Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 44

Extremely slow performance to open edit interface of COM:CDC

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T56122

When I try to edit User:CommonsDelinker/commands, its loading speed is always extremely slow, and the server sometimes raise the HTTP 504: Gateway Timeout. Problem should be found and solved. I don't know what the exact problem is but I suspect 3 expensive parser per a move cat template. What's the problem with CDC? – Kwj2772 (msg) 17:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Multiple thousand entries in the page history are probably the cause, Wiki software was never made for pages of this kind. --Denniss (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you support a bugzilla request moving all old revisions of that page to some other page, or even deleting revisions >1 year old? -- Rillke^(q?) 19:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving will most likely fail due to the insane amount of revisions so rev del may be the only solution + an archival movement of the page every 6 or so months. And yes to your question. --Denniss (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked Umherirrender in IRC and he said that he knows pages that have more revisions than 90,635 (c.f. page information) that work sane and assumes that the cause of the error is located elsewhere. So should we file a general bug "mysterious timeout error at …" ? -- Rillke^(q?) 12:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Some investigations regarding this issue are welcome, I have no problem updating the page via the file move/duplicate processing but manually editing the page is a pain. --Denniss (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Add new source wikis to Special:Import

There is a request at bugzilla:54001 for adding a few other wikis as possible source for imports to Wikimedia Commons. -- Rillke^(q?) 19:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Support --Alan ^(talk) 19:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC) I imagine you will need community support

gerrit --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

--Alan ^(talk) 17:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Merged --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

strange user talk page

See User talk:Conformaccokey and it's history--Motopark (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done reverted, and talk access blocked. INeverCry 19:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion request

Please, take a look at this deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in Armenia & Nagorno-Karabakh. It's waiting for an attention for more than a week. Wertuose (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Done by User:Russavia. I absolutely agree: First, it is not a DR issue, second, every Wikimedian is welcome to upload photos of monuments to every eligible list. If anybody has photos of NK cultural monuments, before or after the war, they are welcome to contribute.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• What will be your reaction if someone will create a new page named Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and put it's flag? I think your answer is obvious. So in our case your decision is not right. Anyone can add photos, but everyone have to respect international law. Wertuose (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, but a deletion request isn't the place to decide things like that. It's the organizers of Wiki Loves Monuments who must decide what contests actually exist and which ones not, and depending on that, Commons pages should exist. Now that WLM is already running, it's a bit late to try to change anything. darkweasel94 14:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I personally would not particularly care, but I understand that in general this would be a problem. It is just not a problem which can be addressed via a deletion request.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Users should not make a decision on such kind of political issues and international problems. I just want this page and the flag of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to be deleted from the list of participating countries. As I mentioned in the deletion request the page WLM2013 in Armenia exists, so there is no problem for the project. Wertuose (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

    On the page which is linked from the deletion request there is no flag of NK.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

    Here is the flag. Wertuose (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

    Я только что удалил флаг. Надеюсь хоть в этом кто нибудь приметь правильную позицию и поддержит это удаление.--Wertuose (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

    I agree indeed the NK flag should not be on that page.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

    But user Vacio reverts my edit ([1]) and blames me in edit war ([2]) on my talk page.--Wertuose (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Just for you Produkte.jpg

Considering Special:DeletedContributions/Trainee123 I suspect this photograph also being a copyvio, but I was not able to find any evidence using Google Images or TinEye. What shall we do here? --Leyo 04:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Already deleted by Deniss. --Túrelio (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Air Force Ensigns of Somalia

Please delete this category created by an IP. Somalia has no such flags. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 05:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Two editors feuding over CC license validity...

Jeromesandilanico (talk · contribs) and TheMostAmazingTechnik (talk · contribs) are locked in a series of licensing-related disputes over some press images and a logo; among the disputes:

• Both editors made their own SVG versions of the Samsung Galaxy Note 3 logo, which is {{Pd-textlogo}}. However, Jeromesandilanico is demanding the deletion of TheMostAmazingTechnik's version by claiming that it is "Poorly licensed and incorrectly described"; he has refused to elaborate what he means.
• TheMostAmazingTechnik (in what looked like retaliation, judging by the timing) had several press images uploaded by Jeromesandilanico deleted; these images were sourced from official LG and Samsung-affiliated Flickr accounts and had verified CC licenses. However, TheMostAmazingTechnik claims that they are still copyright violations because the copyright to the software depicted on the device is separate from that of the device image, even though they're effectively by the same company who authorized the publication of the image under a CC license.

There's been some attacks between them; I think we need some help here. ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait... it sounds like there may actually be Flickrwashing going on... ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Test.pdf

I just tried to create a test file for PDF documents similar to File:Test.svg to test the rendering of PDF documents. Sadly the software did not allow me to upload the file and asked for a more descriptive name. Can you please move File:Israel Morandum of Understanding SIGINT.opt.pdf to File:Test.pdf as a permanent sandbox for experiments around PDF documents?

Regards, --Patrick87 (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done (fyi: we have the betacluster to test) --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

File:BibiVaplanUmbrella.jpg

Hi, as mentioned on OTRS Noticeboard we have an approval via OTRS for this file. Can you restore it, please? --Emha (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Danke Dir! --Emha (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Special:ListFiles/Mehlauge

Hi, this user have sent several permissions via OTRS. Please restore

• File:Franz Stadtmüller.jpg
• File:Robert Wanke.JPG
• File:Gorbatschow-Büste (MS Deutschland).JPG
• File:Hp19932.v3File0042-01_(H._P._Rickmer).jpg

Thanks, --Emha (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done (File:Hp19932.v3File0042-01_(H._P._Rickmer).jpg (does not exist) = File:Hp19932.v3File0042-01_(H._P._Rickmers).jpg ?) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Danke. Drei sind erledigt, File:Gorbatschow-Büste (MS Deutschland).JPG kann umgehend wieder gelöscht werden, da File:Gorbatschow-Büste_auf_MS_Deutschland.JPG mit Freigabe als Duplikat existiert. Konnte ich nicht sehen. Sorry und Seufz, --Emha (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Danke--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Hj_2013-09-18_11-05.jpg - Deletion now?

Can somebody take a look at this file plus others by the same uploader please. Not convinced these should be allowed to stay on Commons while a deletion debate takes place - thanks. QU ^TalkQu 16:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Flag of Texas.svg

Should be RevDel'd back to August 22, 2011, due to vandalism. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Flag of Uruguay.svg also should have it's vandalism RevDel'd too. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Anybody? Helloo? Obvious and clear vandalism... Fry1989 ^eh? 02:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Cleaned up both, short protection for both, and VOA blocked the vandal. INeverCry 02:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Check three deleted images, please

Please look at File:Tamil girls in Tiruvanamalai.jpg, File:Women farm workers in coimbatore.jpg, and File:Maha shoretemple.jpg. All three were cited in an old en:wp dispute over proper image tagging; some of the other tags, such as this and this, were wrongly-placed requests for the deletion of images that are either PD-old or freely licensed by their creators. As such, I'd appreciate someone checking to see if any of the images might qualify as PD-old/PD-art or if any are freely licensed by uploaders. Aside from the titles, I don't know anything about their dates or what they show, so I'm not presuming that deletion was correct or that it was incorrect — except that I'll note that some of the PD-art/PD-old images mentioned permission from creators when permission wasn't needed, so I'm not sure whether the discussion about no-permission at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tamil girls in Tiruvanamalai.jpg is relevant. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Tamil girls in Tiruvanamalai.jpg was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tamil girls in Tiruvanamalai.jpg and was sourced to http://www.heartspace.org/photos/gallery.html.

File:Women farm workers in coimbatore.jpg was deleted per speedy request by uploader: "requesting speedy deletion - I wrongly assumed it to be a USAID work".

File:Maha shoretemple.jpg was deleted because it lacked a license and permission and was stated to be from a friend who had given it to the uploader. INeverCry 02:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:PNG flags by country

Please delete the category and all it's subcats. Same reasoning as this previous AN. Thank you. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 04:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

4YOUgend Images

Hi, we have a permission via OTRS for

• File:Lessalk_morefun4you_2003.jpg
• File:Lessalk_morefun4you_2004.jpg
• File:Lessalk_morefun4you_2005.jpg
• File:Lessalk_morefun4you_2006.jpg
• File:Lessalk_morefun4you_2007-08.jpg
• File:Lessalk_morefun4you_2009-10.jpg
• File:Lessalk_morefun4you_2011-12.jpg

Could you please restore all the files? Thank you, --Emha (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Danke! --Emha (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Mty Downtown.jpg

This copyright violation was deleted, but the Mediawiki software seems to have had a HAL moment. ("I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.") Restore and retry? —LX (talk, contribs) 13:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. :) Rehman 14:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Icon tools.svg

Hello, this file is editprotected. There's a typo in template Information in it, other_version has to be other_versions with an s at the end. Thanks in advance, --Ivla (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You fixed it and wrote your reply in the time I needed to figure out I had better used : before File: ,-). --Ivla (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

User Vagharsh

→ Moved to COM:AN/U --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Page Fördewald

Please can somebody erase this Commonspage https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6rdewald Fördewald because it was an typeerror. My intention was a category, I made now correctly. Friendly Greetings, --Sönke Rahn (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Normally, you should use {{Speedydelete}}. --Didym (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, Thanks. --Sönke Rahn (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Leonardo DiCaprio 2010.jpg

Please delete the revisions uploaded by Marjo92blabla, as they are non-free AFP photos by Alberto Pizzoli, grabbed from http://www.elle.com/cm/elle/images/Qg/elle-03-cannes-film-festival-2013-leonardo-dicaprio-xln-xln.jpg. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 17:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Scotire (talk · contribs)

Was blocked less than a month ago for a period of six months for edit-warring, soapboxing and personal attacks. These personal attacks continue here. Perhaps the luxury of access to his talk page, since he does not appear to wish to use it to request an unblock, should be denied him? Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• In case anyone's interested, he's doing it again. I suspect someone should act soon otherwise we'll run out of Admins he's abused and are therefore "involved". Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've removed talk access and reverted and rev del'd his last two posts. INeverCry 23:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Very generous in the circumstances to leave his block at six months; I can't see him being any less difficult when he returns. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be indef, but I've deferred to Mattbuck to decide on that. INeverCry 00:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Commons Delinker and delinking misidentified files

Suppose a contributor takes a photo of a pear but erroneously thinks it is an apple, uploads it as File:Apple.jpg and places it in the Apple article on 50 different language wikipedias. Later, another editor spots the error on one of the Apple articles, removes it and places it on the Pear article in that one wikipedia. If I then rename the photo to File:Pear.jpg, Commons Delinker will then automatically rename the file on all 50 pages it is used on, but it won't - as one would want - remove it from the 49 Apple pages it is still on. But if I then subsequently instructed Commons Delinker to replace File:Pear.jpg with another file that does show an apple, say File:Real-apple.jpg, it would then replace it on all 50 pages, including the Pear article where it is correctly used, and also delete the originally-misnamed file and redirect it to File:Real-apple.jpg, which would not be desirable.

What is needed in a case like this is some way of instructing Commons Delinker to either (a) remove the file from selected pages it is used on, or (b) replace the misidentified file with a different one selected by the file renamer, and to do so only on those pages where it is appropriate. This could be done with a drop-down with check boxes "Tick the box for those pages where the file is to be replaced".

Can this be done? Any other options for orphaning a file from large numbers of pages (but not necessarily all) it is used on? - MPF (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, it would be a misuse of Commons delinker to use it to make editorial modifications to Wikipedia articles. It is for Wikipedia contributors to make editorial decisions about their articles. If they need, want or are happy to place or to leave a picture of a pear in articles about apples, fruits, agriculture, food or any other subject, or as illustration in talk pages or in user pages, it's not the business of Commons delinker to vandalize the pages. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Selling Building.jpg

I accidentally overwrote this file while trying to upload a new photo of the same building, when I just accidentally touched "return" while filling in the planned new file name – at the point when it just happened to exactly match this existing file name. I immediately reverted to the old version, but is it possible for the erred version to be deleted from the page history? Having it display there could cause confusion on that page and also in the auto-generated file list pages for both me and the original/true uploader of this image. After I reverted that error, I proceeded (as intended) to upload the different image of this building, with the different name that I had intended, and that file is File:Selling Building's Alder Street entrance - Portland, Oregon (2012).jpg. I do not want that file deleted on that page, its correct page, but rather only where it appeared briefly (incorrectly) as a "new version" at File:Selling Building.jpg. After hundreds of uploads, this is the first time this has ever happened to me, but I hope it can be corrected. Thanks. Steve Morgan (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Done by Túrelio.[3] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, to Túrelio. Steve Morgan (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

user:Dalzate

Hi. Can a spanish-speaker admin warn user:Dalzate about CR pictures? It seems to be obsess uploading CR pictures of Rocío Dúrcal (sadly dead). He claims to be the autor, or "make the pictures as similar to cover of albums as he can, but not to be the cover itself". However, it's quite easy to find those pictures all around internet. I warned him, but I don´t think he understood because I've seen he uploaded lots of new CR pictures. Thanks. Cheers. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Warned and blocked 1 week for reflexion and and to read the policies. Also, 3 many files marked to speedy deletion as copyvio. Thanks for the advice. Cheers, --Alan ^(talk) 22:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Label in my editions

Good afternoon; after processing a ticket in the OTRS system, I replaced the corresponding template in the file's description here on Commons, but my edition, while permitted, is marked with the label "OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member" (e.g.) when actually I am a member. Thank you, Banfield - Amenazas aquí 20:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This will fix it: Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#OTRS_flag_for_User:Banfield - Jcb (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

 Granted by Dschwen. --Alan ^(talk) 22:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Banfield - Amenazas aquí 01:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Add OTRS tag to protected pages

User:Piotrus has correctly noted on my talk page that I need to go through the full OTRS runaround for the 8 files I uploaded with the permission of the owner that are located in Category:Westgate shopping mall shooting. Can an administrator please add {{subst:OP}} to File:Crowd fleeing sounds of gunfire near Westgate.jpg and File:Smoke above Westgate mall.jpg? Both are under cascading protection as being on the front pages of en.wiki and zh.wiki. I've sent an email to the owner, who is not in a place conducive to efficient emailing, and hopefully will have a response back within the day. Thanks, BanyanTree 03:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Done --Denniss (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

restore category

please restore Category:Alexis Knapp. thanks.--CennoxX (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done, but add more pics, not only one... --Alan ^(talk) 22:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Privacy policy

Only for the record: MediaWiki:Privacypage redirects from now to the Privacy policy on fondationswiki (diff1), (diff2). Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Otto dimroth 1935 würzburg-2.jpg

Hi, we have a permission via OTRS. Please could you restore the file? Thanks, --Emha (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Potential flickr washing

File:Shivam Patil.jpg was uploaded by user:Shivamevolution under the claim that they had taken the image and the source was their blog. It was deleted.

Shortly thereafter (within about 24 hours), the exact same image was uploaded under the name File:Shivam patil.jpg by user:Prakharveedang this time sourced to a flickr account where the image was uploaded that day and has only 3 other images, at least one of which is a cut and paste violation from a magazine. User Prakharveedang only other edits (at least visible to non admins) are on EN wikipedia to insert the image into the same article that Shivamevolution obsessively edits.

Smells fishy to me. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done These are Confirmed socks of User:Prakhar Lucknow. I've blocked them both, and deleted the above image. INeverCry 18:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

How about next videos

How about next videos that user Special:Contributions/Zulfiqarazad has uploaded, there seems to ne watermark in the picture--Motopark (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Good license to Jacobson

Hi,

images from this category and that one should have the {{PD-scan}} license code, which is seldom the case.

Are you able to automatically change that for all those ~ 300 files? I don't feel like doing it by hand.

