Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 37

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

Are next screenshots free or copyvios ?

I'm not sure, are next screenshots free or copyvios Special:Contributions/Abrahamrap, thanks.--Motopark (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

DR notification template broken?

What the hell happened with the template that is inserted onto the uploader's talkpage when a regualr deletion request is filed? Look at the bottom of User talk:Wikiwatcher1; meaningless entries even without a link to the DR discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably reached the template inclusion limits ? He has almost 130 notifications of copyvios, permission missing etc. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Warn user: Special:Contributions/יעקב

The user above has been involved in an en-masse edit-war now for the past weeks, and deserves a note to be made to him/her about the importance of avoiding such conduct; besides, he/she constantly attempts to apply false categorization that clashes with our objective patterns, most notably trying to tag "Israel" at all sub-categories of the Palestinian Territories and thus doubling the country-association of these cats erroneosly. He/she will not accept the universal-wiki rule saying that once your edit has been undone by an editor you should not restore it prior to discussing it. He/she will furthermore not accept Wikimedia's conventions about the dis-association of the Palestinian territories to the State of Israel. Example here and here, Thanks, Orrlingtalk 20:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, let's punish all those who disagree with you. The West Bank is prima facia part of Israel, so they have changed the physical borders. The fact that other countries do not accept the West Bank as part of Israel is political reality, not physical. Control on the ground, assertions by nations, and acceptances by other nations don't always according; c.f. Western Sahara, Estonia (under the Soviet Union), Transnistra, etc. Saying that "they will not accept my point of view, which is obviously universal" doesn't encourage me to believe that you've actually tried to work out a compromise.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys and girls, this situation really limits the possibility of this place to run smoothly - the user in question (and possibly few others) has regretably – as it appears – not yet been enough put in place in concern with our long-lived categorizing conventions where universally (also across the wikis) areas outside the Green Line are not considered part of Israel and have never been so. It's not possible that we maintain selective rule, and enable edits that are contradictory to given political & physical realities sweepingly accepted by this educationally-orientated database. User is often being corrected and referred to the standard Wikimedia demarcations (e.x this one) and notwithstanding the widthwise "Israel"-tagging at the Palestinian territories-cats still recurrs. See conduct in above given examples. Edit Wars - all the more when performed in the dead of night with no discussion, no summary and no regard of the project's agreed geographical divisions - can not be welcome here. I don't see what a compromise has to do. Orrlingtalk 04:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

How come we should bear "Health in Israel" as parent to "Category:Health in the West Bank" ? Orrlingtalk 04:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
You keep asserting the project's agreed geographical divisions, but I've failed to see you link to them. Just because one map exists on Commons does not make that the standard Wikimedia demarcation, and--as is their right--I suspect the Farsi and Hebrew wikis have widely divergent views on the whole subject, despite being Wikimedia projects.
I find it notable that you did not point out that Category:Buildings in the Falkland Islands is a subcat of Category:Buildings in the United Kingdom, despite that fact that UK's military possession on the ground is most similar of all those cases to Israel's possession on the ground of the West Bank. The Taiwan and China example is also interesting, as it's the reverse of Israel situation; China has international recognition that it in some sense owns Taiwan, even if it has no control on the ground. If it's all about international recognition, Taiwan's categories should be a subset of China's. Each case is unique, and the compromises for that case is likewise going to be unique.--(talk) 06:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Prosfilaes; the Western Sahara example shows that the problems are mixed-up and not fully understood. As long as one defines and agrees nothing properly and specifically in one place, such as Commons:Category scheme Palestine and Israel in Category:Commons category schemes, while having dispersed discussions on the village pump, various user and category talk pages and edit summaries, you will keep running around like chickens without a head and we will never see peace in that area. --Foroa (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand. Are we supposed to live with a situation where categories speaking to themes and objects outside of Israel are listed as "xxx in Israel"? No, seriously, I mean, is this reflecting any objective reality or matter-of-fact idea that we want to identify with? Mustn't we by-definition adhere to exclusively accurate linkage? Does Wiki wish to seem like it agrees that Buildings in the West Bank are Buildings in Israel? Orrlingtalk 10:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Right; just because Israel mints the money, controls entry, writes the laws, doesn't mean that it reflects any objective reality at all. The West Bank is a de facto part of Israel, and I've read that pre-WWII nobody would have contested that fact. In any case, someone disagrees with you; instead of jumping on here, try and politely discuss it with יעקב or bring your polite discussion to the Village Pump or some other general place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hehe jesus.... 1. It's to be reminded that WWII ended 67 years ago; 2. There's no "discussion" here to bring, there's a system-level talk about a phenomenon of a pop-up user that disrupts the course of this project with patently unaccepted edits Orrlingtalk 13:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
"Pop-up user?" Special:Contributions/יעקב has been editing Commons Israel-related content since 2007, and has 9000 edits in commons. This hardly someone who just appeared and started changing everything without warning. MKFI (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the double classification the user has been doing is as good a way of addressing the messy reality as any. "X in West Bank" (en:West Bank) includes both things which are part of the "Palestinian territories" and things which are Israeli settlements which are not; and the whole West Bank has for a long time and still is under Israeli control/strong influence. So let it be in both categories, and let's just not interpret that as a political statement that the whole West Bank belongs to or is part of Israel, any more than "X in West Bank" being in "X in Palestinian territories" should be read as a political statement that the whole West Bank is under Palestinian control. Rd232 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't about making statements. English Wikipedia, which is Common's biggest end-user - followed by the vast majority of other language editions, regards the entire area east of the Green Line as a consolidated, unquestioned Palestinian territory. (including, of course, the stains of Israeli civil presence) The reality might be messy, that is true; but it is equally very simple, and there's nothing about "who controls" a territory at a given time - we don't catalog Religion in Iraq at Religion in the United States just to note that the latter has been controlling the entries of the former for a certain period. Allowing these subcats to be associated as part of Israel would be an anomaly that contradicts our educational goals and breaks the cross-wiki consistency as much as it is factually a false presentation of internationally agreed reality. Orrlingtalk 17:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
By saying things like ...regards the entire area east of the Green Line as a consolidated, unquestioned Palestinian territory. you are precisely making political statements. The fact on the ground is that substantial parts of that area are de facto (and de jure, from Israel's point of view, though not most of the world's) part of Israel, with Palestinians excluded from those areas by a range of legal and security measures. Describing those settlements as "Palestinian territory" is a political statement as to who should control the territory, not a factual statement as to who does. We can't ignore who does because of our view of who should (even if by some miracle we could achieve consensus on that). Rd232 (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I support Rd232 in having West Bank categories in both Israeli and Palestinian territories categories. Remember that our file categorisation system is the "primary way to organize and find files". Since, for example, Category:Schools in the West Bank contains also schools from Israeli settlements it should be possible for a user to find this category by moving down through the subcategories from Category:Education in Israel. While de jure Palestinian territories may not be part of Israel, actual Israeli topics that we have files for (buildings, people etc.) do extend into Palestinian territories. Removing West Bank categories from Israeli categories creates an unnecessary obstacle for our users when navigating the category tree. MKFI (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I like how MKFI put it - if we approach the issue of "how can people find things," the answer should be: categorize them so that both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine people can find them. That is, include in both categories to the degree workable. Perhaps it isn't "fair" to one or both sides, I'm sure I don't know or care about that. But accuracy isn't the primary purpose of the categorization system, anyway - it's helping people find things. And the fact that it allows an image repository to side-step a political issue is just a bonus. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well this approach is in all honesty surprising. I don't take it as obvious that we in the name of reflecting an illegal "de facto" condition will create & keep alive an imagined geographical status unknown to the international map, and it unpleasnantly feels like an attempt to abrogate the topic when asserted that my reference to the Wikimedia standard is "making political statements". Topically the arguments involving the Palestinians being excluded/absent at an area which then makes it a part of Israel illuminates a fundamental misunderstanding I think, as the attribution of a geographic entity to a given country is not made by the deliberation of who's there at the moment but yes - TO WHOM IT BELONGS according to the UN. Altogether the user is as a custom by using our categorization system creating direct links between files relating to the occupied area and the West Bank WITHOUT making the link to the Palestinian territories and is there inculcating a horizontal disacknowledgement of that area as an Arab area, and maintaining an ongoing edit-fight about it. Being pro-Palestine or pro-Israel ia a question as irrelevant to thingfinding as a dog-loving/hating would be to category:Dog breeds.
But fine. Tag the occupied territories as Israeli ones. Orrlingtalk 11:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And yet, as you note, Taiwan categories are not under Chinese categories. The attribution of a geographic entity to a given country has been made since the dawn of time by a combination of politics and reality; the creation of the UN does not suddenly mean that the reality factor got wiped off the map.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Maps of Palestine, and maps of Palestinian territories

I thought I would bring an example of the kind of problem these type of naming disagreements cause.

I was looking for some Area A, B, and C maps of the West Bank today because they are in the news. I need to put some maps here:

But it seems that many of the old Palestine maps are being mixed up with the maps of the Palestinian territories. The categories are completely screwed up. I created some of the categories long ago, and they made a lot more sense than they do now after people have been mixing up "Palestine" with "Palestinian territories". See the article en:Palestine for the various meanings over time.

See: Category:Maps of Palestine. It says

Maps of the region of Palestine before 1948.

Unfortunately, many maps of the Palestinian territories are now being mixed in randomly.

Here is the version as I left it in 2007:

Both versions are similar in terminology. But back then maps of the Palestinian territories were in separate categories, and not mixed up with maps of historic Palestine.

I suggest that on the Commons we continue to use "Palestinian territories" for those territories in the West Bank and Gaza. I suggest we continue to use "Palestine" to refer to the region. Otherwise we will have chaos. We can explain this on the category pages so that no one is offended or thinks that we are denying statehood to Palestine. See en:State of Palestine.

But we have to have a way to separate old and new maps.

For some reason some of the Area A, B, and C maps of the West Bank are found here:

This is messed up. The name is confusing. One of the parent categories is Category:SVG maps of Palestine. This is so totally unhelpful for finding anything. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussions concerning Palestine and Palestinian territories

Please see

Inactivity run Aug-Sep

It's been over six months since the last adminship inactivity run, so I felt it was time to start another one at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2012. I have already filled a de-adminship requests for those administrators that did not perform 5 admin actions in the past six months, and made my bot inform those administrators that have been inactive since the last run ended (example message). Thanks, odder (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Good work, thanks. Rd232 (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg

Could you find out what license the photo was released under? I would like to update the English Wikipedia version with the correct license. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA-2.5 -FASTILY (TALK) 09:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Question about category deletion

I can't figure out why Category:Flood was deleted. I would think that this would be a logical category redirect to Category:Floods, which Commons:Deletion policy#Categories seems to support. Should redirects like this not be created? Also, shouldn't an appropriate policy be pointed to in a deletion summary? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 19:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up this topic, JohnyMrNinja. As far as I see, the category was deleted because all its contents have been moved to a category with more proper (plural) name, and that's all. I agree with you, and have just placed a {{Category redirect}} template linking to Category:Floods. odder (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
And it was deleted again. Four times now, with different creators. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 17:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I have restored it. Foroa should not be repeatedly deleting this category, especially not with a redirect template on it. Powers (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Foroa deleting category redirects is the most consistent aspect of Commons you will ever find. That this is still an issue after so many years is amazing to me. Wknight94 talk 19:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Are there criteria that define under what conditions a reasonable category redirect should be deleted? I can't imaging them causing issues and they make using HotCat so much easier. But I don't want to start an edit war with an admin just because I don't understand how they want to run this wiki. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 02:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been proposals here and there but it seems like they always end in deadlock and I haven't paid attention in quite some time. Wknight94 talk 12:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any category redirect criteria. But maybe we can use them a little more liberally than we tend to. After all, we may not have bugzilla:3311 (automatic category redirects) resolved, but we have
So is the old prejudice against {{Category redirect}}, based AFAIK on landing files in bad categories where people can't easily find them, really still justified? Rd232 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Not IMHO. But good luck getting that past Foroa. Wknight94 talk 22:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
BTW, the latest discussion I know of was at Commons talk:Only use category redirects where necessary. Wknight94 talk 15:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:17-05-07 1415.jpg

Please close that request open since January. Thanks.Érico Wouters msg 04:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done SatuSuro (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Are these legitimate editions?

A, B.--2.136.155.60 12:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion problem

Could an Admin who is familiar with server issues take a look at this, please?

I deleted File:Dalquhandy farm roadend - geograph.org.uk - 459775.jpg per the DR on 11 August. If I click on the link, I see the image, but the pull down menu under the down arrow to the left of the search box starts with "Undelete" and it has "Create" to the left of the star, so it appears that the software thinks that it is "deleted", as far as we actually "delete" anything. Both Denniss and I have tried several times to delete it for good, with no result. Note also that the link to the file is blue.

And, yes, I have purged both the server and my own cache. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Denniss also tried to delete it - see User_talk:Denniss#Non-deletable_image. The answer is Bugzilla:39221; hopefully will be fixed in a day or two. Rd232 (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Happens sometimes. I fix such files with adding ?action=delete to the URL. --Martin H. (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC) ...and this not works here. --Martin H. (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Túrelio even tried to restored and delete the image again ^_^ --PierreSelim (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The next one was: File:Rcti 2.png. This time Martin's patch worked well. --Túrelio (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems that such deletion-failures are becoming the SOP on Commons: File:Johannes Schulze 1949.tif and File:Euerbach-006.JPG could only be deleted using Martin's patch. --Túrelio (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't completely understand the Bugzilla report, but I think it says that there are more than a million files that have the problem that is causing this, but that they should be repaired soon. Let's hope so. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

3 more patch-only-deleted files: File:Hacker watch.jpg, File:ReCAPTHA annoying protection.jpg, File:Forest HD wallpaper 2.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Martin's patch did it also in this case ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been able to delete File:Dalquhandy farm roadend - geograph.org.uk - 459775.jpg today (seems they fixed the permission on that file). Not sure if we still have files in inconsistent state. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Turku Art Museum Entrance hall & staircase.jpg seems to have the same problem. Jafeluv (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Temporary revert protection

Pls protect: 4 against 1. Logos der deutschen Bundesregierung:[1][2] (precaution). Discussion is here and here. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. And blocked User:Fry1989 for upload-warring. (Others participated too, and shouldn't have, but at least they only reverted once per file.) Rd232 (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Where was Fry warned for this ahead of time? What he was reverting was for the sake of the articles the images go into, not a measure of dick size. Not an edit war, reverting unhelpful edits.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you don't see the real situation. For enlightenment: between an edit war and a revert war is no distinction made (but I also do not understand what do you mean by that). He reverted against "4 other people" with no "clear comment" or clarification "his edited version". I / we go after a official reference and you called me POV (thats obviously why I call you a blind follower...)!? How unobjective (evasive) your both discussion style is can we see on his talk page. Your "Fry" does dull and obdurate crop and remove background automated with any graphics. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
A warning is not essential when the user is well aware of the blockability of edit warring, and engages in it regardless. Remember it's irrelevant in edit warring who is right, as long as everyone is acting in good faith (vandalism is excluded). Rd232 (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Tor Logos

