Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 46

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

OTRS flag

I've had access to OTRS queues info-sl and permissions-sl for a few months now (see User:Yerpo in the OTRS system). Can somebody please flag my Commons account as an OTRS volunteer so my referencing of tickets won't get tagged as suspicious (example)? Thanks. — Yerpo Eh? 22:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucrats handle OTRS flag requests. I've posted this at COM:BN. INeverCry 22:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Needs confirmation from an already flagged OTRS user. --Dschwen (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I confirm this user has access to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, flag added. --Dschwen (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't realize there was a special noticeboard for Bureaucrats. Thank you. — Yerpo Eh? 05:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Threat by User:Denniss

After some discussion between Serbian Wiki users and Bobrayner with Denniss over Kosovo location map, user Tajga called Deniss' politics "fascist". But concerning administrator replied in a interesting way, saying she "will be gone", [sic] "if she call him a fascist again", which she, by the way, did not do (she commented his actions rather than ad hominem). --Alex‘s SeeSide 07:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Calling another user, admin or not, a "fascist" is completely inacceptable. It was fully o.k. to give the insulting user a warning. If another admin had seen this early enough, the insulting user might have been blocked on the spot. --Túrelio (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Túrelio I agree that calling people names isn't OK, but administrator Denniss did not issue a warning appropriately. If they had, by "gone", meant "be blocked", it's OK, but given in this form, their reactions seems like a clear example of a death treat, and that unacceptable even more. I don't know about you, but for me the difference between "be blocked" and "be gone" is pretty obvious. --Alex‘s SeeSide 09:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Denniss actually said: you'll be gone for some time so calling this a death threat would be a bit overrated. I read this as you call me a *** again and you will be blocked. Natuur12 (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Aleksa, the statement you link to is not a death threat. Denniss wrote a warning and the text given here reads as a single warning in advance of a block for using "fascist". Threats of any kind are unacceptable and for admin action a pattern of harassment would need to be presented, which may be inappropriate behaviour rather than extreme threats.
I believe this particular thread is closed. However this is one out of several complaints brought to this noticeboard about Dennis edit warring over maps; I for one wish that Denniss were able to walk away from getting involved in this political map problem for the next six months. He would do well to avoid issuing warnings of admin action against people he is in apparent dispute with; this should always be left to uninvolved admins. --Fæ (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it wasn't a death threat. However, this isn't the first time user Denniss violated his position as an administrator, and desysoping discussion may be needed. --Alex‘s SeeSide 11:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm really scared to death. What was the principal idea of this project? To make it global, to be well-known all over the world, to have enough reviews and photos here, and than find and allow unilateral policies, encourage and feed all those who would execute restatement of official maps of countries, according to their own taste and at the same tami let them threaten, and remove from the project all those who do not agree with that. --Тајга (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Errors in files

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T17430

Could anybody fix errors in my files File:Astor in Valletta 2013-11-09-1.jpg, File:Astor in Valletta 2013-11-09-2.jpg and File:Astor in Valletta 2013-11-09-3.jpg? Or delete them for trying to upload again. I asked for it in Commons:Upload help but problem didn't solved.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, thank you for bringing this here, User:Mike1979 Russia. Please add {{Information}}. -- Rillke(q?) 10:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you!--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker and Deleted file File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.svg

Please instruct User:CommonsDelinker to remove references to the recently deleted file File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.svg. It was used on 13 article (and several other) pages on en.wikipedia alone. It was likely also used on other wikis. Thanks. - Tucoxn (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It already tried and failed, apparently.[1] I am going to try to remove as many as possible by hand; many of them are transcluded via template. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 07:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
These sorts of failures by User:CommonsDelinker are terrible and causing problems in dozens of projects. The CommonsDelinker bot needs to be fixed. Tucoxn (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

COM:RFR

I would like to raise an issue about COM:RFR. On 16 January 2014, when I was requesting for the file mover right, I used the '{{subst:rfr|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|reason}} Thank you. ~~~~' code and typed out the reasons in the reason space. Guess what! What I typed did not come out. Instead, this came out. I was shocked by that, and I quickly changed the wordings of my request. I thought that was a sorcery until today, I saw Ganímedes requesting for the rollback right. He also did the same thing as me, and also the same thing came out. After investigating and comparing the similarities of the 2 requests, I actually found out that lorem ipsum will come out when requests use '{{subst:rfr|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|reason}} Thank you. ~~~~' code and inside that reason that uses bracket links ([link description]). I suppose there is a problem with the template coding. Can someone look into it? Thanks. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 18:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've temporarly changed the wording on the COM:RFR page. With a 2= before the reason part, all work fine. Pleclown (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. All work out fine now. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Duplicate backlog

This category is backlogged, and needs check and deletion. Thank you. ㅡ레비Revi 07:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:GNU Free Documentation License 1.3

It seems this page is vandalized. Why this page is not protected as it seems heavily used by {{GFDL-1.3-only}} and {{GFDL-1.3}}? Jee 16:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverted the vandalism.  Support at least semiprotection – this page is a legal document with thousands of incoming links. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Jee 17:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Semiprotected this page since it is an important page with high traffic. Natuur12 (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bpineda87 and User:Bpineda00

Bpineda87 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  has a history of uploading copyvios of Salvadorian football photos. Today, Bpineda00 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  appeared with exactly the same pattern and naming conventions. Obviously these two accounts are the same user. De728631 (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked both. No sign of other socks. INeverCry 04:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. De728631 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Meta-logo-35px.png

This page seems to be protected, so can a Commons admin please recategorize my user category on this file from Category:Files uploaded by TeleComNasSprVen to Category:Files transferred by TeleComNasSprVen? Thanks, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Northern Shrike (3824673690).jpg

Hello, The image referred to in the subject line actually shows a Northern Mockingbird, not a Northern Shrike. Thanks, Henry Walters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.29.136 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 January 2014‎ (UTC)

I've tagged it for renaming. De728631 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Solved - file is renamed. JurgenNL (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Suppress redirect

Please see today's archive of SpBot (talk · contribs), and move pages starting with Commons:User talk: to User talk:. This is probably mistake of user, so bot misunderstood command and moved User talk archives to Commons namespace. Thanks, —레비Revi 15:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - JurgenNL (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Judy Garland in Till the Clouds Roll By 3.jpg

Someone uploaded a photo over the file above; the problem is that it's not identical to the original upload. Not sure re: the newer photo's copyright status. Could someone delete the newer photo? Thanks, We hope (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done History cleaned, and uploader/overwriter warned/notified. INeverCry 21:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help :) ! We hope (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of earlier versions

Please could an admin wipe the earlier versions of File:Geoffrey Rush bbc radio4 front row 01 05 2013.flac, which are not covered by the OTRS mail sent after the current one was uploaded (in good faith, by a novice editor working on a project event I ran). If there's a better place/ method for making such requests, please advise. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 20:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Many thanks. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Picasa review backlog

Posting here because there is no other place for License reviewer.
Category:Picasa Web Albums review needed is backlogged (1024 files as of 12:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)), and needs License reviewer and admin's review buttons. There is Picasa Review Bot (talk · contribs), but this bot is not working since March 2012. If any admin/reviewer who is not using review helper script, I suggest to use importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); on Your common.js page. Thanks for your help, —레비Revi 12:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Marcosanseq

User removes deleting request tag and OTRS request and add some strange licence to logos. Please inform user--Motopark (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ User informed. JurgenNL (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Main_Page#What_happend_with_Media_of_the_Day.3F

Why this? Jee 15:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Mono: -- Rillke(q?) 16:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Pinging is good; but the day will pass within hours. Moreover, it seems that admin usually neglects any requests from laymen. :( Jee 16:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
There is was no MOTD for today, so it's best not to draw attention to the fact imo - this has been done in the past. Reverted my edit since a MOTD was added. —Mono 16:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding, and thanks for the explanation. Jee 05:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

about this edit

Please check [[2]] this edit and other edits of both users, why other user removes advert from picture?--Motopark (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, removing an undesirable advertising watermark from an image is a good thing, IMO. As the image with the advertisement would likely have been deleted as being out of scope anyway, I also see not conflict withe OVERWRITE policy. Whether the image version without the advertisement is useful/in scope, is a completely different question. --Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision deletion

File:CoA Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord (1817-1830).svg has been said to be a copyvio on the slovak wiki, as a copy of this 2010 work posted on vk.com. After comparaison, it is clear that considerable parts of the current file are simply traced from the vk file and should be speedy deleted per copyvio. As the two revisions of the 14 June 2013 (05:16 and 09:18) don't use the copyvio elements, they could be kept in order to avoid a simple deletion of the file. Could an admin remove the other revisions? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.220.213.3 (talk • contribs)

Done -FASTILY 00:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much, but I think there have been a mistake : the version kept is the one shown on the comparaison file as copyvio. The revision to be kept was the one uploaded the 6/14/13.

Request to restore the Mass Deleted Free Licensed Material on Commons

Dear friends,

A number of images of Free Licensed Konkani Vishkawosh encyclopedia hosted on Commons were deleted by user - CommonsDelinker on the Wikisource project.

The uploader of these images followed the steps during the upload: 1. Selected images -
2. Ticked - This file is not my own work.-
3. Source - Konkani VIshwakosh Volume 1
4. Authors - Goa University, Multiple Authors,
5. Ticked - Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0
6. then gave title etc. and in the category Konkani Vishwakosh - saved

It may be noted that Konkani Vishwakosh is in public domain.

I request an urgent admin intervention to kindly restore the bulk of Konkani VIshwakosh Volume 1 files that have been deleted.

A screenshot of deleted files can be seen below (enlarged when clicked):

Regards, Muzammil (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC).

You should ask undeletion on COM:UDEL. —레비Revi 12:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Pinging Jcb may enough. Jee 12:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Ref File:Konkani Vishwakosh - Volume 4 Released.pdf Jee 12:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes it is just easier to re-upload the files again, since we do not have tools yet for mass-undeletion (AFAIK). --Jarekt (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a mass-undelete function in pywikipedia's delete.py module -FASTILY 02:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems the source and attribution on Vol 4 is wrong. http://library.unigoa.ac.in:8081/xmlui/handle/123456789/593 says Author: Tanaji Halarnkar (Goa University, 1999); so I didn't get the multiple author part. Does there a release notice from University of Goa stating it is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0? I didn't see so in their website. Jee 13:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
You could read it on Goa University's website here. Nitika.t (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Not enough; I afraid. You could ask them to give a clear statement, stating which CC license at http://library.unigoa.ac.in:8081/xmlui/handle/123456789/593 Jee 14:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
If the situation is sufficiently clear, please feel free to contact me for restoring. Jcb (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not clear, as Jee says. The web site says:
"Goa University publishes Konkani Vishwkosh under Creative Commons Licence."
As we all know, there are several versions of the CC license that Commons does not accept. And, by the way, the same page also says:
"Copyright © 2012 Goa University Library. All Rights Reserved."
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, James and Jee for the concern in ensuring the compliance of Commons license. I am pleased to inform you that based on Jee's suggestion a request was made to the Goa University to make the license status ample clear. The update that stands is available here:

"Konkani Viswakosh
Goa University upon CIS' request has re-released Konkani Vishwakosh under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-SA 3.0), a Wikipedia compatible license."
I request my friends to kindly restore the deleted files as the Creative Commons License (CC-BY-SA 3.0), a Wikipedia compatible license is acceptable on our Commons. Regards, Muzammil (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

Thanks Muzammil; and pinging Jcb again for looking into this. Jee 11:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Informed Jcb; but it seems he is away for a week. :( Jee 14:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not away, but in general I am less active from monday till thursday because of being an employee somewhere :-) - Jcb (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio

someone can see thies gallery a+ --Chatsam (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Made in Holland, where generally exists freedom of panorama. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Those pictures seem te be have taken in Friesland, not Holland. Natuur12 (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
@Natuur12: Taivo meant the Netherlands. Out of that country many confuse Holland for the Netherlands. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I know but it is a bit sensitive :p. Friesland even has his own language and they have their own culture. So it needed to be said ;). Natuur12 (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ethiopians

In October you were called here to cope with a user that has appeared to be persistent on some unusual nonsense-editfighting aiming on removing the parent cat "People of Black African descent" from Category:Israelis of Ethiopian descent. The effect of your assistence was short-lived: the pattern has now recurred yet-again, as bizarr. There's no evidence that any user or editor on Wiki agrees with him/her that Ethiopians aren't Blacks... Could you please intervene a bit more rigorously to end that idioticness. Thanks. (Reference) Orrlingtalk 16:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The talk page of this category clearly documents a disagreement with Orrling's opinion, with both Foroa et moi explaining why this categorization is wrong. Similar opinions are expressed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/09/Category:People with black skin. Orrling's peronal attacks and utter disrespect to those who disagree with his original point of view have lead to him being indefinitely blocked from the Hebrew Wikipedia ([3]) and repeatedly blocked at Commons. I sure hope you could find a way to let him contribute to this project without disturbing fellow editors. ליאור (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Middayexpress has bothered to address Orrling's assertions, and for the time being it seems that the matter is finally resolved. Both Middayexpress and I have asked Orrling not to contact us again at our talk pages, as per w:WP:HUSH. Best, ליאור (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Middayexpress (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

How about this DR

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Озеленяване.JPG see the history, this DR is still open ?--Motopark (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

same situation in this Commons:Deletion requests/File:Трева.jpg--Motopark (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Both taken care of -FASTILY 21:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Transfer images Category:Église Saint-Nicolas (Bruxelles) to Category:Saint Nicholas' Church, Brussels

Dear, Would it be possible to transfer the immages of Transfer images Category:Église Saint-Nicolas (Bruxelles) to Category:Saint Nicholas' Church, Brussels. In both Category:Église Saint-Nicolas (Bruxelles) and Category: Sint-Niklaaskerk, Brussel I have added the link to the new category. Thank you very much, Ad Meskens (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: you can actually do this yourself; check the box for the tool, 'Cat-a-lot' in your preferences. -FASTILY 21:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup work

Can an admin please delete Category:Presidential standards of Zambia, there is only one file and we don't need cats for just one. Also please unprotect File:Presidential Standard of Austria (-1984).svg, it has been a few years since protection was required (an Austrian user kept edit warring on the file trying to change it to the national flag) and I'd like to do some categorization. I would also like File:Presidential Standard of the Republic of Korea.svg unprotected for the same reason. Fry1989 eh? 21:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 21:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Fry1989 eh? 21:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request

Graffitinucular has requested deletion of all his uploads here. As this is within policy (COM:CSD G7), can an admin do this? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Deleted by Taivo. Alan (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfree images

Still looking into this, but as I'm not an admin on Commons, would appreciate more eyes on this user's uploads. User's activity on en-wiki shows a tendency to not be exactly accurate in the permissions. [4].

