexico; it appears to be view from the Moki Dugway, a portion of Utah Rt. 261 that is dirt road that switchbacks down from a mesa to the valley floor of the eastern edge of Monument Valley.

I have photos of this area that I am more than willing to share of both the layered hillside and views from Moki Dugway; but I am more concerned with the correct identification of these photos.

thank you for any help you can give to correct this error?

Traveler71 (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC) 1/2/2011

You can edit the descriptions at File:New_Mexico_Landscape.jpg and File:New_Mexico_Landscape2.jpg. To rename the files, use {{Rename}}. -- Docu at 11:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please delete

File:POP Bank, Finland.png, see the history and older deletion request--Motopark (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Done --High Contrast (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please protect FA/GA icons

Many, if not all, projects link to the cached Common versions of File:Monobook-bullet-star.png and File:Monobook-bullet-ga.png, but they are not protected. Please protect these files. — Edokter • Talk — 15:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done - Nobody touched the first one for years, the second one is almost without any use. Imho not necessary to protect them - Jcb (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Done we do protect images that are highly visible or high traffic even if there has been little or no vandalism. Bidgee (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

But the second one is almost without any use ?!? - Jcb (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Swear it was, then again its late (3am AEDT). Protection for File:Monobook-bullet-ga.png

Not done (reverted). Bidgee (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Jcb (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It is used by en.wikipedia.org; it is linked directly through CSS, so you cannot see any use through what links here. Please (re)protect! — Edokter • Talk — 16:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a few links so that we can see what you mean? Jcb (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The file (the cached version) is directly linked from en:MediaWiki:Vector.css. You wil not see any statistics throught means provided by MediaWiki, becuase the request go straight through the squid caches. This is true for lots of system icons that are loaded through CSS. — Edokter • Talk — 16:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Question: The CSS refers to [23]. If the image is modified, will the URL change? If so there is no need for protection. If not, there is. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not changed when a new version is uploaded. — Edokter • Talk — 19:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see. The file has been protected again. Jcb (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. — Edokter • Talk — 23:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Sheila Voser beim Holzhacken.jpg

Hoax, the related article on en.wiki has been speedied. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh - ok I've deleted it BUT the image goes back to 2009 so if planned it was a long term thing - that said I'm not sure how valuable it is but it will not worry me if it is undeleted if it was the usage that was wrong rather than the image. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A further looks suggests it might have been iffy even when uploaded - en page was deleted in 2009 (according to the user page there). Don't think it has a major value but.... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

search gives some attacking/hoaxing by a German editor on en.wp. Regretably to old for checkuser. --Martin H. (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Return of Aju lion?

For those who might not recall, Aju lion (talk · contribs) was notorious for uploading images he found on the internet and claiming them as his own. He typically focused on pictures of synagogues from the southern U.S. He was eventually permanently blocked (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_22#User:Aju_lion). Based on his edit contributions here and on en-wiki, Southern jew (talk · contribs) appears to be his reincarnation - same subject matters, even the same articles, and uploading more dubious images. File:Shaare shalom kingston.jpg is obviously the same shot as the picture here: http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/mexico-and-caribbean/jamaica/kingston/shaare-shalom-synagogue-thingstodo-detail-76823/ , though the Commons version is larger. File:Shaare_shalom_sanctuary.jpg clearly comes from http://bethaderech.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Synagogue-jamaica.jpg . I haven't discovered the sources of the other images he has uploaded, but I would view them all with extreme suspicion. Jayjg (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Had a look in the user data and yes,

Confirmed that Southern jew = Aju lion. Block them, seemingly he still not got it. --Martin H. (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and all uploads deleted. --h-stt !? 16:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

deletion of a Version

Hi, I want the oldest version of my File:Grundschule Schloßplatz Eisleben.JPG to be deleted. It is because there is a man and I forgot to work him in this version--Pomfuttge_Talk 04:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I doubt that this person could be identified on this picture, I deleted the old version, only admins can retrieve it. Next level is up to Commons:Oversight ;-) axp_de ^Hello! 09:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks. I found another picture, there was a registration plate on a car. I uploaded a new version, please delete the old one. I think, it is not the problem, if 200 admins can see it, I just worry about the 7 billions of other humans--Pomfuttge_Talk 19:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Wknight94 ^talk 19:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Image:COX_4.jpg

Apparent copyvio. See w:User_talk:Hablador#Unspecified_source_for_File:COX_4.jpg along with that user's edit warring at w:Clan of Xymox.

67.122.209.190 07:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

See also File:Clan of xymox 2009.jpg, a duplicate of the image. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleting previous version of File:Emilio.jpg

Hi! Could you please delete the file version uploaded at 02:18, 1 January 2011? It is vandalism and probably a copyright violation. Thanks! --ireas :talk: 08:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Done and thanks! Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Btw. the file should be renamed to File:Don Emilio J. Schleh.jpg or somthing alike to be more descriptive! axp_de ^Hello! 11:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename my image

I need to rename image I uploaded. I forgot to change the destination filename when I was uploading. Rename it to anything more descriptive. Thanks!

--Yohanes.niko (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'm not an admin, but I do have move rights. For future reference, if you add {{rename|The new name you want.jpg|Reason you want it to be moved}} to the file page then it will be tagged and eventually moved. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 14:20, 4 January 2011

Image tagged for deletion, product packaging/product (derivative without permission). fr33kman -s- 05:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Are next type of page out of scope

Are next type of page out of scope Don leicht because same can be tell with category--Motopark (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it's in scope although it may seem a little redundant. See Commons:Galleries#Galleries vs. categories for a brief explanation. Jafeluv (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

License reviewing - admin required

Hi! Previously it has been custom for either an admin or reviewer to close license review requests and to place the successful into the list of reviewers and to inform them. I've closed one as successful today and did all the required actions and then noticed that there is now a new-ish user group. As such, can an admin kindly add Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk · contribs) to the group and perhaps we should change the policy to only let admins do successful request closures from now on? y/n? fr33kman -s- 05:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Added. Jafeluv (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Italian speaker needed

Could an Italian-speaking admin please have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Metauros, anfora a figure nere con cavaliere e cane.jpg? —LX (talk, contribs) 08:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Foto di presunte prostitute - Photos of alleged prostitutes

[24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
Non abbiamo alcuna certezza che queste persone siano prostitute. E anche se lo fossero, pubblicare la loro fotografia con tale qualifica non sembra elegante o corretto. Propongo di schermare i visi di queste fotografie in maniera tale che le persone non siano riconoscibili.
[We have no certainty that these people are prostitutes. And even if they were, published their photograph with this status does not seem smart or correct. I propose to shield the faces of these pictures so that people are not recognizable.]
[29] [30] [31] [32] [33]
--Ligabo (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:0405.Annabell 002.jpg. --Leyo 13:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Non ho tempo da perdere in letture di chiacchiere. Il problema è spiegato chiaramente nel post precedente. Se uno lo capisce, bene. Altrimenti credo sia inutile spiegarglielo. [I have no time to waste on reading gossip. The problem is clearly explained in the previous post. If one understands, good. Otherwise I think it is useless to explain it.] --Ligabo (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ligabo's proposal looks intelligent, as he's concerned about the potential of the subjects being pestered or humiliated in their offline lives. Anyone could upload pictures of women and claim they're prostitutes, even when they're not, therefore committing an act of libel, and exposing the subjects to unwanted attention. As you know, libelling people is a legal offense. 79.0.21.172 15:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

@Ligabo: Your first statement is simply not true for the first to examples. You could see this in the linked deletion request or here (in German). --Leyo 16:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to link the same article. For all except the last linked image the photographer herself is related to the business. There is absolutely no problem with the photos of her private surrounding or with the photos taken at a photo workshop on the topic. --Martin H. (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Legal libel requires the information to be false. In at least some of these images, due diligence has been performed to confirm that the subject is, in fact, a prostitute. In at least some of these images, the person depicted has explicitly expressed that they are comfortable with being publically identified as a prostitute. The photographs are not furtive or taken under false pretenses. I haven't examined each one in detail, but I think the arguments in the prior deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:0405.Annabell 002.jpg are persuasive for that particular image. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete all my stuff immediately!!!

I want my gallery and all the items posted by me on wikimedia commons to be immediately deleted. I have posted many items of my art to share them with people, and some have been used since then by internet users. I strongly disagree however with the policy allowing anonymous people without any stated credentials to put in doubt other people's artistic credibility. I had impression that wikimedia commons serves all people who want to share their creative efforts with other citizens of this planet, but I had no idea that I could be tagged here by any faceless user claiming to be art connoisseur. I feel offended, disgusted and want no trace of my presence on wikimedia commons be left in the shortest possible time. All files can be found under my name Zygmunt Kubasiak. It's a pity that I can't remove them myself.

Thank you very much in advance for the kindness of fulfiling my request.
User:Zygzak
4 Jan. 2011

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:ANereid in the Foam.jpg, [34]. This user is upset that his images were nominated for deletion as out of scope and that he was called non-notable. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Because the deletion procedure is already in a state that the images can be deleted and should be deleted, I will process this request. Jcb (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. User: Zygzak 00:04, 6 Jan. 2011

Password

I _THOUGHT_ that Password problems would be plentiful enough that I could find an answer in a FAQ, but apparently not so.

Here's my problem:

I have a username on en.Wikipedia, "LP-mn", that I use a lot. I know that UN's PW. I apparently also have a UN on commons.wikimedia.org with the same UN: "LP-mn". PROBLEM: It seems that I do not have the same PW for both accounts, and I have no record (at my "secure storage" location) of what that PW could be. As a result, I've taken the stop-gap measure of creating yet a THIRD UN, this one on commons.wikimedia.org, but NOT (yet) on en.wikipedia, with the UN of "LP-mn2".

YES, I did ask the robot to send me a new PW.
NO, I did not get a response.
YES, I do have a spam filter.
NO, I do not notice anything in there as of yet.
YES, I have tried to do the linking-thingee-whose-name-I-can't-remember.
NO, I do not remember if I left an E-mail address with my registration for "LP-mn" on commons.wikimedia.org

Can you offer any suggestions?
LP-mn2 (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
LP-mn / LP-mn2

As far as I can see in CentralAuth the account «LP-mn@commonswiki» is not part of you global account. If were you who created the account here you should be able to recover your password by using the password reminder feature, but only if you specified an e-mail address when you created it; if not I'm afraid it would be impossible for you to recover User:LP-mn here.

