Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 27

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

mlownwork

I translated messages for ownwork upload form using {{ml}}. Interface is changing to English while accessing mlownwork url. So script updating also may be needed. If so please update script. Thank you--Praveen:talk 22:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. – Kwj2772 (msg) 11:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Interface language is still English (in Sidebar, top bar, page tab etc.). I see Malayalam only in translated messages.--Praveen:talk 01:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Now its working perfectly. Thank you--Praveen:talk 02:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Nanotyran02.jpg

Please delete the first revision of File:Nanotyran02.jpg. When I tagged this Google search result as a copyright violation, the uploader uploaded another, supposedly self-made image (I can believe that) on top of it and blanked out the problem tag while still leaving the copyright violation in the file history. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done with a smile. ;) Rehman 12:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Maps added by Ceha

All of those maps presents a POV sight of the user.

  1. All maps are unsourced
  2. If a map is sourced, the source is in most cases a delated map on en.wiki (deleted because without source) or his maps uploaded on enwiki or viceversa
  3. On almost all maps, he uploaded new versions, where ethnic statistics has been changed without any source (the only relevant should be [1], statistical institution of Bosnia and Hercegovina, or perhaps CIA factbook, where the informations are token by the first source
  4. I warned him already to take a look at his maps and to improve them months ago, but nothing happend

The problem is that the most maps are used globaly (added by him self) on several projects, and there should be a large delinking action after deletions. What to do? To tag them all for deletions? If they stay, this is the worst case of desinformation i ever saw. --WizardOfOz (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not unsourced, see here. The possible POV element we don't judge at Wikimedia Commons. Please remember Commons is not Wikipedia. Jcb (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
As i told you on your talk page, the source is a privat presentation without any source and now offline. All other sources are viceversa sources between his images on enwiki and here. Almost all maps he took as source from en.wiki has been deleted by missing source. --WizardOfOz talk 22:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
PS: I know well that commons is not Wiki, but if i upload a map where UK is a part of Irak, I can´t imagine that this will not be removed :D --WizardOfOz talk 22:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

EvaK (talk · contributions · Statistics)

Not sure what to do here. (Links and discussions are in german). User keeps reverting good edits on own image. It started that the owner of the museum added valuable information to the image (diff). Which User:EvaK then reverted. (Not only this edit but about 30 more which User:EvaK reverted all. ). I then asked EvaK on the talk page why this was done and got this reply. There Eva does not really answer my question why everything was reverted. It is about that no external organization is allowed to mess with files here on commons and that Eva had some an unpleasant experience with User:Holger Gläser on xing. And now Eva has all the files in her control. I then offered to go through all the edits of User:Holger Gläser and check which ones where good and which where not. I never got a reply on that. So today I did only one file and was promptly reverted despite my warning in the edit summary. The information which User:Holger Gläser where mostly very informative and giving much more details to the image description so it is a shame to loose them just because somebody is being stubborn here. Amada44  talk to me 18:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a classic case of en:WP:OWN. Clearly the information you added on File:Bedeutender Uhrenautomat um 1880 - DSC 5053.jpg is adding value to the description. I put that back and protected the wrong version for a week. If users persists on reverting, maybe a short term block might be warranted. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
If "bedeutendend" means "important", the rename to File:Bedeutender Uhrenautomat um 1880 - DSC 5053.jpg does seem odd and somewhat understandable that the uploader doesn't want anything to do with it. --  Docu  at 19:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Bedeutend has multiple meanings. http://dict.leo.org/ende?search=bedeutend or better http://dict.leo.org/ende?search=Bedeuten. Today this word is not used in this context, it probably means something like to show, this meaning comes from deuten (to point at something). The clock is not only showing the time but also the people in the clock will work at working time and rest if the shop is closed. So the clock shows working hours with a mechanism moving the people. --Martin H. (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
If it's not used that way today, I'm not sure it's a helpful new filename. Even in the description, it might need to be included in quotes. --  Docu  at 05:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The descripiton is OK and was not contested. The description was only extended with two edits to the some information (+ ~1880; Automat->Uhren-Automat which equals Uhrenautomat) already written in the filename. The original edit to the description was OK. The rename request with the second edit however was not an improvement but a bad reduction of the file name to a far to generic object description. There are many other Bedeutende Uhren and Uhrenautomaten in the world. The revert of both edits was not the best sollution, but given the background that Eva K. has been contacted off-wiki on a business platform in a bad tone demanding her to change something explains her reaction. I think with keeping the improved file description and removing the bad rename request the issue is resolved. --Martin H. (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Summer Vacation

I would like to request a nuke of User:Summer Vacation's file uploads. The account has only been used for the mass upload of CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 licensed flickr photos and promotion of the "Camp ASCCA" organization. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 23:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If the uploader is the author, we would start with requesting a permission to OTRS. --  Docu  at 07:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Although he claims "own work" on some of the uploads, the uploader is not the author, -- he admitted as much at yesterday's version of his user page, but it is not quite as simple as Fastily says -- some are NC, some (C), some no license. I've deleted some and will work on the rest.
Also note that he has blanked his user page today.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
On the same note, I have nominated the remainder of Summer Vacation's uploads for deletion. See Commons:Deletion requests/Camp Farwell images uploaded by User:Summer Vacation and Commons:Deletion requests/All remaining files by User:Summer Vacation. It would seem that I have separately come to the same conclusions as you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI, Summer Vacation's behavior is also being discussed on English Wikipedia. See w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#I think User:Summer Vacation may have gone off the deep end... on en.wiki. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I probably should have noted it here -- I stopped the deletions where I did because I had concluded that the remainder of his images were "unproven" -- the amusement park images were of a size such that they probably did not come off the web and I did not find any of the Camp Farwell images on its web site.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Summer Vacation has now been indef-blocked on en.wiki. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Helps for renaming two filename.

Please help me to rename the fallowing two files:

Thanks a lot. Apan (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done In the future, you can request this more easily by adding {{Rename}} to an image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons Administrator Logo Proposal

Hello all. I would like to propose an unofficial logo for Commons administrators: File:CommonsAdminMop.png. If Wikipedia has a logo for it's administrators, it is only logical that administrators of the Wikimedia Commons should have the same. If accepted, perhaps Template:User admin could be modified to reflect that change? Thoughts? Comments? -FASTILY (TALK) 10:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed: --Leyo 15:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
If the logo is adopted, an svg version can easily be created -FASTILY (TALK) 08:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks good at full size, and I have nothing against the idea. However, if it's intended for {{User admin}}, it might not be quite clear from the picture at that size that it's a mop. The handle tends to blend in a bit too much with the blue background. Jafeluv (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll upload a version with a darkened handle. Should have time to do that later today. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
And now ✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 08:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks good :) Jafeluv (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate map

Here is the original map: File:Nuclear power station.svg and then a user with only two edits uploaded the same map last August File:Nuclear power station Preston Ursini.svg adding Preston Ursini to the maps name. and then he went on to add his edition of the map to wikipedia articles [i.e.]. Huh? What's this? joke? vandalism? an agf case? I thought about proposing to delete the map as it is superfluous and much worse then the original map (because the Ursini map doesn't explain the colors used), but I would like to have advice by someone with more experience in such cases about what to do. thanks, Noclador (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Deleted the dupe and requested the Delinker to restore the usage on all Wikis. Feel free to use {{Duplicate}} next time. :) Kind regards. Rehman 03:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help and the advice :-)Noclador (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem :) Rehman 09:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the minimum standard for Admin activity?

I'm glad to see that Aude has been reinstated, but I am now confused -- why was Aude delisted in the first place? At both

it says:

"An 'inactive admin' is one who has made fewer than 5 admin actions on Commons in the past 6 months."

Aude had 9 actions in the six months ending February 15. I also note that User:ragesoss has appealed his delisting -- he had 7 actions in the same period.

While I'm on record as believing that the standard should either be zero, or much higher, maybe fifty, I don't understand what happened here. What am I missing?

And, since we debated the question of what the standard should be recently, I don't mean to start that debate again now -- maybe in a year or so.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it was because the date used was March 3rd and counting back 6 month from that day they didn't. That naturally caught those that right after the notification last time did their five edits and than basically stopped working again. If you can't look back on 5 edits in 6 months no matter which day that is not a good sign. And I agree with you that the number should be higher. 5 edits are nothing compared to what we need on activity. -- Cecil (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree with Cecil.  Support abf «Cabale!» 16:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Right you are -- each had around five actions between August 15 and September 2. Thanks. And your point is well taken that it should be any six months -- not just the particular six months after the notice.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I would personally oppose any increase in the number of required admin actions. The only legitimate reason for expiring admin accounts is either the theory that they pose a security threat, or the theory that the admins will have become unfamiliar with policy. It is possible for an admin to remain quite active and familiar with policy despite infrequent actions with tools. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
And quite a few admin actions don't count as "use of admin tools". For example, queuing up actions for the delinker requires being an admin (because the page is perpetually protected), but doesn't require any special tool. - Jmabel ! talk 06:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We could count ALL actions, and set a decent numerical requirement (100?)... that's probably a more reliable indicator of whether someone is active enough to remember policy. --99of9 (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I would support that proposal. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I think my views on this subject are fairly well know. I agree with Cecil generally - 5 admin actions is about 1 minute's work for active admins. However I accept the fact that others don't see things the same way. But there is an issue that lies behind this which is the one that 99of9 refers to which is up to date knowledge of policy so something framed around overall activity might help with that. --Herby talk thyme 10:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

German upload-form

Hi,

there are some serious mistakes in the German upload form. We had a discussion on the German VP (now in the archieve) and everybody agreed that the current version sucks, but unfortunately no admin took actions upon it. So it would be helpfull if someone could replace the line

self|Cc-zero|Eigenes Werk, jegliche Rechte abgegeben (gemeinfrei oder GFDL für den Fall, dass die Gemeinfreigabe ungültig ist)

with

self|Cc-zero|Eigenes Werk, CC0 1.0 (Verzicht auf alle urheberrechtlichen und verwandten Schutzrechte soweit gesetzlich möglich)

To keep the wording the same in all upload forms, MediaWiki:Licenses/de and MediaWiki:Licenses/de-formal should also be changed. The line

self|Cc-zero|Eigenes Werk, gemeinfrei (public domain)

should be replaced with

self|Cc-zero|Eigenes Werk, CC0 1.0 (Verzicht auf alle urheberrechtlichen und verwandten Schutzrechte soweit gesetzlich möglich)

Thank you! --Isderion (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. You could've asked at Commons:Forum, there are some German speaking admins around. --32X (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
That's what I expected... but as you can see from the thread in the archieve nobody did anything... so I asked here --Isderion (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 32X (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Chinese signatures

I'm not sure what to do with Commons:Deletion requests/Signatures of Chinese people, but the DR dates from 09-12-2010 and the last comment from 15-12-2010, so it's time to take a decision. Jcb (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I share your frustration. The major problem I have with it is that there are several different issues present in different files and sorting them out -- and the comments made -- is beyond my patience. What would you -- or others of our colleagues -- think about closing it as a keep with an explicit request that it be reopened in several parts.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that's the best option for now. (Let's see if we get more opinions on this). Jcb (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Watermark in File:Stefan Ackermann Das Ich Matrix 2011.jpg

Just a question: I added the Watermark template to this file, which was removed twice by the author. He added a note to the desciption about licensing etc. now. He is correct? Or should the watermark be removed anyhow? Thx for replying. --JuTa (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the {{Watermark}} is valid, and per the licence, anyone can actually crop the file and remove the watermark, considering the rest of the info is left as it is. I have restored the template... Rehman 00:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thx --JuTa (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The legal code for the choosen CC-BY-SA license does indeed state "Bei jeder Kopie des Schutzgegenstandes, die Sie verbreiten oder öffentlich zeigen, müssen Sie alle Hinweise unverändert lassen, die auf diese Lizenz und den Haftungsausschluss hinweisen."[2] (original language is German), which could eventually be understood as a restriction not to remove watermarks containing only the author credit and the license name/terms. I'm not sure if there is any statement about that available from CC. At least in their FAQs I didn't find anything. --Túrelio (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
We have consistently found in the past that license requirements to keep attribution notices intact do not imply retaining visible watermarks in images - to suppose otherwise would give the author altogether too much power over the creation of derivative works. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to be sure, who is "We" and what do you mean by "found"? As already mentioned above, my search at CC yielded nothing, but it was quick and dirty. However, CC would be the proper authority for that question as they wrote the license code. --Túrelio (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
We means consensus here at Commons, regarding how we choose to interpret the license. CC has not been engaged, but I'd like to think they would also refuse to endorse an interpretation that amounts to a de facto no-derivatives clause. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we ban the uploader for good? Such users are, IMO, _not_ welcome here, the Commons are not a repository for pseudo-free works that are only PR for the photographers. Commons would be a better place without such people. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

re: pictures i don't need anymore

Could any admin delete these two files (File:Khabur_(Tigris).jpg and File:Khabur (Tigris) green.jpg) which i uploaded and don't need anymore becouse i have done a better and more exact version of this map-file.--Sweetcorn (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Rehman 03:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Srikanthdileep (talk · contribs)

All the uploads from the user User:Srikanthdileep are non-free images. All the images should be deleted and the user should be warned. --Sreejith K (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

License reviewers

Looking into the list of image reviewers, I've noticed that all admins/crats/etc are not included in the list, even though they are allowed to review licences.

For an admin/crat/etc to be on that list (which is an important list, if someone wants to contact a reviewer), the only way is to flag the admin/crat/etc with the Image-reviewer flag. Now the problem is, in technical terms, those are redundant flags that give apparently no extra abilities/tools, and thus are quite frequently removed as "redundant rights".

So, for those admins that are willing to work in the review areas, I think we should make it a practice that those admins flag themselves with the Image-reviewer flag. Comments? Rehman 04:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary, Commons:License review just need to point out that also admins can review license, adding redundant rights won't solve problems (if any) --Màñü飆¹5 talk 06:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Translation error in template {{Anonymous work}}

In the english version of the template {{Anonymous work}} the term is 50 years. In the German version - and also some other languages - it say 70 years. What is correct? And can the different language versions please be checked. --Wuselig (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Background information in Template talk:Anonymous work#50 or 70 years? -- Asclepias (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A picture used on the Wikipedia Aso Shrinetpage, AsoJinja.jpg appears to have been used without the creators permission. See junk0128s panoramio page. This is not the only photo junk0128 claims has been uploaded and used without permission by User:STA3816 - 220.101 talk\Contribs 16:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done deleted the one above, and several others listed on junk0218's page at Panaramio. All are copyvio as they are "all rights reserved" at Panaramio. Thank you for finding these.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries :-) ! - 220.101 talk\Contribs 15:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

January DRs

The DR backlog decreased a lot last months (from 10 to 2 months). Now there are just 5 remaining DRs from January 2011, see here, in which I cannot take a decision, because I already kept them once. Could somebody take a look at them and see if he/she can process them? Jcb (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There are also incomplete DR's, that are not listed in the daily logs. That is why there are still 42 files in Category:Deletion requests January 2011. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice job Jcb!  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No permission - entities that claim to represent a third party

Hi. I've had a bit of an issue with an administrator regarding the use of the {{subst:npd}} template. I feel really bad about it because I've upset the administrator (I'm not trying to do anything wrong; I just need clarification). I also apologize if I'm incorrect about this, but there seems to be a misunderstanding on my part (or, perhaps, on the administrator's part).

The relevant uploads are the ones by Paintmatters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (some were originally uploaded to English Wikipedia: the full list can be seen here: [3]). He claims to be Adam Shaw of [4]; while I don't have any reason to doubt the claim, it seems we need OTRS permission for such a thing.

Administrator Nyttend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has said that the use of the {{Own}} template automatically means that OTRS is never needed. Template:No permission since disagrees: it says This also applies if you are the author yourself.

I'm not claiming that any self uploads cannot be tagged with npd; I am claiming that uploads from a known off-site source can. Otherwise, a simple loophole to the npd problem would be to just claim you're the uploader. For example, I could claim to be the editor for the New York Times, and claim I have the authority to release various images from the newspaper.

