Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 35

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

Request for review on Deletion discussion

If one of the administrators could please review Commons:Deletion requests/Class rings and see if this deletion request is reasonable that would be great. I'm trying to figure out if any of the images listed are going to be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a regular DR's, I don't see anything wrong there Ezarateesteban 13:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Other than the fact that it's months old? I'd like to use them on enWP, but I'm restricting myself to only use Commons available images. As the DR is affecting these images (and potentially deleting them) I'd prefer that this DR gets closed before the decision gets made. But if Commons response is that "We may delete them in the future" then I'll just bugger off and discount this entire set of Images. Hasteur (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I would expect deletion from Commons per Prosfilaes' comment. You can use them on en.wp as Fair Use, probably. Rd232 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Municipality building Knin.jpg

Can some fellow admin take a look at this discussion and make a final decision about this image? I could finish it by myself, but I wanted someone completely neutral to make a decision ​​to avoid any misunderstanding. Thanks in advance. mickit 14:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. If nobody objects, I will return to the original name of this file. mickit 20:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Участник

That's another sockpuppet of the so called-Selena Gomez Fan (such as another one which is globally locked). --Vituzzu (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

@Участник, you can voice your dissent here, but you should do so without verbal attacks. --Túrelio (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am a dissident over a large horde of anti-Selena Gomez/Demi Lovato/Lady Gaga edits. I have challenged you to unrecognize me as the Selena Gomez fan. --Участник (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The deletion disscussion over Demi Lovato's signature is now over and the files are now kept. --Участник (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Blocked, at least for repeating behaviour from a previous account. Probably should get a CU to check this and yesterday's edits for the underlying IP address.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Участник appears to be the same as User:Bawal ang Pasaway, both of which are now blocked.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

About the correction of the name of a file

Could an admin correct the name of this file : File:Acient capitals, Great Mosque of Kairouan, Tunisia.jpg to become File:Ancient capitals, Great Mosque of Kairouan, Tunisia.jpg (Ancient in the place of Acient). Cordially, --Passionné d'architecture (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This action doesn't require an admin (unless you want the redirect to be deleted). You can ask for such move using the {{Rename}} template. --PierreSelim (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The name where it's used is now fixed, i wish the redirect to be deleted. Well cordially, --Passionné d'architecture (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2012

Upload the photo of Apalis chirindensis

I have a photo of the species of bird Apalis chirindensis, so if you authorize, I send the file with the image to complete the description of the bird Apalis chirindensis - Chirinda Apalis Alexandra Fonseca. alexandra.raposofonseca@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.137.252.94 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 March 2012‎ (UTC)

We have no photos of Apalis chirindensis. If you took the photograph yourself, it would be good if you uploaded it. Please start with reading the right hand column under "Register" at Commons:Welcome, which will tell you what you need to do. If you have questions, fell free to post a note on my talk page.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename request

Hy there. I'd like to rename my current account SerdechnyG → Serdechny. Thanks. — SerdechnyG 10:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

See Commons:Changing username      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2012/02

This log may be broken or incompatible in my browser. I don't see logs after February 9, 2012. Is there something wrong with it? --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a known server limitation (too many transclusions). If we can't fix this in any way (and I'm not sure we can, at least in the short/medium term), maybe we can at least add a notice at the top of the month pages explaining the problem. Anyone know if that would break something? Rd232 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there any point to the month pages since only a week or two is actually being shown? It's been this way since at least 2009, likely earlier. Additionally, even if they were to transclude properly, it would probably have a large loading time and especially for users on dial-up or other slow connections. Killiondude (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

RAID Pics

kann ein Deutscher Admin hier die disk checken und mir sagen ob wir das in de wp hochladen können? thx--Sanandros (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Work done by AFP (Agence France Press) is NOT governmental work, it's a private work. It's like work by Reuters staff or CNN, FoxNews, or Bild! --PierreSelim (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
asked if the photographer really gained a copyright photographing the badge of the RAID. Or is someone able to do a svg out of that badge?--Sanandros (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The copyright of the badge belongs to its author (not necessarly the government, might be an artist or a private agency). The photography of the RAID squad copyright belongs to the AFP Photographer or AFP 3D people in actions ... (neither are gov). I don't see anything to save from the deleted pictures sorry. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

German admins needed

There's a bunch of Deletion requests dating from November 2011 that contain a lot of German. It would be much easier for a German-speaking admin to go through those and close them, than for me to waste time on Google translate and still not really understand what's being said. Danke! --Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 05:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

O.k., I've now processed a few of them and started an OTRS background request. --Túrelio (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

File:LPD.jpg

File:LPD.jpg: Version needs to be deleted, original image is in use, LPD batch is not pd-usa, because it is a local batch.

  • 22:59, 1. Jan. 2011‎ Tekken3000 (221 Bytes) (0)‎ . . (uploaded a new version of File:LPD.jpg: {{Information |Description= |Source={{own}} |Date= |Author=Tekken3000 |Permission= |other_versions= }})

Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 22:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Reverted and warned user. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done

Request for renaming

I would like to ask an administrator to rename File:Körtemuzsika.jpg. Since 2008 huwiki has had a file under the same name and under licence PD Hungary. Today at 18:19 user:Agocska, a user on huwiki, who had his/her first edit today uploaded this file to Commons, then two hours later uploaded the same file as new version to huwiki, overwriting the existing file. The only way to correct it is to delete this file on huwiki and restore the old version, but then there will be a conflict of similar names. Please rename this file to Körtemuzsika2.jpg, and advise me about renaming. Thx Csigabi (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC) (administrator on huwiki)

Generally we do not rename because one project has shadows. Please request file renamings using {{Rename}}. -- RE rillke questions? 19:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that the file on Hungarian Wikipedia should be renamed instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. This inexperienced user wants to use it in the same article. He/she has just apologized on his/her own talk page. Also the original filed on huwiki did exist first, so I don't see any reason keeping the new file on the old name. Csigabi (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you WhiteWriter for accepting my arguments and renaming the file. Csigabi (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Vrallan

User:Vrallan, after being warned, is still uploading photos of questionable copyright. They are primarily of Dean Cain, Jim Rash and Tom Welling. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for two weeks, images gone. --Denniss (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Negrillo ulloa

Negrillo ulloa (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

Almost all of his uploads are photos of self (from what I could deduce from google translate). User is indef blocked on es.wikipedia for vandalism. Somebody speaking spanish should probably take a look at his contribs on Commons. Thank you--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, no admin here but yes in es:WP. All pictures about himself but this -a picture of a Honda concept bike no metadata- and deletion of his welcome in his own TP. "De la dura" - "of the hard" has got several meanings, from "of the hard drug" to "hard dick", but seen this, I think is more close to second XD Even so, I this this is also a copyvio, right? --Andrea (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the Honda model but the description on that page is false. His uploads of self should be deleted because only a few pictures of self are allowed, Commons is not someone's personal photo-storage place.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I have nuked all but the Honda. Someone who knows the subject better than I do is welcome to put a {{Delete}} on it if that is appropriate.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you also please delete or revert his talk page? Aparently he has some "hard" complex. --Andrea (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps one of my colleagues who reads Spanish will do this. Google translate does not really help.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Symbol für Schriffarbe

Ich habe ein Artikel geschrieben nur leider steht da das dieser Artikel ungültig ist und ich mich an ein Administar wenden soll. Ist so mit ein Bild versehen! Warum geht es denn nicht? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxen (talk • contribs) 2012-04-01T00:29:12 (UTC)

Wenn es in der deutschen Wikipedia war gut verständlich.
Please close this nonsense. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 10:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
slow down, please. This might be a legitimate request, just in a clumsy way. I asked her for clarification at deWP. --h-stt !? 15:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Utilisateur:Woozz

Somebody please check why this is shown in the gallery namespace. Move/Spdel it if suitable--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I see it in the Utilisateur: namespace (french for User:), what is wrong according to you ? --PierreSelim (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It is wrong. The tab sais "Gallery". It must be moved to User:. Commons' content language is set to English so the software is unable to recognize this as a user page. -- RE rillke questions? 09:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Have moved the content to correct namespace User:Woozz and deleted the gallery page Utilisateur:Woozz. I have informed Woozz to use the correct link. --GeorgHH • talk   09:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Suspicion of sock puppetry

ResolvedUser:Leibnitz 2610 is a sockpuppet of User:S. F. B. Morse and have been blocked indef by Jameslwoodward. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
ResolvedI've unblocked him again, because Leibnitz 2610 and S. F. B. Morse are in fact different people. --32X (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that User:Leibnitz 2610 is a sock puppet of User:S. F. B. Morse. In QIC, the latter supported heavily blurred images of the former. Both users took photos in the Brandenburg area in Germany. Could you please check this out? Thank you. (This could also be just nepotism or cronyism, which is also wrong) Gidip (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

→COM:RFCU -- RE rillke questions? 19:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Lets assume that it was concluded that there probably sock/meat puppetry here (keep in mind— friends or family members might create an appearance of sock puppetry indistinguishable from the evidence available to us). What should be done? --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The simplest thing would be to /Discuss the promotion in the QIC as a first step if you think that the image was blurry. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Gidip's suspicion appears to be correct. I have blocked User:Leibnitz 2610 indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:S. F. B. Morse.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And I've unblocked him again, because Leibnitz 2610 and S. F. B. Morse are in fact different people. Talking to people first might sometimes be a good idea. --32X (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
That may or may not be the case however they are behaving as puppets and from a CU perspective appear related. I would echo your words about "talking to people" particularly CUs before over turning blocks. --Herby talk thyme 11:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Gmaxwell had the right assumptions and asked what to do. The answer was to discuss the problem. Instead of doing it, there was a block just a few hours after the original suspecion. This is not okay. Ask yourself: Why should a well respected photographer (and admin at the German Wikipedia) start using a sock puppet for quality images candidates, when he doesn't even credit himself for the images? --32X (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
However equally why should a respected admin have someone who is behaving in the fashion of a puppet (per Gmaxwell) which is definitely the case on the face of it. --Herby talk thyme 11:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe some form of real-life adopt-a-user? That was the way how I was introduced to OpenStreetMap and how I introduced another user to it. Why shouldn't this work at Commons to? If I would suggest the person right next to me to add a good photo at the QIC, I'd also vote for it there. That wouldn't make me a sock puppeteer, would it? --32X (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Well for me there is not so much issue, the two bad /Promotion were not promoted in the end because they obviously not met the criteria for QI. If they are related, we can remind them they should be careful when voting for each others because the fact they are related will certainly pop here or in another discussion (even if they vote in good faith). Moreover I have notified both users of this discussion. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello users. I´m Sorry. One IP = Two People. It´s real. Thanks for understanding.--S. F. B. Morse (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Problem uploader

Re: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sridhar1000 I found it necessary to initiate a Puf on an image file (this is not the issue). In the process, I added the required tag to the uploader's page, and couldn't help but notice a vast history of problems. This includes uploading a large number of images, and basically waiting to see which ones stick. While many files have already been challenged and/or removed, the list also contains many that haven't (their validity is dubious by association?). All I really wish to happen is have somebody check out his page, and see what, if anything, should be done. ~Eric F

Eric copied the above note from a comment that he made at en:WP:ANI, where "Puf" is short for en:WP:PUF, a method of image deletion. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I was advised to refer my discussion to here, as it relates to Commons rather than WP. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 15:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

COM:REUSE and deleted images

Sometimes Commons images get deleted. Any existing re-users of these images might run into legal problems in that case, proving that they legitimately relied on Commons as a source; and potential re-users might worry about it. I'm thinking we could add a provision to COM:REUSE that says

In the event that an image you are using is deleted for any reason, you can, if this proves necessary for legal reasons, ask for confirmation that on a specified date the file was listed as being available under a certain license.

Now, in principle any admin could respond to such a confirmation request, but because it's only really relevant, I think, in a legal context, it should be left up to the WMF - so we'd need to discuss it with them. What do we think about the issue? Rd232 (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Closing a long standing DR (7 years)

The following DR http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_Territorial_Extent_of_Ladakh_during_the_period_of_King_Nyimagon_about_975_A._D.-_1000_A.D._as_depicted_in_A_History_of_Western_Tibet_by_A.H._Francke,_1907.jpg is overdue since 2005. I request the admins to please close it ASAP in a manner deemed fit. Regards,Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

That DR was opened by you November 2011, not 2005. Changing the dates on the DR template on the image does not somehow make the DR open for 7 years.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done Closed. Yann (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
What a surreal thing, the image was only uploaded in 2011. "Pick a plausible lie next time?"--Gmaxwell (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
There's some confusion from Gmax (& maybe myself), the DR was opened by Hindutashravi and I am Hindustanilanguage, mixing us both is a lie in itself. I agree that I might have erred with dates (terrible - it is years because of technical glitch), But I oppose the use of any uncivil phrase such as picking a plausible lie. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC).

Botched file move

When reacting to a move request on File:Roxburgh station geograph-2328602-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg I clicked the move button and got a red-boxed error message saying that something went wrong. This happens from time to time, I usually cancel the message and complete the move manually. However, this time it is weird - the file has disappeared; I can't locate it or complete the move or re-upload the image (got a copy from the source). Could someone please have a look and advise on how to proceed? Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a bug. A Bugzilla report may be needed. I reported it to #wikimedia-tech. Yann (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Please report a bug. What currently is going on with files and file revisions is no acceptable. (disappearing revisions, ...) -- RE rillke questions? 10:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Some very strange things going on there, an identical copy was uploaded under a new name and the original upload page was redirected. The original is still floating around in the databases as it's listed as identical copy (although link points into nirvana). --Denniss (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
It might still be attached to that file somehow, preventing from uploading a copy of that image into its file, and preventing a move of that file - which is why I created a separate copy, at least until this one is fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Fonvi

User created new PDF and there are plenty of PDF's in deletion request waiting, can we add new PDF to DR or what we shall do.--Motopark (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month, all deleted Ezarateesteban 16:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There are still some waiting deleting.--Motopark (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The user is most probably Vincenzo Fontana (fon-vi), an Italian architect, for whom is not clear that even own material published before must be authorised via OTRS (of course I am not talking about the out-of-scope material). He even wrote his own article on the it.wikipedia. -- Blackcat (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done Closed the DR, all deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:KA KA KA Palmy.jpg

Flickr license laundering again. I saw this image more than once popping up in recent uploads and flickr reviews. An admin can check deleted contributions on User talk:Wantip - looks like it is related to user:Wimol tuk who uploaded this image. Materialscientist (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wantip (talk · contribs) hasn't uploaded the same photograph but has been uploading photos relating to the singer. Also I've noticed that Wimol tuk (talk · contribs) uploaded a photo from another flickr account which is the same name used on Commons, Itukza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), which also has photographs relating to the singer. I think a check-user is needed, even though my feeling is that it is the same user. I've deleted the photos and added the flickr accounts to Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users. Bidgee (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems with rename

I've tried a few times to rename File:Is nog een vraag.JPG (a legitimate request by the uploader), from different IPs and different operating systems, and get the same redboxed "unknown error", "invalid file name" message. Could someone else try or have a look please? (maybe an admin account will have no problem) Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Had me buggered as well, seems the failed upload had prevented the move. All fixed now. Bidgee (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Mandala Airlines (Indonesia).png

I nominated this file for deletion twice, because its a clear copyvio. The website it's sourced from, states:

Copyright

All content included on this site, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, digital downloads, data compilations and software, is the property of Tiger Airways or its content suppliers and protected by Singapore and international copyright laws. The compilation of all content on this site is the exclusive property of Tiger Airways and protected by Singapore and international copyright laws. All software used on this site is the property of Tiger Airways or its software suppliers and protected by Singapore and international copyright laws. source (section copyright)

and furthermore under trademarks:

Trademarks

TIGER AIRWAYS, TIGERAIRWAYS.COM, and other marks indicated on our site are trademarks of Tiger Airways both in Singapore and other countries. www.tigerairways.com graphics, logos, page headers, button icons, scripts, and service names are trademarks or trade dress of www.tigerairways.com. Tiger Airways' trademarks and trade dress may not be used in connection with any product or service that is not TigerAirways', in any manner that is likely to cause confusion among customers, or in any manner that disparages or discredits Tiger Airways. All other trademarks not owned by Tiger Airways or its affiliates that appear on this site are the property of their respective owners, who may or may not be affiliated with, connected to, or sponsored by Tiger Airways.