--Dferg ^{(talk · meta)} 22:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nuts. That's what I was afraid of.
Guess I'll throw a hundred monkeys at it.
LP-mn2 (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

At COM:CHU, you may request that your username be changed or you may usurp a disused username, LP-mn (talk · contribs). Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

To usurp certain qualifications must be met regarding how old the account is and whether or not it has substantive contributions or edits. User:LP-mn has such contributions and they must be attributed to that name and so is not subject to usurption by another account. fr33kman -s- 05:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you may not be entirely correct. Please review Commons:Changing username/Usurp requests. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Coins

Anybody with knowledge about coins to process a few old deletion requests: Commons:Deletion requests/2010/06/05 ? - Jcb (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of Morocco.svg

Hi, it's about the file shown in the headline, please somebody fix the 'current since' in the flag-infobox [35] to match 1915-11-17 (and NOT 1956-03-02). I can't fix it by myself since it is a protected file now. --Flad (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The file has been unprotected for editing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Please, check this user. Fabiano ^msg 02:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Working on it... Reh man 06:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Done checked all then mass deleted. Gnan garra 06:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Aleksandr-93

Could someone please have a look at user:Aleksandr-93s contributions? seems to be alot of pictures just copied from diffrent websites that has not released the pictures in any accepted licence.. Evalowyn (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Need a quick ruling

Could someone take a look at File:Map of the united states with crosshairs.jpg. It's cropped from a political advertisement here, but the uploader has removed the deletion tag and is claiming variously that it's either self-made or PD-ineligible. Kelly (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it would be even covered under a {{PD-USGOV}} license. I've deleted the file since it isn't the uploader's own work and clearly a copyvio. Bidgee (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Keeping Commons clean - policy v practice

Acvtive admins should probably have been made aware of the thread running here. One of the great things to me about Commons has been the fact that it is not so hidebound by policy as some wikis and, it seemed to me, we were tasked with keeping Commons clean of the junk that turns up daily - it seems that might be changing. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Likely copyvio photo of high-profile event

File:Tucson shoot.png is a likely copyvio photo of a current high-profile event in the news - 2011 Tucson shooting. It's been flagged for deletion but I see it keeps getting added to articles on the event in various projects. Kelly (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

file to be cleaned

Can someone clean File:Coat of arms of Monesterio (Badajoz).jpg to keep only the COA image?--Havang(nl) (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Yann (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

porque borraron mis fotos?

Hola, quiero saber porque borraron mis fotos artisticas? mi usuario es halasius y he creado una pagina con algunas fotos propias (fotos de mi persona sacadas por mí) y me las han borrado e incluso no me publican la pagina. Quiero saber porque.

gracias

--Halasius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 05:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rough translation: "Why did they delete my photos?" I'll get back with the rest of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As per google translate: "Hello, I want to know why they deleted my artistic photos? My username is Halasius and I created a page with some proper photos (photos of me taken by me) and they have been deleted and I did not even publish the page. I want to know why. Thank you."

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

all were deleted as copyright violations Gnangarra 06:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- That seems a bit odd, given that the URLs cited as the online source have the same name as this user. Sounds like all we need is OTRS clarifying that he's the same person, then we can undelete. (That's with no regard to whether they are in scope, just the copyright issue.) - Jmabel ! talk 02:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Halasius, no me aparece claro de que manera los fotos esos caben en el alcance del Commons; favor de leer Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Pero si crea Vd. que caben, véase también Commons:OTRS/es: porque Vd. los editaban prieto en el red, necesitamos una declaración de forma especifica que son su obra propia. Esto requisito es para proteger los derechos de autores que publican en el red.

En el hecho del alcance de Commons: ayudará si el texto para describir el foto indica como pertiene a algún tema pertinente. Debe ser realistamente útil para un propósito educativo. Commons no es ni na agencia de publicidad ni un servidor web gratis para uso personal. - Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Need Italian WP admin

Are there any around? I have to post this here because I don't see an Italian AN. File:Arsenale.jpg is improperly attributed to an uploader at French Wikipedia but it was first uploaded to Italian Wikipedia. If an admin could look at the old version and get the proper attribution, that would be great. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked the it.wiki admin that deleted the file to provide the log information.--Chaser (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The original license was: {{GFDL}}. --Filnik^{\b[Rr]ock\b!?} 14:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, but can you provide proper attribution please? Right now it's attributing it to an uploader who copied it to fr.wp; as such, it may be a copyvio. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, the original uploader was: Paolo da Reggio. Sorry for the missunderstanding! --Filnik^{\b[Rr]ock\b!?} 17:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Superpolo

User:Superpolo contributions came to attention at En-WP:ANI his edits there suggest Conflict of interest with Leonardo Farkas his most recent uploads are clear cut copy right violations but I can't find where they are from on http://www.farkas2010.com . Thus I bring it here and am unsure how to proceed. ResidentAnthropologist (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also am I required to notify the user in question like on En WP:ANI? ResidentAnthropologist (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I tagged all uploads with {{Npd}} with the hopes that the uploader really owns the photos (and may even be the subject). As an image repository, we are rarely concerned with conflict of interest as such. We are more interested in COM:SCOPE. If the photos continue to be used in any of the Wikipedias, the images have a decent chance of being kept, assuming permission is confirmed. Otherwise, they may fall out of scope and wind up at COM:DR. Wknight94 ^talk 23:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I knew rules were different here more concerned about copy right issue. Merely wished to provide full context of how this came to attention. Thank you for your time. ResidentAnthropologist (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Rearrange two image names

Today, I photographed two cannons: one on the northeastern portion of a lawn, and one on the southeastern portion of the same lawn. After uploading them tonight as File:Cannon on northeastern Monroe County Courthouse lawn.jpg and File:Cannon on southeastern Monroe County Courthouse lawn.jpg, I realised that they were misnamed: the file named "northeastern" depicts the cannon on the southeastern part of the lawn, and the file named "southeastern" depicts the cannon on the northeastern part of the lawn. Could an admin please move NE to SE and SE to NE, and then delete any resulting redirects? I'm a filemover, but as I'm not an admin, I can't move files over redirects to other files. FYI, I've fixed the description pages; you can just check those if you get confused. Nyttend (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Swapped. Jafeluv (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for admins: Speedy Deletions (withdrawn proposal)

Hi I propose a reshuffling/rephrasing of the current speedy deletion parameters for administrators currently saved in places like MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown or MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown. The following collapsible section explains further.

General

G1: No valid content, test page, or other patent nonsense
G2: Vandalism or content intended as threat/attack
G3: Recreation of content deleted per community consensus
G4: Creator or uploader request deletion of unused/empty page or file
G5: Improperly named recently created content
G6: Temporary deletion for history cleaning or version suppression
G7: Unused and implausible, or cross-namespace redirects
G8: Pages dependant on deleted or non-existent content
G9: Office actions

Namespace-specific Files

F1: Deletion Request: [DR-LINK]
F2: Out of project scope: Personal events, and/or non-educational content
F3: Out of project scope: Replaceable and/or low quality pornographic content
F4: Out of project scope: Promotional content
F5: Copyright violation
F6: Fair use material
F7: Derivative of non-free content
F8: Mass deletion of copyrighted or other inappropriate content: [DR-LINK]
F9: License review: Non-free license, or licence disallowing commercial use and/or derivative works
F10: Missing essential information such as licence or source
F11: Permission granted only for one or more Wikimedia projects
F12: Screenshot of non-free content
F13: OTRS: Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons
F14: No freedom of panorama in the source country
F15: Image source washing
F16: Files that are corrupt, empty, or in an unauthorized format
F17: Exact or scaled-down duplicates that are newer than the replacement file

Categories

C1: Empty category

Templates

T1: Unused template
T2: Recently-created template that duplicates an existing template

Nothing has been deleted or added, just mere merging/splitting/rephrasing. I also think we should add deletion references (i.e. "G2") for ease of communication and navigation. I have also created a temporary {{RehmanSpeedyDelete}}, to use with the above version of speedy deletions. The template is really really basic, just provide an example of how it would work.

The purpose of this new template is to provide a smarter deletion and categorization system. For example, if you add the parameter criteria=G1, it automatically provides the deletion reason, and automatically categorizes into the relevant deletion category. Currently, I just added G1 and G2. If interested, I could add additional parameters (such as to support criterias like F2), to show further functions.

Since these parameters are just used by human-admins, and no scripts or bots, I think this is fairly a simple change. Comments? Reh man 13:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thirty second read through? I can't see any immediate problems - about the only thing I'd do is change the visible text for F14 to "Image source washing". Tabercil (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Changed, the nom. Reh man 13:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I oppose for adding codes. It is difficult to memorize every code when nominating a page for speedy deletion. This change will make it difficult for most users (except for really-highly-experienced users) to understand every code. And because this system resembles en:wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletions, It may be possible that some crazy deletion templates by single case would be created. I think adding code is just inefficient. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Per Kwj2772. Commons is not supposed to be a clone of en.wikipedia. --Leyo 14:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Okay. Anyway, codes can always be added/modified/hidden, and can be dealt with in a rather separate proposal. Any comment on the reshuffle/rephrase? And just for clarification, these code are in no way a requirement to "memorize" or anything near like en.wiki. This will just be used for internal categorizations and template parameters for users to submit requests. Reh man 15:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I just glanced over the list and this looks good to me. It is perhaps also advisable to resynchronize these lists with COM:DEL#Speedy deletion. There was quite some confusion and/or debate lately about the current practice of speedy deletions. Perhaps it would also helpful to move the speedy deletion part out of COM:DEL into a separate page. All this would help to achieve more clarity and transparency. And I think that this is particularly important for speedied processes. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I support moving the speedy part out of COM:DEL, perhaps to a page like COM:CSD? or COM:SD? Reh man 15:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Leyo/Kwj2772 - this is Commons not en. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see my reply above. Reh man 15:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Mh, yeah Rehman, familiar pattern: New administrator has plenty of ideas how to change commons entirely... ...to make it just like en.wp, the "gold standard". Nope. If it ain't broken, don't fix it! --Dschwen (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thats insulting. This is a proposal, it has nothing to do with who I am. All Wikimedia projects are constantly "improving" because of new changes. If you would like to make comments like these, please take it to my talkpage. Reh man 15:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this was insulting to you, but please take a breath, and reflect upon your latest proposals and the replies you got. You'll see that it condenses down to two things: a) we don't change established patterns just because en.wp does it in a different way, and b) if it ain't broke, don't fix it. --Dschwen (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats ok, thanks for apologising. But again, this is just a "proposal", if you guys dont like it, then thats perfectly ok, and I am happy I gave it a try. So lets talk about the contents of the proposals, rather than "the proposals" themselves... Reh man 16:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(added after edit conflict) I appreciate the thought and effort that went into this, but discussion first would have been good. With respect, Rehman, please take this up again when you've been using this drop down for more than two weeks.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I do around 1,000 deletes a month, and this doesn't reflect my needs at all. A summary of my last 5,000 admin actions (not all were deletes, so this is only 4,803 items):

3,472 - Per Commons:Deletion request
593 - Page is out of project scope
184 - Copyright violation
87 - No valid content:
83 - User intended to create a category, but did not use "Category:" as the prefix:
64 - Orphaned talk page
59 - Empty gallery:
58 - Missing essential information: source and/or license:
58 - Page is promotional
38 - Vandalism
28 - Housekeeping and (non-controversial cleanup)
23 - Nonsense
18 - Mass deletion of files
15 - Author requested deletion
7 - Derivative of non-free content
4 - Incorrectly named
4 - Test page, please use the sandbox
3 - Empty category:
2 - No freedom of panorama in the source country
2 - Non-free Flickr license
1 - Exact or scaled-down duplicate

Others will have different lists, but I would not provide for anything in single digits above. More items just slows down finding the right one. We can, after all, always add a reason that we make up -- the canned reasons should only cover the most obvious ones.