Zonderr (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You may be able to do that with COM:VFC. darkweasel94 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

thank you, I have been dreaming of that tool since I created an account, Zonderr (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Commons Delinker backlog

Could I get someone to process the replacement requests in this section? Some of them have been waiting for months and they're all uncontroversial. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I need some insight here regarding the behavoir of an user

I'm discussing a rename request that was put up by an editor named Andythegrump, i already explained in the talk page why the rename he proposes isn't neccesary [4], and also sugested a much better alternative [5], however he seems to be really offensive and hot blooded, look at his responses here [6] and here [7], what do administrators think? Czixhc (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've warned Andy but please inform him of the AN topic next time. This would've been better suited at COM:AN/U. Bidgee (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, Andy has raised the rename issue at Commons:Help_desk#File:World_map_by_skin_color_for_modern_populations.jpg. --Avenue (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, apologies for the loss of temper - this was the result of Czixhc removing a rename template I'd posted, and replacing it with another with no prior discussion whatsoever. A little background might help here though - Czixhc has been arguing about this image for months on en.Wikipedia in spite of everyone making it perfectly clear that it isn't a reliable source for what he is claiming. Not least because the creator of the original image makes no such claim anyway. Describing it as a 'map of skin color for modern populations' is entirely misleading. It is nothing of the sort. The original image [8] explicitly states that it is based on an outdated "von Luschan scale" that "was considered problematic, even by its practitioners, because it was very inconsistent". It isn't supposed to represent objective data - it is a work of art rather than science, as can be seen by the context, where images like this [9] and this [10] are listed alongside. Frankly, given that Czixhc's image is a derivative of original artwork, omitting both detail and context, I don't see that it has any legitimate place in any Wikipedia article, and I have to ask whether it belongs on commons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• The file in question does not omit any context, in fact inside (the file) itself is stated that the scale used is the Von Luschan's chromatic scale (Bottom-right). The file isn't an artistic work, that isn't stated anywhere on the source site from where it is from. The discussion hasn't lasted "months" the other dispute is already resolved, this one started one day ago and i have no intention of extending it for long. Czixhc (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• the discussion on EN Wikipedia has certainly spanned multiple forums and you FORUMSHOP to attempt to get the image used and keep getting an overwhelming community response NO. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not en.wp. This is Commons. Please resolve your conflicts on en.wp. I concur with Bidgee that all users must remain civil, whatever postion they have or may have on any projects. Pleclown (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Pleclown (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

My disappointment: TOO and India

I am highly disappointed after my last few experiences in Commons. But, the most unfortunate and striking part is — the discussions involved few "admins".

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Official Aam Aadmi Party logo from their website.png was nominated for deletion and it was mentioned — multiple issues were involved there, from ECI to TOO-Ind. Some questions were answered, some questions were ignored. The file was kept. I nominated it for the second time, again editors started giving "keep" votes. So, I added a notice to highlight the issues. Again, it was kept with a closing statement: "no consensus to delete under TOO"

It IS disappointing. If copyright status of an image is not known, editors need consensus to "keep" it. To "delete" it, one needs no "consensus". The closing statement is a Com:PRP argument. If you don't know copyright status of an image, that is a reason to "delete" the image and not to "keep".

Again, in a recent discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:EmblemRamakrishnaMission.jpg the file was kept with no clarification. I don't understand why admins dont write rationales in details here.

That is not an acceptable admin act. An admin must try to find answer of a question if there are confusions. Here you nominate a file for deletion and you have to monitor each and every step. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The file consists only of basic text letters and geometry. There is no reason to assume it's above the threshold for India, and that is why it was kept. If you can provide proof that it is, then it can be reconsidered, but you should not have renominated it just because you believe everyone is "wrong". As for the second file, you yourself admit that the main part of it is PD. The only addition is a basic ribbon and text, which is not considered enough to regain copyright. Please take some time to study TOO and general copyright. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• What an argument! I'll not reply to it right now, first let me see if anyone else replies here. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You can get sarcastic all you want, but what matters here is that nobody seems to agree with you. Come up with some convincing evidence otherwise and maybe you can get some of us to change our minds, otherwise too bad. It was kept twice, and it will stay for as long as you approach it this way. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, here it goes:

1. File:Official Aam Aadmi Party logo from their website.png : Text (3 letters), two color colors, and a simple white geometric wavelike shape in the middle. = no (c) for this
2. File:EmblemRamakrishnaMission.jpg: No clarification? What is unclear about this: Main part (swan) PD, text below TOO

I will not write a five page long essay for every single DR I close. I am not sure about your agenda here. Do you want to retaliate for the AN complaint another user filed a month ago? [11]. You are actually wasting everybody's time tagging files as copyvio without evidence. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hedwig's post shows "self-defence" and has multiple issues, example: a) "I will not write a five page long essay for every single DR I close" — did I ask to write "five page long essay"? A one—two lines meaningful closing statement is sometimes very helpful, "You are actually wasting everybody's time tagging files as copyvio without evidence" — again wrong, I report copyvio almost everyday. and almost all my reports are quickly deleted.
  I am getting confused here, no one is apparently supporting me here still, though I expected one or two. I'll ask INeverCry and Bbb23 (Wikipedia, the two admins I trust and respect a lot) for help, not to vote, but, to make me understand where I am wrong here. Anyway, I'll clarify it once more:
  Summarized issue: When we don't know the copyright status of an image in its origin country, can we keep it? At least one admin has told, Indian copyright act mainly followed the British copyright act which does not permit to upload such images. We don't upload Indian signatures in Commons, because we don't know copyright status of Indian signatures in India, and here the issue is "same", and we are uploading images. No one quoted anything from Indian copyright act to show the images are fine, no one even tried to explain things or write a section on "Indian" in Commons:TOO. Once again, I am not asking to delete the images. But, please explain the things first. "We don't know copyright status" is a Com:PRP argument --Tito Dutta (Send me a message)
• In many cases, you can get an idea of the threshold of originality by looking at similar countries. For example, former British colonies tend to use whatever copyright law the UK used when the colony gained independence. Check COM:FOP: former British colonies typically use British FOP rules, and former French colonies typically use French FOP rules, with a few exceptions such as COM:FOP#South Africa (lacks FOP for photos) and COM:FOP#Algeria (has FOP). As far as I have understood, the Indian copyright law is basically identical to the British copyright act from 1956, so a reasonable assumption is that the Indian threshold of originality is more or less identical to what it was like in the UK in 1956. For that reason, Indian signatures have been deleted in a few deletion requests, citing the situation in the United Kingdom.

For Indian images, the natural thing is to follow COM:TOO#United Kingdom, unless we find any other indication. This means, for example, that we should delete if a line has been changed from vertical to diagonal, per [12] (w:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg). --Stefan4 (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

+1. JKadavoor Jee 13:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

+2 Thank you very much. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I suggest not to delete, but, move to en.wiki and tag "don't move to Commons". I told the same thing in the deletion discussions too. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The simple fact is "Oh, we don't have a TOO entry for India" is not a reason to delete. Instead of whining that we have no entry for India, you should put in some effort to build one. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Commons:PRP argument, if we don't know about copyright status, we can not upload it. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh aren't you cute, just quoting any policy that supports your motive at a whim. The reality of Commons is quite different as you are slowly learning. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Stop personal attack. I already know what I am talking about. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 06:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

My statement has nothing to do with me taking on a defensive position. I just stated that I will not write an essay to explain my decision. My explanation was short and clear. It is your problem, when you don't like it. And yes, you ARE wasting time. Right now you are wasting my time having to tell you the same thing over and over again. Find the right sources and every single admin will be happy to delete those images. You want them deleted, you bring the source. Assuming UK-Law is not the right way, India is India and not part of the UK anymore. Even IF the law is pretty much the same, IMHO the logo is below TOO, the added text below the swan image is below TOO. Too bad I can't remember the name of the Indian lawyer and the link that was stated in another India related DR. If you want to nominate both files again, go ahead. Maybe you find someone more receptive to your wishes next time. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• If the copyright status is unknown, the attempt should be try to learn it. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 06:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As you seem to be interested in India topics, why don't you do (or ask fellows on :in Wikipedia to do) some thorough research about TOO in Indian legislation and judiciary? That might lead to better informed DR discussions and decisions, and thereby serve us all. --Túrelio (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, I have just finished reading the first part of Indian Copyright Act 1957, have not found any mention of TOO anywhere. The copyright document is widely available in web (only 200 kb search with 'Indian copyright act 1957), I'll read it again. I don't know who to ask. You may ask User:INeverCry, he is a brilliant admin and User:Dharmadhyaksha, he known about Indian copyright act. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 06:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Reliable information about TOO might be found in actual court rulings (ideally about a logo) or in scholarly legal expert comments. It might therefore make sense to look at :in for a legally educated user. --Túrelio (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Túrelio, okay, I'll check, but, it'll be a difficult work, I'll search ,nic.in, .gov.in" sites too. But, it'll be a very difficult work. Using common search queries I got nothing. Your post (also) indicates, we don't know copyright status of these logos in India and we may need to search in .in .nic.in, .gov.in etc websites. Now, the basic rule of Commons is — it must be free in both US and its origin country. So, how can we upload images here without knowing the copyright status first — "that's" the main point of this discussion. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 07:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Probably Sreejithk2000 can help here. I just posted a note on his TP. JKadavoor Jee 06:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, good suggestion, He may, or Yann? And for information, I too have few TOO_Ind uploads and I am fully aware that my post may go against my uploads. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 07:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• The Indian Supreme Court's interpretation of the copyright act would support the closes in these DRs. Specifically, the Supreme Court of India has codified the subsistence of copyright aspect of the Canadian Supreme Court's judgment in en:CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada. While historically the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court have veered more towards the "sweat of the brow" aspect rather than TOO as far as copyrights go, this changed to a happy balance in Eastern Book Co vs DB Modak (2004) courtesy of the CCH case. The SCI judgment has also been used as stare decisis in subsequent judgments, most notably by Delhi High Court in University of Oxford vs Narendra Publishing House (2008). But either ways, before or after the 2004 case, the close of the DRs fall right within interpretation by Indian law. —SpacemanSpiff 09:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry for late response Tito. But i am also confused with COM:TOO and its application, both overall and India specific. Many of the images of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Symbols of political parties in India could have been kept under the reasons you received for those logos. Admins tend to have different ways of thinking and i don't blame them for that as interpreting copyrights seems to be a confusion globally. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please hide the phone number

User Special:Contributions/Rohitjangiddd has uploaded pictures where are phonenumber, please hide it.--Motopark (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Deleted per out of scope / promotional content. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Do we really have pictures of carvings like that to replace them? That was some nice work and very good photographs of an artform I don't know that we have well-documented.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Echoing what Prosfilaes said. Also, I believe not all were promotional or out of scope (per a few that I went through)? IMO, a quick undelete and rename-without-redirect, plus categorization, would be a favourable move... Rehman 11:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Uploaded Images (competition)

MY uploaded images are not shown in the list of 2013 WIKI LOVES MONUMENTS competition (India)

I look forward to hearing from you.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Prince MAAK (talk • contribs)

Though uninvolved in WLM, it seems to me that you missed to add the appropriate WLM-template(s) when uploading. Compare your File:Charminar (night view) The Pearl Of Hyderabad 2.jpeg to File:"Aesthetic Kotikal Mandapa at Mamallapuram, ASI identifier-N-TN-C43".JPG. --Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker bot misbehaving.

The bot has been misbehaving for awhile. The bot has problems with newline inside an image bracket. It made a very funny mistake today. I've left messages at the talk page, but Siebrand has only made one edit in two months. Some other examples I left on the talk page are [13], [14], [15], [16] and [17].

I can easily spot the error when it is at the top of the article. I'm noticing ~4 a day. Not sure how many are happening inside articles.

Where do I go or do next? Bgwhite (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a misbehaviour, malformed use of images CD tries to unlink. --Denniss (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Aloittaa

Please stop this vandalizing user. -- Ies (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Warned by User:Taivo.[18] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

IP block exemption

Hi!

I'm not sure if this is the right place - but Commons:Requests for rights has no category for this user flag.

I'm both a Tor user (for no specific reason - I just like it that way...) and some of the internet connections I use regularly are also utilized as exit nodes; therefor I ask for an IP block exemption flag. Normally my global flag is sufficient, but this is only true for globally blocked proxies, sometimes your faster with blocking exit nodes locally here at Commons :)

I'm planning to create distribution maps again (using the species tree maintained by fr:Portail:Herpétologie as starting point) and believe that my contributions are more help- than harmful...

Rbrausse (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 19:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

thank you Rbrausse (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

File's rename

Please rename File:Virgin Mary wayside shrine at Krakowska Street in Sanok.jpg to File:Virgin Mary wayside shrine at 84 Rymanowska Street in Sanok.jpg. It will be the correct address. Lowdown (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done: by Kintetsubuffalo. In future, consider conferring to {{Rename}} or RenameLink. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Cut thru a cylindrical element.jpg

Hi, please restore this file, because we have a permission via OTRS. Thanks, --Emha (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

image uploads of User:NeoCy

Please have a look at image uploads at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NeoCy . This user is currently indef-blocked on en:WP. Nobody doubts his good intentions or the volume of research he has put into his topic, but there are severe problems which he does not address. Several users including myself have noticed questionable license tagging of his images, specifically photos he claims as "own work" which predate his birth, however some have been found taken from UN websites, scans from newspapers and magazines, taken from promotional company websites, all rights reserved Flickr accounts and many other sources etc, which calls into question every image uploaded by the editor. Often if an editor is found to have continuously uploaded copyrighted images they all end up being removed as dubious licensing. I am going through and fixing the descriptions to read "collection of Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra, born 1981 (vide his en:WP talkpage), clearly not his own work," but this is more than I can handle myself and I need fresh eyes.

What do we do about the images? I don't want to mass-delete, there may be some useful material in there, but the licensing is obviously incorrect for a lot of them. Some I feel he has taken himself so they are perfectly fine, it's the older images and the obviously staged photographs that are more questionable. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Sleeping in the sun in Buenos Aires.jpg

Please delete the middle revision, uploaded by Sherlock4000, overwriting a completely different image. https://flickr.com/photo/45122874@N02/6708858047 doesn't exist anymore, so there's no telling whether or not it was ever available under a free license (and if so: which). —LX (talk, contribs) 18:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Hospital Naval, Parque Centenario.jpg

Please delete the middle revisions of File:Hospital Naval, Parque Centenario.jpg. Sherlock4000 overwrote a completely different image with a low-resolution version of https://www.flickr.com/photos/dandeluca/1272356689/, which is now marked as non-free. While the full-resolution version was later uploaded by Martin H., and I'd generally expect him to check the license before doing so, the file never passed a formal Flickr license review. In any case, it's completely different from the original file, and we can't fulfill the licensing requirements for both revisions on the same file description page. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 19:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

undelete File:FredericSouterelle1.jpg

Hello, please undelete the file File:FredericSouterelle1.jpg. I marked it as a copy vio, but as the user said, the photographer gave permission to use it.--CennoxX (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Temp-undeleted. --Túrelio (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

User removed speedy deletion tag

User removed speedy deletion tag, se history User:Ranaimranlatif--Motopark (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:GKSPD

Please check this useres contributions. Seemingly he likes to overwrite existing images with empty images. See for instance File:Graph 865434502030101 (Hamid Naderi Yeganeh).jpg. -- Ies (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Only his uploads that are currently lacking a source because archive.org has an issue or other files as well? -- Rillke^(q?) 15:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Can someone delete the previous revision (17:52, 15 September 2012) of File:Wapen van Luik (provincie).svg? Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Liege Province.png, I have strong reason to believe that those little golden lions in the perron were traced by Odejea from the website mentioned in the DR. I'd rather not risk this file being removed, so I replaced those elements. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Anonymous.celeb

A number of User:Anonymous.celeb "contributions" have already been deleted as copyright issues. the ones remaining also all appear to be studio images for which the claim of "self creation" seems dubious at best. In particular File:Pallavi Subhash Chandran Beautiful2.jpg is the same as one that has already been deleted as it is one of the images which she uses in a cropped version on her facebook page [19]. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff asked the uploader to provide evidence of permission. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Are long music files allowed in Commons

Full size File:EXPECTATION.wav, shall it be less than 30 seconds.--Motopark (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Music files of any length are allowed on Commons - if they're freely licensed. The file you mention seems to be authored by a "Capitán Troner", and the uploader User:Capitantroner says it's "Own work", licensed under CC-BY-SA - so it seems fine, if that is correct. If, however, a music file is not free, it is not allowed on Commons regardless of how long or short it is. Shortening a non-free music file to less than 30 seconds wouldn't make it acceptable on Commons, "fair use" media files are not allowed on Commons, in case this is what you have in mind. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Now the file in question has been deleted as "not own work", with a link to Amazon where it can be bought as MP3 as "evidence". Though I think "own work" in this case still plausible (it seems to be a lesser-known artist and the MP3 files at Amazon are self-published, so it's not unlikely that the artist decided to upload a single track under a free license at Commons), I understand the doubt; still, maybe asking for OTRS confirmation prior to deletion instead of this very quick deletion would have been a better way *shrug*... Gestumblindi (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

restored + tagged as no permission. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Although techs of WMF say, storage is not an issue, I would prefer if such long audio files would be at least encoded in FLAC instead of uncompressed wave. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Which license for Commons from DE wiki

Please see this image on DE wiki. Which license tag should be used for Commons when moved to commons? PumpkinSky talk 20:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a simple derivative (crop) of File:Lübecker Märtyrer.JPG and should thereby have the same templates. --Túrelio (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure

Would someone please close Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/05/Category:NE 81 of the neg? This discussion has been inactive since May. De728631 (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

New puppet of Pablo Milano

Hi, in regarding this request and this one, I come to report a new puppet called Milano.pablo.gulmilano.43. Like the last time, I ask if, in addition to taking the appropriate administrative action, were possible to remove the images he uploaded. Thank you very much. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 00:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked, some files deleted but the others (including one of the images that's an obvious YouTube screenshot) should go though a mass deletion request. Bidgee (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Queen Rambhai Barni of Siam.jpg

Please delete the 2013-08-25 revision uploaded by User:เอ็ดมัน and the 2013-09-14 revision uploaded by User:วรวงศ์ on top of a completely different image, violating COM:DONTOVERWRITE and most likely COM:L. (Once that mess is sorted out, we can talk about the lack of verifiable source information for the original revision.) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Rillke^(q?) 15:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Review of uploads

Is there a bot or a script that can be used to check if the "|confirmed=" status of templates like {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} added to images were actually done by (a) the editors mentioned, (b) image reviewers, (c) someone other than the uploader? Over the past couple of days I've come across about 25-30 violations of this including 3/4 images that should have actually been marked for deletion (they have now been deleted). I'm not sure of the best place to ask for this help, but it's very difficult to do this manually. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/70 is what should be amended. I just have no time right now for testing etc. It would be helpful if you could provide an example that the amendment could be tested against. Thanks for your help! -- Rillke^(q?) 18:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are some real test cases (if this conversation should be moved elsewhere, please let me know/move and let me know):

1. This violates (b) primarily, although there is a violation of (c) too.
2. This violates (a) primarily, though there's a violation of (b) and (c) too.
3. This violates (c) primarily, though there's an additional vio of (b).
4. This is a violation of (b) alone.

