Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 47

category with help request

I don't know the right page for this, but please have a look at this category with a help request of N.johnson10018 on it: Category:I have created this file. It is my personal photograph. I am Leanne's business manager and I personally took this photo. It's from January already and the user used to set it onto his own talk page. --October wind (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the category, because this was empty. I am not sure, that the category counts as a OTRS-permission. But such kind of permission is needed to host this kind of file. Taivo (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

When should deletion requests be deleted?

I just came across Special:DeletedContributions/MsEndri96 where the user opened a deletion request because they accidentally uploaded a file. This deletion request has been granted and both the request and the file have been deleted. Is this how uploader requests are handled? I was under the impression that those requests should be closed just like any other so that a) the user knows what has happened and b) other people can trace what has happened. Is there some special policy for handling uploader requests that I am not aware of? Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an accidental error to me. IMO, troll-type-DRs might be deleted, but this one doesn't fall into that category. --Túrelio (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I restored the DR. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/NASA_USA

User:NASA_USA is creating some pages (example: African_Computer_Engineers) about NASA Scientists(?). Can someone look at it? Southparkfan 18:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of photo on MicroTiles

Could you please restore the image that you have deleted? I have discovered that it is in fact a public domain image. if I need to change how I stated ownership could you please advise. Also, I have no idea why it was removed in the first place when I indicated copywright information and had even received approval from the photographer. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBibble (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC+02:00)

(admins: deleted image)

Hi BBibble, the information on the image does not suggest that you own the copyright to the image. As "source" you gave a website and we have no way of knowing whether that website is yours or not. Also you did not add a license template to the page therefore making it unclear what the copyright status of the image was. Can you please elaborate a bit and explain why you think this is PD? Thanks and regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2013/11/09

Does anyone else know what to make of this? We've got four new DRs added to a long closed log. Leitoxx, who made the edits, thinks it is a software bug. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a bug of MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js then. Does this happen frequently? -- Rillke^(q?) 11:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex/Commons:Deletion_requests/2013/. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It's the first time I have seen it, but I deliberately do not watchlist DR logs, so my seeing this one was an anomaly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Deletion requests July 2012

(Edit conflict) There are also much older deletion requests as of July 2012: Category:Deletion requests July 2012. 53 files in the category by now. The page Commons:Deletion requests/2012/07 has already been deleted as empty in March 2013. I've added this old category here: Commons:Deletion requests/Older discussions. But I don't know if anyone finds it there. I haven't seen, if these requests are really old or if it's also a bug. --October wind (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think those files have been undeleted because of any request on this page. All the files on Commons:Deletion requests/PD-AR-Photo de la Guerra de Malvinas 2 are blue instead of red now, but had been deleted in September 2012 because of unclear copyright status. Can anyone do anything with this? --October wind (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be this request: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-04#Commons:Deletion requests/PD-AR-Photo de la Guerra de Malvinas 2 linking to this recent URAA discussion. --October wind (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Azhar sabri (talk · contribs)

User is still uploading out of scope images after being released from the last one-week block. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, he seems to have frequently logged out and edited his userpage as an IP like what happened on the English Wikipedia. Might need to do a check for the underlying IP if he warrants another block. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

BSicon request

Could someone please delete obsolete BSicons and redirects listed here? Thanks. YLSS (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 07:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Island of Cyprus in File:World location map.svg

Island of Cyprus was not in File:World location map.svg. I've noticed that it is also missing from many derivates of that map. --RicHard-59 (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of Austria-Hungary (1869-1918).svg

Please protect the file from editing. Various users keep reverting because they do not like the simplified crowns, despite the fact that their preferred alternative exists as another file. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 07:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

picture of Caroline Klebl removed

The picture of Caroline Klebl that I used has been removed cited "no permission" Can you please tell me what I need to do in order to get the picture back up

Nerdypunkkid (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

User:10.68.16.30

It seems to me that some bot is working unlogined but it's IP is making me confused - why is it an internal IP? Who is the botowner to write to? rubin16 (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a day. It probably got logged out when the WMF reset all login tokens in response to the recent OpenSSL bug -FASTILY 07:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Pinged User:McZusatz, obviously YacBot running wild. --Denniss (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the above is correct. I was not online on Saturday so I could not intervene. Thanks for making me aware of the issue and sorry for the disturbance. Though I remember loggin in two days after the heartbleed bug... --McZusatz (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictures from Oman

I think a review needed for images like this in category Category:Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque and more images in Category:Buildings in Oman per this FOP update. See this previous discussion too. Jee 06:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. See also en:Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque, it is a contemporary building completed in 2001. --A.Savin 08:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Japanese speaker requested to help with deletion request ( 日本の話者が削除要求を支援するために要求され )

Hello,

I nominated a *large* amount of files at this deletion request. These appear to be a number of scientific (or pseudo-scientific) diagrams. However, the descriptions are written in a haphazard combination of Western characters (which are clearly meaningless garbage) and/or Japanese script (which a combination of Google Translate and common sense suggests is either nonsense, or meaninglessly short).

However, I would be happier if a native (or reasonably competent) Japanese speaker could verify or refute this. Is this the right place to ask?

Google Translation:-

この削除要求で Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Taku_Ueki コモンズ]私は、ファイルの*大*量を指名した。これらは科学的な（または擬似科学的な）図表の数であるように思われる。しかし、説明は（明らかに無意味なゴミである）西の文字、および/または日本のスクリプト（Google翻訳と常識を示唆しているとの組み合わせのいずれかナンセンスか、無意味に短いです）の無計画組み合わせで書かれています。

ネイティブ（または合理的に有能な）日本の話者が確認するか、この反論ができればしかし、私は幸せになるだろう。 これは尋ねるために適切な場所ですか？

Thank you.

Ubcule (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added my opnion to the DR. whym (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the QI status

I think is not correct the removal of the status of quality images for these images:

• See this talk

Regarding this image, for instance, the Mona Lisa was not created by a user of Commons (of course), but the photographical reproduction yes! This photo fully complies with the quality images guidelines ("photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible") and it has also been evaluated in the appropriate page. Best regards. --Angelus^(talk) 23:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I doubt these are photographs. Do you have any evidence therefor? Besides, I fail to understand why to discuss it on two different places. --A.Savin 08:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain why do you think that this image "is not a photograph"?? --Angelus^(talk) 08:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Because there aren't any EXIF data or similar info in the description. As it is often the case with artworks, it is far more likely a scan of a printed reproduction. --A.Savin 08:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In the EXIF data, is mentioned Photoshop CS6 because, before uploading, I corrected some imperfections. --Angelus^(talk) 19:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is better discussed at QIC talk. But IMHO, any reproduction by a Wikimedian can be accepted irrespective of the tools used. Not many Wikimedians have good scanners though. Jee 09:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 Agree - Angelus^(talk) 19:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've scanned printed reproductions, like File:Sibirskai Surikov.jpg, and if you're starting from something that will fit on a normal scanner, the printing features become notable--see especially the original of that file. File:La Gioconda.jpg is certainly a photograph, IMO; the only other possibility in my mind is that someone took a high-quality painting and run it through a drum scanner, but those are quite expensive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 Agree - Exactly... --Angelus^(talk) 19:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion continues here. --Angelus^(talk) 21:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --> No admin action needed, pleas discuss this on the relevant talk page. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

User:YaCBot and "category-cleanup"

What is the point of edits like these, being made en masse by YaCBot (talk · contribs), which make absolutely no difference to the the rendered page (merely moving categories onto separate lines)? If that's a useful thing to do, couldn't the Upload Wizard be configured to format categories that way, thus not making needless work? I don't know what the policy is on Commons, but pointless edits are very strongly discouraged on enwiki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Only a single line of code has to be changed, so it is no problem if there is "consensus". --McZusatz (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

IMO this is useful. I absolutely hate it when categories & templates are chained into one-liners. Wiki-syntax is horrible enough as it is to read (and even more so for new users), so let's not make it any more difficult please. -FASTILY 23:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Cannot edit Special:AbuseFilter/60

Resolvedasked a steward as no local user was able to edit this filter Rillke^(q?) 23:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at Special:Permalink/121473082. I cannot show the request here because the abuse filter is hidden … Thanks in advance -- Rillke^(q?) 22:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Security through obscurity is silly. The filters should all be publicly visible. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

With gerrit:126168, administrators are now able to modify these abuse filters again. Thanks hoo man and DerHexer for caring about the issue so quickly. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

LR backlogs again

Seems FlickreviewR gave us a huge backlog and gone...

• CAT:FLICKR has +900 files (and still increasing) as of 03:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

And we still have lots of Panoramio imaages to review

• Category:Panoramio review needed still has +700 files for review as of 03:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work reviewing images. — Revi_complaint? 03:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the bots are failing because of the new flickr upgrade (more like downgrade)..regarding the backlog, most images are uploaded by trusted users/admins..maybe an option for licence reviewers to allow users to "pass" multiple image at once, a script maybe..would save time as going and doing it on individual images may take forever..and till the bug on FlickreviewR gets fixed..seems like every image uploaded from flickr is getting thrown in that category..maybe an alternate bot?. I think one user has one bot ready for use....give it temporary rights maybe?--Stemoc (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Stemoc: FlickreviewR 2 is approved, and it is supposed to work - however it is not working now. And, well, I am not sure if multiple review script will work fine, and there may be false positives. — Revi_complaint? 07:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: , can you pleas run the bot's (per cronjob) every hour one time? --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

 fixed --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Flickr Bot fails to review the images because they have a rotation problem, thumb is OK but fullsize is rotated. --Denniss (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove a file

Hello,

I uploaded a picture I realized afterwards was already in Commons. It is not necessary to keep it, so please delete it.

Sorry and thank you,

Daehan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daehan (talk • contribs)

 Done. --A.Savin 05:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:GFDL 1.2 or cc-by-nc-3.0

I think this should be merged to Template:GFDL or cc-by-nc-3.0 as being redundant; the family of multilicensed GFDL templates are typically labeled "GFDL or..." not "GFDL 1.2 or...", for evidence compare Special:PrefixIndex/Template:GFDL 1.2 versus Special:PrefixIndex/Template:GFDL or. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the first version specifies GFDL 1.2 only whereas the other GFDL 1.2 and any future version. --Denniss (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, didn't read the fine print carefully. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Rubyyadav and her suspect images

Regarding: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rubyyadav

What she uploaded before has been deleted. She is now uploading more. She says she got some from the "newspapers". Then she says she took them, which seems impossible. She avoids saying she "owns" them, except in the upload field.

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rubyyadav#Your_image_upload.28s.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rubyyadav#Another_copyrighted_image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak#PHOTOGRAPHS

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment This may be obvious, but there is no metadata, indicating the photos weren't taken with a camera. --Jakob (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Analysis There is room for good faith here, advice on how to write to OTRS to validate that photographs published at the website rubyyadav.com are owned by the same person is worth doing. Though the EXIF data on the external site here gives information that this was taken on a mobile phone, the data on Commons here is consistent with the source, with a potential explanation that the photographs were published on another website such as Panoramio, which may have itself cut most of the publicly visible EXIF data. The photograph on Commons appears to be at a credible higher resolution than that released on the official website, which itself should encourage us to avoid an automatic assumption that these are copyright violations.

The nature of correspondence here, would indicate that this is not Ruby Yadav, however this could easily be someone related to her campaign. The photos have educational value and the user has already asked for help and advice; it would be nice to see that given and some patience for someone who may be new to copyright issues or may not often write in English.

Update On en.wp the same account has claimed to be Ruby Yadav. I have provided some basic advice on writing to OTRS on her en.wp talk page. --Fæ (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ticket:2014041810012411 received today on OTRS and awaiting processing. --Fæ (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Fæ. I'm happy with the OTRS route. I didn't mention that to her as an option because of her somewhat evasive responses, and the press shot appearance of the Beauty Queen photos. I thought OTRS would cover us in terms of due diligence, but she might just send in the OTRS regardless of whether or not she owned them. As she is running for office, I thought that I'd be particularly communicative, and opt for just asking a lot of questions. Now, I see, she's uploaded plenty of campaign trail shots from different locations. My guess is that she has someone with her taking photos and giving them to her. Many thanks for your feedback and kind post at her enwp talk. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup needed (copyrighted files)

See the upload history of Special:Contributions/HelenChimonidi. Several copyvios was uploaded over free ones, and now need to be removed. Nymf (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Rename File:Hugo Bonneval 2013.jpg

Hello,

There's a problem in the file's name : it should be Arthur Bonneval (step brother of Hugo), as you can see in the original file in FlickR.