The uploader removed the templates twice, claiming its now Mandala Airways and as such, not protected anymore, which is so not true according to the bold text above. (see also my talkpage)

I dont want to start an edit war, but that file has to go...--Trex2001 (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

and he continues doing it for other uploads of his:

He has been warned. Impose some education please--Trex2001 (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

He is warned. However as he keeps on removing copyvio tag from the files I've blocked him for a day so we can clean his mess. I hope He'll understand the message. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member

Evertime I add an OTRS permission template to an image, I see this in the file history: (OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member). I am an OTRS agent, how can I get this notice removed? Thanks. Freaky Fries (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You currently don't have the OTRS member right, you need to get someone high then the Sysop right to give you the OTRS member right. Bidgee (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Then I'll hope someone higher then Sysop wil notice this message :-) Freaky Fries (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Go to COM:BN, please and request the flag there. Thanks in advance. -- RE rillke questions? 14:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Freaky Fries (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing PD-Afghan images

I think if not all, vast majority of these are speedyable. Also Category:PD Afghan images requiring verification needs a review. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any of them are speedyable. Dump them into a regular DR, if anything. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgotten Password

I have tried for over a year to remember the password I used on Wikipedia when I contributed some information, with no luck. I have the same user name for Wikimedia and would like to unify my login information. Is there any way we could re-set the password on Wikipedia so that I can unify them? Actually, the indication is that all of the following alreay have my username:

en.wikipedia.org

en.wikibooks.org

en.wiktionary.org

nl.wikipedia.org

no.wikipedia.org

Thanks.--Glasshouse (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If you entered your email address when you signed up, you can get the password emailed to you. On the log in screen type in your username and "mail me a new password". Otherwise, unfortunately, I'm fairly certain there is nothing else that can be done. Killiondude (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's the only way to deal with a forgotten password; there is no other mechanism at all. The only alternative is to create a new account. Rd232 (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for admin with import rights

Could an administrator who has import rights from er projects please import w:File:Kwassay2.jpg and merge it with File:Kwassay2.jpg? Normally we don't do this because it's too much of a hassle, but in this circumstance, one of the versions in the history was uploaded as a .bmp before the upload servers checked for the integrity of the file; as such, File:Kwassay2.jpg doesn't have all the version in the history (the current version is converted to jpg, which is a lossy compression, and I don't want to lose any data). Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems it doesn't want to import the .bmp though the unwanted en Wiki history followed it. :( Bidgee (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Ha. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Commons:File types: .bmp files are not allowed. Rd232 (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia-logo-small.png

Please delete this unused file as downscaled duplicate of an existing file (for example File:Wikipedia Logo.png) Bulwersator (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It was used during the 2009 Fundraiser according to its protection log. You might poke User:Cbrown1023 who protected it to see if it can be deleted safely. Sometimes old fundraising pages are still live on wmfwiki. That wiki is allowed to use HTML, therefore sometimes wikilinks aren't used and used files won't show up in the file report. Killiondude (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Template welcome/es

I traslate the message of UA31 in Café: Template:Welcome/es has a mistake in "¿Cometiste un error?" section. It says "¿Quieres renombrar o trasladar un archivo? Simplemente marca el que quieres borrar así:í:" It should says "así:" The double Í should be deleted, but template is protected. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Lo cambié. Gracias por tu noticia. Killiondude (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Polandball

This evening I created Commons:Deletion requests/Polandball, a mass DR for files relating to Polandball (Category:Polandball). I had already stated in the DR for one of the files in this category Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poland can into Wikipedia.jpg ultimately this is about the entire Category:Polandball, not one image. It would have been better if the DR had been about the entire category in the first place; I'm not sure if we should change it now, or make a new DR.[1]. After this DR was closed largely on the basis that this file was in use, I briefly challenged the closing admin (I do not think the uses are valid ones in terms of COM:SCOPE), and then had to choose between appealing the DR (is COM:UDEL the appropriate venue for that?) or just filing a mass DR, as I'd already said should probably have happened in the first place. Many of the files covered by the mass DR are not used at all, and therefore not subject to the logic of the prior DR.

Now, along comes User:Beria, speedy-closing the mass DR, and effectively accusing me of being disruptive. I re-opened the DR (another user [Pieter Kuiper] agreed this close was wrong), but after some time another user reverted that. I undid that, but when a third user reverted that, it was clearly time to discuss the matter. So:

  1. should a closing admin be closing what she considers to be a review of her decision?
  2. should a mass DR (which was already talked about) be blocked by a DR of one of the affected files? If so, for how long?

Rd232 (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagreed with speedy closure. Let the discussion run its course. And the closing admin is absolutely least suited to close (and even speedy close) a second DR. (But Rd232 should not have reverted closure - twice.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping to avoid a big meta-discussion. But here we are anyway... Rd232 (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
If there's more-or-less consensus that this is not something to get outraged over, maybe it's not something to get outraged over. It's certainly some place an admin should step carefully, but I also consider repeated DRs on perfectly free files to be some place we should step carefully.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Um hum. What part of that is a response to question 2? And is there any particular reason you chose to comment here rather than in the subsection below where I quoted the relevant parts of COM:DR? Rd232 (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Whatever. You're being a terrible nuisance about this whole thing. Is there anything that can convince you to let this drop?--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment As the image in this category can illustrate the article ru:Polandball they are in our scope. Moreover files don't need to be in use in wikimedia's project to be in scope, Commons is a project on its own and it's clearly in the COM:PS#Aim of Wikimedia Commons page. For the drama, I let experienced users to have fun with it. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC) PS: Commons can also illustrate non-encyclopedic knowledge.
This discussion is about DR processes, not a substitute for them. But I like how you so casually manage to imply that I haven't thought about these things, including the letter and spirit of policy and the purpose of Commons, at all. Perhaps you'd like to re-open Commons:Deletion requests/Polandball, and then we can discuss the substance. Rd232 (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I've notified User:Beria of this thread. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Rd232 had notified her already when opening this thread. --Túrelio (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
True ... I need my glasses. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
That is deliberately offensive. so-called "apology"? disrupt a closed deletion request? Unacceptable. You should be ashamed of yourself. Rd232 (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, my only intention was to close what I saw as an inappropriate re-opening of a deletion discussion. If Rd232 was of the opinion that the closing administrator was "involved", they should have brought it to the noticeboard for discussion straight-away. Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is now at a noticeboard; what is noticeable is that no-one is willing to defend Beria's action, or even address the relevant policy questions arising, but instead focusses on my response to it. Rd232 (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Back to the questions

  1. should a closing admin be speedy-closing a DR which she considers to be a review of her decision in a previous DR?
  2. should a mass DR be blocked by a DR of one of the affected files? If so, for how long?
  • COM:DR says Where the decision to delete is an obvious one (eg the file is an obvious copyright violation or is otherwise speedy deletable) the deletion request may be closed immediately. Less clear cases should remain open for at least seven days. There is no provision for speedy closing when the decision is "keep". None at all. (Possibly because of Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle.)
  • COM:DR#Appeal says If you disagree with an admin's decision to delete a file, or not to delete it, you should first set out your reasons on the admin's talk page and ask for reconsideration. If the admin declines to reverse the decision, you can request a review by other admins on Commons:Undeletion requests (or if the file was kept, renominate it for deletion). If the mass DR has an element of reviewing a prior DR, that should be permissible - certainly if the prior DR was discussed with the relevant admin first.
  • we do not have a written equivalent of en:WP:INVOLVED, but there is certainly an element of custom in this area, and reviewing appeals against one's own decisions is as "involved" as it gets.

In sum, I cannot see how the answer to either question can be "yes". Rd232 (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I'll try to answer quickly to Rd232's questions:
    1. No. As a general "personal" policy I prefer not to get involved in a re-opened DR in which i was previously involved (no matter whether as contributor or as closing admin in either way); of course there is not a rule that states that but is a measure of common sense stay away from a re-opened RfD in which one has previously operated.
    2. No. I think that a mass DR must not be treated as "a whole" (is the right term?) and that the merging of several requests in one is just to have a better look on the matter, not for deciding if "all" or "none" must be either deleted or kept. Thus I think that a mass DR is nothing but several DR that accidentally have to be treated in the same DR but can be resolved separately (i.e. keep some and delete other) but in no case a previous DR regarding one or more of those files must affect in any way the whole mass DR. Hope my English was clear :"> -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I will probably regret getting involved while this is at a red hot stage still, but here goes anyway ;-)
The way the questions are framed, the general answer is No. To the question about speedy close, In practice deletion requests have certainly been speedy closed in the past eg 1,2,3,4 - if a policy is needed to support this then we should create one (we have enough of a backlog without hindering closure of obvious keeps).
I haven't examined who did what, but if there was edit warring by admins on both the original image closure and subsequent whole category DR, then it was uncalled for - I think admins should hold themselves to a one revert rule in this sort of case. Speedy closure (delete or keep) appears to be used in cases where the outcome is trivially obvious, and not used for contentious deletion requests. Even though I expect the result to be a confirmation of the 'keep' outcome, I think it appropriate to re-open the category DR, since it is both non-trivial (the images aren't all in use) and contentious. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If someone is being a nuisance by repeatedly putting files up for DR, anyone should feel free to speedy-close it. If they're the only person who cares about the issue, perhaps they should back off. A failed DR for one file is a bad sign for a mass DR, and should be taken into consideration when you're considering whether other people will think they're being a nuisance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
    (i) I did not start the first DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poland can into Wikipedia.jpg. (ii) there were 4 other delete votes in the first DR besides mine (and the implied vote of the nominator), and 1 in the mass DR from someone who hadn't participated in the first DR (iii) the grounds for the first DR being "keep" was "in use", which didn't apply to most of the images in the mass DR - and, as I argued, the uses were not valid ones. In short, if you don't care enough to understand the situation, why bother commenting? Rd232 (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  1. Certainly a valid point above by Prosfilaes (talk · contribs), there've now been two deletion requests on this topic, both resulted in  Keep, for legitimate rationales.
  2. Dragging on this issue further in attempts to suppress the information is certainly getting disruptive.
  3. This certainly seems more like w:WP:FORUMSHOPPING because of an outcome in a deletion request due to w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

-- Cirt (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  1. The rationale on the first DR was on a single file, the second was a mass DR. That's not "the same topic". The first DR close was valid (but wrong, in my view); the second DR close was not [4]: It assumes bad faith, it ignores the distinction between a DR of one file and a mass DR of a topic, and it ignores the fact that in the first DR I'd already said the DR should really be about the entire topic. It ignores that the correct procedure to appeal a "keep" is in fact to open a new DR. It was done by the admin who closed the first DR, apparently on the basis that it was effectively a review of her decision; in which case, closing it was entirely inappropriate. It ignores that there is no process for speedy keeping on a DR, which means it should only be used for the most blatantly inappropriate of cases (like the one mentioned above where someone nominated COM:D for deletion). The ways the second deletion close is illegitimate are legion. Rd232 (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  2. Dragging on this issue further in attempts to suppress the information - again, accusations of bad faith. And apparently a fundamental misunderstanding about what information is. And a blatant disrespect for Commons' rules, which I'm trying to defend here, first to defend the "educational purpose" and second to defend the DR procedures that are in place to properly examine files that may not be in scope.
  3. ROTFLMAO. "Forumshopping"? This from the guy who only a few days ago took a simple issue that required no further action (someone giving you a trollish barnstar via WikiLove) and asked two admins about it [5] [6] before taking it to AN/U and advertising the AN/U thread at COM:VP and bothering the person who "spearheaded" WikiLove on Commons. And all of that amounted to a swift closure at AN/U, the closure including the remark Please do not make a mountain out of a molehill.... And you have the ineffable cheek to accuse me of "forum-shopping"... Brilliant. Just brilliant. Rd232 (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Close and archive this thread as ineffectual

  •  Comment - Suggest an admin close and archive this thread as ineffectual. The original user that started the thread itself seems to wish to repeatedly respond via ad hominem. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to Cirt's repeated attacks on me in this thread (repeated accusations of bad faith), and attempts to disrupt this thread, I've opened Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Cirt_disruption_of_dispute_resolution. Rd232 (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion request

I'd like to request the deletion of file Csontvary - A taorminai gorog szinhaz romjai (1905).jpg which I've uploaded myself. The reason is because essentially the very same image exists already under a different name (Kosztka_Csontváry_–_A_taorminai_görög_színház_romjai.PNG) and I've realized this only after I've uploaded the file. -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. Please do not submit such cases at this board but tag them with {{Duplicate}} in the future. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, will do. I didn't know about this tag. -- CoolKoon (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

do Katmorro (talk · contribs) and Ayeemm54 (talk · contribs) belong to the same person?

The dupe-tagging of File:Bras Basah MRT.jpg revealed a strange pattern that suggests that both involved accounts belong to the same person.

Similar pattern with File:School of the Arts Singapore.jpg, File:Avu.jpg, File:Oasia.jpg and probably more uploads of these accounts. --Túrelio (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Isuru Anjana Jayasekara. I-A-J-Z

User: Isuru Anjana Jayasekara. I-A-J-Z (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

File uploads of self-should be nuked, Commons is not someone's personal photo storage area--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Somebody should also check his 31 edits to his userpage on enwikipedia.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
While I agree with you that these do not belong on Commons, we do not generally nuke personal images -- they require a {{Delete}} discussion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism at COM:AN/B

A user keeps deleting a request there: [1] --Stefan4 (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

User indefinitely blocked, and talk page access removed, by User:Logan. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#User:Kill_Nazis. Rd232 (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Reema2210

Reema2210 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) 

This user, whio is also active in the en.wiki is uploading files with no permission/source. On en.wiki he was known under several names and everytime got blocked for advertising in the article w:Gulf Pharmaceutical Industries (Julphar)‎--Trex2001 (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Database error

I don't know if this is the right place but this error occured while I was purging File:Test.svg.


A database error has occurred. Did you forget to run maintenance/update.php after upgrading? See: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Upgrading#Run_the_update_script Query: UPDATE `oldimage` SET oi_width = '0',oi_height = '0',oi_bits = '0',oi_media_type = 'DRAWING',oi_major_mime = 'image',oi_minor_mime = 'svg+xml',oi_metadata = '0',oi_sha1 = '1sxoa30mtmfqjy54rg6dkgpyc06ob6r' WHERE oi_name = 'Test.svg' AND oi_archive_name = '20120316062714!Test.svg' Function: OldLocalFile::upgradeRow Error: 1205 Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction (10.0.6.41)


--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Flag of Belarus.svg

What happened with File:Flag of Belarus.svg? This broken file (uploaded, not deleted but "No file by this name exists") is used on multiple pages in plwiki. Purging results in "Unexpected non-MediaWiki exception encountered, of type "SyntaxException" exception 'SyntaxException' with message 'Object name not set.' in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.19/extensions/SwiftCloudFiles/php-cloudfiles-1.7.10/cloudfiles.php:1767 Stack trace:" Bulwersator (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This was reported in bugzilla:34755#c10. Killiondude (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to update the flag last night and...yeah....things went to hell really quickly. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done not sure what happened but everything is back to normal. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User:94.134.93.93

User has been nominating for deletion large numbers of images for spurious reasons.... usually "unimportant, boring, insignificant". – JBarta (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: He seems to have stopped and his deletion requests have been closed/kept. – JBarta (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please chech both users

User talk:Mrjoel91 and User talk:Faretinajo uploads same spam and picture.--Motopark (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Good catch, they appear to be the same user. Blocked Faretinajo (the later one).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

File names

Hi, I have attempted to use the 'Move' option to rename:- File:County Flag of North Yorkshire.png to File:Unofficial County Flag of North Yorkshire.png. However the drop down box will not allow any option other than to 'cancel' the request. The renaming is required under rationale 3 (Misleading name) of the listed criteria for renaming. The image is an unofficial insignia and even has a note in the description stating it should not be used officially to represent North Yorkshire. Unfortunately it has somehow become embedded in a template on the Italian wikipedia and therefore used on multiple North Yorkshire location articles as though it is the official flag of the county. This is therefore giving the wrong information to any who use those articles. Although I have searched through the italian artcles I am unable to work out where the template is, so that it can be corrected. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sridhar1000's copyvio and deletion tagging

The user has suddenly tagged many of his own uploads and other files for deletion as they are copyrighted. Many of them are PD-India|PD-art. Files like File:Illustrations from the Barddhaman edition of Mahabharata in Bangla, which were printed in wood engraving technique (6).jpg are clearly PD-India|PD-art. Please check. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted logos

The user 99jesuss has uploaded a lot of non free logos. UA31 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

VP thread about non-PD-status of images from USGov websites

Just as a hint for those who haven't seen it yet: Commons:Village pump#material from US-Gov-websites may not be PD. --Túrelio (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Attention requested.