I came across the first three during my clean ups over the past few days while the fourth is over a year old, I just do this random checking every now and then, so there are a lot more like these. Four files similar to case 3 have been deleted recently. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And before I forget, the other templates that I review that could use this kind of checking are {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-FilmiTadka}} and {{NROER}}, though I suspect there are a lot more. —SpacemanSpiff 09:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

(b) was added to the filter. Administrators can monitor the log at Special:AbuseLog. Note that the filter does not prevent the edits entirely but it needs 2 attempts to save the page and a warning is shown. Image reviewers should be trustworthy enough not to do (a) or (c), I think. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense, I didn't think of it that way! I can't seem to make much of the log, so I'll look around later with fresh eyes. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to be administrator at Commons to see this log of a hidden AbuseFilter. Otherwise you see a list but not filtered by AbuseFilter 70. However, you may apply for adminship. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize that, I've never really looked at filter logs here and on en.wiki I just assumed everyone had access to them. —SpacemanSpiff 17:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't remember now, but ages ago i did come across an image of BH that was reviewed by a non-reviewer. But the editor is quite a trusted one (i now also don't remember who he was) and hence i let it go. Interestingly, i did come across an admin also who uploaded an image and reviewed it himself. When pointed out that he cannot be a judge in his own case, he said something like it was just too simple. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Sirikit Queen of Thailand.jpg

Please delete the 2013-08-31 12:55 (UTC) revision uploaded by User:วรวงศ์ on top of a completely different image, violating COM:DONTOVERWRITE and most likely COM:L. (Once that mess is sorted out, we can talk about the inaccurate source information for the original revision.) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

CNG coins, requirements for uploading

Is the "original URL" in CNG coins a strict requirement for uploading a file with a coin listed in Classical Numismatic Group? A user has nominated for deletion File:Stymphalian bird.jpg claiming that he "can't find it in the CNG database". I cannot see any specific requirement to provide "original URL" and in the Category:CNG coins most of the files don't provide such a URL. For example, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. - Thanks, --Odysses (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the policy has a requirement that files must have a verifiable source. Claiming that a file comes from a free source is not enough if there is no evidence to support it. If the source claimed is a webpage, then the usual minimal evidence required is the url of the webpage from where the file is said to have been copied. Or, you must provide a very good and convincing explanation for why you did not provide the url of the source webpage when you copied the file and you should provide a valid alternative means of verification. Besides, as of today, you are now personally claiming authorship of this photograph. That seems difficult to reconcile with the source, unless you are the original photographer who sent a copy of the photo to the cng website, in which case it can be asked why you chose to source your photo indirectly to the cng copy. Also, since March 31, 2007 the template CNG has been turned into a OTRS confirmation tag and as such it should not be placed on a file description page by someone who is not a member of the OTRS team. You had placed the tag on this file on February 26, 2007, which was okay at that time, but there is no obvious statement that User:Flominator has personally verified that each and every file uploaded before April 2007 was actually from the cng website before he turned the tag into a OTRS tag. IMHO, the nominator of the DR is correct to question the origin of the file, in the absence of any evidence. At least a link to the source should be provided or an explanation allowing the verification of the validity of the image. As for the other files you linked above, I tested this one and its url could be easily found on the cng website and added to the description page. Searching the cng website, a photograph of a Stymphalian coin can be found, but it is not the same photo as the one uploaded to Commons in 2007. (Note: I'm not a sysop, but this question was not sysop-specific.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Asclepias for your helpful hints. I searched again the CNG database more thoroughly for File:Stymphalian bird.jpg and found the original URL somewhere. So I hope File:Stymphalian bird.jpg should not be deleted since I've now added a "verifiable source". It seems that they do keep old records at CNG database of all previous items, but it's not always easy to locate. --Odysses (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I am facing the same problem. I uploaded many coins from the CNG, I provided a link, but now, after 6 years, the link is no longer working. The coins are no longer online available. Several of the images are now nominated for deletion. I think that will always happen. I do not think it is possible to provide a link for all eternity. Furthermore, I always thought that these links are checked after uploading the images; exactly to avoid this type of situation. -- Udimu (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Good question. The source links of the millions of files uploaded to Commons are not systematically checked (you imagine the burden it would be). Some web sources are less stable than others, but when the correct source link was mentioned by the uploader, at least it can be checked for some time and it may leave a trace somewhere even if the original link becomes broken later. But when the uploader didn't even supply the accurate link, it puts a doubt on the file. Someone could take a file somewhere and falsely claim that it comes from the CNG site, and fool everybody by the presence of the CNG-OTRS template, if the source coud never be checked. Some reviews are performed upon special requests. Often, what is needed is a review to confirm that a valid free licence is present for the file at the source. An established process exists for licence reviews. Basically and officially, it is a check of the licence, although performing it implies checking the source. By explicitely confirming that the file has a free licence at the source, that also confirms that the file is indeed present at the source. It is useful, for example, when a freely licenced source is know to be at risk of being removed from the web soon or of having its license changed. Now, the CNG situation is different and would require a different review process. The GFD and CC licences are not present at the source (although the faq at the website allows reproduction). The GFD and CC licenses are implied to be in an email (assuming it is different from the original permission-for-Wikipedia emails documented at Template talk:CNG). Thus, a request for review of the GFD and CC licenses by a license reviewer would not help. What is needed is a source review without a license review. I don't know if Commons has an established process for that type of review. Given that there are two thousand CNG files on Commons, and potentially more to come, it could be worth having some workable system whereby they can be validated soon after upload. Some other source sites have their specific "review needed" categories. Perhaps there could some sort of "CNG files needing review" category. Perhaps the OTRS members could certify that they have actually checked that the file is present at the source when they add the OTRS tag on a CNG file. Or perhaps there could be some generic "Files needing source review" category and license reviewers could be given a source reviewer status also, which would allow them to certify a source only, without certifying a license which is not present. Just a few ideas. Maybe someone can come up with a solution both simple and safe. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

would be good to find a solution; a control system where somebody checks images about the status, right after they got uploaded. Links will always move, databases change system and so on. In this particular case we managed to locate all images, but it took some time, it was time consuming and I don't want to do that again every five years or so. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Help with user interface translation import

Sorry to trouble. I am a local sysop at Cantonese Wikipedia and I have posted my translation for the Cat-a-lot tool in Mediawiki talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js/yue and Mediawiki talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js/zh-yue. Would anyone please kindly help me import it to the Mediawiki page according to Mediawiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js/translating? Thank you very much in advance.

I really wonder why it is so difficult here to make a simple import and so many sysops I have resorted to have turned me town. Last time Liangent from Chinese Wikipedia requested a similar import just by posting a {{Editprotected}} on the talk page and it was done within 5 hours.--William915 (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done by User:Fastily.--William915 (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

please stop deleting files that are work in progress

I am working to create the following educational videos User:Renepick/currentlyworkingon together with user:rob-nowman this is happening in order to create the web science mooc on wikiversity. As you can see in my list I already created a . Currently rob and me are creating file pages with videos that we plan to realize. Usually I put a script of the video on the discussion page and then robs is realizing the animations and eventually he or me uploads the video. This process might take a month for some videos. So please do not delete our empty pages as we need the scripts for the videos and creating those scripts already is hard work and will stop our workflow. If you suggest a better workflow for robs and me to create our content we are open to suggestions. If not please undo the deletions that have been done on the files and talk pages that are mentioned in this link. Thanks a lot --Renepick (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Image pages without files are usually deleted on sight, better synchronize your work (send him the scripts first) and uplod both the script and vid together. --Denniss (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Or, instead of using a page in "File talk:" space, use a user subpage in your own space to create the script and then copy it to the File talk page after the video is loaded. We delete around 2,000 pages every day, including half a dozen faulty image uploads and around fifty galleries. Please don't expect all the Admins who do this work to read this note. Remember that Commons is a multilingual project, so not all Admins are really proficient in English and may not understand your "work-in-progress" note either. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyvios

Can someone review the recent uploads of JohnMarvel 195 (talk · contribs)? All of these images are listed as "painting by Peter Reynosa" and released as "own work" but there is no indication that the editor is indeed the artist. See previous discussion at DR that had lead to the similar files being deleted and the user being blocked. Abecedare (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Movebot skip-over

I’m here to report an issue concerning the Move-command operation, what I saw the last time that I checked there is indecypherable and requires immediate attention. The 19 February 2013 status, for example, reflects the presence of a considerable number of movecommands for category-titles being on the wait for the bot to process them (mainly fixing scripts and standardizations) of which 34 had been posted by me (this doesn’t include an on-hold “century years by country” batch also posted by me). – From 19 February through this moment, out of 34 move commands 21 were processed, and 13 others not processed – while none remained on the command list for a possible later stage, but rather simply disappeared(!) from there, without any visible notice left on either requester’s talkpg or any other public facility. The result is a systemic-like yet unreported failure encompassing numerous mis-titled categories (at least 13) which not only oversights rename assignments but also ignores our agreed procedures. Obviously I don’t really think that I should restore these move requests on that page now that I witnessed their absence, as you know I am aware of a greater-scope problem Wiki was having with one of then-"operators" of the renamepage and several events of discontent by editors from that are well-recorded in the history log of this bulletin board. however, let me post the missing commands here, for your convenience when approaching the examination (list not including 17 additional commands in a batch of "Century years by country" whose fate is unknown). Note the dates: some as old as from November, were all deleted from the move page sometime around March.

Rename Category:Users to Category:Commons users (93 entries moved, 18 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Users;Commons users;r; A very insufficiant naming; needs to parallel Category:Wikipedians. "Category:Wikipedians" vs "Category:Commons users", "<<Users>>" is just so badly hanging in limbo. I checked and fixed all subs Orrlingtalk 07:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename Category:Community of Wikipedia to Category:Wikipedia community (88 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Community of Wikipedia;Wikipedia community;r; Align with Category:Commons community Orrlingtalk 07:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename Category:Sha'arei Yerusha'layim to Category:Sha'arei Yerushalayim (9 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Sha'arei Yerusha'layim;Sha'arei Yerushalayim;r; Remove stray apostroph Orrlingtalk 15:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename Category:Train de travaux en gare de Paris-Nord to Category:Maintenance trains in Gare de Paris-Nord (76 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Train de travaux en gare de Paris-Nord;Maintenance trains in Gare de Paris-Nord;r; Orrlingtalk 03:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Rename Category:Bet Shemesh to Category:Beit Shemesh (150 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Bet Shemesh;Beit Shemesh;r; Fix script (as Beit Biram, Beit HaShita. etc) Orrlingtalk 22:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Rename Category:Khayat Beach War cemetery – Commonwealth war graves to Category:Khayat Beach war cemetery (41 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Khayat Beach War cemetery – Commonwealth war graves;Khayat Beach war cemetery;r; Orrlingtalk 17:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Rename Category:Wizo Tel Aviv-Yaffo to Category:WIZO Tel Aviv-Yafo (6 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Wizo Tel Aviv-Yaffo;WIZO Tel Aviv-Yafo;r; Orrlingtalk 15:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Rename Category:Categories in Germany by state to Category:Categories of Germany by state (2,912 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Categories in Germany by state;Categories of Germany by state;r; Orrlingtalk 03:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Rename Category:Hecht Museum, Israel – figurines to Category:Figurines in Hecht Museum (18 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Hecht Museum, Israel – figurines;Figurines in Hecht Museum;r; Fix from odd, uncustomary naming format. 21:30, 15 December 2012

Rename Category:Hecht Museum, Israel – Iron Age to Category:Hecht Museum - Iron Age (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Hecht Museum, Israel – Iron Age;Hecht Museum - Iron Age;r;

Rename Category:Hecht Museum, Israel – Late Bronze Period to Category:Hecht Museum - late Bronze Age (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Hecht Museum, Israel – Late Bronze Period;Hecht Museum - late Bronze Age;r;

Rename Category:Hecht Museum, Israel – Intermediate Bronze Age‎ to Category:Hecht Museum - intermediate Bronze Age‎ (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Hecht Museum, Israel – Intermediate Bronze Age‎;Hecht Museum - intermediate Bronze Age‎;r;

Rename Category:Artwork by unknown artists to Category:Artworks by unknown artists (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Artwork by unknown artists;Artworks by unknown artists;r; Fix to plural Orrlingtalk 17:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanqz Orrlingtalk 00:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to have someone dealing with this kind of stuff (in time), I suggest you nominate someone you and the community trusts for adminship. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It's been talked already in multiple occasions during the past months, it's been very clearly proposed to several of you that I get the bot for specifically such category-moves, we had reasonably enough time to decide what to do and I'm here to help with ANY tool that I have, but.. well, that's right - I'm still waiting to get that one tool, that can save me and many colleagues here immense manual work and purely bring out the essence from my regular category-maintenance volunteering. So I don't know what else I can say. Should we now all understand that that designated move page is defunct? I don't think I saw any message about it when I posted the new commands yesterday. Orrlingtalk 01:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone just posted *today* a header on the movecommand page, after reading this thread of mine... however this all - including the reply from the admin above - still misses the kernel of the report from me: it was not about the delay in running the bot, it was about many move tags being deleted stealthily from the list without notifying the editors who use the bot's service. So given there's anyway a whole backlog issue discussed separately I'll post the above requests back on the list assuming that soon the entire list will be taken care of. Orrlingtalk 20:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Edition hard to revert

Edit https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Project_scope/ca&diff=106922194&oldid=105327302 is vandalism, but I can't undone it in the usual way because of translation tools. If sysops can revert that edit, it will be the easiest way to fix the problem.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done, you can (diff). --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

New: Help:Extension:Translate/Combating vandalism -- Rillke^(q?) 22:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice example. Thank you.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Bantu vandalized again

Guys. I don't know, maybe this is suppose to confuse me. We had that discussion here regarding the exact-same thing in several different occasions in time in the recent couple of months, the last one being the day when I would later log out, and now that I checked back in my contrib list I had to find out that the same pattern which we assembled down here to combat has recurred! Unbelievable(?). I'm talking about apparently this user that enters this website's system every now-and-then attempting to incorrectly modify parent categories in recently-edited items ex, with an unclear objective - always uncooperative and obviously most if not all of their "edits" just employ us extra time daily to get them fixed or reverted. What specifically can explain that we keep maskerading and perpetuate that sort of activity here while so many fields and topics remain exposed to the yet-next arbitrary nonsense and rioting conduct in the auspices of "everyone-can-edit"? Even if we go and take that specific Bantu-category as the case, with its populants being messed-out by them now again, what reason is there that we'd ever let this category go thru such a farce, by one user whose sole kick is to be in wars? Did no one actually notice it when they hit back? I was here with this identical complaint right after the last occasion and we were talking this thing here, which had well-linked roots back into previous discussions always going back to the same possibly-disruptive account and so-on endlessly. I don't actually get it. THat thing was supposed to be handled and solved already. Orrlingtalk 01:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Lionel Messi, Player of FC Barcelona team.JPG

Please delete the 2013-10-08 revision of this file, uploaded by User:Naruto endou on top of a completely different photo, in violation of Commons:Overwriting existing files and Commons:Licensing; it's a non-free Getty Images photo as evidenced by the metadata. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 17:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Solution requested in apparent nonsense editfight in Ethiopian category

Hey guys. This repetetive attempt to lift Category:People of Black African descent in Israel from Israelis of Ethiopian descent makes me quite concerned. How ever patiently I have challanged & worked out this with the user and explained how we work, he/she seems to still not be prepared to stop this weird edit, and has now made it again (for the 5th time?..). So I'm honestly not sure how to act further, and would appreciate if you look at it and might consider turning the cat uneditable, or any other solution for this unfotunate restless demonstration of irrelevant political-correctness that is also purely unsustainable in wiki categorization terms and breaks a hole tree. I'm honestly far from believing that there's a bad-faith motivation behind that lunaticism, but insisting to skin the Israeli-Ethiopeans from their obvious Black African parent starts seeming like nonsense. I don't know. Have left a modest note on their discussionpage, hope you get a good idea, be it locking the page or another. Thanx. Orrling Orrlingtalk 04:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Currency (banknotes and coins) of Greece uploaded to Commons

moved to Commons:Village_pump/Copyright --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Simple category move, please

Given the backlog at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, I thought I'd make a simple request here. Could someone delete Category:Screened porch after creating Category:Screened porches and moving images to it? It's a simple matter of singular vs. plural. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done 1 --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

File can not be edited due to blacklisted external site

File:Masopust držíme 03.jpg needs "{{PD-Art}}" -> "{{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1932}}" change. However I can not edit the page due to "The text you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site. The following text is what triggered our spam filter: no-ip. " error. I have run into those issues several times before, but I do not recall how the issue was solved. It would be nice if only new additions of links triggered such errors or if admins had a right to overwrite the error.