Please can anybody with administrator rights move the deleted File:Tor_project_logo_hq.png into German Wikipedia? I don't know why, but on commons it doesn't seem possible to license it correctly with "public domain - no threshold of originality" + "trademark". It was deleted a few months ago, then we had a discussion, it was undeleted, now it is deleted again - it's only stupid. I don't want to discuss it again because in a few months there is maybe the next administrator doing stupid things... Please move it to German Wikipedia, we don't have any problems there with such license constructions. --Entzücklopädie (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not call others stupid, it really does nothing to help your case, granted this file were deleted with good reason. [3] -FASTILY (TALK) 08:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 Not done because I'm stupid and I do not have import rights on dewiki. Have a nice day clever guy. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a copy! I've uploaded it into German Wikipedia. --Entzücklopädie (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record: I have courtesy-deleted several obviously legitimate landscape photos such as File:Lípa v Dolní Stropnici (1).jpg (for the others see[4]) by User:Jednorožec on his request after he was threatened with legal action for allegedly taking photos from privately-owned land by the alleged land owner. Though there may be no legal base in Czech law for such a claim, the uploader could still suffer problems from a resolute plaintiff. I've therefore complied with his request, but strongly recommended to publicly discuss this case on :cs wikipedia, see User talk:Jednorožec. --Túrelio (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Can/should we log this at chillingeffects? Sven Manguard Wha? 15:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't know. But one problem is that the main communication was in Czech language, and another problem is that it seems that the legal threats, as I became aware only after after the deletions, were issued by another user, so not really from outside. Anyway, if you want to jump into, I would suggest direct communication with Jednorožec and the others from :cs who commented on his talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
FWiW, I handled an OTRS ticket (I can find the ticket number if it really matters to someone) on this issue earlier today. The landowner was adamant that the photos were a violation of his privacy. He did also mention copyright, but I suspect that was based more on a lack of understanding of copyright. I have no opinion on the validity of these views, but they were certainly strongly held. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

File:209618_207496752601970_4168145_o.jpg

Hi! Please (speedily) delete this redirect. It results from an upload by a wrong file name. But the file is already renamed now. Thank you very much, DocTaxon (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

read this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:209618_207496752601970_4168145_o.jpg
✓ Done Yann (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

File:4. This earth is a Flower-Prison in Potulice, 2000, acrylic paint on photography, 120x180cm.jpg

This file has been deleted recently as missing a permission, although it had a (a priori) valid OTRS ticket and an open deletion request. --Eusebius (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Additionally, you might have another issue: this case, if it is not isolated, shows that somebody is deleting files with missing info mechanically, without even looking at the file pages. --Eusebius (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I would even say that some files are deleted without real understanding of the issue. Yann (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests and Bot-archiving

Dear admin colleagues handling/working through deletion requests: please take note of the problems with bot archiving of certain types of deletion requests. I tried to improve the closure instructions but they may not have been recognized by all admins. Late July and early August DR (not counting numerous issues in previous months) are filled by closed request non-archivable by DRBot and I have neither time nor patience to go through all to fix or manually archive them.

Many non-archive issues could be prevented upon closing (verify proper first heading, remove subheadings) while Mass DR request always require manual archiving some time after closure. I'd like to encourage at least one or two admins to look after these issues and manually archive them. --Denniss (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Is User:Bryan still editing? If so, someone ought to ask him to provide a patch for his bot -FASTILY (TALK) 05:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete files in Category:CDC Vital Signs

Could someone delete the files in Category:CDC Vital Signs. I improperly named them.Smallman12q (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Use the rename template and we'll rename them. That makes more sense than uploading everything over again. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I've used the rename template on all the files.Smallman12q (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
ResolvedIt's been fixed by User:INeverCry.

Smallman12q (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Lacquered leather quiver Asian Art Museum SF 2006.3.629.JPG

I would like to get an opinion about a change made to several images, BrokenSphere originally uploaded this image and now has changed the text in the permissions area of the image and I want to know if this type of change is allowable. This editor has made the same changes to several other images as well. [revision history]

Here is the text when originally uploaded.

("Photo taken by User:BrokenSphere and released under the following license(s). You may use it for any purpose as long as you credit me and follow the terms of the license you choose. Example: © BrokenSphere / Wikimedia Commons If you use this image outside of the Wikimedia projects, please let me know. Where source attribution is required, you may link to this image page.")

And now.

("This file (photograph, motion picture, graphic or audio recording) was created by BrokenSphere. It is not in the public domain and use of this file outside of the licensing terms is a copyright violation. If you would like to use this image outside of the Wikimedia projects, I would appreciate it if you let me know by sending me an email or leaving a note on my talk page as a courtesy. If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the file, please contact me to negotiate licensing terms. Please credit authorship as follows: © BrokenSphere / Wikimedia Commons. Where source attribution is required, you may link to this file page.")

If some one can take a look at this and let me know I would appreciate it.samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be okay? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Because now the editor has given the impression that someone would need ("special permission to use, license, or purchase the file, please contact me to negotiate licensing terms.") there by implying that someone would need to pay for use of this image when that is not the case.samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the keyword there is special, meaning that if the permission given by the license isn't suitable for the reader, different terms could be negotiated. The wording is perhaps not the best, but certainly "allowable". —LX (talk, contribs) 21:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Example of typewriting - Linzensoep.gif

What has happend with the file Image:Linzensoep.gif??

The conclusion of nomination for deletion was "keep", see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Linzensoep.gif. The image appears to be deleted anyway in 2009. Why was that? Is it possible to restore it, or should I load another version (if possible, I must check whether I am able to make it again - my scanner appears missing). Elly (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Foroa tagged it for speedy deletion with the rationale: "Bad File ??" I have undeleted it because "Bad File ??" didn't make any sense to me. After doing so, however, I figured out what Foroa meant: the file cannot be thumbnailed because it is too large. If you could reduce the dimensions of the image by about 1.5x on each side (which would be 3888x2784), or save it in a more efficient file format than GIF (like PNG), that would be a big help. (Note that if you change the file format, it will need to be uploaded to a new filename; otherwise, you can simply re-upload over the current image.) Thanks! Powers (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I downscaled this, so that a thumbnail can be created. Yann (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both, very, very much. Maybe in future more examples of typewriting may appear on Commons. Most uploaders are too young I'm afraid to posess original typewriting (and as in this case - made by themselves) Elly (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan images

Can someone knowledgeable in Pakistan copyright (and to a lesser degree India and Iran) look at this thread over on en wiki: w:User_talk:Crisco_1492#Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah. Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 21:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Rename File:Pine Ford Lane proposed 171m v1a.svg

Please rename subject file to Pine Fork Lake proposed 171m v1a.svg. I made a glaringly obvious typo of the sort that only gets noticed just after uploading—I guarantee that it is a lake, not a lane. Thanks! Kbh3rd (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 06:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of South Africa (1932-2000).svg

To note to the community that I have undeleted the file File:Coat of Arms of South Africa (1932-2000).svg as it was being extensively used at English Wikisource, and there was no notification to that community of the discussion that the file was nominated for deletion, nor a notification that it was to be deleted. I believe that it is important that Administrators at Commons remember that Commons is supposedly central storage for all the sister projects, and that it is incumbent on them to undertake deletions with respect to these other projects. To those who say that they are busy and there is a lot to do, my response is "So? Your business, your … does not takes precedence over these communities?" If a decision is that due to copyright reasons that the file needs to be deleted, then there are templates in place, eg. {{Fair use delete}}, and a bot that are meant to be used to undertake these tasks to move the file to the local wiki in use, or contact a local admin at that site asking for them to organise the moving of the file.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As of right now, the fair use upload bot has been blocked on en.wp, so while I know the main focus is on Wikisource, it is one thing we must keep in mind. I have not looked at this deletion request, but from looking at this file, it is a trace of an JPEG file (ans that JPEG file was an altered scan that was original done by someone else). So the copyright is unknown. I think, for right now, we can use the older flag so there is some kind of image in place (or the base shield, of which we have an SVG for) and replace all usages of the SVG file. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, the Wikisource project doesn't allow fair use images ("All files should be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons except those strictly relevant only to the English Wikisource (such as local project logos, copyright-free image files or OTRS secured user photographs") and this image applies to none of that. I am replacing the file with one that is the shield and has no copyright issues, so the replacing is going to take some time. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyright had nothing to do with the deletion. Someone nominated it as "useless" or "bad quality", and it was deleted despite being in wide use. Should never have been deleted. It's not great, being pretty much an automatic vectorization, but something in actual use is in scope and should not (ever) be deleted (for non-copyright reasons, anyways). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Beyonce Knowles 2012 BET awards.jpg

Can someone please check if this image from Wikipedia is under a free license? I thought the image was a copyright violation but the user who uploaded it says its under a free license from the singer's official website. Oz91 (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

en:File:Beyonce Knowles 2012 BET awards.jpg is not hosted on this site (Wikimedia Commons), but on the English Wikipedia. The photo comes from http://media.beyonce.com/files/images/bet_awards_2012_02.jpg, and carries a clear "all rights reserved" copyright notice. I've no idea as to what would make en:User:Lolcakes25 believe that it's under any sort of free license or that it's okay for them to claim to be the author and copyright holder. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I have added en:Template:Db-f9 to the file information page, citing this page which clearly credits the photo to Getty Images. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

License

Can I upload from flickr to commons with this license, AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, NC- and/or ND-restricted material is not allowed on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks AdabowtheSecond (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Photos of books by Kafka

See Category:Books by Franz Kafka. This presents some interesting questions as Kafka died in 1924 but most of his work was not published until after his death. For works published prior to his death I'd expect PD-Old to apply (which is used in only one photo in that category I listed). But for works published after his death, does PD-OLD apply since it's well past the 70 year+ date or does the date of the photo apply? Please advise.PumpkinSky talk 22:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Kafka is a complicated case and there is no easy, all-encompassing answer for Commons purposes. Commons:Deletion requests/De Kafka Hungerkünstler (1924) (kept) and the statement by Dr Peter Hirtle (Cornell University) quoted there might be an interesting reading. In short, I think we can say: nearly everything by Kafka is now in the public domain nearly everywhere in the world (except maybe works/fragments first published lately, i.e. in the last 25 years or so, see en:Publication right), but whether a work is also in the public domain in the United States depends on the particular circumstances of publication, copyright notice (or lack thereof) and renewal of copyright (or lack thereof) of the work in question. As Kafka's works were out of copyright in the possible source countries on the URAA date (Kafka died in 1924 + 70 p.m.a. = protection lost January 1, 1995 - URAA date for Germany, Austra, and Czech Republic is January 1, 1996), URAA restoration doesn't apply in this case, but first publication of a work might have occurred in the U.S. or simultaneously, which complicates matters. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
P.S.: Oh, your question is about the book covers only. This is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do whatsoever with the status of Franz Kafka's works, I'm sorry. Kafka is not the creator of these covers. So, whether they're PD depends on questions of threshold of originality, date of death of the cover's creator etc. And if it's a photo which gains protection as a work of photography, it must be correctly licensed as such (e.g. the photographer of a PD book cover such as File:Kafka Ein Landarzt 1919.jpg has the right to license the photo using a free license of the photographer's choice). Gestumblindi (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Quite fascinating. Yes, I'm talking about the photos of the book covers. See "File:CountryDoctor.jpg" over on en wiki please. It's listed as Fair Use. Based on what you're telling me, Kurt Wolff published the book, he died in 1963, so the book cover is still non-free? PumpkinSky talk 23:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
No; what matters is not the date of death of the publisher, but of the cover's designer - if the cover is of sufficient originality to warrant copyright protection. In the case of your example en:File:CountryDoctor.jpg I would say that no, this cover is not copyrightable. So, IMHO there's no need for "fair use" but it could be uploaded to Commons as {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-text}} like e.g. this cover: File:A. E. Helbig, Anleitung zur Maßarbeit, Leipzig 1949, Buchdeckel.jpg. What still remains, however, is the possible copyright of the photographer, but I think this one is as near to a 2D reproduction (it may indeed be a mere scan), that additionally {{PD-scan}} should be applicable ("it is a mere mechanical scan or photocopy of a public domain original, or – from the available evidence – is so similar to such a scan or photocopy that no copyright protection can be expected to arise"). The resulting template to use would be formatted in this way: {{PD-scan|PD-ineligible}}. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah so! Danke sehr! PumpkinSky talk 00:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Juhan Liivi luuletused 2010.pdf

Besides renaming, please delete the older version of this file. I've marked it for undeletion in 2014. There isn't a tag to request deletion of only one version of the file, is it? Thanks in advance. Pikne 17:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 20:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Flag of Prague Karlín.svg

File:Flag of Prague Karlín.svg was merged to File:Flag of Prague 7.svg. The merging admin evidently was mistaken and believed that Prague-Karlín and Prague 7 are identic districts. It's not so. Karlín is not identic with Prague 7, Karlín is even not a part of Prague 7.

When two different areas or subjects have an identic flag, I prefer to upload the flags under two different file names. They should have different sources and different categorization. I'm not sure that a historic flag of Karlín is quite identic with the current flag of Prague 7. However, to question or confirm it should be a better way than to merge it with a flag of a different city district. --ŠJů (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dabney Hamner.jpg

Please close that request open since march. Thanks.Érico Wouters msg 22:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 22:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Unmarked fake manipulation

These two pictures File:6644-2Ab-orb.jpg & File:Sling_Microkini.jpg contain graphically faked "mikrokinis" photoshopped on nude women, but this is not marked in the picture description. I don't know if this is a relevant issue, but I think it should be put clear in the file description. In my eyes they also should not be in these categories, as the "clothing" is a fake. (BTW I am shure to have seen the second one without the 'fakekini' somewhere else on the net, but not on one of his own pages, therefore I doubt that the uploader is the owner of the copyrights, but I have no proof for this at hand.) --Trofobi (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems that both are copyvios anyway. Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Both deleted as copyvios. Yann (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Move request for 64 files in Category:Royal Armouries Ms. I.33

Someone uploaded 64 facsimile images of a medieval manuscript. I created Category:Royal Armouries Ms. I.33 for them.

Unfortunately, the filenames are undescriptive ("Folio 1r.jpg"), and even the page numbering is messed up (e.g. "Folio 6r.jpg" actually shows fol. 3v).

So could somebody move these 64 files to appropriate names? You should replace the "Folio" string with something descriptive, e.g. s/Folio/Ms_I-33_fol/ and you should fix the numbering. I have figured out the proper folio numbers here, as follows: 

File:Folio 1r.jpg| 01r
File:Folio 2r.jpg| 01v
File:Folio 3r.jpg| 02r
File:Folio 4r.jpg| 02v
File:Folio 5r.jpg| 03r
File:Folio 6r.jpg| 03v
File:Folio 7r.jpg| 04r
File:Folio 8r.jpg| 04v
File:Folio 9r.jpg| 05r
File:Folio 10r.jpg| 05v
File:Folio 11r.jpg| 06r
File:Folio 12r.jpg| 06v
File:Folio 13r.jpg| 07r
File:Folio 14r.jpg| 07v
File:Folio 15r.jpg| 08r
File:Folio 16r.jpg| 08v
File:Folio 17r.jpg| 09r
File:Folio 18r.jpg| 09v
File:Folio 19r.jpg| 10r
File:Folio 20r.jpg| 10v

(at this point, the uploader realised his mistake, and for fol. 11 and above, the verso numbering is ok, while the recto filename was given an additional '-' character) 

File:Folio 11r-.jpg| 11r
File:Folio 11v.jpg| 11v
File:Folio 12r-.jpg| 12r
File:Folio 12v.jpg| 12v
File:Folio 13r-.jpg| 13r
File:Folio 13v.jpg| 13v
File:Folio 14r-.jpg| 14r
File:Folio 14v.jpg| 14v
File:Folio 15r-.jpg| 15r
File:Folio 15v.jpg| 15v
File:Folio 16r-.jpg| 16r
File:Folio 16v.jpg| 16v
File:Folio 17r-.jpg| 17r
File:Folio 17v.jpg| 17v
File:Folio 18r-.jpg| 18r
File:Folio 18v.jpg| 18v
File:Folio 19r-.jpg| 19r
File:Folio 19v.jpg| 19v
File:Folio 20r-.jpg| 20r
File:Folio 20v.jpg| 20v

(fol. numbers 21 and above are correct as uploaded).