It results in some edition issues in the french WP article about Hugo Bonneval.

So, thank you to rename this file into Arthur Bonneval 2013.jpg

Thank you very much!

Regards, --Daehan (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

MiszaBot AWOL

See Commons:Village pump#Archiving. Lupo 09:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

See User talk:MiszaBot#MiszaBot down --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been aware of that since 8 April 2014, but I'm wondering if the user session token resets (due to the Heartbleed security vulnerability) are the case, then why isn't MiszaBot still running logged out as an IP address like most bots normally do? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Because clever bots assert that they are bots when communicating to API and are asking the API to verify that before doing an edit. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Youtube CC-BY

Template:Youtube CC-BY → Template:YouTube CC-BY Should this be moved from "Youtube" to "YouTube" as per how YouTube, well, designates itself and Template:From YouTube? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Interview with Ton Roosendaal introducing Project Gooseberry.ogv

Please delete this file and then undelete it after the upload is finished. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Fry1989 and GlobalReplace

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.

There is nothing here that needs admin attention. russavia (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Fry1989 (talk · contribs) (who appears to be rather "fanatical" about this Nazi business) has been upload-warring on File:Parteiadler der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (1933–1945).svg to introduce a version of the image already uploaded as a different file [1]. Even after having been informed as to the fact that the image is already uploaded. I then tried to contact him on his talkpage and explain, as well as demonstrate that he is wrong in his apparent belief that the image he's overwriting isn't official [2][3]. Naturally I thought we were going to discuss the matter. What I got instead was Fry1989 removing the image he personally dislikes all across the projects with GlobalReplace, and his comment that I'm "wasting my time".

Requesting the user's replacement be reverted, please, and sanctions considered for the massive-scale disruption. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Fry is rather 'fanatical' about this Nazi business.. That's how you are going to start this off? I mean that is seriously how you are going to start this off?? Could there be a more insulting and biased introductory sentence?

In any case this has nothing to do with what I "like or dislike", or any other motive DIREKTOR can make up. What this has to do with is that I have plenty of sources at my disposal that the Parteiadler was different in it's design (specifically the wings) than the Reichsadler, and I could not find any sources that they were the same, which is why I overwrote File:Parteiadler der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (1933–1945).svg with File:Parteiadler der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (1933–1945) (andere).svg and was planing on having the two merged. After DIREKTOR provided a source to the contrary and I went over it, I changed my mind and reverted myself (something DIREKTOR failed to notice). I am no longer supporting a merge or overwrite of two. However, yes I have replaced one file with the other on several projects, I have a right to do so just like any other user (per BRD) and have sources to support my motion. DIREKTOR on the other hand is reverting my edits without edit summary explanations. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You have shown no sources and your massive-scale removal is OPPOSED. Revert yourself and discuss, please, so that we Untermenschen might glance at your sublime "sources", whatever they are. Clearly the image you're bent on overwriting was in historical use [4][5]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Opposed by who? YOU! I'm not bent on anything except accuracy and sources, and the fact I didn't post them for you to read doesn't mean they don't exist. Are you capable of saying anything that isn't an insult or an allusion to some form of fanaticism? I made a mistake ok? I couldn't find the sources you had, and I based my edits on what information I did have. For that you want to crucify me. As for my replacements, again that is within my rights and if you oppose my replacement of an image with another on a project you are supposed to leave a reason why, not blindly revert. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Next time kindly read your talkpage posts, please, before informing others they're "wasting their time" by trying to prevent you from making mistakes like that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That was a mistake and I apologize, but I won't apologize for basing my actions on the information I have and being bold. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The whole point is that I was providing you with new information. But nevermind.. Am currently reverting with GlobalReplace. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) Comment This is looking very much like Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#SiBr4 and File:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg where Fry1989 also stands accused of using global replace to favour his view in a dispute where he refuses to back up his opinions with sources, in that case regarding the flag of the Isle of Man. Administrators would do well to comment on both topics - but having ignored repeated requests related to the ongoing flag dispute I hold little hope of this gaining attention from anyone with the authority to do anything about it. If it isn't copyright related, it seems admins here have little to know interest. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed Fry1989's Access until the issue is resolved. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest removing Fry1989's GR access altogether, or at least for a period, and thereby resolving the issue. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Steinsplitter, you have no right to remove my access to a free-use bot without a consensus that bans me, and it's a clear show of bad faith in my intentions to do so. I use that both for a variety of purposes including renamed images and replaing PNG images with SVG counterparts. Now I have apologized to DIREKTOR for our disagreement and my quickness to reject discussing with them, but I will not have bad faith accusations placed on me, and I will not have Thryduulf throwing further aspersions when they have already admitted to being biased against me and have made statements that are false. I have already explained to Thryduulf that I was restoring the status quo image in a dispute and they continue to accuse me instead of trying to circumvent some fake non-existent consensus to "get my way". They should also notice that I had stopped my replacement in the Flag of Man issue. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a free bot which anybody can elect to use, I use it far various valid purposes to ease my workload, and there is no reason to remove my use of it because of one misunderstanding. Try some good faith like you guys always preach. I had sources and was basing my action upon that. That's what the project supposedly wants to encourage ("be bold"), and the fact I used a bot instead of manually doing it myself doesn't make a different in intention. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

i am going to use DIREKTOR source [6] and argue that while that file should be left as it is . Given the source DIREKTOR used we can use File:Parteiadler der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (1933–1945) (andere).svg in Template:Nazism sidebar in the english wikipedia 115.187.78.204 00:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

And I have plenty of sources to the contrary, and I did not have DIREKTOR's sources, which is why I intended to have the two merged. Once I saw DIREKTOR's sources I decided it would be better to maintain the two different files. That is not related to which should be used however, and considering there are more sources for File:Parteiadler der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (1933–1945) (andere).svg, I felt it more appropriate for that image to be used. It makes no difference whether I used a bot or did it manually, the intent and reasoning was the same. This is a storm in a teacup based on a misunderstanding. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, i agree with you that File:Parteiadler der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (1933–1945) (andere).svg should be used in the Template:Nazism sidebar in english wikipedia, i meant that why not use the already existing alternate file instead of changing the File:Parteiadler der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (1933–1945).svg 115.187.78.204 01:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I did understand, I'm just saying that Steinsplitter's attempted removal of my access to GlobalReplace and DIREKTOR's suggestion that I shouldn't be able to use it at all are an over-reaction with no basis of any sort of purposeful abuse of the bot. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

that is confusing! if you understood me how come you said "And I have plenty of sources to the contrary" as a responce to my comment? 27.96.33.235 02:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

also it is odd that you changed the mentined file into your version but you do not want it in the template 27.96.33.235 02:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a response to you directly, it was a response to the entire thread. And I would like it in the template, but I can not put it in the template myself or I would be accused of "edit warring", and even if I did DIREKTOR would probably revert it again anyway. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

i actually wanted that version long before this discussion even started (8 months ago actually), but the template is semi-protected and it must be edited (i assume) by account used by "established registered users" 95.199.213.219 02:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Once I saw DIREKTOR's sources I decided it would be better to maintain the two different files." The question is why did you not do so in the first place? Commons:Overwriting existing files#Controversial or contested changes is clear on this: once any of you reverts a replacement image by another, you should either a) discuss the reversion on the talkpage, or b) upload the reverted image as a separate file. Or in your case c) continue revert-warring, risk being taken to the administrators' noticeboard and blocked. I don't see why this all could have been avoided in the first place with a simple discussion or separate upload. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • For clarity, in my question I am of course referring to "maintain[ing] the two different files", not "[seeing] DIREKTOR's sources" which was information previously not had before. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

GlobalReplace access

Stemming from, but not solely related to, the above thread (this is explicitly not about any user), I am not certain that allowing everyone access to GlobalReplace is a good idea as it allows users to disrupt other projects as part of an edit war. It should definitely also be possible to remove someone's access if they abuse it. My first thought is that it should be treated in the same manner as filemover. Any thoughts? Thryduulf (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I am also a file mover and have been for a very long time. If you can find a case where I have abused that ability (good luck, I'll eat my balls if you can), I'll relinquish it myself. GlobalReplace is no different, I have not abused it nor will you be able to find evidence of abuse. If you do not like that this is afreely accessible bot, perhaps you should take that up with it's creator (who happens to also be an admin). There is no reason to restrict the bot merely because of a misunderstanding, you're gonna have to establish some sort of systemic issue with it's free use by those who have signed up. I would also like to point out that restricting the bot hardly presents the sort of protections against abuse that you believe it would, as there is nothing stopping users from creating other similar bots. It wouldn't address the issue of systemic abuse even if you could establish that. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Without comment on the case in this thread above, if anyone is causing inter-project disruption by edit warring, then provisions of Blocking policy apply and that remedy is sufficient. --Fæ (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Fry1989: What part of "this is explicitly not about any user" do you not understand? Whether or not you or anyone else has abused GlobalReplace it is possible to do so and I think it is worthwhile to have a method to prevent that. I have no idea about your use of filemover, and I have not made any comments about your use of it. My comment was that filemover access is restricted to those judged competent and trustworthy enough to use it, so why not restrict GlobalReplace to those judged competent and trustworthy enough to use it? I admit I'm not intimitely familiar with Commons' bot policy, but if it is like the policies on en.wp and en.wikt then all bots and bot tasks must be approved. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

GlobalReplace should be used very sparingly, in short because images being replaced may have captions which vary across projects. Having said that, I don't see any issue with its usage here. Keep calm and carry on. russavia (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Access to GR is probably more similiar to AWB rights, which we have a user group for. Maybe combine it and rename the group?    FDMS  4    15:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thryduulf, you completely misunderstood my point. I didn't say this was about any specific user or about the Filemover right, what I said was that you think GlobalReplace should be restricted similar to Filemover, and that I have the right to Filemover already. In order to remove my right to the Filemover, you would have to establish some sort of abuse at my hands of it, and in the same way you should have to establish some sort of systemic abuse by user(s) of GlobalReplace in order to turn it from a freely accessible bot into a restricted right. You shouldn't be able to propose that change out of some fantasy "it could allow such abuse". Do you have any such evidence beyond just what you think this bot could allow?? That was my point. In any case, if you are worried about it's use by me, I will agree to using it more sparingly and in non-controversial ways if that will ease your fears. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Steinsplitter's removal of my sign-in to Global replace

As stated above by Steinsplitter, they "removed Fry1989's Access until the issue is resolved". However, as this is not (currently) a restricted user right, but rather a free tool that any user may use, I believe Steinsplitter has no authority to remove my sign-in unless there is some sort of community consensus to ban me from using the tool, which there currently is not. I re-added my sign-in for this reason twice, and Steinsplitter keeps removing it, now going to far as to accuse me of "crosswiki abuse" and is threatening to block me. Unless Steinsplitter can provide some evidence to back up that claim, I believe their removal of my sign-in should be reverted. There is no consensus that I should be blocked from using this free unrestricted tool, nor has any evidence been provided by anyone that I abused it. In fact, even Russavia (who I do not usually agree with or get along with) stated above "I don't see any issue with its usage here." Fry1989 ^eh? 16:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Steinsplitter. (i.e.). You've abused the tool excessively. Alan ^(talk) 17:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

How? Can either of you provide evidence for this "abuse"? It's easy enough to accuse me of it, but where is the evidence? The link you have provided was me simply replacing a file with a superior vector version, I could have and would have done that manually anyway, the fact I used a bot doesn't make a difference. Use is different from "abuse", you can say I used the tool too frequently but where is your proof I abused this tool? Fry1989 ^eh? 17:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal has been reverted, and should not be removed unless actual abuse can be shown. To allow people to mellowly discuss this (if required), I'm closing this thread as no action needed as well, and a new thread showing actual abuse could be started (if it exists). russavia (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Replacement for MiszaBot

Hi all, I'd like to take over for MiszaBot, which has been down for quite some time now. Your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1 -FASTILY 04:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Bulk rename request

Dear administrators, I need your help with fixing a filename collision issue.