Thanks for your assistance. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

PS. Our relevant conversation is at User talk:Nyttend#Permission vs. no source. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed these images when they were on the enwiki and some of the same images, plus others deleted as having no permission, were tagged as having no permission by you Magog the Ogre, and there is no evidence here that the uploader and the author are associated in any way, so I think your tagging as "No permission" is entirely appropriate. We need the permission of the copyright holder or they should be deleted. If Nyttend insists that any "own" uploads cannot be tagged as no permission he is missing the wider view of images such as these, but I am not an admin, so what do I know! An {{Own}} tag may in fact be false. Ww2censor (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
To me the use of {{own}} alone is only for certain circumstances, and that is where it is likely that it is clearly their own work, and in most cases that would be a photograph in areas where they have an interest, and usually there will be EXIM data (and I compare EXIM data of a user's contributions), alternatively a diagram that they may have generated, though often this can be a derivative work +++. I see plenty of scans of old paintings where someone has used the template, and it is not the case, and I know in my early days, I probably did similar, as I had done some work and didn't understand exactly what was being asked.

With regard to {{no permission since}} I would only be using that where there is a chance that it is there work, otherwise it may be using some of the others. IMNSHO if there is doubt, and there is insufficient information (& evidence) definitely tag it with something than not BUT rather than just tag, also worthwhile adding a personal note to the tag to give them some better clue.

Personally from what I have seen of your work (when paying attention), I have had no issue with what you have undertaken. BTW I don't see that Nyttend is an administrator.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Fancy that - he's not an administrator here, just on en.wp. Just like me! Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Conversely, why would you doubt that en:user:Paintmatters is Adam Shaw? - Jmabel ! talk 07:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
And if you doubt that, wouldn't it make more sense to approach him on en-wiki about somehow demonstrating his identity than to deal with this at the level of individual images? - Jmabel ! talk 07:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

1) If he receives any level of notoriety, then we'll need proof it was him that released these images, lest he claims it was someone unauthorized. Besides, it really isn't my business whether or not I think it's him or not; what matters is that it all was sourced to an external site.

2) I did. I both placed messages on his talk page and emailed him with a request to come on, with no response. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a good idea that I hadn't thought of. I'll try that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple possible copyvios

I came across a likely copyright violation and nominated it for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plaques and tangles border.jpg). Then realized that the problem is potentially much greater. RostyslavZvanych (talk · contribs) has uploaded many images that appear to be taken from various sources, and he has claimed that they are "own work". I suspect that most of them are lifted directly from the scientific journals that he is using as references in this page: w:en:User:RostyslavZvanych/The a-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase complex in Alzheimer’s disease, but I don't have access to the journals myself, so I can't be sure. Any suggestions on how to deal with this? ChemNerd (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of duplicates

If two files are exact duplicates, one version should be kept (and the other speedy deleted). However, I am concerned that the guidance to administrators is inadequate and that there a number of errors in practice (I'll give a few examples below). {{Duplicate}} provides some instructions and the relevant deletion guidelines expands on this slightly.

Specific issues mentioned in the guidance are:

  1. Image must be replaced before deletion
  2. A raster version superseded by a vector version is not eligible
  3. Only exact (or scaled-down) duplicates are speedy
  4. If one of the versions was uploaded by the author, keep that one
  5. Ensure all description and licensing info is kept.
  6. File redirects should be created, unless misleading or very recent.

These guidelines are fine, though could do with further details (what is "recent" for instance). However, in practice the first few points are typically followed, but that latter ones are commonly not. In the recent deletions I found the following:

In 3 of the 4 cases, the deleted file was not recently uploaded, so should have had a file redirect created. One of them has lost licensing information, and one of them is not a duplicate and should not have been speedied at all. I looked at the last 500 deletions, ~20 were duplicate related so this is a significant error rate.

I don't think the deleting admins in question here are the problem, rather its that the activity is focused on the getting the images replaced and deleted, with the result that metadata isn't being checked and creating redirects is not being done properly.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It saddens me every time I look at duplicate deletions in Special:Log -- for example, painting before the restoration can be deleted as a "duplicate" of the painting after the restoration, original painting can be deleted as a "duplicate" of its replica and so on. I feel sometimes, that only bots should delete duplicates speedily, it's a purely mechanical task. Trycatch (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
An image of a painting after restoration is n e v e r a duplicate of the painting before restoration. Instead it is a valuable document for art historians. It documents the restoration. Also old images of the same subject - so perhaps in poorer quality - are also not duplicates, but also serve to document changes in time. I think we should be very carefull in the deletion of so called duplicates. Very often they are not duplicates but declared so by users ignorant of the implications and the possible values of the original versions.--Wuselig (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
{{Duplicate}} is badly applied in many, many cases, and the admins do need to check if its an "exact or scaled down" duplicate. I've monitored it for a bit and refused about 90% of images I inspected; one common problem is images being tagged as dupes when one is a crop of the other. The bit about "scaled down" makes it much harder for a bot to work out if it qualifies for speedy. To make matters worse I've seen a file tagged a dupe, when its clearly a lower res version, but because its been sharpened is also a better image at used-in-article sizes.
Incidentally my procedural concerns would be addressed if the deleting admins used the QuickDelete script on {{Duplicate}}
If we change the criteria from "exact or scaled down" to "bitwise identical", we could make it a bot job, but I don't think all that additional work sent to DRs is a good idea.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

POV map name

Question: is the name of the file file:2011 War On Libya Belligerents.svg a NPOV violation? As far as I can see nobody says and no news source uses the expression "War On Libya", with the exception of Libyan State TV. Should it be renamed to "Military intervention in Libya Coalition"? thanks for any input, Noclador (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is not an issue at Wikimedia Commons. However you may find the name inappriopriate. Feel free to use {{Rename}} to get it renamed. Jcb (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Deletion Vandalism by 84.61.170.180

It seams that this IP wants to delete any JPEG or anything that it sees as "porn". Even such images: File:Korenanteeroge.png --Niabot (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - not happy with those edits. Blocked for a day till we work through it. Can't revert as many have already been commented on. Not got time to go through it all. --Herby talk thyme 13:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It was mentioned on the French village pump too. And previously as 84.61.186.139, and before that as 84.61.155.24 (that last thread gives a few other IPs in the same range that have exhibited the same behavior; someone also mentions it could be User:Fernrohr). –Tryphon☂ 13:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
See also here, next time it's gonna be a rangeblock. Jcb (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks like it may well be dynamic - rangeblocks should only be used with extreme care. --Herby talk thyme 16:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vulva pre-sviluppo 05.jpg

I think this needs to be speedied for legal reasons. --Simonxag (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted and reported to WMF. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing illegal about a clinical photo of a prepubertal vulva. Medical textbooks and encyclopedias include such images without concern. Powers (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with LtPowers that this is not illegal per se. US law obviously allows for illustrated pediatrics text books and other educational materials. Wikimedia creates educational materials too, so we need to be able to host images like that. We should however only accept images from medical sources where we can be 100% safe that they were taken in an appropiate way and with consent. Submissions from private or unverifiable sources should not be accepted. --Slomox (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
We should be able to, but I'm still skeptical the hyperactive and reactionary US child pornography law would allow it - close-up genital shots are frequently labelled as "lascivious" in subjective obscenity decisions, and because of the importance of context in obscenity and child pornography decisions, we'd want to be prepared to demonstrate we're actively using the image for a clear educational purpose (I believe this one was orphaned). Identifying a reputable source would also be critical for establishing this. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Signing off

Hi all - I think it's time I handed in the admin tools, as I don't have time and opportunity at the moment and in the foreseeable future to be of any use as an admin. I enjoy spending time here so I might be back doing bits and pieces, but can't promise anything beyond that. Thanks to Herby who got me to agree to being an admin and to all who helped me throughout the years. See ya round anyways :). -- Deadstar (msg) 18:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You'll be missed :( --Herby talk thyme 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
á na márië. --Túrelio (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Jammer, maar vermoedelijk heb je "spannender" projecten ... --Foroa (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Vagulakaushik

Can someone delete the copyvios? All uploads are random web images including profile images from other websites, publicity posters for movies etc. And also multiple copyvio warnings don't seem to have gotten the message across. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Final warning issues. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete/Remove/Purge bad versions of pictures

REQUEST FOR ADMIN HELP - Please DELETE / REMOVE the files upload time Sat Jan 29 12:15:57 CET 2011, as they are wrong in color. Or give me the right to do it myself. It would be beneficial to move the description from the upload time Sat Jan 29 12:15:57 CET 2011 version to the later uploaded version, and fix the 'template:' error. The file list for deletion follows: 

  1. 11:51, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Berit Hogman 1c301 5942.jpg
  2. 11:49, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Hakan Juholt 1c301 5932.jpg
  3. 11:47, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Jennie Nilsson 1c301 5872.jpg
  4. 11:45, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Kent Harstedt 1c301 5888.jpg
  5. 11:44, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Lars Johansson 1c301 5944.jpg
  6. 11:42, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Lars Johansson 1c301 5954.jpg
  7. 11:41, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Lena Hallengren 1c301 5972.jpg
  8. 11:40, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Lena Hallengren 1c301 5973.jpg
  9. 11:39, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Matilda Ernkrans 1c301 5956.jpg
 10. 11:37, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Matilda Ernkrans 1c301 5961.jpg
 11. 11:37, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Sven-Erik Bucht 1c301 5926.jpg
 12. 11:34, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Sven-Erik Bucht 1c301 5927.jpg
 13. 11:34, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Urban Ahlin 1c301 5919.jpg
 14. 11:34, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Urban Ahlin 1c301 5921.jpg
 15. 11:29, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Urban Ahlin 1c301 5922.jpg
 16. 11:26, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Tomas Eneroth 1c301 5868.jpg
 17. 11:26, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Mikael Damberg 1c301 5892.jpg
 18. 11:24, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Mikael Damberg 1c301 5899.jpg
 19. 11:23, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Veronica Palm 1c301 5875.jpg
 20. 11:16, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Socialdemokrat.Veronica Palm 1c301 5882.jpg
 21. 11:15, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Veronica Palm 1c301 5882.jpg
 22. 11:15, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Veronica Palm 1c301 5875.jpg
 23. 11:15, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Urban Ahlin 1c301 5922.jpg
 24. 11:15, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Urban Ahlin 1c301 5921.jpg
 25. 11:15, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Urban Ahlin 1c301 5919.jpg
 26. 11:15, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Tomas Eneroth 1c301 5868.jpg
 27. 11:14, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Sven-Erik Bucht 1c301 5927.jpg
 28. 11:14, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Sven-Erik Bucht 1c301 5926.jpg
 29. 11:14, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Mikael Damberg 1c301 5899.jpg
 30. 11:14, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Mikael Damberg 1c301 5892.jpg
 31. 11:14, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Matilda Ernkrans 1c301 5961.jpg
 32. 11:14, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Matilda Ernkrans 1c301 5956.jpg
 33. 11:14, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Mathias Persson 1c301 5864.jpg
 34. 11:14, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Lena Hallengren 1c301 5973.jpg
 35. 11:13, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Lena Hallengren 1c301 5972.jpg
 36. 11:13, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Lars Johansson 1c301 5954.jpg
 37. 11:13, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Lars Johansson 1c301 5944.jpg
 38. 11:13, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Kent Harstedt 1c301 5888.jpg
 39. 11:13, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Jennie Nilsson 1c301 5872.jpg
 40. 11:13, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Hakan Juholt 1c301 5932.jpg
 41. 11:13, 29 January 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.Berit Hogman 1c301 5942.jpg

--Janwikifoto (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you wish the first versions of these files deleted. I don't have any objection to doing this work, and I know of no policy or guideline that prevents me from doing so, but I don't see that they are causing any harm. If they are the original versions of the images, retention may allow users to apply their own color balance to the original, rather than the corrected file. "Deletion" will not save disk space since they are not really deleted. That allows deletion to be reversed.
  • Deleting the older versions will not affect the upload time of the description.
  • The link in your source and permission field, http://politik.in2pic.com, does not yet link to a useful page. The link on your userpage, http://wiki.in2pic.com/, is more helpful.
  • What is the "template error" that you mention?
I think your images are good quality, well-illuminated and useful. If no one objects and you still wish the earlier versions deleted after reading my comments, I will delete them.
Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 Oppose -- simply because it is a waste of Administrator's time, which is our scarcest resource. As far as I know, these would have to be done one at a time and would therefore require four page loads per image -- probably around 30 seconds each or a total of 20 minutes. Walter can do a lot of useful work in 20 minutes -- and this accomplishes nothing.
Also, less important to me, but still real, is the fact that color balance is very subjective -- I looked at only a few, but I think the new version is a little too cold -- I would have put them 60% of the way between the old and the new. As Walter says above, if another editor wants to do that, it would be better to start with the original.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I am the photographer, I am _not_ happy with the old version. That is a good start for deleting. Second: The pictures are taken as RAW, so any colour balance edits should be done from the RAW images. It is just plain stupid to work with JPG's that have a reduced bit depth. Third: if you say something about the colour, do you have a properly colour-calibrated display? Fourth: If the admin is too busy, give me admin rights, and I will clear the mess. For the template thing, go to Village Pump and see long discussion there. --Janwikifoto (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Since we do not delete whole files when the uploader is dissatisfied with them, I see no reason at all to delete old versions under those circumstances. We have hundreds of thousands of old versions of files -- we cannot afford to set a precedent.
As for making you an Admin -- you have 19 edits in the Commons namespace including the two above. We'd be happy to have you do an RfA when that gets to be 1,000 or so.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This disucssion is forum shopping by Janwikifoto as this has already been discussed sinec March 12 at COM:VP#Deletion of bad pictures. Ww2censor (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Since nothing happened in Village Pump, except too extensive discussion, I thought maybe this was the magic forum. "you have 19 edits in the Commons namespace" - what exactly is an "edit in commons namespace"? --Janwikifoto (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
"Commons namespace" means pages whose names start with "Commons:". - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Now I understand even less of "edit in commons namespace". Is it possible to get a good explanation, with examples? Which exactly are the 19 edits I have made in commons namespace? It would be kind to supply all information. --Janwikifoto (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
These. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies -- I should have explained a little more. An important part of considering whether a person should be an Administrator is the number of edits he or she has made that relate to the administration of Commons --

  • nominating or commenting on Deletion Requests and Undeletion requests
  • commenting here, at the Village Pump and at Commons:Help
  • writing or editing our various tutorials and policy statements
  • voting in RfAs

All of these can reflect a user's understanding of the policies and laws which govern our activities and all of them take place in the Commons namespace -- those pages whose name starts with "Commons:". Uploading images, while essential to our purpose, does not qualify a user to be an Administrator.

Also, it was a remark that I probably should not have made. While it is clear that Janwikifoto is not qualified to be an Admin, I probably should have been silent on the subject rather than taking a gratuitous swipe at him or her. I'm sorry for that.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, thanks. I have uploaded several hundred pictures, many that are needed in swedish Wp. One of the pictures in deletion request is of the new (probable) social democrat leader, that there are no other pictures of at Wp. I will write more some other time--
>*nominating or commenting on Deletion Requests and Undeletion requests -- I do my own pictures, that takes up too much time, and I would like to contribute some article text. I have too much to worry about myself, rather than mess with other pictures as well, though I am fairly familiar with policy
>*commenting here, at the Village Pump and at Commons:Help -- I did ask for advice on color adjustment and color calibration. NO reply at all received. Should I ask again?
>*writing or editing our various tutorials and policy statements -- Does anyone think I am encouraged to write a tutorial, when I do not get any help with what I desperately need information about (colour)?
>*voting in RfAs -- Why would I vote? The _only_ one I can verify is an admin (who has the power to delete, and knows how to do) is Walther. For everybody else who has energetically commented, I have no clue at all to whether they are indeed admins, with the powers and knowledge I look for (delete), or just plain users like me, albeit giving well-meant advice or opinions.
So I will never become and admin! Note that I have not asked to become an admin, it was Jameslwoodward who wrote that there is too little admin time, and then I offered to do the job. If there is a shortage of admin, then the best way is to solve that problem. Not try to discuss away the tasks that need to be done. --Janwikifoto (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Boom. All gone. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 08:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Nooooo, deletion of the files was never proposed. What was discussed above was the removal of some older versions of the pictures. Today, en:Håkan Juholt is being elected new party chairman of the Swedish social democrats. And on this very day we have no picture at all of him. The files must be undeleted urgently. This is now at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current requests#File:Socialdemokrat.Veronica Palm 1c301 5882.jpg --LA2 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The new versions have been restored now. Jafeluv (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Great! Can CommonsDelinker be run in reverse? Or does it have a global log file? I have manually undone the unlinking on da,de,en,es,fi,fr,is,it,ja,no,pl,pt,ru, and sv.wikipedia. --LA2 (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It have a log file: http://toolserver.org/~delinker/?image=&status=&max=500 . Trycatch (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

File:MIngling among the mongols copy.jpg

This is image is part of a Hoax and needs deleting. Paul August (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So make a deletion request. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Not a Common's denizen. Just discovered this file and thought I'd report it here, in case anyone was interested. Paul August (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 00:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Another bug?