While looking into this, I also came across the unrelated File:Folio 1v.jpg which should be moved to somewhere descriptive, such as "Tres_Riches_Heures_fol_1v.jpg".

Thanks, --Dbachmann (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like, I could make you a filemover so that you can handle this. INeverCry 17:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:MGA73/Archive 33

Can anyone edit or delete this page? I get an edit conflict. --MGA73 (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. INeverCry 21:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Preferred automatic cleanup method for frequent test uploads?

Please see Commons:Village pump#Preferred automatic cleanup method for frequent test uploads?; all users are invited to comment -FASTILY (TALK) 00:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing a nomination

Hello. I request closing this nomination which opened since 10 March 2012. Thanks in advance.--Avocato (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why haven't you contributed to the discussion? --Leyo 16:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
We have a backlog of many thousands of DRs, which resulted from technical problems with deletions in the first part of the year. We are working on the backlog slowly but surely. Requesting closures out of sequence simply slows us down.
This was, however, an easy close, so I have done it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Licensing claims

An article contributed to by Rsandu currently is up for deletion at Articles for deletion/Constantin C. Roșescu. You might want to look over the licensing claim in Rsandu's Contributions. For example, it seems unlikely that Rsandu was the creator of the official WWII service record of Constantin C. Roșescu. Other uploads look like clippings from newspapers. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to put {{Delete}} tags on images that you believe are problems. Any user may do that and all users should do that when they see questionable files. Use the "Nominate for deletion" link in the Toolbox in the left column. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User ЭК Система

ЭК Система (talk · contribs) is ad-account for public use (ЭК Система company). He is uploading images as Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. If I'm right, person who is using account with name as company cannot upload images with such licence, as it's company's property. --Rambalac (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Very old CfD

Can someone please close Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/05/Category:Bridges in San Francisco? It's been sitting there for over a year. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing a nomination from February

File:Maslak kerembarut.jpg has been nominated for deletion since early February. Those who did comment think the nominator may have some issues with their logic, but the reason I think this got here was that the author posted a thumbnail of this image to a travel forum before uploading it to Wikipedia under their desired license. I'd like it resolved so that we could properly use it in a citywide montage. Thanks guys!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for taking care of this so fast!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg

I notice that the CommonsDelinker bot is removing from all(?) Wikipedias the links to File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg, which has been not only renamed but overwritten with radical alterations. The arguments that the rewriters and renamer have used to maintain either that the coat of arms of the Holy See is identical with that of Vatican City State or that the Holy See has no coat of arms but only an emblem have been based on what the discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard of the English Wikipedia considers unreliable sources. The action of the bot means that in every Wikipedia every instance of the image of what has hitherto been presented as the coat of arms of the Holy See is being replaced by a completely different image that is not a coat of arms and is possibly connected not with the Holy See but with Vatican City State. This seems an excessively drastic and a misleading action that is based on arbitrary actions of a few editors. I thought of waiting until tempers at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg had cooled before reverting the overwriting of this file, but even now it is already too late for me to do so, since the links that once led to an image of the coat of arms of the Holy See are now leading to a different image. So may I hand this problem over to the Admnistrators? I leave it to them to decide what, if anything, to do. Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that Bellae artes has since reverted to his own overwriting of the file that was previously called File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg and is now called File:Emblem of the Holy See.svg. The global links to this file once again show a coat of arms, not just an emblem, even if the name of the file they point to uses a wider term. It is of course possible that, when User:Fry1989's 3-day blocking for file reverting (see immediately below) is over, he will revert to his own rewriting of the file. I will postpone until things settle down any reverting by me to the form that the file had before being overwritten by Bellae artes and Fry1989, the correct form according to sources such as Donald Lindsay Galbreath, A Treatise on Ecclesiastical Heraldry (W. Heffer and Sons, 1930), which states that in the arms of the Holy See the gold key is in bend, not in bend sinister: "The colours of this coat have varied a good deal. The field is almost always red, occasionally blue. At first the keys are white, then comes a time when gold keys are found, and finally the present usage of placing a gold key in bend across a silver one in bend sinister slowly makes its way" (emphasis added). Perhaps no action is needed immediately other than deciding to keep an eye on it. Esoglou (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
After altering the image of a coat of arms in File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg to an emblem and having the file renamed as File:Emblem of the Holy See.svg (after which the CommonsDelinker bot globally made all links that were supposed to point to the coat of arms of the Holy See point instead to an emblem that is not a coat of arms), Flanker has now reverted the revert by Bellae artes. So once again the Wikipedias in all languages that had a link to File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg are now displaying as the coat of arms of the Holy See what is not a coat of arms at all but only an emblem! The discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg shows consensus neither for deleting the file of the image of the coat of arms of the Holy See (as Bellae artes proposed and Flanker and Fry1989 have opposed) nor for changing the image from a coat of arms to an emblem (as Flanker and Fry 1989 counter-proposed and Bellae artes and I have opposed). Yet all three have in turn unilaterally changed the image at least once and one of them has even changed the name of the file, while the discussion about the file continued. Surely, in those circumstances, the file should return to what it was when the discussion began and the changes by CommonsDelinker should be undone. Esoglou (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I am postponing for some more days any reverting by me. There seems to be hope that discussion may settle down both at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg‎, where there is consensus neither for deleting the file on the grounds that the Holy See's arms are instead identical with those of Vatican City State nor for altering and renaming it on the grounds that the Holy See has no coat of arms, and at en:Coats of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City, where it is demonstrated that the Holy See does have a coat of arms, distinct from that of Vatican City State. Esoglou (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I await the closing of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg‎. The sources cited at en:Coats of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City show that the Holy See does have a distinct coat of arms, not just an emblem. Esoglou (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have closed the deletion request as kept, as always when discussing accuracy most of the time it's only the description or filename that should be change. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. May I request someone with the necessary expertise and authority to restore the image and filename of File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg to how they were when discussion of the deletion request began? Esoglou (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

12,5 million pixel limit

File:Italy Army - 1984.png is there a chance to increase the pixel limit? Noclador (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you need such a high resolution for regular files. You can just downsize it, and keep the original for archive. Yann (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
at the current resolution the image is sharp, if I downsize it, the fonts and military symbols get all blurred. Noclador (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Normally COM:MAXTHUMB covers this - upload a smaller version with {{Compressed version}} and use that in Wikipedia. But in this case the image is simply too big (11k pixels wide) and too detailed to be usable directly in Wikipedia. You can make it small enough to render, but then you can't see anything. (Even if the 11k version did render, it would make the page scroll horizontally an enormous amount at full size.) So just provide it as an external link, I'd say, which people can click on and then on Commons use ZoomViewer on. Rd232 (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, will do so. thanks! Noclador (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Or you could create a pdf, as most pdf viewers include the ability to zoom. Delphi234 (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
So do most image viewers. I oppose making PDFs for anything but a paginated document; it's not the right tool for the job.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios

Would an admin mind deleting I guess all of the uploads from Special:Contributions/Bugaflee? After an OTRS ticket (2012083010000218), it is apparent that they are all copyvios. Thanks. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done All uploads deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Blurred image

Dear Sir or Madam: I wish to report a blurred image. The Jan van Huysum painting "Fruit Piece" image, from the Getty Museum, is blurry. I am hoping that you can correct this problem.

Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.216.206 (talk • contribs)

I supposed you mean File:Fruit Piece by Jan van Huysum, Getty Center.JPG. Sorry, no, we can't correct it. You may find another version here. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Newbies coming en-masse (Wiki Loves Monuments)

Hi all!
As you know, Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 has just started (or is going to start in a few hours' time depending on the country). Together with the contest, just like last year, there will be massive numbers of new users coming to Wikimedia Commons, uploading their photos for the competition and wanting to help Wikipedia (or maybe not their pictures, but willing to participate anyway).

It's been just around 18 hours since the start of the competition, and we have already witnessed some photos being wrongly deleted (I restored them, so no harm done here). So I would like to ask you to have a little bit more patience and a little bit more respect for the seven-days deletion rule in the coming 6 weeks. There will be lots and lots of new users coming to this project, and it would be a loss for the community in general if we'll lose them because of some hasty decisions and quick fingers. Thanks in advance :-) odder (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You have my support (as someone who works in the CSD pit a lot). Sven Manguard Wha? 15:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at Special:Contributions/Aavee. All photos are all tagged with {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2012|no}} and {{Monument Norge|Stavanger}}, probably as a result of using the Upload Wizard, but very few of the photos seems to contain actual cultural monuments (there are some panoramas in which there are probably several ones…), and they are not identified (a string argument to {{Monument Norge}} is incorrect), so I believe the tags should be removed. Secondly, all images are much too dark and looks like random tourist pics, with little metadata. Do we need to keep images like this and this, taken from a railway window? – Danmichaelo (δ) 10:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Scope query

At the risk of making the user unhappy anyone got views on whether these uploads are within scope (or even are not copvios)? Don't want to judge to quickly but... Txs --Herby talk thyme 15:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking some more - likely copyvios anyway I think. --Herby talk thyme 15:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
At least on :en I couldn't find an entry for Smilingeffect oder Smiling Effect. So, it seems to be out of scope, at least this amount of material. --Túrelio (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks out of scope, promotional. The source website says copyright 2012 as well. Any objections to a mass dr for all of these? INeverCry 16:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious contributor

Reanimator86 has a number of suspect copyvio files uploaded and needs investigation, please. One, File:Malus sylvestris map.jpg was a definite copyvio (from here) and I have deleted. Of others I'm suspicious due to a lack of EXIF data on many, and an eclectic mix of odd locations (e.g. File:Серая цапля в полете.jpg, shows an American species yet titled in cyrillic script - why??) and titles (e.g. File:Merops ornatus 02 08 08.jpg, actually Merops apiaster, but why was it named with the name of an Australian species??). Apart from the one I deleted, nothing definite, but it adds up to decidedly odd and worth investigating further. - MPF (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The uploads are so different that I indeed think most of them are copyvios. Some of the recent uploads with 500px size are most likely from flickr. But now comes the bad news: If you look in the categories of this insects you quickly come to other files uploaded by User:Anaxibia and User:Dynastes86. With the same problems. --Martin H. (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, its a little bit to obvious. Files such as File:Chalcosoma areal.jpg uploaded by Reanimator86 are included to ru.wp by User:Anaxibia. Many other files too. Likely Reanimator86 is a sockpuppet of Anaxibia. Using the checkuser tool I can say that User:Dynastes86 is a sockuppet of User:Anaxibia. The name "86" is another evidence that Reanimator86 belongs to this too. We need an ru.wp editor trying to sort this out with Anaxibia. Problems to talk about is the sockpuppet use and the copyvios. The copyvios mentioned on the user talk and the rest of all uploads: what is own work, what is copyvio. I.e. from Insectnet (I suspect File:Parides gundlachianus.jpg retouched with blue color from [5], File:Colias caucasica balcanica 2.jpg possibly from [6], etc.). --Martin H. (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Found another one: File:Черноголовый хохотун 02 08 08.jpg is from here (and copyright marked here), so I've deleted it - MPF (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You can find every single contribution by this user (User:Reanimator86 = User:Dynastes86 = User:Anaxibia) elsewhere on the web. This is all copyright violations. This user needs help to understand what he is not allowed to do, and the user needs to help us to remove the hundreds of copyvio uploads. If this not happens a mass deletion request is the only way I see. --Martin H. (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I added w:ru:Википедия:Запросы к администраторам#Участник:Anaxibia. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(nl.wp sysop needed) License check

Hello, could someone please check the original version of File:Schuba.jpg on nl for its license? It is given on commons as PD, but from the upload log copy-paste, it was initially GPL. Thanks.--141.84.69.20 00:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The original uploader added "GPL" after the "Permission" parameter, but he added a template similar to {{PD-own}} to the file description page at nl.wikipedia (see here for a complete copy of the content). Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Mathonius (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio by User:Aparhan

his contributions

The metadata on his photos shows that they have been through adobe photoshop, not a personal camera.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uyghur_girl_kashgar.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uyghur_man_tomak.jpg

He took the photos from this website and there is no evidence that they were photographed by him nor that he owns their copyright

http://www.uni-ulm.de/~bkuerban/resim/Uighur%20life/

He also falsely described this painting of Mehmud qeshqeri as his own, and now its nominated for deletion after the real source was discovered not to be in public domain- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mehmud-qeshqeri2.jpg

On wikipedia it turned out he was a sockpuppet of banned user Tirgil34, and he put the images he uploaded to commons on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aparhan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Greczia

Mendsetting (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Церковь 5.JPG

Could someone please move this file into File:Покровская церковь Подгорное 5.JPG with suppression of the redirect? I was able to rename four similar files (1 to 4), but somehow this one gives me an error. I suspect that there are some permissions I do not have as an admin. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to do this for you and get the error msg "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/0/0f/Церковь_5.JPG" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends" -- this is a tech issue that needs to be fixed. russavia (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this may be because it was somehow uploaded twice. Let us wait until a dev reacts, and if not, I will file a bug. Thanks for trying.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This sounds like bugzilla:39221. INeverCry 18:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Good, thanks. Will report there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, the bug was fixed, and I renamed the file. Thanks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Min.neel has uploaded dozens of thumbnail-size pics without adequate documentation. A couple (which I've already deleted) were clear copyvios; I suspect most or all of the rest are too. - MPF (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

They all look like they were grabbed off the internet. Time for a mass dr? INeverCry 00:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Done: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Min.neel. INeverCry 01:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

French-speaking admin required

See also: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Need help with user Yax3 and his imports and Commons:Village pump/Copyright#User Yax3.