Yes, looks like we have some copyvios here. For instance, this image which the user claimed as their own work. Yet it looks to be this image, a copyright image from this page. And I quote: "Images on this site are protected. Permission is given for teachers and students to use the images for non-commercial educational purposes. When an image is used on a website, notify me of the site and kindly credit me for the image. A link to the Digits site would also be appreciated. Use of images for commercial purposes or non-profit, for-fee use, requires permission from William Allen." Kathryn NicDhàna (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I have marked several of the images as copyright violations. Someone should probably do a Google search for the rest of the images too. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I gave him/her a warning. The other files have no valid EXIF data, they have a small size. And some of them can be found elswhere as well. It is likely that those are copyrightviolations as well. They don't look like they have been made by the same person so I nominated them for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Republic of China National Emblem.svg

The color of this file is still discussing. However, its edit records were already deleted and left the version uploaded by the user who is involved in the discussion. Before there is a consensus, the whole record should be kept. Otherwise, it will make people think the admins support that user. Therefore, may any admin kindly recover the records deleted of this file? Thanks. --Akira123 (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This is already being discussed on two pages, it doesn't need a third. Can an admin collapse this? Fry1989 eh? 22:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I have restored a copy of the last clean version of the file, before the edit-warring began. I've also locked the page so that the discussion regarding the legitimacy of the coloring can take place on the file talk page (which is how it should have been in the first place!) -FASTILY 22:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Temporary vs permanent FoP

Adminstrators have been a little inconsistent in these two deletion requests, of the same sculpture in the same location: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Straw Fox (5821609181).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Straw Fox 2 (5822182298).jpg. Are there any further opinions about whether they both should be kept or deleted? --ghouston (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I am intrigued by an FoP issue. We tend to see that laws have some variation upon "permanently exhibited in a public space". My question is, does that space have to be static, or could it be moved every so often and still qualify? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Although Commons:FOP#Permanent vs temporary says If it [the work] was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent" and if it was clear from the beginning that it would be left there only, say, for three years and then be moved to a museum, then the placement was not "permanent", in some jurisdictions a broader definition of "permanent" may be applied, see e.g. the case of Switzerland. According to at least one Swiss legal commentary, a "permanent" installation might also be time limited from the beginning, but not "accidental", e.g. due to transport of the work. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's the relevant part of the UK copyright legislation: [5]. It seems to me that to make use of part (2), then part (1)(b) should hold at the time when the photo is created. The photo taken while the sculpture is on temporary display infringes its copyright, but is there any reason to think that the infringement goes away if the statue is later put on permanent display? --ghouston (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting that this DR was closed as "keep". I would have thought it was a clear "delete"... Lupo 06:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • For the UK the best example I have is whatever gets displayed on the Fourth Plinth in Trafalgar Square. We have some photographs of the various sculptures or installations that go there and get changed regularly, but they normally need a specific release or are public domain for other reasons. Some artworks are "installations" (such as One & Other) only designed for the plinth, these probably are covered by FoP due to that intention, however sculptures on loan or with planned relocation to their permanent site would not be. --Fæ (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, based on this discussion I am going to delete the first one as well, unless there are last-minute objections.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

is this image appropriate

File:Zantess and Advanced Telecommunications writes bad checks to employees cameron smith.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) Evrik (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. DR created. Yann (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Tiffany Smith-Edmonds beauty and brains.jpg

Hello, I'm an admin on Wikipedia. This file is licensed as "own work", but looks like a magazine cover. The user name is the same for the uploader and the creator of an article about the image subject. Don't know how things work over here, but I was wondering about the claim of "own work". IF it is, then it strengthens the likelihood of a conflict of interest on the part of the uploader/article creator. If it is not, then that might be a problem as well. Don't know the ropes over here, so I'm `posting tho this board. Cheers, Philipp Michel Reichold (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted it as a derivative of non-free content, which is forbidden on Commons. In the future, feel free to use the {{speedy|Your reason here}} tag to request speedy deletion of such files. -FASTILY 00:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks fastily. 24.92.210.244 00:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Rename File:Daviess-courthouse.jpg

This is a cropped & rotated version of a file on the English Wikipedia. I forgot to rename it when I uploaded the enhanced version to WikiMedia, so it's not possible to select one or the other for use in an article. Could this Wikimedia version get renamed to "Daviess-courthouse-cropped.jpg", e.g.? Thanks. Kbh3rd (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done I accidentally changed the name slightly when I uploaded the cropped version as File:Daviess-courthouse cropped.jpg instead. I also moved the original from the English Wikipedia here and deleted the version on the English Wikipedia. Royalbroil 09:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Next time, please use {{Rename}}. You have script on your preferences for requesting rename. —레비Revi 10:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Problem with a German user

Can please a German - speaking administrator have a look at this talk page, please? I don't want to escalate till a block (though very short). I have been after this user since this early afternoon. He creates useless disambiguation pages as well as nonsense redirects (apart from categories with names out of our policy). I tried to tell him that there's no need for creating disambiguation pages whereas there's nothing to disambuguate. He has been in write-only until few mins ago and his only reply was "You're not Commens" (sic). For this reason I think that someone who speaks German should tell him that he's not exactly doing right. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Website of an Image – section "File usage on Commons"

In the last time I've watched different websites of images where the section "File usage on Commons"
obviously is lacking of different referring other websites, which means that the shown list is different
from the one shown by using "Tools > What links here"

  • Is this a known issue?
  • And should both lists show the same content?

(An example: File:W.E.F. Britten - The Early Poems of Alfred, Lord Tennyson - Break, Break, Break - ORIGINAL SCAN.png)
• Jaybear • ...disc. • 16:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"File usage on Commons" shows instances where the image is shown; "What links here" shows all links to the image, including inline links such the one in your post beginning with [[:File:...]]. What links here links with the text "(file link)" will also show up in "File usage on Commons". MKFI (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This is not an issue but intended behaviour and I think also intuitive as "What links here" is obviously different from "File usage". Note that inclusions of [[Media:<filename>]] will also show up as File usage. -- Rillke(q?) 09:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, in this way the difference sounds really "intuitive".
But what about this other example:
* File:W.E.F. Britten - The Early Poems of Alfred, Lord Tennyson - Break, Break, Break - original scan (rotated, cropped).jpg
It's used on the bottom of this User-page:
* User_talk:Adam_Cuerden
And this usage isn't seen under section "File usage on Commons" ...
• Jaybear • ...disc. • 10:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
That is not file usage; it is simply an inline file link. There is no picture visible on the talk page, just a link to the image. File usage means that the picture of that file is actually shown on the page, not just a link to that file. MKFI (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done – Ok & Thanks, that's really a difference. • Jaybear • ...disc. • 11:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Don_camillo.jpg

I've been wondering about this image. The source says "all rights reserved", but the uploader apparently purports to be the drawing's original author. Since the drawing is great, it would be a pity to delete it right away, so it might be a good idea to contact the author via his website to be sure that he did upload the image, and possibly get a proper OTRS permission. What do you think ? (it might be better if it was done by a German-speaking user or admin) JJ Georges (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Tagged with {{No permission since}}. Alan (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Did you send an email to the author ? (not the uploader) JJ Georges (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, ticket:2014013010006203. I'm waiting a reply. --Alan (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Confirmed by Stefan Kahlhammer under BY-SA and GNU. All in order. {{PermissionOTRS}} added. --Alan (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Woops ! We have several other images by the same uploader : this one about the same subject, but also File:Angela merkel.jpg, File:Bob dylan1.jpg, File:Karikatur von Arnold Schwarzenegger.jpg, File:Karl heinz grasser.jpg and File:Niki lauda.jpg. I should have looked more closely, so we could have had one permission for all these images. I'm afraid you'll have to bother him again. Sorry... JJ Georges (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I sent another email. --Alan (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
✓ Confirmed. otrs:2014013010006203 Alan (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice drawings!

• Jaybear • ...disc. • 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Bootstrap.jpg

Could someone please delete the unrelated middle revision by Trystanburke from this file, since there is no copyright information for it? Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 08:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done—레비Revi 08:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Unprotection request

Hi, I would like to upload an improved version of File:Malachitfalter, Bambuspage, Siproeta stelenes 3.JPG, but it is protected because it is a POTY candidate. Could someone help me unprotect it? Thanks. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If this request succeed then it will also make me support the image. I find that the sharpness and colours of the current version can be improved. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This file itself is not protected. There seems to be a cascading protection on Commons:Picture of the Year/2013/R1/Gallery/Arthropods, which I wouldn't lift because there is currently a very high traffic and risk of vandalism. Besides, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to modify an image during the contest, where there already are some support votes. --A.Savin 11:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure then, I will watchlist the image and upload the modified version after POTY competition. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI, next time, please make your (un)protection requests to Blocks and Protections noticeboard.—레비Revi 11:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for informing me about that. I'm still very noob at Commons. ;) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleted category's content needs delinking from deleted parent

It is good that the cat was deleted, but it's odd that the deletion was apparently not accompanied by a removal of that parent from across its many populating items. This seems obviously required.. Would you please activate a bot to clean Category:Branches in israel from its content. And same should follow with Category:Branches in Haifa. Thanx. Orrlingtalk 11:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 11:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Marcocartoon1 and Special:Contributions/Marcosanseq

Both will use same wrong template, another blocked, please check.--Motopark (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sock indeffed and other's block extended to 6 months. --Denniss (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for deletion, but I'm not familiar with Commons-procedures

Hello, I would like you to help me in deleting an earlier version of a photo with a content of registration plate on a car [6]. The story: I detected, that there is a visible and readable registration plate in this photo, so I obscured the registration plate on my PC to provide injury of personal rights, and after this I uploaded the modified version of photo (with the same filename: KakaslomnicFotoThalerTamas.JPG [7]). But there is not very good, that the earlier version (with the readable registration plate) is also accessible on Commons, so maybe it would be better to delete that. On the one hand I don't know, which type of deletion is the best (maybe speedy deletion?) in this case (exactly: this is my first request for deletion, so I'm sorry for being clumsy), and the other hand I don't understand, how can be delete a file, which has the same name as other, though I can see, that the two files have different url. Please, inform me, what should I have to do next time in similar case. Thank you in advance, --Sphenodon (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Done, first file revision hidden. --Denniss (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Denniss! Next time in similar case, can I ask file-revision-hiding here, or should I have to ask it another page? Thanks, --Sphenodon (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
A request here is fine, that's what AN is for. --Denniss (talk)
I understand, thank you! --Sphenodon (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories of Uploads by User:AlbertHerring with Flickr transfer Bot

pls check these uploads in use, project scope and categories like Category:Coal and Category:Switched-mode power supplies. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 13:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

File:MattJaissle.jpg

Per this thread on Commons:Village pump/Copyright can an administrator please delete the first revision of this file page? Thanks, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. content hidden. --Denniss (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories

Can an administrator please close the discussions at:

Thanks! TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Nuke proposal

After checking 16 of the latest and oldest uploads of the new ماجد العدواني (talk · contribs) and finding them all to be copyvios, I propose to summarily delete (nuke) all his/her uploads without further individual checking. --Túrelio (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done This guy is just grabbing them from all over they internet. Natuur12 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits at Template:Potd/2014-06 and Template:Potd/2014-07 by FIFAWorldCupFan

Only COM:FPs are eligible for COM:POTDs; so all these edits are inappropriate and need to be reverted. Jee 02:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 03:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, a lot. Jee 03:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:WatchlistNotice.js

I made a edit request on MediaWiki talk:WatchlistNotice.js because previously i made a wrong translations (by mistake) there. SomeAdmin please, fullfill that request. Thanks--Aftab1995 (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Revival

Dear Administrators, please revival

this file
this file

. The author sent an email to OTRS. you can see that on here. I ask user:Denniss befor, but he didnt answer not yet. Best Regards Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk)‍ 17:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You'd better request undeletion at COM:UDEL. —레비Revi 14:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Uploads of User:LitoPap

At the risk of me being blocked again, would an administrator please block User:LitoPap and delete all his uploads from 26 January 2014 forward, with the exception of coins from Finland? This user was blocked for exactly what he is doing here; uploading a variety of non-free images to Commons despite multiple prior warnings. He was blocked for three days before. If it means I am blocked again, under unwritten rules, for asking someone to delete non-free files from Commons, so be it. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for one month. Yann (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Siegen 202 gimp.JPG

Hello there, I have created a duplicate which is not necessary. Sorry for that. Can anyone please delete the File:Siegen 202 gimp.JPG? Thank you! --EveryPicture (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 18:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Reposting - hoping some positive action before this is re-archived

Dear friends,

A number of images of Free Licensed Konkani Vishkawosh encyclopedia hosted on Commons were deleted by user - CommonsDelinker on the Wikisource project.

The uploader of these images followed the steps during the upload: 1. Selected images -
2. Ticked - This file is not my own work.-
3. Source - Konkani VIshwakosh Volume 1
4. Authors - Goa University, Multiple Authors,
5. Ticked - Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0
6. then gave title etc. and in the category Konkani Vishwakosh - saved

It may be noted that Konkani Vishwakosh is in public domain.

I request an urgent admin intervention to kindly restore the bulk of Konkani VIshwakosh Volume 1 files that have been deleted.

A screenshot of deleted files can be seen below (enlarged when clicked):

Regards, Muzammil (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC).