The background is the following. I wrongly assumed that I can upload two files whose names differ only by their extension. Because of this, I uploaded some audio files of the Category:Unprocessed audio files of Filaret Kolessa phonograph cylinder collection. Then, I uploaded a bunch of photos of the cylinders, which I wanted to be named analogous to the audio files, but got into a filename collision between the jpgs and flacs. This resulted in a situation when the files in the Category:Photos of Filaret Kolessa phonograph cylinders are inconsistenly named. But the main problem is that I need to upload the rest of the flac files under the names that some of the JPGs now occupy.

Therefore I need your help renaming the files in the Category:Photos of Filaret Kolessa phonograph cylinders so that all of them are named like so: Kolessa Phonograph Cylinder ## (photo).JPG, and avoiding creating any redirects while doing the renames. Essentially, my #1 need is to be able to upload the rest of the flac files under the following naming scheme: Kolessa Phonograph Cylinder ##.flac (some other related files' descriptions link to these names).

Your help will be highly appreciated. Hope this won't be a big hassle for you. --YurB (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

As a side note: this subcategory should not clash with flacs I suppose, so you don't have to rename files in it. --YurB (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Category

Hello, I accidentally created Category:Cemetery in Trier, please delete it. The right one Category:Cemeteries in Trier already exists. Thank you. --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion on your behalf, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/04/Category:Cemetery in Trier. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Why did you nominate if for discussion? Empty categories can be speedydeleted using {{Emptypage}}.    FDMS  4    17:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Natuur12 (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio in admin-protected page.

See here. It's been flagged for a while. The least we can do is honor Creative Commons' copyright claims. The image has a gradient, which, as I understand it, places it out of the public domain. And the lawyers at Creative Commons clearly agree that it's NOT PD. Administrators, please. --Elvey (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The license is correct as it's too general for copyright + it's correctly tagged with trademark template. --Denniss (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

They are "trade mark licensed" by CC and cannot be used for any purposes other than "to point to a Creative Commons license or Commons deed on the Creative Commons server or otherwise uses it to describe the Creative Commons license that applies to a particular work; and provided that, to the extent the licensee is using the mark in an online environment, licensee does not alter or remove the hyperlink embedded in such logo as made available on Creative Commons webpage." So better link to their policy page than saying it is PD. Jee 09:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Many companies try to protect very simple shapes or very short text frames, CC is no better than them. There's no such thing like a trademark license, trademark is a possible uage restriction under certain laws. --Denniss (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Anyway "trademark license" is the word they used in their policy page and it seems they discourage to use any CC license for trademarks. That is why they setup a separate policy page for granting permission for some limited uses. I don't think adding a PD or any other license allow us to use it for any other purposes than they mentioned in their policy page. On the other side the PD tag may not do any harm too. Jee 10:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It can't stay unlicensed + the trademark restriction should be sufficient to prevent misuse. But maybe we should use a special template for CC license icons just like the one we have for Copyright by Wikimedia. --Denniss (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems a good idea. If I remember well; I think I removed the CC BY-SA 4.0 tags from icons on the advise of probably Elvey. Anyway works like this available at cc are not CC BY-SA or CC BY licensed. Jee 11:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Basic upload template not appearing

WhenI tried using this in the last hour or so, neither the template nor the preview option are showing up for me. Thanks, We hope (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Now it works for me.  Done? Taivo (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Just checked this morning and it's OK- Done and thanks! We hope (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain but when I posted the above, I was seeing the template just fine. It's gone for me again. :( I'm using Firefox with Windows 7 Professional and both the OS and browser are up to date. Not sure why the template and preview option aren't there for me. We hope (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As of now, it's back again. We hope (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Undelete request

I was wondering if a sysop can please undelete File:Dr. Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz, 1983.png and File:MujaddidAhmedIjaz1987.jpg? The permission for the original image is in the permissions-commons queue, ticket:2014042110015198. I'll mark them with otrs-pending until an agent can take a look at them. Many thanks. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog:  Done Natuur12 (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Natuur12: Thank you! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Flag of russia per Commons:Overwriting existing files

can someone please restore the original version of the file per Commons:Overwriting existing files, i have the also following sources: 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

• see http://flag.kremlin.ru/ looks like the original which should be so per file per Commons:Overwriting existing files 95.199.213.219 22:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

hello? please answer, the flag should be changed to the original per the sources i gave and Commons:Overwriting existing files 95.199.204.47 13:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you link to the file in question, please? Also, were you aware that you were not logged in? --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The file in question is File:Flag of Russia.svg, however this change is opposed and there is no current support. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

it is not opposed and it must be changed per Commons:Overwriting existing files 95.199.201.248 22:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is opposed, I oppose it myself and that red "oppose" icon is pretty clear. More importantly however, is that there is no support for the change, and COM:Overwrite is a guideline rather than a rule. The flag's colours have been changed plenty of times based on plenty of differing sources. It should be left the way it is. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It has been stable since 12 August 2012. A major motivation of COM:Overwrite is to keep file versions stable. In this case, the stable version is the current one. I don't see any reason to intervene in this instance. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done no consensus for change, the current version seems to be stable. Multichill (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Renaming

User:Hosmich has been filing a lot of renaming requests, all of them changing the capitalization of the word "Arms" in "Coat of Arms". He tags them as "File renaming criterion #6", but this criterion doesn't seem to fit as these files aren't part of a set. Is this a proper way of doing things? To me it seems that all it amounts to is adding a lot of needless redirects and creating messes like this: File:Coat of arms of Denmark.svg. How should this be approached? Lemmens, Tom (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

[non-admin] Per COM:FR capitalisation is never a reason for renaming. Also, criterion #6 does not apply for files that are not used in templates. If the user does not stop renaming I would simply suggest removing his filemover rights.    FDMS  4    15:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

[non-admin again] Why did you not ask him first?    FDMS  4    15:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I started this renaming "session" with a file named "Coat pf arms...". Now I think CoAs of sovereign countries should be harmonized with small "a" in "arms". After doing that, I will no more request capitalization changing. I admit sometimes "Arms" is convention within particular country, it can be untouched. The rest should be decapitalized IMO. Hosmich (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this last night with a file that was on my watchlist. Strictly speaking, I understand the point of having all similar images use one common naming convention, and FDMS 4 yes that include capitalisation. If all the coat of arms files are named "Coat of arms of.." but some of them have arms capitalised and some don't, then they are not uniform and matching a common convention. However it should be uniform across the board if this is to be done, Hosmich excepting some would cause the same problem I just mentioned above. If this is done, it must be uniform or it looses it's purpose. Also, removing file mover rights for this is stupid, this is not a violation of the renaming rules as far as I can tell, and it was in good faith and does serve a valid purpose. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, there should be consensus, otherwise there is no valid criterion. Of course I do not suggest blocking Hosmich, but I would if he did not react to criticism.    FDMS  4    19:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Files get renamed all the time, for less valid reasons than this. At least this renaming thing has a purpose of standardizing names across the board for a set of images, which every coat of arms is. The whole point in a common naming convention is so that the names are uniform and only one relevant part differs. I would say that this is a valid criterion, we do in fact have common naming conventions for all sorts of images and they get renamed every day to meet these conventions. Should there be a discussion and some consensus first? Maybe, but this certainly isn't something that should be brought to AN as if it was a disruptive problem. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Files get renamed all the time, to (non-english, f. ex.) names that differ probably even more from the rest ("It's misleading!"). Our only File naming policy currently has the status of a proposal. If a user decides to use a Bavarian, all-lowercase name, we (unfortunately IMO) have to accept that and decline rename requests per decline criterion #2.    FDMS  4    19:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely. It is true we do not rename files from one language to another just because we prefer a different language (as Commons is multi-lingual and has no official language). We generally respect whatever language the uploader has chosen to name their file in. We also respect the specific names they chose unless the names are purposefully misleading or incorrect or disparaging. However, when there is a wider interest of the Community to have a set of like images share a common naming convention to ease their use across projects, that overrides. I believe there is a wider community interest in having all national coats of arms files sharing a uniform naming convention of "Coat of arms of..." where only the name of the country differs. I am also working on a similar convention for road signs, we have this convention for national flags, a lot of different types of images have common naming conventions. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This is list of my wannado decapitalization requests:

Gambia, Ghana, Guyana twice, Jamaica twice, Jordan, Kuwait without useless "-2", Lebanon, Coat of arms of Malawi, Arms of Malawi, Nyasaland, British Central Africa, Imperial coat of arms of Ethiopia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Monaco twice, Namibia, New Zealand, Niue, Niger, Panama twice, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands and Pitcairn Islands, Puerto Rico, San Juan and Vieques, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan more files, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

These files are often sole "Arms" within a country, or all "Arms" are equally suitable to decapitalize. I looked at other COAs for a country and I can say this:

• In Spain "Arms" is convention for regions, I don't touch it.
• In Belgium some decapitalizations of royal COAs were done, but prevalent was "Arms", so I let it. OTOH for COAs of provinces is standard "arms" or Dutch or French name, so I requested this.
• For Luxembourg there are both "Arms" and "arms" files, but I want to rename at least File:Coat of Arms of Luxembourg-(Middle).svg (hyphen change to space) and simultaneous decapitalizing isn't bad for me.
• For Denmark "Arms" is convention here, but modern COAs are "arms" except Alexandra, who follows British "Arms" convention.
• For South Africa "Arms" is convention, but national COA doesn't follow it.
• For France Arms is standard, but not universal.
• Some Dutch COAs are "arms", some "Royal Coat of Arms", "State Coat of Arms" or "Great Coat of Arms", what I would rename to "... coat of arms". Whether decapitalize this, I don't know, probably not.
• Philippines have both "Arms" and "arms" often, harmonizing is disputable.
• Also Russia is divided, but national COAs are "Arms". They can be decapitalized.
• For Sweden "Arms" is widely used, but it should be decapitalized according to gallery here.
• Ukraine has clear "Arms" cnovention for national and regional COAs.

The rest is not in my interest. Where a country is "divided", renaming of its COAs should be matter of wider discussion. Hosmich (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I see the value in a consistent naming scheme for categories. Do the files really matter, on the other hand? They're not part of a template, and there's a lot of cruder names (CoA NAME). Lemmens, Tom (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

same userpage with 2 user

PLease check User:Muhammad Muaaz Bin Zaka and User:Mohammad Muaaz Bin Zaka--Motopark (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete older versions

Dear administrator, I have uploaded 2 pictures of Mario Soares yesterday and I asked for deleting my name in the exif data, because I was not able to do it. Now I ask to delete the two older versions, still with my name in the exif data. Thank you.FraLiss (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The files in question are File:Mario Soares Carmo 1 1.jpg and File:Mario Soares Carmo 2 1 1 1.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done and requested oversighting by odder. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

And this is also now  done on my part (I suppressed all five file revisions). odder (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense DRs

IP 2602:306:CD29:AC00:1133:4ED4:B728:26B4 has created a bunch of nonsense DRs, many of which he linked to the old pages like Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/26 and Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2009/08 (i.e. listings from 2009). Can an admin close these up and then delete Commons:Deletion requests/2009/08/26 and Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2009/08? From the contribution history, a few DRs also ended up on today's date as well. —RP88 02:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Im currently busy to clean up and to keep all those requests. regards --JuTa 04:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you cleaning up the mess. It looks like you've fixed the majority of his nonsense DRs and malformed nominations. Would you also consider closing the nonsense DR entry at the end of Commons:Deletion requests/First Lady Portraits and address the nonsense DR on File:MrsJohnson.png? —RP88 05:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done --JuTa 08:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories part of a district

Hello, is there a policy that says where categories <part of a district> should be sorted? (I find nothing).

For me, it does sense only if categories <part of a district> are sorted into the category of this district. And all that I had asked see it so also.