As for adding a code for easier discussion, many of my deletions could be in any of four or five categories. I tend to use "no valid content" because it's neutral -- I don't know if it's vandalism, a test page, or a typo. Similarly, promotional is often borderline, so I often use "out of scope" because it's usually a Gallery and there are no pictures. And so forth. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I really appreciate your friendly approach, but I'd like to clarify some stuff. This proposal has nothing to do with me becoming an admin, or because I dont like how things currently are. In fact, I had this idea before I was even nominated an admin. This is just to see what you fellow admins think; a good change or a bad one...
Coming to the topic, in my "newbie-admin" opinion, I don't really think it would be that difficult to select "the most suitable" if it suites multiple criteria, would it? And a slight mis-click wouldn't harm much because, after all, it qualified speedy deletion... Reh man 16:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

First, let's clarify. I think this drop down is used for all deletions -- not just speedys. I do very few speedy deletes -- as seen above, the vast majority are out of DRs and the script handles them. Most of the rest come out of new page patrol (i.e. all new creations except files). If I had my way, I'd have the list in exactly the order above -- seems logical to me to have the most used ones on the top. A couple of months ago, I asked that "out of scope" be moved to the top of the list. Our colleagues agreed, and it was done. I notice the difference, particularly as I search down for things like "Promotional" when I need them. As for hitting the wrong line, the vast majority of the 1,300 or so non-DR deletes above are newbie mistakes, so it's important to give them the right reason and, as I always do, a brief explanation. Hitting the wrong reason is unacceptable to me.

Again with respect for your newness, you've got three of the top ten Admins by volume opposed (me, Dschwen, and Herbythyme). The three of us did about 12% of all deletions in the last six months. I don't for a minute believe we should get a bigger vote because we do more, but I do believe that you should consider the high volume users' opinions seriously because it will affect them more. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Modified the list to reflect the facts above. Is it better? Reh man 02:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I rarely comment on Commons' community aspects anymore due to various reasons, but I *do* want to voice my opinion here that Commons should not be aiming to be a clone of enwiki (as mentioned above). Killiondude (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it looks like a clone due to the reference numbers (G1, ect), but I placed those just for ease of communication. What is really proposed here is nothing new; I am just proposing a rephrasing/reordering of the current deletion criteria. Thats all. Reh man 08:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need shortcuts because when deleting we end up at "http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=delete". At this point we don't need to differentiate by gerenal, file, template, etc. There we need a logically sorted list of delete reasons (i.e. content related, license related, etc.), just as it is at the moment. axp_de ^Hello! 08:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is confused as being a change for the entire speedy deletion system. Please see my new (modified) proposal below. Thanks! Reh man 09:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Aberforth needs to be blocked

I just blocked User:Aberforth at en,wp for postingb this picture File:Child lover's dream.jpg. He posted it also here KimvdLinde (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Blocked and deleted image. Reh man 03:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am amazed by what you guys tolerate here. KimvdLinde (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem :) Reh man 04:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed post of concern troll Bidgee (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You know, you could be blocked again, as a sockpuppet of the above blocked user. I'll leave this to other admins. Reh man 12:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Yann (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Banning was mild. I think that wikipedia should report you to the FBI delivering full logs of all edits that you made. Let me say this. You are a typical concern troll. Your 'concern' is that people can mutilate innocent images of children to be or border to child porn and upload them here. You tried to prove the point, and I think that the community response has been very favorable to dispel your concern.KimvdLinde (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Just because the CC license does not put restrictions on derivatives of the image, doesn't mean you are allowed to do this. You may want to read up on en:Moral rights (copyright law). Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed post of concern troll. KimvdLinde (talk) 17

05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

^^Blocked. Multichill (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note - Chris, the moral rights deals with attribution only, not derivatives that might be "immoral". The CC-BY-SA copyleft allows for free use of derivatives. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess Chris intended to refer to personality rights. A CC license is just concerned with the copyright of a work. Even if you are free to reuse a work, this does not mean that you are free to infringe personality rights. Unfortunately the right of publicity is still a state-based right in the United States. In other legislations (like in Germany, for example) you will possibly need a new permission for each new non-private use of such a photograph by the depicted model independent from the CC license. This is particularly true if you put photographs into a new context. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I was also referring to the moral rights forbidding distortion of the work. AFAIK this does not change when you put the image under a CC license. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A possible other sock User:John lilburne, who restored the a removed edit of this user [36] and then continued the discussion. Maybe time for a checkuser on sleeper socks? This created his user page over a year ago to just jump in to the sexual content page alone. Never uploaded a single image. Smell fishy to me. KimvdLinde (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The user simultaneously removed a link to this thread, without any explanation. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Smells and sounds like a duck to me (going by the areas he has edited in and actions he has taken). I would indef them but I think a check-user would help before taking such action. Bidgee (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser has been listed. Bidgee (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne is unrelated but 2 other sleepers were found (one of them even voted during the poll of the proposed Sexual content policy/guideline). Bidgee (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Lilburne's activities in wikipedia also looked suspicious, and he was equally cleared of socking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making the checkuser request. Good to smoke out the sleeper socks. KimvdLinde (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To clarify an already closed case: CC license does not allow any alterations and explicitly prohibits cases like these. CC-BY-SA-3.0, para. 4d: "You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation." IMO, messing original authors into what looks like child porn is very well addressed here. NVO (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please delete oldest revision

Please delete oldest revision of each of the following files.

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 16#Question for the reason.

--HAH (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Túrelio (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --HAH (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any possibility to check, if my real name is used in any other "File history" section of any other File which i uploaded? With google i find only files that are used in Wikipedia articles, but not all files are used in articles. --HAH (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you try Commons' own search function? (I know, it's quite bad). --Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahum, if you want to have your real name removed, someone should oversight the upload log entry. Multichill (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, forget about oversight. Admins can just hide the log entry. I did it for the example I just provided. Multichill (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Done all upload log entries containing your real name are now hidden. Multichill (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. According to all upload log, the log entries should be removed, but the file File:KlosterBlaubeuren3.jpg still contains my real name in the 'File history' section. --HAH (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This way it would likely require oversight. Just do with this file the same as with the others in the above list, re-upload as new version but with full log data (image description). I will then delete the "old" version. --Túrelio (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

When you upload a new file, the text you enter ends up in three locations:

The revision table (the actual page text)
The image table
The log table

Now to get rid of them:

Change the page text and delete the revision
Upload a new version and delte the old image
Hide the entry in the upload log.

I did point three for all files, but I didn't check if point 1 and 2 were done for all files. Multichill (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are the remaining files where the oldest version needs to be deleted.

--HAH (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. One last request: Is it possible that somebody can check the "image table" mentioned above if all real names of me are really removed, so that i can be sure that i found ALL occurences? --HAH (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Prosfilaes

I am reporting User:Prosfilaes for outright distortion and incivility to push something that is more personal political belief than reality. The original discussion is here.

1. Outright distortion as pointed out previously: User claims that multiple court cases verify that camera footage without constant human "artistic" monitoring, or whatever new thing he claims now, is uncopyrightable. He justifies this with two court cases:

A. Feist v Rural. This is a case about names and numbers, blatant facts, and clearly does not apply.

B. Corel v Bridgeman. This is a case about images already in the public domain and about the -copies- of those PD images. This clearly does not apply.

The user persists in this deception, then makes up claims about those who point out the absurdity:

2. Inappropriate warnings to harass other users. As two people who are neutral point out, there is no way to claim that he quotes is a personal attack, directed at anyone, or incivil in any manner. The only justification for this false warning is because I pointed out the absurdity in people trying to declare someone else's property PD without any real basis.

There is no difference between someone taking an image while holding a camera and automatically taking a picture. Timelapse footage is not PD. Webcams that are automated, such as in private zoos, cannot be copied and re-broadcasted.

This user issues fake warnings to bully others, and is outright misinterpreting actual case law to try and push something that has major negative affects. Can an admin please stop this user's abuse? - Ottava Rima (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Prosfilaes misinterpreted your statement "I don't know how you would even attempt to justify the image" as a personal attack directed at the original poster, but raising him as a "problem user" only elevates the conflict. Feist v. Rural and Corel v Bridgeman are both highly relevant to the standard for what is copyrightable material in the United States; this is a disagreement over a legal matter and not a purposeful misrepresentation. I advise maintaining calmness and civility. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the civility issue, please be aware that we generally agree that fixed cameras -- such as security cameras -- often do not produce images that have a copyright because there is no element of creativity. This is not a hard and fast rule, but in general the feed from a webcam will not have a copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That isn't the official position of the WMF nor is it verified in court. That would be an original legal theory, which isn't acceptable at Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dcoetzee, you very well know that there is a difference between copying already PD images and saying that an image within the past 10 years is PD. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I still regard [37] as inappropriate. I can't see any way to interpret a quote of someone else, followed by "It would also be theft to take the images without permission of the person recording them, so I don't know how you would even attempt to justify the image." where "you" doesn't mean the person you're quoting. I know I'm sensitized by a recent incident on Wikisource, but acting appalled that someone would even bring up the issue is an attack, and discourages open discussion. A simple "I believe that's not true, and this is why..." is more than sufficient, and unquestionably civil.

I feel that #2 misstates the issue altogether. Ottava Rima had two users, who I have reason to believe were solicited by him, state that they don't believe the statement was an personal attack. I trust that both users gave their honest opinion, but one of them was a retired editor for whom virtually every edit since 2008 was defending Ottava Rima, which makes this jury a little small and biased. And even at that, Ottava Rima wrote "Two other people posted that your insulting claims of me making attacks were blatantly false and wrong."[38] which wasn't true; the two people said that my claim was wrong, not that it was blatantly false or insulting.