You should ask undeletion on COM:UDEL. —레비Revi 12:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Pinging Jcb may enough. Jee 12:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Ref File:Konkani Vishwakosh - Volume 4 Released.pdf Jee 12:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes it is just easier to re-upload the files again, since we do not have tools yet for mass-undeletion (AFAIK). --Jarekt (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a mass-undelete function in pywikipedia's delete.py module -FASTILY 02:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems the source and attribution on Vol 4 is wrong. http://library.unigoa.ac.in:8081/xmlui/handle/123456789/593 says Author: Tanaji Halarnkar (Goa University, 1999); so I didn't get the multiple author part. Does there a release notice from University of Goa stating it is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0? I didn't see so in their website. Jee 13:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
You could read it on Goa University's website here. Nitika.t (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Not enough; I afraid. You could ask them to give a clear statement, stating which CC license at http://library.unigoa.ac.in:8081/xmlui/handle/123456789/593 Jee 14:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
If the situation is sufficiently clear, please feel free to contact me for restoring. Jcb (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not clear, as Jee says. The web site says:
"Goa University publishes Konkani Vishwkosh under Creative Commons Licence."
As we all know, there are several versions of the CC license that Commons does not accept. And, by the way, the same page also says:
"Copyright © 2012 Goa University Library. All Rights Reserved."
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, James and Jee for the concern in ensuring the compliance of Commons license. I am pleased to inform you that based on Jee's suggestion a request was made to the Goa University to make the license status ample clear. The update that stands is available here:

"Konkani Viswakosh
Goa University upon CIS' request has re-released Konkani Vishwakosh under Creative Commons License (CC-BY-SA 3.0), a Wikipedia compatible license."
I request my friends to kindly restore the deleted files as the Creative Commons License (CC-BY-SA 3.0), a Wikipedia compatible license is acceptable on our Commons. Regards, Muzammil (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC).

Thanks Muzammil; and pinging Jcb again for looking into this. Jee 11:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Informed Jcb; but it seems he is away for a week. :( Jee 14:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not away, but in general I am less active from monday till thursday because of being an employee somewhere :-) - Jcb (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I hope you could please have a look and do something before this thread is re-archived. Muzammil (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC).
I did undelete the files 27 January. Have I missed some files? If so, please give me a link and I will fix it. Jcb (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

I made over 20 Mediawiki namespace edit request on Category:Commons protected edit requests. SomeAdmin, please fullfill those request. Thanks in advance--Aftab1995 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done—레비Revi 04:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

out of scope text added continously

Uploader add out of scope text to picture File:Dumitru D-Coman 2014-01-28 12-54.jpg, could somebody inform--Motopark (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please delete

File:Dumitru D-Coman 2014-01-28 12-54.jpg uploader removes speedy tag.--Motopark (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done—레비Revi 05:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Created again, please delete--Motopark (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done again and create-protected for 1 day. Warning user.... —레비Revi 08:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please delete

Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:Dumitru D-Coman 2014-01-28 12-54.jpg spam and fake DR.--Motopark (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - advert. Natuur12 (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Image move request

Would a kind admin soul please move File:Male symbol.svg back to File:Male.svg. It is a high-use file moved without discussion, and seems like the name should match File:Female.svg as it previously did (or, alternatively, the female symbol should have its name changed to match). I cannot move it back even with filemover permission...it is generating a shared repository error. Thanks. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done—레비Revi 08:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Hym. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please delete

Created again and again after deletion File:Dumitru D-Coman 2014-01-28 12-54.jpg--Motopark (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Created again--Motopark (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
He have had enough warnings. Deleted and bloked the account. Natuur12 (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/template

This template currently has all the months shifted over one column (in Firefox 26.0 if that helps any) so can an administrator figure out the problem and fix it? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please delete

plenty of posters Special:Contributions/Galeriamartin, please delete--Motopark (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Nuked. Thanks. --Alan (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please delete

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dumitru D-Coman 2014-01-28 12-54.jpg adcert and created again--Motopark (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted and user warned. Techman224Talk 05:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
By the way, it looks like it's coming from this user Dorian Coman (talk · contribs), it's the same text. Techman224Talk 05:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I have reblocked Dorian Coman (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) indefinitely for block invasion. Techman224Talk 06:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Suspicious edits

I'm still away; but noticed these suspicious edits ([8], [9], [10]) in my watch list as they recently survived two courtesy deletion requests. I doubt such edits should be reverted and discouraged due to privacy issues. Jee 06:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted and revdeleted those revisions. Techman224Talk 07:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:DemetriceJackson.jpg

Picture deleted as in deletion request was but uploaded again, does it goes right way.--Motopark (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done by colleague Natuur12. --Túrelio (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
And also notified the user. Natuur12 (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request due to copyvio

File:High-Voltage Impulse Test System.jpg, reason given on the site. --darkking3 Թ 12:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy converted to DR, as image was uploaded 2 years ago and has quite some external uses. --Túrelio (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets logo.png

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but if possible can an administrator please translate the message for the vote in the deletion request above? Thanks, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Request for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Awesome_bat-shirt_(4021638464).jpg

--Super Sintex (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Super Sintex
I think it should be deleted because its a non resourceful, copyright, its misnamed, and it includes download codes. I've already suggest the image to be renamed to a proper name 'bout an hour ago and nothing has happened please do the right thing here.
--Super Sintex (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Super Sintex

Deleted talkpage

Could you please restore Category talk:Diagrams by theme. The subject page exists as a redir. Hence the talkpg isn't orphaned and might be helpful for documentation. Thanx. Orrlingtalk 16:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

--Super Sintex (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Super Sintex
Well it turns out that one of your fellow Administrators' had vandalized my talk page with an inappropriate picture I undone the malicious edit.
--Super Sintex (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Super Sintex

This is wrong. Before you wrote this message, only three users had edited your talkpage: Wikimedia Commons Welcome, LX and yourself. None of them is administrator. Nobody has ever vandalized your talk page, nobody has ever added a picture in your talk page, your have never undone any edit. And if you make one such edit more, you will be blocked. Taivo (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


Sintex
First things' first don't you ever raise your voice with me again or I'll spank your little smart ass, I'm tired of teh way you kid think you can talk to adults with disrespect I served in Vietnam damn it and won't insulted by a white trash shit like you again.
And my page was vandalized by you in fact and you think you can fool me by showing that edit, that personal attack that you caused that user do you want me to report to bureaucrat and have you him demote and ban you?
Super Sintex

Commons:Database reports/Broken redirects

Could an administrator please take some time to review and/or fix some of the entries on this page? Thanks, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

With this revision, I checked 1~30. Some seem to be created after bot work. —레비Revi 05:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Any way you could convert the userspace ones into {{Softredirect}}s instead so they don't appear in this report? Or just blank them? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

POTD feed stopped working

Any header link open Error page with error "Invalid feed timestamp"

[11]

Timestamp for archiving. —레비Revi 14:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

first dont mess with my photos

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
New user "threatening" people for marking his copyvios. Nothing to see here. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I am tired of the harassment with those who are not verifiied or admin on here messing with photos we post on living person site cause we are editors for them

it is not right. you should not be allowed to unless ask to or contact us it is really pissing me off and others — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenlgfc (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The so far only upload from this account has been deleted as copyvio. Also[12]. --Túrelio (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Disturbing discovery of a vandalism of a userpage of someone whose username is identical to my real name

Hello, I Googled my real name to make a disturbing discovery whereas not only that someone had a username on Wikimedia Commons that was identical to my real name, but also that it was vandalized and the vandalism was unnoticed for five years. I put a deletion tag on the tag but I am going to ask you to just refer to my contributions to locate the deletion request. The user himself (the one whose username is identical to my real name) also appeared to be on Commons for a short period of time mostly editing his userpage and not really having useful contributions. It also appeared that, as evidenced by his last edit ever, he might have had the same first name as he appeared to blank his page and replace it with a sentence saying what his first name was. If anyone can either delete the page as a whole, or offer some suggestions to me, please let me know. If it's not a good idea to delete the page, then maybe revert the vandalism itself and oversight my edits. NHRHS2010 (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the vandalism. But I can't see how it's appropriate to delete someone else's userpage, made in good faith, based on the coincidence that you have the same username. If you are that person, or you can contact that person, and the original user signs in with the account to request deletion, then we will delete it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
That's true. Who never knows? He might come back sometime. I hope to touch base with him at some point. NHRHS2010 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

File:US_Navy_060408-N-4965F-001_More_than_1,400_military_and_civilian_runners_make_their_way_across_the_Adm._Bernard_Chick_Clarey_Bridge_during_the_2006_Ford_Island_10k_Bridge_Run_at_Pearl_Harbor.jpg

I'm requesting a review of the file name for this image. I'd suggest 2006 Ford Island 10k Bridge Run at Pearl Harbor.jpg. The Commons:File renaming guideline does not include file length as a rationale for renaming but says that other rationales can be discussed and considered. Now, the proposed guideline Commons:File naming says to keep "the filename reasonably short reduces need for truncation when the file is downloaded". Currently, the file name is 199 characters. I think that's horrendously large and unnecessary.--TParis (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done We don't encourage too many renaming for minor fine tuning. But here the file has only one use, the name is too long as to cover the full file description, and the code prefix is useless. Further, the media viewer is using filename as title; so a meaningful short name is always advised. I think bots always use long filenames; and we should do something to make the choice of filename, more meaningful. Jee 06:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Restore image please

The image on the Wikipedia biography of Elizabeth Farrelly was removed on 5 February just before her permission was sent on 6 February. Can it be restored please? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It will be restored when permission is confirmed by OTRS volunteer that permission is valid.—레비Revi 06:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Load of files need restoring

Hi all, Ticket:2014020910011003 contains permission for all the following files. As I am not an admin on here, can someone please restore all the following files?

Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 13:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, use undeletion request page next time. —레비Revi 13:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; I am not yet too farmiliar with commons - I assumed it was like EN when you posted on AN for stuff like this :) --Mdann52talk to me! 13:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Files restored. Pleas add the {{OTRS}} template (etc.). --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done --Mdann52talk to me! 13:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Older file versions for deletion

Hi, please delete original higher resolution versions of File:Stržený Ornament, 2012.jpg and File:Dogma, 2010.jpg due to author's request in OTRS. Thanks. --Harold (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, and it will be useful if you provide ticket number next time. —레비Revi 16:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion requests/Crazy Horse Memorial 2

Hello. Commons:Deletion requests/Crazy Horse Memorial 2 has now been there for a month. Keep it? as it got one Keep vote (ahem...) more than delete.--RicHard-59 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Please delete

User:Iya Ephrem Paulin/EditCounterOptIn.js out of project scope--Motopark (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done—레비Revi 15:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Screenshot deletion request

Please could an admin delete the original version (not the current version) of File:WP Screenshot - Curation bug.png. The article in the screenshot has been tagged on en:wp as a copyvio, so I've pixelated the text in the current version. Thanks.   An optimist on the run! 17:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Alan (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Григорий225

The user uploads copyrighted images (for example, File:Станция Битцевский парк.jpg or File:Cтанция Лесопаркова конец Января 2014 года.jpg). His talk page here is full of warnings. Isn't it time to ban him? --Michgrig (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Григорий225. YLSS (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Inactivity run for February-March 2014

Hi admins; this is just to let you know that I have just started the admin inactivity run for February-March 2014.

As usual, all administrators listed in the table on that page have been notified on their talk pages and via e-mail; those listed here have had their adminship removed on Meta by steward M7. Please join me in thanking @Ala z, @Kved, @Luxo, @Philosopher and @Zyephyrus for their excellent service to our community. odder (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

2c: I agree with the policy for removing adminship for inactivity for security reasons - i.e., a compromised account. But I do not at all understand why we are not immediately restoring the rights to any admins who ask for them. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Probably because up-to-date knowledge of our procedures & protocols is required to effectively administrate Commons -FASTILY 02:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

File:TE-Collage London.png

Please delete the revision uploaded on 2013-06-06 by Vidal101. It is a copyright violation (clearly watermarked "© Getty Images"), grabbed from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169097/The-Shard-London-opening-Laser-dazzles--pay-25-ride-top.html. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 13:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:File renaming

I think most of us already aware of this incident. I am not interested to discuss that particular case; but I see one more rename today. I didn't see such minor tweaks in our criteria list. I did one two days ago which is also not mentioned in our list.