Same issues with

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Also does anybody know why those files are in Category:Information template using 'License' parameter? The file pages do not list that category, and based on the edit history they should never have been. --Jarekt (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I've done File:Masopust_držíme_07.jpg, you can follow the same trick to complete the others. Although, you're and admin, surely you can just add the links to the whitelist. Liamdavies (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

file a bug? There's a bugzilla:34928 (closed as Won't fix) Also a post about this without a reply: mw:Extension_talk:SpamBlacklist#Whitelist_admin_actions. Also about Category:Information template using 'License' parameter that's because no one can null-edit it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on bugzilla:55794 --Jarekt (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Stop ahead signs in the United States

Above category is a duplicate of Category:W3-1 - Stop Ahead and was created by an IP. Please delete it. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You could tag it with {{Speedy}}, but to a user unfamiliar with the terminology, wouldn't a redirect be better? Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to redirect. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Jarekt (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What-is-that?

I'm retiring my toolserver account. It currently only runs the What-is-that tool, but Magnus has build an updated version on WMF labs ( http://tools.wmflabs.org/multidesc/ ).

Please update MediaWiki:Gadget-WhatIsThat.js to use the new version.

Thanks, L

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If you've updated the Gadget script, it would be great if you would also update it's description on Gadgets section of user preferences since it's current description currently links to the version at his toolserver account. You can edit MediaWiki:Gadget-WhatIsThat (reflected at Special:Gadgets) to update the description. —RP88 18:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The tool (on toolserver and wmftools) doesn't work for me. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I just tried the version on labs and it worked for me. —RP88 18:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

ok. :-), Maybe my internet connection is too slow. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Routine revision deletion

Can any passing admin please delete the first version of File:Central Arcade, Newcastle upon Tyne, 23 June 2009 (2).jpg. Ultra7 (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Idea?

Any idea what to do with User:Sol corvalan seares. See her self-confessed age, which seems to be in accordance with her 2 uploads. It's less about blocking, but more about "counseling". I mean, who of us whould like his/her 8-year-old daughter to lurk around on Commons with all the things we host. Though, may be she just uploaded 2 images for her Facebook userpage and will go away. --Túrelio (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if anything was discussed/done about under-aged users at Commons... Cases like this could potentially become a major issue at some point in time... Rehman 05:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory file histories

File:Banana leaves.jpg was uploaded by user:Fæ on 11:46, February 28, 2013 based on file: page or by user:Denniss on 12:39, October 6, 2013‎ based on file history. They can not be both right. Does anybody know which history is correct, and how to fix it? --Jarekt (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It may be oversighted, as there is no log to it other than patrol log https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=File%3ABanana+leaves.jpg&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= (there should be at least an upload log like 01:36, 23 July 2005 Kale (talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Example.jpg") --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It was a Zombie image without description page. Page was created by me based on the information present in the upload comments and tagged for no source. --Denniss (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I do not think I ever run into a zombie (image) before, but it makes sense now. --Jarekt (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

File:2013-10-19 bowen-brooker-rail+bike track.jpg

Please rename this file to 2013-10-18 Mall and NAB building1.jpg as I named it incorrectly when uploading it. Wiki ian 00:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done In the future use {{rename}} template. Taivo (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User upload deleted pictures again

If I rermember right, there are pictures that was in the deletion request and has been deleted in Category:Etcengineer/Sub-página, please check--Motopark (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands"

Hi! There is a large backlog building up at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands" of categories that need renaming and files that need replacement. The administrator who usually handles this work, Foroa, has fallen off the grid for quite a while – not sure if he is busy in real life or taking a break, or has decided to quietly retire. Perhaps we have been complacent and too dependent on the goodwill of a single administrator to do this important but perhaps sometimes rather dull task. In any case, could a few other administrators look into this and start working on the matter? Thanks very much. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Allow all users with filemover rights to perform category-moves (using abusefilter to protect the CommonsDelinker/commands page) --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

 Comment filemover with category moves? I don't think so. But with Image replacement requests, I agree. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I mean to grant filemover the right to add Image replacement requests {{Move cat}} directly to User:CommonsDelinker/commands. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Jacklee is talking about categories movements. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how CommonsDelinker works. But two types of requests are listed there: (1) moving (renaming) of categories ({{Move cat}}), and (2) replacement of one file with another file ({{Universal replace}}). I think that currently both of these have to be processed by administrators. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, now there are two issues that need to be resolved:

1. Clearing the backlog. Regardless of how issue 2 should be dealt with, can one or more administrators please start working on the backlog?
2. Whether filemovers should be allowed to transfer {{move cat}} requests to User:CommonsDelinker/commands. This is Zhuyifei1999 and Steinsplitter's suggestion. I don't know the implications of this, so it's hard for me to comment on whether it's a good idea or not. However, although only uncontroversial requests are supposed to be listed at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, sometimes we do get controversial requests put there. These are later removed by Foroa or other editors. If all filemovers could place requests at User:CommonsDelinker/commands, we could get into a situation where editors disagree over category moves and then a whole bunch of categories get moved back and forth. So that's something to consider before allowing a larger number of editors to carry out category moves. It may not be necessary to take this step if there are enough administrators working at CommonsDelinker/commands.

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea if Jacklee, with all the experience around category-care, would agree being nominated for adminship. Does Jacklee? -- Rillke^(q?) 20:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with allowing filemovers to move categories, but I do agree with Rillke's suggestion regarding Jacklee. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to also disagree with filemovers having direct access to commonsdelinker. That would give filemovers (of which I am one) almost unfettered access, we currently have (mildly) supervised access to commonsdelinker, but giving over 600 users access and rights which they did not ask for, nor were vetted for doesn't seem prudent to me. If a choice like this were made it should become a new userclass. Liamdavies (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I am flattered but a bit reluctant to seek administrator status because I'm not familiar with the responsibilities of an administrator. (Maybe someone can explain them to me.) In any case, that would only be a partial solution to the problem because it's unlikely I will have a lot of time to spend dealing with the backlog at CommonsDelinker. I agree with Liamdavies that it is better to create a new user class of editors who are able to move categories, rather than to allow all filemovers to do so. I also repeat my call for a couple of administrators to start clearing the backlog as soon as possible – despite this discussion taking place, it doesn't appear that anyone has started tackling the issue. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me there is a way to move subcategories/galleries with less hassle than opening every last one and recatting them manually! I have a pending cat move with dozens of galleries... --Pitke (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you hold off adding more categories to the page for now? It's not much point unless one or more administrators start clearing the backlog. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add anything? I also manually moved some cats and am going to continue doing so (at a leisurely pace though). --Pitke (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate licensing?

Are the caveats about licensing and usage at File:6.28.13RebeccaHouselByLuigiNovi1.jpg acceptable? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, no, for two reasons:

1) The attribution requirement precludes the use of the image in printed form with all of the photo credits collected at the back of the book, as is often done. That is not a free license. However, many of our colleagues will disagree with me on this.

2) "Please maintain the original file name in all uses". Unless you construe this as a request, not a requirement, this precludes derivative works, or use in applications where file names are constrained in some way. Commons requires the ability to create derivative works and use the work anywhere.

The rest of the wording, including aggressively pointing out that the license requires attribution and that the work is copyrighted, is perfectly acceptable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Category talk:Deceased people by country - where has that pages' content gone?

Guyz. It's been a couple of months or so since the query regarding the uncommented disappearal of the discussion page for "Deceased people by country" was posted here (this), and now that I wanted to collect the restored content from wherever you restored it I noticed that neither that thread was anymore available here on the AN nor the lost page itself has become viewable anywhere. I guess some of you here just responded to me with whichever refernce to the requested page but I coincidentally happened to need to log out the following day and have since not visited the AN so now I don't know where to find your answers. So I apologize that I need to get to it again, there's a lot to do with that Dead people tree and that specific page has been constructed as a key for optional navigation and promptly attracted other users' comments, and it's now unavailable. Any of you who knows just kindly refer me to where the content was relocated and have my thanks. Orrlingtalk 05:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You've already asked this, and received a a response here. All the pages seem to have been deleted through this CfD, which you participated in. Liamdavies (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleted? How come and for what reason shall that one active page be deleted, while no one of us probably has made a copy of its content? Guys. I am not sure I understand what's going on here. It's been uttered clearly in my post above, as well as a while ago when we summoned here and at the Help Desk with the same query, that the page in question contains an important scheme for the upcoming, derivative re-categorization of plenty of media. If by now that support page has not been restored anywhere yet --- ignoring the fact that the issue was here already --- then it is probably the more-than-right time to have it fixed now, so that all editors of interest can review it and the categorization set in motion. This report is evidently older than 3 months. Orrlingtalk 07:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved by the HelpDesk! Thanks. Orrlingtalk 08:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

rename an image

I didn't realize there was a naming convention for the current sport template icons and so mine is misnamed. Is it possible to have it renamed? CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 06:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You can either use the script "Move" in the drop down menu next to the search box; or, you can use Template:Rename. Liamdavies (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

The file has now been renamed, this section is resolved. Liamdavies (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

some strange user pages

Users User talk:Placar Abril and User talk:Futebol Brasil replaced user talk page with same text. Please check--Motopark (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

One user more User talk:Lauro Melo, and same picture uploades than others.--Motopark (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like one user uploading the same file through sock accounts and trying to assert PD by placing the template on their talkpage, replacing warnings. Is it out of line to request a CU and ban two if found to be the same user? Or is that not needed? Liamdavies (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

why CU? it is quite obiously the same user - block on sight, as of repeated copy vio. Rbrausse (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Please block Placar Abril (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for continuing to revert problem tags from file pages, clearing deletion request etc. in spite of multiple warnings, including a last warning. Thanks. PS: Consider also to block the related socks cited above, all accounts (I would not say "users") with contribuitions related to the same specific scan of a copyrighted image published by Brazilian magazine Placar = File:Galo em 1978.jpg or File:Time Galo 1978.jpg, btw already deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Campeao 78.jpg or File:1978 Poster Campeoes.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

 Info Block via COM:AN/B#Placar Abril requested. Gunnex (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

[20] Rehman 12:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

See also en:User_talk:KDS444 Seem to be an alternative account (should warn him first IMO). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Need help with account

After some trouble, I was finally able to log in here, though I was OK re: that on en:WP. Now I can do everything at Commons except view my watchlist--am told I'm not logged in. Previous tries to log in here told me I had no account. Can someone help with the viewing watchlist? Please let me know on my talk page, as I can't use watchlist right now. Thanks, We hope (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Server or DNS issues (Software update?), 30 minutes ago all pages were redirected to wikimediafoundation.org. --Denniss (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

OK--I still can't sign in to view the watchlist-I get this:

Login error

There is no user by the name "We hope". Check your spelling.

What do I do now? Thanks, We hope (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Something seems to have borked project wide. Just give it time and everything should come back up. Liamdavies (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much, everyone! We hope (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe projectwide or not, at least the european (cache?) servers are affected, IP is shown as http://91.198.174.224 but opens an "unconfigured domain of the wikimediafoundation" error page. Some file pages work while others are redirect to the wikimediafoundation image page. --Denniss (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm redirected to WMF when I try to look at my contributions now. Also, you can only edit this page by the edit link at top, not the one for the thread. We hope (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Pleas clear your browser cache (esams cache works for me) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Just did and everything's back to normal-Thanks! We hope (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion from move-bot requested

Hey guys, would you please access the User:CommonsDelinker/commands page (which I still can't) and quickly take away from it the command "Rename Category:Maps of municipalities in the Netherlands to Category:Locator maps of municipalities in the Netherlands", it should not be done, as it is a kind-of mistake of mine and right now I'm fixing that category delicately, so the bot's move should be prevented for this one. Thankz Orrlingtalk 07:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Denniss (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It was NOT done. The bot performed the recategorization of all the 23 entries from Maps of municipalities in the Netherlands to Locator maps of municipalities in the Netherlands between 15:09 and 15:11, which is 1 hour 20 minutes after your "respond" here. Evidently and from some unclear reason despite having the simple request posted here at 07:40 it has never been attended properly. Orrlingtalk 18:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The move order had already been added to the job queue of the Bot. --Denniss (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Temporary Replacement Archive Bot

Hi all, as you probably all know, the archiving bot User:MiszaBot has been down since the 2nd of October. I've configured my bot to temporarily sub in for MiszaBot and will take over the archiving task on an opt-in basis. In other words, if you'd like me to archive your talk page, sign your name below and I'll add you to the list -FASTILY 23:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean here? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, right here -FASTILY 05:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• (^^ signed) Thanks. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Added -FASTILY 23:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop Bot

It's suggested that the nice bot now stop running over on the Ships by location cats, it's done - I'm kinda chasing it to repair from the unneeded replacements and he seems to not know when his mission is completed... Orrlingtalk 15:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with the operator of Hazard-Bot (talk · contribs)? --Leyo 16:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Shall I use the talkpg feature of that bot? Or what did you actually mean to say in this response? Orrlingtalk 17:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats

It should be noted here that the IP 93.144.59.77 has made legal threats against the Foundation for hosting an image which is based on one of their own drawings, as well as against myself simply for voting that the image should stay. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Foppoli was confused who the uploader was, as he is not familiar with Wikipedia. He is not a user, just the copyright holder that was contacted, any actions don't seem to be necessary. He just wants to see this derivative file deleted again (for it has been deleted before). Lemmens, Tom (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism-only POV account

Tu204fan should be blocked indefinitely, their edits can be seen on File:Flag_map_of_Serbia_(without_Kosovo).png. We went through this years ago, there are maps to choose from both with and without Kosovo, and the file in question was specifically designed to exclude Kosovo. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Gone. --Denniss (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibility to send more emails per day

Dear all, I am trying to contact the participants of Wiki Loves Monuments Switzerland for the ceremony. I am community manager of Wikimedia CH and I would invite the participants to the ceremony of 30th November. We don't have their emails, so we have to contact them by "email to the user" in Commons. Unfortunately I am blocked by the antispam rule and I cannot send more than 5 emails per day. With this rule I will need one month to send these invitations and to give advice to the participants in the shortlist of selected photos. May you help me? I am informed that I need the "noratelimit" right. --Ilario (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Seem only Account creators group only added the noratelimit right (other groups with that right is bots, 'crats, admins, and stewards), but it is only assignable by stewards. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Make a bot account and ask a 'crat to flag it. You possibly have to publish the message before to get a 'crat accepting it. If it is not utterly urgent ask at COM:Bots/Requests to get a flag.