Again, I pointed out the No Personal Attacks policy to Ottava Rima, and among other things, he said [39] "By the way, it is highly inappropriate to make up a claim that WP:Personal attacks is Commons policy." It continues to be listed at COM:EIC#Person under a heading that says "Core policies and guidelines" with "(policy)". Maybe I'm wrong in interpreting that to mean that w:WP:NPA is Commons policy, but I think this is an example of one of my frustrations through this entire thing, that I had to "make [it] up", that I can never be honestly wrong. (And if I am honestly wrong, COM:EIC#Person is distinctly unclear and should be fixed.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If something like NPA is not Commons policy it ought to be. Objecting to your particular policy citation is wikilawyering - personal attacks are obviously not okay on this wiki. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dcoetzee, it doesn't matter if Commons should have a -similar- policy, but we are our own project with our own scope and beliefs. The policy would have to be locally defined to match such. Wikilawyering is also a pejorative and an attack, mind you. It is a way to negatively bash another user. I'm sure you didn't intend to make what can be seen as a personal attack in claiming we should have a policy on personal attacks, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this screams hypocrisy. I fully endorse Dcoetzee's assessment: wikilawyering. --Dschwen (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So, you endorse what is a blatant personal attack? Why do you think it is acceptable to use derogatory terms like that? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling it a blatant personal attack doesn't make it a blatant personal attack. Sorry, dude, it's just not that simple. You should try making factual arguments rather than resorting to wikilawyering. --Dschwen (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Calling it... doesn't make it". No, I never said it did. I pointed out its definition, which is a negative word similar to the word "troll", which is not acceptable. Your incivility in response above is highly inappropriate just as your nasty personal attacks are. If you bothered to read the page, you would see: "is a pejorative term". This denotes it as inappropriate. Then if you looked at the four points, none of my actions would even fall under it. Each thing requires a policy to exist. Pointing out a policy doesn't exist cannot just be dismissed - policies require consensus. They always have. Making nasty personal attacks in response to that is not appropriate. Then there is this: "those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous (see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL)." Notice NPA? You claimed it wasn't a personal attack yet clearly states it as such. I doubt you will even apologize for your behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling this a nasty personal attack is a unproductive and wrong at best. Please do not continue to abuse this term. If any apologies are needed I suggest you start looking on your side of the fence. --Dschwen (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The page above declares it as incivil and a personal attack. Saying I have no right to say you are using it in a nasty manner is unbecoming. You have been completely incivil and that is highly inappropriate. You do not have the right to label people with nasty terms like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You've been called out on hypocrisy and this is the only way you are able to deal with it. --Dschwen (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you on about? You started saying what is denoted elsewhere as violating NPA and CIVIL is a personal attack and you tried to say it wasn't. It has nothing to do with me. It is all you. You can't deflect that. You began trying to claim I was wrong and when overwhelming evidence was provided you still continued and still used the personal attack. Why do you think that is appropriate conduct? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I'm on about is not letting your defamatory claims about "personal attacks" stand undisputed. --Dschwen (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to pretend that the page itself doesn't say NPA and CIVIL? I quoted it for you. If you are going to keep this up, I will open a section on you then request a vote on your adminship, because you made multiple attacks and you are pushing this further than could ever be seen as reasonable. The only appropriate response from you was "I am sorry for using a harsh, negative way of describing you instead of participating in an honest discussion." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am now intimidated by your threat and will stop immediately. Have a nice day. Bye. --Dschwen (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"who I have reason to believe were solicited by him" If anyone paid attention, they would know that neither of those users are my friends, with Bugs especially spending a lot of time on ANI trying to get me blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"I don't know how you would even attempt to justify the image", even if it means the you personally instead of generically (though I don't read it that way), is not a personal attack, it's more of an "I don't get where you're coming from." That's not an attack, it's a question. "...who I have reason to believe were solicited by him..." IS a blatant personal attack on me which, as Ottava suggests, would get laughed out of court if it came to that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see that there is consensus that that is not an attack. However, I don't see why assuming that Ottava Rima asked you your opinion on the matter is a blatant personal attack. (Nor do I see why anyone besides Ottava Rima should pay attention to who Ottava Rima's friends are; and stating that Guido den Broeder is not your friend is a little disingenuous given this edit.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A meatpuppetry implication requires evidence. You got at most 1 out of 2 right. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, Guido is my friend because he opposed a bad block that many others opposed? What ridiculousness. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me just confirm here that my input was not sollicitated. I simply do not appreciate seeing someone, like Prosfilaes here, bully another user, friend or otherwise. I don't much appreciate Prosfilaes' assumption of bad faith towards me either. (And on the copyright matter at hand, (s)he is plainly wrong, but that is less relevant.) Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've yet to see why proffering your own honest opinion at the request of a fellow editor is bad faith. If I am plainly wrong, cite the US court case (since I make no claims on foreign law here). The best evidence I have seen says that competent lawyers are still arguing both sides of the issue, so I can't be plainly wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. All participants in that discussion are missing something important, on both sides: the creative content to consider is first of all that of the actors in the footage. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue Pros is asking about is called "canvassing" and possibly "meatpuppetry", which are against the rules in wikipedia and hence making such charges requires proof or it amounts to a personal attack. It may be that commons has a more relaxed attitude toward those matters, I don't know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies then. I failed to realize that what I was claiming was considered a criminal accusation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's actually a capital crime, except in certain counties in Wyoming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

I would like to know, of the two statements Ottava Rima complained about on my talk page, [40] and [41], if anyone else considers them incivil.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with these two statements. It is in my view perfectly ok to complain about failures by other sites to reuse our content correctly or to argue about the in-scope-ness of a particular image. Both comments were not incivil but focused on facts or arguments presented by others. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, Ottava Rima's complaint is not so much that these statements are incivil (that is always subjective), but that Prosfilaes mispresents policy (which can be checked). Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

He is making countless bogus incivility complaints in this discussion, calling just about anything a personal attack that suits his point. --Dschwen (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"WP:Wikilawyer" makes it clear that the term violates NPA and CIVIL when casually used like that as it is a pejorative. And Dschwen, if you read where I said Prosilaea's comments were incivil was applying his own standard in a real way. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately when you are doing something negative (wikilawyering) it is unreasonable of you to expect people not to use a negative term (wikilawyering) to call you out on it. Time to just accept that. --Dschwen (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The term "wikilawyering" is an attack and clearly needs proof. You cannot just dismiss people like that. How would you like it if people responded to you by saying you were trolling? There is more evidence of that. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but I complained that you focused on the contributor, not the content, and AFBorchert said that my comments were "focused on facts or arguments presented by others."--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Are deleted version same than new one

Can someone check deleted version File:luismesa10.jpg, was it same than File:Luis10.jpg, because same type pictures can be founded from google images.--Motopark (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Same person and a similar image, but it's a different photo. By the way, AFAIK Commons doesn't even let you upload an exact duplicate of a deleted file. Jafeluv (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The images are not identical, though they show the same person (with red tie in the deleted image) in a similar setting. The uploader of the second file, Carlowz10 (talk · contribs), is likely a sock of the uploader of the first one, Carlows002 (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I found same picture from page and marked this as copyvio--Motopark (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Stupid thumbnail bug

Hi. Can somebody help me with this thumbnail problem: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Belgrade_pashaluk.png I uploaded new version of this file, but latest thumbnail on that page still show an older file version. Such problems did happened with some other files in the past and I usually solved these problems by reverting file to previous version and then reverting back to new version. I tried that several times here, but it does not help. I also tried to upload file again but that does not help too. Seems that stupid thing (thumbnail that show older file version) just want to remain on top, no matter how many times I upload new file version. Can somebody solve this problem? Perhaps some of the administrators can delete latest image version with wrong thumbnail? Or all file versions except first two (old and new version) can be deleted? This thumbnail error is a problem because old file version appear in all articles and categories where this file is used in thumbnail form, for example here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sanjak_of_Semendire If nothing helps, I will upload file again under different name, replace it in all articles and then I will ask that this file with error is deleted for good. However, I hope that there is some less radical solution than that. By the way, I also noticed somewhat similar, but also different thumbnail problem with this file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bosnie_et_Sandjak_1904_ES.svg Its thumbnail generating only part of the image, but not all of it. I hope these thumbnail bugs can be corrected somehow? PANONIAN (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Most likely your browser is showing a cached version of the file. Try clearing your browser cache (ctrl+F5 on Firefox or see here for a complete explanation). Jafeluv (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The current version is the original one, however, so you might want to do one more revert :) Jafeluv (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed: [42] followed by Ctrl+F5 did the trick (as usual). - Erik Baas (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK then. I did not thought that it is my browser because bug appeared in different browsers that I use. The first image is fine now, but what seems to be the problem with second one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bosnie_et_Sandjak_1904_ES.svg PANONIAN (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Rearrange two more image names

I just found two more images that had transposed names, but these I uploaded a couple of months ago. Could File:Washington Street 508, Showers-Teter-Barrett House, N. Washington HD.jpg please be moved to File:Washington Street 508, Showers-Teter-Barrett House detail, N. Washington HD.jpg and vice versa? Sorry for making the extra work for you admins. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Can someone delete this this file? Andrei Nacu (User talk:Andrein) 00:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Why is it taking so long for an administrator to react?

Please start the DR request. The file is in use, and you are not the uploader. And thus cannot be speedily deleted. Reh man 02:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am the map author. I uploaded this file to Wikipedia and somebody else transferred it to Commons. Andrei Nacu (User talk:Andrein) 02:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, I will get into real trouble if you don't delete this map ASAP. I received an urgent request to erase it from the Wikimedia database or else the Romanian Academy will sue me for breaking copyright laws. Andrei Nacu (User talk:Andrein) 02:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You didn't upload it, so why would they sue you? Reh man 02:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I uploaded it. Read the 'Author' section of the file summary. El Bes only uploaded the map to Commons. You can ask him if you want. Andrei Nacu (User talk:Andrein) 02:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, seems like you are the original creator at another wiki, but not the original uploader here at Commons. Would it be sufficient if delete all the latest versions and only keep the first version at 14 November 2007 ? Reh man 02:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Andrei Nacu, where did you get it? Their web site? Wknight94 ^talk 02:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn't from their website. The scanned source I used looked almost like this one: http://www.ioancasian.ro/Harti%20Istorice/harta-Dacia-sec-III.jpg. It's just that someone asked me about the source of my map on a blog and after I told him I found out he was working for the Romanian Academy. This is how my problem began. Andrei Nacu (User talk:Andrein) 03:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it won't do if you keep the first version. It looks almost the same as the current map file. Andrei Nacu (User talk:Andrein) 03:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could start a more formal deletion request. I would support you. Reh man 03:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