So what is our policy here. I see some renaming without consulting the contributors are ended up as big disputes. So we need to be more careful, IMHO. Jee 16:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm; this renaming even break the FPC link. :( Jee 16:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm; Doggy style is a sex position. How a person just watching her photos taken by a photographer become a sex position? Jee 16:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Marcus Cyron too for attention (although this is intended as a generic discussion; not AN/U). Jee 16:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of "description" field

Can someone have a look at this? To me that's a clear misuse of the "description" field (maybe I cannot get the point but it recalls me a SEO text). I've also renamed that file which previously had a 239-chars unsuitable name. Both description and filename seem to deal, btw with some recent incidents involving the uploader and some other users at meta, commons and pl.wiki. I no COI (!) at all but I'm a bit stuck of that drama. Please have a look also at file categories, a half are, imho, not relevant at all. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, removed the spam. If he continues to post it, I'm likely to warn him and to protect the page. A block could follow later. Trijnsteltalk 19:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to respectfully but firmly disagree. The description is not spam. However, steward on meta is on record on meta:user talk:Mareklug as accusing me of spamming, of becoming self-promoting spammer, and of ruining my online reputation. This is prejudicial editing and a slander of my person as long-time Wikipedian on multiple projects with a long history of non-self-promoting edits. As in this case -- I hold that I am engaging in educational campaign to draw attention to counterfeiting. This is certainly within the central mission of Wikimedia Commons and WMF activity on its projects in general. Furthermore, I would like everybody here to assume good faith and consider my edits with patience and understanding. The filename had a 239-character name, indeed, but nowhere does it say that this made it unsuitable. In fact, all the references on Flickr (because it is the original Flickr name) and on WMF projects using that name work! They just work! The steward, Vituzzu, has acted out of process, and without any technical justification, in fact, claiming that the filename was C2, or Criterion Number 2, which states, that nonsensical file names need to be renamed. It was not nonsensical, but elaborated and detailed, and therefore, very sense-full. One may argue that it was not sensible or easy to type, but that is besides the point. Those criteria are not required. On the other hand, files are not to be renamed to slightly better names, and that is Criterion No. 1 of not renaming policy. I request that User talk:Trijnstel has no basis to threaten me with blocks, or any need or justification to edit war on removing the description I thoughtfully crafted and wikilinked. I will appeal this to the community if need be, and to WMF offices. --Mareklug talk 19:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
PS. From User:Trijnstel's talk page, "jak w mordę dał":
$ wc 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/48592906@N02/10671233723/in/photolist-hfYS1k-8ZbJdY-8Z8E4v-8ZbHgs-8Z8EyV-8Z8DMZ-8ZWJo5-8ZTD3H-8ZTDsM-aseJJR-ashoAo-ashpmN-ashpbC-aseKkX-aseK8p-aseKRD-ashpQo-8ZbJ15-eBQu9D-eQNsMt-eQNuo6-eQNtRz-eQZPv7-eQZPYb-9rDm4L-9rDmnq-9rDk8s-9rDkKG-9rAnXp-9rDkro-9rDn4u-demQ1h-demQXC-demRnF-demRbR-demQfN-fo5oqY-fnP2XF-eizWnH-eiFGWj-eiFGBY-eizWED-eiFG49-eizXqz-fCYG8k-eyS8KA-demReb-demSqt-demSGP-demRqm-hfXqF6).But
^D
      1       1     429
$
Nuff said. 429 characters, not mere 239 -- and jezuz krist -- work like DOS-compatible links do. Another meritorious technical contribution to the discussion and reason to interfere in my edits. --Mareklug talk 20:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
PPS. Please carefully read two discussion pages I have annotated for the 2 images of mine being considered for deletion as inappropriate and disruptive, self-promoting spammy edits (that User:odder has nominated, after the day earlier telling me which tool to use to upload them :/) and which the Wikipedian who started this noticeboard action against my edits has already commented to keep, albeit with disparaging and inaccurate comments about my use of these images on Wikimedia Foundation Projects. Please read CAREFULLY. The links, for your convenience:
  1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Tea_Who_You_Yeah_Bunny_greeting_card_by_Mareklug,_obverse.jpg
  2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Tea_Who_You_Yeah_Bunny_greeting_card_by_Mareklug,_reverse.jpg
Cordially, --Mareklug talk 02:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Bring it back to the description, putting it simply it is too long and irrelevant to the picture itself. That's the real reason why it was removed. Techman224Talk 03:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

File Jenny von Westphalen.JPG

Hello, that picture is not Jenny von Westphalen, it is Marx' daughter Jenny Longuet. This photo is a part of a photo taken together with Marx in 1866 at Margate / UK. Will you be so kind to change the name of that file. Regards --WhoisWhoME (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, please use {{Rename}} in this case. You can enable gadget in your Preferences. —레비Revi 16:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
RenameLink is enabled by default in the prefs. -- Rillke(q?) 22:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Григорий225 2

One more copyvio: File:Станция Битцевский парк.jpg --Michgrig (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --A.Savin 08:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Gvocale (talk · contribs)

Can an administrator please notify him in some way to stop uploading images relating to Steven Goldstein before the OTRS ticket is verified? It seems he's been having some trouble lately with copyright and OTRS queues, judging by his good faith responses at a few DRs. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Dercumsawareness (talk · contribs)

What's the policy for treating contributions of uploaders evading a block? See Special:Contributions/Dercumsawareness. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Associated accounts:
I believe that "Kelieane" should be restricted to a single account. Allowing him or her to run wild with sockpuppets on Commons would be the same as helping him or her evade his or her block on enwiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kelieane: I think that you can easily become unblocked on Wikipedia if you add a promise not be create any more to the end of your incomplete unblock request. I sorry that no one noticed or acted on that incomplete unblock request earlier. You must've felt as if no one was listening to you. You don't have to create any more sockpuppets. Log in as "Kelieane" and complete your unblock request. A person watching this page might even help you if you don't do it correctly again. It would also be helpful if you were to ask for help about citations and sourcing at Wikipedia. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. Wasn't sure who the sockmaster was so I didn't put up the notice. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

fyi: delinker moved to wmflabs

Hi, Delinker was moved to wmflabs (https://tools.wmflabs.org/delinker/) (thanks to User:Hoo man). Please report any new problems with Delinker here. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Great news, maybe there's time to improve it? Delinker does not seem to operate in Creator and Institution namespaces, some more may be missing. --Denniss (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:User19022014

Judging from the interest in the copyrighted photos of the Bitsevsky Park station of Moscow Metro, I suspect that it is the same user as here. --Michgrig (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Tagging obvious copyvios

Hello,

I have noticed that some people, including admins, tag obvious copyvios (images with Google, Facebook, as source; covers; promo shots, etc.) with "no license". This sends the wrong message to contributors, and the copyvios stay here for a week of more. Could you please tag obvious copyvios with {{Copyvio}} (preferably using the gadget, so that the uploader is warned)? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen some obvious copyvios tagged with "no permission" too when they should just be speedied. INeverCry 21:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyvios of TheSuperGlow

Hi. All uploaded files of TheSuperGlow are blatant copyvios. Can someone delete them? Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

history cleanup after copyvio deletions

In the last month, there have been several files deleted as copyvio, because they were using the same copyvio eagle as File:Grand Duchy of Finland COA.svg and File:Tsar's banner of the kingdom of Congress Poland.jpg. This last file shows that the eagle have been simply vectorised from a 2003 Italian ex-libris: http://cs409524.vk.me/v409524916/6ec4/225ObnzNn-4.jpg . The vector version used in the deleted files seems to have first been added on commons in a bunch of imperial Russia coat of arms. These files have recently been updated and the incriminated eagle has been removed. The copyvio elements remain, however, in the revision history of the following files. In order to end this case, these copyvio revisions should be deleted. Could an admin take care of cleaning the revision histories of these files :

and

Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathisma (talk • contribs) 15:23, February 21, 2014‎ (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 11:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Maciarewicz Signature.jpg

Please rename to "Antoni Macierewicz signature" (now is uncorectly - "MaciArewicz"). Lowdown (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done You can use {{Rename}} for future requests. INeverCry 23:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleting Images

The pictures were taken by the son of a degree that would bring them raises ask now Here to delete the pictures. Treatment operators trustees.
These are the pictures: 

File:Prunus dulcis Arad valley Israel 01.jpg
File:Prunus dulcis Arad valley Israel 02.jpg
File:Prunus dulcis Arad valley Israel 06.jpg
File:Prunus dulcis Arad valley Israel 07.jpg
File:Prunus dulcis Arad valley Israel 08.jpg
File:Prunus dulcis Arad valley Israel 09.jpg

Thanks in advance. נהוראיי מבורך כחלון (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The uploader requested at he.wiki the deletion of recently created unused files. Neukoln (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Alan (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Noeliaynigo.jpg

Hola: Como puedo hacer para borrar este archivo , llevo varios días tratando de borrarlo pero no puedo. Yo subí la imagen aunque no soy el autor y no me pertenece. Ya existe una versión vectorizada de este dibujo. Gracias. Saludos. --Retaux (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Normalmente consideramos la nominación más o menos después de una semana. Probablemente alguien va a tratar con el caso hoy o mañana. Jcb (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@Retaux: te he dejado un comentario en la solicitud de borrado. El borrado queda pendiente de respuesta. Alan (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Spam filter on talk pages

I was told that one of my images was used in a video on YouTube (with nearly correct licence usage). I added {{Published}} to the image talk page and wanted to include http://youtu.be/oCEKMEeZXug?t=1m35s as url. The page tells me "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: youtu.be". Does anybody know why youtu.be is on the spam list and youtube.com is not and how this can be fixed (it seems somewhat ridiculous to me)
EDIT: The image is Mercury-vapor lamp-in use-lamp PNr°0116.jpg btw
thx for yout time and help --D-Kuru (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@admins: Special:Log/spamblacklist --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
m:Spam blacklist: \byoutu\.be\b --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
m:Special:Search/youtu.be prefix:Talk:Spam blacklist, most notably m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2012-12#youtu.be. Commons administrators cannot help here. -- Rillke(q?) 12:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
@Rillke: You can locally whitelist here ;) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, forgot about this, sorry. As I read it - the Meta Admins' main concern was that it would be possible adding youtube videos to articles that were previously blacklisted; as Commons does not suffer from such kind of vandalism very frequently one could really consider doing so. But I'd like to get a second opinion first: @McZusatz and FunkMonk: What do you think about locally whitelisting that shortcut url to youtube? Aside from that, there are now global abuse filters (see checkbox) (see status), I believe and couldn't they simply use some regexp magic to match both domains on m:Spam blacklist for youtube videos? -- Rillke(q?) 12:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I know you can use Youtube.com links. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Another option would be to change the message from warning about spam to tell what the real problem is. (I.e. replacing the short url with the long one.) Though I don't know how to accomplish this. --McZusatz (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't see anything useful in the spam blacklist source. Anyway, that message would have to be also fetched by the API when editing with the API and most API clients don't care for that.
But where to go from here?
  1. Local whitelisting
  2. Asking meta admins to use a regexp matching both domains
  3. Asking meta admins using a regexp for each video for each of the two domains
  4. Making meta admins aware of global abuse filters
-- Rillke(q?) 22:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the problem is not on meta. It is more that local wiki admins only block the long urls of videos (e.g. en spam blacklist). Am I wrong? If I am right we would have to edit every local Spam blacklist to match both: The youtu.be and youtube.com url before disabling youtu.be on the global spam list. --McZusatz (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you are right. So we're going with #1? -- Rillke(q?) 14:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess... What about: Local whitelist and local abusefilter telling you to replace the short url? Is this even possible? --McZusatz (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
If it was, we could also remove the global blacklist entry and add an appropriate global abuse filter to tell users to use the long urls. Is this what you meant by #4? --McZusatz (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Someone has to find out what this condition limit means (Of the last 5,216 actions, 3 (0.06%) have reached the condition limit of 1,000). Sometimes it is exceeded and I don't have the feeling that it should while I have the feeling that adding more rules will possibly make it happen more frequently. Does anyone know? -- Rillke(q?) 22:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe User:Bawolff knows something about it or can leave a comment. --McZusatz (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Given that its really common to blacklist url shorteners, it may make sense to add a line to mediawiki:spamprotectiontext/mediawiki:spamprotectionmatch advising people to use the long form of url. I don't know much about the abuse filter. I believe the condition count is just the sum of all abuse filter statements tested for a given edit (note: bugzilla:41693 implies that short circuiting does not apply to condition counts). If that's correct, adding more filters will increase the likelyhood that an edit goes past the condition limit. You should be able to see the average number of conditions a filter takes up via the statistics line when viewing details of the filter. Bawolff (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to temporarily remove it from the blacklist, add the link, then restore the blacklist? IMO, there should be a way for some of the more trusted admins to squeeze a link or two through the blacklist once in awhile when they figure its necessary, and also manage to keep the link blacklisted for the rest of the time. (Like a bypass-blacklist user-right). TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

bugzilla:34928. No way. Otherwise it won't be able to edit the page without removing the link again. -- Rillke(q?) 18:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Smoking Crack.jpg

There is an ongoing edit war on that file page an a related discussion at the talk page. Does there any evidence that "this woman smoking crack from a glass pipe." Otherwise it should be simply "a woman smoking". Jee 03:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Crack-smoking mayor Rob Ford's adventures have provided an education on how to distinguish when a drug pipe is being used to smoke crack. According to reporters who sought out experts, to smoke crack, the experienced user puts the drug is in the pipe, and heats the pipe with a flame held below. Smoking tobacco, marijuana or hashish, the experienced user puts the flame above the pipe.
I don't know where experienced drug users place the flame when using a crack pipe to smoke heroin or methamphetamines, or the new "bath salts". Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

broken file page: File:Geoffrey Kent.jpg

Could somebody please check File:Geoffrey Kent.jpg? It seems to have been re-uploaded after a deletion, but has no file description page, and I can't create one either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have re-deleted the remaining file. This problem happens every now and then. --Túrelio (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Multiple copyvio from to users

Hi. I really do not know if this request should be here, so if this is not the place for this kind of request, please tell me where I can proceed.

This two users [13] [14] have uploaded multiple copyrighted files for using them in Wikipedia in Spanish, I guess due to they do not know how Commons works.

¿Could anyone delete them? ¿Or should I add them the {{Copyvio}} one by one? Thanks. Albertojuanse (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC) PD: I will inform them in their local talk page.

Thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Categorization of human penis

Hi at all. Please can an admin control this user, his uploads and specially his added categorizations? Here. Is it a vandal? Thank you. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Reupload of formerly deleted stuff. Deleted and warned --A.Savin 20:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. We have enough work to do to give the correct cat at all the files that are uploaded, that it is not acceptable that an user add at files of human penis cats like "wikipedians", "churches", "Chicago", etc. Thank you very much again. --DenghiùComm (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


I have infed-blocked Pnnpotvrfs (talk · contribs) now for vandalism, as he had added to his "home-porn" uploads File:My genitals.JPG and File:It's a cock..JPG the following categories: Category:Chicago, Category:Skyscraper churches, Category:Churches, Category:Religious Israeli settlements, Category:Jewish Agency building in Tel-Aviv, Category:Jewish American politicians, Category:Yom Ha'atzmaut in Ofra, Category:Synagogues and Category:Synagogues in Alabama. This is obviously politically (or even antisemitically) motivated vandalism. Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 Support, thank you Túrelio. Even if it would be "just" vandalism, this decision would be justified. -- Rillke(q?) 12:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

ComboPress (talk · contribs)

Can an administrator please monitor this user? There's been a lot of inappropriate categorization afoot, and this is in the timespan of a few weeks at a time; that is, silent unnoticed disruption. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Deleting and moving a large amount of files

It concerns the cleanup of this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Invalid_SVG.

Request: deletion of the files made by Emeldir (talk · contribs) which are in this category:Invalid_SVG. The superseded images will be the primary images then.

  • Images made by Hagar66 (talk · contribs) of German municipalities. The category is filled with these images. Hagar66 doesn't want these images to be made valid.