Hi, please keep an eye on this new user. I don't trust this. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Sock of Khan810/Ali33471. Blocked indefinitely.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding PD tag to File:Disambig.svg and derivatives

On enwiki I'd like to use the above files without linking for the attribution requirement. Three months ago I asked User:Baumst if he could release them into the public domain with no response. I've now asked at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File:Disambig.svg copyright intelligibility and believe it lacks sufficient copyrightable elements (It's a blue/red fork) to be tagged with {{PD-shape}}. As many of them are protected I'd come here to ask an administrator to add the tag. There's more in Category:Disambig if you are feeling ambitious. Dispenser (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't change them to {{PD-shape}}! The threshold of originality varies greatly from country to country and a licence change to {{PD-shape}} might make it impossible to use the images for users in the United Kingdom and other countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you could do an upload at en:wp and tag it with {{Keep local|SOMEPAGENAME|reason=add your reason here}} — these really are too simple for copyright, but explaining in the "reason" field that some people dispute the idea should be sufficient for keeping the upload over there. If you'd like, I can help you at en:wp if you need admin tools; just leave a note at my talk. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't asking to change the license, but to add {{PD-shape}} as another license. Dispenser (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that the whole idea is done with the best intentions, but bull-dozing these files into another license (you can't just add another license any more than you can just delete the original) really goes right against the idea of people licensing their work with attribution required licenses. If the work *really* is so un-original that it is uncopyrightable, then just whip up a replacement (it is easy right ;-) - and license it PD. It's easy enough to replace all uses of these images, or move these aside and substitute new ones. Respect licenses please. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
If your argument is "They were nice enough to use a copyleft license and we should respect that" then what's to stop trademark owners from dictating their own usage? And some are clearly more than simple shapes and text. Dispenser (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Blankmap-africa2arm.jpg

I nominated this file for deletion on 27 Feb. It was created by me, then superseded by a file with a more appropriate name (I didn't have move rights at the time of creation). On en-wiki, "obvious" deletions rarely last more than a day once tagged. I appreciate that the pace of life might be slower here, but it seems to me that this file seems to have been overlooked. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, forget it, I've just found this. It really is a different pace here — I didn't realise that the seven days deadline was aspirational rather than real. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
What you wanted was speedy deletion - different template.Dankarl (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Speedy deletion isn't a standard option in the sidebar, but I looked it up and added the template. I'll be interested to see what speedy means here Jimfbleak (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Category editing - vandalism of User Silar

Please take a look at Category:Alicja Wosik and editions by User:Silar. I edited this category by adding the new and right ones "over categories" (like date of birth or occupation of person - source: http://www.alicjawosik.pl/). I really don't understand unjustifiable and unfounded reverts of User Silar, that seems as thoughtless act of revenge. I mention, that this case in not the first that concerns Silar. There were many such unintelligible reverts of my editions (for example I often reduce of files' categories, when they include too many categories - first main category and second category that is over main category. It's overzealous and redundant. It's enough one category. There is recommendation in wikicommons to reduce double categories in these cases. But Silar reverts my editions. You can check both editions as mine as Silar's. Please react.

Second note is that Silar deletes posts of other users at his discussion site. Lowdown (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I urge both of you to discuss the matter in the category talk page. As far as I'm concerned it's not a matter for sysops, it's an editorial problem that should be solved by both of you in the discussion page to try to find a consensus (i.e. not to impose your vision!). --PierreSelim (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I wrote, that there is no discussion, no talk with Silar, because he don't want to discuss. And additionally he deletes posts of other users at his discussion site. It's not the first time he do like this. So how can this situation be solved only by me? That's why I'm turning to the administration. A similar problem with this user was at polish wikipedia lately, what finally has an effect - depriving him of editor rights. --Lowdown (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Pierre, that's a vandalism: there's no reason for reverting "Journalists from Poland" into simply "Journalists". -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
SERGIO, thanks a lot for your reaction. --Lowdown (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
To summerize, Sergio has warned Silar that he could be blocked if he insist in removing information from the category, and improve the categorization. I think the matter is closed for now (and I hope we will not need to reopen it). --PierreSelim (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I hope too, Pierre. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Review/comments requested

I've been asked by an IP on my talk page for a review of my recent actions and so I am posting this here.

I discovered a category which had an external link in it here. Given that - for me - we do not generally require external links I removed it. The IP placed the message on my talk page (along with two further links to the website) as can be seen. I reflected on the posting, however, in the end, such links are outside our scope and categories becoming articles (such as here and here for example) are questionable so I removed the link again. When I had the chance I checked the use of the link on Commons and found something over 50 placements of the link in categories and on images on Commons - in some cases multiple placements with a single image's description such as here. Most of these links have been placed by IPs and while the addition of some basic narrative in categories for example may well be useful we are not here to compete with Wikipedia in terms of effectively creating articles there as far as I am aware. Equally the placement of links in image descriptions would seem unnecessary to me unless they relate to licensing or source. As such I moved quite a large number of these links (there are one or two left in possibly appropriate places.

I am certainly not suggesting that this is actually linkspamming however the fact that a number of IPs have placed the link in so many places over time might lead one towards the fact that someone was attempting to promote traffic to a website and certainly the link exists in quite a large number of places on other wikis. My view was and remains that we are not here to offer quasi articles in categories nor would we normally have such extended descriptions of images that they warranted "citing" a website or became articles in themselves.

I would appreciate others views on my understand of the scope/intention of this project. Thanks for the time --Herby talk thyme 10:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I would just add that if as according to the IP the relevant Wikipedia articles are not good enough, then improving them on Wikipedia should be the aim of anyone including the IP. --Herby talk thyme 10:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you have shown remarkable restraint. It looks like linkspamming to me. As you say, Commons is a repository and external links are very rarely, perhaps never, necessary. I suspect that the motive may have been more to increase Google page rank than to increase traffic directly -- since WP/WMF is a respected site, multiple inward links from WP/WMF are a good thing and will move a site up in a Google search. If this continues, the user responsible should be blocked.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with links within file descriptions if the link is explicitly relevant to that particular image - for instance "I was inspired by (website)" or "I bought this from (website)". However, I agree with you, if there is no reason the image should be in there ("I like (website)") then it should go. We certainly don't need ELs in a generic category - I can understand it for a company or something, it would make sense there, but we don't need links to external reference sources like that. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure I fully agree with the "inspired by" idea however if that were the case I would not expect to see the same website crop up all that often and I would expect the link to be placed by registered users. --Herby talk thyme 11:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
At least the CC licenses do allow for an attribution party, which may be presented as a weblink. But that is only relevant to files. The external link in the first above linked example would be o.k. (likely) in an article about the phenomenon, but looks at least somewhat misplaced in a category (be it on Commons or on Wikipedia). However, 50 placements of the same link is nothing else than spamming. So, removal was fully appropriate, IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI, all external links on Commons (and probably all Wikimedia sites) are marked nofollow, so that the links don't affect pagerank. Rd232 (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't really explain why spammers (not referring to this placement) target placing their links on Foundation projects so abusively. --Herby talk thyme 12:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
They may not know; and any sites scraping Wikimedia content will probably not apply nofollow, so maybe they're hoping for that. Otherwise, there's the direct traffic boost, and possibly some semblance of legitimacy to human eyes. Rd232 (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
And it is desirable for us to allow/foster/encourage that... Why? --Herby talk thyme 13:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
No idea. Why do you ask?? Rd232 (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm the involved 'IP'.

I'm totally staggered by the accusations of spamming, and the general negative overtones (what about the good faith policy anyway). I'm not spamming, period. I have no connection whatsoever with the website (further than exchanging email about once a year). You may have noticed this particular site is cited in many (if not all) atm. optics WP articles (and I certainly didn't do that), and for a reason: it's the best source around. Besides, the figure of '50 times' sounds a wee bit exaggerated to me.

I'll list here the IPs I can retrieve at this point that were mine when I worked on these cats:

  • 84.97.149.144, 84.97.149.219, 84.97.149.42, 84.97.149.81, 84.97.149.211, 86.68.38.39

Additionally, I used these in Feb 2009 when I first started contributing:

  • 84.100.26.15, 86.68.38.66, 84.98.21.250, and possibly others. I haven't contributed significantly between then and the last few days.

I would certainly appreciate it if some of you took a peek at these and let me know if this activity is consistent with that of a spammer.

Also, if there is a WM linking policy, I'd appreciate to be directed to it, because I certainly couldn't find one.

Now I'd like to explain why I felt it was the right thing to do to include these links. I've already done that on Herbythyme's page so I'll just copy/paste:

Hi,
I've reverted your edit to this category (removing external link ). I disagree with your justification (out of scope).
I'm currently trying to make the atmospheric optics categories as easy as possible for all users, whatever their grasp of the science might be. There are a lot of opportunities for confusion between the different phenomena involved, resulting in many images in the wrong categories, and worse, wrong images in the WP articles. My take on this is to add informations to the gallery descriptions, using descriptions as well as internal and external links.
The external links I add are to the relevant page(s) from which is IMO the best synthetic source on atmospheric optics, presenting each phenomenon with a clear explanation and a selection of the best available images. The point here (scope) is that both of these are necessary for a user to decide what type of effect their own pictures feature. In this respect unfortunately but understandably, the WP articles by themselves are not always very helpful, and neither are the existing media in Commons. Mostly, there are just not enough images of good occurrences of each type of phenomena (except for the few most common) because they are pretty rare (there are even no images at all for a bunch of them yet). Hence the resorting to the best outside source I can think of.
I hope you'll understand my point.
Cheers, 84.97.149.211 09:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that's clear enough and I haven't much to add to it. I'm perfectly willing to carry on the discussion provided mutual good faith is assumed.

Cheers. 84.100.26.201 01:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

For clarity the figure of 50 is arrived at by the fact that I have more than half a page of contributions (100) removing the link so it is a rough figure but roughly right. Some pages had multiple links in. I have no idea who placed them on these pages as such it may well not have been you, however as a number of people have stated here, that is too many links to one site to be acceptable.
I certainly would not blacklist the site for now though placement is now monitored. --Herby talk thyme 05:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • en:Opposition surge and en:Heiligenschein are adequate to distinguish between the phenomena, in my opinion. Both articles link to atoptics.co.uk (under external links). Linking directly from Commons is unnecessary. My impression is that atoptics.co.uk is reasonably accurate, but sources are not listed with each article. That makes it more difficult to verify its content. That isn't to say that the Wikipedia articles, e.g., en:Opposition surge, couldn't be improved significantly. I don't support blacklisting atoptics.co.uk at this time; I think it could be used when no adequate en.wiki article exists. But 50 links are too many, I think. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation. Is it possible that the purpose you're adding the links for could be served as well (or better) by creating galleries (COM:GALLERIES)? Rd232 (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump#New_User_Right_Proposal:_Large_Uploads

I've added a proposal for a new user right. Thoughts and comments would be appreciated! -FASTILY (TALK) 06:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for deletion and advice

1.I uploaded the following images and inadvertantly stated that they were mine.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Trinity_Blendworth_3.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Trinity_Blendworth.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Trinity_Blendworth_2.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Trinity_Blendworth_5.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Trinity_Blendworth_Tracery.JPG

The photographs were in fact takenb by Richard Bradshaw.

As a temporary measure I have changed the text to say that the images were taken by Richard Bradshaw and removed the licensing perameter.

I would now be grateful if someone could remove the images completely.

Just to repeat, the request to remove the images is made as the images were described as being taken by me but were not.

2. Should this situation arise again where I wish to upload an image taken by someone else, how do I upload to wikicommons and is it possible to then use the image in a wikipedia article. Would wikicommons in fact require the image to be uploaded by the person who took the photograph or in cases where I uploaded the image would wikicommons require the written consent from the actual taker of the photograph to use the image in a wikipedia article. What form would that written consent need to take? Would an e-mail have to be sent direct to wikicommons by the actual taker of the image? Advice would be appreciated.

Weglinde (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The following were deleted by Túrelio:
File:Holy_Trinity_Blendworth_3.JPG
File:Holy_Trinity_Blendworth.JPG
File:Holy_Trinity_Blendworth_2.JPG
File:Holy_Trinity_Blendworth_5.JPG
File:Holy_Trinity_Blendworth_Tracery.JPG

Defford

I have recently tried to update the Defford Village Hall section, but cannot insert two new images although they show (albeit in poor positions) on a preview and exist in the history section. It is some months since I made changes and my technique has suffered! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsoldier38 (talk • contribs)

It seems to be resolved. --Leyo 12:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

One thumbnail of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bodies-ja.png broken

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Supranational_European_Bodies-ja.png/640px-Supranational_European_Bodies-ja.png , which is one of the thumbnails of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bodies-ja.png , is broken, so that pages in Wikipedia which use the image cannot be displayed accordingly. May I ask you to refresh the cache?

It's fixed. --Leyo 12:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:RaceMugshots.jpg

Someone should look at this unclosed deletion request from 2008 :) -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

タチコマ robot

This bot is malfunctioning - it's flagged multiple recent FPs as having been a contestants in Picture of the Year 2006 - see this diff: [7] for an example - by changing the syntax of Template:Assessment. This has affected the documentation several hundred images. Could an admin block the bot as quickly as possible, to prevent any further problematic edits until whatever caused this bug is fixed. --Claritas (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by such edits [8] that has not been fixed. This kind of bot run should have been tested on 1 file, then a small batch of files before going for more files. Has this use been validated somehow ? Now lots of files are broken that's not good. I've blocked the bot, waiting his master to explain hisself. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
What is the problem here? No file was broken because of bots edit. |com and |featured parameter does the same thing and |com parameter is being abolished per short discussion at Template talk:Assessments#Human readable parameters. I am working on {{Assessments}} to resolve the issue. The problem was fixed through two edits: [9] & [10]. While pages may have been displaying the incorrect text, their categorization was not affected. Please do not jump to conclusions. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec) :Actually not a problem with the bot, I think. The objective with the changes to the parameters of the assessments template has been to make the parameters more human readable, somthing which was briefly discussed at Template talk:Assessments#Human readable parameters. Rather, the problem is errors in the {{Assessments}} template, which has been completely refactored by the bot operator, who has made more than 50 edits to the template over the last week, despite it is in heavy use. Tony Wills and I have requested the bot operator make the refactoring in a copy and then reintroduce the refactored code once thoroughly tested on a number of well-defined test cases. The bot operator has chosen not to take this advice on board. This resulted in several intermittent errors in the templates, which are really annoying. the good think is that the bot operator is eager to fix those problems promptly. The unfortunate thing is that this "noise" would not have been needed if the advice had been taken. See also [11], [12], [13], and [14] for starters. Kind of sad, as the intentions are good, but tunnel visioned. --Slaunger (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I am doing my best but the code of the template was immensely difficult to follow scattered to countless illegible sub-pages. I am doing my best to have minimum noise. But that is very difficult to avoid some of it. You are mentioning issues unrelated to the bots edit which can be considered as forum shopping. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick word, do not consider the bot block as a punishment but as an incentive to fix the model. I wasn't clear, but I consider that bot should not be operate if the change in the template is not yet working. I'd like to remind that {{Assessments}} is heavily used on our best content, having it broken reflect bad on our best content (show case), it has to be fixed ASAP before running the bot. Regards. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Certainly not, if there is the slightest bit of doubt that the bot is functioning incorrectly, more than feel free to block it instantly to minimize the damage, potential damage or perceived damage. I have a giant button for this on the userpage of the bot. My only worry is disappointing the community and I just hope I did not disappointed the community too much. :)
  • The bots edits was not what broke the template. My edits days after bots replacement broke template code for unrelated reasons. I have corrected the problem the moment I noticed it. To be honest I do not blame anyone to feel uneasy about or unable to understand {{Assessments}} modificaitons because the code was a monster. I am doing my best to make the code as readable as possible, as updateable as possible and as correctable as possible. I am making changes slowly to avoid damage, this way I can correct problems quickly, like I have. It takes me several days to work on each component.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 17:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, there is only one file using the old parameters currently. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 17:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Make that 0. --Claritas (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Yay! :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I have unblocked the bot as it is not broken and I really do hope the template will be fixed really soon, it's a pain to see our best show case all broken. --PierreSelim (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Template had been fixed already ([15] & [16]). :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 21:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

protected file

Could an admin please unprotect a file that I need to make a small change to? File:Fuyu Persimmon (Diospyros Kaki).jpg. It'll only take a second and then it can be protected again! It's not due to be on the main page until Thursday. Julia\talk 17:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  1. Please tell us what to change. It's transcluded into a cascading protected page. Simply post the suggested new content to COM:SAND, I will copy it over. Thanks.
  2. Next Time, request it on COM:AN/B, please. On this page you get easily lost these times.