Somebody sorted categories <part of a district> into the category <district of municipality>. --Jean11 (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert mass removal of categories from out-of-date maps by User:Twofortnights

Hello, User:Twofortnights has recently made many edits related to maps showing visa requirements of various countries. However, he has removed all categories from those files that have been "superseded" by new files (i.e. categories were removed from a 2010 Israeli visa map due to existence of a newer 2012 Israeli visa map). I suppose this has been done for the purpose of the relevant category pages to show only a single image per country. However, I consider this a misunderstanding of the difference between category pages and gallery pages and have informed the user on his talk page. In hope that my argument is justifiable by some rule or convention, I dare to ask for help from an administrator to roll back this user's recent edits, but, if technically possible, to limit those to category removals only. I also suggest stronger promotion of this difference, because this is not the first time that I have seen users doing things like this, although usually in good faith. --Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe you haven't understood the nature of my edits at all. Those files are not simply outdated but they are duplicates, check the category now, there is a file for every country for an example there is a "Visa policy of Thailand" file. There is no reason to have a file for an example "Visa policy of Thailand June 2011 update" in there. How they came to be? Well some users instead of uploading the updated file via "Upload a new version of this file" command have uploaded them as new files. Not only there is no need to include them in a category, it would also render the category useless due to complete chaos. Just imagine 10 files on visa policy of some country out of which 9 were used once a few years ago. Why? I was actually compiling the list of those files to be put up for deletion as they serve zero purpose. It's time to fix this mess not go back to it. I hope I have explained my edits and that you now understand why reverting back to that would be very harmful. They of course don't serve historic purpose either as they were often updated subsequently so the title might be "visa policy 2011" but the file might be showing visa policy in 2013, and also main files that were created first usually have historic content in their file history, the new files were usually uploaded just for some small fix. Of course if you have any further questions don't hesitate to ask.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If you disagree with an idea that those files are useless, I propose creating a category called "Maps showing historic visa requirements" where such files can be categorized without causing a clutter in the "Maps showing visa requirements".--Twofortnights (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification, there indeed has been some misunderstanding (still, you might have stated your purpose more clearly in the edit summary, e.g. "superseded, will be deleted / merged with edit history of up-to-date map"). Because you did not act immediately (nominate for deletion or, better, ask for merge), I could not presume your further plans with those files. And I still maintain the position that old content should not simply be removed, because it is old. It's still a historic record of some moment (i.e. educational purpose) and the new file can possibly be derived from this (i.e. at least the file's metadata might be necessary to prove authorship). This is why I suggest the edit histories of the respective files be merged, instead of the old files simply be uncategorized and deleted. If you agree, would you be so kind to provide a list here, so that an administrator may consider performing those merges? Thank you.

P.S. Moving the old files into a special category is also a solution and might indeed proof easier, although it would not help restore any derivative links that might exist between the files (yet, in case of many maps, I hope that they might be believed to be recreated rather than derived, because of their overall simplicity). --Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I know, but there were so many of these files I got a bit overwhelmed and didn't write a better edit summary. If it is technically possible to merge edit histories then I am all for it. Although in a limited number of cases it might be a problem. For an example file "Visa policy of Ukraine" might have been updated last three months ago, and someone may have uploaded a new file "visa policy of Ukraine 2014 update" one month ago but this file may have contained errors and was never used, if we would merge them, it would end up being a main file. So merging should be done only if the last update was to the main file. I will compile a list.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your cooperation, Twofortnights. As per the instructions at the top of this page, requests for history merging or splitting should actually be filed there. Therefore, please try to post your list there, thank you.  I withdraw my nomination --Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:TorcaST

Was anyone ever in contact with TorcaST (talk · contribs)? During recent-uploads patrol I stumbled over his upload File:Clown-topper-hat-20003.jpg, which I found highly suspicious of copyvio. When I then checked his 18 earlier uploads, I found a number of them of high quality and shot using professional camera models (Nikon D3, Nikon D2, Canon 1D Mark III, Canon 5D Mark II). Needless to say that I found all of them published earlier and credited to different authors. Also, in nearly all of his uploads the description-entries were filled with similar random characters such as "ss" or "sasassh" (source) and "sasasasasa" or "asdsssssss" (description). Also, the date-entry was "11.11.1999" or "11.11.1988" in two thirds of his uploads.
However, despite of all these warnings signs, he has remained successfully below our radar since March 2013. Until today, he had neither any deleted uploads nor a talkpage note. --Túrelio (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

May I ask why you did not delete the remaining two files? Seems this user can't be trusted on his own work claims. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 04:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't delete any of his uploads; I've marked for speedy deletion all those files, for which I was able to find an earlier source. I've left the actual deletions for my colleagues, just to avoid basing this case completely on my own judgement. For File:Hajduk1995.jpg I've now also found an earlier source, though I've some doubt whether it's really copyrightable. --Túrelio (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Donnersbergerbruecke-Woodland.JPG

Dear Admins,

according to the German FAQ I ask you to delete the first version of File:Donnersbergerbruecke-Woodland.JPG. The reason is, that there is a license plate visible and due to data privacy I think it shouldn't be visible in Commons. I removed the license plate in the current version, so current version could stay. Thank you very much in advance, --Qaswed (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Túrelio deleted the old version (see here). --Qaswed (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

File:BundyMilitiaSymbol.png

This is an "invented" symbol purportedly from the "Bundy militia". It was added to the project by an wp-en user who is advocating that there is such a thing as a "Bundy militia". The article is under AFD at we-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bundy_militia

I am not familiar with commons policies, and if there are any limitations on advocacy.

Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done I tagged the file as no license. Taivo (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Restore picture deletions?

hi, i uploaded a bunch of ice hockey player pictures from a flickr account that were correctly deleted at the time. Upon contact, the photographer agreed to change the licensing to be freely used on wikipedia again. Not sure if this is the right domain to ask, but can the deleted pictures be retrieved by someone? or do i have to upload them all again? the pictures in question are all listed in my talk page. cheers for any insight or help Triggerbit (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Administrators have right to restore deleted photos. No need to re-upload, but you must give filenames and proof, that the files are now in public domain. OTRS-permission is a good solution. Taivo (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

File:War Ensign of Norway (1814).svg

Can an admin please cleanup the history back to Roede's first revert? The other 4 rapid succession reverts were unnecessary. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done by Fastily. Taivo (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Anathéoresis

Hi. Please delete uploads by User:Anathéoresis. All low resolution, captured from here, no exif, no metadata, used to promote pseudoparapsycology technic. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct link is User:Anatheóresis. It's not unlikely that the uploader is associated with grau-anatheoresis.com. --Túrelio (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe but... Where's OTRS? Besides, it's more possible an SPA. If you prefer I open a DR, no problem. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Is more appropriate, also as the files are on Commons since 2010. --Túrelio (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I read no longer ago than CR violations shouldn´t be on DR, but as I said, no problem at all. Cheers. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It always depends on the circumstances. In this case, at least it doesn't look as a blatant copyvio, as opposed to a professional agency shot, which needs immediate deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you're right. They're only tiny, very low quality, no exif, no metada data but, why I'll think this is not an internet capture? Anyway... Cheers. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

File:ENZA.jpg

Hi, I request the deletion of the latest version of the picture because it is a duplicate of file:Enza.jpg, which is a copyvio. Thanks, Gpmat (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

BSicon request

Could somebody please delete these? Thanks. YLSS (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Taivo (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Maneators of Kamaun Urdu.pdf

Plz rename the File:Maneators of Kamaun Urdu.pdf to File:کماؤں کے آدم خور.pdf , Thanks محمد شعیب (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted by Fastily (Copyright violation) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted picture from article Stefan Dąbek from Polish Wikipedia

Hi, admin named Masur deleted today picture File:Por. Stefan Jan Dąbek.jpg from article Stefan Dąbek from Polish Wikipedia. He did it without any reason and explanation. May I know what is going on ? Regards Tomaszkrak (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted as a copyright violation, but I see you've already asked Masur for an explanation. Why not wait until he replies, becuase nobody else is likely to know his reasons? Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

How long should I wait for his reply? I'd like his decision to be cancelled right now, because it's wrong. I'm the owner of this picture, which means that in opinion of admin Masur, I violated my own copywright. Great issue to the cabaret. Regards Tomaszkrak (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Though I wasn't involved, I wonder how you can claim to be the photographer of this image, when the depicted, per :pl:Stefan Dąbek, has died in 1939. How old are you? --Túrelio (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

And the image appeared here in 2012 (credited to "Teresa's family Krzyżanowska"), whereas Tomaszkrak uploaded it March 2014. Эlcobbola _talk 16:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The caption of this photo in the pl.wp article mentioned that it was from 1935. It would really help if you explained how you became the owner of the copyright on this photo and when and where the photo was first published. Depending on the circumstances of the first publication, the photo might be in the public domain. If it is not in the public domain and if you are the legal heir of the photographer, then given the fact that the photo has been previously published, a confirmation by OTRS of your status as the legal heir could probably resolve the matter. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read what I'm writing carefully ok ? 1) I didn't say I'm the photographer of this image - I said I'm the owner of this image. I hope now You see the difference. 2) Image is on www.bohaterowie1939.pl because I PUT IT ON THERE. Image is coming from great old photo album full of historical images of my family mambers&friends starting from begining of XX century. 3) Teresa Krzyżanowska is my mother. Tomaszkrak is me. 4) I became the owner of this image (and many others), because it is our family album. It was established by my grandfather. I'm the only grandson, so that is why I'm the owner and I do care about it now, because my mom is too old. 5) I don't remember date of first publication of this image or any other from my family album. Why should I ? 6) I put this image (and many others) on MANY MORE WEBSITES (which you even not found) and I will continue this action, to commemorate heroes from my family. I don't understand your investigation. Gentlemen, what kind of problem you have ?? regards Tomaszkrak (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

ad 1) Simply not true. You wrote "author=Tomaszkrak" into the description of File:Por. Stefan Jan Dąbek.jpg. It might have been an error, but you wrote that. --Túrelio (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

We care about copyright. Old family albums can be problematic in that manner, since copyright does not necessarily follow physical possession, and technically as long as your mother is alive, it's unlikely you own the copyright. This is not unresolvable, but it's probably necessary for you to email COM:OTRS with all the details of who the photographers were and who owns the image rights now, with their permission.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

If my old family album is problem for You, it's too bad. Stay away from my mother. You want me to email COM:OTRS with question who owns my image ?? You must be crazy dear. Good bye. Tomaszkrak (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I have now blocked @Tomaszkrak for a week for repeatedly uploading unfree files; as Masur rightly pointed out on their talk page (in Polish), the picture of Stefan Dąbek is an orphan work, and we cannot determine its authors. I'll leave a message on Tomaszkrak's talk page shortly. odder (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

DRs need speedy closure

Can an admin please speedy close the following DRs? They are obviously invalid and a case of "I don't like it, I think there's something better".

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turkey emblem circle.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turkey circular emblem.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turk-emb.gif
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of the President of Turkey.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Presidential Seal of the Republic of Turkey.svg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Presidential Seal of Turkey.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cumhurbaskanligiforsu.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of the Republic of Turkey.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:MfaLogoTR.svg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of the Republic of Turkey.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tbturkey.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cumhurbaskanligiforsu.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:TC DA aa (21)(2).jpg

Fry1989 ^eh? 17:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done, Fry1989 perhaps in future you could simply let the nominator know that we are a repository and files don't need to be in use to be in COM:SCOPE. russavia (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Undelete request

Hello all - another undelete request: File:Mansoor-IJAZ.jpg. Release is ticket:2014050210012144 now in the permissions-commons queue. Thanks much. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done, COM:UNDEL the next time, pleas. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Hah, I didn't know about that. Will do from now on, thanks again! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please delete an image

Hallo Admins, can someone please delete this image. It is a auction painting. I have seen too late that the auction is only on 12 May 2014. I will then re-upload the image after mid-May. thanks and greetings. --Trzęsacz (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks --Trzęsacz (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please unprotect File:Fuwafuwa-chan.jpg

The old 2011 protection is almost certainly no longer needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done, unprotected. Thanks for the heads up. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 03:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

astronomy star charts

Second page of star charts has photo of singers, i.e. Trey Songz, Naughty by Nature, etc.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=50&offset=100&profile=default&search=star+charts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.136.68 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 5 May 2014‎ (UTC)

No surprise. If you search for "star" and "charts", that's likely to happen. Both words are overloaded in English -- they can have several meanings. The singers are included because the file description pages (quite legitimately) include those words, with their meanings as "star = famous person" and "charts = sales ranking of songs". Try searching for "star chart" instead, that gives somewhat better results if you're looking for celestial maps. Lupo 13:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: though I must say, the descriptions of these singers' photos should be trimmed down. Lupo 13:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I did trim most of them down (there's a few more); they don't include those words anymore. Lupo 14:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Flag inappropriate images for deletion

How can someone flag an inappropriate image for deletion? I have found one such image: File:Lombasimbolo.png. Its author is pretending that's the symbol (blazon) of some village, but in fact is a derogatory prank (a photo montage of a hay stack). I think it should be removed, but I don't know how to flag it for that purpose. Gazilion (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted by Fastily at 21:26, 5 May 2014.