Request: creation of a subcategory like the subcategory made by Sémhur in this category. And the transfer of these files of these municipalities made by Hagar66 to this subcategory. I have tried to communicate with him about it but he doesn't give an answer: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Hagar66

Result: This would lead to a big cleanup of this category.
Reason for these requests: doing these transfers one by one will be a lot of work. I think (and hope!) that an administrator can more easily transfer and delete files than I can. Wereldburger758 (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

flag of russia

the current flag of russia used by commons is wrong see more information http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Flag_of_Russia.svg#found_real_evidence_for_real_flag_-_please_restore this is getting disruptive can someone please change the flag to the original 83.180.167.223 09:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I oppose this. The file should be left as is. Fry1989 eh? 22:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I oppose too per Fry. Plus, "the flag is wrong" is too short as an argument. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Dubious new user

I'm blind so I can't see images, so could somebody check out the uploads by Akhenderson0109 (talk · contribs), and take any necessary action? Their contributions on the English Wikipedia are, well, interesting. Graham87 (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done All photo deleted as Copyvio. —레비Revi 03:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Graham87 (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Please protect my user page

I don't know if this is the right place to bring this up but a vandal has been tampering with my user page cross-wiki. I've asked administrators to protect my user page from edit by other users on numerous other wikia projects, including but not limited to wikipedia and wikiquote. Please, if there's an admin available here, can someone please protect my wikimedia commons user page so the it isn't met with further vandalism. I want to be able to edit my user page, but I don't want vandals doing it. Thanks in advance. - Zarbon (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done: I semi-protected it. And, best place for protection request is COM:AN/P. — Revicomplaint? 02:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert needed

Hi, this old edit by an IP user disrupted the picture's templates and categories. Could you undo it? I don't have the permission to. --Gpmat (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Done by Rillke. You can do same thing with "Undo" feature, which is possible for all users, even for IP users. — Revicomplaint? 14:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The edit was blocked by AbuseFilter 70. That shouldn't be an issue anymore, if you use the undo-feature now. -- Rillke(q?) 15:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Helpme

Please clean out any remaining requests related to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Helpme some of which may need translation. Thanks, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Unblock. Thanks for taking your time, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

LR backlogs

There are lots of files waiting for Administrators' or license-reviewer's attention.

First, we still have 370 files in Category:Picasa Web Albums review needed. (current stat:0 sub cat included)

And, we have 84 files in Category:Flickr images needing human review. (current stat:18 sub cat included)

Also, we have 39 files in Category:Panoramio review needed. (current stat:0 sub cat included)

Finally, we have 209 files in Category:License review needed. (current stat:77,262 sub cat included)

All numbers are as of 03:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC).

If all admins and reviewer reviews 3 or 4 files for each, we can eliminate our backlogs quickly. Thanks.—레비Revi 03:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

For Picasa there's a Bot awaiting permission to take over the job, see Commons:Bots/Requests/Picasa Review Bot (clone). Maybe it's possible to create a Bot for Panoramio as well. --Denniss (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Picasa Review Bot 2 is approved, FYI. —레비Revi 05:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems we have developed another huge backlog on Category:Panoramio review needed (Currently 786.) But Latvia photos are not ok, with COM:FOP#Latvia, so all these should be nominated to DR. — Revicomplaint? 13:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

They are all ok unless it's a somewhat recent building/sculpture. --Denniss (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Thumbsize

Can someone please revert this edit? Legoktm (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. Trijnsteltalk 20:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Bolshoy Ice Dome.png

Hate to be a pain, but I'm reviewing a potential GA on English Wikipedia, and want to check whether this was deleted because of Freedom of Panorama issues, or just due to the photo being stolen? If it's the former, it can probably be fair used on English Wikipedia, if the latter, I would rather prefer to say no. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Image may violate FOP, however delete reason was lack of license tag(=copyvio). — Revicomplaint? 08:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. In that case, it'd be better to check Flickr for something the authors want used. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately has Russia has no Freedom of Panorama, so a free Flickr file couldn't be on Commons too. JurgenNL (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course not, but en-wiki accepts limited fair use. But I don't see any reason to screw the photographer over to get an image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Azhar sabri (talk · contribs)

User continues to upload images that are out of Commons:Scope despite given a last warning by INeverCry. Please advise on what to do with this user. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Pithovirus_sibericum_sketch.jpg

I'm skeptical of the copyright claim here. Packa (talk · contribs) apparently created this image by sketching from a previously published electronmicrograph, e.g. [15]. As Packa's apparent intent is to closely copy the original, the new sketch is obviously a derivative work. As such, Packa's free licensing of the image would appear to be problematic since he doesn't appear to have any rights to the original image.

I was going to nominate this image for deletion, in the hopes that some discussion might clarify the issue, but the image is currently subject to full protection (a consequence of appearing on the ZH wiki's front page), and hence I am not able to add the relevant templates. Hence, I decided to bring the issue here in the hopes that someone will either deal with it directly or open a deletion discussion. Dragons flight (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

 Keep I'm afraid, that so simple drawing is ineligible for copyright, and so I do not see a reason to delete it. Taivo (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Now that it's no longer protected, I nominated it myself. I disagree that it is too simple to be eligible for copyright. The uploader copied a specific photomicrograph, one which was chosen by the original authors in order to highlight the unusual central spot. There are many photomicrographs in the original paper that show a variety of variations in envelope shape and other details, and there is creative choice in selecting which ones to show and what features to highlight, which is entitled to copyright protection, in the same way that other photos of natural objects would be. If the uploader had looked at the photos and then made a generic sketch, then that would be one thing, but in this case he essentially traced a specific photomicrograph and hence created a derivative work. Dragons flight (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the right place for the discussion is the deletion requests page. On this page you can find my answer. --Packa (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Globocred (talk · contribs)

Please check all the contributions of this user for copyright violations. I've only managed to check a few but the rest are also questionable. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done All his/her contributions are deleted. Taivo (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Version deletion

File:The First Folio of Shakespeare WDL11290.pdf

Could someone delete the most recent version of the file, leaving the first version? I have no idea why the pages inside the document are rendering without the right height and width, these should vary throughout the document. It might be a bug with how MediaWiki handles pdfs as it displays perfectly well when downloaded off-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of the Republic of Malawi.svg

Please RevDel back to Sodacan's original upload. Fry1989 eh? 18:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done  ■ MMXX talk 20:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Can an administrator quickly check through the contributions of these users for potential copyright violations? I've already caught a few of them, but there may be legitimate files within the mix. Thanks, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted several copyvios from the first one, and marked several as no source. If anyone wants to take a whack at the rest, feel free. As for the second, I've nuked his. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Cmdr Zod (talk · contribs) somehow duplicate file

On 2013-08-28 I was uploading three photos using the upload wizard. By mistake I gave 2 images the same name (Burgruine lunkhofen.jpg), which ended up in a mess.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Cmdr_Zod&ilshowall=1 shows 2 Images named "Burgruine lunkhofen.jpg" with different file size.

One file is claimed to have 4.04 MB, the other is claimed to have 2.87 MB, while the actual file has 4.4 MB. When I try to upload the third image again, I get a message saying "There is another file already on the site with the same content."

Please help me resolving this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmdr Zod (talk • contribs) 11:12, March 9, 2014‎ (UTC)

✓ Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you --Cmdr Zod (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

File problem

File:Untitled (Cesare -Conrad Veidt- Carrying Jane -Lil Dagover- across Rooftops) LACMA M.82.287.1e.jpg If you look at the rest, it says it was extracted from a file that looks to have no relationship to an old film still. File:Female Dancer LACMA M.73.5.466 (3 of 4).jpg Here's where the original upload of the film still was. Not sure what the fix is but it seems to need one. Thanks, We hope (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a copy and paste error. Perhaps JMCC1 might be able to shed some light on it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Hvězdárna a planetárium Brno 066.jpg

This file does not have any page linked to it and is therefore not editable. It is the result of an incomplete download (using VicuñaUploader) and might be related to https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32551 because it shows the same error message (in Spanish, strange) as some pictures affected by that bug used to show (the bug's URL can be seen in their edit history). Please make it possible to edit the page, or delete the file so that I can reupload it along with a description page. Thank you. --Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Try re-uploading the file now. -FASTILY 09:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, it has worked and I have now reuploaded the file properly. --Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

New user Vishnubhakti has uploaded what are almost certainly (given the typical paucity of upload information, low resolution and prior existence all over the web) copyright violations. He/she has already been warned via the usual standard templates, but has not responded and continues to upload.

User seems only interested in uploading content for his/her cause, regardless of whether it's a copyvio or not. Ubcule (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for month. Taivo (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Ubcule (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange page

I don't quite know what I'm seeing here, it says the file does not exist, but it has a file, and it links back on itself. Can an admin delete this? Fry1989 eh? 21:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Created by User:Norasisl, along with a bunch of dupes. INeverCry 21:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Fry1989 eh? 21:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Request: Mass scrubbing of one metadata field in all my photos

Most of my photo submissions -- likely all of them -- include a telephone number in my contact information. I don't seem to be able to edit that myself. I get occasional phone calls from confused people thinking they are calling the location depicted in the photo. Is there any way I can get all my photo submissions automatically scrubbed of the data in that one metadata field? The problematic field name is "Contact information". The field also apparently contains my URL; I'd prefer to retain the URL, but if that's not possible, you can scrub that, also.

Kenneth C. Zirkel (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Above the metadata, there's this statement: "This file contains additional information, such as EXIF metadata, probably added from the digital camera or scanner used to create or digitize it." Probably you check your camera or Photoshop settings? But I've never heard of cameras or PP software storing website URLs and phone numbers. May be just a dumb suggestion from me, I'm not very sure. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 01:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I know how the metadata got there, thank you; I am the one who added it. My request is that the metadata be removed from the dozens of images which I have already uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. After an image is uploaded, I cannot edit that information (as far as I can tell). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzirkel (talk • contribs)

The URL also contains the phone number; so removing the number alone will not be much helpful unless you remove the number from that site too.
We have a similar discussion earlier and Bawolff commented that there is no such tool in his knowledge capable to edit EXIF online. So probably you need to overwrite all those files with new versions with EXIF scrubbed and then request for an oversight. :( Jee 02:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Jee is correct: Overwrite all photo, and old version should be suppressed. — Revicomplaint? 03:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
@Kzirkel: ✓ Done on c.200+ files. I suggest you take care to process your photographs in advance of uploading to Commons, using Photoshop or similar, to make sure that the EXIFs have no contact details you would rather not release. Photo editors normally have batch features that can process the EXIFs of a folder of images in one step. The phone number was haphazardly included in 3 different types of EXIF fields {CreatorContactInfo, CameraOwnerName, OwnerName} some of which cannot be changed in Photoshop, so some might be best to change in your camera settings where possible. Apart from the initial test set, the jpegs were not recompressed, only the EXIF data was amended. This is not something built into the Commons API and due to the complexity of standards, we are unlikely to have simple on-wiki tools to do reliable problem solving of this type.
For anyone wanting to check over the changes, you can compare this example, I suggest scrolling down to the EXIF table and looking at "Owner Name": before after
Admins Considering the nature of the request, I do not think admin deletion/suppression of the initial files is needed as this was a question of removing the information from the view of the general public, which is now the case unless someone digs through old versions and uses other tools to view EXIF data. However this is up to Kzirkel to judge if what has been done met their needs. Not being an admin, I can't sort this bit out automatically if it is requested. --Fæ (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. Hope you can help others too if required. :) Jee 13:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will change my workflow going forward to not include that information. FYI, My specific issue was that people would google a certain historic site and Google would return the Wiki page and include my phone # in the summary. They would assume that my number was the number of the historic site and call me, asking "what hours are you open" and such. It's not a problem that the file contains my number, as long as it's not visible to Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzirkel (talk • contribs)

Review of indefinitely blocked IP addresses

Per suggestion by Fæ at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Indefinitely blocked IPs, I'm asking here for administrators to inspect and review current data on the existing indefinite IP blocks listed at Special:BlockList, so that we can get a better picture of what the proposal is meant to address. So far, I've tried to research my personal analysis of the IPs listed there:

List

These last addresses were blocked by User:Martin H. in 2009, presumably when there were less stewards available to research and monitor these addresses for open proxies or continued abuse.

Please review and help research whether we can lift the restrictions on the indef blocks. Thanks, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

backlogs redux

Today I found myself annoyed by the annoyingly misleading category name, Category:Don River, Toronto, and I went to the category, to initiate a discussion to rename it -- only to see I had already initiated a discussion to rename it way back three years ago.

Most of the discussions that month (Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/03) were never closed. Geo Swan (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan4 and questionable deletion nominations

Section moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Stefan4 and questionable deletion nominations. — Revicomplaint? 03:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Uploading issues

Can you combine the histories of File:S.M. Linienschiff Baden - restoration.png with the updated File:S.M. Linienschiff Baden - restoration 2.png? UploadWizard issues - and UploadWizard is the only way to do chunked uploads mean I can't just upload over if the file be large. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

WRT chunked uploading, see the current discussion of different methods at Commons:Village pump#79 historic books to upload, all greater than 100MB. --Fæ (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

DR Log bot speedup?

Can we get a radical speedup in the bot that archives the DR logs? Now that we are seeing close to 200 DRs every day, and sometimes many more, it is a real nuisance to spend ten or fifteen minutes or more paging through closed entries looking for the few remaining ones that are open. Thanks to Fastily and INC (who did 45% of all deletions last month), we're not being overwhelmed by the large numbers of DRs, but Admin time is always scarce and speeding up the bot would save a lot of it.