Regards -- RE rillke questions? 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a new file that needs to be uploaded over the top of the old one, so it's not a case of just giving you the content to copy. The new upload needs to happen so we can close the featured picture nomination over at en.wp. Sorry for posting on the wrong page. Julia\talk 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Erm, you are not the initial uploader and this image is already a featured image on Commons. Please upload the new file under a new name. If I would unprotect the file and someone would find your new version inappropriate, I would get serious trouble. Sorry but this is the common practice.
You don't have to feel sorry. It should just explain why you didn't receive a response for such a long time. -- RE rillke questions? 18:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the one uploading the file any more; the creator is uploading it. It's also a minor change; there is no need to have a new version. I would appreciate it if you could still unprotect it, so that the creator can make the change. Julia\talk 18:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I leave ↑this↑ decision upon to one of my fellow admins. -- RE rillke questions? 19:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, I will mostly upload this version over the current version. It's a minor white balance improvement. --Jovian Eye storm 03:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
That seems like a fairly big exposure change (and maybe WB as well, but I can't really tell). Can you make one where only the WB changes? --99of9 (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Block policy

  • I would like someone to inspect tho cases. Maybe this is normal and I don't understand some details, so I would ask to help me with understanding them.
  • First case is about QIC voting, where I made a vote marked with  Info, because I could not vote for support or for oppose. [17] Then some other user changed my voice into  Oppose without any reason. [18] I warned an administrative user about this, but no action was performed. [19]
  • Second case is about QIC voting, where I offered a picture [20], and another user voted against it. I fixed the named problems and uploaded another image, reproduced from RAW file [21]. After this I informed QIC page about completely reproduced image and asked to vote again. [22] As soon as the comment about old file has no sense anymore, as soon as the file was changed to remove the stated problems, I striked out that comment. [23] An administrative user reverted my change and called it vandalism [24]. He blocked me for «repeated faking of other user's contributions» [25].
  • Was my striking-out really «faking»? If my «faking» needs to be blocked for three days, why the «faking» from the 1st case is normal and needs no blocking? Thank you for the helpful answer.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The block summary states "repeated faking of other user's contributions", so I wonder if your account is complete (my emphasis).[26] In any case, bad behavior by others does not excuse bad behavior by you. You may ask other editors to consider modifying their comments themselves, if you wish. You may indicate that you "fixed the named problems and uploaded another image" in your comments. But please do not edit comments by others. Please see COM:TALK for guidance. A final comment; if A.Savin and you would prefer not to interact, another administrator may intervene instead.[27] However, that may cause delays and we have few Russian-speaking administrators. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
      • No other «faking» was shown in block summary. I want to know if striking-out was bad behaviour, because it's usual to edit others' comments in QIC. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] That's why I didn't think my behaviour was bad. If it's really a fault, why noone reacted with the first case?
      • If comments cannot be edited, why are they published under CC-BY-SA? It seems I don't know the licensing details. I thought my comments are free licensed, and now it looks they are not; what else is unfree in Commons?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
        • If you do not edit the comments of others, you are unlikely to be blocked for that reason. Many of our best contributors choose not to participate at COM:QI. You may enjoy Commons more by doing the same. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
          • Please see the samples above. It is legal to edit the CC-BY texts, and it is normal to add templates, this is why I considered to be normal to strike-out the obsolete remarks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

English POTD Description

Can someone please undo this edit. The description is currently in French instead of being in English. It is currently protected and will come on the main page within 20 minutes. --Jovian Eye storm 23:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done by Rd232. -- RE rillke questions? 23:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that was fast! --Jovian Eye storm 23:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

UploadWizard

Hi admins,

someone downloaded the bigphoto, croped and uploaded it to File:Soldados Chilenos DoD.jpg.

I tried to upload the whole photo. Special:UploadWizard says that the (bigphoto) file is already in commons but it doesn't say the name of the file!. I found it because Mike Mullen is inthe photo and he has a Category.

But Special:UploadWizard should say the name of the existent file. --Createaccount 10:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Go to Special:Upload, fill out the necessary details, and check the box for "Ignore any warnings" -FASTILY (TALK) 04:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this just File:Mike_Mullen_with_Chilean_honor_guard_in_Santiago_3-3-09.jpg? --Stefan4 (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads by Eleutherodactylus

Dealing with a deletion request I unmasked indeed many more copyvio uploads by Eleutherodactylus. Some of them are as clear as that the EXIF mentions the copyrightholder. I have run through my time for now, so assistance is helpful. I have given the user the "endofcopyvio" warning, but there is still a lot to clean up. Lymantria (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Vankod

User blanked his talk many times.--Motopark (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack in DR

What to do with personal attacks in a DR without any added value to that DR? Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please remove User:Mbdortmund from sysop list

Mbdortmund, former sysop on Commons, has deceased. [33] [34]. -- Inkowik 16:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done and I added him to Commons:List of former administrators. Sorry to hear this sad news. :( Trijnsteltalk 16:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Colleagues from Wikimedia Commons are invited to sign a memorial page on de.wikipedia.org. Thank you, --Polarlys (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A great contributor to Commons - it makes some of our "concerns" here look very small. --Herby talk thyme 17:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Respect to him. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios uploaded by User:Kos93

I just noticed this on en-wiki: en:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Kos93

It seems that Kos93 has uploaded a lot of copyvios files as own work. The claim on en-wiki is that it was reported on Commons but "It was ignored" and "Commons isn't going to do anything". I do not know where it was reported but I can see on User talk:Kos93 that a lot of files has been deleted allready.

I created Category:Files uploaded by User:Kos93 and added files listed on the en-wiki CCI and all other files that seems to be related to Kos93 so that it is easier to look for copyvios.

I think we should work together with en-wiki on hunting copyvios. Not just here but every time there is a CCI. --MGA73 (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons did not ignore this request. There was a huge problem with Kos93-files some years ago - many files got deleted. Newer uploads by him are his own creations. All files were shot with the same camera, are of similiar image quality and all are around the topic of serbian, bosnian...military (example). There is no reason to doubt own work. But this investigation on en:wiki is right: files like these are still problematic: for example [35], [36], [37]. --High Contrast (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
That is good. Now we just need to make sure that the problematic files are checked. --MGA73 (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
There are many his uploads with {{PD-Yugoslavia}} only (it's not really a licensing template), and many insignia from unknown sources. I suppose all of them should be deleted, but otherwise Kos93 uploads seem ok. Trycatch (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Do somebody understand if the files like File:V utva.jpg falls under the scope of {{PD-SCGGov}}? What is "Official materials of state authorities or materials published by any other person or institution which do public function"? Trycatch (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I got these 2 links Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 30#User:Kos93 and possible serial copyright violations and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2011/12#User:Kos93.
The discussions there link to 2 OTRS discussions:
I do not think a mass DR is good. It is better to split up so insignia goes in one DR. Files with {{PD-Yugoslavia}} in another DR and files with bad metadata in a third DR etc. Is there any way to make a list of files sorted by metadata? --MGA73 (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated the first bulk -- PD-Yugoslavia/PD-SCGGov photos at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kos93. I'm not sure about a tool with such a feature, but Rillke's VisualFileChange.js does a very good job in this case. --Trycatch (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems we need more copyright experts in that area... Not many comments so far.
And what about the rest of the files? Hard manual work or does anyone have brilliant ideas? --MGA73 (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

More genitalia

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
What exactly is this doing here on AN? There is no reason for any immediate administrator attention which can't be handled by general and established community policies, guidelines and practices. russavia (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh goody... How many penises can one man have? I guess these have been culled from someone/somewhere but they cannot all be him. Views? --Herby talk thyme 10:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

All but one are at least taken with the same cam (Canon IXUS 115 HS). --Leyo 10:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure - however to me this sort of thing always raises the question of informed permission. I'm not suggesting this applies in this case but there have been cases of cyber stalking in the UK where "friends" have obtained images and then posted them online to harass... --Herby talk thyme 10:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Why does that guy have a barcode on his leg? O_o. I think the latest one isn't him, and the annotated one I think we possibly had before? -mattbuck (Talk) 10:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
"Self checkout" ...;) --Herby talk thyme 10:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Is COM:IDENT an issue here? There seem to be at least four different people involved and you can typically only take photos of genitalia in a private place. At most one of them can be the uploader. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes that is my concern too. --Herby talk thyme 11:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
“They also do not apply to photographs where the subject is unidentifiable.” --Leyo 11:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The question is whether a person is identifiable if a photo shows the person's genitalia. Maybe people who have frequently seen the genitalia of those people can identify them. In particular, barcode tattoos are uncommon. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It is a "temporary" tattoo. It washes off. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
And that makes it less identifiable... how? Snowolf How can I help? 18:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Because the person doesn't usually have it?
I would echo Herby's concerns. The assumption frequently made here that someone should be considered unidentifiable whenever their face is not shown does not stand up to scrutiny. If Jack and Jill went out with each other for three years, then have an acrimonious break-up where Jill dumps Jack for another guy, and Jack then uploads nude images of Jill that he made in happier times, Jill is perfectly identifiable by Jack telling everyone Jack and Jill know about how he got back at Jill by uploading nude images of her to Wikimedia Commons, even if "all" the photo shows is her genitals. This sort of thing should not even need saying, but Commons has played fast and loose with consent for so long that whatever would by ordinary common sense standards be considered absolutely ludicrous passes for normal here.
To give another random example, User:Saunista has made three uploads (one of them is categorised under bath towels, if you're wondering how I found it). Now it's perfectly possible that these people were all good mates on a holiday together, had a great laugh at this sauna outing, sat around the fireplace the evening after and thought it would be great to immortalise the good time they had by uploading these images. Or it's possible that the person with the camera on this trip to the sauna was, unbeknownst to the others, a bit of an arsehole, who sat by themselves in their room the day after, and thought for whatever reason that they'd take it upon themselves to upload these images. In which case Commons has for the past three years invaded the privacy of half a dozen people, none of whom may know that their images are on here. And it will have done that by trusting an anonymous account that never edited again and is known only as "Saunista". Strange wisdom, and absolutely not what COM:PEOPLE requires. --JN466 07:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep - good comments/good example. Over the years there have been a number of folk who have turned up and said "I didn't say my image could be used". Trouble is that after a few weeks the image could be anywhere and "freely licensed" because that is what we allowed.
In the sauna case I'm guessing it was a public place which would probably be ok legally though the individuals may not see it like that. However arseholes exist and there will always be the "we are not censored" folk (to a point I am one of them). I am also a human being and at times my question would be "how would I feel if I found a crap photo of me/member of my family" online and some clever sod started spouting legalese... --Herby talk thyme 07:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Quite. Commons could do with a bit more of a "human touch" in such cases, to put it mildly. In the sauna case, the location may have been private land, or remote enough to classify as a private setting. We just don't know. I'm pretty sure though the people depicted don't go shopping dressed like that. (I've made some minor copyedits to my post above after Herby replied.) --JN466 07:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
One of the problems is "policy" - it tends to get used in place of humanity/common sense all to often. I'm sure we are all guilty of it at times but it sure as hell frustrates the average person when it is used to hit them with. --Herby talk thyme 07:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope I am not alone after reading this thread I am reminded of this. We could write COM:TALLYWHACKER to cover these particular photos if needed. russavia (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I know, the funniest movie about growing up ever made. You'll be glad you came! :) It's not the best basis for Commons policy, though, because this way Commons remains a boys' locker room. --JN466 08:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah come on now. Should not commons encourage users to upload more images of penises no matter whose penises these are. Because right now "if we compare with :Category:Trafalgar Square, we can find more images of the unique Nelson's Column compared to all images of the human penis for which we may estimate that around 5 billion times many more exist on the planet." :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know where you get your numbers. But surely some amazing quoting and sourcing must have been done. I can't decide if the world population consists out of ~71% males or if you speak about the year 2055. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 16:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not me who got the numbers. I quoted another user.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Hiding an old version of an image

File:Ecosse2009235.JPG Hello,

I uploaded this picture which included car plates. I have now uploaded a version with the numbers removed, would it be possible to hide/remove the original, please?

Thanks, LeCardinal (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! LeCardinal (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
This bring up something I'm very curious about. What is the deal with hiding number plates? Kevin (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a privacy concern. Some examples of discussions:

Copyviol deletion request almost three weeks old

Could an admin please close Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Truthbtold112 and delete the files referenced there? Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Bidgee (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

DR request closed by IP

I don't personally disagree with the keep at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seinfeld.png, but I am curious what authority an IP has to close a DR. Fry1989 eh? 22:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't a checkuser need someone to be checked against? That was my understanding. Fry1989 eh? 01:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
A checkuser can be performed in case of abusing multiple accounts. No idea if that's happening here or not. Trijnsteltalk 10:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 Comment See this request of Mathonius. Apparantly 189.70.92.232 is a sockpuppet of BrandonSkyPimenta. Trijnsteltalk 16:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

File:VBulletin.jpg in danger of deletion!

File:VBulletin.jpg is a good image but the source, permission, summary, etc. are just random characters like 'dfgdfg' and 'fdg'. I think the uploader slept on his or her keyboard when trying to type the information. Of course, the image uses a Creative Commons license. I wish the image be kept, even with the unknown information. 189.70.92.232 23:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • You've been doing a lot of contributing to Commons lately, including closing a DR. While anons are allowed to edit, a regular contributor such as yourself would benefit from registering an account, including the benefit to watchlist the DRs you're following. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The file was nominated for deletion. Because of the Creative Commons license I was forced to close the deletion discussion, and replace {{Delete}} on the file page with {{Kept}}. Thank you. --189.70.92.232 04:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Image is deleted. I wish you could undelete it because it had a Creative Commons license. I made so many requests for undeletion of this file across this wiki. Thank you. --189.70.92.232 04:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
It was a copyvio from http://files.vbulletin.com/doc_images/intro_logo.jpg. The uploader just wrote random characters and picked a license; we don't accept it. Now that it is a copyvio and not the own work of the author, now it will really not be restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
So the uploading user(s) took the image from http://files.vbulletin.com/doc_images/intro_logo.jpg, resized the image, uploaded it to Commons, wrote random characters and picked a license. Anyway, the Creative Commons license means others may copy, redistribute and/or modify your work, but only if they give you credit. See COM:L for more info. OK, I made a deletion review and my request was declined because the image was a complete copyvio; the indigo block with a hole in it shaped like a square root symbol (√). --189.70.92.232 05:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Derivative works is another issue; you just can't take something online and just resize it and claim it as own work. There was a lot of problems with this image and upload and saving an image that one person didn't even care and fill it out properly is not worth our time or effort. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 Comment Although the image was a copyvio, I saved it on My Computer. How reliable is this image to be stored for around a year on WMC? --189.70.92.232 17:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Cygnus X-1.jpg

ResolvedDone by Denniss. Materialscientist (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

When this was undeleted the previous file that was a copyvio was also undeleted. Could someone please delete the first version of the file and the first two page revisions? Thanks. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ParkMatik

Resolved

Hi. Could a Russian speaking admin take a look at Special:DeletedContributions/ParkMatik and User talk:ParkMatik#Question? Thanks in advance! Trijnsteltalk 10:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems like he wanted to get his uploads deleted (reason was "faulty upload"); I've done since there is probably a misunderstanding with licensing. - A.Savin 11:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Lovely. :) Thanks for your help. Trijnsteltalk 16:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Technical glitch in deletion

Resolvedby restoring/redeleting. Materialscientist (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin please fix the apparent technical glitch in this file's log – it was meant to be deleted, but it still shows up as a bluelink and displays a thumbnail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is probably the same bug as this. Admins are powerless at this stage :). --99of9 (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth last time this occurred 9mediawiki update) using the "purge" tab sorted the problem out for me. --Herby talk thyme 08:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Seelter

Are his next edits out of scope ?--Motopark (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No idea what is going on but that size user page is just waaaaay too big. I've deleted them for now but maybe worth keeping an eye. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Technical information about ongoing work on our gadgets

Dear fellow Administrators, there is only little time we have until Gadgets 2.0 will be rolled-out.