Anyone else notice a few userpages at Category:Other speedy deletions that display {{scuttled}} with the wikicode being simply {{:User:Jack Merridew}}? (and how on earth are they popping up in the deletion category?) Rehman 06:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Anything weird about this user's edits (enwiki)? Rehman 07:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
{{:User:Jack Merridew}} simply means that the code of User:Jack Merridew should be transcluded on the page. The colon should have no effect in this case. The inclusion in the speedy deletion category looks like some kind of database hickup. I thought it might be cache-related, but nothing in the page history of the transcluding or the transcluded user pages seems to relate to speedy deletion. Editing one of the transcluding pages claims that it uses the following templates: {{User:Jack Merridew}}, {{Autotranslate}}, {{Dir}}, {{Edit}}, {{Fallback}}, {{Hidden2}}, {{Namespace}}, {{Nuke}}, {{Sdelete}}, {{Speedydelete}}, {{Speedydelete/en}}, {{Speedydelete/lang}}, {{Speedydelete/layout}}, {{Tl}}, {{Tlp}}, and {{Tlxs}}. Previewing without making any changes drops it down to just the first one. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

He is claiming he is out of all WM projects - and has spent some time to eradicate his identity on en, and othe rplace - he is a code wizard - so may well have utilised non standard practices in clearing his presence - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMoreschi&action=historysubmit&diff=420594894&oldid=420592131 - SatuSuro (talk) 09:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems that JM just added the category by editing means, not by template. At this point rather than delete I have redirected his SULs to his user page. He can come back with a proper request if he so wishes.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Attention and assistance needed

Hi. An admin, preferably French-speaking, should have a close look at Jean-Jacques MILAN and his uploads. He has uploaded many files stating himself as the author, including for instance magazine covers from the 70s, under the assumption that it would cause no problem (although the magazine is still published nowadays). I have exchanged a few words with him about another picture and it seems that he currently has little understanding of COM:L issues. I am reluctant to mass-tag his uploads myself, but it is probably what I would have done if I were an admin. I guess it would be better to make sure that he understand the issues before putting dozens of JS message on his talk page. However, it is not the first time he uploads problematic images, and some of his uploads previously tagged as missing some legal information are still here and problematic IMO. --Eusebius (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin left a message on the user's page five days ago, so I would consider that being managed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Many people did (and maybe Martin is still watching), but I'm afraid a systematic examination of his uploads is necessary. Just my opinion. --Eusebius (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete and remove - wrong file name

Please delete and remove speedy the following

  1. 11:55, 26 March 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.nystart 1c323 8400.jpg ‎ (top)
  2. 11:55, 26 March 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.nystart 1c323 8396.jpg ‎ (top)
  3. 11:55, 26 March 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.nystart 1c323 8380.jpg ‎ (top)
  4. 11:54, 26 March 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.nystart 1c323 8368.jpg ‎ (top)
  5. 11:54, 26 March 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.nystart 1c323 8358.jpg ‎ (top)
  6. 11:54, 26 March 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.nystart 1c323 8349.jpg ‎ (top)
  7. 11:54, 26 March 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.nystart 1c323 8343.jpg ‎ (top)
  8. 11:54, 26 March 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.nystart 1c323 8336.jpg ‎ (top)
  9. 11:53, 26 March 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.nystart 1c323 8327.jpg ‎ (top)
  10. 11:53, 26 March 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.nystart 1c323 8324.jpg ‎ (top)
  11. 11:53, 26 March 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.nystart 1c323 8321.jpg ‎ (top)
  12. 11:53, 26 March 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.nystart 1c323 8313.jpg ‎ (top)
  13. 11:53, 26 March 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.nystart 1c323 8304.jpg ‎ (top)
  14. 11:52, 26 March 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.nystart 1c323 8301.jpg ‎ (top)
  15. 11:52, 26 March 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.nystart 1c323 8300.jpg ‎ (top)
  16. 11:52, 26 March 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Socialdemokrat.nystart 1c323 8284.jpg ‎ (top)

Reason: file name error, should have been File:Socialdemokrat.hakan juholt 1c323 8284.jpg

New files exactly the same but with correct file names have been uploaded --Janwikifoto (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And something is seriously WRONG here. When I upload new pictures with the _CORRECT_ name Commonist ask "Replace?" and I answer Yes, however in the end nothing is uploaded and the result is "Missing param". Please explain in detail what is wrong, but first FIX the file names, speedily, before the pic are used. Replace "nystart" with "hakan juholt". --Janwikifoto (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, speedily deleted all of them, since they were very recently uploaded by you, and unused. As for the error, I am not really sure what went wrong. Perhaps try Special:UploadWizard? Rehman 12:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, now everything is correct. AFter talking to some admins at the sweidsh wikimedia annual meeting, it seemed that Commonist will not really upload a picture that 'exists' - with the ame checksum. I edited the IPTC headers sligtly, and wow! did it upload! I think it is time to create a long page with bugs/complaints in Commonist.... --Janwikifoto (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
UploadWizard is for single file upload. I upload like 10 or 50 files in one go. The single-file interface of UploadWizard would make stop permanently to upload pictures. I will have to see what can be done abou commonist, or what alternatives there are. --Janwikifoto (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome :) Actually the UploadWizard can upload bulks of files at a time... Rehman 09:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Nl-Prince-article.ogg

Hello,

there has been a discussion about this file on nl.wiki. I decided to make a new version of the file. However Esby has protected the file, so I can't upload my new version. Can anyone help me with this issue?

Regards, VR-Land (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, Ezarate has helped me. Regards, VR-Land (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ezarateesteban 00:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

New Template for "CC-Dont-Remove Watermark"

I asked here sime time ago about handling with watermarks; see this section and got responses that watermarks should be removed. Today I noticed that the "opponent" user in this case created a new Template {{CC-Dont-Remove Watermark}} and "reverted" the last edit by this template which states the opposit of the {{Watermark}} template in File:Stefan Ackermann Das Ich Matrix 2011.jpg and some other "own" images; see here. I wish to ask if this is in "commons sense" and how and where this template should be discussed. Thx for replying. --JuTa (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, oh, seems we have another question for the Creative-Commons guys. --Túrelio (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
PS: I left the creator a note about this - see here. --JuTa (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


Interestingly the image meta data isn't consistent with the file description page at File:David Pätsch Matrix Bochum 2010 1.jpg. --  Docu  at 20:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the editor is confused with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and thinks their photos must have the watermarks in place per the license however that isn't the case, as long as the photograph is attributed under the same license, then anyone can modify the photograph. {{CC-Dont-Remove Watermark}} should be placed under DR (I don't have time as I'm about to get off). Bidgee (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
And now it is. Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CC-Dont-Remove Watermark. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've protected both File:Benni Cellini Matrix Bochum 2010 1.jpg and File:Stefan Ackermann Das Ich Matrix 2011.jpg for a week due to edit warring over the image and the licensing. I'm leaving both images as they are until the community can come up with a consensus over that to do (removing the watermarks or deleting the images). Bidgee (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Cmglee

This might be a MediaWiki problem, but...

Since User talk:Cmglee redirects to en:User talk:Cmglee, I was able to create a page called en:User talk:Cmglee. But since that also redirects back on User talk:Cmglee, it seems the title of the page is located at User talk:Cmglee. But apparently the edit is not in the pagehistory. So where did it go? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch! ;) It seems that the original post was simply made in the gallery-space (and still exists there). It only redirects to the enwiki talkpage due to the interwiki prefix... So yeah, a bug, but not that significant... I could delete the gallery-page, so everything would be normal... Rehman 00:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the page cant even be deleted (clicking on delete redirects to deleting the local talkpage of Cmglee). This may need a bug report I guess... Rehman 00:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we should use the API to try and delete it... :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't know how to use API. It seems like User:Foroa managed to delete User talk:Cmglee off the face of Commons, but why oh why is it still in the deletions category? And, god knows how, my link above titled "original" has automatically changed to User talk:Cmglee, when it was actually pointing at Commons gallery-space page en:User talk:Cmglee... Rehman 16:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Why oh why is this page still in the category when the only content is {{softredirect|w:User talk:Cmglee}}?! Rehman 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Because it's still there in gallery space with the speedy tag. I can't figure out how to get rid of it either -- it can be edited, but deleting or moving it results in deleting/moving the actual talk page. The horror... Jafeluv (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Two histories [5], [6], but a single log [7]? -- Asclepias (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I managed to move the page to Broken:User talk:Cmglee using the API. Now it can be deleted, but since I am not an admin there is still a redirect left at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14732765&action=history that needs to be deleted using the API. /Ö 17:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:RichardKenni's images

Following an OTRS copyvio complaint for one of their images I found 4 more confirmed copyvios they've uploaded with sources, a handful of very likely copyvios of High School logos which I have not been able to find a source for yet. In addition I've discovered that at least some of their older photos appear to be copied from other archives, e.g. File:Dillsboro, 1939.jpg from http://wcudigitalcollection.cdmhost.com/u?/p4008coll2,6062. Any recommendations for how to proceed here? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Old U.S. photos can be tricky because there are so many exceptions at COM:TAGS#United States. Any published before 1978 without an explicit copyright notice are automatically public domain. And anything copyrighted before 1964 had to be renewed in a specific year. Each old U.S. photo would need to be examined individually and maybe brought to COM:DR individually - unless you can group them somehow. Wknight94 talk 19:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong file name

Please have a look at this

Prelinger China Under Communism (1962).ogv

, it has nothing to do with China nor Communism, I think the file name should be changed into a proper name in order to avoid confusion. Arilang1234 Arilang talk 05:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Obloquious affirmation from a postcard

I would like to ask you about the correctness of this image representing a ruined statue from Bratislava. It is used in the enwiki article Hungary–Slovakia relations and I think the ironical phrase "Cseh kultura"("Czech Culture") is insulting to the Czech people, because a violation of a statue by some vandals can't be considered defining for a entire people and such a generalization is offensive. On the back we have also the text: a sample of Czechoslovakian culture, which is accompanied by a map of pre-World War I Hungary (Bratislava (Hungarian: Pozsony) was ceded after WWI by Hungary to Czechoslovakia). I guess this postcard is a part of interwar revisionist anti-Czech propaganda
Moreover, I think the place of this image would not be that article, because Slovakia became independent in 1993 and the postcard is from 1920-1930(Iaaasi (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Like you say, it is an illustration of propaganda in the context of national animosities in that historical period. As a document illustrating that, it is important that its context be clear. I guess that is why your modification of the image was reverted. It is important that the reader can see that it is not out of context. If for some reason you need a cropped image with the isolated photo, you certainly can do it, but then it is best if you upload it as a different file, without overwriting the existing file. As for the Wikipedia articles, the place for the discussion of their contents and scope is Wikipedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I am blocked on en.wiki and that is why I've addressed here (Iaaasi (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

User Latifahphysics

Is uploading a lot of mathematical formulas as images with meaningless names (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&user=Latifahphysics). There was a discussion about the first ones, and people have fixed the corresponding article to use TeX instead (as it should). But the author apparently does not care and continues. -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continuing here. Rehman 06:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The user is creating articles on ar-wikipedia, yes there are seemingly better ways to add formulas to his/her articles, but apart from asking for the help of someone who knows arabic, I don't see that this is an admin issue. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
At the deletion request there is talk of blocking, I have asked for that part (and anything not relating to the deletion of those files) to be moved here. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think we have lost our way somewhat, we have systems that react like an alergic reaction to someone doing something "wrong". This reaction starts by almost instant splattering of messages on someones talk page, then talk of blocking. A new user is putting a lot of effort into creating pages and illustrating them, and we're running around and upset that they're not doing it in the most storage efficient manner, and that they're uploading a few images here that already exist. They appear to be getting on with their work, oblivious of our concerns, probably bemused by these strange messages that appear on their talk page. People talk about using blocking to prevent harm to the project (harm like being messy and wasting a bit of space), when our biggest resource is a users free contribution of their time. I do not see any evidence that the user "doesn't care", just that they're un-aware - perhaps an emial in arabic would help. We need to nuture new users, not spam them with automated messages, nor block them just to get their attention.</soapbox> (Sorry I'm off to bed, and just thought I needed to get that off my chest, to head off a few responses that are yet to come, before I went, good night :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I see evicence of does not care: Not using the upload form right, uploading File:F4.png to use it in ar:تأثير فاراداي which is the ar.wp version of en:Faraday_effect where the same formula is used..... in TeX. So he is not even creating the formulas himself but copy&pasting the graphic output of the TeX use in Wikipedia, uploading the file here without indicating for any source, without giving any description and with filenames like "Ffff.png" which is not something I expect from someone who follows educational standards. Looking isolated on the Commons contributions I see zero effort. So yes, help on the ar.wp side is needed, for the Commons part we can only replace his ar.wp file aditions back to the appropriate use of TeX and delete the uploads as plain text, out of scope contributions uploaded with incorrect or missing source and author information. If we cant help this user with speaking to him, helping him with using TeX is the best we can do. --Martin H. (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I replaced all formulas and deleted them. This was not so difficult because the articles in ar.wp are copy&pasted from en.wp with using the same formulas in png form that the en.wp article uses in TeX form. The ar.wp user copy&pasted the article without copy&pasting the appropriate source code, this mistake is corrected now, the whole mistake to copy&past articles and translate them wihtout doing an import or following the license by other methods is the ar.wp problem, not mine, but any information to the editor in Arabic should include, that copy&pasting articles without attribution is a copyright infringement. --Martin H. (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Not quite just a copy & paste job, translation required a bit of work, even if it was just correcting an automated translation - but yes, a derivative work. That's a good point about attributing the source article, I've never actually noticed wikipedia articles acknowledging when they're based on other language versions, but then articles don't display image copyright/attribution within the article page either, you have to follow links back to the image page. The article does have a link back to the en version, on the sidebar. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thats an interwiki, an external link to some other language version. Its not attribution. The attribution is required in the edit summary or at some place linked in the edit summary. With clicking "save" the editor confirms himself the sole author and(or) the editor confirms that he agrees to the foundation:Terms_of_Use: "you must, in a reasonable fashion, credit the author(s)". He now has the article in TeX, anyone can edit it now very simple, anyone can improve the translation or, if the ar.wikipedians care, they can make a correct import and will have it more easy to translate the article again. --Martin H. (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, my point was that neither are images attributed in edit summaries, nor in the body of the wikicode of the page nor elsewhere on article pages (even though some authors desire it). We have deemed that a link back to the image's page is sufficient, the link doesn't say "for attribution go here" ... one only finds the attribution serendipitously by clicking on an image that takes you via an html link to another page ... Anyway as you say, article attribution is ar.wikipedias problem :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Licensing problems: files File:Sst1.JPG, File:Sst2.JPG and File:Sst3.JPG are exact copies of files from en.wikipedia, but have no attributions. The last two even claim {{self|Cc-zero}}. -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he has no idea about licenses, so he needs some help. In the mean time I trust that the images will be deleted as duplicates (rather than using speedy or clogging up deletion requests), then any use on wikis will automatically be replaced. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that the images must be deleted. Probably they should be renamed and marked as transferred from wikipedia (with proper transfer of the descriptions). At least, en.wikipedia now recognizes its own images as duplicates of these images here. :-) -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
That happened now, Sevela.p (thanks for your work and sorry that we made double work with two files) and I worked on the duplicates, corrected the transwikis and replaced the usage with the renamed- or duplicate- or againuploaded versions. --Martin H. (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Page protection -- what am I missing about File:1.jpg?