I would hope that the bot could go through the logs every hour and archive every DR that had been closed for more than 15 minutes..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: If you mean DRBot (talk · contribs), operator bryan has retired, and he is no longer maintaining the bot. Maybe we need new bot for that. (Source code is open, published on user page.) — Revicomplaint? 13:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a bot programmer, so implementation is not something I can do. As an alternate, in the past I suggested that we copy the entire DR log page to the DR archive page at midnight on the seventh day and then remove the transclusions from the DR log page immediately after closure. Presumably that could be done by modifying DelReqHandler. That would the minor side benefit that the archive would be in the same order as the original log, which it is not now. It would have the disadvantage that unless there were a delay built in, the closing Admin would not see his or her work, except by going to the archive..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
See also: COM:BWR#Replacing DRBot — Revicomplaint? 15:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete history

On File:Coat of arms of the Vatican City.svg some versions have been uploaded in fair use and therefore reverted, I think those versions should be deleted from history:

  • 09:58, 11 feb 2014
  • 22:56, 8 feb 2014
  • 15:47, 8 feb 2014
  • 13:34, 15 gen 2014
  • 17:59, 10 dic 2013
  • 19:45, 9 dic 2013

--Gambo7 (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of FLNKS.svg

Please close this invalid and frivolous DR. Please also rename the flag back to "Flag of New Caledonia.svg", the flag was adopted as the regional flag and that supersedes it's use by the political party. Fry1989 eh? 17:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done restored it. I'm getting a bit tired of POV nominations though... Natuur12 (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Failed rotation - version deletion

Could someone delete the recent uploaded version of File:Cruel Tyrant Love WDL8929.pdf (keeping the first in the file history) and if anyone knows how to get around this re-size after upload problem, I'd like to know the answer. Rotating a pdf by 90° in Acrobat looks fine locally, but fails to render correctly on-wiki, even if uploaded as a new file. --Fæ (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted the newer version. Hope this is what you meant? Natuur12 (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes thanks. I am just left with no reliable solution to rotating pdf apart from recompiling from rotated source images. In this instance, the music score would obviously be better if shown horizontally. --Fæ (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

ATTENTION: The DR Backlog

Hi all, we seem to have developed a bit of a backlog at DR. As of now, there are currently 4117 items awaiting admin attention, or 20 days' worth of backlogs. TO ALL ADMINS: please donate a few minutes of your time and close some DRs listed in the logs below. If everyone helps out, we'll be done in no time!

PS: If you don't already use it, I highly recommend using the gadget DelReqHandler to close DRs (which can be activated in your preferences) -FASTILY 02:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv

Please see this & this.

For me the issue is not solved... The part that Steinsplitter has removed is not a simple "white border", it contains a text that describe the image and it is important for historical purpose. The cropped image should be upload separatly. --Angelus(talk) 12:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Please let me know. Best regards. --Angelus(talk) 12:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You are wasting communety time, the white border was removed on a lot of Bundesarchiv files. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Can I ask the opinion of other administrators about the issue?? The fact that the cutting has been done on various Bundesarchiv files, does not mean that it is correct. --Angelus(talk) 12:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Angelus, what Steinsplitter is suggesting is basically standard practice for such images. If there is information in the image this can be removed and placed in the metadata. In the case of the Bundesarchive images, this is usually a call number and date of the photograph, etc. This information can be safely removed and place into the {{Information}} template. There is no real need to re-upload as a new image. Hope this helps. russavia (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) --Angelus(talk) 13:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Out of interest why was the image not uploaded with a border and then having the cropped version over-writing it? I do this with my WWI/WW2 posters and artwork deliberately so that bots can work out SHA1 matches and avoid uploading the originals at some future time. --Fæ (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Fæ: Doing that to get the SHA1 flag − I never thought of that effect! That is smart, thanks for the tip :) Jean-Fred (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I would probably have uploaded the cropped version separately too ; but Russavia’s explanation makes a lot of sense. We should consider making it clearer in COM:OVERWRITE. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 Agree - Angelus(talk) 15:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
See this new discussion. Jee 06:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nana Ntumba

Could a brave soul please close this DR? It's been open for over a month, and could use some love :) -FASTILY 22:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Ezarateesteban 00:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Rename of photos names

After consultation with user on Polish Wikipedia (my discussion site there) please rename conversely person names of two photos 1. 2. . The fact is, that it was a mistake, and every of these photos has a person name of the another (Władysław Kudlik is on photo ascribed as "Władysław Skwarc", and conversely). Lowdown (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lowdown: Please see {{Rename}} and add it as required with the particular reason. You can also add other information into the template.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Out of scope pictures

Plenty of private pictures scanned Special:Contributions/Juan_80_tobias_80, please delete.--Motopark (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Number of Admins

I note on Commons:List of administrators that the number of people on the list is 254, but the system variable {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} gives 255. This is usually an indication of a mistake on the list. However, when you ask the system for a list at

you get 254 names. I have never before seen the system variable different from the actual list provided by the system. Does anyone know what is going on? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

May be there is delay in updating the logs. Foroa has been de-admin'd during the last 24 hours. --Túrelio (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
{{NUMBEROFADMINS}} → 254
254 listed.
I don't know what's going on. But it's possible that the system variable did not update based on how you evaluated that (did you action=purge the page or sent it to action=parse or used page preview) or how it is retrieved in MediaWiki. If you want me to dig the latter out, just ping me. -- Rillke(q?) 14:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Duh. Sorry, it was, indeed, probably a cache problem. I should have purged both here and on the page before asking the question. Apologies for wasting time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Inactivity run for February-March 2014 has ended

Hi! The inactivity run for February-March 2014 has ended. Two administrators have resigned their access during the run, and four have been desysopped today on Meta due to inactivity. I have already thanked each and every one of the users on their talk pages, but please join me here in thanking @AVRS, @Bencmq, @Chatama, @Foroa, @Rd232 and @Steven Walling for their involvement as admins and for their excellent service to our community over the years. Thank you all, and here's to hope we'll see you active again soon! odder (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to the outgoing admins for the excellent community service--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Continually deleted image

Hi whoever,

I have now had an image that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons deleted 3 times, citing copyright violations. I TOOK THIS IMAGE WITH MY OWN iPHONE. I posted the image to twitter and it was picked up by publications. How to I verify ownership?Mkpr (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mkpr: Hi,
These images were published on the web before you uploaded them. So in this case, we required that you send a permission, even if they are your images. See COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Uploader asking for images to deleted

See User_talk:Mansoor_Ijaz#Deletion_Request_for_all_images. He's having trouble filling out the templates I believe. Note some of the images are supposedly in the public domain. Apologies if this the wrong place to bring this up. --NeilN (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate help in how to fill in the templates properly. But my request for all images to be deleted stands. Kindly delete all images on my Upload page for USER: Mansoor Ijaz. I will shortly be asking the Wiki editors to close my account permanently. So I would appreciate it if this can be done as a speedy request.

--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The personal files should be deleted and oversighted. If not as a issue of privacy then as a courtesy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as courtesy issues go, please see this comment; he's changed his mind. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

flag of russia

can someone restore the original version of the flag of russia file?

see official server of russia http://xn--h1alffa9f.xn--p1ai/main/symbols/gsrf3_2.html  :http://news.kremlin.ru/media/events/photos/medium/41d2904109f3781c14d6.jpg
from kremlin http://news.kremlin.ru/media/events/photos/medium/41d2904109f3781c14d6.jpg
from kremlin http://news.kremlin.ru/media/events/photos/medium/41d290410ca3621bd47e.jpg

my argument in addition to the sources is the flag "really hanging over administrative buildings in Russia" should be the flag used,the current flag does not "hanging over administrative buildings" the real flag that is used by government administrative buildings is the original 90.129.76.37 18:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Please cite the files (our filenames) that you are looking to have restored. Your issues, are yours, and Wikimedia Commons can and probably will host all version of the flags, disputed or otherwise.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
They are wanting to change File:Flag of Russia.svg, but there is no consensus to change the protected file. Fry1989 eh? 18:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Another Jermboy sock

I believe SriLanka1234567890 is another sock of the Jermboy puppetmaster. They are uploading erroneous road signs which match the pattern by Jermboy. Fry1989 eh? 20:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked and tagged. INeverCry 03:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of File:Pirminius Pfungen Innen 1978.jpg

Could an admin restore File:Pirminius Pfungen Innen 1978.jpg? The copyright-holder licenced it under (CC BY-SA 3.0 CH) with ticket:2014031810014563.--Emergency doc (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - please use com:UNDEL in the future. Natuur12 (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

OlliFoolish (talk · contribs)

Please check some of the uploads of this user, since I saw most of them were taken from this forum and the copyright statuses for the images are unclear. I haven't checked to see if any of them could be legitimately freely licensed however. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, all the pictures I uploaded are made by myself. If they appear in some forums on the internet, they were taken from my flickr account without my permission! So please do not claim, they were taken from the forum since you can not prove that the forum did not take it from my flickr account (which seems to be the more likely explanation) Cheers OlliFoolish
A link on the profile page for the Flickr account from which several of his uploads seem to come, suggests that he might be correct.
Hallo Jens, da diese Fotos auf Flickr (C)ARR sind, war ein solches Problem vorprogrammiert. Sende bitte an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org von deinem Flickr-Emailkonto aus eine Bestätigung der hier gewählten Lizenz, wobei du alle Dateinamen auflisten musst. --Túrelio (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for responding to our concerns so quickly. I believe Commons:OTRS is the way to go from now on, and I'm willing to take you at your word. Cheers, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Das Versenden an eine eMail-Adresse von Flickr aus scheint nicht zu funktionieren. Es erscheint eine Meldung: "Sie müssen angeben, an wen die Nachricht gesendet werden soll.", wenn ich permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org als Empfänger angebe, obwohl der Versand an eMail Adressen möglich sein soll! :/ /* OlliFoolish (talk · contribs) */

Strange. Dann schick halt von einer anderen seriösen Emailadresse eine Mail an OTRS und frag, ob ihnen das ausreicht. (Der Inhalt deiner Email wird nicht veröffentlicht.) --Túrelio (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Ich sehe gerade, meine reguläre eMail-Adresse ist im Flickr-Profil angegeben -> https://www.flickr.com/people/21532948@N04/ Das sollte als Identifikation ausrechen. Ich hab jetzt von meiner regulären eMail aus an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org geschrieben. Gruß /* OlliFoolish (talk · contribs) */

Erika perez (talk · contribs)

This user appears to be starting strange deletion requests. Is this normal behavior or should we caution the user against it? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann deleted the strange requests and I closed non-strange request. Taivo (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
His only recent DR is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oihan astigarraga.png which was handled routinely. He made a couple of false starts in connection with it, but I'd say that's just inexperience. The one's in 2012 are a little strange, but that's ancient history. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: History of image to delete for political reasons (censorship)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/20140318

Deleted per (IMO justified) request by initial editor. --Túrelio (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop attacking Flickr users

When a copyright holder sells his works, he may be compelled to stop publishing his work with a free license. It is quite natural and CC too have such provisions. It doesn't force existing reusers to stop using or sharing those works though. So there is no need to make noise and post insulting comments to their photo stream. Further, it has some adverse effects. If people start complain, Yahoo may be forced to make precautionary measures to protect the interests of their users, including revoking the API access permissions of our bots.

Further I noticed that the picture is overwritten by a poor edit with blue casts. Please stop overwriting original source files. Now CC strictly demands every minor modifications (including intermediate revisions if any) should be mentioned with a link to the original source. Jee 03:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are posting this here. I only see one negative post there, by Flickr user deterdettol. That username isn't in use here; are they active here under another name?
There was also a preceding query there, a polite one IMO, by stemoc (active here under the same name) about the change of license.
The picture was uploaded here using Flickr Upload Bot by Russavia, who criticised deterdettol's post. Why would Flickr find this bot usage problematic? I agree with the rest of your post, but I'm not sure what admins here can do. (I see you've already reverted the blue edit.) --Avenue (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong in Russavia's or Stemoc's comments although they Stemoc seems failed to understand why the author changed the license. I'm talking about the other comment (probably from anon here from the tone; but don't want to out him). My only intention to post here is to give my colleagues a friendly warning about the precautions we should made. We can silently use that file without insulting the author. But any attempt to provoke him will lead us to troubles. We can see Flickr api terms of use demands a lot more than the CC terms. For example "Remove from your application within 24 hours any Flickr user's photos or other information that the owner of the photo asks you to remove." Better be nice and safe. :) Jee 04:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Why do you say that I fail to understand why the author changed the licence? I would sincerely appreciate it, if you would stop making judgements about what I do or do not understand, particularly as it was me who managed to get their photos released under the CC licence in the first place. russavia (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Russavia has my support. If he was the one who convinced the photographer to use the CC licence, then uploaded it here before ARR was restored, then imho Commons has the right to use it. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we just have to use {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. — Revicomplaint? 08:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I was the one that first used that image on the day of the incident on the English wikipedia so i was a bit sad he changed the licence because it was/is a very good picture of the plane and has been used by multiple online sources as well..I think my comment on his page was very polite....--Stemoc (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The simple fact of the matter is that someone changing their license after it has been legally transfered/uploaded here has no significant impact on us or those that want to re-use the file. We simple add the change of license template. Under no circumstances should anyone from Commons contact someone on Flickr to chastise them for changing a license to ARR. Copyright holders always retain the right to stop distributing a work under one license and re-issue it with another. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

File:CÖF poster 2014.jpg

User:Jespinos tagged for deletion and User:INeverCry deleted my own photo without any valid argument. That was an election poster from a public place in Hungary, taken myself. According to Jespinos: "Your photo is not acceptable on Commons, unless the poster is permanently installed, which is unlikely to happen with a election poster, or that this had been licensed under a free license by the copyright holder." On this basis, you should delete all images of this category. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Different countries have different laws. Of course, usually such photos are prohibited and this is the reason, why there is not much such photos in Commons. For example, look election posters of Slovenia. Some of them are so old, that their copyright is expired. Some of them are so small, that almost nothing can be seen. Sometimes Commons has special permission from copyright holder. But you are quite right: copyright violations appear frequently in this category. Taivo (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Their decision completely arbitrary and they did not provide any useful argument, why this photo was wrong. I would like to ask admins to restore the image, if it's possible. The two users did not cite any Hungarian law. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Please look COM:FOP#Hungary, which links to appropriate laws. There is no freedom of panorama in Hungary for 2-dimensional works. Restoring the image would be wrong, please do not request that. The only way to restore that photo is to get an OTRS-permission from copyright holder of the poster. Taivo (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I request that, because you're wrong. That was my photo. What does it mean "permanent"? What about a building, which will be destroyed five years later? I took the photo in a public place. There is no copyright issue. User:INeverCry deleted the image just because of his/her "deletionist" attitude. If my photo was unfree, then I will request deletions on all election poster images in Wikipedia Commons. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Taivo - Am I wrong, or the image uploaded at File:Unity 2014 election poster 1.jpg is also copyrighted? What about File:Menczer Erzsébet Fidesz 2014.jpg? Iaaasi (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Both these files are nominated for deletion and in my opinion rightfully. Today I present for deletion more elecion posters. Taivo (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to know what administrators think about the following reaction of User:Norden1990 at the deletion of the file: Fuck you! That was my photo and you did not write any argument. 12:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was my reaction, dear sockpuppet Iaaasi. I could repeat if you want. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
To be noted that User:Norden1990 not only that hasn't ratracted his curse, but he reiterates it. To call me a sockpuppet is a personal atack and I ask admins to intervene. Iaaasi (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I warn you, Norden. If you call somebody once more sockpuppet or use the f-word, you can be blocked. Please be civil. Taivo (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
See English Wiki. I have, among others, long story with him, he definitely came here for the purpose of provocation. I will request deletion all election posters in Commons. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Norden1990, you would be well-advised to disengage until you can discuss this matter more calmly. Expletives and name-calling are unpersuasive. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I am totally calm, despite the fact that my image(s) were deleted within 1 weeks, and there was no reply or explanation to my comment. Just "Per COM:DW.". It was administrators' supercilious arrogance, nothing more. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Republic of China National Emblem.svg and File:Flag of the Republic of China.svg