Stewards must not mess with commons-user-rights. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Problematic behaviour from an IP adress

91.134.65.79 has just proposed for deletion File:Pinault Hayek.jpg for no particular reason. I looked at this IP's contributions and it appears that it has done so several times : not only did it propose several photos for deletion for no reason, but it also removed source informations and made bizarre edits. I suggest that the deletion request for Pinault Hakek.jpg be closed immediately, as it is only a waste of time. On the other hand, maybe this IP should be blocked ? It might also be interesting to check if it belongs to a particular user. Maybe these nonsense deletion requests are a form of humour ? Please take note that the IP has already been warned last may by an admin... JJ Georges (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This DR is nonsense; I closed it prematurly. --High Contrast (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but wouldn't it be useful to give that IP at least a strong warning ? JJ Georges (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be a dynamic IP adress. As such it is not useful to plant a warning there. If this IP should continue their activities, then further action should be startet. --High Contrast (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't IPs be forbidden to propose deletions ? There seem to be an awful lot of IPs who make nonsense deletion requests... JJ Georges (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No, there are loads (the majority) of DRs which were initiated by IP which are indeed very helpful. Keeping IPs out would not be a valuable solution for vandalism. --High Contrast (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete the old versions of File:Nanjing montage.png

ALL of the files which the old versions of File:Nanjing montage.png was based on, en:File:Yenanjing.JPG en:File:Nj02.jpg File:Nanjing yangtze bridge.jpg en:File:Zhongshanlin.jpg en:File:Zongtongfuye.jpg en:File:Jimingsi.jpg, were found copyright vio and were all deleted, so obviously the three old versions of File:Nanjing montage.png made in 2009 should also be deleted. I've already upload a new one. Please speedy delete the old versions. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY 07:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Akadians

This user need some instruction, my instructions don't help.--Motopark (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

latest 4 map issue

To Whom it may concern. Dear Madam/Sir, I have been overseas for several months and have just looked at my email. I am interested in your latest offer , but , have concerns as to how I would be able to receive them when I am out of the country. I am aware there is a time limit on this issue ,however , I would ask you to take into account my not being able to reply before now. Yours Sincerely. Graeme KIRK (Australia)

Graeme, I am not aware of any "offers" we might be emailing. Could you provide more details? Are you contributor to this project, if so than please sign you messages with ~~~~ so we know who you are here. If not than the email you got might have been some sort of spam. Regards. --Jarekt (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Restoring files in Wikipedia after their deletion was made undone

I have contributed to search for sources for image files which have been deleted due to assumed copyright violations. The files in Wikimedia have now been restored. How will they be restored in Wikipedia (they were deleted by the CommonsDelinker bot)? Is this task automatically carried out by bots or shall I press the "undo" button in the page history (since some of the images are already restored and the same images cited in other articles are not)? Dr. Esra (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not think there is an automatic way to restore all the places CommonsDelinker deleted image from. If we mistakenly delete an image which has been used on 100 pages on 50 wikipedias, than if image is restored than AFAIK they all have to be re-added to the pages by hand. If this was the last edit than simple undo might be the best way to do it. --Jarekt (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a bot for that. List the pages you'd like re-linked and I'll see what I can do for you. -FASTILY 22:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Dish took off MyNetworkTV

If I try edit talk page, I get inform about this user that it don't exist.--Motopark (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sonny Don Wilkes, Editor moved their talk page from User talk:Sonny Don Wilkes, Editor to User talk:Dish took off MyNetworkTV, I have moved it back ([21]). I assume the user wants to change their name, but this is not the way. Can an admin please delete User talk:Dish took off MyNetworkTV? Liamdavies (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

web-address in the pictures

see Special:Contributions/Phbme, I have marked pictures with watermark, there are web-addres in the picture, shall we crop address away or what.--Motopark (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, crop, per {{Watermark}}. --Dschwen (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

O.k., but notify her and try to treat her kindly. She seems to be a professional photographer[22]. --Túrelio (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ha, treating kindly is always a good rule :-). I must say that the images I checked were disappointingly small though. --Dschwen (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think an formal permission from her is required as those works are published years ago in many sites, including her website. JKadavoor Jee 05:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please return deleted discussion

Please return deleted discussion of User talk:Pati Rojas--Motopark (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Steinsplitter. --Túrelio (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

DelReqHandler problems

Have other Admins noticed that DelReqHandler file deletions are very slow, particularly in multiple deletions? I have had cases that have simply not completed at all -- and some of you have cleaned up after me, thank you.

I also have noted that the [Close:Kept] and [Close:Deleted] links work erratically, although not as often as the file deletions.

I very much hope we are not headed back to the situation in the winter of 2012 when deletions became almost impossible. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

To me deleting is very s....l.......o.......w as well today. I also get strange error messages. The several times the system told me that a file could not be deleted, because it already had been deleted by another user, but below the log was listing me as the deleting admin. Jcb (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Some problems indeed, deletion takes rather long, moving files even longer. I sometimes even get timeouts from simple file editing. I had the double delete problem about a week ago but haven't seen it this week until creeping up tagain today. --Denniss (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It's no better over API. I'm guessing this has something to do with the WMF servers. -FASTILY 01:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I had these issues over two days. Did not check back today yet. I have a pretty good internet connection, and was still not able to delete some files.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Lot of problems with deleting/moving files in the last weeks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone ought to file a bugzilla bug. There's no good reason for deletions to be this slow -FASTILY 10:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of changes to images under threshold of originality

Hi,

I added this comment to a user's page, basically saying that a straightforward crop (and minor contrast) tweak of an image were- according to my understanding- well under the threshold of originality and thus very unlikely to confer additional ownership or copyright in the deriviative work (i.e. its status and ownership remains exactly the same as the original image).

However, we don't appear to have this specifically written down anywhere(!)- Commons:Derivative_works doesn't cover it. Can anyone clarify where (if anywhere) it's mentioned (and if not perhaps it might be a good idea to include it)? Thanks CarbonCaribou (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a long-existing, but never touched issue. I had this in my head since long. As this would change a lot, I recommend to first open a rfc or something. --Túrelio (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I will bear that in mind. CarbonCaribou (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Please delete

missed from Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Ryan Concepcion Bacsal.jpg--Motopark (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done by User:Jameslwoodward Jonathunder (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete the first image version of File:Am Kirchhof 2 Ronnenberg.jpg

Upon request by the car owners (ticket: 2013092510017332) I blurred the license plates. We must not to do so but the license plates are not the subject of this image and may I ask if it would be possible to delete the unblurred version of the image? --Filzstift (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Help with an image deleted previously

I tried to upload this image, but it failed, because the same image was deleted in 2009 by copyright violation (Julio_Lagos.jpg). Nowadays, the image has a CC license compatible with Commons (under this template). I need help with that. --Warko (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Go here, and check the box for "Ignore any warnings" -FASTILY 08:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --Warko (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker

See [23]. This should be stopped from removing links and captions to file that have been deleted on Commons because they have an exact duplicate. If it can't swop the images, then it should do nothing. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Image was deleted because it was an exact duplicate to another one and Delinker did its job to unlink deleted images. Please ask the deleting admin why he deleted an in-use image instead of tagging it with duplicate and using the proper procedure with replacement and redirect creation. --Denniss (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit - proper procedure to process dupes was used. Somehow the helper Bot did not detect the still-existance of the page in form of the redirect. Most likely caused by ongoing server issues either here or on the Toolserver. --19:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Group SqL HeX

please check edits of User talk:Group SqL HeX--Motopark (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

uploads deleted (+ global locked by Matanya) --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Lock intervention

Please see the recent edit history of Category:Settlements in Israel, incl usertalks throughout that history, and lock the category for this(ese) user(s). Thanx, Orrlingtalk 16:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Alejo Giordano

need some cleaning--Motopark (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Am Kirchhof 3 Ronnenberg.jpg

The same prodecure (and same OTRS ticket) as in [24]. Could someone remove the first image of the file above (the license plates shall be not visible)? --Filzstift (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please, delete

I was looking for something to translate here and I accidentally translated three pages on MediaWiki namespace, which I am not allowed to.

• MediaWiki:Label-gadget-documentation/pt-br
• MediaWiki:Label-gadget-example/pt-br
• MediaWiki:Label-gadget-translate/pt-br

Sorry about it and please delete them. Thanks.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 02:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. 1. The policy is mad in this regard 2. MediaWiki should have a dedicated namespace for translators, for all kind of local translations 3. Thanks for your help! -- Rillke^(q?) 18:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A spree of delete-messages onto my photographs

Hey guyz, in case this concerns adminship tasks, would you please refer to this recent notice by me. Thanks Orrlingtalk 20:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Weyhers von Norden.JPG

bitte verschieben auf "Weyhers von Süden", --Verum (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Please use {{Rename}} the next time. --Denniss (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Variation among admins in application of duplicate policy with relation to different file types

From years ago, I have always rejected applications of {{duplicate}} where the file type was different and asked people to take a deletion request through a normal DR, as that has been my interpretation of the policy, and as advocated in the information for {{Superseded}}. It seems that this is not a universal approach by all administrators, and IMNSHO worthy of a discussion. In my early years of an administrator, it was indicated to me through the sister sites that if someone chose to use a file type, eg. .gif, that it was not up to Commons administrators to override their choice and replace with .jpg, and to remove their file, and to me it was a poignant point of view. While we can undertake a replacement here there is a quality improvement, the speedy deletion of an image does not seem necessary. I am keen for opinion and clarification of how the broader community sees this matter, and the initial wording that was undertaken in developing the policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If the worse quality/filetype image was uploaded after the superior image (svg image present but png version uploaded afterwards) then the worse image could be speedied (or better replaced by and redirected to the superior one). Different types with pre-existing worse type images could go through DR but the image should stay if the superior version was created as a derivative from the worse type. --Denniss (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Rejections like this are clearly counterproductive. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not that I wanted to pour oil on the fire but if the file would have been deleted because it was lacking a license tag, it would have had simply deleted from wikiversity. There was no good reason for it to exist at all; it was sourced with "google" so the uploader searched google and didn't get that they copy Commons content to Commons. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an area where a case book might be helpful as a prompt for admins that do not specialize in this. It is not always obvious which image is "better" than another, as different formats have their value for re-use. For example we would not delete a jpg just because a massive original tiff exists and raising a DR to confirm that would be likely to prove a waste of volunteer time.

I remain concerned for cases of "near identical" duplicates, such as varied scans of archive images from different sources of the same original artefact/photo negative, where there may have been partial cropping, image repairs or enhancement. Frankly I am unsure if we can form a firm guideline of what to do in such a wide variety of scenarios, apart from suggesting that admins should remain conservative and default to avoid speedy deletion, if necessary converting to a DR, unless the rationale for deletion appears indisputable or the particular scenario has been accepted as a norm for speedies by pre-existing consensus. --Fæ (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"we would not delete a jpg just because a massive original tiff exists" <- I agree with this sentiment, of course, as someone who has done a lot to contribute JPG duplicates of TIFFs. ;-) However, I wonder what you will think once image pages allow you to download full-resolution JPG previews? This will happen in a matter of days. I think that, with some interface improvements, there is really no reason that we shouldn't be able to remove the necessity of JPG duplicates of TIFFs as separate uploads to Wikimedia Commons. Hopefully, we'll reach the point at which it's safe to delete such duplicates (assuming the JPGs aren't derivatives with alterations, of course). Dominic (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I've been somewhat active in the duplicates category. There are five types of dupes as far as I can see:

1. Byte-exact dupes (the dupe tool doesn't even show you the previews for those)

   Here I try to consolidate the image descriptions (a task I'm always hoping the tagger would do) and proceed immediately

2. Visual dupes (the dupe tool shows two previews, and the switch button does not reveal any differences)

   Here I look at resolution and filesize and try to pick the image with the better quality. It says that exact or downscaled dupes are eligible for speedy. However I have encountered images that turned out (after careful inspection) to be upscaled dupes.

3. Almost dupes (the switch button shows small differences)

   Here it gets tough. My first instinct is to reject all of those flat out (I find many of those in the heraldy department). However, when both copies are created by the tagger and the new image seems to have broad acceptance (global links) I tend to comply with the speedy request.

4. Crops (even if it is only whitespace)

   I tend to reject those, as the different framings may be there for a reason (legibility etc.)

5. Not really dupes (two shots of the same subject with a step taken to the side)

   I reject those as well... ...unless they would comply with User requested deletion of a recently uploaded and unused file.

The bottom line is that I have gotten a few messages on my talk page from users complaining about the dupe resolution one way or another, and I try to respect these opinions in cases that are not totally clear cut. --Dschwen (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC) P.S.: I happily replace png with svg, so sue me ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The immediate cause for Billinghurst's question (though he didn't notify me) was a disagreement with me. The situation is that the US National Archives used to only publish low-resolution .gif files of its scan in the online catalog, and many of these were uploaded to Commons. Since then, I have uploaded many of the master files of these same images (as NARA staff, from inside the building) and tagged these old, unaltered .gif versions of the full-resolution .jpg files as duplicates. This is clearly not an example of an uploader making a meaningful "choice" of file format, and the images are in any other way (except resolution) identical, but Billinghurst insists on reverting my tags. This is something I would like to see agreement about, so I don't have to worry I'll have my taggings acted on most of the time, but then get reverted receive a warning from an admin if a particular person happens to be monitoring. Dominic (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree with you regarding this particular case - if pictures were uploaded in low quality because no better quality was available at the time, and later high-resolution pictures become available, I don't think it's useful to keep the old low-quality pictures, even if they're in a different file format, except if that format may have advantages for some uses - which I don't see in your case. I would currently indeed keep reasonably-sized JPG files if "massive TIFFs" were uploaded later, but as GIF is expressly and for good reasons discouraged for photos here - "Commons discourages the use of GIF files, except for animations", Template:BadGIF - I see no point in keeping e.g. File:General-Dwight-D-Eisenhower-Lt-General-Lucius-D-Clay-at-Gatow-Airport-in-Berlin.gif when a much better and still not oversized JPG is now available. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the issue is bigger than Dominic's matter, there are multiple situations of similar scenarios, this one has just bought it to a head, and I didn't particularly raise the dispute here as this is about the policy and approach of administrators. Secondly, the specific issue to which Dominic refers is that the nominations as duplicate has not been solely gif -> jpg; there have been a range of files including png, tif (source and target) as well, so it is a misrepresentation to express it in those simplistic terms as above of gif -> jpg. With regard to my "reverting", on these occasions I have expressed to Dominic to take his specific matter through a DR process, and when we have that discussion of what we are doing as a community with that set of images then we could refer to that discussion, its decision and be able to progress. He has refused on each occasion to undertake a DR, and if someone cannot be bothered to to do so when asked, don't blame me.

Re an admin's point of view about "no point in keeping", I don't disagree, however, if you think that should be policy, go through the process of updating the policy, don't make policy on the fly, especially one that binds others.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The misrepresentation here is the way you keep referring to your view as policy when it is clear not only is it not that, it's not even common practice. Just because you are an administrator does not mean that you have carte blanche to tell me I need to jump through hoops and then act like I am some rulebreaker who "cannot be bothered to to do so" when I disagree with you. I prefer to spend my time where it seems worthwhile, and starting DRs at your behest for files that every other admin speedies without complaint is not my idea of worthwhile. Dominic (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Billinghurst, doesn't Template:BadGIF already represent something like a rather long-standing de facto policy? It says expressly that "Commons discourages the use of GIF files, except for animations" and tells uploaders of PNG or JPEG versions to mark the GIF image as {{superseded|Image:new image name}} - for years already, nothing new, and it's quite widely used. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think that COM:Dupe is very clear: it must be the same file type and there must not be colour or quality differences. If one file is a low-resolution GIF and the other one is a high-resolution JPG, then both the file type and the quality differ, as a high-resolution file always is of higher quality than a low-resolution file. If someone uploads a thumbnail version of a file in the same file format, then it seems a bit stupid to reject a {{Duplicate}} tag, but that is what COM:Dupe tells that you should do, although the following section says otherwise. It seems bad to delete files because of different file formats: there may be lossy/lossless compression differences and there may be differences in metadata. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have to agree partially with Stefan4. As an en:wp admin, I frequently encounter files tagged for our F1 speedy deletion criterion, which applies to "Unused duplicates or lower-quality/resolution copies of another Wikipedia file having the same file format". There's really no good reason to keep a low-resolution copy in the same file format: the sole difference between the two is scaling, and we can always force the software to produce a lower-resolution thumbnail. If this page isn't able to change policy (I'm unclear, since I don't do much of anything here except for image uploads and categorisation), we really ought to begin discussing at COM:DUPE's talk about permitting the deletion of low-resolution duplicates. As far as file format, speedy deletion is definitely a bad idea when we've got different formats for the different images. Since every format has a different function, it's really not safe to get rid of one file just because we have another copy of the image in a different file format. The sole exception, in my mind, is when the uploader of the "old" superseded file requests deletion; the uploader should know whether there's a remaining use for the superseded file, so we should be willing to delete superseded files upon request, regardless of how long they've been on the wiki. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's get a bit more specific: As said above, I can see the sense in keeping a JPEG if a higher-quality TIFF is available. It's also perfectly understandable to me to keep the original bitmap (be it a GIF, PNG, or JPEG) file of a logo from which an SVG was derived. But the instances in which people would use a photo rather in GIF than in JPEG format seem to be extremely limited to me; that limited that I'd say you can anytime convert a JPEG photo into the inferior GIF format if you really need it, and keeping a GIF photo if a higher-quality JPEG is created from the original source should be the exception. I think that the questions "SVG vs. bitmap" and "GIF photo vs. JPEG photo" are very different. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

keep in mind you have cases of the same image from different institutions with different resolutions, and metadata. NPG v. LOC; LOC v. NARA; NARA v. naval history center. these are rare, less of a problem than the wikiloves art shot now duplicate with the high quality institutional scan.