On March 13, Billinghurst protected this page for all time. The following week, it had several uploads.

On March 22, I protected it for all time, with the same result today, see the page's log.

Since we probably don't want a page named "1.jpg", what are Billinghurst and I, and others before us, doing wrong?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you protect from uploading? I had one the other day which "appeared" to be protected but wasn't - if not it's a bug! --Herby talk thyme 17:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It must be a bug. Even if I disconnect 'create' and 'upload' it doesn't work. Jcb (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
May be it's the same bug that allowed a bot to repeatedly upload the same fair-use images from :en to Commons again and again, despited repeated protection of the filename. Problem occured a few weeks ago[8]. --Túrelio (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Upload protectiion was fixed in bug 28166, which will be in effect here when the build at Special:Version is above 84575. Title blacklisting was fixed in bug 27470, which will be in effect here when the build at Special:Version is above 84581. Current is 84546. – Adrignola talk 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
(That is not exactly how the revision numbers work. Revsions 84575 and 84581 were fixes in "the latest MediaWiki versions". Then 84605 was copying those fixes to the "Wikimedia version of MediaWiki". So a number between 84581 and 84604 at Special:Version would not have any effect for those bugs here at Commons. Number 84605 or above was needed.) /Ö 19:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgive, me -- I need words of one syllable, please. Do I understand correctly that

  1. there is a bug which now makes it impossible to prevent uploading of images to undesirable file names;
  2. the bug will be fixed at a future build; and
  3. the fix is not too far in the future?

Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an workaround here that seems to work: If there is a placeholder image, that can be uploaded protected. It may also work if its created as a redirect, but haven't tried that. This is not the ideal solution "create protection" should work after all!--Nilfanion (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it's now impossible to upload it. Jcb (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you can just undelete one we used to have .. ;) --  Docu  at 11:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Or for these filenames we could look to add a regex to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist for one and two digit filenames for all file extensions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


I've noted that in the past few days File:Picture.JPG and File:Picture1.JPG have been uploaded, despite the former being SALTed and both sysop protected against recreation. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As Mattbuck says, File:Picture.JPG was uploaded over the protection, apparently because the protection doesn't work if there is no file to protect. Since it was an unused exact duplicate, I deleted it. I then followed up on Nilfanion's suggestion, see File:Picture.JPG.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Experimenting on File:Picture1.JPG, I could not choose to only have upload protection. I had to protect both the page from being created and a file being uploaded before the protection would stick. – Adrignola talk 00:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Need help with an image

File:UA232precrash.jpg

I believe this image is copyrighted as the NTSB report gives credit to a private individual for it. As such I feel it needs to be deleted from Commons. However, I still intend to use the image on English Wikipedia under fair use at w:United Airlines Flight 232 Is it possible for the image to be moved there during the deletion process? I will handle the Fair Use Rationale. N419BH 01:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no means to import the file to Wikipedia through the existing tools.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have a tool to do this but I've been waiting weeks on En for bot approval, since the bot requires an admin flag to work (it is not possible for non-admins to upload over Commons files on En). See en:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Commons fair use upload bot. There is an alternative which seems to work: I can re-upload the image under a different name to En, and create an image redirect on En at the old name (which doesn't require admin privileges). I might go for this instead. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I've got the image regardless so if it does end up deleted I can just upload it under FUR to enwiki. I'm mostly concerned that the photo is uploaded under the proper copyright criteria. N419BH 03:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Italienischer Vierer.jpg

Please rename this file. It should be File:Französischer Vierer.jpg. Thank you, --Nicola (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Srinivas0131 (talk · contribs)

Can someone delete all the uploads please? They are all random web images (and sourced as such -- Google, web etc) with no proof of release, just comments of "Wow" etc. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange text insertions by a buggy Firefox extension

I just recently noticed that one of my pictures vanished from COM:QIC. When I searched for the edit which hid my entry, I came across this edit which inserted digit sequences enclosed in »begin_of_the_skype_highlighting« and »end_of_the_skype_highlighting« in an area unrelated to the intended edit. Subsequently, I found this bugzilla entry which was closed as it is not a bug of the Wikimedia Software but a problem of a faulty Firefox extension. Apparently this problem is already that common that an abuse filter concerning this was already installed at de-wp. Perhaps we should do the same. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/67 contains something like that. --Martin H. (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hm... 67 is restricted to unconfirmed accounts. Perhaps we should drop that restriction as it can happy unintentionally to anyone who happens to use that extension. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This rule from en-wp could be perhaps helpful. It issues a warning and excludes bots. It does not stop anyone from inserting this but would provides a warning and allows to find these edits. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

Asandhu (talk · contribs) has uploaded three images claiming them to be ownwork. I don't see any metadata in the images. Can someone familiar with copyright issues check the images and deleted them if they are copyvios.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Done by High Contrast. Jafeluv (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!--Sodabottle (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Promotional pictures ?

Please check Special:Contributions/Thunderbike uploaded pictures, there are logo in the picture.--Motopark (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a business uploading pictures of their bikes, possibly with the side benefit of attracting new customers. If the images are useful the logo can be removed. The user should also send an email to OTRS from a business email to confirm that they are authorized to act on behalf of the company. – Adrignola talk 14:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Not should: they MUST send something to OTRS. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Kartendreher

Kartendreher (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) is uploading quite a number of pornographic photos which are most likely copyright violations (different cameras and different technical quality). Speedy deletion material, or shall we have a mass deletion discussion for a month followed by an undeletion discussion and policy discussion for another month? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Half of them have now been deleted as confirmed copyright violations, while the other half still remains. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion

Your comments/questions or constructive criticism on the above (new) page is very much welcomed. Also, please note of this impending change. Rehman 06:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

File usage on other wikis – WikiSkripta

Would it be possible to display also file usage on wikis outside the Wikimedia Foundation projects in the "File usage on other wikis" section? Both technically and what regards the likelihood to give consent for something like that. I am asking, because WikiSkripta began using Commons as the file source, nevertheless their administrators are quite afraid of deleting or inappropriate substitution of a file embedded there, even bona fide, without any possibility to get to know that a concrete file is used outside the WM Foundation projects too, so that the user could make a suitable edits there as well. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion Still Open from Last Month

This deletion discussion has ramifications over at en.Wiki and has been open since last month, last edit being March 16. Could an admin take a look at the discussion and close it please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 01:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Are the licencing valid

Please check some pictures of Special:Contributions/Skulptorius1, where are art pictures of living person.--Motopark (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

They all have DR tags, so they will be dealt with routinely. I note that the username is similar to the scuptor's name, so it is possible that they are the same person.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

user edit other users userpage

please check Special:Contributions/Konstantin._K and his edits.--Motopark (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The disruption seems to have stopped. Warning left. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request to Template:Image permission/doc

The page Template:Image permission/doc has been edit protected due to excessive vandalism. However, it contains a bunch of categories that do not belong there. Could someone fix this? Thanks. —Quibik (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 12:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gul Mudin.jpg

Does any colleague feel to be without conflict of interest and sufficiently prepared to decide the 13 days old deletion request for this ugly image File:Gul Mudin.jpg? --Túrelio (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel sufficiently free of conflict, but really unsure on which way to go. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Free image or not, I think this is where we should put in a little bit of human respect, and wipe it off. Put this in on a page, and you would have an everlasting stream of vandalism. 119.235.2.137 02:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to rename

1. File:Грицько Відорт.JPG > File:Kajetan Widort.JPG (source: Цинкаловський О. Стара Волинь і Волинське Полісся. Краєзнавчий словник — від найдавніших часів до 1914 року. Т. 1. Вінніпег 1986. С. 71.); 2. File:NOrda Castle of Ostroh.jpg > File:Z. Vogel. Castle of Ostroh.jpg 3. File:N. Orda. Cerkva Bohojavlenn`a Hospodn`oho v Ostrozi.JPG > File:Z. Vogel. Church in Ostrog castle.JPG (source: Ричков П., Луц В. Архітектурно-мистецька спадщина князів Острозьких. Київ 2002. ISBN 966-575-035-6; Зиґмунд Фогель, прозваний Пташком, що малював Острог і Почаїв) --Bulka UA (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, just use the {{Rename}} template. Powers (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Multiple copyvios

RostyslavZvanych (talk · contribs) has uploaded a bunch of images that were copied from various copyrighted sources and has falsely claimed that they are his own work. I have identified the sources that many of them were taken from, and nominated those images for deletion. But there are quite a few more where I can't readily identify the source, but they are very likely copyvios too. Can the rest of these be deleted as probable copyright violations, or does a source have to be identified for each? ChemNerd (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

At least two of them seem to be clearly from the Nature Reviews Neuroscience webpage, although I can't verify that because the site requires subscription to view all content. File:Brain area.jpg seems to be cropped from the picture that was used on this page in 2008, so it's surely not an own work from 2011. (Interestingly, though, the blog page credits en.wikipedia for the image -- I haven't been able to locate the source image on Wikipedia.) File:Alpha-KGDHC-E3.png, File:Alpha-KGDHC-E1.png and File:Structure of alpha-KGDHC.png are cropped from an earlier confirmed copyvio image, File:Structure of alpha-KGDHC.jpg. Considering the uploader's history I'd say nuke them all. Jafeluv (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Most have been deleted as copyvios, and the rest are at DR now. Jafeluv (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

wrong typo, please remove Categorie:Honda Electric motorcycles

and this one: Please remove the both Categories (first one typo "ie", second one bad term) - the rightone is now this, thanks JvE (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

File history

I am the original creator and uploader of File:ACT Provisional Drivers Licence 2009.jpg; would it be possible for an admin to delete all previous revisions (file changes) of the image within the file history, excluding the most recent (current) version? I am unsure of the exact place to go to for such a request. Thanks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 11:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. While we don't generally delete old versions from the file history, I think it makes sense in this case since there's no need to have the person's face visible in the older version. (That would defeat the purpose of hiding it in the first place.) Jafeluv (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 12:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Vrghs jacob redux

He's been through a history of copyvios and has received a couple of blocks here and an indefinite one on en.wiki. He was back as Chindia (China-India) (talk · contribs) on en.wiki (see confirmation). He's back on at commons too with his new sock and has uploaded two copyvios in the new avatar -- File:Page 1 - Schweizer Illustrierte 1991 Pages 38 to 39.jpeg, File:Page 2 - Schweizer Illustrierte 1991 Pages 40 to 41.jpeg which involves scanning magazine images to his flickr account and claiming that he's a writer of the magazine (contrast to before when he claimed to be representing the Indian Parliament on an earlier deletion discussion here). Can someone with the tools take the necessary action please? cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that the flickr washing is a pretty grave concern. While some of this contributor's uploads have been legit, he's pretty cavalier about copyright on Wikipedia. The prior blocks under his primary account here don't seem to have had much impact. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
He certainly needs an eye kept on him, but I don't think a block is warranted -- yet.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
He's doing the same with two accounts now, so shouldn't one be blocked? cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Red kurdistan 1923 1929.png

Needs attention. NVO (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it is only two days old. There is no reason for it to get any special attention. It will presumably be closed routinely five days from now.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It was not about two days old, but anyway it's already discussed at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Possible_massive_sockpuppetry. NVO (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I closed it as keep. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

151.83.89.245

The files of user User talk:Pediwiki, User talk:Wiki Florencia Bertotti, User talk:WIKIFLOR look similar and this IP edited all these images by adding "Camera manufacturers". I ask me how the IP can guess the cameras of three different uploaders. What are the next steps to take? There are currently some DRs running (doubting own work). -- RE RILLKE Questions? 19:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How do I get unblocked?

I don't know why I received the block below.. I haven't been using multiple accounts to my knowledge. How do I get it lifted? What's also annoying is that I don't have any priviledges to contact anyone while I'm logged in as my username to try and find out why I'm blocked..


Your username or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by Tiptoety. The reason given is Abusing multiple accounts: Papa9.

Start of block: 06:30, 7 June 2010 Expiry of block: infinite Intended blockee: Rudolph89 You can contact Tiptoety or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the 'e-mail this user' feature unless a valid e-mail address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 121.98.132.35, and the block ID is #37911. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

  • I've simply unblocked you, becuase seems that you are an established, never blocked user in en-wiki. You are not the first nor the second nor the third random person blocked by Tiptoety as a sockpuppet. Sorry for the inconvenience. Trycatch (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

delete old versions– uploaded wrong files

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hauskatze_langhaar.jpg I got something wrong with my filenames and as there was no thumbnail I chose wrong pictures for upload twice. Could someone please remove them? The newest version, the long haired white-tabby cat, is the correct one. Thanks.

Help with accounts

I have two accounts here, they're both for uploading photos of fungi (mycology is a passion of mine). I changed the password on my first account, well I did not link it to an email address and now I cannot log into it which stinks because I have some great pictures on there. I can definitely prove that the account I cannot log into is mine. Should I just upload the same pictures that are on my old account (Amanita77) to my new one?

Thanks

00Amanita00 (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)00Amanita0000Amanita00 (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Check my policy knowledge, please

Can someone check my responses at Template_talk:No_permission_since#Rediculous and User_talk:Fetchcomms#Please_provide_a_policy regarding Commons:Permission? Another user reverted my "no permission" taggings of images that I thought did not have clear permission, and I'm not sure what other policy he/she wants me to cite that says Commons requires clear, unambiguous permission to use others' images. ←fetchcomms 05:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Which images are being discussed? --  Docu  at 05:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Just read Floydian's Contributions -- RE rillke questions? 06:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with most permission requests. One image had a link to a Canadian governmental website, but that link wasn't helpful. --  Docu  at 06:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Additional feedback would still be appreciated. I can't find a single approved policy (Commons:Permission is still in the "proposed" stage) that says we need explicit permission from copyright holders. ←fetchcomms 15:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I would say that is self-evident and doesn't need a policy. Only the author/photographer can license a work (that isn't PD for other reasons). If the uploader is not the author, the uploader has to provide proof of a permission from the author. --Túrelio (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Old speedy request

Hi, noticed this old speedy request File:IMG 0929.JPG. Could an admin please have a look. Thank you. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a speedy, but simply a forgotten no-source. I've converted it into a regular DR. Thanks for reminding. --Túrelio (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Please use {{Fair use delete}} when deleting files in use on En