Please could a French-speaking admin have a word with User:Yax3? Most uploads are marked as "own work", but many are at best derivatives, and at worst copyvios. At the very least the source descriptions need improvement, but I suspect a few need deletion too. --99of9 (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Is it acceptable that admin comments on deletion request, than makes decision (I encountered it here)? (I notified User:Jameslwoodward) Bulwersator (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I never close a DR that I opened, and as a general rule I avoid closing recent DRs where I have made a comment.
At the time I made the comment in the subject DR, it had been open for more than a month, so I could have closed it then perfectly routinely. I chose, instead, to comment. I don't understand how my choice to comment rather than close somehow then precludes my closing it five months later. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that the close was wrong, myself. If it is kept though, the attribution must be corrected. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I see no misbehaviour from Jim's side. I too do not decide DRs which I have opened/requested by myself. But making a comment ("vote") in a DR is not a "conflict of interest" for closure. --Túrelio (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment: "image (was) produced out of data received by SKY-MAP.ORG from the Space Telescope Science Institute. The source data is copyrighted" and "Commercial use of these data is prohibited without permission." [7]
A Copyrighted software was used to compile copyrighted data from a partially-managed Space Telescope. Therefore, this image needs a "Non-Commercial use only" template, if kept. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Problem, we cannot use images that are non-commercial use only. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Pine Fork Lake proposed 171m v1a.svg

Can this file please get moved to File:Pine Ford Lake proposed 171m v1a.svg? That's a typo in the name -- it should be "Ford", not "Fork", as correctly labeled in the image itself. No redirect is necessary; I'll adjust the two out-of-the-way places that currently reference the current wrong name. Thanks. Kbh3rd (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done renamed --Aa1bb2cc3dd4ee5 (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

In case of problems with WLM-uploads from the Philippines call ...

As I was notified by Wiki Loves Monuments Philippine project manager Namayan, in case of problems/doubts/suspicions/questions about recent WLM-related uploads from the Philippines, the page Commons talk:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in the Philippines can be used as a centralized talk page, as it is patrolled by members of this group. --Túrelio (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Mendicité_dans_un_tram.JPG

Hi, This file shows a error : [6eac101c] 2012-09-06 07:46:36: Fatal exception of type TimestampException. Could someone have a look ? Thanks. Regards. Lionel Allorge (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I tried a nulledit, a purge and deleted/undeleted the image now. Without success. No idea whats wrong.. sorry. --JuTa 08:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I created a bug report: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40043 Yann (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The same bug affects also the description pages of many other files uploaded by the same user (ex.: 1, 2, 3, etc.). The files themselves are fine ([8] and they display normally. It's the description pages that don't display. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Breisacher Munster Hochaltar (Detail).jpg

Ill tempered nomation at FPC. The nominator User:Taxiarchos228 has responded badly to any opposes. Ultimately, the nominator has been shown to be completely wrong about the importance of the figure cropped out the image and to hide his shame is now attempting to delete evidence-based comments that contradict him (see history). Suggest a stiff warning and a watch on the page to ensure edits are no longer removed. Colin (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

He has withdrawn the nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Very interesting that Colin is complaining about me although his behaviour gives reason to think about:
(1) As PierreSelim already said his commend came after I closed the candidature. After that nobody has to vote or comment something.
(2) His comment came after I has written a question on his discussion page (but before my withdraw). Instead of answering at his discussion page he placed needlessly his answer at the in the meantime withdrawed candidature and started in addition to that an editwar on my discussion page although I pleased him to keep the discussion on the page of beginning. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm quite aware the nomination was withdrawn. However, that doesn't automatically archive the discussion nor does it prevent editors defending themselves against accusations of ignorance. Taxiarchos228 claimed we were fools for thinking the (uncropped) image contained Christ. He was wrong and has now admitted such. Editors should be allowed the right to reply to such accusations and have their defence kept for the record. Taxiarchos228 has a cheek to claim others were editwarring when it was him who twice reverted a perfectly legitimate comment. I still await an apology. Colin (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
As long as you wont apologize your provocation and edit war as long you will not receive one. That this figure is Jesus is for interpreting of the importance of Mary irrelevant as I already explained. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Apologies don't work like that. It is amusing that your are now trying to argue that the figure of Jesus is "irrelevant" in a Christian alter that shows the Holy Trinity surrouding Mary. I'm wasting my time on this... Colin (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The big difference is: I am not arguing, the whole literature is arguing. But I guess here is the wrong page to argue about that. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm getting curious: Can you quote any sentence (from the 'whole litrature') that claims Christ to be irrelevant in an illustration showing the crownation of the Virgin? Because usually it's just him or the whole trinity corwning Marie.
Nevertheless: There is no excuse for deleting other people's posts! --Martin Kraft (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I consider the silence as a confession, that there is no such sentence?! --Martin Kraft (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Overwriting existing files

The RFC on approving Commons:Overwriting existing files has been open for getting on for a month. I'm not asking for a close now, but just wonder what will be needed for a close, in terms of time, support, translations. I know there's no definitive answer, but: thoughts, anyone? Rd232 (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

One month seems long enough. Fix a date, say one or two weeks more, make it known, then close it. Yann (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
OK. As lead author I can't do it BTW! Rd232 (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, promoting this to guideline status (seems the likely outcome...) would be an opportunity to drop Commons:Superseded images policy as official policy, since it seems defunct. (A note could be added to Commons:Overwriting existing files to clarify that the dropping doesn't mean superseded images are being deleted again.) Rd232 (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Messagews in userpages

see Special:Contributions/Miskazim edits, plenty of messages in userpages.--Motopark (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a week. Thanks for reporting. Yann (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

File:1893 virchand raghavji gandhi (VRG) chicago.jpg

The image appears to be a collage of content of other's works and not actually entirely the work of the individual who uploaded it. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Tagged with "no source". Thanks for reporting. Yann (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Countries by most used web browser.svg

Hello It is possible to remove the old versions of my file? --Peeperman (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Although there are certainly a lot of them, it could be convenient for someone to refer back to old ones. You might even pull out the versions for each January 1 year by year such as File:Countries by most used web browser - 2010-01-01.svg. Then we could clean up this version. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response! --Peeperman (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

can someone check

Before this come to Commons, can someone check presspicture, thanks.--Motopark (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Used in english [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nokia_Lumia_920_press_shot.jpg wikipedia.--Motopark (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Move request

File:Orontes II.jpg -> File:Orontes I.jpg

According to Metalwork & Engravings: Satrap Orontes, Gold, Obverse, Paris, Bibliotheque nationale, 362 B.C. The file should be moved to avoid descriptions like in Orontes infobox. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the "own work" claim. It looks suspiciously like the photo credited to the Bibliothèque nationale. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving & editing a request

Hello. Since I and my bot have been renamed (see confirmations: [9], [10]), I request moving this request to: «Commons:Bots/Requests/AvocatoBot». I also request editing it in order to be like that. Thanks in advance.--Avocato (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Forum1.jpg

Com someone please fix the miniature of this photo? It shows the wrong picture. /ℇsquilo 10:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Everything OK for me. It's a caching issue. Clear the cache of your browser and reload the page. Yann (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Ambientes y fauna de Zoologico de Caricuao Caracas - Venezuela 2.jpg

Hello, for some reason I'm unable to undelete this file: File:Ambientes y fauna de Zoologico de Caricuao Caracas - Venezuela 2.jpg (now a redirect, but the file history is still there). I couldn't even upload it again under a different name, I had to slightly crop it to bypass the error. Can someone please have a look on this and say if it's worth filing a bug at bugzilla? -- Darwin Ahoy! 22:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Systemic problem. See here. And, yes, it's already filed at Bugzilla since some time, but to no avail. --Túrelio (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Work of art licensing?

Happy to admit this is not my specialist subject but I came across this image. For me the licensing is not adequate - the uploader is not the artist, the work is recent and With Author's Permission seems inadequate? Would prefer to do agf when possible but... --Herby talk thyme 07:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In those cases it's best indeed to tag it with no permission, the sooner the best, so that the uploader is possibly still around and can fix it.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) --Herby talk thyme 07:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Any idea

Any idea of the meaning and purpose of Category:Vidya Daan ? --Foroa (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be the successor of Category:Gods Property and Category:Gods Domain and possibly relted to Category:Vidya (knowledge). --Túrelio (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted both Category:Vidya Daan and Category:Vidya (knowledge) as both not English and vastly too broad to be useful. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
You are citing a generalized not English policy for deleting categories in an International File Library (Commons). Being a Library that people all over the world uploads files to, and categorize them, there is bound to be lots of non-English categories. You need to increase your tolerance of other languages, or would you rather try to translate every category into English ? I would like to have these categories un-deleted. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Our English language category rule is designed to provide order to the fact that we serve 285 languages and cannot possibly maintain categories in all of them. Thus we have Category:Rome and Category:Munich even though that is not the native spelling of the cities. More to the point, though, is that a category named "Knowledge" is useless because it is far too broad and therefore does not serve to categorize -- arguably any file in Commons could be "Knowledge". .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. yes, arguably any file in Commons would be "Knowledge", but only files licensed with {{Vidya}} are put in Category:Vidya Daan.
  2. Vidya means knowledge, and the Category:Vidya (knowledge) is meant to categorize things about Vidya, like symbols of Vidya. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Vidya Daan is the unconditional sharing of knowledge. It's purpose is to categorize the files labeled with the Template:Vidya License. I would like this category reinstated. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Flickreview Question

Is it OK for me to add {{Flickrreview}} to an image that I uploaded? If not, would someone please do the honors and change the tag at File:Two Harbors Light Minnesota.jpg? Thanks, .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not considered good practice (it's actually prohibited now) so I fixed it. In the future, just leave them for the bot, or for others to deal with. It generally takes less than 48 hours. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Sven. Can you give me a link to the policy, please? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Richard-Stein-Nagamaki.gif

Can someone take a look at this File:Richard-Stein-Nagamaki.gif and see if it is properly licensed. I do not see were the original author has given permission to use it and on his web site it says> ("NO PART OF THIS WEBSITE MAY BE REPRODUCED OR COPIED IN WHOLE OR IN PART. Copyright 1994 - 2012") Richard Steins's web site Thanks samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted, thank you. A clear copyvio. In the future, when you run across this kind of thing, please tag it with {{Copyvio}} if you are sure it's a problem or {{Delete}} if you think it requires discussion. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Tippfehler bei Category-Erstellung

Ich bitte einen Admin um die Korrektur eines Tippfehlers: von "Category:Theodor-W.-Adorno-Preis)" in "Category:Theodor-W.-Adorno-Preis". dontworry (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Doch Ymblanter, ein admin war hierbei schon von Nöten, da dieser die alte unnütze Kategorie gelöscht hat. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete old file versions

I would like to request that the first two versions of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NotinREALITY_Chromium_Netbook.png be deleted. the first violated a copyright and the second was the wrong screenshot :D. All that needs to remain is the current version. NotinREALITY (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou :D NotinREALITY (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Yann

I'm bringing this here rather than COM:AN/U because a Commons admin who does not understand basics of copyright is a wider issue (here made worse by an unwillingness to seriously engage when questioned).

User:Yann closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mario Bros with Cube - Graffiti.JPG with the claim Graffiti is illegal, therefore no copyright. The argument is actually unproven that the illegality of graffiti prevents claim of copyright in the graffiti (see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Graffiti and {{Non-free graffiti}}). But this seems accepted on Commons and I'm willing to go along with it in the absence of any more evidence. More concerning is that the argument is irrelevant here: the DR nomination was on the basis of the graffiti being a derivative work of Nintendo's copyrighted Super Mario character. This copyright clearly does not disappear because someone has illegally graffitied the character somewhere. The graffiti artist is not the holder of the copyright of Mario, and the graffiti is therefore a copyright violation, and so is a photo of it.

When challenged at User_talk:Yann#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Mario_Bros_with_Cube_-_Graffiti.JPG, Yann brushed off my concern and asserted that the character was de minimis, and added this incorrect interpretation to COM:DM (here). The description and filename of File:Mario_Bros_with_Cube_-_Graffiti.JPG makes it crystal clear that the copyrighted element is central to the motivation for the taking of the photo; this is the opposite of de minimis. When I corrected this, he removed the example altogether.

Apart from the need to resolve this particular case, this incident for me raises serious doubts about whether Yann is competent enough in copyright to be making decisions about it as an admin. Comments please. Rd232 (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Struck, to be clear I no longer have those serious doubts. I would prefer further discussion on some specific issues mentioned below, however. Rd232 (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I must add that Yann's attitude in discussing this has been a concern, and this message to me only raises the concern. Rd232 (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Now when you don't like a decision, and you put a message on the AN? Not very sensible. I see that you are not able to accept that your PoV is wrong, and that your arguments are pointless. That show only a poor mentality.
Like I said on my talk page (did you read it?), it is certainly not allowed to tag this monument, therefore this graffiti is illegal. It is also de minimis in this case, the proof being that the image was edited to remove it. This file can be renamed if you think it is important.
I am a bit fed up with people trying to delete a file at any cost, resorting to pointless arguments, and not listening to other opinions. Yann (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Staying mellow seems to be getting lost somewhere. Firstly let's admit the fact that there can be no unambiguous understanding of copyright law where illegal graffiti in involved - always making these DRs messy - and we can also accept the point being made is not whether illegal graffiti should be interpreted as copyrighted, but the copyright that may exist for a free release photograph that includes a derived work copyrighted by Nintendo. Looking at the image in question, the deliberately highly pixelated original artistic graffito interpretation of Mario appears (to my eyes) to be less than 1/25 of the total image. You may argue against Yann's De minimis interpretation, but there is a perfectly good discussion to be had, and I find it hard to hold the view point that this proves that Yann might be incompetent to be an admin. I see no benefit in a lengthy argument on AN when there is no obvious action here or a serious pattern of behaviour that might lead to a forced de-adminship. Let's close this one with a recommendation that admins should set an example by trying to spend longer than 1 day (as the examples above appear to all be over the last 24 hours) persisting with mellow discussion rather than moving to mutually assured destruction. :-) --Fæ (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
@Yann, this is clearly NOT de minimis. This image is exclusively used in Mario-articles.[11] So, the copyrighted Mario figure is the only reason for the use of this image. --Túrelio (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
@Turelio - I think the interpretation here is less black and white. This photograph is actually of the sculpture in Quito, the graffito is a key part, but as part of the composition and the photograph could be used for an educational purpose of presenting the (vandalized) sculpture rather than just a discussion or article about Nintendo. I can directly compare with the example given in the DM policy of File:Louvre at night centered.jpg where the pyramid is central to the photograph, copyright and yet counted as DM even though it is used in many articles about the Pyramid rather than just the Louvre. In fact, I suggest that, the proportionate size and "importance" of the pyramid in the Louvre photograph is very, very similar to the graffito in the graffiti photograph of the modern sculpture; particularly as it is not the only graffito in that photograph.
Anyway, the key issue is whether Yann is incompetent, the discussion about this particular image should run on a re-opened DR, if anyone wishes to re-open it. --Fæ (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Fæ. If anyone feel reopening this DR, please do. Yann (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Done - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mario Bros with Cube - Graffiti.JPG. I was rather hoping you would reconsider your previous close after discussion, but clearly that's not happening. Rd232 (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, my concerns about competence arise from