This requires migration of all gadgets to RecourceLoader (at least I got that impression listening to Krinkle). We can be happy on Commons: While we have much more gadgets than Wikipedia, Wikibooks, ... (which is no wonder if you understand that MediaWiki is not the best software for a Media-Hoster) most of them are already migrated.

Just now, I migrated DelReqHandler to RL. If you encounter problems, please first Please purge your browser’s cache. (You only need to do it once.)

Operating
system

Browser
 Microsoft Windows or Linux macOS
Chrome Press Ctrl+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
or hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload 		Press ⌘ Cmd+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
or hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload
Mozilla Firefox Hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload
(or press Ctrl+F5 or Ctrl+⇧ Shift+R) 		Press ⌘ Cmd+R (reload page) or
⌘ Cmd+⇧ Shift+R (reload page and rewrite cache)
Safari Hold down ⇧ Shift+Alt while clicking Reload
Press Ctrl+R Press ⌘ Cmd+⌥ Option+E (clear browser cache)
or ⌘ Cmd+R (update)
Opera Press Ctrl+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
Konqueror
Internet Explorer Press Ctrl+F5

and then, if they persist, please report them to me. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 15:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - your help is appreciated. --Herby talk thyme 15:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that DelReqHandler does not seem to be working properly -- see the second through seventh files at Commons:Deletion_requests/2012/04/18 (C tsw.jpg through Taylor-child-57-Life.jpg). The deletion of the file is sometimes very slow -- minutes -- and the closing of the DR mostly does not happen -- I tried several times on each of the four that are still open, but the two Einstein DRs closed quickly. I'm using Firefox 12.0 and I have purged my cache and the server cache.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems with deletion

Looks like problems with deletions returned (like those in March (?)): deletions are slow, descriptions are deleted, but not files. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

See also COM:VP#Deletion not working? -- RE rillke questions? 15:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Special:WantedCategories empty ?

Special:WantedCategories empty ? --Foroa (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Not for me. -- RE rillke questions? 19:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Back indeed with "was last updated 20:19, 25 April 2012.". --Foroa (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Campaign editors user right

We have the Upload Wizard campaign editors user right (Commons:Upload Wizard campaign editors, Special:ListUsers/upwizcampeditors), but no process for assigning it. Please join in discussion at Commons_talk:Requests_for_rights#Upload_Wizard_campaign_editors. Rd232 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

File moves broken

Please, two file movers moved my files simultaneously and one of them moved them to a wrong address, creating duplicates and a little mess.

The file mover who did the right move tells me only and admin can fix this now.

Please see our conversation at User_talk:Jeff_G.#File_moves_broken for details and what needs to be fixed.

Thank you!

--Solstag (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is fixed now. Thanks to Logan over at IRC. --Solstag (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File replacement upon move

Sorry, this might not belong here (and I feel like I'm glitching :-), but I'll add on another recent move: File:S64-22331.jpg was moved to File:NASA spacecraft comparison.jpg by a non-admin, but I couldn't trace the request to CommonsDelinker after that. I see the image in en:NASA. When I point a mouse on it, I see text NASA spacecraft comparison.jpg, but when I edit the code, I see S64-22331.jpg. This all looks like some caching delay (refreshing/purging didn't change anything), and I have no issue with this, but I wonder, will this file disappear from local wikis after caching is sorted out? Materialscientist (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Same, and easier to follow example is ru:Шарипова,_Гульчачак_Табрисовна. I see a nice front image, which links me to File:Sharipova Gulchachak Tabrisovna.jpg, but the code shows File:Шарипорва Гульчачак Табрисовна.jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Both of these symptoms probably relate to the problem I've been having with the automatic move JavaScript not displaying progress / timing out using Opera Mini 7.0.29703. I'm going to refrain from doing moves of files that are in use until I get my laptop back from the shop.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be really nice if all global usage of file shortcuts were detected and resolved automatically on a continual basis.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Etiquette

Are editions like this or these allowed over here? --Andrea (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I mean, I know the user is blocked; I wanna know if you don´t delete them. It´s awfull go to a DR and find words like this, that´s why I´m asking. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate block log summaries

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3ATyciol

Can someone please RevDel the block log summaries by MBisanz? A similar block log summary by Ryan Postlethwaite was RevDel'led from enwiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3ATyciol

In addition, Tyciol disputes the claim that he was trolling Commons:

http://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=Talk:Tyciol&diff=369826&oldid=369824

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

 Comment The block log summary was oversighted on en-wiki (instead of revdelled). Trijnsteltalk 16:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I have RevDel the block comments. --PierreSelim (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate for me to request oversight as well? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
You can but I'm powerless and I'm not sure this board is the best way to reach an oversighter.--PierreSelim (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You may go to Commons:Oversight or Commons:Oversighters (why is double btw?) and email them (in private or via oversight-commons@lists.wikimedia.org. Trijnsteltalk 13:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't received any replies to the Email that I've sent to oversight-commons@lists.wikimedia.org yet. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Now that the issue is moot at RfA, is it time to adopt a rule against canvassing in RfAs? It appears that many of us object to it, particularly when it brings people to here to vote in elections that have little or no experience on Commons. WP:EN has a rule against it.

I propose adding the following to the introductory sentence at Commons:Administrators#Voting:

"Commons requirements for Administrators are different from those on other projects. Therefore, it is against our rules to ask for votes or to post notices elsewhere that someone is running for Administrator.
All WMF account holders are welcome to vote here, but votes coming from people who voted because they were asked to, or who read a notice on another project, will not be counted."

I have deliberately limited this to Admins, because I think that our 'crats, CUs, and Oversighters are much the same as other projects and there is much less of a problem with outside votes. I wouldn't object to including them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should import en:Template:Spa and adopt it for our purposes. I don't agree with the last sentence. The only !votes that should be discounted are !votes from users without any contributions to Commons or those with only a few contributions. I don't believe that users with many contributions should be penalized for learning about the RfA on a different project. The only person who should be penalized is the canvasser, especially if the canvasser is the candidate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I am also concerned and don't like it. But if a user doesn't canvass onwiki, we have no chance to prove it. Additionally, other people will weight in that Commons is a hoster for all kind of projects substantiating their eligibility.
Either we introduce a fixed, strict voting threshold or we can only appeal to one user's conscience. -- RE rillke questions? 19:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed with the people above. We could add a sentence about people voting here who aren't active on this project or aren't active anymore. In any case I think it's important that we'll do something against it as - indeed - most people are against it and at the moment the rules aren't complete now. Trijnsteltalk 19:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it's problematic to say votes won't be counted if they're "from people who voted because they were asked to, or who read a notice on another project". Better to have a general injunction against canvassing, but then complement it with a specific eligibility threshold, based on contributions to Commons. I'm not sure what the threshold should be, but that can be figured out. Also, non-eligible votes shouldn't be struck, but instead moved to a separate section, to emphasise that input from such editors can still be a very valid part of the RFA discussion process, even if they don't get a vote. Rd232 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Knowing how this works in other places, one might get shamed as canvassing or being outed as a single purpose account but little else. Is the intent for this to have potential for sanctions, or will it just be discouraged? To be honest I can't see sanctions happening unless disruption was incredibly blatant and aggressive. --Fæ (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Threshold maybe 100 edits on Commons? Do I remember correctly that WP:DE has a threshold? If so, what is it?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's on de:Wikipedia:Stimmberechtigung: At least 200 edits in article namespace and at least 50 of them in the last 12 months. The user was active since at least 2 months (date of first edit). -- RE rillke questions? 22:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
...but we can't just use those criteria without considering the importance of image uploads on Commons. Rd232 (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course. And those in Categories, Timed text, Creator, Template, ... everything that is content-related. I am not sure whether it is a good idea to include the Commons-namespace. -- RE rillke questions? 22:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Checking the number of edits to important namespaces sounds good. This ensures that only frequent Commons users decide who's going to be promoted. Disqualifying users from voting if they might have seen a notice on a different project sounds bad: that way, strong opponents and strong proponents could spam user talk pages on other projects to disqualify users with a "wrong" opinion. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we have to include Commons namespace, because constructive participation in DRs (or creating valid DRs in the first place) is certainly valuable and should count. I think the namespaces we could exclude are User and User talk - but even User talk is a problem, since it's the only place that valid nominations of obvious copyright violations for speedy deletion show up, and talking to people should count for something. Overall, maybe it's simpler to not bother with namespace qualifications, except for excluding the user's own userspace. Rd232 (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Discounting votes does open us to manipulation by people with agendas in place thats not only on Wiki but also with off wikiplaces. The second issue how can we establish that a user has actually read the notice because I edit on en.wiki does that mean if a user canvasses on en I'm not eligable to express my opinion, even on smaller wikis we have no way to establish a user actually read the notice. Yes we do serve the wider community and if that community has a reason to vote for a user then thats still valid. IMHO the way to address this is to raise the requirements for the candidate, as well as saying if a candidate canvasses thier own RFA it can be closed by a crat as failed irregardless of the %votes. That way we trust the people we've chosen to make these decisions to actually decide. For canvassing other people rfa's we just say that a "User found canvassing others users RFA's outside of Commons can be blocked for the duration of the rfa plus 7 days" the plus 7 days is to allow time for any decision making by crats. Gnangarra 01:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Per thoughts above, I suggest

  • 200 edits to Commons total, including 50 in the last 12 months. Edits to own userspace (user/user talk/subpages) are excluded.
  • 1 upload = 10 edits
  • Deleted uploads and contributions don't count.
  • Edits and uploads made during or in the 7 days before the voting starts are excluded.

Rd232 (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

We should notify the 'crats as they will have the hassle to check it ;-) before we're going on to set-up eligibility rules. Of course a script could assist them... but someone has to write (or copy from another wiki) it. -- RE rillke questions? 07:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
@Rd232: I feel that the threshold should be lower in order to prevent the Commons from being divided into first-class voters and second-class non-voters. I also feel that revisions and uploads made in the last sever days should count unless the revisions and uploads made in those sever day are the user's only contributions. Contributors who have finally reached the 200 revisions threshold shouldn't be forced to wait seven days in order to exercise their voting right, especially when it takes some people a long time to accumulate that many revisions. At the every least, allow those revisions and uploads make in those seven days count towards the "50 [revisions to Commons] in the last 12 months" unless the contributions from those seven days are the only contributions within the last twelve months. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Seriously whats happen here where has AGF gone, where has "anyone can edit" gone. Look if a person is canvassig then their RFA should be closed as failed, if another is doing it block them and let the crats make a decision thats why they get the big bucks :) forget about complicated formulas, even FP no longer welcomes new people if we keep this up we'll have the same scenario we do at FP where a select few are percieved as controlling what get promoted and what doesnt. Commons future lies in attracting new contributors not in building fiefdoms for a select few, we need new admins we need different perspectives we aint going to get this way. Gnangarra 12:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I am not eligible at de.wp but I don't feel unwelcome there. I am simply not involved enough there so I understand and accept it. Clear rules could be also a goal to achieve. I also don't expect being eligible to vote in Austria if I am not a citizen of Austria or for too less time. -- RE rillke questions? 17:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've only skimmed this thread, so apologies if I don't address everything head on. I favour a written prohibition against canvassing for RFA. I oppose eligibility metrics mainly because it adds a lot of work to a closure, without a big benefit IMO. If there is ever a sudden influx of new voters, I'd be happy for someone to note that in the discussion, and will certainly take it into account during the closure. --99of9 (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. Can we also define canvassing as someone going around and saying, "Vote for me! Vote for me!"? Simply mentioning a RfA or criticizing a candidate offsite shouldn't be considered canvassing. People shouldn't be punished for reporting on events or making a blog post. People shouldn't be punished for talking. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I also view that as potentially improper. The reason is that by choosing the location it is mentioned, a target audience is chosen. E.g. if it is mentioned on a home wikipedia, votes from that language wikipedia could swamp Commons opinions without actual consideration of whether the user would be a good Commons admin. Mention in a neutral Commons space (e.g. village pump / Admin noticeboard) would be ok by me, but even then preferably not by the candidate. --99of9 (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
If the users at the home wiki want to share their good and bad experiences that they had with the candidate, then they should be free to so. Such information would be useful here, especially if it concerns the abuse of admin powers on a different wiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing arbitrary section break

I agree with Michaeldsuarez on this, but I would go a bit farther: issues relevant to media, such as the candidate's understanding of copyright and where fair use of media is disallowed on WMF projects are directly relevant to adminship here.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One more botched move

File:Vail Hotel.jpg disappeared after renaming. Any hint on how to restore it? I've tried to delete/undelete it, but nothing changed, the corruption is deeper. When deleted and checked the image, I've got this:

"File not found. Although this PHP script (/w/index.php) exists, the file requested for output (mwstore://local-NFS/local-deleted/g/m/u/gmuljfst3zj75agx51m3vdpkt0296rs.jpg) does not." Materialscientist (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I wish our Software devs would fix these lost image software bugs instead of experimenting with new mediawiki software versions every three or four months. --Denniss (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I asked the uploader to reupload it at User talk:Denverjeffrey#File:Vail_Hotel.jpg and referenced this discussion.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The photo has been reuploaded with a better name, and this file description page has been deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vail Hotel.jpg. Thanks for your help.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Undo an upload

ResolvedHistory split done. Materialscientist (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A user has uploaded (probably by mistake) a new version of the following file File:Prim.jpg. This is causing problems at some wikipedia pages linked to the original image. Can someone undo the upload and assign a new name to the new image? --Jordiferrer (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit requests for protected template Not-PD-US-URAA

Resolvedboth edit requests have been fulfilled --15:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin take care of the two edit requests at Template talk:Not-PD-US-URAA? One of them has been waiting 4 months. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

category:SV98 history

May someone transfer from the old cat the history to the new cat? Thx--Sanandros (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not possible. --High Contrast (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Derzsi Elekes Andor

Derzsi Elekes Andor (talk · contribs)

Can you block this guy for a week, or until he starts communicating? He does not react to anything, uploads a lot of pictures and puts them into categories like 2012 and Budapest (nothing more specific), just because he made them in 2012 and in Budapest. It seems that he does not speak English. A lot of work to clean up after him... had multiple notificitaions in his native language (Hungarian) both here and on his huwiki talk too... just put this onto the notification: "Kérlek OLVASD EZT EL és reagálj rá a magyar Wikipédián!" . Thanks. --Vince (Talk) 08:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

does that really qualify for COM:BLOCK?--Trex2001 (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I would be hesitant to block when they are still essentially providing content -- it's just that they aren't categorising. Try again to open the lines of communication with them, and if still nothing, then come back and request more assistance from here. russavia (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done per russavia, I do not expect someone to get block because he doesn't use the "good categories" (tm). Contributions are not supposed to be perfect, and wiki allows anyone to correct or improve the categorization. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dude, have you read the date of my comment on his talkpage? I have repeated it a month later on his Hungarian wiki page. How long do I have to wait for him? A year? Hm? --Vince (Talk) 19:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

RebeccA F

can i upload this image to commons with given license https://www.flickr.com/photos/yeliel82/6792278643/in/photostream AdabowtheSecond (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks in COM:DR

I think this warrants intervention. Insults are never the correct response to a reasoned DR. Hekerui (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User warned.  ■ MMXX  talk 12:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Tayzar44 (talk · contribs)

Hello,

He/she seems to be a professional photographer from Myanmar (high quality photos from Canon 7D with EXIF data, also avalaible on the web with a smaller resolution). I think that an OTRS permission is needed. User is notified. Yann (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Uploads by Fcb1989 (talk · contribs)

Several uploads are already marked as copyvios. He's also blocked on de:wp for several copyright violations in articles. I'm assuming, that all of his uploads are copyright violations. --Felix Talk! 08:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

again: the spam-filter mysteries of Commons

Why is www.public-domain-image.com (with the http://) in the spam-filter? When I worked through the uploads of Feifei1114 (talk · contribs), who has a number of images from that site, and tried to add the corresponding deep-link, I (an admin) couldn't do so, while the uploader had been able to enter a functioning root-link to this website. --Túrelio (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this what you wanted to do? Bidgee (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Ähem, I don't really understand this edit. I bypassed the problem by entering the URL without the http://. What I wanted to criticize is the principle that a new user was able to enter an URL, while our spam-filter prevents even admins from legitimately (in such cases) doing the same. --Túrelio (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I think Túrelio didn't want to add it to the blacklist. Túrelio simply annoyed that he could not provide the link while copyvio tagging despite being an administrator. The user was able to add the links because he/she did it before it was added to the global blacklist. If I remember correctly, User:Tim Starling invented this extension. You may ask him. -- RE rillke questions? 15:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
It isn't on our spam-blacklist; it is on meta:Spam blacklist (global spam blacklist). But administrators should be definitely able to overwrite the blacklist on a case-by-case basis, so please weight into bugzilla:34928. -- RE rillke questions? 15:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

About Flickr upload bot

Hi, Flickr upload bot is broken since Friday, every time i try to upload a photograph from Flickr the same message appears : "An internal error has occured. Please try again later. We are sorry for the inconvenience". Is there a possibility to resolve the problem ? Cordially, Passionné d'architecture (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC).