Hi all, I'm trying to get a bigger trial of User:Commons fair use upload bot going. I've started doing some of the first transfers with it, but I need your help: whenever you want to delete a file that is in use on En, please instead tag it with {{Fair use delete}}. My bot will then upload it to En as a fair use candidate for evaluation, and tag it for speedy deletion here. This will ensure no interruption in use on their project. There are stirrings on En of people wanting to do radical things about our deletions that I hope this will prevent. Thank you! Dcoetzee (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a good solution. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I will see about tagging some of the many logos and such that I've been deleting as I go through the backlogs of images lacking permission. However I will make the statement that many of the comments I'm reading in the discussion you linked to, slamming Commons admins, make me downright angry. Also, some might ask why we need to bend over backwards for en.wiki as opposed to any of the hundreds of other projects that we serve. They can copy any images with 25+ uses over if they want to spend the time. A lot of them already have been to protect against vandalism. But I can tell you that the backlogs I've been going through have had a lot of uses on en.wiki with one or two. The situation won't be eliminated unless they want to duplicate Commons one-to-one. Maybe they should direct their wrath to those who don't properly gain permission for their uploads or provide sources and then put the images in use on en.wiki. – Adrignola talk 02:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
You're quite right, I felt the same way - En isn't special and they may not comprehend the amount of work involved in re-uploading in-use deleted images to all local wikis with non-free content policies. But their concern is legitimate, that images they wish to use may vanish and be automatically removed from dozens of articles by delinker bots before anyone has a chance to ask us for the deleted file and re-upload as fair use media. I don't want anybody to be deterred from transferring files to Commons by this type of experience - I've talked to people on enwiki, En Wikinews, and others who were expressing frustration. The bot is in trial mode right now and will later be expanded to re-upload to more and more WMF projects, but En is a good starting point for me since I'm admin there. I think another good next step is an automatic global notification bot for deletion requests on Commons, for talk pages of articles where the image is in use, localised appropriately per-project. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Consider this: Commons Admins delete approximately 1,000 files per day and the backlog is not shrinking. More than half of this work is done by eight people. Anything that slows down the effort to keep ahead of the flood of bad uploads is simply not going to happen.
I suggest instead a more global solution -- that the delete function grab and log the global usage information at the moment of deletion. If we had that, and if Admins on the local Wikis had the ability to go into the Commons database and grab a deleted file and upload it locally, then the problem would be entirely under the control of the local Wikis. But, please, don't ask to do more -- we're barely keeping up as it is.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, a non-admin could help out by adding a tag like this, so maybe we should post this elsewhere & try to recruit some helpers. - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The bot doesn't accept commands from non-admins, for the same reason CommonsDelinker doesn't, because it could lead to widespread disruption that would be a bitch to clean up. I'm not asking anybody to do more work here. Just to use the {{Fair use delete}} tag instead of the Delete button on images in use on En (or on all images - it can tell the difference). The bot and I will take care of the rest. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think they are right to put the blame on Commons. Sometimes an easy-replaceable picture is in use on a zillion of pages in a local project, and it got speedily deleted here without any notification on the project, without any chance to fix the problem. Of course they are furious. Trycatch (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you plan to get a sysop flag for your bot to perform the deletions automatically? A more transparent solution will be better -- a bot in en-wiki can monitor all deletions on Commons and reupload deleted pictures they are interested in to en-wiki. May be it's harder to synchronize such bot with CommonsDelinker, but it worth it. Trycatch (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
If I could it would solve many problems with my bot. Right now CommonsDelinker is removing the images even after I re-upload them anyway, due to a bug with image redirects. If I had sysop bit on either Commons or En then that bug would be a non-issue. However I've had people tell me not to - I think it's hard to get a bot a sysop bit on Commons? Can't hurt to ask. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyway your bot can revert CommonsDelinker edits when it's necessary -- it's a sub-optimal, but still much better solution, because of its transparency for Commons admins. And why one would oppose to a useful sysop-bot operated by a sysop here? Trycatch (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I've got a new idea for an implementation that won't require the sysop bit or admin cooperation - I can have it use my admin account read-only to continuously monitor recent deletions, download those and re-upload. That could also sidestep the CommonsDelinker problem if I'm just faster than CommonsDelinker so it won't get time to delink. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:SYRYNX

User uploaded a lot of photos from other cites. All files should be deleted as copyvio. Daryona (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I've warned the user and tagged the images.   ■ MMXX  talk  11:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Following on from this the same user has again uploaded lots of images that are copyright violations. e.g. this montage is taken from [9], [10] and others. This has been nicked from here etc etc. Most of the images this user has uploaded are said to be their own work, when I think it is pretty clear they are not. Could someone go through and delete them all please. I have no confidence that any of these images are the uploader's and they are currently being released into the public domain.

(BTW I scrambled my password and aren't around much any more). 217.36.84.105 11:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Some even had a copyright watermark on them: File:1 city square Leeds.png and File:City island Phase two Leeds.jpg for instance. Others I found pilfered from websites. Given the past history (see Special:DeletedContributions/JayLeeds), a block is in order. – Adrignola talk 13:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

deceased users procedures?

Do we have any established procedures for the accounts of deceases users? Moments ago I was notified that User:Producer died already in February. As a first measure I've IP-protected his userpage and put a small message box on it. Anything more to do? Do we have sort of memorial list/page (such as en:Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians or de:Wikipedia:Gedenkseite für verstorbene Wikipedianer)? --Túrelio (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

My condolences. I think commons do not have a page like those, but there's a cross-wiki m:Deceased editors at meta. If the editor where an admin I'd say to remove his sysop bit, but that's not the case. I was told that in some projects accounts of deceased users are blocked too. --Dferg (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
As a way of expressing gratitude, as we are on our own and as a community-building measure, it might make sense to build our own memorial page. --Túrelio (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I also protected his talk page. I would encourage a list of deceased editors -- a simple list, nothing else -- but not any central memorial. I say this because a central memorial would inevitably have many comments under names of well known editors and very few or no comments under others. That would detract from its purpose. Better that we should memorialize people on their talk pages, where such differences would not be so glaring.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Better that we should memorialize people on their talk pages. Agreed, but then they shouldn't be fully protected. –Tryphon☂ 15:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
How about the above linked "memorial list" on :de as a model? --Túrelio (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. the WP:DE list is exactly what I would suggest. I'd protect the user page and talk page against changes by anyone but an Admin, but I think the memorial subpage page might be edited by anyone -- I'd like to believe that no one, even our worst vandals, would deface the memorial of a dead colleague. Maybe that's naive, but if so, we can fix it.
Another suggestion -- just as some of us might bring flowers to a gravesite, perhaps the memorial page could include appropriate images -- either ones uploaded by the deceased, or from the person offering the comment. Of course, that might get into a debate over who judges "appropriate", but I'd hope that won't be a problem.
Final suggestion. Perhaps we should have a standard box for the top of the User and Talk pages, with a parameter for the date and a link to the memorial subpage
"User:XXX died on January 1, 2011. This page is protected against editing and will remain on Commons indefinitely. Memorials may be left at User talk:XXX/Memorials."
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Changed talk page to semi-protected (from full protection), so that people can leave condolence/parting messages. Kaldari (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please correct

please change this title File:Idohikan, Prunus pendula Maxim.f.ascendens Ohwi.JPG to File:Edohikan, Prunus pendula Maxim.f.ascendens Ohwi.JPG Arashiyama (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not possible, because under the second name there is already a different image. --Túrelio (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
And, in any case, please use {{Rename}} for such requests so that they may be handling routinely.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
It was difficult. please change to New name File:Edohikan, Prunus pendula Maxim.f.ascendens Ohwi in Shinjuku Gyoen.JPG Arashiyama (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
What was difficult? You didn't add anything to the above mentioned files. I'v done now. Take a look if it is like you intended. --Túrelio (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Beryl Ford Collection

Images from this collection are available online, but unfortunately derivative works are not allowed: You are free to distribute this photo provided the content is left unchanged. However, User:Bruin2 has uploaded a lot of them, mistakenly tagging them with {{Attribution}}. Could someone go through their contributions and delete the Beryl Ford images? I had already tagged a few as {{Copyvio}}, which were already deleted, but I don't want to spam their talk page with copyvio notices tagging the rest. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 09:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Some (?) of them are old and probably public domain in the USA? --AVRS (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
If they were published at the time (without notice/renewal), but the collection contains 22000 images, so I doubt most of them were published (you'll notice that Tulsa City-County Library is listed as the publisher on the image I linked to above, and they do claim rights on the images). –Tryphon☂ 09:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Arbol.jpg

Please delete the second revision of File:Arbol.jpg, uploaded by Pagayhabla. It's a copyright violation. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Russian speaking admin help needed

moved to the user problems subpage --:bdk: 22:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

User:ComtesseDeMingrelie

please check out behaviour of this user, edit warring against multiple editors over some idiosyncratic idea over w:continental boundaries. I realize we are supposed to re-upload images instead of overwriting them if the original image has any conceivable application. But in the case of correcting simple errors in maps, it would seem pointless to keep the erroneous map around and upload a corrected version under a different title, as the erroneous map would serve no encyclopedic purpose. --Dbachmann (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please give us specific examples. Also note that the subject of the boundaries of Europe is not settled and we keep several different locations in various maps. One person's error is another person's historical change.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Not sure why but my talk page was chosen as a place to face off. User_talk:Adrignola#Socks_across_the_wikispace – Adrignola talk 21:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

dear Jameslwoodward, I have just revised most of the w:continental boundary article at Wikipedia. I daresay I am aware of the historical conventions in use. The one ComtesseDeMingrelie is pushing is not among them. Be that as it may, I am not trying to police commons for flawed maps. I am trying to write an encyclopedic article and illustrate it with maps that are actually based on references. This is impossible if these maps are hosted on commons, and commons cannot clamp down on vandalism. If you cannot resolve this, I will be forced to upload the maps to en-wiki instead, where I have admin privileges and can deal with problem users myself.

Note that to avoid these lame edit wars, I have uploaded the corrected map under separate filenames. File:Europe Asia transcontinental.png is such a file which I have created and uploaded myself, for the purpose of illustrating a referenced encyclopedia article on en-wiki which I am working on atm, but User:ComtesseDeMingrelie followed me to this new file and kept edit warring on it as well. This user is on control, please do something about it. Thank you. --Dbachmann (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted to the pre-edit-war version of File:Europe Asia transcontinental.png, protected it, and warned ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk · contribs).[11] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Even after the warning, they went and altered the alternative map that was uploaded, File:Europe polar stereographic Caucasus Urals boundary.svg, to their preferred version, even though it was specifically named to have the border it was uploaded with. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Glad to see Sigismun and Gerge reverting to the Comtesse's version's as their first and only edits here and (as far as I can tell) only global contributions (except for one edit by Gerge to en.wiki in 2008). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I reverted to the pre-edit-war version of several files, protected them, and warned several users. Blocks may be required. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Çhipmunkdavis is not me by the way (note the squiggly line [for lack of a technical term] under Ç), but rather some duck account. Additionally, the warning that Walter Siegmund placed on my talk page for the actions of this random impersonator has been over-written again by Gerge (telling me, strangely and hypocritically, not to upload over pre-existing images). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not catching the impersonation by Çhipmunkdavis (talk · contribs). That account has been indefinitely blocked by Dferg. I reverted edits by Gerge and me on your talk page. I blocked Gerge (talk · contribs) for 3 days for removing/overwriting talk page edits after a warning. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
CheckUser confirms sockpuppetry by ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk · contributions · Statistics) - 12 sockpuppet accounts (included ComtesseDeMingrelie) have been blocked. --Dferg (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

deleted photos

hi, A bot deleted a ton of photos from Steamtown, USA suddenly and without warning. Those photos were from an online acquaintance who gave me permission. If I didn't upload them correctly I wish I would have a chance to fix the problem. The article is a GA, has been on DYK and I am trying for FA. According to the bot talk page there have been problems with it deleting images that shouldn't be. Can you please help?--Ishtar456 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker doesn't delete images, it removes deleted images. The images were apparently deleted by Adrignola on OTRS grounds "Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons". I suggest you take it up with him. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
From this log I only see seven images you uploaded that were deleted. All of them were sourced from http://www.vistadome.com/trains/steamtown/index.html and that webpage clearly shows a copyright notice at the bottom right, so unless we receive permission from the copyright holder they will remain deleted. You can arrange that by having the copyright holder follow the procedure found at COM:ET, in which case the images would be restored by the OTRS team and you could then add them back to the article in question. Hope that helps. Ww2censor (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The photos were uploaded in July without permission from anyone at the aforementioned website where they were taken from. In September you marked the files as having an email sent in to OTRS. Due to backlogs (which have been eliminated at this point), the email was not processed until October. However, that email did not contain a release under a license (permission for use is not enough) and beyond that it was not from John Simakauskas' email listed as the contact for vistadome.com, conductor@vistadome.com. Instead it was from an ISP email address from someone else (maybe you?). "OTRS received" is not a confirmation of permission and so I was obliged to take them down after six months with no confirmation following the last communication and nine months after initial upload. (Both of those time periods are far beyond the norm, but only occurred due to backlogs clearing out unresolved OTRS received media; that is also being remedied for outstanding "OTRS pending" media). User:HersfoldOTRSBot should be made operational again for the convenience of uploaders, but the onus is on the uploader to clear up an image's status, as OTRS pending/received is not a carte blanche for images that would otherwise be clear copyright violations (due to already being published online). – Adrignola talk 18:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I see that the problem is in my not understanding the complicated process. I did in fact have his permission and I try to pursue it. But can you tell me, in the simplest of terms what I am supposed to ask him to do?--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Keeping it simple: specify the files and the license by filling in the form at Commons:Email templates and sending it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from conductor@vistadome.com. – Adrignola talk 22:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

February DRs

There are 3 DRs left from February, see Commons:Deletion_requests/2011/02 here. I cannot deal with them, for I already closed them once. Could some admin have a look at them? Jcb (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Powers (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking for an en:wp admin

There's a request at en:WP:AN (section title is the filename) related to File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg. Could someone who's an admin both here and there check the deleted image here and the deleted image of the same name there, and then try to help with the request? Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I've posted my own request in that thread: the two requests aren't about the same image, but both requests require the aid of someone who's an admin in both projects. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I've physically restored it on en-wiki so that the copyright status can be sorted out there. I'll look at your request there next. - Jmabel ! talk 01:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User's contributions

Can someone please check the contributions of Luigicitoo? One it´s a cover of an LP, another has a watermark in the right up corner, another it's a promotional picture, all about the same band. And there're more. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Dferg (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Rename requests/Military band sound files

For accuracy, can we please rename the following files:

Thank you, --Kleinzach (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see Commons:File renaming for info and how-to on renaming (for the next time). Files should only be renamed with good reason. I cannot really see one here. Just capitalization and some added suffixes? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a Grand Fantasie in the opera Die Walküre (ditto Siegfried fantasie). It doesn't exist. The other files, to a greater or lesser extent, are arrangements of works, not the real music. --Kleinzach (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
No compelling need for rename. --Foroa (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, if Kleinzach's claim about no such thing is true (which a music expert should confirm), this would be a compelling reason for renaming as the current name then would be clearly misleading. --Túrelio (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
IMO all these names are misleading. Imagine Joe Bloggs does a sketch of the Mona Lisa, then uploads it to Commons attributed, explicitly or implicitly, to Leonardo da Vinci. Should the file name make it clear that the image is not that of the original work? That's the question here. --Kleinzach (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree these are worthy candidates for renaming. "William Tell Overture.ogg", in particular, is too generic of a filename to be useful. (Though I hasten to point out that the proposed new name is not good at all, as it's obviously not a brass band playing it!) Powers (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
"William Tell Overture.ogg" is played by the United States Marine Corps Band. I would call that a brass band — i.e. a band with a lot of brass instruments (see for example File:1893sousaband.jpg — though it seems the band itself prefers to call itself a 'marine band'. --Kleinzach (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
"Brass band" most specifically refers to a band comprising brass and percussion instruments only. More expansive uses -- which exist, but are rare in the U.S. -- would be too ambiguous for use in a filename. There are any number of other options that don't have the same ambiguity. Powers (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
'Military band' or 'concert band' could also be used here, but see the lead to Brass band: "Ensembles that include brass and woodwind instruments can in certain traditions also be termed brass bands". (Of course, we are not concerned with US usage per se on WP.) --Kleinzach (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This page is entitled 'Administrators' noticeboard'. I wonder if there are any administrators here? I think there is now a good consensus for having corrected file names. --Kleinzach (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Unprotections by Fastily

New administrator Fastily unprotects masses of file and page names that have been protected against re-creation. Some examples:

I tried to make him re-think, but without success. I would like to get some opinions on these unprotections. --Leyo 07:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Can't see the benefit of unprotecting for many of these, to be honest. Even if some are redundant with the title blacklist, the benefit of unprotecting such pages is basically zero. And "trying unprotection" for titles like this is certainly not helpful. Jafeluv (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I've reprotected a few of them. In case any proof was needed, the originally protected nonsense filename File:Dfdf.jpg was used for an upload 6 days after its unprotection. --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Even more this file is a blunt copyright violation! Deleted and protected again. axpdeHello! 09:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a rather massive overlap between users who don't understand or don't care what makes for a sensible file name and users who don't understand or don't care about copyright. I'm guessing there's also an overlap between those users and ones who don't understand what to do when their upload is rejected because of the file name. Some people are just not very good with instructions, and I think for once, we can use that to our advantage. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Mass unprotection is not useful action and opened door for a spam and copyvio now. Protection must be active. -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought protection against recreation was broken anyway, but yes, bad move. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it was fixed? But whats the point in unprotected when there was a reason that protection was done, it is really counterproductive. Bidgee (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It was fixed. At least that's what they tell me. – Adrignola talk 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Why not simply redirecting it to a thing like File:Picture.JPG and protect it. Then the link is blue, protection works always and no questions asked, no attempts made. --Foroa (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Protection is fixed; title blacklisting is not. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe I've indicated my intentions quite clearly here. Of course, if the community objects to such careful and discretionary unprotections (no, I do not unprotect every salted redlink I see), I have no problems ceasing. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 20:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
As you are somewhat new to this, you might want to take the time to read more carefully the explanations given by experienced contributors ([12] response). Oddly it seems that you are archiving comments without responding to them [13]. --  Docu  at 20:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate image

File:Ambox deletion.png and File:Imbox deletion.png seems to be the same. Why not delete one of these? --Sreejith K (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the talk page the boxes use different images for "technical reasons". Don't know what that means in practice, or whether the issue has changed since 2008. Jafeluv (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
IMO, those "technical reasons" are not a valid reason to keep duplicates. Commons should have only one copy of a particular file. Delete and use a redirect maybe? Not comfortable in doing it myself due to "technical reasons"... Rehman 12:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably more trouble than it's worth to work out whether to delete a 2kb file for some sense of purity. "Should have only one copy" is not "Must have" :-). If the file is modified (eg by making it a redirect) does that trigger the wiki software to re-generate the stated 800000+ instances where it is used in templates? --Tony Wills (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
User:CommonsDelinker? -FASTILY (TALK) 03:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Notes for new Admins

I've generated a short list of Admin tools which newbies may not know about -- I just learned one of them this week. Several of our recent additions have commented favorably, so I come here to ask where we should put it:

  • Commons:Administrators/Tools
  • Commons:Administrators/New Admin Help

or something else?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Either works for me - I learned of a new tool just from reading your list there (Quick Delete). Tabercil (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I think such list should belong in the Commons-namespace. Lymantria (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Image blacklist

Earlier today I tried to upload this image from Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/61498767@N07/5635466734/

Title: PM Taj Description: Photograph of Malayam playwright PM Taj in 1986 (age 30)

The license is right, but it didn't work for some reason. Any ideas? Ocaasi (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a pretty clear case of flickrwashing - that is a photo of a photo, a single-purpose flickr account designed to get around our licencing restrictions. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Matt, I was working with the user online through Wikipedia IRC and he claimed to be the owner of the photo and the son of the individual in the photograph. It's a picture of deceased Indian playwright P.M. Taj. As a photo of a photo, would it be a problem if it was a photo of a photo he owned, of his own father? Ocaasi (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably, yes. Unless the photographer signed away his copyright to the father, it would be a copyright violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Fairly clearly flickrwashing... the EXIF info on the picture says it was taken earlier today by a cellphone camera and the description by the would-be uploader says the image contents date to 1986. So it's case of someone photographing an existing picture. Tabercil (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The uploader is the photographer, based on the conversation we had with him in IRC. Does he need to submit a signed affadavit to that effect? Tim Pierce (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Photographer of which image? The current 2011 one, or the original 1986? If he took both, then he can upload it. If it's just the 2011 one, then we have an issue as the original 1986 photographer would need to give consent for the image to be uploaded. Tabercil (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The original photographer of the 1986 image. That was the understanding I got from him during the discussion yesterday. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think this is an appropriate use of the {{Copyvio}} template. The template documentation and COM:D say that {{Copyvio}} is only to be used in cases of "obvious" copyright violation. It's possible that there has been a misunderstanding and that this photograph is indeed a copyright violation, but it is not at all obvious. Tim Pierce (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if it doesn't into copyvio category (and based on the information given by Ocaasi above it does seem like a copyvio to me), then it's a case of NPD. Tabercil (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
My point is that {{Copyvio}} is intended for flagrant and unambiguous cases of copyright violation, not cases that "seem like a copyvio to me" -- the latter should be addressed with {{Delete}}. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Need to delete an image

I uploaded the wrong image and wish to delete it, can you help for this? Thank you! Image to delete: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/df/20110420091906%21Portrait_of_Rajendra_Prasanna.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by MargueriteMB (talk • contribs)

File:Portrait of Rajendra Prasanna.jpg has been reverted to the first version. Please don't overwrite this version. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

But is it possible to delete this file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MargueriteMB (talk • contribs)

By uploading it you have released the photograph licensed as cc-by-sa-3.0. Once released, it is released. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
FYI, the idea of irrevocability of Creative Commons licenses is being questioned (see for instance David McGowan, Legal implications of Open Source Software). I believe that we should respect the user's request. odder (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record: The linked paper by McGowan was written in 2000, the GPL and all their provisions have since been confirmed time and again by courts in all major industrialized nations. There is no valid questioning of the GPL and especially their irrevocability anymore. --h-stt !? 08:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for these informations; but as i am not the author of the photograph it could be deleted under copyright violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MargueriteMB (talk • contribs)

For both versions of the photograph, that is? Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


No, only for the first version I uploaded (which has been reverted as the current file): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/df/20110420091906%21Portrait_of_Rajendra_Prasanna.jpg

Can you explain why this is a copyvio? Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a violation because I uploaded it without the author authorization, i entered the information as my own work and me as the author, which is not the case; the artist who is on the photograph gave me the picture but i don't know if the author of the picture gave the artist the authorization to publish it;

✓ Done My apologies, I see that you already explained that above. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you so much!

Backlog

Hello. I'm posting here since there's a backlog at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. If other fellow administrators want to help there, it would be appreciated. Thanks, --Dferg (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What do we have to do? Just make sure the requests are reasonable and move 'em to the queue? Powers (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I moved quite a few of them to the content page from the talk page. Others may not be reasonable and the file movers should be warned. – Adrignola talk 15:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I moved a few just now, but I have to say: an awful lot of this backlog is because of unnecessary moves, things like fixing a diacritical mark or a slight misspelling of a still-obvious word, or adding additional information to an already decent name. It's not like filenames show up in articles. As long as the name is not misleading, why bother renaming? - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Sadly some file movers just do not know the important rules or think they do not have do obey them. I would say: They should be notified and get removed the flag if their behaviour has not changed.
See also MediaWiki_talk:AjaxQuickDelete.js#Junk_at_User_talk:CommonsDelinker.2Fcommands regarding the vast amount of entries (often probably not needed since there is no "global usage") there. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Deadmined without warning

12 days ago I was deadmined due to lack of activity. However, I did not receive a warning before I was deadmined so that I could "confirm my adminship". I frequently logged into Commons between I was listed here and I was deadmined, but because nobody notified me about this on my talk page, I had no idea that I was listed for deadmining. Due to the fact that I was essentially powerless to prevent my loss of adminship, I would like to be re-admined as if I had confirmed my adminship on this page within 30 days. --Aqwis (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  • They were informed but not very well detailed comment/notice though! Can also see what you mean about them not being listed in the inactivity list. Bidgee (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
    • That's pretty vague to count as a warning. "Hi, you might be interested in..." is not "We are about to remove a privilege from you." Wouldn't get my attention on a site where I was only moderately active. - Jmabel ! talk 15:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

missing Alphax (talk · contribs)

Anything known about User:Alphax? He was formerly admin+CU+OTRS and his userpage still had the admin babel "box", which I have removed now. As he had no edit on Commons (and all other projects where he has a userpage) since >4 years, should we eventually cat him as "retired editor" and block the account to prevent abuse by third parties? --Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Why block the account? Is his password published? Lymantria (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
1) To prevent abuse by others, as I wrote above. 2) I have no knowledge about that. However, an unused account on nearly 10 projects offers enough potential.
May be "protect the account" would be better wording than "block". --Túrelio (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Removing special privileges from inactive accounts makes sense; blocking inactive regular accounts does not. All Wikimedia projects have thousands of inactive regular accounts. Compromising an existing account for abusive purposes is a lot of work for very little gain given that anyone can register a new account in a few seconds. Our efforts are better spent finding actual vandals than finding inactive accounts which may potentially be used by vandals that are skilled and patient enough to compromise the account. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Despite of the low opinion you may have of the work that led to discover the Alphax "case", it was exactly this work that (inadvertently) led to making colleague Aqwis (see 1 paragraph above) for the first time aware that he has no longer the admin bit. Besides, I did not try finding inactive accounts, but compared the cat Commons admins with the list on COM:A. --Túrelio (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Blocking the account would be a shame if it turned out that Alphax would perhaps again want to use it some time. And there is no real thread, no use = no abuse. We should block vandalizing accounts, agreed, but not unused ones (and rewording to "protecting the account" does not make it better). Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
There is more of an issue with accounts not having strong passwords than unused. If it is unused, only we will notice. I suggest to leave the account be. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Libya.png

I have a real problem with this kind of closings by User:Jcb. It's not the first time that he applies the we're not a 100% sure it's a copyright violation, so let's keep it for now principle, which is in complete contradiction with policy. But I'm also a bit tired of constantly arguing with him, especially when he usually ignores me at some point and simply stops answering without taking any action. It is getting very frustrating. So I would appreciate if a fellow admin of his could nicely remind him of the rules. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 13:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you always crying like a kid if the admin decision is not what you hoped? Jcb (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think if we don't know whether the author died over 25 years ago the file should have been deleted. This is exactly what COM:PRP example #4 demonstrates. Furthermore, admins are expected to justify their actions when needed. If you can't do that without attacking the person who questions your closure (like you did above) I don't think you should be closing DRs at all. Jafeluv (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Tryphon skipped the step to ask me personal for explanation. Also if I would not be closing DRs at all, we would probably still have a backlog of one year. Jcb (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Closing a large number of DRs does not give you the privilege to personally attack others who question your decisions. Jafeluv (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The point is, I shouldn't have to ask you for a personal explanation. You should justify clearly and based on policy why you decided to keep or delete an image. I have asked you for such an explanation several times in the past (which you describe now as crying like a kid), but as I said above, I usually do not get a satisfying answer out of you. And as can be seen on your talk page, I'm not the only one. I know that you're working hard to reduce the backlog, but I get the feeling that you sometimes close DRs just to close them, even if you're not entirely certain you understand the situation completely. Try leaving some DRs for other admins (you're not the only one working on them, and you can leave comments instead of closing). There's a reason why we have such a big backlog; some DRs are very tough to decide. –Tryphon☂ 16:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

@Jcb "crying like a kid ": I think you have to reconsider your word choice. This is no appropriate way to talk to others. --High Contrast (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Jcb's closure was blatantly incorrect in this case, and he should be admonished both for this careless action and for his incivility (above) towards users with legitimate copyright concerns. I am reopening this request. Although his investment in closing deletion requests is appreciated, I would rather have a longer backlog and resolve each discussion carefully and thoughtfully. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Transwiki request

Can somebody please transwiki en:File talk:NYC subway riders with their newspapers.jpg so that it is on Commons along with the file which is already here? Train2104 (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

License problems with images from Wolfgang Pehlemann

On DE:WP:URF was a discussion if the licensing of this users images is correct or not. He added a comment under the license of nearly every of his images, which forces other users to append its attribution directly under the image. (for example [14] or any other from [15])

[...] you must attribute the photo by adding my name (Photo: Wolfgang Pehlemann) directly under the photo with ref. to this licence terms CC-BY-SA and add. respecting rights and restrictions of third parties, further you must mention this licence terms. You must make your version available especially under this conditions as explained.

Most participants assume that the license would be broken in this case, since this are additional restrictions would make the license invalid. The main conclusion was: He could either remove this statements or the images should be deleted if he doesn't. Since many of this images are hosted on commons, it would be nice to hear the thoughts on this situation. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA allows the author to specify any reasonable method of attribution he likes, but we impose an additional requirement that uploaders agree that attribution-by-linking-to-the-description-page is sufficient. That makes his conditions invalid. Powers (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Well invalid in respects to Wikipedia or Commons - offsite use might be different... Tabercil (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this really true? Doesn't it only relate to the wording and not to the place where the license information has to be found. If so, he could insist on a watermark, which would effectively expand the CC-BY-SA to something like a CC-BY-SA-ND. We had a discussion at this deletion request, which told another story. Would be nice to make this clear. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 06:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything new in this attempt to wiggle around free licenses. The claim by Wolfgang is invalidated by our license as it does not allow any modifications. He did upload the images despite knowing the implications of the license and is bound by it now. No need to do anything or to comply to his demand. --h-stt !? 12:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
In this case either the license is invalid or the comments should be removed to not give the wrong impression to our users. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Niabot, we already had this discussion - on exactly this user's images - two years ago. What is the new point now? The licence remains valid, Wolfgangs expectation is right for some usages and can rightfully be disappointed by some other usages. --Martina talk 19:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Where can I find that previous discussion? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
??? I gave it to you some days ago on de-WP. --Martina talk 19:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I found only a link to an old discussion in de-WP. Can you please give me the link to the previous discussion in Wikimedia Commons? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI: See now this Deletion request. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's no more than illustrating a point. How often shall we discuss the same matter with the same user(s)?? --Martina talk 19:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I did not participate in any realated previous discussion in Wikimedia Commons. Please give me the link so that I can consider the earlier discussion results. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Likely she meant this discussion 2 years ago. --Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Could be. But I am not sure whether German discussions are relevant for Wikimedia Commons. In addition, as far as I can understand, it was a different problem (Item 7 from Wolfgang Pehlemann: Bigbug21 replaced "Wolfgang Pehlemann" by "Urheber bzw. Nutzungsrechtinhaber CC-BY-SA-30", which is clearly a license violation). Wolfgang Pehlemann was clearly right in that respect. We are, however, not discussing whether the author's name has to be kept (it must), but the question, whether additional restrictions (directly under the image) are acceptable. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is this blacklisted?

I have tried twice to upload this photo and been stopped because it, or something, is blacklisted. Why? is there a workaround? Or is there actually some issue with the picture?Dankarl (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC) BTW I tried two different file names for the uploaded file.Dankarl (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's just make sure it's clear what you are doing. Are you uploading from Flickr with one of the special tools for that, or did you download the picture to your own computer and are uploading from there with one of the usual upload tools, or are you trying to do something else entirely. (By the way, in the future, Commons:Help desk would be a better place to ask a question like this, there's nothing about this requiring an administrator.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I came here because that's where the error message suggested. I was using the Flickr upload botDankarl (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The filename is probably blacklisted because it includes too few letters, only one 'a', I think it needs more than three letters to be allowed. /Ö 18:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The last title I tried was File:Fairbanks power plant (the bot was expected to add the .jpg)
The error message read:

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

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

The page title or edit you have tried to create cannot be created or edited by you at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, used to prevent vandalism.


Instructions:

If you receive this message when you try to edit, create, or move an existing page: 

       * Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard.
       * You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail.
       * Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.
       * If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit it.

Thank you.

BTW I just reproduced the error with the file name aboveDankarl (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Then after another screw-up, mine this time, got it to go as Fairbanks co-generation. So no ongoing problem But I still wonder what was blacklisted.Dankarl (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Pstoianov (talk · contribs) an admin?