  1. a failure to recognise, even when this was pointed out, that the illegality of the graffiti is irrelevant to the question of whether the graffiti violates Nintendo's copyright, and that therefore the photo is unacceptable
  2. a failure to understand de minimis. This failure may be sadly common, but it is not acceptable in admins (certainly not when they're closing DRs where it's a key issue). The violation of Nintendo's copyright is the primary motivation for the photo, as demonstrated by the file description given by the uploader ("There was this art/monument in Quito, Ecuador on Brazil Ave. at America Ave., which nobody understood what stood for, until someone painted Mario Bros and the question mark over it. Now it makes sense."), and the filename given by the uploader ("File:Mario Bros with Cube - Graffiti.JPG"). The copyrighted material is absolutely not incidental to the image ("look, here's a sculpture - someone's graffitied it, how annoying, I wish it wasn't in the photo"), it is the point of, and motivation for, the photo. The file is even in use on Wikipedia to illustrate Mario (de:Super Mario Bros. 3). This is about as far away from de minimis as it's possible to get. Rd232 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I think your view point on this policy is understood. However it is untrue that this is not "as far away from de minimis as it's possible to get", certainly using a claim of what the "primary motivation" for a photograph is interpretation rather than evidence, and it would be a very good idea to carefully evaluate interpretations of DM, or indeed motivation, in the re-opened DR rather than here. You have made a very serious accusation against Yann (a fellow administrator) of incompetence and thereby promoted a case for de-adminship on AN which you have based on evidence from less than 24 hours of relatively brief discussion rather than a sustained pattern of malfeasance or sustained incompetent behaviours by Yann. I doubt that in the long term you will be happy with your own actions in using this noticeboard to quickly escalate an argument, rather than trying methods for de-escalation, as you are setting a poor example of how administrators are expected to stay mellow that our community would be able to stand behind. This AN discussion can have no positive outcome, and instead just serves to create bad feeling without resolution. You were always at liberty to re-open the DR, you did not have to come to AN to take that reasonable action. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
You don't understand DM either - fine, but you're not an admin closing DRs. If I was promoting a case for de-adminship, I would be clear about that. For now, I'm hoping for Yann to start making it clear that he does understand basics like point 1 (which is more of a concern than DM, since not understanding derivative works is more fundamental and general). Rd232 (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Lashing out with accusations about my competence too, does not read well here. I think this discussion is done, and sadly, you seem to have learned very little about being mellow from the experience or taken on board my points about speedily escalating arguments in just 24 hours. Could someone close this thread? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not "lashing out" - you've chosen to involve yourself in discussion of an issue you appear not to understand (this failure is common, BTW); commenting on this is entirely reasonable. In doing so you've entirely focussed on one of the two issues I've raised (2., de minimis), ignoring the other (1., derivative works). As for accusations of not being "mellow" - the best evidence that I'm being perfectly mellow here is that I find these accusations puzzling rather than upsetting. Rd232 (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Haha! So everyone who does not agree with you is incompetent? Man, you are shooting yourself in the foot! For the details, see the DR. Your condescending and arrogant attitude is just disgusting.
Now take the broom, delete at least a few thousands files, and then you may come back giving lessons on copyright. Yann (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I have found Yann difficult at at times in the past. I disagree with some of his decisions, usually keeps that I would have deleted. On the other hand, in the last month I've had two serious disagreements with him that resulted in lengthy discussions where, in both cases, he (with help from others) changed my mind. The discussions had some significant subtleties -- Yann quoted persuasive case law in one, so I think his general competence on copyright is at least as good as mine or most of the rest of us. The discussions were serious, but by being carefully polite and speaking only to the issues and not to the competence of the people, we managed to resolve the issues (one keep, one delete) and remain polite -- I might even say cordial.
On the Mario case, though, I think Yann is wrong. The graffiti issue is completely off base. While our position is that an illegal graffiti artist has no copyright in his work, that does not mean that a graffiti picture of Donald Duck on a wall is OK for Commons -- it's still a DW of Donald Duck, doubly illegal. It is also clear to me that the image of Mario is not DM -- the file name, description, and use all make it clear that Mario is essential to the educational use of the file. It's not even a very good picture of the sculpture. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The DR is open to raise comments about the particular case for deletion. There certainly is a discussion to be had there about that image and interpretation of DM. I believe the issue being raised here on AN is whether the evidence presented by Rd232 of discussion over 24 hours, demonstrates that Yann has a significant and sustained pattern of incompetence on copyright, such that we should be discussing removing their bit as an admin. If that is not on the table, then this discussion has no value apart from duplicating what ought to be raised in the DR. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
@Fae, I don't see that Rd232 was calling for Yann's headadmin bit. He actually denied that in this discussion. Anyway, thank you for your efforts to calm this conflict down.
While I am with Rd232 in the triggering DR case, I am also convinced that he choose an inappropriate way to solve this disagreement. This may have been fueled in part by his direct interaction with Yann — I agree with Jim experiences. However, this unfortunate early escalation shows that we may need a recommendation or policy for calling a third opinion, similar to what several Wikipedias have, such as en:Wikipedia:Third opinion or de:Wikipedia:Dritte Meinung, to help solving the underlying factual disagreement and thereby preventing its escalation into a conflict between users. If there are no objections, I propose to close this thread. The creation of a Third-opinion recommendation/policy should be reserved for a separate thread, eventually on COM:VP. --Túrelio (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't sure what else to do, given Yann's response to me. 3O is worth considering - I've thought about that before. And to avoid the idea drifting away again, I've posted at Commons:Village_pump#Third_opinion_process. Rd232 (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Originally when I approached Yann about his closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mario Bros with Cube - Graffiti.JPG, which forgot the existence of Nintendo's copyright, I expected him to go "whoops! silly me :0 my mind was elsewhere. Here's how I'm fixing it..." Instead, he brushed off my concern, and in a day's discussion still hasn't clearly acknowledged that the original closure reason was ludicrously, disastrously, wrong. Instead he complicated and confused matters by throwing in a de minimis claim which clearly doesn't apply either. Perhaps the most likely explanation is that he just didn't want to admit to making a silly mistake (as we all do occasionally), but the result is that I'm wondering about his views on TOO and de minimis, which would never have happened if he'd responded as I expected. Going through some of the DRs he's been involved with (there are so many that choice is a bit random; some are recent, some come from Yann adding them to COM:TOO), many of these look doubtful to me (but I'm not saying "definitely wrong" in the way DM is definitely wrong for File:Mario Bros with Cube - Graffiti.JPG, there is room for interpretation).

DM

TOO

DM/TOO

If Yann is willing, this is the sort of situation Commons:Contributor feedback might be helpful, for feedback in a way that's intended to be constructive and helpful and non-judgemental. Rd232 (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Yann has a more inclusionist point of view than I do, particularly on French FOP. I'm the nom on at least one kept DR above and disagree strongly on File:La Defense dsc07138.jpg. However, several of the others above are close calls and certainly Yann is not the only one of our colleagues that disagrees with me on FOP from time to time. We need to remember that while we have hundreds of thousands of DRs among us, we are fundamentally amateurs trying to guess what a French judge might do in a particular situation with very little case law to guide us. I don't think any of the decisions above comes anywhere near a need for a de-admin discussion.
I feel strongly that having disagreements among us on particular images is a good thing -- it teaches us all and keeps us sharp and careful. One of us should probably hang a new {{Delete}} tag on File:La Defense dsc07138.jpg and a few others above and ensure that the discussion has several experienced opinions. (That's not to say that the three VKs in the discussion are inexperienced, they all have thousands of edits here). But I see no reason to treat Yann differently from me or other active Admins -- just use patience, politeness, and reason. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not asking for de-adminship, and never was (though I admit I hadn't ruled out that it might eventually come to that). Recent comments by Yann elsewhere make it clearer what he was thinking with the DR close I originally asked him about, and whilst I don't think he's right, it's a more normal "people disagreeing" thing than what I thought it was originally. There's some poor communication here sharply compounding disagreements. That said, I think this is the sort of situation where Commons:Contributor feedback would be a useful way to go here, and if we did that more often, we'd be more consistent in our decision-making. Rd232 (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I read your initial statement "this incident for me raises serious doubts about whether Yann is competent enough in copyright to be making decisions about it as an admin" as the start of such a de-admin request. I am happy to chalk this up to a communication problem and support any approach that avoids quickly escalating a heated disagreement like this to a noticeboard that has an scope for issues that require an "administrator's intervention" and instead somewhere more conducive to mediation. I repeat my request to close this thread. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Well I was hoping those doubts would be dispelled, and enough of them have been now (though I'd still like more discussion about the examples I listed above, preferably, with Yann's agreement, at Commons:Contributor feedback). Please stop asking for the thread to be closed - if someone had responded to your previous requests the situation would have been left less resolved than it is now (still less than 100%, but okayish). There's no need to shut down discussion here. Rd232 (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, though it is clearly off topic for this noticeboard as there is nothing here for an administrator to take action on. I note that as my opinion matches Túrelio's, I happen to be in good company and my view point can hardly be considered "fringe". I'll take this noticeboard off my watchlist for the time being so you are not pestered by unwelcome comments, as you took pains to point out, from someone who is not an admin. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "(Copyright) Protection does not, however, extend to the title or general theme for a cartoon or comic strip, the general idea or name for characters depicted, or their intangible attributes."[12]

Cartoon characters are trademarked to their creators, and Artwork of cartoon characters are copyrighted to their Artists. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Wow! Singling these DRs does not seem very fair to me. Why don't you take into account the much more numerous one I closed as "deleted"? And you also have to take into account the current practive (Category:France FOP cases/kept). To me, it looks like the beginning of a mild witch hunt. :( Yann (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I ignored the "deleted" ones because the issue is you being much too generous in applying copyright exceptions (keeping things which should be deleted). You didn't respond to my suggestion to move this discussion to Commons:Contributor feedback, which is very disappointing, as I wanted to discuss those cases with you with input from others. But I'll settle for awareness being raised that this is a contentious area, and that DRs in this area should not be too easily or quickly closed without sufficient discussion. Rd232 (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I am not sure what your objectives are here, that's why I didn't answer, although I didn't reject it. You seem to want to review my DRs because you think that I am too generous. Well, then I think that you are too restrictive. Let's agree to disagree. Anyway, you can always reopen a DR. Yann (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
        • The objective is to get more clarity and consistency, and maybe in the process to learn something. I think discussing these and maybe other examples, with input from others, could help improve the quality of decision-making on Commons. I would also prefer to set a precedent of admins being willing to discuss these things collaboratively when there are questions raised than being really resistant to having their views challenged. And just to be clear, I am open to the possibility of changing my mind, especially when presented with good evidence from law or real legal precedents. Rd232 (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to pursue this further, I am going to question your understanding of basic principles of law. In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boulogne-Billancourt Place Le Corbusier.jpg, you are making a new legislation. A copyright issue has to be decided as to when it occurs, not 50 years before, like any other law issue. That's the very basic principle of law everywhere in the world. Yann (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've responded there. You've misunderstood what I said. Rd232 (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Bot protecting English Wikipedia main page pictures

This bot seems to be down. I have no idea who runs it, but could the operator be notified? Also, File:Cobalt ray-tracing, high-end coffee tamper.jpg and File:Opening Liverpool and Manchester Railway.jpg remain unprotected. Thanks. --Rschen7754 17:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Bot or no bot, both files were fully protected (admin-only). --Túrelio (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please restore

Please restore:

The pictures are there, but the pages are deleted by an administrator (in good faith, the pictures looked broken in the beginning). --ArildV (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Any idea how to detect George Adam Smith ?

Any idea how to detect George Adam Smith and its redirects that links simply to en:wiki. ? --Foroa (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be several circular redirects in Special:DoubleRedirects; I corrected the first one. --Foroa (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleting the wrong file

I have uploaded a wrong file and I wanted the help of someone in deleting it. The name of the file is- Taj Mahal with it's reflection in water.JPG

Jayadevp13 (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Alfred Cheung.jpg

the above image was uploaded as a public domain image. however, it is supposedly from a magazine cover and the rest of the pages of the god-platform site all cary copyright notices on them and I could not find a release of this particular image, so the claim of public domain seems inaccurate. (i dont spend time at commons so will not be personally following up on this.)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked his IP on en.wiki.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Off for a month here --Denniss (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Denniss.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Protect Wikipedias logos

Please protect all the logos added in Change I3d0b738e: (bug 40285) Point Wikipedias logo to more up to date 2.0 version on Commons where available: they have to be deployed on those wikis. Platonides and Dereckson already did some (or most?) of them. --Nemo 04:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is the list of files to protect:
--PierreSelim (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done, just check if it's ok :) --PierreSelim (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a remark, could we have a bot to protect files from Category:Localized Wikipedia globe logos, v2 and have a bot run each time it's needed ? --PierreSelim (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please delete an image version

Hello,

I've made an error with this image:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bgh_Kapuzinergasse_234.jpg

Please delete the first version because of the perfectly readable license plate on it. The second (cropped) version is ok.

The image was taken by me a few hours ago.

Thanks in advance, --Blauer elephant (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done by Denniss. --Túrelio (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Images posted by Vicente9s (talk · contribs)

Hi, this user uploaded today a lot of drawings of characters from manga One Piece and is trying to put them on fr:WP. But this is clearly a copyright violation. Can someone delete them please? --Titlutin (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. Manga files nuked, user warned. INeverCry 00:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks --Titlutin (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Virchand gandhi quote prayer for world peace.jpg

i believe the above file was previously deleted under the following name File:1893 virchand raghavji gandhi (VRG) chicago.jpg as it appears to be a collage of other's works and not actually entirely the work of the individual who uploaded it. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's very similar, but not the same. Anyway, it's without a source. --Túrelio (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleting archived version of files

Hello all. A few days ago, I deleted some versions (20120703223915!Jan_Matejko_-_Zawieszenie_dzwonu_Zygmunta_na_wiezy_katedry_w_roku_1521_w_Krakowie.jpg and 20120909213502!Jan_Matejko_-_Zawieszenie_dzwonu_Zygmunta_na_wiezy_katedry_w_roku_1521_w_Krakowie.jpg ) of this file: File:Jan Matejko - Zawieszenie dzwonu Zygmunta na wiezy katedry w roku 1521 w Krakowie.jpg. Additionally I hidden them [13]. However these copyright violating versions can be still accessed using a direct link, like e.g. [14]. It was pointed out by the copyright owner that he would rather see his works deleted completely. Is it possible? Masur (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It is possible, but would require a developer to delete the two versions of the image directly from the database. For now, I have oversighted those two versions, and looks like they are no longer visible to the public. odder (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Still visible to me. Isn't it a major flaw in our setup, that CV versions are kept on the server? Masur (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please remove an uploaded photo

Please someone help me in removing this picture which I recently uploaded. The name of file is- Temple of Govind Dev.JPG I will be highly thankful if someone does so.

Jayadevp13 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing SNAFU

It seems that

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Broad_Headed_Skink.jpg was transferred to http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eumeces_laticeps_Skink.jpg
  2. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eumeces_laticeps_Skink.jpg was transferred to Commons as File:Eumeces laticeps Skink.jpg
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Broad_Headed_Skink.jpg was transferred to Commons as File:Broad Headed Skink.jpg
  4. File:Broad Headed Skink.jpg was deleted on Commons as a duplicate of File:Eumeces laticeps Skink.jpg.