But still I haven't told that guy that I uploded the map to WikiCommons, I just said I was the author. I think I can say El Bes uploded the map and then noone will sue me. Afterall there's nothing they can do about him. I just hope I won't cause him any trouble. Do you think it will work? Andrei Nacu (User talk:Andrein) 03:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'd have to see the real original to support. The one you just linked to doesn't seem similar enough to me. If the borders and roads and rivers of the area are that way, then you are just showing facts. Facts can't be copyrighted. How can someone claim that no one else can make a map of that area? Wknight94 ^talk 03:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The original looked exactly like the linked map. It only had a better resolution. I guess the guy was angry I traced everything solely from one of their maps. So you really think I'm not breaking copyright laws? Wow, that would be great! Andrei Nacu (User talk:Andrein) 03:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you started a COM:DR for the image, I would have to vote {{Keep}}. They are just not similar enough. Fonts are different, some labels are different, you even have a couple extra colored regions. Even your borders and rivers are slightly different in places. In fact, the only thing the same is where you chose to map and the color choice in the middle. Change the pink and yellow colors and I wouldn't even notice they were the same areas. Wknight94 ^talk 03:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about the new version? Do you believe it is now safe to remove those copyright violation tags? Andrei Nacu (User talk:Andrein) 04:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think so, yes. Wknight94 ^talk 04:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Do something about Fhntv205

user:Fhntv205 is currently uploading a lot of copyrighted pictures, can someone block him? Evalowyn (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Final "end copyvio" warning issued. Block next, thanks for the help. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Image needs reviewing

File:Co Monaghan arms.svg was created by Coyote sprit a month ago and tagged with a Creative Commons licence but it is an svg conversion of the en wiki image en:File:Co Monaghan arms.jpg that is now up for deletion because it has been replaced with this svg file. That enwiki image has been claimed to be a fair-use image for more than two years but on this image there is the statement: I'm unsure of the copyright status of this file, it's recreated from an image which Wikipedia says is copyrighted. I'm uncertain if that applies the the coat of arms specifically or the bitmap image. If it's the former please ignore this image? which calls into question the image licence and therefore its presence here. Ww2censor (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. I deleted the image, per COM:FAIRUSE; fair use images are not allowed on Commons. Reh man 04:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

However, instead of speedily deleting it, because svg files are preferable to jpgs, would it not be a better idea to transfer it to the enwiki so that it can be used there under a fair-use claim. Can an admin please do that? Ww2censor (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Just edit conflicted by posting "Let me know if you need me to temporarily restore it, if you need to transfer it back to en.wiki". ;) Will restore now. Let me know once done. Reh man 04:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Copied so it can be uploaded to enwiki. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Reh man 04:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Mass deletion

Can someone help to delete plenty of pictures from Special:Contributions/Walyechague, thanks--Motopark (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nuked them. Reh man 15:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Ajfd11111

I have a little problem that could need a solution. I inserted a speedy deletion on this image. The uploader removed it. But i think it is a copyright violation since the original author is Kenjiro Hata (Japan) and it's unlikely that Animax ( has given permission to release this photograph under a CC-BY license. What to do, since the user-template also states issues with the reuse of this image and i don't talk chinese? --Niabot (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Image already gone, with the help of Polarlys. --Túrelio (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The user seems to speak english. There is no doubt about the origin of the photo, but the poster itself is copyrighted. Hope he understands. --Polarlys (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It gives me the question: How far goes Freedom of Panorama in China? Might it be legal to do so? --Niabot (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Might be somewhere in here. --Túrelio (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This might be allowed since it is stated:

"Article 22: In the following cases, a work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon: [...]"

"[...] (10) copying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work located or on display in an outdoor public place;"

Such far as i could read it, it would be legal to make such a picture from a showcase as long the name is mentioned. Only remaining problem, what is difficult to find out, is the sentence: "[...] the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon". --Niabot (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename file

I asked to rename File:Los Angeles class SSN688.svg (it has such name now) to SSN688.svg for a twice because all files in my set of american's subs have same names (for example, File:SSN21.svg, File:SSN571.svg, File:SSBN633.svg) but it was called another twice. Could anybody rename it correctly?--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Done When you want a move, the best way is to add the {{Rename}} tag to the file. In this case it would be:

{{Rename|SSN688.svg|To conform to other similar filenames}}.

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Promotional pictures horse training

Can someone delete promotional pictures from user Special:Contributions/Sara_shalda, there are internet address in the pictures --Motopark (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 11:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Jumbled Page on Major Historical Entry

Dear wiki,

I hope I am in the right place. If not please report this to the right people.

The topic page, "Texas Revolution", is jumbled and the top section is unreadable and unusable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution

As this is the 175th anniversary of the Texas Revolution, there will likely be a lot of student traffic to the page, so this problem ought to be repaired as soon as possible.

Thank you

wiki user ttyler5 Houston

Repaired. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

^Thats a fast fix! ;) Reh man 11:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, on :en they had been sleeping (undetected) for 7 hours. --Túrelio (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete original version

Hi. Can someone please delete the first version of File:AM PM Travel 202 P202 OLX.JPG that I uploaded originally, because it has my reflection in the bus shelter and I don't want it there. Thanks for any help, Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Regards. Reh man 00:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's excellent. Thanks for your help. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 13:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Kind regards. Reh man 13:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

File:RoyHarper Widnes 2001.jpg

File:RoyHarper Widnes 2001.jpg has had various images uploaded over it, all of which I believe are copyvios. I've reverted it to the original; could someone delete the the rest of the image history?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Scuba diver1.jpg

If anyone here is a French admin, can you please take a look at the proper source for this: fr:Image:Plongeur bouteilles.jpg, and find out the source used when uploaded there? Otherwise we have no proof that the image is in fact made by NOAA and is as such PD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Allan Warren

Probably User category. Wrong named? --4028mdk09 (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably. Consists of images of random people... Reh man 11:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, just look at w:Allan Warren. -- Docu at 11:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --4028mdk09 (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of these images could need additional categories. Many are just in Category:Allan Warren. -- Docu at 06:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The category should be renamed and moved to Category:Photographs by author. Could anyone do this? I always have problems with the bot ;-) --Polarlys (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ordered, the two images showing Allan Warren will be moved back afterwards. --Martin H. (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC) and

Done. --Martin H. (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Marginally better ;) .. I added "people by name" categories up to "Lord Kinross". -- Docu at 12:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mediawiki page move

Would you please move the page i created in my user space at User:Ciphers/MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js/ja to MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js/ar as a page for localizing Hot-Cat on Arabic. Thanks in advance. --Ciphers (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Reh man 05:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

IP on a mission

See Special:Contributions/195.110.6.202.

IP has flooded Commons:Deletion requests/2011/01/19 with what started like legitimate AFDs based on FOP, and then began slapping same standard tag on places that are nearly 200 years old - with the same botlike zeal - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arendt home.jpg. Looks like a nationalist troll to me. NVO (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Does :uk accept fair-use? If yes, then all those images might be transferred to local use, before we delete them here. --Túrelio (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP does have a valid case on the FoP as it states that Architectural works don't have FoP (I would be interested in hearing about the Ukraine copyright laws on buildings older then 100 years), so the AfD's are fine but could have been placed as a mass AfD rather then a heap of them. Bidgee (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Interested? Then what about buildings (or sculptures in IP language) that existed in 1833 and haven't ever been substantially rebuilt? You'd be disappointed though, the IP responds with laconic spells in English or Ukrainian. Luckily, his interest is limited to Crimea (my guess why is just as good as yours) - or we could see AFD for St. Sophia (no FOP in Ukraine, d'oh). NVO (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

NVO, please stay calm. Requesting a deletion, especially by an IP, isn't equivalent to performing a deletion.

But it might help the evaluation by the closing admin if those accustomed to Ukrainian copyright law could check 1) if anything has changed (by court decisions) after our small paragraph COM:FOP#Ukraine had been written; 2) if there is a provision for copyright that was acquired before 1917; 3) what about copyright for a building if the architect is unknown. --Túrelio (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"Small paragraph" is a gracious understatement for a policy that bans images of practically anyhing man-made. Perhaps the problem is not in Ukrainian laws ({{PD-Ukraine}} appears quite liberal, is it still valid?) but in the unnecessary brevity of COM:FOP. It throws in a blanket ban when, in fact, it should consider specific application like, for example, the Commons:Hirtle chart does. NVO (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We have had a brief discussion at User talk:Pieter Kuiper#Why are you demanding source for old paintings? about putting this tag on pages that qualify for {{PD-art}}. Pieter, Amada44, and I agree that using {{No source since}} is not good because it says that the file may be deleted if the source isn't provided within seven days. This, of course, should not happen if the file qualifies for {{PD-art}} since it is PD regardless of who took the photograph. I propose a new template, perhaps called "Unsourced PD-art" which would politely request source information, but acknowledge that it is not essential. Thoughts? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This (or very similar) topic comes back again and again and again. We would actually need two NS templates:

NS, but it doesent matter (for above, for any PD stuff)
Source, but most likely not the right one (mostly own) also used for: I don't trust the source.

cheers, Amada44 ^{talk to me} 18:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

COM:L explicitly requires a source ("Specifically, the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not: The Source of the material") (emphasis original). There is no consideration as to whether the PD claim is "obvious". Indeed, there is no such thing as a universally "obvious" case. Not all Commons users can recognize a Rembrandt, a Van Gogh, a Sérusier, etc. and a source ensures users have the ability to confirm (what is for them) uncertain authorship and that the Commons version is a true representation (this follows the "verifiability trumps truth" notion which underlies many projects). Further, although the United States and Commons have the luxury of the Bridgeman ruling, it does not apply in other jurisdictions. For example, if a 2D work normally located in the UK were digitalized while on temporary display in the U.S., that derivative would have no copyright. If that digitalization were done in the UK, however, it could be subject to copyright protection. A source would allow re-users to identify possible copyright issues which may arise from the image's reuse in their particular jurisdiction (e.g. is the image sourced to a The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, or the National Portrait Gallery). This, of course, ignores that sourcing is just good practice. Whatever the case, per the COM:L requirement, this is not an issue that can be resolved with templates. If there is to be a change, that is a policy discussion that should not occur at an admin noticeboard. Эlcobbola _talk 19:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The are other absurdities on that page, for example that a source link would be required. Change COM:L. The language that a source "must" be given was introduced in this edit in 2008, apparently without any discussion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

One could easily argue that the previous "should always" (emphasis original) meant precisely the same thing. Addressing the actual points instead of vitriol ("absurdities") and strawmen (existence of other aspects with which you personally disagree) would be helpful. Эlcobbola _talk

I agree that sources are not required for copies of identifiable works of art that are in the public domain. Someone should however examine it carefully to make sure it is the stated work of art, and not a modified version or something else entirely. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please no more new templates. Not every painting in the PD domain is recognized as such, when absolutely no information is provided. {{No source since}} is just fine here. If information is provided (creator, year of creation) and the work is identifiable by other means (title), I see no need to push for a source. But I generally agree with elcobbola: Source of material is always necessary. --Polarlys (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

First, let's agree we are talking about the source of the photograph, not the painting, drawing, or other 2D work that it shows. For PD-art to apply, we always need to know the painter, or at least the date.