User:Pstoianov, who has exactly 1 (one) edit, claims on his userpage verbatim and per userbox to be an admin on Commons. Did I miss a rfa? --Túrelio (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

  • He's claiming a different, undeclared shared account. It's obvious he's experienced. But, in my opinion if he's going to declare he's an admin under another account, he should declare that account else not claim it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyway User:Pstoianov is no admin, hence I removed the deceptive babel entry ... yet no will to productive contribution notable! axpdeHello! 01:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
«and a commons sysop since 2006 by using different shared account» uhm, what? shared admin accounts? --Dferg (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
A Bulgarian, speaking NL-N, but not BG? Yeah, right. Jcb (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Well... I guess then we should find that "admin shared account" and desysop and block it if it is currently active. But we should find it first and that would be difficult I think. --Dferg (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems he copied his user page from User:Kameraad Pjotr (I found it by scanning the Babel parameters), so I don't think we have to search for the 'shared account'. Jcb (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
lol, interesting! it seems User:Pstoianov copied everything except the birth year and the date for user since userbox. the thing is both of them mentioned on their user pages that they been admin since 2006, however User:Kameraad Pjotr has been admin since 2007, am I missing something?   ■ MMXX  talk  16:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record: I have no connection whatsoever with this user and I'm certainly not Bulgarian ;) Kameraad Pjotr 19:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Coat of arms by Kwasura

This deletion request was closed as deleted, but the files are still here. Maybe an admin can delete them? /Ö 09:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that result is just a typo. It's supposed to be Kept.[16] Jafeluv (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Help needed for categorization

Hi, currently there is an event for increasing participation from Malayalam Wikimedians to sharing images named "Malayalam loves Wikimedia". Images uploaded with that event is categorizing using {{Malayalam loves Wikimedia event}} template. Today (April 25) is the end date of the event, so we need a modification in the template. So that images from tomorrow using the template must go to another category. Please check parser functions at User:Praveenp/platform also.--Praveen:talk 18:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Other speedy deletions filled with "Listed buildings in .." categories

Following the reorganization of a series of categories, my bot is filling Other speedy deletions with a few categories. If an administrator deleted them, that would be most helpful. --  Docu  at 06:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. "a few": hey, today isn't April 1st. --Túrelio (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thanks  :) --  Docu  at 20:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Earlier today, I concluded that the template {{Money-EU}} does not cover coins, but only paper money after reviewing the ECB documents linked from that template. The documents make no mention of coins, only banknotes. I modified the template to note that it should not be used on coins. I found Category:Euro coins (common face), and tagged several of those images for deletion. I figured the matter was basically closed; surely the mistake of using a banknote license on a coin would be one that was not common. Wrong.

Shortly thereafter, I found Category:Euro coins. There are approximately 2000 Euro coin images in this category. Most (not all, but most) are improperly tagged with {{Money-EU}}. Most (again, not all) are copyright violations unless the design is de minimus to teh overall image such as File:Euro coins and banknotes.jpg. A copyright violating example is File:1 euro 2010 Spain.png; the uploader claims rights to release, and in this case restrict to non-commercial. That's just one of many problematic taggings.

On further investigation, I found two discussions (1 and 2) that resulted in deleting what were apparently licensing tags for Euro coins. Both resulted in deletion because Euro coins were found to be under a license not compatible with Commons.

The shakeout of this is that I believe that more than 95% of the images found at Category:Euro coins and its subcategories should be deleted.

Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Basically, you're right. The template was never meant for the national sides of coins and its inappropriate use for them is, most of the times, just an attempt at slapping a tag on copyvios that should just be speedy deleted. The template wasn't meant for the common sides of coins either, but during some period of time its wording had been modified and, for uninformed users, it may have left the wrong impression that it could be used for the common sides. That part of the wording was fixed after the latest deletion discussion. The current template's fate remains uncertain, though, because the community's opinion about the banknotes remains somewhat unclear. After someone else had reopened the latest incarnation of the DR discussion about that template, I already partly commented on this situation, hoping for a clear decision, but that discussion was unfortunately "closed" by User:Jcb without a conclusion rationale. It should certainly be reopened, or closed with a rationale, if we want to actually settle the matter of the banknotes. For the coins, you might also find some interest to my sandbox about this (although I haven't updated it recently). -- Asclepias (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • On the coins, I don't think there's any wiggle room on it. The coins are not available under a license compatible with Commons and need to be deleted. Is there any debate about that? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
No real debate in the 99% of cases that need to be deleted. Exceptionally, you may find a few images worth discussing or potentially keepable, when the coin is from one of two or three countries where the laws might be loosely interpreted (with a fair dose of creative extrapolation and wishful thinking) to allow design reproduction. For example, Commons:Currency#Finland has some conflicting information about older Finnish currency and someone has also recently dug out a strange court case (Commons:Bistro#licence billet) about older French currency (the questions are if those dispositions about older national currencies can be interpreted to allow reproduction and if they can be extrapolated to current euro coins of those countries). But, other than those rare possible exceptions, the rest of the cases are simple and speedy deletable. Anyway, even for the few countries where the designs might perhaps be reproductible, most actual coin images are copied from non-free websites and are thus non-free. The problem is more that some users have been uploading such copyvios by the hundreds, faster than the admins could delete them, and now the backlog has grown to a large size. In the hope of perhaps making things easy for them, I started an admin-friendly, ready-to-use, list of speedy deletable euro coins images there, if anyone is interested. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The German euro coins are always officially announced with a Bekanntmachung in the Bundesgesetzblatt. A picture of the coin is included, see e. g. [17] (HTML) or [18] (PDF). That means the images on the coins are PD as official works, just like German stamps (§ 5,1 UrhG: „Gesetze, Verordnungen, amtliche Erlasse und Bekanntmachungen sowie Entscheidungen und amtlich verfaßte Leitsätze zu Entscheidungen genießen keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz.“). Tag them with {{PD-GermanGov}} and {{Currency}}, or alternatively make up a new template. --Rosenzweig δ 11:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
to be fair, that's what some people say (Klaus Graf, dewiki, probably LG München I GRUR 1987, 436 - Briefmarke), some others are fundamentally opposed to this view (Dreier in Dreier/Schulze; Schricker GRUR 1991, 645, 652; Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel; Loewenheim in Schricker/Loewenheim; Götting in Loewenheim, Handbuch des Urheberrechts; Ahlberg in Möhring/Nicolini; Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy; Marquardt in Wandtke/Bullinger; Nordemann in Fromm/Nordemann; for Austria also Walter, Österreichisches Urheberrecht). That is to say, it is not exactly as crystal-clear as you seem to suggest ... —Pill (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There are days I wish I was an administrator here. This is one of them. Asclepias, the list you generated is wonderful...and has been in existence for months. It's going to take years to delete all those images based on the usual 'rapidity' (cough) with which things are deleted here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer/sv

Please, change the word "Kontoöverskikt" to "Kontoöversikt", for the link to the vvv-SUL-tool.

"Account-overview" makes more sense than "Account-top-layer". :) -- Lavallen (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Det tackar vi för! Lavallen (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

hotlinking

hello,

I am the owner of thespacewriter.com/wp which this complaint below refers to:

Per [19], how do I report this site? Multiple entries across the blog. [20] ·· —N·M— talk ·· 22:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

 Info the prev. comment was deleted on 2011-04-24T22:18:30 by Nashville Monkey and restored by the following user. --Saibo (Δ) 01:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the same person who left me a fairly abusive comment on the blog a couple of days ago (I don't think it is). However, I note from this page:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia

and specifically:

Hotlinking

Hotlinking is allowed from Wikimedia servers. For hotlinked files, it is still good practice to add attribution as you would for copies on your own server.

Note that hotlinking a thumbnail is unreliable, as these are generated and cached - you should copy these to your own server.

Note also that anyone could change, vandalise or delete a hotlinked image - on your own server you will have control over what is served.

Wikimedia generally does not allow 'hot spider' services, where each time someone performs a search on their site, the query is redirected to our site. Outside reusers should either copy the content one item at a time or contact the Foundation regarding a live feed (which can be arranged as a paid service).

by this, I understand that my usage seems to be allowed and I do take copyright issues seriously, and for each usage, I attribute with the information at hand on the Wikimedia commons pages. If I have done something erroneously, a COURTEOUS note to me on my blog is appreciated.

Thespacewriter (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)ccpetersen aka thespacewriter

I personally have no issue with the person's site. That being said, my brother asked me what the policy was for Wikipedia, I told him I didn't know but would find out. After posting the question I read more on the policy and found out it isn't an issue with Wiki (hence the removal from the page as noted in my edit comments)and relayed that information to him. He is an adult and I do not know what he places on others websites. Knowing my brother as well as I do I can guarantee it was neither abusive nor discourteous. Maybe direct and to the point but not abusive. ·· —N·M— talk ·· 04:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Dodoface

Uploaded photos for the sole purpose of vandalism, as well as inappropriate username. User should be blocked and files speedily deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. Jafeluv (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Software error. Thumbnail is not generated

The error was found in File:S-3D cycle-car 2011 G1.jpg. The thumbnail doesn't form also this file is unusable to use in articles. However the file is accessible correctly at the full size. Re-uploading not fix this file. Possibly, there are other files with a such error. -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Same problem with File:Greek Army uniforms, 1833-1851.jpg. I uploaded slightly altered versions but the problem persists. I gave up and uploaded a PNG version, File:Greek Army uniforms, 1833-1851.png, for use in articles. SV1XV (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Seal of Minnesota.svg and User:Fry1989

User:Fry1989 has an utter disrespect for copyright and the policies of this community. Instead of waiting for the results of Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Seal of Minnesota.svg this user has re-uploaded what is essentially my work (see the files previous history and en:File:Seal of Minnesota.svg) and claimed it has his own. Previous attempts have been made to explain copyright to this user, as well this user was warned specifically not to re-upload this file ([21]).--Svgalbertian (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Redeleted. Protected against recreation. The question of your work versus a derivative work I leave to the undeletion request. – Adrignola talk 14:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
File:Seal of North Dakota.svg, a recent upload by the same user, looks to be the vector-images.com vectorization (see here), though not sure of exactly where it came from. It is certainly not a derivative of the USGov version in any way as claimed on the image page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This is not from vector-images.com. I uploaded version of the seal that existed on Commons to Wikipedia just after it was deleted (see: en:File:Seal of Minnesota.svg). To compare the versions, mine, Fry's.--Svgalbertian (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, his Minnesota seal looks like a minor tweak to your colorization of the unknown-source brandsoftheworld SVG. I was however referring to the *North Dakota* seal upload from the same user, which also looks to be a copyvio, and is also claimed as an alteration of the PD-USGov version when it clearly is not, and instead looks identical to the vector-images version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I just noticed that after I submitted the comment. I agree, File:Seal of North Dakota.svg is not a derivative work of File:NorthDakota-StateSeal.svg, and is a likely a copyvio of vector-images.com. I will download the vector-images.com version to verify.--Svgalbertian (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I just checked and File:Seal of North Dakota.svg is 100% identical to the vector-images.com version.--Svgalbertian (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Ugh, that's not good. Thanks for checking. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


Now reuploaded at File:Seal Of Minnesota.svg. Sigh. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I recommend a warning or a temporary block be issued to this user. Myself and Clindberg have tried to explain copyright and the procedures of Commons to the user, but we are obviously not getting through.--Svgalbertian (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted again and protected against recreation. Stern warning at User_talk:Fry1989#Please_do_not_recreate_deleted_content. Recreation of deleted content is recreation of deleted content. Another violation will result in a short-term block. – Adrignola talk 01:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hemayetfaridpur

Hemayetfaridpur ( sock Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hemayetfaridpur) constantly uploading copyrighted images. He upload all images by duplicate with Nokia mobile camera take a shot from computer screen. Please look all images there one mouse arrow symbol.--Jayanta Nath (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Joshwebacom

makes lots of advertising on the file-description page and is ignoring (bot-like) my "no advertising". -- RE rillke questions? 18:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am removing all these files as "spamming" and have blocked the user for a week. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for a memorial list for deceased Commons users

When I was recently notified about the death of a Commons user, I became aware that at Commons we have no kind of memorial list/page such as there is on en:Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, on de:Wikipedia:Gedenkseite für verstorbene Wikipedianer, meta:Deceased editors and other projects.
As a listing seemed to be preferred at our first short discussion, I have drafted a „Memorial page“, currently located at User:Túrelio/sandbox, mainly consisting of a table (though I hate Mediawiki tables for their user-unfriendliness). I have used the table from de: Wikipedia:Gedenkseite für verstorbene Wikipedianer as a template, but added 1 column for „country“, as this information is more relevant on Commons than on local projects.

Some questions remain:

1) Should that page be a standard gallery page or a "Commons:" page?

2) What name should that page have? (:en has „Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians“, :meta has „Deceased editors“)

  • Deceased Commons contributors

3) How inclusive should our list be?
For the draft I have included all users, of whom I knew (mostly from the local memorial pages) that they had died and who had own edits on Commons. Some have very few. (I mention this because the introduction on the :en memorial page says „they have made at least several hundred edits or are otherwise known for substantial contributions to Wikipedia“)

There are a few deceased users with a lot of own images on Commons, who never edited themselves on Commons and whose images were transferred by others to Commons. I haven’t included them.

The current listing is not chronological for the time of death, but simply reflects my edit history. I haven't ordered it as eventually a few names might be removed.

I would like to hear your opinions. Feel free to edit the draft in my sandbox. --Túrelio (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I've moved the page now to Commons:Deceased contributors. --Túrelio 12:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete three files

Hello, I need an admin delete three files due to an OTRS ticket (German language):

The permission is unclear and the uploader states he does not know the license or specific author of the images any more. More information in German language, see ticket:2011030410010106. Therefore I ask for deletion. Thanks in advance, Yellowcard 12:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket comes from the uploader or from the rights holder? --Túrelio 12:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Legedari.JPG

Question: Who has taken photo from 4 persons behind, are this picture copyvio ? --Motopark 18:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Tagged as derivative. Likely also out of scope. --Túrelio 19:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Review

Hello. I've been sent a message requesting review of this user uploads because some of them are seen as dubidous sourced and some of them may fall under the fair use clauses and therefore, not acceptable here. I think I see issues (ie: File:Versailles en chile.jpg [own work no metadata?], File:Versailles logo.jpg [fair use I think], File:KAMIJO.jpg [looks scanned from a paper or something, yet tagged as "own work"]) but I'm currently short of time and I can't review this carefully. Could somebody with more time please have a look at this? Also: I've been fixing some of his uploads since they were uploaded as "own work" when they obviously weren't — they were transferred from enwiki without properly attribution to its original uploader. As far as I can see the user had previous warnings (the latest link, with a final warning). Thank you, --Dferg (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated a few for deletion. Others had been missing permission for some time and were deleted. Others are web resolution and lack any EXIF data and so are quite likely to be taken from various websites, but I couldn't find the origins with TinEye and Google Image Search, so I didn't so anything with them. Some uploads were logos but they were reasonably considered text logos and I marked them as such. The others I marked as lacking permission. – Adrignola talk 19:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance, it's appreciated. I suggest to watch this user's activities since he's removed in the past the problem tags from the images as well the notes on his talk page. --Dferg (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Middle version is a copyvio, plz delete

The 2nd (middle) version of File:Siam Paragon.jpg is a copyvio, see http://www.siamadenium.com/2007/Rosy-Adenium/large/AK/large/Siam_Paragon.jpg. Please delete. --Rosenzweig δ 20:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Fort Worth Country Day

Are this page out of scope or valid ?--Motopark (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It was out of scope, thank you for informing us.   ■ MMXX  talk  22:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Velasco

SEe user uploads, there are plenty of copyvios and some pictures those informatiuon are too less, who are the person in the picture, please delete and inform uploader from copyvios.--Motopark (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - Images deleted and user blocked for 2 weeks. Thank you, --Dferg (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Uploads by blocked user

Please check these uploads of a block user on German wikipedia for correctness. No copyright problems? Thanks. --Si! SWamP (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - I've deleted the images and blocked the user here as well for block evasion and copyvio. --Dferg (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Si! SWamP (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are more, made by the same user using an other account name. Please check, too. Thanks. --Si! SWamP (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Siamadenium

User Special:Contributions/Siamadenium has been blocked in UK wikipedia, how about in Commons, those pictures seems to be advert pictures from one webpage.--Motopark (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Agreed & done thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Please delete also those advert pictures, thanks--Motopark (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Needing Help

I need some help putting a 3D tag on this image. I tried to do it with the en.Wiki tag (hoping that all tags were the same, they weren't) and it didn't work. Could I get some help please? The addition of a 3D tag is due to an FAC ongoing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If the work is old enough to be in the public domain, the only copyright to worry about is yours, for the photograph of it. My opinion is that nothing needs to be added. – Adrignola talk 12:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't upload the image onto Commons. I don't think anything needs to be added, but it is for an FAC, so it is one of the hoops I must jump through. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