In the process, the information about sourcing has been lost. Can someone with admin rights on English Wikipedia clarify the sourcing of the original file? Thanks, Rd232 (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The source given was http://www.nps.gov/rich/pphtml/photogallery.html and author "Un-named/unidentified NPS official". The licensing tag was {{PD-USGov-Interior-NPS}}. January (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thanks. 1 down, 1100 to go... (Category:PD tag needs updating). Rd232 (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Chris Brown Beautiful People Live 54th Grammy Awards.png

This image from Wikipedia is not under a free licence. Oz91 (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

True, it is used the under non-free content policy. --PierreSelim (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
But it is being used in the 'Live performances' section of the Beautiful People (Chris Brown song) article. Is that allowed? If I uploaded an image under non-free content policy for the infobox of the singer's main article, will that be allowed? No. Oz91 (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you ask this question on the English Wikipedia, here on Commons we try to deal only with free media (with the possible exception of Wikimedia logos) --PierreSelim (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I come here because I'm not sure where to go about this on Wikipedia. Oz91 (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The local village pump --PierreSelim (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions might be even better. --Avenue (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Patildada

Apparently every single image User:Patildada has contributed has been in violation of someone's copyright, usually quite egregiously so: the user finds images from the web, adds his own "© PATILDADA" watermark to them, and then uploads them here, claiming authorship. He has persisted in doing so, up to and including yesterday, despite a litany of warnings and explanations on his talk page. It seems unlikely this user will ever contribute constructively, so perhaps a preventative block would be in order. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done - File deleted and user blocked for 3 days.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Image of Yusuf Islam "wishing" for "death of Salman Rushdie"

File:Rushdie.jpg

On English Wikipedia, this image would violate the Biography of Living Persons policy. It is a donated work, of no apparent historical interest relevant to the controversy about (Cat Stevens) Islam's statements about Salman Rushdie. Why not delete it?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This may belong in a DR rather than here. Anyways, I agree that it should be deleted. The idea that Stevens called for or supported the fatwa on Rushdie's life is an interpretation by the media and others that has been denied many times by Stevens himself. According to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Moral issues, photos (or images I would assume) "that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject" are "unacceptable". I would say that the above image demeans Cat Stevens, especially since he's publicly denied ever supporting violence toward Rushdie or any call for his death. INeverCry 23:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
That's good that Commons has a policy with aims similar to En:WP's BLP.
On English Wikipedia, the editor has been indefinitely blocked, and his attack user-page deleted. I can take this to DR.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
We don't have a BLP policy here on Commons, as such, and it is always a touchy subject on the issue of satire and political commentary and the like here on Commons, because they are valid topics (COM:SCOPE). I am, however, doubtful that the uploader is the author of the piece. Who is "Shakepeare"? This looks like a previously published work, and a scan of it, to me. Definitely take it to COM:DR russavia (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Good advice. The attack cartoon is gone. It appears to have been a copyright violation of the work of John Shakespeare, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/cartoons

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't really an attack cartoon, but rather it was a newspaper cartoon on the controversy. If it was freely licenced, enwp's BLP policy wouldn't disallow its use, because it was published from the time of the controversy, and is of historical interest. Many editors come to Commons and make the mistake of arguing against "scope", instead of looking at the underlying copyright issues instead. That's a piece of advice for the future. russavia (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll remember your help and in particular this good advice. Thanks again!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

We hve finally gotten our backlog down to more or less manageable levels. In order to keep it that way, I propose streamlining the DR process.

As I understand it, our current process is to create:

The Log is filled with all the DR entries as they are made on 2012/09/12. All of these are transclusions -- only their titles actually appear in the Log. After midnight on that date, there should be no more additions and at that time the Archive is empty. DRBot goes through the Log from time to time and moves closed entries from there to the Archive. Since this does not happen instantaneously, it is often necessary to scroll through tens or hundreds of DRs in order to find open ones. For example, as I write this, the Log for May 2012 contains 99 entries and 3,600 lines of text, of which all but 14 are closed DRs.

I propose that we replace this process with a slightly different one. At midnight UTC every day, one of us, or a bot, would copy the entire Log for the just-ended day to the Archive. Then when a DR was closed, its entry could be immediately deleted from the Log, perhaps even by DelReqHandler as part of the closing process. This would mean that the next Admin to go through the Log would see only the open DRs and would not have to scroll past the closed ones, speeding his or her work.

Aside from the speed advantage, it also would give us better file integrity. While DRBot can (I hope) be trusted to write the Archive entry before deleting the Log entry, there is nothing to prevent an entry from being removed from the Log and having it disappear. While this would be obvious in the Log's History, given our volume, it is unlikely to be caught. The Archive could be protected so that this would be harder -- I assume that it could actually be protected against any change by anybody after creation -- the entries would be permanent.

The only disadvantage I see is that we would not routinely see closed DRs, which are often helpful in understanding the reasoning (or lack of it) used by our colleagues in their closures. I'm willing to give this up in order to avoid a lot of scrolling.

An alternative would be to have DRBot go through the Log hourly for the first day or two, then at least daily. This does not have the integrity advantages and is so obvious that I wonder why it has not already happened -- perhaps it is too much of a drain on system resources? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

So far I've gone through January, February, and March, and archived all the closed DRs. Denniss and I have done alot of this archiving of Mass DRs, which can only be archived manually. I don't mind doing this, and will probably get around to doing all of it by hand sooner or later if necessary. If there were a way to have the bot that archives DRs archive Mass DRs too, that might solve the problem. INeverCry 17:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Well done on getting the backlog down, everyone involved! I did notice it the other day and had been meaning to post a "wow, how'd that get done?" :) As to changes: these have been stymied in the past by the fact that User:DRBot is designed and maintained by User:Bryan, who hasn't edited since March 2011... A prerequisite for even minor changes to the bot's operation is someone taking it over. Rd232 (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I like the system en.wikipedia has in place with w:Wikipedia:Files for deletion and w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. It's easier to manage by bot, and does not require transclusions, hundreds of project pages, and designated archive pages. Just something to think about -FASTILY (TALK) 00:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Rename of File:Wojtek Wolski.png

Hello. Please rename this File:Wojtek Wolski.png. It is not Wojtek Wolski. This player is left handed (carries hockey stick at left hand) and wears a number 8 at the jersey. But the man at the photo is right handed and wears a number 18. I am sure, at the photo is really Brian Willsie (to see also here File:Brian Willsie.jpg). So please rename the photo f.E. to "Brian Willsie Colorado". Here the sources for that change: the game reports of October 28, 2009 - Colorado Avalanche vs. Calgary Flames ("18 WILLSIE, BRIAN"):

--Lowdown (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done renamed to File:Brian Willsie - Calgary 2009.png --Jarekt (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

file:yanki14.png

Look over there. Yanki14 (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What for?-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Resolved

Nonsensical deletion request

Could you please close this nomination for deletion, and speedy keep the photo ? Someone should tell the user that you don't nominate a picture for deletion just because you think that the person on it looks bad. Especially when it shows a person who has made a profession out of her unusual looks. It seems that the user has made another problematic request. It also looks suspiciously like this one. Thanks. JJ Georges (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done, speedy kept. I've seen some of the other DRs he opened yesterday, and they are indeed problematic. User seems to be mistaking out of scope with "looks ugly /I don't know what is this". He even nominated sculptures uploaded under Wiki Loves Monuments.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

New random deletion act by fastily

Again and again, the admin Fastily makes wrong random deletions, as always. Please check this deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by عباد ديرانية, I know that some files listed have issues and I expected they could be deleted, but almost half or third of the files were OTRS'ed, and I have given many proofs about the files licensing. But, of course, the Fastily deletion machine left nothing of them, maybe he didn't even read the discussion, and now the commons delinker will start removing them from Wikipedia articles. All Hama files should be restored immediately, and I doubt also that others should be deleted, note that the files listed are of several different sources and I got them by different ways, so they represent many independent cases --Abbad_Dira (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC).

  • It is clear that several users participated in the deletion discussion, and all but you argued that the files should be deleted. It is not obvious therefore what you mean by the "deletion machine" and why you write "as always". If some of the files were properly identified by OTRS, please ask to restore them.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

All those files were OTRS'ed, File File:تشييع مظاهرة المزة (Al-Mazzah funeral).jpg was taken from independent source and have no other versions. It is not true that "all but you argued that the files should be deleted", 4 users have joined the discussion if excepting the nominator, one said to keep, two neutral, and one said to delete --Abbad_Dira (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC).

So over and over you uploaded files you knew had issues and you expect the good faith you won't extend to Fastily? I think that's rather unfair.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You are the one who is expecting bad faith. I didn't upload files "over and over" as you claim, I knew about issues after I already uploaded the files, and I stopped uploading since then, know better before you judge. Second, there is no any reason to remove OTRS files, so please restore them immediately --Abbad_Dira (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC).
I did not look at all of them, but the none of the six I looked at have OTRS tags, so the deletion appears to be correct. No one can be certain who took these, so by our rules, they must be deleted.
On the larger issue, I agree that copyright law makes it very difficult, perhaps impossible, for protesters to upload images to Commons. That is very much too bad, but it is the way the law works and we should simply accept the fact that there are many images we cannot keep here. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? It is ticket#2012030410010061 to be sure. Look even here, one of the files was restored previously by an admin because of the OTRS permission, it is supposed this is the case for all of the files. Please check it again --Abbad_Dira (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC).
I have verified that this ticket exists. It contains a forwarded mail from a person signing himself as "Appointed representative of Hama revolution group" with a CC-BY-SA+GFDL release of the above mentioned photos. It looks genuine to me. However, the representative probably did not take those photos himself. He also did not claim to have been transfered the rights to release the photos on behalf of the photographers. Maybe it is even unknown who the photographers were? In such a case, I'm not sure that the photos can be hosted on Commons, unfortunately. Anyway, our OTRS agent did accept the release in April 2012. I'm not sure if Fastily was aware of the OTRS-ticket, but if he was, he should maybe have contacted the OTRS agent before enforcing the deletion. Nillerdk (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Again. It is not a good thing, but I do not see how we can use most protester's photographs. The protesters and the photographers, for excellent reasons, want to remain anonymous. While we will assume good faith if User:XYZ says "I took this image", it is another thing entirely to accept in good faith, "I am an appointed representative of ABC group. I am authorized by the group to license this image. The anonymous photographer authorized this."

The protesters are fighting for their lives and freedom and for the lives and freedom of their children. They will do anything to publicize their fight. That is entirely understandable and praiseworthy, but it makes it likely that anything said about the copyright status of the images is a lie. A good lie, a praiseworthy lie, but still not the truth. It is also likely that when the battles are over, hopefully soon, and democracy is in place, that the photographers will realize that they have valuable images for which they can claim copyright, and payment from all who have used them. This combination of likely lies and likely claims for damages makes it impossible for Commons to be sure of the status of any protest image.

This is unfortunate. It would be good if Commons had such images, but we keep only freely licensed images. We cannot keep images of architecture in France, sculpture in the USA, most modern art, and many other things. That is what makes us a reliable source of freely licensed images -- that we worry about such things. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

 Support. Eventually some of these images may be usable under fair-use on :en and other projects that have a similar exemption policy. --Túrelio (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
If that is the case, then we can transwiki them there without restoring them. As you probably know, Commons is not a place for possibly free files -FASTILY (TALK) 07:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Commons doesn't care about copyright (or even property): File:FLMM - Saddam's head 01.jpg is stolen (salvaged) from Tikrit. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.102.126 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No permission

copied from village pump.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that File:Afghanistan arms 1974-1978.svg is deleted. When I try to find the reason behind the delete. I get no farther than a general link to OTRS. I seems to me that a delete decision should be verifiable. Has the picture been uploaded without permission, the wrong licence? was it pending OTRS permission? etc. Privacy should respected, but I bit more information is needed, for the non-OTRS people.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted by the robo-admin. He ignored the fact that Commons:Deletion requests/Afghanistan coat of arm files is still open, but what else is new. He always deletes blindly without checking. Multichill (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Wil it be reversed? Are we ruled by robots?Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it will be, as I've closed the discussion accordingly. I'd also like to apologize on behalf of my colleague Multichill here for his silly, rude behavior; we actually don't encourage bad faith assumptions around here, or, for that matter personal attacks. He's always been a bit slow, so it's nothing new. Best, FASTILY (TALK) 20:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The reason probably means that the file was tagged as {{No permission since}} for 7 days. One could have linked COM:PERMISSION instead. Though indeed this doesn't explain how the deletion request could have been missed. This would probably gain appropriate attention at COM:AN. 88.196.241.249 11:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
It is very strange. The file had {{PD-Afghanistan}} license, while it was tagged with {{No permission since}} by User:FSII (aka User:Fastily) without notifying the author User:Antemister. Than after 7 days file was deleted by User:Fastily. I think that the {{PD-Afghanistan}} license was incorrect since the file was derived from File:Flag of Afghanistan (1974–1978).svg, using {{PD-user}} license. However that should not be reason for deletion. Other files like File:Afghanistan arms 1973-1974.svg seem to be in the same situation. --Jarekt (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I support the undeletion of all the files on that DR until this issue is sorted out. Fait accompli is one of the worst reasons to justify anything. They were deleted without due process and should be restored.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It is strange, now DR was closed as "delete" by User:Fastily. I do not think all the files needed to be deleted. See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Afghanistan_arms_1973-1974.svg. --Jarekt (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary redirect notice

Hi, Please check this image. There is an unnecessary redirect notice on localized Main Page, if viewer is not logged in. It is ugly and, creates a display clutter while clicking, commons link from other sites (g+, facebook etc). I think this is coming from some javascript, which I am not able to identify. It also creates totally unwanted precedence for English, while Commons is a multi-lingual project. Please help to remove that from atleast Malayalam Main Page.--Praveen:talk 06:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem to display [15] using Seamonkey but it appears with Internet Exploder (redir to german version of the main page). --Denniss (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: appears with multiple other languages + Internet Exploder and even without specifying a language. It does always redirect to the main page in your language version. --Denniss (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I found function suggestMainpageLang() in MediaWiki:MainPages.js inserts that code according to browser language inside #mainpage-welcome-box . --Praveen:talk 15:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

deletion the file

I saw I uploaded a file, that is under copyright. Can you delete it? File:Urbino10Inowrocław.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by KlimaIno (talk • contribs)

You uploaded this as CC license and "own work". Why are you saying this is now copyrighted?PumpkinSky talk 11:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Notice the watermark in the bottom left corner and the lack of EXIF metadata. Based on this I'm inclined to believe the uploader -FASTILY (TALK) 19:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done russavia (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Thundercat and Getty licensing

Thundercat has been the subject of repeated warnings about copyvios, just see his talk page. I'm processing an OTRS ticket, ticket:2012092110008986, in which the customer reports that 6 photos uploaded by Thundercat in late Aug 2012 as "own work" are actually the customer's. These photos are and they do NOT have Commons Compatible as all are tagged "non commercial" licenses and yet Thundercat marked them as CC Commons compatible:

Now note his actions on 19 Sep 2012, after his last warning: (details coming)

I have deleted all photos, as they are clearly copyvios. I've checked the ticket as well, as see that it might be possible we can get these images sometime soon -- when, or if, that occurs, they can be re-uploaded. Given the number of previous warnings Thundercat has received about uploading works they do not own copyrights to, I don't see any reason that they shouldn't be blocked. russavia (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Now note his actions on 19 Sep 2012, after his last warning, he uploads these photos from Flickr by David Wilson, all of which have Getty licensing tags, which charges a fee:

Three things I wish to comment on...
  1. As the OTRS images are clear copyvios, I've deleted them.
  2. Thundercat has repeated warnings about his uploads, especially vis a vis licensing and the claims of "own work" really concern me as those weren't his work
  3. I am uncertain as to how images on flickr tagged as Getty licensing may or may not be allowed on Commons, so I have not made a decision on that yet. Please advise. PumpkinSky talk 21:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I was going to delete the OTRS images, but russavia beat me to it. I agree we may get them soon, and will ask the owner.PumpkinSky talk 21:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The newer Flickr images are OK, also verified by the review bot. I was looking through his older "own" work images and several of them were identified as copyvios from Flickr (different accounts, nc, nd or ARR tags). I suggest to delete all his images tagged as "own" work as the only own work is taking them from others without their permission. --Denniss (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I see the 19 Sep ones are OK vis a vis the "attribution" tag on flickr, but how is Getty compatible when they charge a fee? Why bother license through them when the attribution release is free? That's what I don't get. I also think Thundercat is on his absolute last chance. PumpkinSky talk 21:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I would assume some photographers offer a lower resolution with a free license but high-res images only for money. Getty is just another option to get access to these images. --Denniss (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is an issue for Getty, not for Thundercat. There are many Flickr images that are freely licensed, but that Getty has convinced their uploaders to now add a "License throguh Getty" icon. Yet this doesn't invalidate their previous free licence. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Litigeous status of meteorological satellite pictures

Hello (sorry for not being often here), I've just re-opened the discussion of Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Europe by satellite 2010-07-14 B&W lite.gif. It seems to me that the meteorological satellite pictures by themselves do not get to the threshold of originality ; the discussion seems to be about what would amount to a general policy about satellite pictures, but such a policy does not exist as far as I know. Help in the discussion (undelete or general policy) is welcome). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Help Desk#Vandalism case?