I fully agree that knowing the source is very desirable. My problem is that I'm not sure we are going delete -- or should delete -- an image of a Rembrandt because we don't know who made the photograph. Thus {{No source since}} makes a threat that perhaps we aren't going to carry out.

This is a particular problem where the work is in a museum that permits photography, but not for commercial purposes. If I go to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, I may photograph anything on exhibit, but my ticket says I may not photograph for commercial purposes. Commons position is that the ticket restriction is a civil matter between me and the museum and that the work could be hosted on Commons. However, I probably don't want the museum to know that I'm breaking their rules, so I'm not likely to want to admit to being the source. (Memo to the MFA -- Museum photography is not my thing).

There are also times when an unsourced image available on the net is higher quality than the sourced image we have. If there is no question that the work is PD-art, why shouldn't we keep the better image? Again, there may be a distance between what our formal rules say and what closing Admins actually do. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - as long as the artwork can be clearly identified, a source should not be required. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"No source" is a problematic template:

If no source is given at all it works just fine.
If a source is given but we do not trust it I think it should not be used. Take the file to a DR and tell why you do not trust the source.
If no source is given and it does not matter (like PD-art) then the template should not be given. If we want uploader to add one then we could ask the user on his/her user talk and if we want others to see that a source is missing we could blank the field in {{Information}} to make a note pop up.

I think the best would be if we made the template more clear with a big fat notice that it is NOT for PD-art and it is NOT for disputed sources. That would make it more clear when to use it and when it is ok to remove a "no source tag". --MGA73 (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

File:164829 182802395073529 100000313085329 515554 2595603 n (1).jpg

Please rename File:164829 182802395073529 100000313085329 515554 2595603 n (1).jpg to File:Wikipedia 10 FX Sudirman Jakarta 2.jpg. Thanks. ...Kenrick95 14:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Reh man 14:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Those file names are generated by facebook. I don't think this kind of files should be renamed without first checking if the uploader obtained permission. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Name of uploader and claimed author aren't the same. --Túrelio (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I speedy renamed because it was a request by the uploader for a recently created file. Didn't check the source... Reh man 15:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for admins: Speedy Deletions

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi. I propose a reshuffling/rephrasing of the current deletion criteria (for administrators currently saved in places like MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown or MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown) to the following:

General: All namespaces

No valid content, promotional content, test page, accidental creation, or other patent nonsense
Vandalism or content intended as threat/attack
Recreation of content deleted per community consensus
Creator or uploader request deletion of unused/empty page or file
Improperly named recently created content
Temporary deletion for history cleaning or version suppression
Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirects
Pages dependant on deleted or non-existent content

Namespace-specific: Files

Deletion Request: [DR-LINK]
Out of project scope: Personal events, and/or non-educational content
Out of project scope: Replaceable and/or low quality pornographic content
Out of project scope: Promotional content
Copyright violation
Fair use material
Derivative of non-free content
Mass deletion of copyrighted or other inappropriate content: [DR-LINK]
License review: Non-free license, or licence disallowing commercial use and/or derivative works
Missing essential information such as licence, permission or source
Permission granted only for one or more Wikimedia projects
Screenshot of non-free content
OTRS: Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons
No freedom of panorama in the source country
Image source washing
Corrupt or empty file, or file in an unauthorized format
Exact or scaled-down duplicate

Namespace-specific: Categories

Empty category

Namespace-specific: Templates

Unused template
Recently-created template that duplicates an existing template

Nothing has been deleted or added, just mere merging/splitting/rephrasing. The previous discussion which drifted into confusing as being a proposal to change the entire speedy deletion system, is in the section above. --Reh man 08:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Broken/orphaned redirect, incorrect names and duplicate/redundant seem missing. --Foroa (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not missing. Redirects and Incorrect-name are at #General, the other is at the bottom of #Files. Reh man 10:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose as comments are not integrated anyway and still missing elements. --Foroa (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Extra comments would still be possible by filling in the "Other/additional reason". And I dont seem to be able to spot it, what is missing? All these entries were taken from the current lists and just rephrased... What exactly is missing? Reh man 10:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This style of changes might suggest that I have sand in my eyes, but orphaned redirects are still missing, invalid file names have nothing to do with "Improperly named recently created content", duplicate or redundant categories are missing, cross-name redirects are not necessarily wrong. If you call this "Nothing has been deleted or added, just mere merging/splitting/rephrasing.", then you better leave it as is. --Foroa (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been changing the list as the comments progress below, so that newer readers have a "current" proposal, I am sorry if I shouldn't have done this. Things like "orphaned redirects" are included in #7 at "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirects". Of course, you anyone is welcome to rephrase any part of the proposal, as that is what this discussion is for; to reach consensus to a more descriptive and detailed reasons... Reh man 09:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The list shouldn't include reasons for speedy deletion that violate current deletion policy. -- Docu at 11:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it shouldn't. May I ask which one in particular you are referring to? Because as I said, there are no new reasons, just merged/rephrased ones... Reh man 12:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm lost here. This is a phrased as a discussion of the dropdown for speedy deletions, but as far as I know the same dropdown appears whenever you click on the down arrow between View/Edit/View history/{star} and the search box and then choose "Delete" -- ordinary deletions, speedy deletions, and closures of DRs not done with the script all get the same dropdown list, don't they?

If that's true, then I still object, for the same reasons I gave above and that, obviously, all the legal reasons for deletion, even those that do not apply to speedys should be on the list.

If it's not true -- if somehow the presence of {{Speedydelete}} brings up a different dropdown, then I have little input because I very rarely deal with speedys. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Filedelete-reason-dropdown#Cleanup_in_deletion_reasons started by me. The Out of scope violate current deletion policy. I suggested that we removed them so admins did not risk a desys op because they used a deletion reason that is not valid. --MGA73 (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

@Jim: This is not just for speedys, but for the default deletions, which I clarified in this edit. We could of course, remove/add anything if there is consensus to do so, like MGA73's discussion on removing the "Out Of Scope" reason... But I dont understand the template part; perhaps you could explain further? Reh man 16:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The first reason links to a DR. Thus all others must be reasons for speedy deletion. (The only exception might be OFFICE). -- Docu at 06:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Reh man 06:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Change Missing essential information such as licence or source to Missing essential information such as licence, permission or source. That way we don't have to mess around with annoyances when coming across files with permission missing since... -mattbuck (Talk) 06:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Changed. Reh man 06:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I had not realized that Rehman had removed the whole first section from this discussion, including negative comments from several of us, including Herbythyme and Dschwen. I've replaced my part in that below. I also am still troubled by the discussion limiting the list to speedy reasons -- this list is used for all deletions, so all reasons must be there. I still see absolutely no need for this change which will slow down my work.

[previous comment removed from above by Rehman]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I do around 1,000 deletes a month, and this doesn't reflect my needs at all. A summary of my last 5,000 admin actions (not all were deletes, so this is only 4,803 items):

3,472 - Per Commons:Deletion request
593 - Page is out of project scope
184 - Copyright violation
87 - No valid content:
83 - User intended to create a category, but did not use "Category:" as the prefix:
64 - Orphaned talk page
59 - Empty gallery:
58 - Missing essential information: source and/or license:
58 - Page is promotional
38 - Vandalism
28 - Housekeeping and (non-controversial cleanup)
23 - Nonsense
18 - Mass deletion of files
15 - Author requested deletion
7 - Derivative of non-free content
4 - Incorrectly named
4 - Test page, please use the sandbox
3 - Empty category:
2 - No freedom of panorama in the source country
2 - Non-free Flickr license
1 - Exact or scaled-down duplicate

Others will have different lists, but I would not provide for anything in single digits above. More items just slows down finding the right one. We can, after all, always add a reason that we make up -- the canned reasons should only cover the most obvious ones.

[previous comment ends]

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi please see my replies at User talk:Jameslwoodward#Removed content. Thanks. Reh man 14:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. It is very bad style to remove dissenting comments. Calling it archiving does not help. Please don't ever do that again. Thanks. --Dschwen (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to be a dick, and I am really sorry if I am going to sound like one but, what does that have to do with opposing this proposal? I know I did a stupid thing with the first confusing proposal, and the following removal on content (aka archiving), but honestly speaking, I really don't think this proposal is controversial, or that anything is wrong with it. All I am proposing is to change the current criteria to the more descriptive ones proposed above (which is currently open to be changed per discussion). IMVHO, these changes seems so small and uncontroversial to me that at times I feel a discussion is rather unnecessary... If you feel that any criteria proposed above is not right, please do change it, I really don't mind... Reh man 09:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Update: I have summarized this proposal on this page, so that the issues can be discussed more freely. Please point out issues (clearly) relating the proposal at the talkpage. If no serious issues are shown, I will be bold and make the changes. Reh man 11:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake (again)

I am uploading pages in a Swedish Bible, and have made a mistake again.

File:Biblia Fjellstedt II (1890) 810.jpg is a copy of File:Biblia Fjellstedt II (1890) 809.jpg and has to be deleted.

Thereafter: File:Biblia Fjellstedt II (1890) 811.jpg has to be moved (without redirect) to the 810-page. The related pages on SVWS will be moved as soon as this has been made here!

AFAIK, File:Biblia Fjellstedt II (1890) 826.jpg and above have the correct position today.

To often this is like the work of Sisyphus, and I sometimes fails to be awake!

Best regards! -- Lavallen (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 13:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tack!!! -- Lavallen (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

One more mistake discovered! File:Biblia Fjellstedt II (1890) 933.jpg have to be moved (without redirect) to "d:o 934". (Compare the pagenumber on FIle:Biblia Fjellstedt II (1890) 932.jpg.) -- Lavallen (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Done /Lokal _Profil 14:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Tack för det!!! -- Lavallen (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Renobreen

Spammer, see contribs: renobreen (talk · contribs) ˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Are next licence valid

Can someone tell me are next licence valid File:Zombie-apocalypse-2.png--Motopark (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not correct. You want {{PD-textlogo}}. Powers (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Uploader trying to revoke irrevocable licenses

Thirteen different discussions currently at Commons:Deletion requests/2011/01/22 have been filed by Valternet (who is the uploader/author) with the explicit rationale of the author trying to revoke the free license currently on each of these images. Could someone please close them and inform the uploader that s/he is not able to revoke these licenses? S/he has previously nominated some of them for deletion, with some being as recent as three weeks ago. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Uploader notified. Is that required here? I can't remember; perhaps I'm just confusing this page with en:WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but doesn't hurt. I will investigate all deletion discussions opened by the user and speedy keep if appropriate. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the mess and warned the user. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Other views?