Please rename category

Could someone please rename the wrong spelled Category:Falterstraße 22 Dettelbach) to Category:Falterstraße 22 (Dettelbach)? Thank you. --Tommes ^{(Roter Frosch)} 20:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Cats cannot be renamed. You can simply create the new one, transfer the content from the old one, and tag the old one for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Catrin (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer release on Commons next week

Dear fellow admins, next week we'll get MMV. That means that a single click on an image does not take you to the file description page anymore. If you like to restore the old behaviour, please confer to:

• How can I bypass Media Viewer?
• How can I turn off this feature?

-- Rillke^(q?) 19:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The release to Commons has been delayed by 2 weeks. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should disable the Gadget-GallerySlideshow by default then?    FDMS  4    18:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

My photos

Hello. I am a former Wikimedist. I installed my photos on Wikimedia Commons. Now, I have nothing to do with this site. So, I want delete comes to photos. Contrary to to contribute for the pictures I have uploaded, these photographs are unnecessary. It also bothers me so much. Please delete that photos. For links ;

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Can_Atakan.JPG
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Can_Atakan2.JPG
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Can_Atakan3.JPG
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Signature_of_Can_Atakan.png

CAN ATAKAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.66.207.40 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 5 May 2014‎ (UTC)

 Done by Taivo Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have two problems with this, both moderately serious. The first is that we have no way of knowing that the person making the unsigned request above (83.66.207.40) is actually User:İdvadimela who uploaded the files. This could easily be a prank.

The second is that we have a standard procedure for deleting files that do not qualify for {{Speedy}} -- they get a DR. Requiring a DR would have raised the question of the identity of the requester. It also would have dealt with the fact that we do not generally delete files at the request of the uploader. These appear to fit an exception to that, as they appear to be unused personal files, but, again, a DR would have been appropriate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Franz.Vallée.jpg

Hi! I wanted to let you know that under unknown circumstances this file was restored due to my steward access. I haven't pushed any button but asked a sysop of Commons to restore it instead. Maybe my computer misinterpreted my action, I really don't know. I sincerely apologize for this mistake. Maybe I should ask for sysop access on Commons anyway but I commit myself to avoiding such mistakes in the future. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I hereby confirm, that DerHexer asked me in the chat to restore the file. greetings -- Ra'ike T C 12:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hexy abusing his 'stewardiness powahs!!'..OFF with his head!! .. ...--Stemoc (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Off with his head? I thought you were supposed to bind them and throw them in water first! --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 05:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Cameras for Commons Photographers grants

Is there a Commons admin who would be willing to coordinate this program and measure outcomes? I am not a Commons admin although I would be willing to submit to a Commons RfA so that I could coordinate it with the community's permission if no current admin wants to coordinate the program. I discussed this on Beria's talk page awhile back but she has taken no action (User talk:Beria#Cameras for Commons Photographers grants) and I think a pilot project would be well received by the Commons community. I am hoping that the project promotes quality, quantity, and diversity of Commons contributions. --Pine^✉ 06:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason why the project has to be coordinated by an administrator. odder (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

+1. Having sysop rights has no relation to a personal interest in camera equipment and photography, or running a project like this. You may have more success asking for volunteers on the village pump and possibly putting an email out on wikimedia-l. See m:Grants:IdeaLab/Cameras for Commons photographers. --Fæ (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree with both of the comments above. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Fæ the IdeaLab page is the primary documentation for this proposal. The reason I suggested that a commons admin should coordinate this program is so that the admin can close the discussions, but since the consensus here is that adminship isn't necessary, I'm pinging Sbouterse (WMF) to see if she would accept a non-admin coordinator. --Pine^✉ 18:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. While agree that restricting this to an Admin is not necessarily the right way to go, this is a position of trust, one involving giving out money. It seems to me that the person chosen should be known to the community and that there might be a process similar to that required for Admin. It might also be possible to delegate the picking to a group of people trusted by the community. Such a group should be geographically and linguistically diverse. It might even take on the task of trying to figure out where Commons is weak -- both geographically and by subject -- and encourage applications from colleagues who could help with those needs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it seems common sense for a Commons focused funded programme to have people active and known on this project to make key decisions. "Coordination" may not actually be the decision making/strategy, so this might fall out in the project details, for example there may be a review panel to check and prioritize proposals for purchases (which puts less strain on individuals). It might be an idea to raise comments on the IdeaLab page. --Fæ (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just poking this discussion so it's not archived. I'll leave a note on Siko's talk page to try to get her attention more effectively. --Pine^✉ 06:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Behaviour of administrator Denniss

This administrator for a long time stalking user on two pictures [7], [8]. How long will no longer be cheeky, showing its one-sidedness and passions? --Kolega2357 (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Pleas discuss changes on the relevant talkpage. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: This is a good place to discuss admin behaviour. As far as I can see, what @Denniss is doing is clear abuse of his admin status: it is unacceptable for an admin to engage in an edit war, and then protect the page to make sure it stays the way he likes it to. @Denniss: please refrain from taking part in any Kosovo- and Europe map-related edit wars; especially, please do not use your admin tools to affect such edit wars, as it is clear that you are heavily biased towards one of the options. odder (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh. I have not seen the protections. Involved admins shouldn't protect files self. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Protection reverted as a matter of principle. Page protection should never be applied by an admin participating in a dispute -FASTILY 10:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

[9] Fastily can you unlock this picture? --Kolega2357 (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

He should be desysopped. It is not first time and he is using his privileges to dictate his views to all projects. -- Bojan  Talk  11:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bojan, could you check the archives (search link at the top of this page) and provide links to the past cases? It is better to raise a complaint with direct links to supporting evidence. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Fæ [10] -- Bojan  Talk  11:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Imho Denniss is doing a good job in general, but his action was not okay. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

JFI it's the typical Serbian gang trying to revert Kosovo-related maps to their view and then complaining about every user or Admin involved in reverting/protecting them here on AN, calling them vandals or accusing them of misuse of Admin power. That's as misuse of AN and close to vandalism especially if there's already a variant image with their view like at File:Serbia map modern.png. Bobrayner me and two or three other users created variant images to settle the issue the last time they appeared in late 2013 (other gang members though). It wouldn't surprise me of there's a thread at sr wiki calling for concerting action against these files and anyone reverting/protecting them.--Denniss (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Denniss: It is quite unacceptable for you as an administrator to call users you don't agree with a gang. As far as I see, you were involved in the edit war over several images, and you used your admin privileges to gain advantage by protecting the controversial images. This is a huge no–no, especially as it's not the first time you did that. odder (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I called them gang because of the experience from several months ago, a group of serbian editors appeared out of nowhere to start edit-warring on maps. Same now, situation with maps was stable for some months and out of nowhere this revert-war started and, as pointed out above, even on maps that had a serbian alternative version clearly visible as other version. We have/had similar problems with the Crimea annexation by Russia, in the end we had at least two (sometimes three) map versions of this area; one each having Crimea with UKR/RUS and one with Crimea as disputed between the two. Kosovo is different as it's widely recognized by most European and several other states across the world, many maps have been update to show Kosovo at Minimum as disputed, for historic purposes some were left unchanged while others have been update to reflect reality with Kosovo removed from serbian maps. And I won't stop protecting these maps from nationalistic-motivated edits/reverts. On the other AN thread I have asked for maps that are in need of split to show the serbian view but I fail to see constructive input from the users now requesting my desysop. BTW they started the same game with Bobrayner some months ago, first calling him Vandal and tried to get him blocked. One or two other users were attacked too.--Denniss (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Denniss, we don't come out of nowhere, we are contributors for years. Your revision of this map does not show Kosovo as minimum as disputed, it shows it as sovereign state equal to other Serbian neighbors. There is not an alternative map that follows standard set by Nord-NordWest. Upload new maps under different name. Is that so hard? -- Bojan  Talk  17:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Denniss:This is a clear demagogy, that what you are rude, but your problem is, and it does not mean that others will solve this. You are not better than bobrayner and other but you are their accomplice. --Kolega2357 (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is big violation of rules. Someone must react. Commons:OVERWRITE If another editor thinks that a change is not an improvement (even if the editor making the change thinks it minor), the change can be reverted. Once a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename (unless the reverting editor explicitly or implicitly agrees to the contested change). This user is vandal, as he violated rules. Old versions before this was in place for years in peace. If he want to have new map, must create new one with new name. Old versions, original version of files must be restored. --Anastan (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

 Comment Just regarding the Serbia and Kosovo issue; I actually agree with Denniss on the points. It is almost always Serbian (or Serbia-supporting) users who refuse to acknowledge the current "reality" who are the ones stirring up the trouble by altering maps to re-insert Kosovo, and then using faulty arguments such as "Kosovo's not a member of the UN" as if United Nations membership is the magic factor even though there are many undisputed independent countries who are not members. However, when this flared up a few years ago ago with some other maps I was interested in, the unofficial policy that came out of it was that we leave the maps the way they were originally uploaded. If it was uploaded with Kosovo as part of Serbia it should be left that way and an alternative counterpart with Kosovo as independent should be uploaded separately, and the same should be done in the reverse situation. But in the case of File:Serbia map modern.png this is further complicated by the fact that the original uploader made the file with Kosovo as part of Serbia, but later removed it themselves. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thats not unofficial policy, its viki rule! Commons:OVERWRITE Its not important what political status is. Here should have both images, and vikipedias should decide what to use. I saw one file on local wiki, and i was thinking someone added different file. But no, it was changing of the file without deal. But this dennis does not want to add new files, as those files will not already be all over viki. So, it all about "i want to be like that, and i dont care for rules". originally uploaded images must be send back. --Anastan (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It was the unofficial agreement that came out of the issue several years ago when I was dealing with it. There is no official policy regarding the Serbia & Kosovo dispute, and Commons:OVERWRITE does not strictly cover the matter. As I mentioned above, it was the original uploader of that file who later decided to alter it. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That only one image. rEst should be bring back. Anyone else', what to do now? --Anastan (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem? Keep all images...

I am trying to understand the nature of the dispute here. If I understand the above, some individuals from what is now Serbia prefer a different map of their region from that preferred by other individuals from Kosovo. If you are from Kosovo, and you notice the Serbian wikipedia uses maps you think is inaccurate, why not just let them have their way?

Canada, where I am from, had periods where several European countries had colonies. And the commons contains maps that attempt to show France administered a very large portion of North America. I try not to get my knickers in a knot over these fantasy maps. I suggest this is what Serbs and Kosvars should do. Where should discussions as to which map is accurate happen? Why shouldn't they happen on the talk pages of the articles that would use one of the maps? Geo Swan (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that Kosovar users see themselves as independent and are offended by maps showing otherwise. Serb users see Kosovo as "the heart of Serbia" and are offended by maps that show it independent. Both sides have fought over maps because of this. The easiest definition: Pride. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Pride? Rather nationalism.    FDMS  4    09:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Usually, Wikipedias except that maps (except with a date in in their filenames) get updated if changes happen. Also, everyone seeing the Kosovo as part of Serbia would consider the filename Serbia map modern.png a misleading name (and vice versa), so just uploading a different version does not necessarily solve the problem.    FDMS  4    09:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

'modern' implies 'current' but could be changed into 'as of 2008'. Better suggestions? --Denniss (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "Serbia (with Kosovo)" and "Serbia (without Kosovo)". russavia (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

More improtant. Current maps that have Serbia with Kosovo, and that are in use all over viki must stay like that, and new ones without it must be uploaded under new name. No one here can decide in the name of local viki to change maps that had Kosovo on it for years. Who wanted, already used map without on some places. If we do not restore original versions, that would also be nationalism, but not Serbian, but Kosovar. Administrators follow Commons:OVERWRITE rule. Changes to a file that are likely to be contested should be uploaded to a separate filename. That was the problem, not the maps. We mostly have maps of Serbia with and without already, but old maps must stay like that. Commons is not the place to decide what map version is the best. We must have both. --Anastan (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

But then the question arises "what happens when things change?". What happens when Kosovo is admitted to the UN, or when more countries recognize Kosovo as independent than the number of countries who do not? Are we to keep both for as long as Serbia refuses to recognize Kosovo's independence even if Serbia is the last one? Our job is to keep updated current maps while Wikipedia has NPOV policies regarding what files can and can not be used. The current reality is that Kosovo is no longer a political or territorial part of Serbia, no matter whether you think it should or shouldn't be. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Paneuropean railway corridor x serbia.JPG

Administrators please delete second version of this picture. In first version in not Paneuropean railway corridor x serbia already [11] Stara Pazova railway station. --Kolega2357 (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done I deleted not the second, but the first version, because it was copy of File:Stara Pazova railway station.JPG. Taivo (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Cropbot

The TUSC account creation server is down; could someone with a TUSC account use User:Cropbot crop File:Mary_Ellen_Best_-_An_Interior_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg to remove the black lines at the bottom and right? Please do not remove too much of the white material, as it looks better to have a little bit of a white matting than to crop out parts of the painting awkwardly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No admin action needed. @Bugs: Pleas contact the bot owner. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, i have cropped it with a more reliable tool..--Stemoc (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Dead bodies?