i would like to see a consensus process of flagging similar images, cross linking, migrating useage to the best, and deleting the low quality ones that add no value. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 21:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

User:AnjaJörgGarmisch

Can somebody maybe take a look at User:AnjaJörgGarmisch - that user seems to be uploading files that are mostly out of scope, categorizes them into strange or irrelevant categories, and isn't responsive to my talk page question. I don't have time to thoroughly check their contributions, so can somebody else please do so? Thanks. darkweasel94 11:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

All contribs nuked -FASTILY 02:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Cross-wiki harassment by User:John Cruel

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/11/Category:馬來人種. This user is actively harassing me on multiple projects, by labeling me as part of a "Malay race" (I am not Malaysian) through the use of Commons categories. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked by Shizhao --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Spam listed in image files

There are image files where people tell you where to buy a copy at. I believe that violates the spam policy. [25]. If you search for "buy this photo" you find four results. [26] Dream Focus (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's Ok to link to own webpages but actively trying to get people to buy these photos is not OK. Removed and user warned. --Denniss (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Diagrams of new road signs by country

These categories should be deleted, we don't cat road signs by being "new", we do current and old. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

 Deleted. Bidgee (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrator User:Denniss

I don't want to argue about our problem depending a category. I see there clear racism, he don't. He two times reverted me - so long not fine but a thing we could talk about. But after he reverted me the second time he protected the page. So I'm an Admin too and I could rvert him also under a protection - but I will not use the Admintools as User:Denniss does to push through my personal opinions. I expect that the page will be unprotect and someone tells User:Denniss, he not have to use his Admin tools for pushing through his own opinion. If he does it again, he has to lost his tools. Nearly nothing is more worse in a free project with people spending unpaid their spare time, than Admins running wild. We have rules and we are not the wild west. One of such rules always is: Admins don't getting active in their own battles! Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In general using page protection (or any admin tool) for your own agenda in a wheel war is not cool. But please Marcus, if you accuse Deniss of "Racisim" you'll need to provide us with a bit more information than you did. What Category is the conflict about? --Dschwen (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! Misunderstood the problem description! --Dschwen (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be about adding Category:Racism to File:Cry-wolf.png. Эlcobbola _talk 17:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I see Antisemitism there and the image is tagged accordingly. It is not clear to me why racism would apply here. --Dschwen (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In any case Category:Antisemitism already is a subcategory of Category:Racism. So I guess all this is a moot point here anyways. --Dschwen (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

To be precise, COM:OVERCAT is the relevant guideline. Suggest to close this now, as there is no administrative abuse. --A.Savin 18:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither did this report include the subject the edit war was about, nor did the participants use their talk pages (for a serious discussion of the issue, only for hostile phrases), nor the file's talk page; if I am honest, I suspect the reporter did not even read that talk page. BTW, what is Physionomy and who is weiland der Stürmer? I guess the latter is weiland Der Stürmer in which case, an analysis (involving background information like what the author himself intended, for example) and not a revert-war is required. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Btw. antisemitism is not the type of racism the cartoon is about... It is a catchphrase used against another group of people... *just my two cents* --Anika (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Superseded flags by country

Another set of massive over-categorization similar to the other ones I have reported here. Please delete the category and all sub-cats. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, this was done several times previously. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Helloooo? Fry1989 ^eh? 19:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Nuked all empty categories and subcats. -FASTILY 07:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bolivia and UK cats and subcats can also be deleted now as they have been emptied. The flag in the Bolivia, I don't know why it's still showing up in there, it doesn't have that category in it's text so it's some sort of error. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Dschwen (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The last of the subcats have been emptied and may now be deleted. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Out of scope pictures

See uploads Special:Contributions/Prince_nexio, some private pictures, could some deleted them.--Motopark (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

 Nuked --Dschwen (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Nicht vorhandener Genus-Eintrag

Liebe Administratoren, ich habe ein Bild der Species "Pinthaeus sanguinipes" hochgeladen. Der Genus-Eintrag "Pinthaeus" in der Familie "Pentatomidae" existiert leider nicht. Wie kann man den Fehlenden Eintrag einfügen? Dank und Gruß, V.Wagner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volkmar Wagner (talk • contribs) 23:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Lieber Herr Wagner, Category:Pinthaeus wurde vom Benutzer Pleclown am 09:20, 14 November 2013 erstellt. Die Galerie Pinthaeus wurde vom Administrator Jim gelöscht, weil sie nur aus einem Bild bestand und damit per Definition keine Galerie ist; Galerien sind Übersichtsseiten, die bestimmte Merkmale oder Teile bensonders herausstellen sollen.

Bitte solche Frangen in Zukunft im Forum stellen, da dafür keine administrative Hilfe erforderlich ist. Vielen Dank und nun hoffe ich, dass ich Dir nicht den Spaß an Wikimedia Commons verdorben habe. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Maipage, Potd

Please have a look to the main page, scientific names should be written cursive. --Pristurus (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Forcipiger flavissimus (Yellow longnose butterflyfish) seems better. JKadavoor Jee 10:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Pleclown (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Error in typing address as source on comment for a new version

I'm sorry. While loading a new version of File:Coa Fam ITA Renier.png I put the internet address of the source bracketed. Please, could anybody correct the comment field? Now it links a Commons red page. Thanks, -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 10:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators can't change edit summaries; they can only hide revisions. Only system administrators are able to change the edit summary by doing database manipulation which is likely not to happen here. If you really need this changed, you have to re-upload the file with the correct edit summary but administrators will probably refuse to delete the intermediate version. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, clear. I guess this case is not so important, since anybody can understand the real meaning and overcome the error. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 18:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Itatch

Vandalism-only account, has been warned by two users not to continue. Should be indeffed. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. --Dschwen (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Front View of George Washington Masonic National Memorial.jpg, promotional and protection policy

Take a look at the edit history at File:Front View of George Washington Masonic National Memorial.jpg, User:Denniss edit wars with myself, and then protects the file to his preferred version. I don't do much editing on Commons, but involved admins using the tools to shut out non-admins is generally frowned upon on the English Wikipedia. And it's clearly not an isolated incident, because just above is another example of him doing the same thing.

No attempt was made by Denniss to discuss this on the talk page, the only correspondence he made was a condescending newbie template that I frankly find offensive. They're not test edits and he knows it - no one appreciates this passive-aggressive bullshit.

The dispute is that links were placed on the file page by the photographer so that users could license non-free versions of the photograph. Previously, to license non-free versions of the file, one would have to email the photographer User:Jovianeye; direct links to purchase the file are equivalent and just make the process easier. Photographers producing high quality free works should have their wishes respected. - hahnchen 16:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is not the place to post promotional links or to advertise. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Your response ignores the administrator's behaviour. Your response ignores that many high quality images, such as File:Taj Mahal Sunset.jpg include links in which to purchase commercial licenses from the photographer - which we do not class as advertising. - hahnchen 19:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am all for letting photographers freely choose a reasonable credit line and in my opinion this does include links to a personal website. However, we have to draw a line somewhere. And I don't think a click here to buy link can be interpreted as a credit line anymore. Muhammad's solution of including an email address is fine (and so are Ralf's credit lines with a link to his website). I would suggest that Jovianeye sets up a website with a landing page that presents options to buy his pictures. These should not clutter the image description pages. --Dschwen (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@hahnchen: Wikimedia Commons has an educational purpose, and is not the place to post promotional links. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The file in question is quite clearly within our scope, hence it is a featured image. Allowing photographers to post links to alternate versions and licensing is a courtesy we extend to content creators. I'm not sure why we would require photographers to set up their own website when there are already services available. - hahnchen 03:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

See #Spam_listed_in_image_files --Denniss (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should have sent me that link before, instead of your useless and condescending "nonsense edits" remark. For an administrator to lock down a page in their preferred format in the middle of a dispute on English Wikipedia would be poor form, it's a standard that should apply here too. - hahnchen 03:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Here I agree with Dschwen; Joe Ravi is free to add a link to his dreamstime profile page at the author, permission or attribution fields if he wish so. But advertisement tone like "Buy this photo at" and direct linking to the shopping cart should be avoided.

Joe is not very active here nowadays; so I contacted him and he replied that he has no complaints for those removals. We are missing many good photographers day by day; so utmost care should be taken while dealing such cases.

I wonder why we allow much promotional texts and links in third party uploads while showing zero tolerance to any registered user here. :) JKadavoor Jee 06:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

File:MapaTrujillo1.jpg

Please I request deletion of the update made by cmonzonc because his update do not correspond the my original file based on wikipamia, his update corresponds to the file File:Plano de la ciudad de Trujillo, CUT.jpg. cmonzonc is a disruptive and vandalic user of wikipedia that has a personal conflict with Trujillo city he has several reports see this in talk page of article Trujillo, Peru : -- A report against cmonzonc (for vandalism acts) to keep in mind see report. This vandal called cmonzonc tried to eliminate an article 2 times, it was demonstrated in the discussion that cmonzonc told lies in a try to get the deletion of the article.see here. It Should be carefully monitored the edits of cmonzonc to prevent vandalism from his editions. --

What deep inside cmonzonc wants is to hide the real map of trujillo city covering my file with a plane that shows only a part of the city. This user has been blocked already in wikipedia for his vandalic acts as shown in the report. I request deletion of his update because don't correspond, leave my original file and protect it from his vandalic acts.--Spanchrash (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Photos wrong named

Hi,

I make a big miskate between 1-benzooxepine and 3-benzooxepine about the position of oxygen atome- I confused 1-benzooxepine with 3-benzooxepine and reciprocally. It concerns two couples photos I create today :

• File:1-benzoxepine.svg and File:3-benzoxepine.svg
• File:Equilibrum-1-benzoxepine.svg and File:Equilibrum -3-benzoxepine.svg

I need this photos quikly because I work on the poor french article fr:wp:Benzoxépine! I already ask for the rename on these pictures at 10:52 but the situation hasn't changed... Help ! I put too this message in french on Commons:Bistro but nobody reacts here since 13:15. Please HEEELLLPPP!

My highest consideration to the first sysop will solve this case!--The Titou (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

<< The specified target file exists. Filemovers will be unable to rename this file. An admin is required or choose another name. >>  Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Marcus Cyron and Steinsplitter --The Titou (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Gaddafi flag and coat of arms

No administrative action is required at the moment. Moved to File talk:Flag of Libya (1977-2011).svg --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Email-adress in the picture

Email-adress in the picture of Special:Contributions/Zdjenkin, please detele.--Motopark (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete the email-address or photos? Maybe open a deletion request for that? Taivo (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Mistake with a Categoriy titel

Hi im New.

• I made a mistake wehen declarde the title of this Category: Bergipfel der schweit
• it should read: Bergipfel der Schweiz

can someone please change that? Thank you many times Gamemaster669 (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually the correct writing would be "Berggipfel der Schweiz", but I can't find either of those categories right now... --Patrick87 (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Bergipfel in der schweiz was deleted by Fastily.[27] Please do not create a German language version of Category:Summits of Switzerland. Guidance for category names may be found at Commons:Categories#Category_names. To rename a category, please use {{Move}}. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Odd remark by administrator

At this deletion request, User:Eleassar (who has lately been involved in some issues of conduct) said this: "To the concluding administrator: please note that all the above users come from Romania."

What exactly is the implication here? That in spite of being an editor in good standing, even an editor with many positive contributions to the project, someone who happens to be from Romania cannot be expected to have an unbiased opinion on an image related to Romania? That the views of editors who happen to be from Romania are somehow less valid or less worthy than those of editors from other countries? I can't really see a way to interpret this comment as anything other than harmful and creating a hostile environment. Eleassar should clarify what he meant, and other administrators should indicate if it is indeed the case that the voices of editors who happen to be from Romania are given less weight for that reason alone. - Biruitorul (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That is absolutely inappropriate. Fortunately Eleassar is not an administrator but only has certain rights. I agree though that this user has not done right by DRs, and in particular I have seen them use the DR process several times as a weapon just to get files relicensed. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been referring to the three users who contributed their largely uncivil comments, not users from Romania in general. If anything here creates a hostile and harmful environment, it is their uncivil comments. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The remark please note that all the above users come from Romania is ad hominem and not appropriate in a discussion of a DR. However, the preceding remark is likewise inappropriate. It would be a good move if both comments could be stricken out. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry I lost my tempter, but I find a lot of the DRs coming from that user absolutely frivolous and irrational. It is impossible not too. Look at this one. The Dacians from the Trajan's column died a long time ago, and so did Conrad Cichorius. Yet, for him, they could be reasons for copyright. And here he managed to delete the image of a Dacian Draco from a museum, as copyrightable taxidermy. Except this was not a stuffed animal but a symbol, a flag. I can strike out my comment, but someone has to seriously look at this person's activities and motives. Currently he seems to be focused on deleting in mass materials related to Romanian history and culture, stretching and bending rules such as FOP. Of course he will get the reaction of the Romanian users. Who else? But what is his agenda exactly? Also, note that the user was subject of a block recently, as others also took notice of his activities.--Codrin.B (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing a deleted image File:Ocean-goblin-shark.jpg

I'm trying to track down the provenance of an image on a 3rd-party site, http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18tnyroq7d760jpg/ku-xlarge.jpg (used on http://io9.com/these-sea-creatures-are-clearly-from-outer-space-758780231 ). That page seems to cite File:Ocean-goblin-shark.jpg as its source, but that image has (presumably correctly) been deleted. I'm hoping an administrator could view the deleted image, and confirm that it is the same image. That will at least give me more information. Thanks! JesseW (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The paper mâché fish artwork is by Adelle Caunce, from British Columbia, and I guess she probably took the photograph too. It was posted on her blog in 2008 [28]. See also her more recent post [29] about it. More of her art on her blog [30] and on her website [31]. And this video on youtube shows how she makes a styrofoam puffer fish. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! That's really amusing that it isn't actually a fish, but a paper mâché model. JesseW (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The DR Backlog

Hi all, we've developed quite the backlog at DR (as of now, 55 days worth or 5921 items requiring admin attention). I've listed the 30 oldest DRs for easy access. To any admins who see this -- please donate a few minutes of your time to help eliminate this massive backlog!

• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/09/24
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/09/25  Done
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/09/26
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/09/27
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/09/28
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/09/29
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/09/30
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/01
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/02
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/03
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/04  Done
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/05  Done
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/06
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/07
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/08
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/09
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/10
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/11
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/12
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/13
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/14
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/15
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/16
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/17
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/18
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/19
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/20
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/21
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/22
• Commons:Deletion requests/2013/10/23

If you'd like to help, I recommend using DelReqHandler, which is available on the gadgets page. Thanks for helping out! Cheers, FASTILY 08:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, please. Some time ago, when we were last keeping even with the new DRs, we were deleting about 2,000 images every day. In the last month, we deleted 1,330 images per day. Since the inflow has actually increased from around 8,000 per day then to well above 10,000 now, we are doing around half the deletions that we should be doing. As has always been the case, the top ten Admins do 75% of the work, with Fastily now doing about 25% himself. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy closure request

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:I'm with Coco hair.jpg

Nominator retracted his nom, speedy closure request please. He tagged it himself with speedy deletion, but I'd rather speedy closure, instead, with deletion page retained for historical purposes. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 04:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Photos has been deleted

Hi, the photos in the David Cregeen article have been deleted due to copyright issue. Recently photographer and David Cregeen sent permission e-mail. When I was reuploaded those to commons it warns me "There was another file already on the site with the same content, but it was deleted." So should I upload it with another name? Emrahzorlu2 (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Go here, and check the box for "Ignore any warnings" -FASTILY 09:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You can also provide us with the file names or wait for an OTRS volunteer to restore these files. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi; thanks for your attention.file names are as follows; Rockman-2007.jpg 'Goat Woman' ( back) 1989.JPG Olive Woman- bronze 1989-(12.a) (1).jpg After newtondon.JPG 'Chirali'-1997.jpg 'Aspendos' 1998.jpg Emrahzorlu2 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Help with deletion, please

File:Jackson 5 on Soul Train.jpg Someone uploaded 2 different photos over this. Have reverted to original but need help deleting the other two photos as I'm not sure of their copyright status. Thanks, We hope (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for reverting. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you for "zapping" the others! :) We hope (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Giada Marini

I blocked this user because they repeatedly uploaded clear copyright violations (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Giada Marini). I just got an email in Bulgarian, stating they did not understand English, and claiming that they received permission from the copyright holders to upload here. I replied back that permission needs to come via OTRS, and that they should use the unblock template, but I thought I'd bring it up here and request another set of eyes.