The problem is now resolved. Well cordially, Passionné d'architecture (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC).

Please delete out of scope pictures

Special:Contributions/Veryready314 has been uploaded many page of book pages without source information, I think that we can delete those.--Motopark (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done by Russavia. --Túrelio (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Cemeteries and privacy rights

Regarding OTRS ticket 2012042710010061, which I will generally and anonymously describe here, there is a case where photos from a private cemetery--including headstones and other personally identifying details--are being objected to on privacy grounds. The photographs were taken freely, but violated the cemetery's privacy policy which explicitly prohibits unauthorized photography. Is there any reason we would not take down these photographs; do we have any legal or policy right to keep using them? The files are hosted on Commons and used in articles on Wikipedia. Thanks for your help. Ocaasi (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say that such images fall under the same policy as museums -- that is, that the rule is a non-copyright restriction, which we do not follow. The cemetery may have a cause of action against the photographer, but the images are OK for Commons, if both we have a license from the photographer and the objects photographed are either out of copyright or are in a jurisdiction where they fall under the FOP exception.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, personal identification issues are a matter for living people, not people who are in the cemetery. Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

http://news.gamme.com.tw/113647盜用File:Periodic-table.png的圖片

http://news.gamme.com.tw/113647的網站盜用File:Periodic-table.png,但是該網站未署名且網站的版權標示為"Copyright © 2009 www.Gamme.com.tw",很明顯該網站清侵犯本站的版權條款--林勇智 16:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh, using the work of a chinese wikipedia user and claiming their work? --Denniss (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
很多網站都是沒有標示這是林勇智做的,且沒有用CC-BY-SA標示該圖的版權狀況,甚至修圖之後沒有標示CC-BY-SA,參看Google結果--林勇智 16:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

CFD closure

Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/08/Category:Durham, England is now resolved and may be closed when someone has a moment. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --Ezarateesteban 01:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Was there any reason for deleting the category? The CFD proposed a disambiguation category. --rimshottalk 06:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

fixed Ezarateesteban 15:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Gay couple.jpg

Looks like there's been a overwrite. Can someone split history into 2 pics?

Gonioul (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You can do your request outthere Commons:History merging and splitting --PierreSelim (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Strange (and sad) that it took nearly 3 years until this blatant overwriting was detected. --Túrelio (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It was actually overwritten after having been replaced with an already existing version at File:Gay Couple Savv and Pueppi 02.jpg --Denniss (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, good research. --Túrelio (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

User Bellae artes and photo of the stadium

Today I've upload photo of stadium in Baku. I made this photo myself. User Bellae artes (talk · contribs) croped my photo and reuploaded this croped version. I'm not agree with this, but user Bellae artes don't wanna listen to me. I think this is vandalism. Please do something. --Interfase (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I let him/her a message. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Interfase (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you should try leaving a message with the user instead of jumping to the admin noticeboard. Also, so that you understand for future reference, releasing the rights of a photo to the public domain means that you do not have control over that photo any longer. You can not object and overturn someone's edits because the person is not 'listening to you'. If you have issue with people editing your photos, then I would suggest that you avoid releasing them to the public domain. Bellae artes (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

DR closure requested

Could an admin decide in the DR of File:Gents- Toilet -SignboardinHindi.jpg? Uploader is repeatedly confusing the DR by overwriting the file with completely different files. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the overwritten file to File:Gents- Toilet -SignboardinHindi (with arrow).jpg --Sreejith K (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Derzsi Elekes Andor round 2

See #User:Derzsi Elekes Andor above. Waiting since feb 27 to start communicating with me... FYI today is May 3. 3 month and five days now... dare to call me impatient :P everything is written there. --Vince (Talk) 07:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Same spam

Special:Contributions/QW8159fht and Special:Contributions/QW5159fht and Special:Contributions/QW6159fht and Special:Contributions/QW1159fht spam with same area. Please check.--Motopark (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

violation of cc-by-sa/GFDL

File:Earth Climate.gif is a rather shameless violation of the cc-by-sa/GFDL license of File:MeanMonthlyP.gif and File:MonthlyMeanT.gif. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.100.115.252 (talk • contribs) 3. Mai 2012, 00:19 Uhr (UTCTúrelio (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC))

I've corrected the author and source entries. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
But I think it shouldn't be PD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.100.115.252 (talk • contribs) 2012-05-02T22:46:07 (UTC)
Oops, corrected. --Túrelio (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The source is here http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/
Now this is just a plain lie. CC/GFDL is not good enough for Stanqo, it seems. Well, then maybe a permanent siteban will be. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Earth_Climate.gif&diff=prev&oldid=70587066 is well over the top. 92.100.100.91 19:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I see you are sort of interested in the anti-ACTA movement, Stanqo. Well, I am afraid you are not a real "pirate" (I happen to be sympathetic to them), you are just a despised untalented plagiarist, unable to contribute anything. I am so sorry for you. "Pirates" at least don't claim other people's work as their own.

Serious ban request

See above. 92.100.100.91 19:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

sorry, left a mess

I tried to upload my first sound file on May 3, 2012, and for some reason, couldn't get the process to its final stage.

  1. uploaded file Dither_demo.ogg
  2. page showed a broken icon (in the place, I suppose, of a loudspeaker) --Next
  3. filled license (own work) --Next
  4. filled in description of file --Next
  5. server froze.

Tried again, but could not get through.

The page appears on my My uploads list, but when I click on it, the server shows a message informing that there is no corresponding page.

Tried to create such a page, mistakenly creating a Dither demo page.

Please delete all. Possibly tell me what's wrong. PolBr (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted those two pages and saved the ogg file on my PC (just in case). It seems like you managed to upload the file, but not create the description page, which is why the file was showing in your uploads (and playing on my PC), but not in your contributions. This seems like a temporal server glitch, and the easiest way around is to try uploading again. Materialscientist (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Materialscientist, if you can remember the file name, you can create a file description page and then undelete the file. This works. Just did it on COM:VP#Corrupted files after upload. -- RE rillke questions? 22:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I can't be 100% sure, but as I recall, the "create" button was missing for that file and there was some error indication on the page (maybe I should try purging a few times). That said, I could undelete it now and create the file page at File:Dither demo.ogg. Materialscientist (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawing a deletion nomination

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ann Margret-publicity2.JPG Am I able to remove the tag or should an admin do it? Thanks, We hope (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You can do it yourself. Just be sure to tag the withdrawn deletion request page for deletion too -FASTILY (TALK) 23:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help--will do it myself in future, but just wanted to make sure I wasn't in the wrong. ;-) We hope (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Hrachiko

Hrachiko (talk · contribs) All of this users uploads on here and on Wikipedia are simple copyright violations (pasting text etc, but mainly just uploading images from the internet - all of them can be traced to other websites using Google Reverse Image Search, so I've tagged some for speedy deletion). JaJaWa (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

One Direction 54th Logies Awards

Photo: description page i asked the global photo graphics to freely license for usage on wikipedia they obliged and so i uploaded commons under creative commons share alike 2.0 and it was reviewed and approved by FlickrevieweR. They sent me a message a few days later saying they want it back as they are selling the photo to something for "exclusive rights" in response they deleted the photo from the flickr account and i removed the image from english wikipedia its global usage is massive though but i do not know what to do now is Wikipedia allowed to keep it anyway as they gave permission first or not?? AdabowtheSecond (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That's their problem. CC licences are perpetual and can't be repealed, so the image is still free for anyone to use. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AdabowtheSecond (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Gota01.svg

Two users, Zoram.hakaan and Jbarta, are talking about the license, I think that PD-shape applies here but I like to see the opinion of another admin --Ezarateesteban 01:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

When there are gradients I'm always very skeptical about calling it PD-shape. Killiondude (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Close Requested!

Could anuninvolved user close Commons:Village_pump#New_User_Right_Proposal:_Large_Uploads? The matter has been under discussion for nearly a month, has been advertised via watchlist notice, and appears to have attained a general consensus. Should be a pretty straightforward close. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 22:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Since large uploads (up to 500 MB are now possible for everyone, is this still required)? This sounds more like an act of unnecessary bureaucracy now.
BTW, you can close it yourself if the result is clear. Just check that everything went right (compare diffs to ensure there were no manipulations). -- RE rillke questions? 22:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Very much so, if you're uploading HD video. And ok, I'll close it shortly then. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Not quite relevant to this close request, but relevant to the topic: does the new upload limit imply Split files should be merged back into one (or re-uploaded rather than adding more degradation by reprocessing)? Also there are a number of Commons pages describing upload limits, perhaps they should transclude a value from somewhere so that they don't all need to be updated every time our technical capabilities improve. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe page shows "birth certificate" that is a fraud

I went to a page titled Marilyn Monroe as I have to do a psych assessment of a person from history or pop culture. I saw that they had a picture of her birth certificate. I did have the father that I had tracked down as the accurate person. They had the correct time, doctor, location and all of the pertinent information was correct. BUT if you look at when it wasn't certified, according too this birth certificate until October 24, 1955, some less than 7 years before her death. And even looking at the very bottom of the form you can read that the blank for had been revised on July 1, 1949. No state has ever used an official birth form for a certified COPY. It is generally a form from the state capital that shows the state seal and the pertinent birth record information. This picture shows a birth certificate for a woman born in 1926 written on a paper form that was revised in 1949 and completed in 1955. Everything smells of fraud for whoever submitted this as an actual record. The person who submitted this fake should not be allowed to include or make entries on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.247.226 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 7 May 2012‎ (UTC)

You don't give us a link, so I must assume you are talking about File:Marilyn Monroe Birth Certificate.jpg.
Most of what you say is not correct. The way that birth certificates are created has varied both over time and from state to state. Until the advent of easy copying, birth certificates were often not actual copies of an original document -- indeed, the official birth record might not even be in the form of a certificate, but was often simply an entry in a record book. The certificate was a document showing the details on the public record as copied out and certified by the local registrar of births. The date certified would always be the date on which the particular copy was produced. Therefore a perfectly valid birth certificate could easily be on a form that was revised long after the person was born. So there is nothing at all suspicious about the dates on the subject certificate.
It would be good if you were more certain of your facts before you accused a colleague of fraud -- a criminal offense. Aside from your not knowing how birth certificates are produced, a simple look at the source of this document would reveal that it came from an AP story -- you may be sure that the AP checked its authenticity before issuing the story. An apology to User:George Ho would be appropriate.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I think there is often a confusion about what a "certified copy of the birth record" ie a "birth certificate" is, I have ammended the image's description in line with the source which also only describes this as a "possible" certificate for Marilyn. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Broken tools

Hi guys. I am not sure when it exactly happend, but with some updates to MediaWiki over the last few months most of my tools broke:

  • the fine floater with deletion rationales, brought to me with my monobook.js, is gone – I used it some years (since 2007?) and have no idea where to fix it now
  • the "AutoDelete" tab is gone, no idea where to restore it (it is still checked in my preferences)
  • DelReqHandler: warning messages, timeouts (used it in Chrome for a long time before)
  • Instant Delete: gives wrong negatives ("deletion failed") after some initial deletions without these warnings
  • Nuke: does not process all chosen files
  • deleting itself is buggy, a part of the files are still displayed after deletion (despite log entry)

What tools do you use these days to delete a bunch of copyvios by one user or to work on maintenance categories? --Polarlys (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed AutoDelete (diff=70050593&oldid=69927545), it worked but I considered it being a security vulnerable. Foroa‎ reverted this (diff=70225315&oldid=70220964), but not completely.
DelReqHandler should work but the problem is slow deletion at the server side. I am intending to write a delete-API for JavaScript as well as an edit, move API that checks after timeout-errors whether the action was performed or not. If not, it will forward a success message instead of a timeout. We currently have a lot of timeout problems, as I can see on MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js/auto-errors (shown directly or indirectly The destination article already exists and is not a redirect to the source article happens if the user clicks retry).
There are already threads about slow deletion on COM:VP & archives. -- RE rillke questions? 09:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to protect possibility to create new page

Is it possible to protect possibility to create new page that will be shown in view, so that new user can't create new page and it will helps us a lot of and admins don't need to delete out of scope pages from Commons.--Motopark (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's technically possible to protect page creation. It should be also possible to prevent creating page creation by new users (we can use user account age & edit count) with abuse filter, if this is wanted. -- RE rillke questions? 08:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine, Can someone made this modifications.--Motopark (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This would mean disallowing new and anonymous users to create gallery-pages. Is this intended? We already have Special:AbuseFilter/16 that prevents creating pages in Gallery-namespace without a gallery. I think it would be helpful if you could list good new galleries vs. bad (deleted) new galleries to have some justification to restrict free editability. -- RE rillke questions? 10:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

[38]

Photography for vandalism. Кто понимает на русском всё поймёт. Статью с оскорблениями некоего человека трижды удаляли, но вандал сделал ещё и фото для этой статьи с оскорбительными комментариями. Who knows in Russian will understand. Article from the insults of a man three times removed, but still made ​​a vandal and a photo for this article from the offensive comments. (yes translate.google.)--178.65.87.166 08:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the image - copyright issues aside, its title and description are a blatant personal attack. Checking further. Materialscientist (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/offsite discussions