Anyone want to take a look at Talk:Main Page#Dead bodies? Ed ^{[talk] [en:majestic titan]} 20:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Slick for attention and comment, if any (as one who nominated it). I (personally) see no big issue here. Jee 02:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Pristurus too as one who mostly handle that page. Jee 05:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice: This looks like a POINTY nomination while a discussion is going on. Note that it failed at FPC too. :) Jee 05:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I failed to found any policy on "main page" contents. But I see in a previous FPC talk, Mattbuck stated that "As a project, we are not censored. While I accept that such content is not appropriate for the front page, surely not all FPs need to go on the front page? I know en.wp has FAs which are about non-family-friendly topics - they get the status, they just never appear on the front page." So I doubt whether today's MOTD is suitable in main page as the file description clearly states "The video is uncensored and includes lesbian eroticism and gratuitous nipple shots." Jee 07:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of copyvios

Special:Contributions/NASCAR_fan444 watermarked pictures, seems to be copied from internet.--Motopark (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of. --Túrelio (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

User warned. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

fyi: Edit-War-Protector

Hello, When editwarring (Three reverts in ~one day) AbuseFilter will show this warning. Potential editwars are logged here. If you disagree, feel free to disable the filter. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you establish a consensus somewhere for your Skynet style protection bot? I would have liked to question this as a policy issue, in my view, far too much salting and protection is going on without adequate evidence that these are sufficiently time-limited to reflect the actual long term disruption to the project. This reminds me, a lot, of the way that the English Wikipedia has approached welcoming new editors with a page full of impersonal warning messages. --Fæ (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not a bot and it dos not block zero. It shows only a warning if users are editwarring. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did not believe it blocked. However it does issue automated warnings to our contributors. How does it do that, if it is not a bot and was there any consensus to automate these warnings or the criteria required for this to happen? --Fæ (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems only shows a warning message on the edit screen as when I forget to give an edit summary? Jee 15:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, it dos not "block" a user. Maybe changing the name of the Filter? From Edit-War-Protector to Edit-War-Warning or so? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you publish a step by step explanation of what this bot does, and exactly what the criteria are please? It is obviously doing more than publishing a passive report.

I am assuming that the answer to the question "is there a consensus" is no. --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

See Special:AbuseFilter/132 --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I remain concerned that this bot does not enact a previously agreed consensus, guideline or policy on Commons. The Edit Warring document that the BP links to is actually a definition on Meta. This will raise questions, such as whether automated warnings such as this would side step the criteria in BP that a warning should be given by the administrator. Could you please create an RFC or a proposal so that this bot has solid evidence of a consensus and an appropriate discussion of the scenarios that this now enables? I am not asking that the bot be disabled, only that the consensus lays a proper foundation for its actions in issuing automated user warnings that one would normally expect administrators to control. --Fæ (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a RFC because this is a minor change. Too much bureaucracy. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Fæ. This not a minor change, and the fact that you've attempted to dodge the question, on the flawed premise of 'much bureaucracy', is troubling. Aside from the obvious fact that this filter is intrusive, it will undoubtedly result in a high probability of false-positives, in which innocent, good faith users (and more disturbingly, newbies), will be inappropriately slammed with an ugly warning. A simple use cases where this filter will be wrong: there is currently no way to detect whether a user is reverting themselves, whether users were edit warring and agreed on a resolution in which one party implemented it with a revert, etc, etc. That said, I've disabled the filter until we have established community consensus for it. -FASTILY 20:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Implementing an AbuseFilter that gives a friendly reminder if something bad is going on that may lead to blocks: Why does it need wider consensus? Fastily, is there something personal between you and Steinsplitter? If it is the case, I suggest you're going to have longer discussion somewhere off the AN. Immediately. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Fæ, it's AbuseFilter; it's not a bot. A bot would act after something happened while AbuseFilter is triggered while pressing "save page". Personally, I see it as a friendly extra-warning. For example, not all API clients may be able to display that warning so amending the policy towards counting that as the final warning appears to be wrong to me. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, having not played with AbuseFilter (I think it's for admins only anyway) I'm not familiar with this corner of Commons. --Fæ (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "Edit-War-Warning"; since it only makes a warning. I think it is a helpful tool as chances that sometimes I may forget I'm going much aggressive. An it allows to boldly neglect the warning, if needed. :) Jee 15:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Name changed --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It should exempt users editing in their own userspace. --Fæ (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you for bringing this up. It was my fault: Steinsplitter asked me to review the filter and I didn't foresee that issue. Apologies for not being able reverting nag-free in your sandbox. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted Fastily because he has a dispute with Steinsplitter because he reported him to user problems because of FastilyClone. Clearly a conflict of interest. Best to leave it to someone else. Natuur12 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Categories by year by country

I was categorizing some files when I noticed that the Category:2011 concerts has categories sorted by country. Following the logic I have seen in Commons, I created the Category:2011 concerts by country. The issue is that the categorization of those categories is made by templates, for example, {{Concerts in Ukraine by year}}, which inserts the category directly in 2011 concerts, and changing the template would lead to a mass recategorization. So, before making my move, I would want to check with you if it's OK to go foward or the category I created should be deleted. Regards, Varied Surf Igloo (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest removing the "stealth" category from the template so that it has to be explicit on pages that use it. Apart from possible "bucket" categories in credit lines, this way of designing templates is frequently more of a pain than a benefit. --Fæ (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please close this DR

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smartphone.jpg, thanks--Motopark (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: This filename could probably get salted …    FDMS  4    10:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Salting seems an extreme use of sysop tools for a filename, considering this is only the only upload since the first time in 2012. It is a useful filename, it would be great if a volunteer were able to use it for a generic representative image. At this rate the Commons community is in danger of turning every useful English word into a protected page as a "precaution"; it all seems a bit unnecessarily bureaucratic and un-mellow. --Fæ (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It was undeleted (existing) for half a year … Are you thinking of creating unified generic images for every subject (like the ones for sexual activities)? If not, a generic representative image uploaded as Smartphone.jpg would not be a generic representative image anymore, but one of a lot of generic images, and therefore no longer representative. The same applies to filenames such as Cat.jpg and Dog.jpg as well.    FDMS  4    12:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand the point you are making, it seems to have got convoluted. There is nothing wrong with Cookie.jpg, it's a generic cookie, what's wrong with that and what would be the benefit of forcing "Cookie" to be red-link for eternity? --Fæ (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No, in my opinion your cookie is neither generic nor representative, and there are definitely better filenames for it. I do not suggest salting all filenames only consisting of one English word, but the word smartphone has a lot of uploads every day related to it.    FDMS  4    14:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hebrew speake required: Author requesting removal of all his contributions

Edkaprov (talk · contribs) has recently started to request removal of all his contributions to Commons. I closed these deletion requests as Keep but I'm afraid he is still struggling to understand why we do not delete freely licensed imagery. Could a Hebrew speaker please explain to him what it means that CC licenses are not revokable? Thanks and regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque

This is running since April 23. Jee 14:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Deleted: Unfortunately no FOP in Oman. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Abderitestatos

Hi, once more User:Abderitestatos practices imho a destruktive behaviour, repeatedly since imho about 2008, please see User talk:Abderitestatos. User:Abderitestatos's imho disruptive actions shown by his past Edits since yesterday are these times concentrated to category:Turicum. Several deletion requests within the past Minuten imho may also been misread as Personal Attacks ... Please mediate once more and please implent - for User:Abderitestatos' continously practiced disruptive actions - restrictions. Thank you and best regards, Roland zh (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The right place would be Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems.    FDMS  4    14:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi,thank you and please excuse, Roland zh (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Concerns About The page Here

The page Here Seems to have a incorrect Copyright Licenseing Because The same user made the Page (on wikipedia) Here Says it was made by a Guy named "Alfonso Carrillo de Acuña" In theroy The painting Would be in the Public Domain Because It's Older than 70 Years. I am not the most familiar about Commons Policy but I'm pretty sure this wouldn't go by Normally Dudel250 (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I changed the license to PD-Art. Yann (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Block please

Please block User:206.176.123.195 he is vandalising and ignoring warnings.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done - blocked for 3 days. Nick (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:LGA/Files restored by Ezarate

I am requesting administrative action relating to Yann's closing of this DR, he is clearly involved in the whole ignoring the URAA and as a result should not have closed this.

It should not have been closed as keep, not a single person contributing to the DR addressed the fact that the images are copyrighted in the US, they all hid behind the "we are going to ignore a Law we don't like" the COM:PRP requires that we delete these images as copyrighted in the US. LGA _talk^edits 22:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sincerely, the deletions, undeletions, appealings of the decissions because any users ignores the WMF board resolutions is a waste of time Ezarateesteban 22:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The WMF is the owner of the Commons servers and this foundations doesn't fear legal actions, so I don't see why we have to delete this pictures Ezarateesteban 22:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you read that before you posted it ? Are you saying that just because we don't fear legal action for something that we should do it even though we know it is against the law ? LGA _talk^edits 23:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a particular stake in the outcome of how we deal with URAA, but I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of seeing this come up over and over. Perhaps the two opposing sides should be locked in a padded room until you all work it out. Or we could acknowledge the pretty clear !vote in which it was decided URAA is no longer a reason alone to delete images. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Laws don't work like that, we cant take a !vote to ignore a law we do not happen to like. LGA _talk^edits 03:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well except that they did. I didn't join in the !vote either way, I'm just saying everyone needs to get on the same track. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have enough time to deal with this issue, however, even when kept, shouldn't all these files be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}? Currently only a few of them are tagged. --Túrelio (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Since Yann has now restored them after they had been deleted, I here by give to the Administrators, in accordance with 17 U.S. Code § 512 (c) (A) (i), "actual knowledge" of the fact the following files are copyright in the US by virtue of the URAA; further; in accordance with 17 U.S. Code § 512 (c) (A) (ii) I am providing the Administrators with "aware[ness] of facts or circumstances", namely Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:LGA/Files restored by Ezarate, "from which infringing activity is apparent" :

• File:Alfredo Zitarrosa (diario Cronica - 1976).jpg
• File:Alfredo Zitarrosa 1974.jpg
• File:Alfredo Zitarrosa en 1972a.jpg
• File:Alfredo Zitarrosa en 1972b.jpg
• File:Alfredo Zitarrosa en 1972c.jpg
• File:Alfredo Zitarrosa junto a sus guitarristas en 1972.jpg
• File:Obera-1974.jpg
• File:Obera-calo-1973.jpg
• File:Obera-centro-1973.jpg
• File:Obera-cincuentenario-1978.jpg
• File:Obera-libertad-1973.jpg
• File:Obera-ruta-1973.jpg
• File:Perla Santalla.JPG

and request that the Administrators act "expeditiously to remove" so that the DCMA Shield provisions of 17 U.S. Code § 512 (c) are not negated. LGA _talk^edits 10:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