Could somebody with the wizard editor rights (or how it is called) fix the bug reported in that thread? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This has to be reported to bugzilla:. -- Rillke(q?) 21:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

False positive on blacklist

I've just tried to upload https://www.flickr.com/photos/jerometurner/7696526080/ using Flickr Upload bot, and got:

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

The template I would have used is:

{{Information |Description = [[:en:Cycle speedway|Cycle speedway]]: Wednesfield Aces, England vs. Torun, Poland, at Wednesfield. |Source = {{subst:Flickr source|url=https://flickr.com/photos/30271597@N00/7696526080|title=P1050700}} |Date = 2012-08-01 20:39:35 |Author = {{subst:Flickr author|nsid=30271597@N00|name=Jerome Turner|subst=subst:}} |Permission = {{User:Flickr upload bot/token|token=211562}} |other_versions = }}

and I tried a number of file names. What's up? Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

how to protect a fully-protected user talkpage from script-controlled notifications?

I was notified that on the talkpage of a deceased user, who had very many image contributions, there are still script-controlled notifications (such as no-permission, DR started, etc.) arriving. The page is fully protected (admin-only), but probably most of these messages/notifications are initiated by admins, so the protection doesn't hinder them. Is there any template or whatever measure to prevent that? --Túrelio (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I just made two minor edits -- added the year to his death and changed "Gerard deceased" to "Gerard died". That will put it on my watchlist. If several of us added it to their watchlists, it would solve the problem. Somewhere in the back of my brain I have a memory, perhaps not correct, that a page can be locked against all edits -- maybe a bureaucrat does that? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Lets try with {{Nobots}}. --Foroa (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the file File:Gene Paul at Atlantic Records.jpg was deleted from the Gene Paul wikipedia article despite Gene Paul emailing proof of copyright to Wikipedia as instructed. Can you please advise on why this was deleted? The discussion page said "Gene Paul holds the copyright for this picture and is emailing verification to Wikimedia Commons (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) on 8/28/12." Please let me know what needs to be done to assure Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that this is not a copyright violation. Thanks.Lovelounge (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, on August 28 you wrote that Mr. Paul has sent a permission to OTRS. But it seems that til September 20, when the file was deleted, no permission had been added to the image page. You should ask at the OTRS noticeboard why nobody issued a ticket and put it on the image page. --Túrelio (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
On a related issue, would some look at File:Gene Paul, Mary Ford & Les Paul in the mid-1960s.jpg, which is listed as "own work" but is actually the work of Bruno Bernard? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please delete promotional pictures

Special:Contributions/Alicehopetrade uploads own coats pictures, please detelea as promotional--Motopark (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Nuked, only left a blurry night picture. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Deprecating widely used templates

I recently started

in order to discuss deprecating those templates. User:Yann just unilaterally closed both as "not the place to discuss this", despite two people saying "merge" on Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-old, and Yann being the only respondent on Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US. Which I don't think is great, but whatever: the question is, what now? Where should deprecation of such widely used templates be discussed? NB I'd already raised the issues at COM:VPC, where they didn't get very far, and got a bit sidetracked; the big advantage of a DR is that sooner or later, it needs a definite conclusion. So now what? Rd232 (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how you could create a more bad faith accusation. I am not against an amelioration of our templates, but your way for this is completely wrong. You cannot ask for deletion 2 of the most currently used templates in Commons without first starting a community-wide discussion about the uploading process. A DR is obviously not the right place for this. COM:VPC is. Yann (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Yann, the DR process is not suitable for a discussion of this kind. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that those two old templates should not be used any more, but I really don't know where such a discussion can take place (more than it already has). They should be removed from all the upload tools, at a minimum, for now.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

To try and answer my own question, I looked at the PD templates in Category:Deprecated templates

In conclusion, the most popular ways to deprecate templates seem to be

  1. DR
  2. just doing it, with little if any discussion

COM:VPC was suggested above as an alternative, but that's never been used AFAIK; and as the designer and creator of COM:VPC (!) I don't agree that it's a better venue than DR. Rd232 (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Trying to define a process

I think the process for deprecating a currently wildly used template should be:

  1. Showing that a new solution might bring more benefit than disruption; including
    Evaluting side effect that the change might bring;
  2. Discussing the wording of a new proposition;
  3. Discussing a process for implementing the new solution; including
    Replacing a template in a million pages;
    Proposing a time table, a team and tools;
  4. Implementing once a decision is reached.

It is not because that a proper process was not followed last time, that we should not do it properly this time. That would be a straw-man argument. Yann (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Um hum. Most of that is irrelevant to the question of where to have the discussion about what to do with a template (and the remark about straw-man arguments is unintentionally ironic...). All the implementation stuff is secondary, and would probably be organised via COM:WPPD (which, er, I set up as well) or something similar. There's no reason the decision discussion can't happen in a DR context. But more fundamentally, what alternatives are there to a DR? An RFC is the only thing I can think of, but that is not much different than a DR, except it doesn't structurally have to reach a conclusion in the way a DR does. The only advantage of an RFC would be that it can have a much wider scope than a DR, but whether that's an advantage in any particular instance depends on what you're trying to do. In this case, I could buy having a broad "rationalising PD templates" RFC, but I stand by my view that normally a DR is the best way to go. Rd232 (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Gene_Paul_at_Atlantic_Records.jpg

File:Gene_Paul_at_Atlantic_Records.jpg was deleted as a copyvio, but we now have an OTRS ticket confirming permission—ticket:2012082810011078. Could an admin undelete it, please? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 20:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm quite astonished the ticket is valid. Author is said to be Joel Kerr, how Gene Paul (subject of the picture) is the creator and copyright holder ? --PierreSelim (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
You may have a point there—I hadn't realised the customer was the subject. I've sent another email requesting more information, and changed the tag to {{OTRS received}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I suspect what we have here is a case of an editor inexperienced in copyright coupled with the usual OTRS lack of critical thinking. This link may be useful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please delete old versions

Please delete old versions from picture File:Marjomatikainenkalström.jpg, thanks--Motopark (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 02:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please delete

Rico ilag, user removes speedy tags.--Motopark (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Deleted. I've also left the user a message warning them that their actions shouldn't be repeated. INeverCry 04:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Larmandad y el Sueño del Poeta

User uploads same poster again and again after deletion, could somebody tell about rules.--Motopark (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. Deleted latest upload of this file and blocked user for 1 week. INeverCry 16:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

DR proposed close

I've added the following to COM:DR:

In addition, the more complex a discussion and the longer the discussion has been open, the more helpful it will be to propose a close before actually doing it, using the {{DR proposed close}} template with the reasoning for the proposed outcome.

Note that the wording deliberately does not impose any requirements: it's a vague suggestion. Besides letting people know of that addition, I want to encourage people to use {{DR proposed close}}. I think this can help raise the quality of DR decisions and the quality of DR closure rationales (in terms of being clear why a decision has been made), and that can only be a good thing.

Note 1: there is also {{CfD proposed close}} as an alias for {{DR proposed close}}, for use on CfDs.

Note 2: when closing a DR that used the {{DR proposed close}} template, the parameter done=yes needs setting to remove the DR from Category:Proposed closures. Rd232 (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Photo deleted by mistake

Hello,

I just told INeverCry about a picture he has apparently deleted by mistake. As I explained to him, this picture was the work of an amateur photographer (not me) who gives me the permission to upload his works on commons and always sends otrs permissions. He has been giving his work to commons for about three years now (I upload them with his permission, he sends the authorizations) and is the author of over 1500 works on commons, none of which have ever posed problems. I wouldn't like other problems to occur with his work. There was no "copyright violation" whatsoever on this picture and I never pretended to be the original author. You can ask Bapti for details, he will confirm that he regularly receives OTRS permissions by Mr Biard. Thanks. JJ Georges (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, turns out INeverCry was awake and active (I posted this message here just in case he wasn't present) and has restored File:Vanessa Hudgens 2012 Paris.jpg. Apparently someone had messed with the picture removing the OTRS permission. Case closed, sorry for the disturbance. JJ Georges (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

multiple deletion requests problem

Using AjaxQuickDelete, I re-nominated File:05 04 21 Gas the Arabs.jpg for a consent-related issue that wasn't considered in the previous deletion discussion by either the deleting or un-deleting administrators. I'm not sure the gadget worked right: somehow, I ended up listing it in Commons:Deletion requests/2012/09/22 (although I nominated it today), and the closed deletion discussion is also now showing there. Did I do something wrong? Or does anyone want to do me a solid and just speedy-delete the image? 24.177.121.137 04:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong, and the tool worked fine. The older deletion request is automatically connected so that the discussion in it can be reviewed by anyone voting or commenting on the current request. The image can't be speedy-deleted though. INeverCry 04:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • As best I can tell, it fails the requirement for consent from subjects in countries requiring such consent. Isn't "it's illegal to publish this image in the country it was taken in" a valid speedy-deletion criterion?
Also, why did it list on the wrong day? 24.177.121.137 04:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
So far there are two votes, one delete and one a possible keep, and both votes are by administrators. This tells me that a full discussion is needed before a choice can be made to keep or delete. As for the time, this DR is the final one for 9/22 so it looks like the nomination was done within minutes of the changeover to 9/23. INeverCry 07:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
My edit history shows that I nominated for deletion at 04:10-- there were already a number of entries on the 9/23 log when it happened. Demonstrably, the nomination was not done within minutes of the changeover, unless the changeover happens within minutes of 04:10 (which would be odd.) 24.177.121.137 21:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Strage; as it uses the server-date for determining which page to use. Either something with computing the timezone offset did not work or a server served a wrong date, which would a severe issue. -- Rillke(q?) 20:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Are there next steps I should take? 24.177.121.137 21:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
As long as the difference is less than 24h, I don't think so. If you're using IE6, it is possible that script does not get the request headers but in this case your system date/time is used. -- Rillke(q?) 00:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't have IE6 installed anywhere anymore. I think I was using Iceweasel, but not entirely sure. I blame internet gnomes. :-] 24.177.121.137 00:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision deletion

I have created quite a few files that use the copyright-infractioning lions by Katepanomegas. I think I've been able to change it all with free lions (correct me if I'm wrong), but the infractinv versions still are in the revision history. Can you delete the revisions in question? I don't really know if there's even a way to make such requests, so I'm asking you, since you handled Katepanomegas' request.

Files needing a revision removal
These four files have become useless, three of them are the copyright infracting lions as a template. The fourth is supposed to be flag of the Flemish movement, but it's quite unclear because they're used to one single design which may or may not be copyrighted. So these can be fully removed.

Adelbrecht (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This was originally posted on my talk page, but I've moved it here so that maybe several admins can work together on getting this big job accomplished -FASTILY (TALK) 05:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done. INeverCry 18:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! -FASTILY (TALK) 20:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I always disliked not seeing any removals of admin rights in the User rights management, I added a link to the de version and then to the en version. Then, I discovered that for the English user interface, there is additionally MediaWiki:Userrights-summary that does not exist in any other language. Hence, it is not shown to any admins not using the English UI.
What is the best solution for English and what for the other languages? IMHO transcluding the English header with its useful information and links is better than not having it at all. --Leyo 19:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Al Qaeda scrapbook 2.jpg

I've had a request to restore deleted versions of File:Al Qaeda scrapbook 2.jpg from User:Geo Swan on my talkpage: User talk:INeverCry#your assistance please. There was an issue with the eairlier versions of this image being copyvios. File:Al Qaeda scrapbook 2.jpg was deleted, then restored and blurred from the earlier images. I then deleted the earlier versions for the copyvio concerns. The uploader questions the validity of the earlier copyvio concerns. Can I get some opinions on whether the copyvio concerns over the earlier versions were valid, and whether or not those earlier versions should be restored? Thanks. INeverCry 23:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Postkarte-niedersachsenross.jpg

I noticed that this file license tag has been removed, so I tried to find why. The user Ralf Roletschek (credited as Marcela) changed here the Redigierender Autor (co-author?) from unknown to the user name, as Marcela. I'm not sure if that was a legitime change. Also, the file is credited to Patrick-Emil Zörner, and as the uploader name is Paddy, assuming good faith, he is probably the author (based on Patrick (given name)). I would like that an administrator check this situation to see if there is any problem with this file. Blond (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It’s a fake, see wikiversity:de:Kurs:Urheberrecht/Referate/Beweis des eigenen Urheberrechts for further clues. --32X (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Pride of Performance.jpeg

The picture of above name has been removed. It is the picture of a medal won by my friend and I made it for Wikipedia. I request for its return.--Khalid Mahmood (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Your friend is not the author (creator) of the medal. Please read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pride of Performance.jpeg again. --Leyo 10:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Uncategorized --> categorized

I uploaded an image to the page "Category:Bridges in Leiden"

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Huigstraat_fietsbrug_at_Maresingle.jpg

I look in 'edit' and find a notation: "{{Uncategorized|year=2012|month=September|day=29}}"

I added in edit: {{Location|52|9|51.21|N|4|29|53.26|E|region:NL_heading:SSW}} {{Location dec|52.164226|4.498129|region:NL_heading:SSW}} {{Location|52|9|51.34|N|4|29|53.02|E|region:NL}} [[:Category:Leiden]] [[:Category:Bridges]] [[:Category:Bridges in the Netherlands by city|Leiden]]

The first two 'locations' indicate where I stood and the direction the camera was facing, while the third 'location' is the actual location of the main subject of the photo. Have I added too many 'Locations' and 'Categories'?


Do I need to delete: "{{Uncategorized|year=2012|month=September|day=29}}", or will a 'bot' delete the 'bot added' line?