My reply (English version) was:

Greetings. Your images were deleted because they were clearly not own work as you claimed. The range of quality - some clearly professional, some seeming just random snapshots - and lack of metadata make this clear. You did not say these were other people's work, you claimed they were yours. On Wikimedia Commons, we do not accept images which are not own work unless we have explicit permission from the copyright holder. This needs to be sent to us, via permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, the exact images acknowledged, the licence stated and the author attributed. I suggest that if you wish to continue as a Commons user, you request an unblock using the {{Unblock}} template on your talk page.

Their original email was

Олга Борисова, Даниел Спасов, Милен Иванов и Гуна Иванова са ми предоставили лично тези снимки. Това не са крадени снимки, това е собственост предоставена ми да работя с тях. Кажете ми къде съм сбъркала

('Olga Borisova, Daniel Spassov Milen Ivanov and Guna Ivanova given me personally these pictures. These are not stolen photos, this property is given me to work with them. Tell me where I'm wrong).

-mattbuck (Talk) 09:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I see 39 files uploaded over a 3 month period, all problems, none good -- certainly a significant nuisance. Even so, I think an indef on the first block is too much, particularly where there is a language problem. A one, three, or seven day block is very useful to get the user's attention when they repeatedly ignore you. I might have done that much earlier -- September, maybe.

My other thoughts depend on the images -- if they are junk then, except for the length of the block, I'm with you. If they appear to be images we'd like to have, then a little hand holding with the OTRS process might save them for us. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

National anthem of Slovenia

I request a review of this DR by someone who was not involved in this debate and actually is competent in European law system (or actually reads the entire discussion and does not just close it because it was opened by his wiki-friend). The national athemn is undoubtedly free according to external proffesional opinion (governmental institution) and according to the copyriht law. However, it should not be used for commercial advertising accoriding to act regulating the national symbols. As far as I know, American national symbols also should not be for example misused (i.e. burning the flag, using it for commerical purposes) and doing so might result in court cases, but they are nevertheless hosted here on Commons. Similar goes with cultural heritage in Slovenia. Even if it is in public domain, it should not be used by Slovene citizens to perform economic gain. But since this is regulated by an act unconnected to copyright laws, files can be hosted on Commons - see Category:SpomenikSVN_warning. --Miha (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you sent the e-mail to the OTRS or wrote a relevant section in the Slovene or the English Wikipedia about this musical version, so that the file could be uploaded locally in accordance with the projects' EDP policies. Otherwise, the correct page for undeletion requests is COM:UDR. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know how this is defined specifically in Slovenian law, but in Swedish law, there are several related rights to consider. Note that things protected by a related right isn't a "work", so copyright tags stating that "this work is in the public domain" aren't applicable to related rights. Instead, different terms of protection are used. The following rights may be relevant to a file like this:
  1. Performance right: Performers hold the right to their performances for 50 years since the performance was made. It seems that you can only hold performance right for performances of literary or musical works, which suggests that reading a short text which is below the threshold of originality doesn't give you any protection for your performance. The performance itself, however, isn't subject to any originality requirements.
  2. Sound recording right: If you make a sound recording, you hold the right to the sound recording for 70 years since the sound recording was first published (or 70 years after creation if not published for 70 years). There is no originality requirement. Mere copying of an existing sound recording doesn't initiate a new term for the copy.
  3. Video recording right: If you film the performers, you hold the right to the video recording for 50 years since the film was first published (or for 50 years since creation if not published for 50 years). There are no originality requirements here. This right is independent of any copyright protection as a cinematographic work which does require originality and runs for the lifetime of some people plus 70 years.

The deletion discussion mentions the Berne Convention. Note that the Berne Convention only protects artistic and literary works, but performances, sound recordings and video recordings are not artistic or literary works themselves, so they aren't protected by the Berne Convention. Instead, other conventions, such as the w:Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations, protect these things. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've forwarded the email. To answer Stefan: all issues have been addressed in this DR - both performance and audio recording rights (video recording rights are irrelavant because it was an audio file) are in this example worthless as a work of public employees (similar terms as PD-USGOV). --Miha (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

User:RadioSoundCity.network

User creates out of project scope pages and removes deletion tags.--Motopark (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 day. --Túrelio (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

File uploaded multiple

I didn't find the right place to report that. My last uploads are always uploaded multiple time, example : File:Diderot - Encyclopedie 1ere edition tome 9.djvu, I guess it occurs only with big file. See the date in the file history, from my ISP connection it's not possible to upload a 72 MB file in one or two minutes so the trouble look like on sever side. Phe (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Bawolff? -- Rillke^(q?) 14:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I pinged him on its talk page. Phe (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

hmm. That's rather odd. Which method are you using to upload these files (e.g special:upload, uploadWizard,one of the bulk uploader programs)? If you are using uploadWizard, what web browser are you using? Bawolff (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

FF 3.6, I use the link "Upload a new version of this file" --> e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Diderot_-_Encyclopedie_1ere_edition_tome_17.djvu&wpForReUpload=1 Phe (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what's causing this. I filed bugzilla:57384 for the issue. Bawolff (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Has the operation of the bot for category moves been discontinued?

Has the operation of the bot for category moves been discontinued? Why is this slowing-down now after a positive resumption of the bot work had just a short while ago appeard to bud? Orrlingtalk 20:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit locked image

Please modify the categorization of a locked file. At File:Commons-bg.png, Remove the existing parent category and replace it with the following: Category:Background images, Category:Wikimedia Commons and Category:PNG. Thanx a lot, Orrlingtalk 23:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done  ■ MMXX ^talk 16:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Third party involvement requested

At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hhesse.png, I'm in a dispute with an uploader who has accused me of "vandalism" (apparently for nominating his upload for deletion) and who I believe is completely wrong in his understanding of copyrights & CC licenses but it's clear he's not going to hear it from me, and I think someone else needs to weigh in and I need to get out of this one. - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Spam mcthelp

Users Mcthelp and Lterribas had added 161 links to www.mcthelp.es in author field of files, on gallery pages with nonsense or user pages. I suggest to blacklist and remove the links with a bot. --V.Riullop (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Done - spam removed, left note on talk page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Hakenkreuz_Sieg_Heil

Think this is out of scope, at least. --Stunteltje (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Deleted as vandalism. IP blocked. Эlcobbola _talk 22:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

+ edit summary removed --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Watermarked pictures, please delete

Special:Contributions/M._J._Tibor, in the center of picture are watermark, please delete.--Motopark (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Done self promotion image out of com:scope Gnangarra 15:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Some intervention in user-hassle

Hey there. I think your assistance is seriously needed. Would you please prevent this user from continuing their attempts to create badname-categories / move the files of Category:Gesher Neolithic site to "Category:Gesher Neolithic archaeological site". This conduct now unpleasantly smells of conscious (minor yet) nonsense-conduct. — he/she initiated a deletion of the proper-name cat using a clearly false reasoning ("Fixed caps", see deletion log). Thanx. Orrlingtalk 20:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Revert needed

Could someone please revert [32] to removed the malformed and spurious deletion tag? I'd do it, but it's NSFW and i'm at W. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine, n/m. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please delete

Plenty of magazine pages Special:Contributions/Skalaar_Torhout_vzw--Motopark (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of pictures without good description, seems to be like promotiona

Special:Contributions/VanderVeldenRioleringsbeheer, same description, can't find in search, my opinion are that those can be deleted out of scope,--Motopark (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Megabio

According to the certain image description (penis eines 15 jährigen Jungen = penis of 15 year-old boy) this user uploads child porn. Please stop that! -- Ies (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted (+OS), Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; email emergencywikimedia.org. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit revertings

User Vahram Mekhitaryan repeatedly reverting my edits ([33], [34]...), removing templates ([35]...) without any certain reason. Please take some actions against that.--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

IP vandal Δαβίδ

You can see this look at the history page of the files

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Armenian_Eternity_Sign_Regular.png&action=history

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Azg_Handes_1908_17_1_Ezekian_Swastika.pdf&action=history

and my talk page

User_talk:Vahram_Mekhitarian#IP_vandalism

He is only concerned with the fact that in every way prevents the creation of articles on "Armenian Eternity sign" (Arevahach) in English, Russian, Armenian and other wikis. Therefore, puts on the removal of files from the Category:Armenian Eternity Sign. The editors of these articles are well aware of this vandal.

All actions of Δαβίδ are destructive. This user from Armenian wikipedia, David1992 and in jast time blocked.

Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Nominating files with false copyright for deletion is not vandalism, removing of controversioal, original research texts too. All my nominations, and removing of text are explained. Stop blaming me in IP vandalism if it was not. --Δαβίδ (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not edit war, category protected --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Enough is enough. Both (Δαβίδ & Vahram Mekhitarian) blocked for two hours. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Egypt.svg

Can the absolutely ridiculous number of reverts on this file today by Leiroi22 be RevDel'd please? Fry1989 ^eh? 02:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 05:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Carnivals and User:Eleassar

Please can you answer what to do with photos of carnival masks (File:Rijecki karneval 140210 Halubajski zvoncari 11.jpg), allegorical floats (File:Rijecki karneval 140210 ura 1.jpg) and decorations (File:Rijecki karneval 140210 51.jpg). User:Eleassar firstly marked some 20 of my images to be deleted, after that he gave up of deletion of some photos arguing that they represent "traditional masks" which can be interpreted in different ways, because the masks of bell-ringers (Zvončari, Category:Zvončari) are not 100 years old. If it is forbidden to place on commons photos from carnevals, photos of masks (File:Padova - maschera veneziana.jpg), allegorical floats (File:Carnevale di Palazzolo.JPG) and decorations (File:Ivrea Carnevale Giorno Dopo.JPG), please alert all users and delete entire Category:Carnivals with all subcategories since then almost all the pictures there are infringing some rights (as claimed by User:Eleassar). Please give precise answer, because it takes precious volunteer time going to events, image processing, and then to upload photos on commons for the use of everyone, and then exhaustion in a discussion with a co-worker who interprets the law in his own way. Thanks in advance. --Roberta F. (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that these DRs are abusive. They should be closed as Kept. Yann (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. I see no particular reason why any of the images listed above should be kept. They all appear to be derivative works of copyrighted sculptures (floats and masks) -- since masks are not utilitarian they have a copyright. Only the banners in the last one are a question. In any event, they are certainly not abusive. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Those photos are photos of a public event. Also it is questionable to put this in the context of photos that represents authors work. In my opinion this behaviour could be understood as disruptive--Ex13 (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Rijecki karneval 140210 Halubajski zvoncari 11.jpg is folk art, so I don't think there is a copyright on that.

The main feature of File:Rijecki karneval 140210 ura 1.jpg and File:Rijecki karneval 140210 51.jpg are simple colored balloons. There is certainly not a copyright on them. These are abusive by the repeated creation of useless DRs, with no real valid legal arguments. Jim, please look at these images again. Yann (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Rijecki karneval 140210 Halubajski zvoncari 11.jpg is folk art, so the request was withdrawn immediately, much before you have posted here.
File:Rijecki karneval 140210 ura 1.jpg and File:Rijecki karneval 140210 51.jpg are installations (sculptural works) consisting of coloured balloons. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You can make a copyrighted sculpture out of bricks, or Lego blocks, or ice, or butter -- why not colored balloons? I think they are complex enough to pass the ToO. I suppose we could make an argument that the balloons are "permanent" in the sense that they will be there for their entire life, which qualifies them for FOP treatment if that applies in the jurisdiction where they are located, but that has not been mentioned above.

I could agree that File:Darth vader hot air balloon.jpg may get a copyright, yet this is disputed (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Darth vader hot air balloon.jpg). But claiming a copyright over File:Rijecki karneval 140210 51.jpg is completely meaningless. And this does not depend on the location, it is just common sense. I wonder where this common sense has gone these days. :(( Yann (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there can be a discussion about some of these -- the balloons and the banners, perhaps -- but not about others. The furry horned mask may be "folk art", but modern versions of "folk art" are not free of copyright in most jurisdictions, including the USA, so it's country specific and therefore must be discussed.

A DR that deserves discussion is a far cry from abusive. Calling legitimate DRs abusive is itself abusive and I'm getting tired of it.

At the moment we are deleting far fewer files than we should be -- the inflow has increased by 25% from a year ago, yet we are deleting only 60% of those we did then. Unless our uploaders have gotten a great deal better at not uploading problems, we are missing a great many bad files. Let's encourage those who seek those files out for deletion, not repeatedly heap abuse on them.

Eleassar helps us get rid of thousands of files that should not be on Commons. A few of his DRs are closed as kept, but the vast majority -- more than 90% -- are deleted and I have yet to see one that was not worthy of some discussion..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You can make a copyrighted sculpture out of bricks or colored balloons, but can every constellation of colored balloons be treated as sculpture with appropriate copyright?

If that is so, then 90% of photos in Category:Carnivals should be deleted, out of reason you just stated. Following similar logic, any photo of women or men with color on face then can be copyrightable art and therefore should be deleted, clear example: File:A young girl getting her face painted at Cirque du Soleil's "La Fēte Foraine" circus festival.jpg

I agree, there are lot of files that should not be on Commons (naked people without clear permission of subjects of photo, 12th, 13th or 30th photo of same motive (same building or same statue) often being poor quality photos, but having DR of photos of some new motive, when copyright is not violated is at least not correct. When that happens for the first time, you can think somebody is mistaken, 2nd time, somebody is not looking, but when that happens for 4th or 5th time, then somebody is plainly abrasive/abusive. Here, User:Eleassar.

I met some of his DRs, and he without knowledge of subject marked some photos for deletion. After longer discussion, photos were kept for obvious reasons. I don't have a problem with deletion of clear copyvio's, but marking quality photos without copyvio of any kind is simply sign of poor judgement and does not help in keeping here users who make good quality photos. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Po domače povedano: najebali ste bratje... Namreč zdaj ko iz Slovenije ni nobene slike več za zbrisat, si mora kolega najti drugo delo. Speaking strictly from the juridistrictional viewpoint, Eleassar's argumentation is (unfortunately) flawless. It is possible to interet the law in such a way that these files are copyvio (even though every judge with common sense would decide otherwise for obvious reasons). Even if the masks are part of the tradition (just like hayracks), there are some restrictions to them because their creator holds certain copyrights. There are only two possibilities: either to change the system on Commons to be more realistic (precuationary principle is such a nonsense) or to urge our politicians to fix copyright laws. --Miha (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Look at User talk:Roberta F.. This is a user who has been on Commons since 2006 and donated thousands of images. And they get a huge dump on their talk page saying we're going to delete lots of images representing their hard work. And they get exhausted with some complete amateur who thinks he understand copyright law blundering about. Perhaps some of these images can't be hosted here. That's really sad. We should find another way of dealing with this. When will Commons realise that it's most precious asset is its contributors? Eleassar's behaviour is a threat to that most precious asset. Those defending Eleassar's actions are missing the point. Nobody should talk of "getting rid" of good faith contributions like they are some terrible rubbish or disgusting product. Our contributors deserve respect, and contributors like Roberta deserve a huge amount. Copyright issues are important but Eleassar actions and Jameslwoodward's defence represent a really bad side of Commons. You are playing a game where you will end up "getting rid" of our contributors. Find some other way to deal with DR or find another hobby. You guys should be ashamed. -- Colin (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. Good faith contributions or not -- and many are not -- according to our own policies about a sixth of the images uploaded to Commons do not belong here. If we allow copyvios and personal images to stay, we are wasting a lot of our time trying to make Commons different from Flickr and others like it. If we want major users of images to come to Commons, we have to be selective in what we keep, particularly with respect to copyright. That means we must delete more than 1,500 files every day. Since 75% of that work is done by ten people, it is inevitable that DRs are done rapidly. If Colin or others have any good ideas how we could improve that, I would be delighted to hear them.

As for "some complete amateur", since 1984 I have been in charge of copyright matters at several successful technology companies. While I am not a lawyer myself, I have worked with some of the best in the profession on complex IP issues. That background has been honed over the last five years at Commons, with more than 150,000 edits and actions and a reversal rate on UnDRs of around one tenth of one percent.