According to WMF the community decides if the only deletion reason is URAA, in this case it has voted against deletion. Even Fastily should respect this. If they are free in the country of origin they should not be deleted via URAA unless the WMF receives a takedown notice.--Denniss (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you read 17 U.S. Code § 512 ? they should also act if they receive "actual knowledge" or "aware[ness] of facts or circumstances" of infringement or not have the protection of the DCMA Shield. LGA _talk^edits 11:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are that confident in your arguments please explain this to the WMF lawyers who advised against URAA deletions. --Denniss (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No they did not @Denniss: . Remember, the WMF and WMF lawyers can only speak for the WMF and their own liability. Other than this, we are on our own. Did you read the URAA brief prepared by the WMF which goes into detail on their own liability? russavia (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@russavia: Yes, they did, even if you refuse to admit it. BTW, you contradict yourself here. If "we are on our own", why can't we keep these files? And don't tell me, because of the law. The main reason we don't allow files which still have a copyright in USA is because the WMF and the servers are there. Now if they don't care, your reason for opposing it disappeared. I've already asked several times a real answer to this, and I am still waiting... Regards, Yann (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen any evidence that WMF Legal advised volunteers on Commons with regard to how they must handle URAA deletions. If anyone has a link, please include it here and I would be happy to take this to the head of WMF Legal for an official clarification as to whether the statement they or another WMF employee has made was legal advice that we can reproduce in a court of law. In the meantime, everybody please follow the best practice of avoiding making any statement with regard to the project receiving legal advice, unless you can produce a diff or a link to an archived email showing the advice we have received from an attorney. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fæ: Hi, This statement from WMF legal is what I was refering to. In short, it says that the WMF does not see a reason to delete content simply because of general concern about the URAA. Yann (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yann, thanks for the link. The same page says "... we can't provide legal advice to community members." This fact reconfirmed in your source by WMF Legal is in direct contradiction to the statement above by Denniss of "the WMF lawyers who advised against URAA deletions" and your consequent rejection of Russavia's correction. I hope that this point at least can be considered closed. --Fæ (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fæ: I think you are a bit playing on words here. I think that when Denniss says "advised", it does not mean it is a "legal advice to community members." May be, he should not use the word "advised", nevertheless, it doesn't change WMF's statement. You supported restoration of these files here, so I am interested to know what is your interpretation of the WMF's statement. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

See Commons:Review_of_Precautionary_principle#Fae. --Fæ (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite interested in the statement "we are on our own", particularly the "we" bit, not just on this issue but generally. I'm aware that the uploader of copyright media for which no free licence exists could get into trouble. And in certain circumstances, WMF could be liable (e.g. they refuse to act after a take down notice). And our re-users could be liable for their publication of copyright images they got from Commons. But outside of those groups, are any of us liable for anything? Does voting keep on a deletion discussion make one party to the consequences? Is an admin who restores a deleted file liable? If I cropped an image on Commons that I believed in good faith to be free, and uploaded the cropped image as an alternative file, would I be liable to any consequences if it turns out not to be free? -- Colin (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Colin: I am not sure about your cropping example, but in other cases you mentioned above, only the uploader may be liable. Even an admin who restored an image is not in any way credited to anything (although s/he is when doing a revert to an old version). Regards, Yann (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Yann: do you accept that these images are not PD in the US then ? LGA _talk^edits 21:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Yann: given your non-answer to the above and the direct question on your talk page, can we assume that you accept that these images are not PD in the US and the refusal to remove them is an indication that you and commons will now tolerate copyrighted material being hosted ? LGA _talk^edits 22:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@LGA: Seeing your agressive behaviour, I don't think I have to answer to you. You are not allowed to judge anyone here, including me. Yann (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Yann: 1. I don;t think I am being aggressive; 2. I am not judging you; and 3. As an administrator, who restored the images after they had been deleted, you do owe it to the community to explain your reasoning why and especially with relation to their PD status in the US. LGA _talk^edits 11:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of why these files were deleted or undeleted, my understanding is that:

1. The WMF have stated that where the URAA is the only concern (i.e. if it were not for the URAA then the file would not be in copyright in the United States), then the file does not need to be deleted unless a valid takedown notice is received by the relevant people at the WMF (those officially authorised to act for the designated agent (presently Sue Gardner, but presumably Lila Tretikov from 1 June).
2. The WMF complies only with takedown notices that WMF Legal or those explicitly authorised by the Wikimedia Foundation consider valid.
3. Commons administrators are not so authorised

If my understandings are correct, then the "official notice" posted above does not constitute official knowledge of anything by the Foundation and so Commons administrators are under no requirement to delete anything because of it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The notice was to "administrators" rather than to the WMF. The section quoted of Copyright Infringement and Remedies is not applicable, however there is a different, more general point being made in that if a case were brought against a Commons administrator for damages (rather than the WMF who did not take action), it would not be possible to use a lack of awareness or notification as a defence.

If someone were attempting to claim damages from the WMF, at this stage it would not be possible for the WMF to assert that their legal department did "not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing", there being plenty of evidence of their engagement on these questions. Please note that words like "official" are unhelpful, the published copyright law and the US courts would be likely to take published statements on web pages (this wiki) as a record that could be produced in court as evidence of "actual knowledge".

Anyway, a deeper delve into US copyright legislation seems at best tangential for this noticeboard. --Fæ (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I will point out we regularly delete files where if it were not for the URAA then the file would not be in copyright in the United States; almost all works not first published in the US and virtually every work not first published in the US, Canada or Western Europe prior to 1989 would thus be PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Why do you say that "virtually every work not first published in the US, Canada or Western Europe prior to 1989 would thus be PD"? In most countries, the rule at least 50 years pma, so these works are not in the public domain. Only a few countries have a shorter duration. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Yann: I fail to understand what connection "most countries" have with "in copyright in the United States". The whole point of the URAA is that most non-American works lost copyright in the US due to a failure to follow American copyright requirements, and as part of the US joining the Berne convention other countries demanded those works be returned to copyright in the US. The WMF only responds to takedown notices under US law; adding "if it were not for the URAA then the file would not be in copyright in the United States" to that leaves no room for questions about "most countries".--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Is an admin going to remove these copyvio files then ? LGA _talk^edits 06:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• • No because they are not copyvios. --Denniss (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    • @Denniss: which of the criteria for not having the copyright restored do these meet then and where is that demonstrated ? Cos I have looked and cant find any. LGA _talk^edits 23:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Related discussion. Jee 10:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Answered. Jee 02:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for notification. This shows very well than LGA's forum shopping and trolling behaviour is wrong. Yann (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because others disagree with your POV does not mean that there disagreeing with you is "trolling behaviour" there are plenty of editors on here that share the view that ignoring the law is not the way forward, and asking the chair of the wmf his views is not forum shopping. LGA _talk^edits 07:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am the very last one "ignoring the law" as you say it. This is exactly a trolling statement. Stop that. Yann (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

How can your close of Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA with the statement "'URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion"" be described as not ignoring the URAA ? When, for example, we could have the situation, of a two pictures taken of Greg LeMond wining the 1986 Tour de France, by the same photographer, seconds apart, one printed by a newspaper in California with a copyright notice and the other on a advertising hoarding the marking the start of the 1987 tour in Berlin without a copyright statement, both would be copyright in the US the first due to the statement, the second due to the effect of the URAA, we would speedy delete the first and would keep the other one. LGA _talk^edits 09:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Both would rather be deleted for having no source, at least sufficient doubts about the origin of this image if it was made in Europe. If the image was made by a US citizen there would be no URAA restoration unless the copyright was registered within the given timeframe after publication. --Denniss (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

And if they were sourced to a named French Freelance photographer ? LGA _talk^edits 09:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

70 years PMA. --Denniss (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

now take the case of a Argentine freelance photographer on assignment ? LGA _talk^edits 11:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy del noms by User:Musichistory2009 after moves

Please refrain from deleting the old filenames after moves, this is not needed and may brake chains from re-users. User also claims all usages have been replaced but I have found at least 3 files of the recent speedies where he lied about this and the deleting admin forgot to check usage. User was blocked twice, the first block was by me because user insisted on having the old filenames deleted. This not a block request, just a request for admins to be careful with his speedies.--Denniss (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Denniss. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Pleas help restoring the deleted redirects --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. I will not delete redirects, requested by him in the future. (Excluding if he is the author of redirect.) Taivo (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no need to delete redirects. CommonsDelinker has delinked a lot of files because you have deleted the redirect (If you are deleting redirects you need to check at least if the redirect is used or not) :) . --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for Checkuser rights

This is to inform the community that there is a nomination for Checkuser rights here. It was agreed a couple of years ago that such requests and for Oversight (which are quite rare) should be publicised due to the high level of trust required in users with these rights. Trijnstel_talk 08:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

BSicon request

Could somebody please delete these? Thanks. YLSS (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Why? Files in use. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

All usage in templates & articles replaced. The remaining usage is a) galleries of BSicons, where it is expected that the icons with obsolete names should go redlinked or blank; or b) abandoned user sandboxes, editing which may be considered a bad tone (and is just forbidden in case of ja.wp). YLSS (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

We have lots of BSicon move requests at User:CommonsDelinker/commands/byHand, @YLSS: could you please remove those where no action is required anymore? Some may have already been replaced by a new version and further action may have an adverse effect. --Denniss (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OMG, some of these are really olde... I removed them (except a couple that are still to be replaced). This is why I use the old Special:MovePage for BSicons. YLSS (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Admins edit-war on Commons:Licensing

We seem to have a little edit war involving admins: user:Yann, user:Denniss and user:Russavia. What should be done about this?--Jarekt (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Russavia, acting on request of User:LGA, should respect the Community Consensus (a position which is obviously supported by WMF). Why doesn't he use the talk page to discuss this first? --Denniss (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Denniss: I do not wish to be dragged into the URAA dispute, so just out of curiosity, would you mind showing me a Wikimedia Foundation statement supporting the outcome of that RfC? I haven't been subscribed to most mailing lists in a while, so I might have missed it, and I would like to have a full picture of the situation. Thanks! odder (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a repetition of this. Jee 18:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Denniss. Yann (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of either position, edit warring is not acceptable for any user - let alone an administrator. Any further edits to that page without consensus discussion first should result in blocks. Thryduulf (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary de-categorization of files

Hi, i had a problem because a lot of old pictures uploaded and properly categorized for me are now de-categorized by the user Küñall. The files were correctly ordered, and he don't saying anything on the discussion tab of each category, just moved all those files. I asking that, if someone can, revert all his changes, and revise if his the right person to delete other user's job, i say this because i'm not the only that complain on his job as you can see here :nütramyen. Thank you.--Alexxxos (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

For anybody's information: See discussion at Commons:Café, there are all my reasonings, which I'm not ellaborating for a second time. küñall (nütramyen) 19:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion? You should elaborate a second time since many of us do not speak Spanish. An automatic translation will suffice but please check it personally to see that it doesn't misrepresent your case. --Pitke (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete a category

Hello. Could it be possible to delete this category ([12]), which I created. I didn't see that [13] existed. Thank you, Celette (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Didym (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Celette (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Kathy with Gopi & Matt Google+ team leaders.JPG

An user cropped the image to illustrate the subject, but replaced the original which has their co-workers. It needs attention and having two versions, the original and the cropped image, in my opinion. --Varied Surf Igloo (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

[OK] Reverted to original, uploaded crop as a separate file. This doesn't really need admin attention. Green Giant (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of Azerbaijan 1918.svg

Can any admin remove the category Category:SVG flags with an aspect ratio of 3:2 from File:Flag of Azerbaijan 1918.svg? Its latest version is not 3:2 ratio (rather 4:2). I can't do it myself, cause it's protected. Thanks --Silesianus (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Silesianus: We don't have a category for a 4:2 ratio, so I used Category:SVG flags with an aspect ratio of 2:1 — which is essentially the same thing; marking this as  resolved. odder (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I just want to remove 3:2 category :) Thanks. --Silesianus (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Review of DR's speedy closed by Denniss

Moved to COM:AN/U. Pleas keep user problems on AN/U. Thank you. --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Editwars

Can someone please stop the edit wars regarding

• File:Christianity distribution.png
• File:Christian distribution.png
• File:Christian Majority Countries-ar.png
• File:Christian distribution update.png
• File:Distribuzione delle Religioni.png
• File:World religions ENG.PNG

Check the contributions of the involved users to find even more edit wars. Thanks, -- Ies (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Both parties, at least one of which was sockpuppeting, have been blocked. I thus don't know that page protection is necessary; I'll leave that up to another admin as my involvement here was related primarily to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ich Pilot. Эlcobbola _talk 19:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Protected pages as well after continued socking. Эlcobbola _talk 20:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree image

I was working in my administrative capacity over at Wikipedia by clearing out a lot of the declined articles for creation submissions, and noticed that one such submission had an image titled File:Scar Of The Sun.jpg. Its listed here as its home-port, however I am suspicious of the claim of free use since the image is allegedly taken from a photo shoot for the band, and can be seen in a cycle of the bands photographs at the page shop.scarofthesun.com, which leads me to suspect that the image is in fact copyrighted and therefore ineligible for inclusion on the commons.