Please change the shade of blue on both files to #003686, as was stable on the Emblem file from May 12th 2013 to present. This is the only shade of blue which has been properly sourced and stable, while all other proposals and discussions keep fighting over a myriad of different selections. The emblem was changed today by Zscout370 under the reasoning the two should be consistent, however it makes much more sense to change the flag to be consistent with the sourced emblem, than to change the emblem to match the unsourced flag. Fry1989 eh? 00:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello? Fry1989 eh? 18:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Not inclined. Can we ban these SVG wars from COM:AN? Or, perhaps we make a rule: Do not override any SVG. We should encourage file redirects instead. -- Rillke(q?) 22:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Why can’t we have two different files, each page describing the rationale or source for the colour choices that were made for it, and let users choose whichever they like? Presumably they‘d appear in all the same categories, so would be easy to compare.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Rillke, don't be naive. "Let's not override any SVG....ever", so let's just have 2 dozen SVGs of the exact same thing all with minor differences instead of one comprehensive file that is accurate and matches sources. There's times where having multiple files is a good idea and times where it's a terrible idea, but to blanket ban changing an SVG file once it has been uploaded is incredibly foolish.
Odysseus1479, the whole point of all these discussions over the years has been to make the file accurate and avoid forking the issue and all the trouble that would entail on all the different projects where different users like different files. As this is the only source we have had, it makes sense that we follow it. Fry1989 eh? 03:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reversion

Metrónomo wants to know why this [16] edition was reverted but Denniss never ansewered this question, neitther to Metrónomo nor me Ezarateesteban 16:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Usually Denniss undoes edits because there are some side-effects. I suggest you simply re-do the edit if Denniss does not respond and carefully evaluate its effects on pages transcluding the template including categorization. -- Rillke(q?) 22:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

New DOJ COPS Director

Ronald L. Davis is the new DOJ COPS Director (since November 2013). Your page indicates an update in January 2014; however, the previous Director is still listed as the current Director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.165.17.66 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is a huge project; would you mind supplying us with a link to the page in question? -- Rillke(q?) 22:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Azerbaijan in 1918

  • Flag of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic made by Mammad Amin Rasulzade
    Flag of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic made by Mammad Amin Rasulzade
  • First meeting of the parlament of Azerbaijan Democractic Republic. Observe the crescent on the middle field of the flag
    First meeting of the parlament of Azerbaijan Democractic Republic. Observe the crescent on the middle field of the flag
  • Delegation from Azerbaijan Democtatic Republic in Paris in 1919. See the photo of the flag behind
    Delegation from Azerbaijan Democtatic Republic in Paris in 1919. See the photo of the flag behind
  • See the flag with the small crescent on the red field behind soldiers of ADR
    See the flag with the small crescent on the red field behind soldiers of ADR

Administrator Denniss redirected File:Flag of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan.svg to the File:Flag of Azerbaijan 1918.svg and protected the page on the wrong version. He ignores all my arguments against this action on the talk page of the image and on his talk page. The original flag of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (from 9 November 1918 till 28 April 1920) was with the crescent on the red field. See the flag made by the chairman of the National Council of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic Mammad Amin Rasulzade in the Museum of the History of Azerbaijan.

Also you can see the photo of the flag on the photo of the first meeting of the Azerbaijani parlament on the 7th December 1918 - the crescent is small and on the middle field.

In the photo of Delegation from Azerbaijan Democtatic Republic in Hôtel Claridge [Avenue des Champs-Élysées] during Paris Peace Conference (1919) you can see the picture of flag behind the members of delegation.

Also here is an article about Flag of Azerbaijan (Whitney Smith. Flag Lore Of All Nations. — Millbrook Press, 2001. — С. 13. — 112 с. — ISBN 9780761317531):

AZERBAIJAN (ah-zer-bie-JAHN): Ali Bay Huseynzada, the leading nationalist of Azerbaijan, created its modern national flag. The colors of that tricolor stood for the Turkic people (blue), their lslamic faith (green), and the commitment to modernization. In the center of the flag was the traditional Muslim star and cresent. The eight points stood for the eight Turkic peoples, including the Azerbaijanis. This flag was used from 1918 to 1920, when Azerbaijan was independent, and it was revived on February 5, 1991. After the fall of the Soviet Union, independence for Azerbaijan under this flag was proclaimed on August 30, 1991.

As you see even Whitney Smith claims that the modern national flag was used from 1918 to 1920. But this variant with the large crescent, that used in articles about ADR is wrong, it is just a variant, but not the correct flag. The file should be redirected to the File:Flag of Azerbaijan.svg. --Interfase (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

We can also see the flag with the crescent on the red field behind the soldiers of ADR (See attached photo). --Interfase (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the file. The opposing persons have not shown any sources. Taivo (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Taivo. There is also an article by Azerbaijani historian Sabuhi Ahmadov in Russian. Observe the image of the Azerbaijani flag from 9 November 1918 in this article. It is the same with the modern one. The crescent is small and on the middle field. --Interfase (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I clearly oppose this, there is no need to have two files that are the same flag. It would be better to rename the version with the much larger crescent and star as a "variant". There are sources for both versions. Fry1989 eh? 18:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
According to the most reliable sources, the historical facts and documents and photos, according to the flag made by the founder of the republic the flag with the small crescent on the middle red field was the national flag of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. The flag with the wide cresent is mystification. Also the significant pages in different Wikipedias link to this file or to the file File:Flag of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan.svg, which is redirected to this file. If we rename the file as a "variant" the most readers of Wikipedia throughout the world will see the false flag, not real. --Interfase (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what "most reliable sources" support (which is subjective anyway), there are sources for the version with the much larger crescent so it makes sense to keep a copy of it as well. It does not make sense to have two files which are the exact same flag. The file should be reverted and renamed. Fry1989 eh? 19:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Nope. The files with the name "Flag of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan", "Flag of Azerbaijan 1918" or something similar which could be used in Wikipedia articles must be with the crescent on the middle field. All other wrong and mystic flags created by Wikipedia users, not by Azerbaijani government in 1918, couldn't be used in articles. --Interfase (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
You don't get to censor Commons just because you think the flag is completely fake. There are valid sources to the contrary, that's all we need. Your crusade has gone on long enough. Fry1989 eh? 20:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


Proposal

File:Flag of Azerbaijan 1918.svg should be reverted and renamed to make it clear this was just a (sourced) variant. Fry1989 eh? 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If it is just a variant, it must have the word "variant" in it's name. Also it couldn't have the categories related to the history of Azerbaijan, because there weren't flag with large crescent in the history of Azerbaijan. But the files File:Flag of Azerbaijan 1918.svg, File:Flag of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan.svg and others with no "variant" should be redirected to File:Flag of Azerbaijan.svg. Because in Wikipedia we write articles using reliable sources, and the File:Flag of Azerbaijan 1918.svg is used in the most of the articles and templates of Wikipedia in different languages. --Interfase (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This is Commons. Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources does not apply here. I have already said that the file should b renamed to state that it is a variant, but I refuse to allow you to dictate what categories it can and can not be in based on your personal POV. You have gone on this crusade for 2 long years as far as I can tell, it's time you let it go. Fry1989 eh? 20:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I know that it is Commons. In Commons we also couldn't give false information about the history of the flag of Azerbaijan. In many articles of Wikipedia the files File:Flag of Azerbaijan 1918.svg and File:Flag of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan.svg are used in articles and templates related to Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. That's why these files must show the correct flag with small crescent on the middle field. The file with large crescent could show only drawing abilities of some Wikipedia users, not historical facts neither in Wikipedia, nor in Commons. --Interfase (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
What files are used on Wikipedia projects is not the concern of Commons, nor is it a reason to censor content that you personally think is fake even though there are sources. Fry1989 eh? 21:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. It is the concern of Commons to provide readers (especially the users, who are going to find the flag of Azerbaijan used in 1918 and use it in Wikipedia) with correct information. That's why the files should have the name and the description based on the reliable sources. Even a liscence {{PD-AZ-exempt}} couldn't be provided for the flag with large crescent because there is no any evidence that this flag was belonged to Azerbaijan. How can you claim to keep the file with wrong liscence in Commons? --Interfase (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Well first of all, the flag is from 1918 so it's too old anyway, AND too simple as well. But of course {{PD-AZ-exempt}} could be used, the flag is based on the same flag, the only difference is the size of the crescent and star. However I repeat, it is not the concenr of Commons what files are or are not used on Wikipedia, that is a discussion you need to have there. You have no valid reason to censor a flag that you personally think is fake when there are sources to the contrary. If an admin will not unprotect and revert this file, I will upload it separately because your reasonings are completely flawed. Fry1989 eh? 21:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This is not my "personally think" that this flag is fake. The historical photos, original flag exhibit and the most reliable sources show that this flag is fake. --Interfase (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is your personal opinion. There are reliable sources to the contrary. Fry1989 eh? 21:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
More reliable than Whitney Smith, Azerbaijani historians, historical photos and the flag of the republic, which we can see with our own eyes in the museum of the history of Azerbaijan? Come on. And of course we couldn't use {{PD-AZ-exempt}} for the flag with large crescent. As I said we don't have any evidence that this flag was officially used as the national flag of Azerbaijan. If you upload this file under this liscense I will request for its deletion as uploaded under wrong liscence. --Interfase (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course we can use {{PD-AZ-exempt}}, for several reasons. One, the only difference between the two is the size of the crescent. Second, the flag appeared on an Azeri stamp which means it's a work of the government and the license fully applies to that. If you are threatening me, let me make something just as clear: Any attempt to interfere and censor Commons will result in my requesting you be blocked from editing on the grounds of vandalism and ownership. Fry1989 eh? 22:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
No, we couldn't use this template. The picture on the postage stamp is not reliable source. It's just a picture and cannot be an evidence that the flag with large crescent was official in 1918. There a more reliable evidences oppose this fact. The painter could draw this crescent on the stamp larger just to show that this is a crescent (the postage stamp is very small, believe me, I saw it in the museum). We even cannot see the star clearly on this picture. I think you will not say now that "according to the stamp the flag of Azerbaijan in 1918 was without a star". And I strongly recommend to be carefully with accusing someone on vandalism and ownership. Such tone cannot help to build constructive atmosphere during discussion. --Interfase (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we can. What you think doesn't matter, sources do. The stamps count as a valid source, other flag websites count as valid sources. Commons IS NOT censored. If you do not want a certain file used on Wikipedia, that is the place to discuss what is right and what is wrong. As for ownership and vandalism, what else am I supposed to call this? You are removing valid categories from files because of your own POV, that's vandalism and not allowed on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 22:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Slow down please. That flag cannot use that category. That category is not valid for this fake flag. There is no any evidence that Russian tricolor with crescent and star was the historical flag of Azerbaijan. That flag is fake and must be deleted. --Interfase (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
You vandalised that file. You nominated it for deletion and if your nomination is right then it will be deleted, what categories it is in doesn't matter. You removed that category on purpose because you disagree with it, not for any valid reason. Fry1989 eh? 22:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a valid reason. Actually, when you returned this category you provided the readers with the false information. This category shouldn't be in this file, because there's no any evidence that this flag was historical flag of Azerbaijan. --Interfase (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no valid reason to remove categories from a file you have nominated for deletion. It is vandalism. Fry1989 eh? 17:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I warned you that accusing someone on vandalism if there was a reason for the action is not ethical behaviour in project. But you continue to do this. As a result see the request. --Interfase (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Threat from OopsIP2

I just received a threat from OopsIP2 (talk · contribs) on my talk page saying that if I do not help get him unblocked on en.wiki, he will punch another user and me "near to death." Inks.LWC (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have also contacted the emergency email address as instructed, FYI. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Indef blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
My guess is that LWC.Inks (talk · contribs), which was apparently created earlier today, is also related to this incident. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Blocked by INeverCry --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
These are socks of IPhonehurricane95. INeverCry 19:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Unknown author

As the author of this is unknown, how can the copyright holder release this: File:Golovkina.jpg#Summary.? As I write this, this photo is in the lead DYK spot on en wiki. PumpkinSky talk 23:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not, and there is no evidence that this file is in the public domain either so this should be nominated for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I have proposed text for the DR on File_talk:Golovkina.jpg. The image page has been locked against changes and as I'm not an admin I cannot proceed. --Fæ (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I've done the DR and deleted the talkpage. INeverCry 23:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Support speedy deletion. Someone please notify appropriate people on en wiki. PumpkinSky talk 23:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Milvus milvus (side).jpg

You may close this as the identification struggle is over. :) Jee 14:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Jee 15:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As the processing of protected edit requests appears to have gotten a bit backlogged (see Category:Commons protected edit requests), could an admin process my protected edit request at MediaWiki talk:Sp-contributions-footer#Edit counter has moved? It's a fix for the broken Edit Count link in the footer of Special:Contributions (the home of the official edit counter moved a few days ago). —RP88 22:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for applying the fix. —RP88 22:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please close this DR