Finding a speedy with a copyright symbol/name on the image from a blocked puppeteer led me to these contribs. The remaining ones have no such annotation on the image but seem similar to the ones I've deleted. I'd appreciate someone else taking a look at both the deleted and undeleted ones and expressing a view on them. Given the puppeteer I think they could be copyvios (as I believe the ones I deleted were). Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

After I started tagging the image as copyvios because the original file version all had a watermark like "(C) Peter Lewis 20xx", I found a comment a a forum[43] in which a user flyernzl (our original uploader used the same name Flyernzl (talk · contribs)), had uploaded for example the same photo as in File:ZK-AMO IMG 6176-Edit.jpg on the same date also to the forum (second image from above) and, in the comment "Re: MoTAT updates" immediately below, another user of this forum addresses the uploader as "Peter" (full comment: "Thanks for this Peter - it's great to see pics of ZK- AMO Aranui - 60 years after I flew Sydney-Auckland on her!"). This suggests/hints (nothing more) a possible identify of thee uploader Flyernzl at that forum. Though it's unproven that he is also the same person as Flyernzl (talk · contribs). Another image from the same uploader, File:ZK-XBD IMG 5336.jpg, is also found on another forum[44], where it is linked in from PhotoBucket, where an account carrying again the same name flyernzl. All (or nearly all of the many) images on this account carry the same "(C) Peter Lewis 20xx" watermark. --Túrelio (talk)

Very useful research thanks. I have no problem with my deletions being reversed if others feel that I am wrong - I just deleted the images with "(C) Peter Lewis 20xx" on as it seemed wrong to keep them without some proof that the user was Peter Lewis. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not ask him for an OTRS permission? -- Docu at 14:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is his PhotoBucket userpage: http://s104.photobucket.com/home/flyernzl. I have no idea, how to contact him. --Túrelio (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I imagine the rather large number of puppet accounts suggests that he might not view the foundation with much favour now? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I missed that part. Forget it then. Too bad. -- Docu at 14:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the userpage of that unlucky user requires a rewrite since the sockpuppet block was removed, see log. While Papa9 aka AtlanticDeep apparently is some kind of complete i**** possibly from New Zealand (according to the not very reliable self-identification at en:User:AtlanticDeep) the user Flyernzl is contributing in a good way to aviation in New Zealand as the user name already suggests. His only mistake was probably that he was editing with a similar computer system from the same /16 range that Papa9 abuses and that Tiptoety checked (CU log) at 06:21, 7 June 2010. He was then blocked and the checking continued (06:28), then he was unblocked and at 7:00 the check resulted in findings like MadamLouvre (talk · contribs) and Paramore4eva (talk · contribs). Accidentially the userpage generated from the block via Checkuser interface wasnt deleted. I think thats all the problem. The user is however still active at en.wp, ask there, explain the issue and ask him to confirm the watermark. --Martin H. (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Martin - I failed to check whether he was actually blocked - I've deleted the user page anyway. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The delete template and wiki code

Could someone knowledgeable on the subject please read and comment here? Thank you.--Rockfang (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons image with hidden personal information

I'm attempting to find an admin to delete an image of photo identification (uploaded as an example) that has been edited to blur out the subject, but the underlying layer is still visible in the image preview (.jpg keeps a record of the preview, but for some reason it isn't the same as the censored version). It's some kid's ID and I'd rather not broadcast it all over the place so how could I get in touch with someone? 64.180.84.184 07:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You may contact one of our oversighters. --Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! Freshofftheufo (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... still no reply and the image is still there. I guess they don't think it's that important. Freshofftheufo (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, oversighters are volunteers and only a few, and thereby not available on a 24-7 basis. If you had posted the filename here, then any admin could have looked into the case. --Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I thought it could have been removed without linking it, but it's gone too long so whatever. This is the image: 1 if someone could take care of it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Freshofftheufo (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like something was done about it a while back? I don't see what you can see personally. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a comment in the history, consider this: even if they had dome something to remove the personal information (as far as I can tell, they haven't), the picture history still exists so anyone could just download an older version of the file. Obviously explaining step-by-step how to get the image behind the blur isn't what I want to do, but since nobody has removed the image yet: you have to ensure it's the original image that you download, and not a thumbnail. If you open it in GIMP2, the kids face is clearly visible in the preview thumbnaill. I assume the same is true of photoshop, but I don't have it to check. Freshofftheufo (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've used jhead to remove the thumbnail hidden in the EXIF data. It's just a matter of oversighting/revdeleting the oldest version. I must say, that is one nasty feature which could be put to many a bad use. For the technically uninclined, Jeffrey's Exif viewer can spot any images on commons with this issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

OK - I understand the issue now. I've now deleted the old version. An admin delete is not the same as an oversight one but it can only be seen by admin - it has effectively "gone". If anyone thinks actual oversight is needed then someone will have to wake them up. Thanks to Magog for sorting it :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Although it occurs to me that this file might actually be a copyright violation! Doesn't the copyright belong to the UK government? If so, we can upload it to English Wikipedia as fair use though. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting rid of it! Freshofftheufo (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(OTRS) K129 wreck.png

The file K129 wreck.png was correctly tagged as a copyvio and speedy delete. For an unknown reason, User:Túrelio tagged it as AfD, and now it's in deletion limbo, awaiting a decision. There's no need for this. It's a confirmed copyvio (see OTRS ticket#2011012010015076) and the complainant (rightly) is impatient.

Again, it should never have been downgraded from speedy. Please delete it asap. Asav (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now posted a message on the "admin"'s talk page as well. In short: DELETE THIS NOW. This is a blatant copyvio. Is there anybody out there? Asav (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this the image I deleted four hours ago? Wknight94 ^talk 03:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be now, after two days. Thanks, Wknight94. But this just isn't good enough. User:Túrelio made an effort to downgrade this problem from speedy to AfD and dropped completely out of the picture. Copyvios are serious matters, and this certainly isn't the way to handle them. When OTRS is asked to investigate one, we take that matter seriously. So should admins. Either put up or shut up, User:Túrelio. Asav (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Asav, please remain civil. Reh man 04:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Asav, I can also suggest to find an admin on here that is also on OTRS (myself included) so we can do the deletions immediately with the appropriate ticket numbers. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

@Asav, I have no problem about getting notified when I do/did something wrong, which can easily happen among the 27,000+ deletions I performed since July 24, 2010. But I don't like getting shouted at or even libeled. Therefore, let's have a look at the facts:

On January 11, the file had been tagged by Downtowngal for "{{Copyvio}} Copyright status of picture unclear.". Now, that's a very clear rationale for immediate speedy deletion, isn't it?
On January 12, I have converted that cv-tag to DR, in order to get some input about the possible problem with this file, which is quite a SOP.
On January 17, IP 76.98.249.241 added a second DR-tag with more detailed information about the copyright status. Some minutes later, the same IP added an additional copyvio-tag, for the first time with a statement "Copyright holder requests that it be deleted as soon as possible". The IP then transformed his own delete-tag into a copyvio-tag.
On January 20, you, Asav, for the first time in the file history, mentioned that there is a specific OTRS-request ("See OTRS ticket#2011012010015076").

--Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've said already, it took three days from the OTRS copyvio notice until the image was deleted. Apart from BLP, copyvios are the most serious issues we have to deal with, and once a confirmed copyvio is established by OTRS or otherwise, the image is to be deleted. If it turn out that a valid license has been obtained, it can always be reuploaded. Once an OTRS agent establishes a copyvio. s/he represents the complainant in the matter, and in this matter, the complainant was right to be impatient. Asav (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be best to contact someone who is an admin and OTRS staff to have the image deleted immediately instead of leaving it to wait. You can also bring it up here to say "I have an image that needs to be nuked due to OTRS, here is what I am able to say" and we can take care of it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Along the same lines, the speedy process at CAT:CV is a bit broken. There are so many questionable ones there that the "speedy" part is gone. What you are looking for is very speedy, and so far, the only process for those is COM:AN. Wknight94 ^talk 20:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion very speedy is such a rare need that COM:AN is an entirely adequate forum for it. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

cat with refs

Finally, a category with references: Category:City Garden Hotel Hong Kong ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Move File:Profit Sharing in the Unitted States.djvu

Please help me move File:Profit Sharing in the Unitted States.djvu to File:Profit Sharing in the United States.djvu. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --P. S. Burton (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

please remove a picture

hey there i would like to change my picture someone uploaded a couple years back the link is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miss_Belize_07_Felicita_Arzu.jpg i dont like this picture and i did not know it was up. if the picture could be replaced with the picture found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicita_Arz%C3%BA it would be of great pleasure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizzeros (talk • contribs) 19:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

So, File:Miss Belize 07 Felicita Arzu.jpg should be "replaced" by File:Felicita Arzu.jpg, right? --Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Both

are on Commons. Wizzeros (talk · contribs) has tagged the first with a DR. That is the only action necessary for the community to discuss the request and is the only place we should discuss it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi, could someone please close the following deletion requests. Two images i uploaded were nominated for deletion on January 14. More than a week has passed since then, yet no one has issued any comments so far, apart from myself and the nominator. These two images are present in an article i have nominated for FA status.

The first image was a montage of images which was linked to a copyright violation. As such, i re-uploaded it and replaced it with a free image. It's no longer an issue.

The second image is an old pre-independence era image of a family which i uploaded after confirmation from the source that it predates the Indian Independence era (August 15, 1947), hence, effectively putting it in the Indian public domain. Apart from deductive reasoning, i can also confirm it, if required as i have the email with me. Just let me know how!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kodialche_Katholik.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mulki_Shenoy.jpg

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 18:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the first as keep and added my

Delete to the second with comments. The problem there is that it apparently was first published on a web site and the Indian rule for photographs is 60 years from first publication. Therefore it will not be PD for 40 years or so -- unless, of course, you can prove that it was published somewhere before 1950. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please delete this image as well. It's taken from the same website. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JoachimAlva.jpg#Summary

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 23:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Feedback

I wrote some code recently to assist the english wikipedia with issues regarding the protection of images that they have on their main page. I gave it to krinkle to operate, but he is having issues with reliability and the fact that the code stops operating for him, (I know its nothing related to the code that I wrote and is related to him having multiple bots using a shared code base). My thought would be to create an admin bot to edit a single page in its userspace and have that page cascade protected to ensure that images are protected. I however am not familiar enough with commons to know whether nor not this has a snowballs chance in hell of passing or not. Δ 01:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone?? Δ 19:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I think there is a problem, those files need the most important protection: "upload=sysop" and the userspace cannot have that level of protection. --Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 02:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If cascade protection is enabled on the subpage, its the same thing, just try it. Its what en.wp uses for local images. Δ 02:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Then, I'm ok with that, but I think this Feedback request should be moved to Commons:Village Pump to gather more opinions. Also (as you may know) a sysop bot should be controlled by a sysop user, so we also need somebody willing to take that task. --Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 18:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any easy way to duplicate a file?