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Few words have been put in sitenotice, the original topic of discussion is closed, you may want to discuss other matters in another topic of this noticeboard or on COM:AN/U, regards. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/offsite discussions has been open about 3 weeks. My feeling is that when the month is up, the obvious conclusions from it will be disputed on the grounds of who has participated. Can we do a sitenotice to try and sharply increase the volume of participation? That way we might not end up with a horrible conflictual mess when the time comes to close it. Rd232 (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rd232, welcome back.
But this will look really strange which does not mean, I oppose: "Should Commons put forums and other sites not hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, inviting criticizing Commons and Wikipedia on its blacklist?" -- RE rillke questions? 10:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I support a notice as being worth a try. I agree with Rd232, at the moment the discussion seems both pointless and pointy. Any conclusion would be rejected as 90%+ of the participants appear to be there due to blatant canvassing on Wikipedocracy, and precious few of our more experienced contributors have taken part who are not known to support that particular off-wiki attack site by writing there. Presumably most committed Commonists are more focused on our joint mission rather than superficial dramah and though a sitenotice might be worth a punt, I have personal reservations as to whether it can make much of a difference. --Fæ (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I think most Commons contributors just haven't noticed the discussion. That's the case for most discussions not advertised via sitenotice, I think. Rd232 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I think most Commons contributors just don't want to be bothered with that kind of crap and drama. Me, for instance. It's sad that everyone can just behave like adults. Powers (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Thanks. Wording could be something like "There is a Request for Comment on how to handle offsite discussions about Commons issues. Please consider contributing." Rd232 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Sound like a good idea, especially if it'll dispel silly claims of illegitimacy. By "sitenotice", do you mean MediaWiki:Sitenotice or MediaWiki:Watchlist-details? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Watchlist-details is only shown to people who have set the interface to English at Special:Preferences. I'd recommend that you don't use it as other people won't see any notices. I see the notices at Special:Watchlist?uselang=en but not at Special:Watchlist. In fact, I've had to place MediaWiki:Watchlist-details on my watchlist in order to find out about new notices. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
If you would go to RfA and then translate MediaWiki:Watchlist-details to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details/sv and keep it up-to-date, you would have a notice :-) -- RE rillke questions? 14:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Michaeldsuarez, stop crying about censorship or calling an other contributor, who made a valid point, silly. Incivility will be blocked. If you want to address an issue, just do that.
These RfC-things are pretty new on Commons and, indeed some users prefer not to invest their time in reading all the background information. If I compare the voters there with those on FPC or RfA, I am indeed missing lots of users. Whether it was canvassed or not, I don't know and I am not inclined to investigate. -- RE rillke questions? 15:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I won't compromise my speech for the sake of "incivility". Feelings get hurt. That's reality, and I don't try to "block" reality. In addition, I called Fæ's comment, not Fæ himself, silly. I don't believe that Fæ's comment is valid. Fæ is implying that participants in the discussion aren't "committed" and don't care about Commons, its mission, or its future. It isn't "superficial" since certain users, including Fæ and yourself, wish to set a precedent for censorship and suppression via the blacklist. The RfC is actually a pretty significant discussion. I also reject Fæ's "90%+" comment. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
If you dispute the numbers, then by all means list out those writing there that have contributed to Wikipediocracy and those that have not so others can count them up for themselves. I dare say you are perfectly aware of who is who. As part of the same process, perhaps you could clarify who also contributes to other, well known, attack sites you are intimately familiar with. By the way, you seem to be reading an awful lot that is not actually contained in the words I have written. What I might be seen to imply is not necessarily what you are capable of inferring. --Fæ (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Users who are members of either the Wikipedia Review or Wikipediocracy are:
  • Alison
  • Carrite
  • Cla68
  • Delicious_carbuncle (didn't !vote)
  • Fred_the_Oyster
  • Jayen466
  • SB_Johnny (didn't !vote)
  • Mbz1
  • Michaeldsuarez
  • Ocracy_guy (I don't know which Wikipediocracy member this is)
  • Rd232
  • Thekohser
  • TungstenCarbide (didn't !vote)
Users who aren't members of either forum (to the best of my knowledge) are:
  • 99of9
  • Avenue
  • cmadler
  • Dcoetzee (has a WR account but only has four posts, and all of those posts were to threads about him)
  • Fæ
  • Herbythyme
  • Malcolm_Schosha (former WR member, hasn't posted since February 2011)
  • Nobody_Ent
  • PierreSelim
  • Rillke
  • Stefan4
  • Túrelio
  • Trycatch
  • Ymblanter
  • Wnt
  • とある白い猫 (didn't !vote)
That's a ratio of about 13:16, not 9:1. Disclaimer: "outing" didn't play any part in the creation of this list. This stuff can be verified via Google. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Michaeldsuarez, would you mind clarifying the title of that section to something like "Users who are or have been contributors to the Wikipedoa Review and/or Wikipediocracy"? Your current wording makes it sound like the users in that list are contributors to both, which is not true in every case. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Michaeldsuarez, why did you miss off Pieter Kuiper from your list? --Fæ (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
[39], [40] – My list predates Pieter Kuiper's comment by a few hours. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not helpful. Sometimes it's better to just ignore an adjective. Fae's request to count up who's contributed to Wikipediocracy is exactly why I want more input: hopefully enough that the issue is moot, by ensuring that Wikipediocracy contributors are vastly outnumbered, and the views of the wider Commons community reflected. Rd232 (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

So, are we agreed to add the text I proposed above to MediaWiki:Sitenotice? Rd232 (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Rd232 you are a known campaigner for people to use Wikipediocracy, even those with trusted status on Commons, to post their opinions or respond to the opinions of others about Wikimedia projects rather than deal with issues right here on the projects. It is not appropriate for you to be the one pushing to close the consensus on threads about Wikipediocracy on this noticeboard or in other related consensus discussions. Please hang back and leave closing or reformatting these discussions to others who are not as involved as you (or I for that matter, as a long term target of malicious off-wiki canvassing and false allegations) happen to be. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
If you don't like a hatting, just undo it: en:WP:BRD. Now, is there anything I can do to stop you lying about me (you are a known campaigner for people to use Wikipediocracy), or do I just have to sit here and take your constant attacks on me? Rd232 (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
You are a regular contributor to Wikipediocracy and have argued the case on Commons and Wikipedia as to why there is no need to request Wikimedians to make their involvement transparent or to declare a possible conflict of interest even when they are taking administrator actions with regard, say, to unblocking fellow Wikipediocracy contributors or even to be transparent about their actions or be required to explain their use of confidential information if they might be a Commons Oversighter and a Wikipediocracy Moderator at the same time. To take part in lobbying on this position over an extended period, across multiple discussions and across more than one Wikimedia project, makes you quite clearly a campaigner. Stating these facts is not an attack. Could you explain which of these points you think is lying? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The original lying part is that I have not once encouraged people to use Wikipediocracy, never mind campaigned for it. The new lying part is (i) that I've never said anything about use of confidential information by Wikipediocracy Moderators and (ii) oh I can't even be bothered, you're just not rational on this topic. Suffice to say that the only thing I'm campaigning against is censorship. Rd232 (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
"[...] if they might be a Commons Oversighter and a Wikipediocracy Moderator at the same time." - that's me you're talking about, Fæ. Why not come right out and say it? And if you've some sort of issue with my handling of confidential information on any of the WMF projects, feel free to provide evidence of mis-handling to the WMF, or shut up about it. I've ignored the last half-dozen of these 'oversighter' insinuations on your part, both here and on enwiki, but I'm getting a little tired of it. It's starting to look like you're just trying to damage my reputation by insinuating that I'm doing something wrong re. privacy-related information. Provide evidence of same, or shut up. I stick to the letter of the WMF privacy policy, and always have - Alison ❤ 23:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Alison, are you the only Oversighter in this position? I would not know either way. Would you be for, or against, openly declaring and explaining an interest each time you use your trusted status in any way for actions on behalf of, or on, the accounts that Wikipediocracy regular contributors might have on Wikimedia projects? By the way, telling me to "shut up" seems to run counter to the popular free speech and open debate justification for resorting to writing for Wikipediocracy. Just because I write here rather than off-wiki seems a poor reason to censor my questions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
It's posted right there on my userpage for all to see, and I'd link to the site, only I can't. Same on enwiki where the link is thankfully not censored. As to how many oversighters there are as mods; it's safe to say that I'm the only one given that I know who the other mods are. I will not be posting some inane disclaimer any time I use my trusted status, thanks all the same, as there's utterly no need to do so. Furthermore, I notice you completely ignored my questions above, and my exhortations to provide evidence of misuse. From this I can infer that there is none. And nobody is 'censoring' your questions, but I'm certainly calling you on your insinuations, which I consider to be offensive and completely unjustified here - Alison ❤ 23:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I have never made any allegations against you, thanks. Now, does your general user page note mean that you are committing to never using your trusted status for any Wikipediocracy contributor, particularly in light of you being a Moderator on that website and must take some responsibility for any allegations and outing material that may remain published there and the real damage or distress this may cause Wikimedians contributing to our projects? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I will use my trusted status, on any WMF project, as I see fit and in the best interests of the project and of the requestor. I don't care where they post, nor should I. To do otherwise would be unfairly biased and I have to view all these matters as objectively as I can (and I do). It's that simple. I don't know who contributes to WR or Wikipediocracy or ED or wherever else, nor should I care. If people like you keep on going around tarring them all with the troll-brush, they'll just go underground anyways, so nobody will know anyway. As to taking responsibility as a mod on certain sites, I'll ask does being an admin on WP or, say, Commons, mean one has to take responsibility for the postings of others there? - Alison ❤ 00:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I read that as a no. You are a Moderator on Wikipediocracy and you are not prepared to make any commitment to avoid taking on-wiki actions as a trusted user with regard to acting for or against your fellow members of that forum. Further, your are not prepared to make an open declaration of interest when this happens apart from a generic note on your user page. As for your responsibility as a moderator on Wikipediocracy, for material that outs, damages or makes unsupported allegations about Wikimedians active on our projects, I would expect the Moderators to take personal responsibility for such material remaining public and published as they have the ability to delete or remove from view such material at any time. Those with trusted status on Wikimedia projects must hold similar responsibility commensurate with their authority, for taking action or inaction for such material, particularly when complaints have been received. There remains a question of when your two roles are in conflict. For example, if I complain that harassing material posted to our projects should be removed as it invades my privacy, and you deal with my complaint, but I then find the same material popping up the next day on Wikipediocracy where you are a responsible Moderator, this gives you a serious ethical problem. Do you disagree? --Fæ (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
You can read it any way you like. I notice you've been side-stepping all my questions so far, though I've been as diligent as I can in answering yours. So - your turn! - Alison ❤ 06:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Ähem, Fæ, but this sitenote is only to attract some more internal input/participation to this rfc. As most or all Voldemortforum members did already comment in the first phase, the outcome can't hardly become worse with more input from our community. --Túrelio (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Precisely. I'm just going to go ahead and do it. Rd232 (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Too soon and too rash. Wouldn't using MediaWiki:Sitenotice instead of MediaWiki:Watchlist-details result in a sort of Streisand effect (i.e. people becoming curious about the websites that are being censored by the blacklist)? The sitenotice would increase Wikipediocracy's traffic and possibly create more Wikipediocracy users. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I doubt it would have any such effect. There is more likely to be a serious Streisand effect if Wikimedians with trusted status on this project make it "normal" to join the trolls and banned users who regularly out Wikimedians, launch off-site personal attacks, and prefer to take relevant issues first to Wikipediocracy and thereby force meaningful discussion to be on that website rather than on perfectly good communal village pumps and noticeboards right here; with the only inconvenience being that you might have to remain civil and perhaps avoid abusing someone as a f*gg*t (a favourite term of abuse from one of your own favourite websites, Michaeldsuarez, as declared on your Commons user page). --Fæ (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the hostile attitude here towards Wikipediocracy. Most of the contributors of that forum are dedicated towards addressing issues with WMF projects with the ultimate goal of making them better, more efficient, more responsible, more credible, and more useful. They are exactly the kind of contributors Commons should want involved in its administrative debates. Please check my Commons contributions. I have uploaded probably more than 100 images on Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) warships. Commons is now probably the most important repository of IJN images on the planet. Uploading those images was very time-consuming. Thus, I resent any implication from Fae or anyone else here that I or anyone else who also participates with Wikipediocracy is somehow adversely affecting any Commons' dicussions or RfCs. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Cla68, if (for example only, I am not in any way alleging you have personally indulged in such activities), you wanted to publish fellow Wikimedian's home phone numbers, family and friends details, home addresses, children's names and school details or make allegations against your fellow Commonists of fraud, incompetence, misuse of system tools, trading sexual favours, promoting paedophilia, or being a "pervert" or taking part in faggotry (an ED term), why would you not raise these matters on-wiki rather than doing so off-wiki in a non-transparent way and then be protected by our bizarre conventions that false allegations or sadistic outing can have no bearing on your continued good work on Commons? --Fæ (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Fear of being banned, to give an example from just now. People have raised matters on-commons repeatedly only to find themselves blocked - Alison ❤ 23:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Your example seems incredibly poor for someone with a sophisticated understanding of the issues. Fear of consequences for libel seems entirely sensible. One could always choose to put forward supportable facts rather than resort to unsupportable libel. --Fæ (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:T%C3%BArelio&diff=70976455&oldid=70898216 – It's a valid statement based on facts. The people here don't know the meaning of the word "libel". Screaming "libel" is simply a means of silencing others. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, if you can support your statements in a reasonable and verifiable way, then you have no reason to "fear" being banned here anyway. The hypothetical point being made is that why would you be "allowed" to libel a fellow Commonist off-wiki and not expect any repercussions here? --Fæ (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Why would you want to effect "repercussions" on people who criticize Commons in outside forums? You know what that sounds like, don't you? Cla68 (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Cla68 that is not my point. I said nothing about "criticize Commons", I said "libel a fellow Commonist". If you want to lambaste Commons off-wiki knock yourself out, if you accuse me of being a pervert and then post my professional profile, then that's personal. --Fæ (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Libel isn't any of Wikimedia's or Commons' business. Libel is a personal matter. Commons isn't here to settle your personal issues. Matters concerning libel should be settled in courts. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Hum. Settling things in the courts is of limited practicality even if both parties are in the same jurisdiction; on the internet, they're quite often not, which makes legal action virtually impossible for anyone less well-off than your average Russian billionaire. So let's not completely rule out whatever lesser measures may sometimes be appropriate. Rd232 (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This is all getting rather cumbersome. We have an RFC, this discussion here, previous threads across several other pages here and on Wikipedia, and so on. Lots of noise. The "travelling circus" (a phrase Fæ is fond of (diffs upon request!)) seems to be those with the odd fascination of discussing these specific third party websites ad nauseum. Killiondude (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Career Opportunities (song). Carrite (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Any disappearing files when renaming since fix was deployed?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T38440

Earlier a bug was reported about files disappearing during renames. We think it has been fixed. Are there any remaining issues? -- ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣

I haven't seen new reports about disappearing files on renames. We still suffer from disappearing/corrupted files on upload like here and images improperly working like here though. --Denniss (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Good images on a Flick blacklist

In reviewing some Flickr image listed at Category:Flickr images from blacklisted accounts reviewed by FlickreviewR, I saw three image File:Elias Sediqi Afghan National powerlifting.jpg, File:Fawad Ahmad Afghan National powerlifting.jpg and File:Khaleq Najifi, Afghan National powerlifting.jpg from the Flickr account ISAF Media] but the image are clearly attributed to U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Nestor Cruz which appear to make them official US Government public domain images. So are these actually good or bad images. Ww2censor (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for the USAF claim, except for information on Flickr? Has the Flickr user ever tried altering EXIF metadata? --Stefan4 (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
ISAF was blacklisted because they had images from other nation's ISAF members offered with US Government or other free license. I changed these three images to PD-USAF. --Denniss (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolve interwiki conflict

Could sb. please check my protected edit request on Template talk:User en-2#Wrong langlinks be-x-old. I solved the interwiki problem on all wikipedias yesterday and i don't want that it's mixed again by a bot reading wrong data from this commons template. Thanks. Merlissimo (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The interwikis are changed now, thank you for the notice. Greetings -- Ra'ike T C 16:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Special:DoubleRedirects backlog (restricted pages, nothing a non-admin-bot can do)

Could an admin please fix these javascript and fully protected pages' redirects?  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. I deleted all the redirects and fixed them on some user pages. Trijnsteltalk 15:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  15:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Allegation of libel