PeteBobb (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the uncatted temp, as the proper cat is present. Category:Bridges in Leiden is sufficient; it's a subcategory of Category:Bridges, Category:Bridges in the Netherlands by city, and Category:Leiden, so I've removed them. In future, you can remove the {{Uncategorized}} template manually from any image that you add a category to, or that has been categorized by others. INeverCry 21:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, the categorization tool Hotcat removes the {{Uncategorized}} temp automatically. INeverCry 21:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Slowly I learn... Evidentially I will know what to do...LOL PeteBobb (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Older versions

Please delete older versions of this file so that only the latest one is available. Thanks Flrn (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done I kept the first version too, because it is quite old and the upload comment reffers to it. --32X (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Can you please delete the first one as well? It was originally created by a friend of mine as a little help and he expected I was going to submit it as my own, and he is now a little unhappy about the mention of his name in the history. Flrn (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Unable to purge cache for SVG at 1000 and 2000px

SVG Illustration in question is File:Poly-thf.svg. One user has put it in SVG bug category, and I was trying to fix the file, only to realize that SVG file is not a problem (or at least not anymore). In one instance I converted text to outline, and in the last instance I put yellow background, which was visible at 200 and 500px, but not at 1000 and 2000px (also, width to height ratio is different). This leads to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with SVG file, and that this is not SVG bug, rather this is a caching issue. Purging with ?action=purge does not help. Can you manually delete cached files (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Poly-thf.svg/1000px-Poly-thf.svg.png and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Poly-thf.svg/2000px-Poly-thf.svg.png)? If not, what is the solution? To upload this file under new name and to delete the old file?

If this is wrong place to ask this question, I'm sorry - please let me know where to ask. Marekich (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It was indeed a cache issue; I have manually regenerated the thumbnail, and it looks like everything is OK now. For the future, this particular problem and its solution are described at Help:Purge#Advanced manual thumbnail purging which is linked from the FAQ. odder (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, especially for the info about manual thumbnail purging. Marekich (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Halo.jpg

Overwritten file. Could someone delete the current revision of the file? It is a copyright violation. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the last two versions, the other one was a duplicate. please someone remove the file from other projects.  ■ MMXX talk 22:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Blason ville si Ljubljana (Slovénie).svg

Hi, can someone delete the version of the file uploaded by User:DancingPhilosopher. It was probably taken from here or here. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of coats of arms of Slovenian municipalities. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

COM:OVERWRITE

It seems to me that the COM:OVERWRITE RFC (Commons_talk:Overwriting_existing_files#RFC) has now been open long enough. Could someone please close it? Thanks, Rd232 (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

anyone? Rd232 (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Well in the face of that resounding silence, and with the RFC outcome so clear, I've done it myself. Rd232 (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Bot not working properly

Hi all, I'm currently working in the categorization of the Wiki Loves Monuments pictures. Wiki-Bot has been used as assistant for the upload and review of the pictures, but does not seem to be working properly since in spite of more specific categories being applied to pictures, it goes on categorizing pictures within root categories. See for example this. The picture, initially in the root category Category:Cultural heritage monuments in the Community of Madrid, was classified (correctly) into a more specific one: Category:Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso, University of Alcalá de Henares‎). Unfortunatelly, that silly bot keeps on restoring the root category. It takes a lot of time and effort to classify this huge amount of pictures and a silly bot undoing the work is not the most motivational reinforcement one can get. The operator has been warned but does not seem to be available. Can an administrator stop the bot and rollback its editions? Thanks --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Demi Lovato X-Factor.jpg

What we shall do with this picture, is it okay that we delete the newest version that's source are unknown and leave only the biggest version available and delete other smaller versions.--Motopark (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done I've deleted the last version and left a warning for the uploader, overwriting an existing file is not accepted, please see COM:OVERWRITE.  ■ MMXX talk 17:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Pav.jpg

Please delete the most recently uploaded version of File:Pav.jpg. It's completely unrelated to the original file, unsourced and uploaded by a user whose only other "contributions" were both copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 18:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I've also delinked it from the Wikipedia articles which were unrelated to the original image. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious

User:Alex L. Henderson is obviously User:Mark L. Smith. I've just blocked both of them at en.wp for perpetrating hoaxes. The hoax ing involved an image they both uploaded here. That needs to be deleted again as well. This is some kid pretending he is a Grammy-winning superstar and posting a (terrible) self portrait. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

✓ Blocked both accounts indef. Deleted copyvio images. INeverCry 00:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please keep the tent wide, admins...

I understand why there is some resistance to "age-ism" and so on, because young people absolutely should be encouraged to serve and rewarded and acknowledged for their service, but as I commented here, I hope that commons admins will also be mindful that some of the "old folks" have genuine concerns -- whether or not they're also legitimate concerns is in the eye of the beholder, IMO --, and they should be allowed to speak their peace just like anyone else.

Obviously I have no idea what was deleted, but I know Jayen a little bit and I doubt he was publishing the guy's home address or contact info for his family. I'd feel better if this was looked into by admins who can see what happened, so that in the future (hopefully) suggestions can be made to keep consensus decisions open to all relevant discussion.

Commons is the meeting place of all the projects that use its service, and it needs to stay "mellow"... especially when there's an urge to circle the wagons. --SB_Johnny talk 00:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Given your involvement with Wikipediocracy and your lack of recent non drama releated commons edits; you will I hope understand if your suggestions as to how commons admins should act aren't taken very seriously.Geni (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Relevance? Somehow I doubt the average opinion on Wikipediocracy is "yes! more very young Commons admins, that's the ticket!".... Rd232 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't really know what you're quite trying to say, but the substantive opposition in that RFA seems to be from lack of onwiki experience in certain areas, not any issue with age. Rd232 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I would have no problem with an Admin who was young, provided that he or she were polite, mellow, and knowledgeable on the required issues. In the case of Rock Drum, I and two other Admins have made it very clear that we would support a new RfA when and if Rock drum had gained some experience both initiating and commenting on DRs. If that new RfA happened in three or four months, he would still be young. My opposition was that he had absolutely no experience with copyright, not his age. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Plz remove command, urgent

Please cancel command {{move cat|Legs in art|Human legs in art}} at User:CommonsDelinker/commands (before too late). I was supposed to remove it from the manual request page last night but forgot; this is a request of mine later proved inaccurate as many of the works listed there depict legs that are not "human". Thanks! Orrlingtalk 12:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A priori ✓ Done --PierreSelim (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Great. And just on the way... I need that our English language masters tell whether it's {{move cat|Ejaculation|Ejaculation of humans}} or {{move cat|Ejaculation|Ejaculation in humans}}? I do argue that the latter one is the correct one; please care to fix it at the command page if I'm right (a priori) Thankz. Orrlingtalk 12:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm right (a priori): typical. --Foroa (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Ejaculation of humans is when someone ejaculates a human... )-: Orrlingtalk 12:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
That would be covered by Category:Homunculus.Geni (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Are we sure it should be "Ejaculation of humans"? See for example Sexual intercourse in humans, Bleeding in animals (and not "of animals"), Abdominal obesity in females, and many others. Orrlingtalk 13:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
.
For clarity, I suspect 'Human Ejaculation' would be clearest. This is what human males do.
'Ejaculation of humans' might mean a demon or god has humans inside their ejaculate fluid.
'Ejaculation in humans' might mean an animal such as a male dog or male horse mounts a human and ejaculates inside a human.
PeteBobb (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Hahahahahaha!! :p Orrlingtalk 20:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Admins – please adopt Human ejaculation (see above). Orrlingtalk 20:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

ENWP image that shadows the wrong Commons image

Is there any way for an admin on Commons or ENWP to move a ENWP image to the same name as the corresponding Commons image? EN:File:Blank.svg was uploaded in February 2006. Commons:File:Blank.svg was a completely different file uploaded in April 2006. Both are being used heavily. In 2007, the ENWP image was copied to Commons as Commons:File:Fond blanc.svg, but it was requested that the ENWP copy not be deleted. So now Commons:File:Blank.svg, which is a very useful file, cannot be used on ENWP because of EN:File:Blank.svg, and the file history is a little confusing. Is it possible for an admin to move EN:File:Blank.svg to EN:File:Fond blanc.svg (I cannot because the software prevents me)? Or could a Commons admin delete Commons:File:Fond blanc.svg temporarily so that EN:File:Blank.svg could be moved to EN:File:Fond blanc.svg? This move would solve several problems at once, enabling a clearer file history, ensuring that both images can be used properly, and avoiding the Commons file-move bug for these heavily used files. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 17:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Any English Wikipedia administrator should be able to move en:File:Blank.svg to en:File:Fond blanc.svg. Try asking somewhere on Wikipedia. I would recommend against temporarily deleting File:Fond blanc.svg; User:CommonsDelinker might decide to delink that file on the projects where it is used before an English Wikipedia file mover has moved the local Wikipedia file. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Good point, thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 23:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Troubles with file upload

Hello, I have much trouble with uploading an image from Flickr. After uploading the 'This file contains HTML or script code that may be erroneously interpreted by a web browser' message is shown. I tried to upload a cropped version, but the result was the same (my software cannot remove tags). Finally, I tried to use toolserver, but the image hasn't been uploaded: File:Leica_M9_Titanium_at_Photokina.jpg. Please help to upload the image. Maksim Sidorov 19:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded File:Sigma 200-500mm at Photokina.jpg from the same Flickr user, after removing all metadata. Is it possible to reload the original file? Maksim Sidorov 20:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Joe Lizura MC Angels Depot.jpg

This file have a problem. Quoting:

The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "File:Joe Lizura MC Angels Depot.jpg". This is usually caused by following an outdated diff or history link to a page that has been deleted. If this is not the case, you may have found a bug in the software. Please report this to an administrator, making note of the URL.

Blond (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears to have been a transitory problem, as the file displays without the cited message now. It needs a description, cats, author, and source, though. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikitravel File Transfer Tool Proposal

Hi all, I've made a proposal for the creation of a file transfer tool of some sort here. All users are invitied to comment. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Hugomallo

Uploads copyvios whole time after warning, please delete and block--Motopark (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done by Denniss.  ■ MMXX talk 13:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Evolución de los logos de Tuenti.PNG

This file was nominated to deletion and, according to the deletion talk, it was decided to delete, among with other file. This file remains available. It should be deleted or the deletion tag removed. Blond (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 01:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

File:NRCitySign09.JPG

The deletion nomination of this file was closed as being deleted. The file is still available. It should be deleted or the deletion tag removed. Blond (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 01:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Images by jkcarl

Shall this be userpage subpage gallery, if yes, please move--Motopark (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done by Jameslwoodward. Trijnsteltalk 17:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan images with no publication date

I am not an expert on Pakistan image law, so I bring this issue here. None of these photos have a publication date and I wonder if they should be deleted:

Thank for looking at this. PumpkinSky talk 01:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Under the old law prior independance, pictures are in the public domain 50 years after creation, so these are OK. Yann (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
What about the US copyright? {{PD-1996}} only applies to published photos, whereas unpublished photos have to comply with {{PD-US-unpublished}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
These are famous pictures, which have been published many times. Yann (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Even if they were, say, first published elsewhere than British India? I'm planning to push this article forward for review, and I want to make sure the images are solid.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Crisco, there is not enough evidence to ensure these are PD and should be deleted. Will do so in 7 days from his comment, on 5 Oct. The burden is on the uploader to provide adequate proof. PumpkinSky talk 16:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The two uploaders have been notified on their talk pages. PumpkinSky talk 02:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Both deleted. PumpkinSky talk 20:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Is CommonsDelinker maintained?

I noticed a bad edit by CommonsDelinker on en, and set about trying to report the issue to the owner of the bot. I made it as far as User talk:Siebrand. Looking over that page and it's archive, one can find various bug-reports going back quite a long time. However, User:Siebrand's last contribution-- other than section blanking-- on his/her own talk page was in early February of this year. Quite a number of bug reports have not been acknowledged (nor, apparently, addressed.)

Per COM:BOT, "Bot operators must ensure that they make themselves available for dealing with user queries relating to the bot, and that they promptly fix any identified bugs."

Given that User:CommonsDelinker is noncompliant with Commons policy regarding bots, and seeing as it has been causing issues in a number of articles on a number of different projects over the course of several months, shouldn't it be disabled? 24.177.122.31 04:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_settler_violence&diff=515177526&oldid=515056784 was a bad edit. The file was deleted and the bot removed the link to it from the article. That's what the bot is supposed to do.
Given that we delete around 2,000 files per day, we could not function without the bot, so that I might tolerate an occasional bad edit. This, however, was not a bad edit. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems it did not remove the right ]]. As the problem happened on wikipedia, I suggest to ask the question to wikipedia's community, whether they tolerate such edit or not. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
@Jim, see bot edit and fixed edit.
As Jim said we can't live without this bot! apparently it is currently operated by Bryan, try to contact them by email.  ■ MMXX talk 15:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
It's obviously a bad edit: the bot removed the image and the caption, but left behind several of the caption's citations. (And guys, c'mon. It takes like 30-seconds of not-that-hard diff-reviewing to see the problem here.) Wikipedia's community does not tolerate malfunctioning bots that corrupt articles-- they get blocked. I'll try emailing Bryan, and report back. 24.177.122.31 05:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes so report it to Wikipedia and not Commons. The Bot did nothing wrong here. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Report it to Wikipedia? How does that make sense? Anyway, it would be nice for it to be fixed, but given the importance of the bot, occasional errors of this type (which are at least fairly obvious; it's not hard to imagine worse errors) are much better than blocking/stopping the bot. Rd232 (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It makes sense because the bot is working correctly on Commons. He only did a bad edit on wikipedia en, so if a community has to block it it's enwiki's. Not us on commons, because it will not stop the bot. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense because Wikipedia can't fix the problem, and blocking for occasional problems like this is out of all proportion to how valuable the bot is. Rd232 (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that the bot was confused (as was I -- apologies for that) by the four long references included in the picture caption -- a total of 1,200+ characters. If Bryan cannot be reached, would 24.177.122.31 really want to block this bot and have to remove every deleted image link on WP:EN by hand? We delete more than 2,000 images per day, albeit, many of them unused. It's surely better to tolerate the very rare error than the alternative. However, as Pierre says, that's not our choice -- it's up to WP:EN. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No, probably not, that was a pointy suggestion. But if CommonsDelinker performs such an essential task, and is unmaintained and semi-broken, that points to a larger issue. Perhaps delinking needs to become the responsibility of deleting admins, rather than the responsibility of a bot. One could conceive of wiki enhancements that would make that tractable, although I concede it's unreasonable at this point. (BTW, I had to create an account to email Bryan. This is it.) Throwaway Sockpuppet Account (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC) (aka 24.177.122.31)


Maybe the line-break within the image caption caused it. Created jira:COMMONSDELINKER-23 but I am unsure whether someone cares about it. -- Rillke(q?) 18:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

When I reported a bug the author advised me that the bot was part of the Pywikipediabot distribution and I could submit a patch to that. The bug I reported (over a year ago) prevents my bot User:Commons fair use upload bot from working correctly. However, I'm not sure if anyone is actually upgrading what version of Pywikipediabot CommonsDelinker is using, so it may or may not be helpful to fix it myself. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

duplicate categories

User:JKCarl/Images by jkcarl and Category:Images by JKCarl they are duplicate--Motopark (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done First page is a gallery and the second is a category, both have almost the same content, however it's not that unusual for users to have both a gallery and a user category. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Extremely inappropriate administrator behavior
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_37&oldid=358622612"