User Paraselite is uploading paintings of Serge Ivanoff as own work

User Paraselite (talk · contribs) is uploading paintings of Serge Ivanoff (dead in 1983) as own work --Dnikitin (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

He seems to be his grandson and a painter by himself. He just announced to send confirmation to OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

POTY Vote verification

I've been watching the watching the POTY voting on a number of images, including mine. I noticed one was crossed off as being invalid but when I checked it it valid I went and changed it. But I think maybe I shouldnt have, this shows User:Kylelovesyou is eligable to vote and this is the edits I made including the reversal of my edit. I've contacted the person who declined the vote pointing out that the person is eligable and requested they review their actions. Gnangarra 07:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection against recreation still buggered

FYI. File:Clip image002.jpg was uploaded an hour ago despite my upload protecting it about 12h ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, new upload shows zero protection despite your protection log. --Túrelio 20:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the upload action bypasses create protection for the page. The procedure to use now would be to delete the image, create the page with {{Prohibited name}}, then protect against uploading. – Adrignola talk 20:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
But that is a bad, not to say inacceptable restriction for us. Today I found File:File.jpg and File:File.png, both carrying random images, though these filenames are mainly used in MediaWiki:Uploadtext and All system messages pages, where they need simply the empty (!) filename. I replaced the few intended image uses, then deleted the images and protected the filenames, though obviously in vain. --Túrelio 20:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
How about the two entries I added to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist? I believe that system was correctly fixed after the upgrade. – Adrignola talk 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's hope that helps. Thanks. However, it's bad that such a complicated (at least for me) patch is necessary. --Túrelio 21:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
See here as well. I wonder if there is any bugzilla request regarding this already opened — if not I suggest to open a ticket requesting that pages in the "File:" namespace can be also protected from uploading. Regards, --Dferg (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
bugzilla:27700, bugzilla:28166 and bugzilla:28169. Supposedly all resolved. And for Titleblacklist: bugzilla:27470 and bugzilla:28466. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

wrong image name

I uploaded a newly created coat of Arms of the Italian Army today File:CoA mil ITA btg fanteria 089.png but made an error in naming the file: btg= battalion when it should be actually rgt= regiment. I uploaded the file a second time File:CoA mil ITA rgt fanteria 089.png correcting my error. Therefore the image uploaded first: File:CoA mil ITA btg fanteria 089.png should be deleted as it is a duplicate with a wrong name, thanks. Noclador (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Done by Túrelio. Jafeluv (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Commons protected edit requests

...has some pretty stale items. Can an admin go through them? — Edokter (talk) — 16:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

They're stale because most are not clear-cut and require additional consensus or clarification on the talk pages. – Adrignola talk 18:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Are next page valid

Are next page valid Marian Richero, no wikipedia pages founded--Motopark (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the repeated deletions at it:Marian Richero. – Adrignola talk 19:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Aizad

Almost all uploads from User:Aizad are {{Out of scope}} and is only promoting his own cricket academy. I do not see any images being used in any articles. He has a few uploads in English wikipedia as well which fall in the same category. The user needs a little education on image guidelines, may be? --Sreejith K (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

His username in English wikipedia is Aizads --Sreejith K (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Belaunde

User uploads same copyvio pictures that other uploader has been loaded and they has been deleted as copyvios, please delete copyvio pictures--Motopark (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done by Túrelio. – Adrignola talk 03:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Willybee103

User created a textpage to commons and deleted my speedy averey time. plewase inform him rules and system.--Motopark (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done by Túrelio. – Adrignola talk 03:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Questionable Username

Unsure if this is an appropriate username User:Sandwhore.--Theda (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly inappropriate imho. Blocked, but they're welcome to create an account under a different name. Jafeluv (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
First and only upload was anyway a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I was fairly certain it was a copy-vio too, thank you.--Theda (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


Template:PD-Japan/lang edit request

Can an admin add a link to Template:PD-Japan/fr on Template:PD-Japan/lang. Thanks, Binabik (d) 14:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC).

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 14:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Dssebbastian

User:Dssebbastian has uploaded a number of thumbnail size images of Columbian officials claiming Source =Own work which is doubtful.[22].--Theda (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, many of them were copyright violations. Others I found through TinEye or Google Image Search. If it continues let us know and a block may be in order. – Adrignola talk 03:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I have now just tagged another copyvio, File:Hector anibal ramirez alcalde de neiva.png by this user and notified him/her. So far the user seems to have no intention of stopping. Copyvio from here- [23].--Theda (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User wants to withdraw a picture

If you are a user who has uploaded a image file and want it removed, how do you go about doing it? --Mikerussell (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Nominate it for deletion. But the release is irrevocable so there's no obligation for us to remove it at all. – Adrignola talk 14:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Are next valid

Are next valid gallery Big Bang (group), I'm not sure?--Motopark (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that gallery imho. (BIGBANGSPECIALEDITION.jpg needs permission, though.) Big Bang In Thailand.JPG is actually in use in quite a few Wikipedias. Jafeluv (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad-name image protection

Could some admins please chime in at the "Protected generic filenames" section of en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard? We've got a question about the mechanics of protecting bad filenames, and all but one of the people who have responded (including me) don't really know much about the process. The only exception is Fastily, but s/he only discusses one option. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been resolved. -FASTILY (TALK) 11:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

out-of-process undeletion of controversial image

I’m sorry to take this case to COM:AN, but as the involved colleague didn’t reply to my notification on his talkpages (COM&:fr), I see no other way. The highly controversial image File:Suicide bag.jpg had been deleted by Jcb after a long-running (April 22 to May 7) DR discussion[24] on May 7. On May 8 (i.e. today) Dcoetzee filed an undeletion request[25]. Only 13 hours after opening the UR, admin Dereckson simply speedy-undeleted the file, as if votes or comments of other users would be totally negligible for him. He didn’t even bother to close the UR. Beyond this expression of contempt against other users, the debate about this un/deletion was far from settled, which is the condition for UR closure as per our “UR Instructions for administrators”.
Hardly better was Multichill’s behaviour who sanctioned Dereckson’s out-of-process undeletion by adding a sort of closing comment „For the people who don't agree: Please open a new regular deletion request“[26] which sounds rather cynical to me. --Túrelio (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Jcb made a mistake, Dcoetzee asked an admin to correct this mistake, Dereckson did just that, Jcb added a speedy deletion tag and I did the cleaning up. No need to make a fuzz.
The deletion debate is not a vote: "The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept". The reason stated by jcb- when deleting the file was not a valid deletion reason. Dereckson did what the instruction says: "Use common sense". Multichill (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"as if votes or comments of other users would be totally negligible for him." It may be worth pointing out that a clear super-majority of the commenters on the deletion discussions supported keeping the image. The most correct closure can be debated on the grounds of properly weighing the arguments, but I think it is completely unfair to say that keeping the image is somehow disregarding the votes and comments of the commons community. The support there was sufficiently strong that if I saw the deletion page while it was open and if I felt that I wanted to support keeping the image I probably wouldn't have commented because it looked like it would be kept based on the discussion there. As such, it's not surprising to see that the closure was reversed. I think the deletion review should have been kept open as the proper forum for discussing a contentious deletion, but it's not really important where the discussion happens.

Our primary purpose here _must_ be about getting the best result. The process exists to facilitate getting good results, in cases where strictly following process would produce worse results we should relax it. I haven't yet formed a concrete opinion on the image, but I think we can all agree that the matter is not settle for the moment. In many cases, especially when an image is actively in use as this one is, it is best to leave it not-deleted while the decision is settled. As such, I think we can not worry about blaming people over perceived policy transgressions, and get on with reaching a decision about the image which everyone can agree reflects the opinions and policies of the commons community. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Point of order -- How are good faith contributors who are not administrators supposed to participate in discussions of whether this image is or isn't in scope, if the image remains deleted? Has some Rubicon been crossed where the opinions of non-administrators are no longer welcome in the discussion of the future of this image? Is it the intent here that only administrators should be allowed to hold an informed opinion of the image during the remaining discussion? Geo Swan (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    • So you want files to be undeleted by default at the moment somebody requests undeletion? Well, that would cause quite an unworkable situation as you will certainly understand. Jcb (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Sometimes it's appropriate to undelete an image to facilitate discussion and sometimes its not. It's up to the discretion of the commons administrators to figure that out in each case. Of course, you can ask to be given a copy of the image— and some admin probably will in almost all cases. Actually seeing the image is also not required in all cases. In some cases, like this one, the need can be met by linking to the image someplace out on the internet. When this is the case then I think that favors leaving images deleted somewhat. I also think that when an image is in use on a customer project, as it is in this case, that strongly favors leaving the image undeleted as much as possible while commons gets its decision figured out. People outside the commons community don't care about deletion vs deletion-review and commons process: They only care about stable and predictable behavior from commons, so we should try to isolate the outside world from the instability of our decision process as much as possible. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Good evening, I gathered my comments in 3 points:

  • As Multichill have pointed, I answered a request of a contributor to reevaluate a deleted image. At this time, the request (i) had a valid justification (ii) were supported by three users, without any opposition (which qualifies as a consensus). I mainly followed the used on wikibooks argument and the COM:SCOPE policy: ‘It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects - that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope.’.
  • About the policy Túrelio consider I violated: ‘Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for him or her if you want to, or leave it to him or her to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file. In general, try to comply with the requests of well-intending users. Files can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at without the request itself having to be closed. The deleting administrator may undelete the file if compelled by the arguments or information provided. The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done."’. Túrelio doesn't indicated which point of this policy have been violated. I put in bold the points I followed.
  • What I really don't understand is the game played by Túrelio: I accepted the undelete request at 14:44 UTC. He then let a message on the undelete requests page at 18:45 UTC about a policy violation. 40 minutes (18:05 UTC) before, he let a message on my talk page, with this strange message: ‘I would prefer if you could reconsider and undo you move by yourself, instead of taking a colleague to COM:AN.’. He then waits well... 33 minutes and add a new message on my fr. talk page. Meanwhile, I don't give any sign of activity on Commons and one edit at 18:26 UTC on fr. At 21:24 UTC, he considers I didn't answer him in an acceptable time and open this section... 3 hours later. So If I understand him, I must answer to a request in 3 hours and if not, he already have created a section on COM:AN, but I should have waited and took more time before acknowledge the initial undelete request... It seems time is a rather flexible thing for some people. But why such a overreaction for an image undeleted? If Jcb have some interesting arguments about the practical drawbacks of acknowledge quickly after a closure to undelete the picture, I really don't understand why Túrelio is such troubled. I don't have the feeling this section is dispassionate.

Thank you to have read my comments ; if I must intervene again on this topic (and I won't today, to allow everyone who would need it to keep a cool head), I'll try to be shorter. --Dereckson (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename File:Edward III.jpg

The current FA on English Wikipedia is Edward III of England. An IP just noted that one of the images (File:Edward III.jpg) was actually that of Edward of Woodstock (see here for confirmation [27]). Can someone rename this image? I noticed it's being used as a picture on a whole bunch of other language wikis. I've uploaded the correct one here File:Edward III of England (Order of the Garter).jpg, and I'll add it into the other language articles.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, renamed it to File:Edward of Woodstock.jpg. It's still used in a few wikis, though. Jafeluv (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert-Protection Morocco (orthographic projection)

Recently this file has been reverted probably because ideology by users from Morocco. That's why this image needs to be reverted to the 19:28, 9 May 2011 version according to the orthographic projection project's parameters based by the United Nations resolution (UN resolution) [28], [29], [30] United Nations-sponsored ceasefire agreement in 1991 most of the territory has been controlled by Morocco. The design and description of this file are incorrect but the users Omar-Toons or Flad are reverting all the modifications. Its description says "Locator of Morocco and it's disputed territory Western Sahara", and designed without borders between territories and using the same green color can be misunderstanding that Western Sahara "is part of Morocco with illegal disputation". It seems that the user Omar-Toons can't understand how COMMONS works because the user says that I can't modify it and suggests me to upload "my version" see user talk. Besides, this file is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Thank you. --Eddo (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss it on the file's talk page. We know this is the The Wrong Version. – Adrignola talk 21:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I guess it's not enough, that's why this report. --Eddo (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Just upload your version under a new name. --  Docu  at 22:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to upload "my version", this file must be the official map according to the official sources of the United Nations and the orthographic projection project's parameters (with borders between territories, Western Sahara in light green because it's not part of Morocco). Thank you. --Eddo (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The related Commons' summary is at Avoid overwriting existing files. You need to discuss on Wikipedia which articles should use what file. --  Docu  at 06:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright, thank you. --Eddo (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please change the upload file link in Estonian sidebar menu from Commons:Upload/et to Special:UploadWizard. --WikedKentaur (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing DR

Please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stream at Holford Combe.jpg: the file has been speedy deleted as a duplicate. Nyttend (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Done by Túrelio (I'm not a clerk; please note if you do it). – Adrignola talk 12:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Need deletions

I created File:BarkingMoonCenter.jpg and File:BarkingMoonEdge.jpg thinking since both sources were free and compatible I could merge them but now know otherwise. Please delete them. I used the derivative tool and a different source file to make what I want. Tks. BarkingMoon (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Consider using {{Db}} next time. Regards. Rehman 02:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

How about this case

Uploader Special:Contributions/Cuidatuinfo adds creative commons licence to those pictures, need we still OTRS-licence.--Motopark (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Barong is User:Jack Merridew and User:Gold Hat

Hi. Three years ago I dropped a note here about my being teh w:User:Jack Merridew from en:wp. I've just requested that that account and User:Gold Hat be unblocked. I am the same user, as is *really* well understood over on en:wp. I'm sorry for the bumps in the road, but honestly, it's all the cocked-up en:ac driving this stupid mess. Sincerely, Barong (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jack I'm familiar with your en:adventures please log into the Jack Account and place a request there I'll unblock that and block the other two. Gnangarra 13:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
oh hang on it sul:locked this may take a while Gnangarra 13:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok its not a complex as it looked, the Jack account is now unblocked please login and confirm once you have done post here and I'll block the Barong account as you can only use one account, if you cant login I'll re-block the Jack account. Gnangarra 13:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I've a request on meta about the SUL:lock. I've scuttled the accounts by blanking the email and scrambling the passwords, so unless the Stewards and Developers hand them back to me, I'll not be logging into any of them. There's "motion" (for of them;) at the en:ac page linked above :) Only motion 4 will have me editing WMF in any form. Have a beer and watch the toxic-wiki-show. If they get their stinkin' restrictions off of me, I'll be asking for my wikisource bit back, and asking about bit here and on meta. Then the en:drama:rfa. Or I move on and simply enjoy life in Bali.
I'm not looking to shift back to Jack or Gold Hat; I just want the blocks gone as I view them as a stigma. I would stick to one account; this one. This is really just part of shaking off years of bullshite from en:wp. Barong (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking 'Jack'. If it's policy here to only use exactly one account, I will, of course. I would still like User:Gold Hat unblocked; That was never even compromised, just scuttled. I was going to ask about the User:Davenbelle and User:Moby Dick accounts, too. This is not about socking as some of the en:arbs seem stuck on, it's just about owning my past accounts and not standing in a field of blocked accounts and en:restrictions. nb: I also had User:Merridew and User:Jack Merridew bot. Most of my attention is on en:wp; I'll be back tomorrow. Thanks, Barong (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
OK I understand the reasons, I'll unblock the all the accounts if they remain scuttled by the sul:lock, otherwise I'd prefer to leave them blocked though I'm happy to change the block description to something more generic ie, retired, user request or such. Which ever account you use its still preferred that users only have a single account to which bot, script, account for security reason be linked. What ever way it resolves just let me know and I'll work with you to fix them. Gnangarra 14:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. It's all in flux over at en:wp, so let this dangle. I've been wearing scarlet letters for years and this is about throwing them off (or bowing out for good). Laters, Barong (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
both done now Gnangarra 14:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_27&oldid=303764680"