That is, copy it to a new location, leaving the old file in place. I ask, because it would make Commons:Deletion requests/File:Attica_2007_el.png very easy, but I suspect the answer is "No". If it were possible, I would just copy the file and then delete the "wrong" version from both. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You click through to the highest-resolution version, download it to your machine, then upload. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that only takes care of the image. If we could duplicate the whole file, we could save history and all of the non-image parameters. Sorting out the history of the two versions will be non-trivial.

I take it from the lack of response that the answer is, "No"? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A page's history can be exported from Special:Export. I assume there is some way to import it under another name from the XML. Maybe that would do the trick? Jafeluv (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Aha. Thank you. I managed to export the page to an XML file on my computer. However, at Help:Import it says, "On Wikimedia wikis upload import is disabled," so I suspect it's a dead end.

Does anyone have a followup? Of course, at this point, I could have fixed the problem as described above more quickly, but this is a learning experience. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Special:UserGroupRights, we have a user group called "importer" that has the importupload right, although there's nobody in it. The user group can be assigned by stewards, and the request page is here. I know Wikisource pages are sometimes transwikied by XML upload if the destination wiki doesn't support transwiki imports from the source wiki.[45] Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Likely copyvio on main page

I tried to nominate it for deletion, but obviously I couldn't. File:State Library of Queensland − Exterior.JPG - see my nomination for deletion on en.wp: en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 January 26#File:Slq exterior.JPG. Oops. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I replaced all the main page pics with File:Northern end of the State Library of Queensland.jpg just in case. File:State Library of Queensland − Exterior.JPG is now clear for COM:DR or whatever. Wknight94 ^talk 02:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Bareillycollege.gif

Can someone please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bareillycollege.gif. This was raised by an IP for invalid reasons and can be closed out. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you odder for closing it out. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no problem, I just forgot to write in here that I've closed it :) odder (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Importupload right

We don't have a place for requesting this right, which can be given only by stewards, and the place for requesting a steward's action calls for gathering community consensus first.

Background: I asked above whether there was any way to duplicate a file. In the case at hand we have a file that should be split into two

and then each edited with the history for each part preserved and the appropriate image left in each. Move (effectively "rename") is easy. Duplicating a file under a new name (call it "copy") is not. The only way to do it, I think, with Jafeluv's help, is to export the whole file and its history as a download in XML. That's easy -- I've done it. Uploading the XML, however, requires the importupload right, and we don't have any people with that right.

It would be silly to ask for this for one image -- it's not worth it. It occurs to me, though, that this procedure might be useful for crops and other derivatives of our files -- we could keep the complete history with both the original and the DW. I think now from time to time we keep the original work only because it has the history.

As many of you know, I've been an Admin here for eight months and am closing in on 20,000 edits on Commons and 10,000 admin actions. I think I can be trusted to use this right carefully and sparingly.

If you think this is a silly request, I'll withdraw it quickly without argument. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Is far from being a silly request :-) if a work must be done, and there is a way to do it, let's do it! (more if a trusted user is willing to do it) I

Support this request. --Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 18:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like a reasonable request by a reasonable person. I'll be glad to support it. However, I believe that "community consensus" means consensus of the community, not only of administrators (or other users like me who occasionally read this page), and the administrators' noticeboard may not be the best page to decide it. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I support this, for the reasons stated in the section above. Having someone(s) with this right could come in handy in other similar situations as well, and although this is the first(?) time this has come up on Commons, several projects already make use of the same user right for similar purposes. As for the nominee, Jim is a trustworthy and active sysop and can definitely be trusted to use the additional tool without breaking anything. Jafeluv (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

@Asclepias -- I'm completely open to suggestions for a better place for this. I thought about putting it on the RfA page, but that is even less visible. The Village Pump is by language. I figured this was the most broadly read single page on Commons. Thoughts? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of a particular discussion page for expressing the community consensus, I guess the Village pump (en) would probably be the less bad place for it. At least, the Community portal directs to the Village pump for "questions about features, problems you may have, or policy", which, to most users, probably makes it look intuitively like a more natural choice for community discussions than the Administrators' noticeboard, whose function is presented as "if you need to communicate with an administrator, for example regarding blocks and protections". Anyway, it may not be so much where the discussion actually takes place that is important, but that users have a reasonable opportunity to know that a decision-making community discussion is taking place and that they can have a word. So, I guess the discussion/decision could be made on the VP (en), with a request for people to place a small anouncement on other languages VPs. I was under the impression that this was how things used to be done for community discussions/decisions about topics that disn't have a more specific place. But my experience on Commons is limited and I could be mistaken. We could also just post an announcement on the VP, informing users that the discussion will take place on page X. ("Page X" could include here, I suppose, but I fear that having those discussions here might set a bad habit and that some people might believe that community decisions are for administrators.) You mentioned the RfA page. Perhaps the RfR page could be a good idea. A simple solution, for a new or unusual type of rights like this, could be to place a word on the VP, informing people of the request on the RfR page. Note that I don't think that your particular request poses any problem, but I speak more in general. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

OK -- as a more or less monoglot English speaker, I am sensitive about suggesting in any way that Commons is somehow governed from an English only page and that the only consensus that counts is reached there.

The RfR page has the disadvantage that few people look at it except those asking for rights and a few who grant them.

So, I've put a note on the English VP and I think we'll continue this here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Support wherever the discussion takes place. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment If I understand the feature request correctly, this can already be done by sysops through History merging and splitting. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Done New revisions were split to File:Attica_2011_el.png ; old revisions are still at File:Attica_2007_el.png. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh oh. I suddenly realise with mild horror that I may have misunderstood the problem here : the entire history of the old file should have been duplicated to the new place? If so, sorry for the mess :-( Jean-Fred (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a note: I implemented a bot with import log instead of just doing it in the plaintext, see here. At the time I tried it was considered confusing so I didn't continue on this track. Multichill (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Promotional username

Promotional username User:Birneee.de--Motopark (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, informed of scope, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(OTRS) Posts by User:Stockercd

OTRS has received notice (ticket:2011012810005509) from the original photographer that the copyrighted image Px4 Storm.jpg had been uploaded by User:Stockercd as his own. Further investigation shows that at least one more picture has been lifted from the original website (www.imfdb.org), which retains copyright. In addition to those two (which I have marked for speedy/copyio), the user has uploaded three more images, all related to guns. I believe it would be prudent to nuke those as well, as there seems to be a pattern of copy violations. I have notified the user. (User_talk:Stockercd Asav (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this. Deleted --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Are next pictures copyvios

Are next pictures copyvios Special:Contributions/AaronRichard without OTRS-permission. Who has made the desing--Motopark (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

please rename a category

Hi,

I misspelled a category for a Hungarian mathematican, pls rename Category:Miklós Laczovick to Category:Miklós Laczkovich. Thank you! --OrsolyaVirág (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename is not possible for cats. Just create a new one. Already done for the above one. --Túrelio (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know... :( THANK YOU! Could you pls delete the wrong one? ;) --OrsolyaVirág (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

US copyright law as the only measure?

As a notification for those who haven't seen it already, on the FOP talkpage there is a somewhat mislabeled ("Freedom of panorama should be abolish") discussion[46] initiated by a few "activist's" demand to effectively lift the Commons' policy that images have to be free in the US and in the country of origin, which of course restricts our ability to host images of recent buildings in France, Italy and other countries, who don't have a FOP provision in their copyright laws. In case there is such a possibility at all, IMHO nothing should be changed before we have a thorough expert assessment by WMF's or another legal counsel. --Túrelio (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never known a definitive answer from WHF legal counsel sadly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

After Godwins departure, the first problem is to find out who is WMF's legal counsel. A search of WMF website yields zero information about that. :-( --Túrelio (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, worse, we don't have any: interested in the job?. --Túrelio (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

WMF is still recruiting a new General Counsel, but they have an e-mail set up for legal questions. I think in this case though we should wait until a new General Counsel is in place before dramatically changing our core licensing policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Aboriginal flag

An IP editor 84.61.177.189 (talk · contribs) is listing for deletion every image that he or she can find with the en:Australian Aboriginal Flag in it. While the flag is indeed protected under copyright, most of the photographs only show the flag incidentally, such as File:2009 NT intervention protest 5.jpg and File:Australiadayprotest.jpg. Is it really necessary to delete every photograph on Commons that contains the Aboriginal flag? -- Mattinbgn/^talk 20:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, of course not. And in fact, the flag isn't even copyrighted; it's far too simple a design to be eligible for copyright protection. That said, a DR is indeed the proper way to make these sorts of determinations. A DR does not mean automatic deletion. Powers (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that this should have been discussed elsewhere before hand, though it is likely I'm the target (for a number of reasons, though its not the first time) of this DR but they have listed other images but most are photos I have taken and uploaded. Bidgee (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy deletion of stressed users uploads

At Commons:Help desk a somewhat "confused" looking Westonci (talk · contribs) has asked repeatedly[47], [48], [49], [50], [51] to have his uploads deleted. Others have already complied with his wish to have his account blocked and his galleries deleted. However his uploads are still online. As this guy claims to be ill and to be stressed by the presence of his uploads on Commons, in addition to the fact that nearly all his images[52] are rather low-value to useless backyard photos, I think a courtesy deletion of at least the unused or unusable images would be o.k. Other opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, delete all. Based on my quick look through the files, it doesn't seem that important. Lets give the poor guy a break (no offence meant). Also, if ever it is proved that the above user is not the IP, we could always restore the content. Reh man 09:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, delete unless they're in use or there's some other compelling reason to keep. Do no harm etc. Jafeluv (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I recreated one of the galleries and added NOINDEX to the gallery to avoid that it remains in google's cache forever. -- Docu at 10:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Done for those that were unused. I've tagged the remaining two, to allow for an eventual replacement at the using projects. --Túrelio (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see the discussion here. I also deleted quite a bunch. The only thing that I felt a bit annoyed about was, that someone spent quite some time in categorizing the cloud images (although the could images weren't really good, just pointed the cam into the sky and pressed the button.) The point that annoyed me was, that uploader dumps images, people spend time categorizing and then after two years demands deletion. Also the sky images don't really identify his backyard or anything. We could have just moved the images without redirect and the uploader would have been happy *scnr*. But of course I am okay with deleting the lot. cheers, Amada44 ^{talk to me} 18:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"the could images weren't really god": brilliant type, that. Gott in Himmel! - Jmabel ! talk 18:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

ah, yea. they weren't god either. fixed the typo in the text ;) . Amada44 ^{talk to me} 19:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the clouds categorization was actually quite detailed (not by the uploader). -- Docu at 21:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)