Commons has a broad spectrum of users, most of whom we should all try hard to support. They include

• people like Colin, who contributes perfectly beautiful images that I both enjoy and envy
• the broad mass, like me, who contribute images that are useful, but not spectacular
• people who simply lift images off the Internet in good faith ignorance of copyright
• those who believe that anything that shows up in public can be on Commons, and
• liars, socks, and others on the dark side.

We certainly must nurture the first and second, educate the third and fourth, and keep a lid on the last, but we must do all this while trying desperately to stay ahead of the flood of images that will destroy our purpose if allowed to stay.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Colin, I think your fear is much too exaggerated. For example, we've deleted over 90% of non-free images from Slovenia and while some users have left, there are still multiple users uploading numerous images every day. However, people have started to follow the law and take care to upload only (or at least mostly) free images. It has been determined through the discussion and the review by administrators which ones these are. The situation got better. In regard to Roberta, the majority of her thousands of images are still very much appreciated and will remain so. It is understandable that all of them can't be free though, and therefore do not belong here. If you think the system of opening DRs and notifying users scares contributors away, you should not point finger at me, because I'm simply following the policy and am far from being the only one opening DRs, but rather try to implement a better alternative that we can follow and will still enable us to keep pace with the enormous number of non-free images uploaded "in good faith" every day. As Miha said: my DRs are valid from the legal point of view, I'm following the relevant policies and the established practice, and to reduce the number of DRs or change the way how we work here, you should change the policies on Commons or urge our politicians to fix copyright laws. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 23:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Colin is coompletely right. I am really sick with people saying "I am just following policies and laws", etc., as a bad excuse for their mistakes. Yann (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I hoped Jameslwoodward might respond with regret over his choice of "get rid of" phrasing. But no. The same old "I'm following policy" as though that's an excuse to be a robot. The documentation of what is copyright or not on Commons is awful. We should not be in the position where contributors come here with puzzlement over why their images were chosen (and why some entire category is spared). If a long-term or otherwise valuable contributor makes a mistake over copyright, then they deserve a conversation and pointed to documentation where it indicates their mistake. They don't deserve a bare template dumped on their talk page and then told to argue their case on some forum. You say you are overworked, well how about targeting your approach. File:Rijecki karneval 140210 51.jpg is a bunch of balloons tied together with string and stuck on a lamppost. I don't know what you are smoking but if you think your priority here today is to delete that, then you've got very bad priorities. You guys are focusing on the images and not the contributors. That's where you are going wrong. And Eleassar's stubbornness in this suggests to me he should not be doing this job. This is absolutely not about Commons policies on what images we can keep or on government copyright law. Stop arguing about that. I'm not here to change it. I'm trying to change you guys approach to the problem. Or else "get rid of" you guys from this job. Bluntly. Colin (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider the both questions: "is the contributor valuable?", and "is the image a copyvio?" better separately. Btw, what contributor is valuable? As for me, there only may be obvious cases on both sides (of course, someone who contrubuted 100 FP's is valuable; but is someone necessarily unvaluable who haven't contributed any?). We also have to keep in mind that an obvious copyvio should be deleted asap regardless of the valuability of its uploader, and an image which obviously fits all of our guidelines should be kept on Commons even if it was uploaded by an otherwise vandalism-only account. So, let's just talk about the DR cases mentioned here. As for File:Rijecki karneval 140210 51.jpg, I really don't see any copyright issues there, as it's just a bunch of balloons and there is no info that it would be an installment by a performance artist or so. So, claiming that such an image is a copyvio is a case of "copyright paranoia" to me, and it of course may be considered as abusive if someone opens hundreds of DR's with a questionable rationale like in this case. Yet I wouldn't vote vk there; we should ask us if this image is really in COM:SCOPE; it is in fact of poor quality, it depicts some balloons somewhere in the world (we must believe the description that it's in Croatia and not anywhere else) and it is not used anywhere on Wikimedia projects. So, in general, I'd wish a more differentiated approach by anyone who sees themselves specialized on opening DR's. An image which is far more obviously out of scope than a copyvio should be RfD'ed as out of scope instead of as copyvio. Supposed copyright violations should be RfD'ed if it's more or less obvious, and if Common sense doesn't say something different. In case of a random bunch of balloons, Common sense clearly states that no one's copyright is violated. In case of File:Carnevale di Palazzolo.JPG, it's much less obvious (to say the least), but this file isn't nominated for deletion. Why not, Eleassar? --A.Savin 13:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with A.Savin that a deletion request about a bunch of balloons is taking the precautionary principle too far. Worst of all, we have such kind of deletion requests too often.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Get rid of" was unfortunate phrasing -- too inflammatory -- I apologize for it.

You say

"They don't deserve a bare template dumped on their talk page and then told to argue their case on some forum."

That's very true. I would very much like to be able to deal on a more personal level with every contributor that I touch. But how are we going to accomplish it? If I, too, may be blunt, it is not productive to say that what we are doing is bad without making any suggestion about how to fix it. I emphatically agree that it is bad, but what do we do about it?

We still must delete more than 1500 images every day or rapidly lose any claim to our images being "freely usable media files". As I repeatedly point out, that work is done by a very limited number of people -- about 1200 images every day are deleted by only ten people. Unless we recruit a lot more active Admins, we are stuck with the fact that we do not have the human resources to deal with images or contributors on a personal basis with any regularity.

In the process of considering images for deletion, mistakes are made. About ten percent of all DRs are closed as keeps. That seems to me a reasonable number, given that a DR often turns up new information and that it is better to discuss a questionable image than to keep a copyvio. Fewer than one percent of DRs are taken to UnDR and fewer than half of those are restored, often because additional information has been provided. Again, it looks to me like the system is working, albeit without much personal touch.

This originally started as a condemnation of Eleassar. I should point out that his keep/delete record is actually much better than the average DR nom -- he gets more attention than most because he posts many more DRs than most. If you somehow decide to force him off Commons or discourage him so much that he quits, our DR keep/delete average will get worse, not better, and we will have many more copyvios remaining on Commons.

As for the balloons, maybe they have a copyright, maybe not. Maybe they are out of scope. But focusing on a handful of marginal judgement calls from a contributor who makes hundreds of good calls every day isn't productive. And trying to suggest that Commons can somehow fulfill its mission without deleting a lot of images every day is not realistic. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, you keep coming back to statistics on keep/delete ratios or overworked process. Yet nobody is addressing the problems I indicated. If you cared about encouraging contributions and refocusing users towards uploading content we can host, then you'd be working towards better documentation of copyright, better ways of notifying users of issues with their work, and better forums than DR. It clearly isn't functioning if so few people are handling the nominations. The way you describe the problem, it seems like the solution is to have fewer contributions. Well you're certainly going about that the right way. I don't want to force Eleassar off Commons. But I do think it deeply unhealthy to focus on DR the whole time, and I don't think his personality is suited. When someone takes an image for Commons and ends up getting it deleted, that is a hugely regretful situation. We need someone to empathise with the contributor and to indicate they are working to help make sure it happens less often (through better documentation and better upload wizard for example). The current "taking pot shots at our content" approach isn't finding solutions to the problem. Colin (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Jim hasn't said he wants fewer contributions, but I'll admit I do. More does not mean better, and I think Commons would be a healthier place if people generally took more care about what they uploaded. Our biggest problem isn't a lack of media contributions; it is a lack of people working to describe and organise them, to encourage their appropriate use in our sister projects, and yes, to check that they are really free for everyone to use. That's not to say there aren't many areas where more uploads are badly needed; there certainly are, but there are also many areas where I think any need for new images is outweighed by our shortage of curatorial resources.

I do agree that our review processes can be overly formal and offputting to uploaders. Overwhelming volumes are again part of the problem here. But if people are not happy to have their uploads reviewed for copyright issues, I think they should reconsider whether they want to upload them to Commons. The deletion of a copyright violation is not "a hugely regretful situation"; it is evidence that our system is working, at least in one of the most critical respects, and it's also a chance for the uploader to learn more about what we need. Ideally we would help them learn this before they waste their time taking and uploading copyvios, but this is not always as easy as it might sound.

Having said all that, I do have concerns about the "carpet-bombing" effect of many simultaneous DRs of someone's images, where that person has uploaded them in good faith and has had little previous warning that such images might be problematic. I wonder if we could devise some DR guidelines that would help avoid this sort of situation (e.g. an initial limit for DR nominators of 2-3 active DRs of photos with similar issues by the same uploader), while still enabling prompt deletion of multiple images where the uploader has had prior notification of such issues (e.g. through an earlier DR closed as delete). --Avenue (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear. Deletion of a deliberate copyright violation is not regretful. But any time someone goes out to take a picture for commons and uploads it and gets it deleted because they didn't realise they were breaking some non-obvious law... that's hugely regretful. It isn't a "working system". It wastes the time of the photographer and of those doing the DR. And the current way it is handled is highly likely to piss off the good-faith contributor. If those involved in DR want to be less overloaded, then they should work to find a better way to avoid such images being uploaded in the first place.

The "carpet bombing" issue is certainly a negative psychologically, but taking pot shots at just one image is also not ideal: the photographer might rightly query why the others aren't affected. And we can see from above, the photographer queries why loads of images in the category aren't being deleted. Surely when we have a situation where many images have the same problems with copyright, then this is an indicator that the system isn't working at all and needs fixed at source. Every deletion is in fact a sign of failure. Whereas for some here, it is a hobby. Colin (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

To Colin: It is not a hobby, but work that must be done if we want to keep this project in its scope. It is in fact a sign of failure to have so many non-free images hosted, and in my opinion, this should be solved by opening more DRs, writing a better documentation, and writing a better upload wizard, for example. I've done work in the first two areas, but don't have the privilege to work on the last one, so it will have to be fixed by someone else. ... As to your judgment of my personality, without you being a psychologist and having ever met me in real, I consider your statement just another personal attack; and in contrast to what you say, I've focused on different areas and done much more work than simply opening DRs: translation, categorisation, license corrections ... exactly the work for which Avenue has stated that we have a lack of people at. And to Yann: you should not think that I'm hiding behind the policy. I think the policy is ok and effective, but if Colin believes that it should and can be fixed, he should propose the solution he sees to be evaluated by the community. In addition, I'm very much surprised to hear from an administrator that following and implementing the accepted policies and following the established practice is abusive and a mistake. For me, not doing this would be a mistake. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) To complete what Colin said above, there is a huge difference between uploading images copied from another website, and uploading ones own photos of architecture, or even less obvious works of art, taken from a country where there is no FOP. We should treat the first case most severely, but deal very carefully with the second. What makes me quite angry is that Eleassar has taken as a hobby to look for the second case, when there are thousands images of the first case still needed to be reviewed and deleted. Yann (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Eleassar, the reason we're at the Administrators noticeboard is because you handled something badly. So I'm quite within my rights to comment that this seems to be a pattern of behaviour on your part. And a pattern of behaviour is .... your personality. Stop trying to hid behind "personal attack" whenever someone says you are doing something wrong or that you may be the wrong person for the job. It might just be time to listen. I don't expect you to. In fact I expect you will eventually end up getting blocked. Permanently. Because you don't listen. In the mean time, lots of good faith contributors will give up. As Yann describes, you are playing games at discovering obscure areas of copyright at which to take pot shots. I'm sure it makes you feel all big and clever. It makes the uploader feel unwanted, insulted and angry. I don't think it is a first-order priority to delete pictures of balloons tied together with string. You seem personally upset we host this kind of abhorrence. What you should be upset about is that someone wasted their time going out to take it and upload it. But you aren't. If you were, you'd make sure the uploader felt valued in their disappointment, and you'd be working to fix it rather than being all defensive. This is a behavioural problem on your part, not a policy issue. -- Colin (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason we're here is not that I handled something badly, but that a user felt offended because some of their images have been found to not be in the scope of the project and have directed their anger at me instead of recognising their mistake. Instead, they should recognise the nominated images were (mostly) not free and should try to avoid repeating this mistake in the future. Regards, --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I rest my case and can now only await future sentencing. -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Colin, I suspect your frustration with this discussion is as deep as mine. We both want Commons to be better for all -- for the users and the contributors. Of course it's a problem when volunteers waste their time photographing things in non-FOP countries or uploading NC images. I agree that we desperately need better documentation but who is going to write it and translate it? And, even if we had perfect documentation, how many users will read it before they go out with their cameras?

As I said above, I also agree that it would be a good thing if we could deal more personally with contributors. But, again, who is going to do it? You keep saying that you think the system is broken, but make no suggestions about how to fix it.

Finally, I agree that Eleassar can be very difficult at times and I wish he would lighten up, but why is it in any way wrong for him to seek out copyvios and present them as DRs? It's an integral part of the process that someone has to look though our 19 million images and find problems. He does a much better job of it than average -- his keep/delete ratio is lower than average. As I have said ad nauseum, if he is blocked or driven away our DRs will be less accurate on average and we will host many more copyvios. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Any process reliant on one person to work well is broken. Any argument based on the threat or fear of one person leaving is hollow. It is not your job nor Eleassar's job to ensure Commons is free of copyvios. That responsibility falls completely on the uploader and the WMF. You may choose to help either party with their responsibilities if you like, but not at the expense of nurturing a community of valuable contributors who are clued up about what material Commons wants and can host. That should be everyone's #1 priority. We can see from his response above how lowly he considers those stupid enough to make copyright mistakes. That's not someone I'd employ in customer service. A traffic warden maybe. If Eleassar is fascinated by obscure copyright laws, then he should devote his time to documenting them imo. A "back office" role, if you like, rather than a "client facing one". -- Colin (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

We agree that the process is not good, but, again, how do you suggest we fix it? Neither the uploaders nor the WMF are doing anything to reduce the number of copyvios. That's left to volunteers here.

I like your "traffic warden" analogy -- in a sense that's what those who do DR nominations and the Admins who are active on deletions are -- we are those who enforce the rules. Those who break traffic laws -- whether innocently or deliberately -- don't like traffic wardens very much.

Continuing your analogy, traffic wardens don't write the laws, or promulgate them, but simply enforce them. Since we have many users who break the rules, some innocently, some deliberately, we need traffic wardens to stop them and see that they don't continue.

And, speaking of promulgation, the introduction at Commons:FOP covers the subject pretty well. Anyone reading it ought to know that photographing created works, even those in public, can be a problem in some countries. But how many people read it before they upload a batch of images of their city for the first time? That's the real problem, that the information is here, but it isn't read. Again, how do we solve that? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This claim of Eleassar worries me a lot: To Colin: It is not a hobby, but work that must be done... We, the volunteers, that give our free time for Wikipedia's projects and see this as the hobby, we do not have the time nor the wish to argue with those that see this project as the 'work that must be done'. I ask You once again to answer on my question : Will almost whole Category:Carnivals be deleted, since on the most of the photos we can see some kind of autors' work, if we interpret the laws in Eleassar's way. To me, this is hobby, my free time is precious, and I simply don't have the time for endless arguing. --Roberta F. (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Many of the photos in Category:Carnivals are of people in costumes or masks, which is apparently difficult to be sure about - see COM:COSTUME. Sorry I don't have a clear answer for you. --Avenue (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Also note that COM:COSTUME appears to be based exclusively on US law, which exempts utilitarian objects from copyright. That exemption does not exist in many other countries. See for example NJA 1995 p. 164, where it was found that a knitted tunic, sold in a shop in Sweden, violated the copyright of another knitted tunic. In Sweden, one requirement for copyright protection of clothes is that it should be unlikely that two different people would create the same item independently of each other, which I presume sometimes is the case with costumes. I am not aware of any cases where anyone has been sued for publishing photographs of clothing, so it isn't clear when or if photographs violate the copyright of the clothes. I assume that points 1-3 at COM:PRP often apply for photos of clothes and that the copyright holders therefore are uninterested in suing, making lawsuits unlikely. Unfortunately for us, this gives us two problems: points 1-3 at COM:PRP are not a valid "licence" on Commons, and we don't know how to tell whether an image is a copyright violation or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

My images are promptly deleted (they do not violate the copyright laws, I do not know why this one is also deleted). The Italian copyright law does not contain any exception for pictures from public places, there is no freedom of panorama in Belgium, there is no freedom of panorama in France, ... Unfortunately similar restrictive laws have many other states. Croatia does not have such restrictive laws, but my photographs (and not just mine, see Category:Croatian FOP cases/pending) are promptly deleted before you provided an unambiguous answer to whether the majority of nearly all photos from the Category:Carnivals should be deleted. While the Commons has also plenty of pictures that clearly violates copyright laws (e.g. File:Leksikon YU mitologije.jpg , File:Živi zid.jpg, File:Zagreb pride 2011 07 (1).png, most of the coats of arms in Category:Coats of arms of counties of Croatia...), you delete what one user (with his selective-aggressive approach) is interpreting as breach of copyright. --Roberta F. (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)