Picture has been deleted, please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:تصویر امین جوانمرد.jpg--Motopark (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done by Denniss --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Vietnamese Radio Division on parade.jpg

One version in the history of this file is a copyvio: [17]. Please delete it. Thank you. BrightRaven (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I noticed the original is a copyvio too, so the file can be simply deleted. BrightRaven (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Uploads of Superhero logos by User:Spillik

Spillik has been uploading superhero-related logos (example: superman logo) and stylized titles for videogames and cartoons and such (example: Cryengine 2 logo). They are either uploaded with the "threshold of originality for geometric shapes" rationale or with the "own creation" rationale. Now I'm fairly sure these logos still infringe on copyright even though he made minor changes to the original logo, especially considering he still calls it the "superman logo" and "Cryengine 2 logo" etc. I'm less sure about this logo from the Green Lantern comic books and other less known logos. So rather than nominating all of these for a deletion discussion, I ask here where our threshold of originality regarding these logos actually lies?--Atlan (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

MobileUpload Report

Hi all, I put together a list of MobileUploads with 0 uses locally & globally. There's a ton of problematic images in here, so it might be worthwhile to thumb through and DR/delete bad images. -FASTILY 06:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked a number of images sorted in letter K, still several copyvios among them. --Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

fyi: COM:CSD

Hi, CSD is now a official policy (translation needed) --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Pictures with all right reserved

How about next pictures Special:Contributions/Cewc.civil, there are text in the picture.--Motopark (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO the uploader is a copyright owner. 3 images tagged with {{No permission since}} and warned. --Alan (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Gale Ann Hurd and James Cameron.jpg

Please delete the latest revision of this file, uploaded by User:Towpilot in spite of two previous decisions at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gale Ann Hurd and James Cameron.jpg and either protect the file or block User:Towpilot to prevent repeat offenses. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 12:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Ewspencer

multiple copyviols. See talk, its selfexplainig. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by pierpao (talk • contribs)

 Not done User hasn't uploaded anything in more than a year, so appears to have taken your advice. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please delete pictures with promotional context

see pictures of Special:Contributions/Zahidur_Rahman_Biplob and description part, there are same promotional context, hard to find some of them, please as delete out of scope--Motopark (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

 Keep Fail to understand the rationale for the deletion. Just move the website URL to source and give them a proper description. Perhaps seek OTRS as these are rather professional and it would be good to confirm with the artist. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Nuked and blocked 3 days per COM:L. English: Copy Right Reserved by Zahidur Rahman Biplob Alan (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Saffron Blaze, Wikimedia Commons is not a personal hosting. And Copyright reserved files are not allowed. Alan (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
But user name is also "Zahidur Rahman Biplob" as that of copyright holder. Copyright reserved != Copyright All rights reserved. May be OTRS required to confirm user = copyright holder as Saffron said above. Jee 04:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
What kind of statement is that... "copyright reserved files are not allowed"? Copyright is reserved in all files by their creators. He didn't claim "all rights reserved". The OTRS check was the appropriate route to go to verify the creator intended to release these under a free license. Instead you nuked many images of good quality that could have been used on many projects and by many people. You should have your tools removed until you learn how to manage situations like this better. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Saffron Blaze, "Copyrights reserved" is incompatible with allowed licenses on Wikimedia Commons (COM:PRP). I don't have any problem in reviewing all images (1 to 1) when a permission is received in OTRS, but for now they can't be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. If the user submits the permit, alert me on my user talk. Alan (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Alan, I think you're confused between copyright and free licensing! If I upload my own photo here I still retain copyright over it, but I also grant a licence for others to use it. I do not relinquish my copyright. You are not allowed to do some things with it that the copyright still requires and that weren't granted in my CC-by-sa, and nor will you be until 70 years after my death. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, a 3 day block?! What happened to AGF? Even if they've uploaded something that we can't accept (and I can't see what it was), there's not much that would justify such an unwarned immediate block. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree. {{MIT}} is copyrighted but allowed. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Almost everything is copyrighted on creation and then stays that way. Many jurisdictions simply don't allow you to "turn off" copyright, except by time elapsing, hence the need for "almost public domain" licences like CC-zero. 15:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Alan, it seems you totally misunderstood the situation here. If I remember well, all files have a free license. The only "issue" was the author try to credit in the description field instead of "credit line". It is not a big mistake as our upload tools have no such provision. The text was some thing like "This work is Copyrights reserved to Zahidur Rahman Biplob" with a link to his site. Alan can demand formal permission from the site email address instead of deleting them.
See CC FAQ: "Is the material copyrightable?...CC licenses do not apply to material in the public domain. Different countries have different standards for what is in the public domain." "Do you own the material you want to license? If not, are you otherwise authorized to license it under the specific CC license you are interested in using? You should not apply a license to material that you do not own or that you are not authorized to license." Here we can see how they recommend to use © with year in front of our name as part of attribution. Further a CC license is only valid till the copyright expires. Jee 16:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, I restore pictures, pending to receiving OTRS permission ({{No permission since}}. And also unblocked per AGF. --Alan (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Jee 16:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I appreciate you did not dig in your heels. If the OTRS check does not pan out then we can nuke. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
We might still delete (via a discussion at DR) as being so promotional as to be outside our broad educational scope. This should be for the right reason though, and we shouldn't create precedents for bad deletions, as Commons decides increasingly on the basis of such precedents. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Did someone say we would not under any circumstances? We just asked for due process. So I fail to see why you are espousing for what we already asked. Moreover, I can only assume you haven't even looked at the files if you have a concern they are "so promotional". Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Anabel.jpg

Something is wrong with this file. Please could somebody corroborate this? Jespinos (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Tipical error overwriting a previously deleted file. (log). Deleted. Alan (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

I stuffed up on uploading the WP file 'Catalp1152 lg.JPG'. A description I sought to enter became the Commons filename File:Catalpa monument on the Rockingham foreshore, Western Australia.JPG. I really wanted to change the filename to something sensible, eg, 'catalpa_monument.jpg'. Can an admin please remedy this so that I can link the Commons file to the pages on which the WP file appears. Bjenks (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Landy wen.jpg

Hello. One version of this file is a copyvio (image grabbed from Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151959115001053&set=pb.193835636052.-2207520000.1396262593.&type=3&theater). It should be deleted. Thank you. BrightRaven (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - JurgenNL (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My own sub pages

Please, I want an administrator delete all my sub-pages on Commons. Thank you, ----MGuf (d) 11:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Manuguf/Advice CC-B-ySA | Manuguf/Editcounter | Manuguf/Travaux | Manuguf/Work | Manuguf/common.js | Manuguf/en cours | Manuguf/gallery | Manuguf/gallerySkijumpers | Manuguf/imagenote-sandbox --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Bye bye. --Manuguf (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete.

Could anyone be assistance to delete my user page, and User:Blurred Lines/common.js please? Thank you. —Blurred Lines 13:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The next time, pleas use {{speedydelete}}... --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 (variant).svg

Can an admin please speedy close this frivolous DR? All three licenses perfectly apply, this is an attempt at Commons censorship. Fry1989 eh? 17:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The problem is not copyright violation, but scope. The image can be out of project scope as totally fictional. This needs discussion and the request should be open for whole week. Taivo (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It has sources, it is not fictional. Fry1989 eh? 17:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Who gets to decide it's fictional? The researcher who drew it or the political POV pushers at Commons? Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Will somebody please speedy close this? The nominator is contradicting themselves and so are their sources, this nomination is completely invalid. Fry1989 eh? 00:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 Not done IMO two of the three license tags are invalid, and there are still further copyright issues to consider. --Avenue (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
None of those issues are valid concerns and a reason to delete this image. I know the file will be kept, it's sad you two want to prolong this into a baptism by fire. Fry1989 eh? 02:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Avenue you even agreed this design is PD as it lacks originality and is too simple. If then this is a discussion of scope, you have a stamp that resembles the design fairly well and the reference that describes just such a flag. How much more are we going to ask to prove in scope? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffron Blaze (talk • contribs)
I have also said that I think the image is within our scope, but my opinions are not the final word on the matter. Various opinions have been expressed, and the nominator is not the only one who sees problems with the image. I don't see any urgent need to close the DR ahead of the usual discussion period. --Avenue (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if 50 people have a problem with the image, what matters is if those problems are valid and in this case they most certainly are not.
  • Fact: the image is too simple for copyright
  • Fact: the image, if properly sourced to the 1918-1920 time period (which it is based on those stamps), is too old for copyright
  • Fact: These stamps are works of the ADR, which the current Azerbaijan Government considers itself the suscessor, meaning they are exempt from copyright, and that license also applies to any derivative work of these stamps, which this flag is
This DR is a completely frivolous attempt at censorship based on POV, not any valid concerns. You are only encouraging such attempts at censorship by not closing this. Fry1989 eh? 21:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please move

Andre Pienaar G3 and Andre pienaar to userpage area.--Motopark (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted, already present on user page. --Denniss (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Requesting deleted file check

Hi... Could an admin please check whether File:Madeleine_Monette,_Québec_novelist,_short-story_writer_and_poet.jpg is the same as the deleted file File:Madeleine-Monette.jpg? It was established here that uploader was not creator and that OTRS would be needed. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a different image, but may well have the same issues as the other. I'll leave it with you. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Rodhullandemu! Storkk (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

some books

Special:Contributions/Arifcseru has added some books in PDF format, are the license right, I don't know--Motopark (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA

This section is moved to Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA by Rillke. —레비Revi 10:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Preventing archive. —레비Revi 18:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Idem. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:GFDL-user-w

Hello! :-)

I think that the Template:GFDL-user-w should be replaced with the new Template:GFDL-user-W.

The new template is internationalized with "Autotranslate" and it is fully personalizable with all the Wikimedia project (not only Wikipedia), see the documentation.
The layout is based on Template:PD-user-w. Best regards. --Angelus(talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
No, for the same reason I reverted your change to GFDL-user-w, there was a reason it used the standard self and GFDL templates so need for extra fiddling with even more templates. Also changes to GFDL license templates with wording changes may not be properly supported or have unintended consequences (anyone remember the disclaimer issue at en and other wikis?).--Denniss (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The text is the same. There are only, in addition, the project and the author name. Moreover Template:GFDL-user-w isn't fully internationalized (the incipit is always in English) and the new is personalizable with all the Wikimedia project. Kind regards. --Angelus(talk) 19:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Other opinions? --Angelus(talk) 22:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Russavia

Hi,

You need to respect the decision taken by the community here: Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA‎. Unilateral revert without discussion is not acceptable. I made a proposal for closure on March 24, and you didn't even care to add your opinion. You also didn't even care to add anything here: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#New URAA policy and the rule of the shorter term. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What's that? Why are you posting a message to Russavia on COM:AN? --Túrelio (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears Yann did post it on Russavia's talk page, and Russavia doesn't care. Fry1989 eh? 18:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: What is this "unilateral" of which you speak? And you still don't appear to understand the BoT's recommendation: we are NOT supposed to be undeleting things that ARE CERTAINLY copyrighted in the US due to the URAA; on the contrary, we are supposed to be deleting them. They only recommend a change of policy in AMBIGUOUS cases.
Also, WTF did you delete my statements from Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA?
Warning to anyone restoring files that are unambiguously copyrighted in the United States: while this may not place the WMF at any legal risk, it most certainly does place you at risk. (Yes, even if you aren't a US citizen. No, I am not going to sue you; I don't own any URAA-related copyrights.) —SamB (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
SamB, there is only oppose vote against the proposed closing. And the way to add comments to a closed discussion is not to revert the close. You can add below in a new section or in the talk page. Jee 02:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Xwiki spam deletion

Hello, all of the pages created by Special:Contributions/178.137.86.66 could be speedy deleted as xwiki spam. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Solln Wilhelm-Leibl-Strasse 12.jpg

Please hide the first version of this file. I accidentally uploaded a version where a license plate of a parking car is visible, which might be legally problematic in Germany. I already uploaded a new version where the lower part of the picture is cut away. Thanks --Zeitlupe (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Administrator attention needed

Administrator attention is needed at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#SiBr4 and File:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg. The dispute has been ongoing for more than a week without getting anywhere and without apparently attracting attention from anyone who is prepared and able to deal with it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This still needs attention from an administrator. The two users involved in the dispute have clearly shown that they are unable to resolve it themselves and my attempts at getting them to actually talk to each other have failed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
COM:AN/U is on the watchlist of of many admins. No need to write here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Special:Cite

Although it might not be used very frequently: Something is broken there, our project isn't called Wikimedia Commons, ..    FDMS  4    20:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done: MediaWiki:Sitesubtitle, Thanks for reporting. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Юзер220

This user is another account of the indefblocked User:Григорий225 (a CheckUser in RuWP has just checked this and blocked this account). I think it needs to be indefblocked here as well. --Michgrig (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. --A.Savin 08:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Out of scope uploads

Special:Contributions/Graphic_design_graphic_design Palosirkka (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Nuked and warned. --Alan (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

In investigating a deleted article on en-wiki, I came across this image: File:Cyclic Corrosion Test Chamber.jpg.

What's wrong with this picture?

  • The image is clearly labeled with a copyright owned by a company
  • The uploader claims to be the copyright holder, implying the photographer
  • The OTRS ticket does not establish that the uploader has any authority to transfer copyrights for her employer

I have left a note in the OTRS ticket, and hopefully the person handling it will notice.

The same person also uploaded the following images without any OTRS reference, claiming "own work" but the images clearly show a copyright notice:

My question here is, what does one do (that is, what tags are appropriate) for an image where the uploader claim doesn't match the copyright notice that's part of the image, and the cited OTRS ticket doesn't adequately establish the claim of the uploader? Amatulic (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Put them for deletion? Even if a valid ticket comes later, that gives some time and space to discuss this issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that the OTRS ticket has some additional email traffic, so hopefully the uploader will clarify the situation to everyone's satisfaction soon. And Grasshoofd answered the second part of my question (thanks!) by tagging File:Cyclic Corrosion Test Chamber.jpg with the tag {{OTRS received}}, to indicate that the permission received was not sufficient. Amatulic (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_46&oldid=303764691"