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Nothing actionable, there has been no legal threats. This discussion has and is going no where and there is no point in having it open. Bidgee (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, could an administrator (who does not write on Wikipediocracy) take a look at this diff and explain if allegations of libel against Commons contributors are supported on Commons? If they are, then I assume any legal threat is allowed to intimidate editors. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The comment wasn't addressed to you, and includes I wasn't "trying to intimidate Fae" and Can we stop the silliness now?. Whether the claim is untrue isn't something we need to adjudicate like a court of law - but we do need to recognise that there is no threat here. Please don't import en.wp's ridiculous "any mention of legal issues is a legal threat" attitude. Rd232 (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
As requested, could I have an opinion from an administrator who does not write on Wikipediocracy as this involves the owner of Wikipediocracy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you should set up your own website - wikipediocracyreview.com perhaps. I'm sure you'd fill it with lots of content very quickly! You could even set up a forum and enjoy taking responsibility for anything anyone ever says on it. Rd232 (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally - you're raising "allegations of libel" but repeating something you've been repeatedly told is untrue (Gregory Kohs does not "own" Wikipediocracy). Interesting approach. Rd232 (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
As requested, could I have an opinion from an administrator who does not write on Wikipediocracy as this involves the owner of Wikipediocracy as anyone who checks the website registration can confirm. --Fæ (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Registration of a domain name is not the same as owning a website. I've registered a number of domains for collectively run sites because somebody had to, without being the "owner". Rd232 (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Rd232, it's quite clear Fae is looking for someone he does not see as having a conflict of interest, so kindly butt out when asked. It does sound to me like Thekohser called Fae a "faggot", from what he has said he clearly meant to call Fae that, even if just as a joke, so I would think the libel accusation is rather false, since for something to be libellous it has to be untrue. I have proposed an NLT thing here, but it has generally been ignored since we deal with copyright violations, and those are legal threats... -mattbuck (Talk) 22:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
My comment (and subsequent discussion) didn't preclude anyone else from commenting, as you've just proven. As for arguing about whether making a fairly subtle (I missed it until it was pointed out, and I wasn't the only one) allusion to an insult is the same as explicitly expressing that insult such that it's acceptable to declare without qualification that "I was called [insult]"... sure, let's do that. Rd232 (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
On the general point of NLT policy, Commons should be careful to avoid the path that English Wikipedia has gone down where mentioning a legal issue is considered to be a legal threat, and an admin with no understanding of the law can block them. English Wikipedia pretends that 'legal threat' is a bright line that nobody should cross, however that line is not bright like w:WP:3RR - it requires an understanding of law and maturity to understand peoples comments and their intentions. The result of the English Wikipedia policy is hamfisted conversations, users pretending to be harassed/threatened and administrators interpreting the policy to allow them to block at will even if both parties are able to continue discussing the issues at hand without going near a court of law, and have no intention of going near a court of law. We regularly talk about copyright violations and other user problems, which are legal issues, and it is best that we continue to talk about such issues plainly. If we are to have a policy about legal threats, it should be very clear that someone must threaten legal action, as opposed to merely discussing actions in a way that indicates there is a legally actionable problem involved. Saying an image or piece of text is a copyright violation is not an intention to sue. Saying a comment is libelous is not an intention to sue. Saying a persons actions are harassment is not an intention to sue. Even saying 'That is illegal' is not an intention to report the matter to the authorities, as often the person saying it does not understand the law, and the authorities have no interest in investigating minor offenses of dubious significance. I would go further and draw a distinction between reporting a problem to the authorities, and letting them decided what to do, vs a Wikimedian stating that they intend to initiate a civil suit. If someone says on COM:AN that they are going to murder someone at the stroke of midnight, we should not have a policy which prevents us reporting it to the authorities who can deal with the problem. Only in the latter case of a civil suit is the Wikimedian threatening to pursuing the matter. Let people talk plainly, sort out their problems if possible, tell them to use email rather than post in public, and block them if they descend into useless inflammatory discussion, personal attacks or state that they are going to take the matter to an actual court of law. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I asked for opinions from non-Wikipediocracy contributors for obvious reasons of direct conflict of interest. --Fæ (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you replying to me Fae? John Vandenberg (chat) 23:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC) (if not, please move your comment and delete my question)
Yes, am I mistaking Wikipedia Review for Wikipediocracy? If you have never posted on Gregory Kohs' forum, my apologies. --Fæ (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, you were indirectly accusing me of having a "direct conflict of interest", by way of association (see w:Association fallacy and w:Ad hominem), and without even any proof of said association. Fae doth protest too much, methinks. Grow up mate. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I asked for an opinion from an administrator who does not write on Wikipediocracy. Several times. Thanks for your advice on me growing up, I assume that is somehow different that telling me to push off? --Fæ (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with John Vandenberg on this, time to move on Fæ. Bidgee (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Fae, I have not posted on Wikipediocracy until just now, after my comment above. So, your indirect insinuation that my comment above is less valid is a) false, and b) not valid (see w:Association fallacy and w:Ad hominem). I appreciate that you've had a rough time, but reacting immaturely is not helpful, and you are demeaning yourself and sadly also demeaning Wiki UK by association (and note here that such association is actually appropriate, because a) you are a registered Trustee of said association, and b) the association is the opposite of the way you use association - a persons actions taint opinions of the organisation - in civilised society they do not taint opinions of everyone else in that organisation). John Vandenberg (chat) 00:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
If you want to offer advice to Wikimedia UK, this is not the right forum. Please write to the Chief Executive, Jon Davies. You have his address I understand. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

To summarise the facts. I have been called a faggot on Wikipediocracy by a Commons contributor, using a pun on my name. When I mention this fact on Commons I am accused of libel by the same person. When I ask for administrator review I am effectively told to push off by people who are defending the right to link to my being called a faggot, a Nazi and a pervert on Wikipediocracy. Are we really happy with the community we are creating on Commons, where legal threats to intimidate our contributors are defended by trusted users and links to personal abuse intended to intimidate our contributors are defended by trusted users? --Fæ (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the Nazi issue on that page, and I could not see anyone saying you were a nazi. The closest I can find was Michaeldsuarez saying "Newbies aren't welcome to speak out openly; no immigrants allowed :(", and he was chastised for that. You mentioned Nazi a few times. If some called you a nazi, please let me know. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
and link to the diffs. Bidgee (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It is on Wikipediocracy as stated more than once above. The same site that people are arguing to link to. Why would you reply before taking a moment to read my statement? --Fæ (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
We don't need to link to Wikipediocracy to see personal abuse: whenever you and this topic collide, there it appears. Incidentally, if you're not too busy seeing threats where there aren't any and attacking everyone who's not willing to nuke Wikipediocracy from orbit, you might want to look at the new {{Offsite discussion link}} and Commons:Offsite discussion. Between those and the RFC and sitenotice, I've done a damned sight more to try and resolve this issue than you have. Rd232 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I am referring to a direct claim of libel. Several times I have asked for opinions that are not yours. What part of Conflict of Interest is it that is not clear to you? --Fæ (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Out of scope user pages

We will have plenty of new users that at first they add some out of scope story to his userpage. Can we add some counter to new user that at first user must upload x pieces of pictures and after that uploader can edit his userpage.--Motopark (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

While not 'Every contribution is valuable', most are. The out of scope story helps us understand them, and the information may mean we find a potential contributor who has knowledge, access and resources that we dont have. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a case-by-case thing. If something looks spammy, an attempt at a Wikipedia article (some people get lost), or a copyright violation it should probably be deleted. There are certain border cases that can be brought to DR or to a noticeboard like this. Killiondude (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Restore file?

Not sure how or where to ask this, but I'm an OTRS agent, and have received permission for File:Jen_Dziura_headshot.jpg. How do I arrange to have it restored, so I can add the permission?--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion requests or go on IRC and ask if a Commons admin is around on #wikimedia-otrs. --Fæ (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I asked on IRC, but no one around. Have to run out, so can't fill out that form now, but thanks for the link.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done russavia (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Russavia.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Fry1989 and Kacnepcku-Cp6uja

These two user continue with edit warring here and on the other projects despite the previous blocks. As I can be seen as involved as a Serbian user and admin, maybe somebody else can take a look and make a final decision. I don't know which version is correct and I believe that we can keep both of them and let people to decide which one they want to use. But, let's hear more opinions. micki 22:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Having both versions was the consensus the last time this came up, sorry I didn't mean to second guess you, but I've closed the DR as they are not exact duplicates. I've protected the files again, and asked Fry to try and work on something else.--KTo288 (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. This is not the first time that we have the situation like this. I tried to resolve it, but as we often have edit warring between Serbian, Croatian and other users about flags, maps, images and so on, I feel that it is better that some non-Serbian admin make a final decision. So thanks for help :) micki 17:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Back in February, an editor queried about the use of {{PD-Japan-exempt}} on Yen bank notes (thread). He received no response. Does this copyright tag also apply to currency? Based on a reading of the template, I'd say no. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

COM:VPC is probably a better place for this discussion. I'd say that {{PD-Japan-exempt}} doesn't apply to currency. However, I'd assume that {{PD-Japan-organization}} does apply to works made by the Bank of Japan, meaning that notes and coins issued before 1946 are free in both Japan and the United States. Thus, I suppose that lots of files in Category:PD-Japan-exempt need to be deleted, although one could argue around COM:TOO for some of the coins, e.g. File:100 Yen Vorderseite.jpg. The texts "100" and "
昭和42年
" can hardly be copyrightable. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I also agree that it doesn't apply to currency. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Close RfC?

I'd appreciate it if a sufficiently uninvolved admin could close Commons:Requests for comment/offsite discussions, which is likely at this point to generate more heat than light, in light of the intense feelings and long feuds surrounding Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy. There is most likely no action to take, since the original addition of the sites to the blacklist has already been reverted as lacking clear consensus. Please have a look. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I havent commented in the RFC as I've been travelling I'm willing to close it but there is discussion on the talk page Commons_talk:Requests_for_comment/offsite_discussions#Can_we_wrap_this_up_now.3F about waiting until 7 days after the site notice was post which is the 17th May. Gnangarra 05:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Update I closed a number of proposals where discussion has gone stagnent, there are a couple of proposals that are active or have only been up for less than 7 days these I left open and will continue to monitor until they too go quiet.Gnangarra 12:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for involved administrators to be transparent about their actions

With Commons sysops queuing up to tell me to push off and grow up, I'm not sure my opinion counts for much on this noticeboard, however, I am glad that Dcoetzee understands why an independent administrator needs to close the RFC on offsite discussions, in particular not those with a track record supporting or contributing to Wikipedia Review or Wikipediocracy. I propose the following to make this clearer in the future.

I propose that an effective behavioural guideline apply to all Commons trusted users, equivalent to WP:INVOLVED, that no trusted user should use tools or apply sanctions where they may be seen to have a direct conflict of interest by the Commons community. If such behaviour is already expected, could someone point me in its direction? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's common sense and if someone is trusted, the community should have assessed the person's ability to distance themselves when making decisions before considering the person trusted in the first place. – Adrignola talk 12:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree it ought to be common sense. I'm not sure it is, and going through the painful de-sysop process for several administrators, just to provide sufficient case history, seems a brutal way to clarify policy. --Fæ (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree also. Can't see what could be painful though about status adjusting folks if they're obviously not trustworthy. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose At this time, since the location of the proposal, the thread title, and Fae being the proposer makes it crystal clear that the proposal is nothing more than a furtherance of his attempt to prevent anyone who has ever posted on certain websites from expressing an opinion on Commons. He is also evidently incapable of understanding what "conflict of interest" and "involved" means, so I'm not about to endorse putting that cudgel in his hands. Yes, there should be a discussion about some of "involved" guideline (has there never been one? I don't recall one, though I've mentioned the lack of a guideline a couple of times), but here and now is not the time. Rd232 (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment – en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive234#Requirement_for_declaring_an_interest_after_off-wiki_canvassing – There was a similar discussion on enwiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing that out. It's worth noting that (i) the en.wp proposal was also from Fae (ii) it was only 2 weeks ago (iii) the outcome was at best "no consensus", and could be considered "oppose". Rd232 (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Rd232, I think that in the past, it was you that pointed out that Commons is not Wikipedia. Please keep it in mind. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Fae, it's well established that actions of users on other projects may be taken into account when it speaks to a pattern of behaviour. Rd232 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The problem here is that you've reworded the key phrase at en:WP:INVOLVED from "have been involved" to "have a direct conflict of interest." This supports your well-known view that anyone who edits certain other websites has a conflict of interest to acting on pages/behavior discussed on that site, even if they have not been involved in, or expressed an opinion on, a given image/page on that site. MBisanz talk 15:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose and I reject the fundamental premise of your suggestion, that it is impossible for individuals to act in anything but a self serving/self interested manner. Many things go into making a community and one of those is trust, all the guidelines, directives, and committees in the world are as nothing if we begin from the premise that no one can be trusted. I trust our community to make a good choice with those we give the buttons to, I trust our admins to show the good judgement either stay away from things they cannot be impartial on, or to act as impartially guided by policy and consensus, and I trust that our community will call to account those who betray their trust without the need for second guessing every possible decision--KTo288 (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Poincare.jpg

I think this image deserves a standard "deletion request". Please restore it (and then propose it to deletion, but please let the discussion occur). --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 17:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

→ Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Poincare.jpg. -- RE rillke questions? 18:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Deletion request started. -- RE rillke questions? 18:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 22:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm getting a [77d23781] 2012-05-17 08:57:49: Fatal exception of type MWException each time I try to comment this DR. Not that it will change the face of the DR, but it's annoying :) --PierreSelim (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hama demonstration pictures

Hello all. This administrator insists to delete my files [41] [42], with the reason: "no permission". What I told him and he ignores totally again and again that there is a valid permission and right source provided for both of the pictures, but it is all that some people have disputed it without a good or obvious reason, but he simply deleted the files, and you can check the history to see the creative commons permission and the source provided for pictures. Thank you --Abbad_Dira (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC).

The image has a watermark. We can't be reasonably sure that the photograph taken from Flickr actually belongs to the user who uploaded on Flickr itself. See here for further details. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 06:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes we can, and this is the point which Mr. Fastily is not answering at all. Look here please [43], this is a search with google tool for the image in question. With the current exceptional conditions in Syria it is not possible to get any pictures for the protests from any way other than the internet, and the news agencies itself is very hardly getting pictures for the demonstrations, so how on earth could I get such a picture with this resolution in the current conditions if I didn't get it from its real author? --Abbad_Dira (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

Dinosaur extinction across wikis

See User_talk:Fastily#Dinosaurs - thousandshundreds of images were deleted from Commons and then from dozens of wikis by CommonsDelinker. As I understand, the uploader revoked CC license, and this triggered deletion. This does need resolution. For now, I've blocked CommonsDelinker on en.wiki and reverted some of its edits. Materialscientist (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Images have been restored, Delinker has stopped image replacement on all projects until this problem is fixed and the licensing has been fixed (since the uploader cannot revoke his license). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Matanya restored the images (log). It is unclear to me whether all images were restored, on Commons and local projects. I'm checking en.wiki and am not sure whether I should unblock Delinker there. I've tried not to block it at all, but got the impression it won't stop. Materialscientist (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
It won't perform any image replacing because of a template added on, but not sure if it affects local projects or not. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I've tried to unblock on en.wiki and failed - someone needs to reset the tasklist, or the bot keeps removing images deleted long ago. For the same reason, CommonsDelinker is currently blocked on it and nl wikis, which is quite bad - people want to move files on Commons, not knowing that they won't be replaced on these 3 wikis. Materialscientist (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I checked some other wikis (de, ru, ja and fr) and Delinker isn't blocked. However, it has a template on the commands page where it stops any kind of image replacement until the tag is removed. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
FYI see also User_talk:Siebrand#Commons_Delinker_is_deleting_links_to_existing_files_on_it.wiki -- Limulus (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I requested from Fastily repairing this situation on plwiki Bulwersator (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the images are restored on Commons, and the Delinker is stopped from replacing them, thus I would recommend editors from local wikis to go and revert dinosaur replacements by user:CommonsDelinker ASAP, before someone edits those pages - it took me minutes on en.wiki. Materialscientist (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit disappointing that after an administrator hastily deleted these, they let others clean up after them. --  Docu  at 07:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
There seem to be more problematic deletions by the same administrator. I made an undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Speedy_deletions_for_invalid_reasons. --  Docu  at 08:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
From looking at some of the deletions that have been asked for review, many of those Docu brought up have been renamed, had SVG issues or have questionable copyright claims. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Reverts will not work on Arabic Wikipedia, because we have currently an active bot for categorizing articles, so checking here [44] there is a revert button for only 18 out of 50 edits --Abbad_Dira (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC).
Ok, since number of images used on Arabic Wikipedia is small I have done it by myself, everything there have been reverted now, but I am also annoyed because that I had to clean by myself behind those who made the mistake --Abbad_Dira (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC).

I have blocked it in Wikispecies until this is fully resolved. Our project got hit pretty badly by this (over 150 pages were affected). Now rolling back all the damages caused. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Restarted the delinker so the queue should be empty. Please lift your blocks. Multichill (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Vero1984 uploads artist portraits with unclear permissions

Vero1984 (talk · contribs) has uploaded five portraits of Dutch artists with unclear permission. All were uploaded on top of pre-existing photos that had proper permissions. All of them have since been reverted, and one has been deleted. The remaining four should probably also be deleted: File:Jon Karthaus.jpg, File:Ewout Genemans.jpg, File:Vivienne-van-den-assem-en-froukje-jansen.jpg, File:Gordon 2009.jpg. AxelBoldt (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Files deleted, and user warned. Thanks for reporting. Jafeluv (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_35&oldid=264577940"