Unfortunately, though, images are not my forte, and even if they were I have admin rights only on the English Wikipedia, not the commons. Can some one more familiar with commons policy and guideline material look into this and take action on the matter if the image is judged to be copyrighted? I would appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Deleted" -- appears on a number of (c) sites, no evidence of permission. A license from the photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS will be required to restore it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Review needed

Could someone review File:World Snooker Championship 2013 day 1 session 3.jpg for me? User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 08:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Done --Denniss (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Uploads by Ginger984 (talk · contribs)

Hi, I've just tagged a few of this user's uploads as copyright violations, prompted by an OTRS query. Every single image I've looked at is webscraped and I've come to the conclusion that the entire lot are and should be deleted. Not sure if this is the correct forum, of if I have to go through the mass-nomination process. - Peripitus (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that these files have been here since 2013 I don't see the need for speedying them. I've nominated them all for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ginger984, will now fill in some of the external sources. That way, we'll have a traceable record of why these were deleted. Lupo 15:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Lupo - Peripitus (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Dorothea Lange

Someone needs to take a look at User:Dorothea lange. Their uploads are dubious copyright, and the userpage is an advert for a book on sale at a website. SpinningSpark 17:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Images seem to be colorized from LoC material and I already removed the ad link on his userpage (and your posting here). --Denniss (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez

Why has this user been blocked, indefinitely, without access to their talk page or email, without any justification or reason? I'm an infrequent editor at Commons and wondered if this kind of unexplained admin behavior is typical here. There should always be the opportunity presented to appeal a block and this lack of transparency is worrying. Liz (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Do not create duplicate threads, please: see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Blocking_of_Michaeldsuarez. --Túrelio (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Túrelio...much appreciated. Liz (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Problems of visiting the file pages

In many wikipedias (fortunately neither en.wiki nor de.wiki), recently it is no more possible for visitors to switch from the image embedded in an article to the file's "article" in the commons by clicking on the image. If you click on the image, the whole window falls black, if you use a few years old Safari browser. If you use Firefox, you get a black window with the image and you can switch to the other images embedded in that article, but you can neither read the background informations, nor open the maximal resolution.--Ulamm (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This is Media Viewer, which suddenly turned up today when I clicked on thumbnails. The help page https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Multimedia/Media_Viewer says that I must enable it to use and that I will always be able to turn it off, but it is not enabled in my Beta Preferences -- it doesn't even appear there. From my perspective, it is slow, wastes bandwidth, and takes me to a page, as Ulamm says, doesn't have essential information, putting me two clicks away from doing my Admin work.

Does anyone know how to disable it? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Jim, see this. Jee 11:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jee. Perhaps someone could change the completely incorrect help page I cite above. I also wonder how this was turned on without an announcement and clear instructions on how to turn it off..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There were posts at COM:VP, at the multimedia-mailinglist and here (where I linked relevant sections how to turn it off). -- Rillke^(q?) 19:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you. This just points out the fact that we don't have a good way of reaching everyone, except for posting a banner -- which probably would have been a good idea given the importance of this change. The English VP is only one of 42 languages and not even Admins read ANB every day. However, the problem really came from the fact that, as I said above, the help page had the wrong information on how to shut it off.

I suggest that for major changes of this sort in the future that we do three things:

• Post a banner so that there is a good chance of actually reaching everyone.
• Ensure that the internally referenced help page actually has correct information.
• Major changes can be the default for new users, but should be opt-in for existing users.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I forwarded these excellent points to the [hopefully right] mailinglist. You're a native English speaker and can possibly use your English skills to depict the issue more precisely, or more interestingly. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ulamm, If you hold SHIFT, CTRL, or COMMAND while clicking a thumbnail, you will be able to visit the file page directly once for that specific thumbnail. You can disable it in beta or appearance tab, depending on whether it was released or not. It is all in the documentation. --Gryllida 09:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, Media Viewer launches next week on the English Wikipedia "Media Viewer will be enabled by default on the English Wikipedia on Thursday, May 22 at about 20:00 UTC. We will deploy this tool very carefully and keep a close eye on this release, to make sure it all goes smoothly. The tool will then be released to all wikis the following week-" At least now I know what to do to turn it off when it gets there. We hope (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

178.222.40.45 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • abusefilter • tools • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log)

Long term abuse and inserting nonsense into a picture and categories. --Kolega2357 (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done It seems to be one of the Igor Janev Spam IP's. --Steinsplitter (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for review

There are two Ukrainian politicians who look very similar in the photos on Commons, but not in real life Avakov and Aksyonov. In my opinion, Avakov has been photo retouched to the point where he looks too much like Aksyonov. This is what he looks like unretouched [14] and [15]. This is a problem, because after seeing these photos on Wikipedia, it's very easy to confuse them as the same person. Considering the political situation in Ukraine, the uploader may have done this on purpose. What would be a reasonable thing to do? I would like for this photo to be deleted Avakov as a false representation of the actual person. The cropped version File:Arsen Avakov 2010-08-12.jpg claims to be from 2010. even if that's what he looked like then, it's not what he looks like now. This is what he looks like in 2014 [16] [17] What do you think? USchick (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence of intentionally or unintentionally deceptive retouching. If you have a good freely licensed current photo of the man, upload it. But I see no reason to remove the images from 2010. Lupo 15:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Do you see evidence of the photos looking alike, to the point where they can be mistaken for the same person? In reality they look much more different. USchick (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't. I see two clearly different men. Lupo 15:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. USchick (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

8=====D~~jobassucksit (talk · contribs)

Long-term abuse and abusive user name. ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 02:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong noticeboard … if an admin closes this, please also close my AN/V.    FDMS  4    03:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Indef'd as well as User:8======D~~wiki. --Túrelio (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

To note that I killed more than these at their times of creation (thx IRC feed). Seems to be using open proxies (from my outside steward look) which I have blocked, done some range blocks. I have also undertaken some global title blacklist, and have half an eye out for future rubbish. If someone knows who it actually is, then please let me know and I will make some CU notes to exchange with the local CU.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been following this, see Category:Sockpuppets of Ich Pilot. Эlcobbola _talk 16:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Gene Wilder - Gilda Radner.jpg

The photo has been nominated for deletion with this rationale "Mzzššaaaaaaàa ,..",mm."".."....".m..."..."m.m."".."mm mm'mmm .m "$8""""&&8@". We have no proof that the photo dates from the stated period and that it's without copyright, but the nominator's reason has issues. Not sure what to do about this nomination. Thanks We hope (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Kept the file. It can be nominated again with a valid reason. Natuur12 (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! We hope (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

derivativeFX (link broken)

Because toolserver will be switched off soon and luxo's account is broken i like to do the following changes Uploaded with derivativeFX TO Uploaded with derivativeFX on all files. If 3-4 admins agree with me, i will start my Bot :), Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I  Support. — Revi_complaint? 15:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! Natuur12 (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for offering, "make it so" imnsho  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. IMHO you can even drop it completely. This is nothing that belongs as a visible element to the file description page. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to be administrator

Can I be an Wikimedia Commons Administrator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikosgranturismogt (talk • contribs)

Hello, You need to have a bit more experience here before being admin. I suggest first that you read all copyright related information (COM:L, COM:FOP, etc.), and help patrol new images. Then after some time, you ask again. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, please see Commons:Administrators for what is expected from an administrator and how to become one. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Equipo_Maquina_del_Tiempo

Creating out of scope text--Motopark (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

IPhonehurricane95 returns again

He has returned as User:IPhone90, after a recent vandalism spree on the English Wikipedia. He has asked to be community banned, and I don't see why not. After all, he has over 380 different sockpuppets on the Wikimedia project sites, and he has been abusing his editing privileges since May 2011. As such, I am requesting that User:IPhone90 is blocked indefinitely and that the user IPhonehurricane95 is community-banned from all Wikimedia project sites indefinitely. BlueHypercane761 (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That can't be done here; all our admins can do is block him indefinitely at Commons. You'll need to request a global lock at Meta; see their policy page. Nyttend (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked & reported to Stewards --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Media without a license: needs history check

I could use some help with Category:Media without a license: needs history check. Last week's weekly scan for files with no license done by User:YiFeiBot did not work somehow, so this week we have quite a lot of them. I tagged all the new uploads, so all that is left are mostly old files that had license in the past, which was "lost" somehow. Usually undoing last 2 edits does the trick, but each have to be looked at separately. --Jarekt (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Category:Images of maps without source

Working through the nearly 70,000 images missing source for a considerable time, I discovered that many of them are maps. I created a suspension category for maps found in the Images without Source, called Category:Images of maps without source because I noticed that some of these maps are parts of series of maps (dot maps on counties for example) and it would be easier to source them in groups. Anyone interested in taking a poke at this sorted category of media needing source? I would be most grateful for the help. Thank you so much. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

All images tagged with {{PD-India-PIB}}

As per Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Template_PD-India-PIB, PTI images are not free and thus need to deleted. All images tagged with the template need to be deleted. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated all files, not currently nominated for deletion, that I can find from this source in Commons:Deletion requests/files from the Press Information Bureau, Government of India - Peripitus (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

some of those images are used on major articles, maybe we should find a way to 'replace' them first with a free version or alternative...--Stemoc (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Motd/2014-05-30 (en)

It seems an edit needed per Talk:Main_Page#Legend_of_the_Media_of_the_day_2014-05-30_wrong. Removing "(time interval between frames: about 15 minutes)" may enough. Jee 09:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done --PierreSelim (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Macedon-40 (talk · contribs)

This user uploaded lot of Greece related art made by quite recently died artists as {{PD-US}}. It's necessary to look carefully through all contributions to separate them from works which are public domain in Greece. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Charitarth Unagar (talk · contribs)

This user has uploaded File:Charitarth Unagar Photography.png and stated on the file description page "No one can use this photo tag without getting authorized", as well as imprinting that image as watermark on a lot of his other files. This shows he does not understand copyright concepts and the mission of Wikimedia Commons. Recommend deleting his files and blocking him so he doesn't start retracting his licenses or harassing us or our end users later when he finds out others can copy his files. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see any warning on his talk page other than a single DR; so wonder why you advise the admins to block him. It is good to advise him about the inappropriateness of applying a CC license for his trademark; but I failed to find anything about "watermarks" at Commons:Project scope, Commons:Deletion policy or Commons:Licensing. Or I missed something? (Commons:Watermarks is just a "proposed Commons guideline, policy, or process" so we can't block or even warn somebody for (violating) it.) Jee 06:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I have started Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Charitarth Unagar. Although we discourage images with watermarks, we do permit them, but if the watermark is restrictive, it can be a problem. More to the point here is that these are all personal art, which we do not host. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

File:BSicon .svg - urgent!

Please restore File:BSicon.svg to its original name, File:BSicon .svg! Thousands of templates across dozens of Wikipedias rely on that name, with a space after "BSicon" and nothing between that space and comma. Some exception should be added to YiFeiBot so that it doesn't touch it again. YLSS (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Just move-protecting the file should exempt the file from being moved by error. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! YLSS (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hm, why then redirects exists? And why get the redirect of the "correct" name deleted (because this name is also in use)? -- Perhelion 13:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

PS: Also very interesting SVG file, I can't comprehend for what this could be good, the link in the description tells also nothing here. I guess this is a hack for a template layout. Ok the whitespace is important for a template parameter syntax (as a hack for fallback?). Anyway the description could be more concrete on this extra ordinary file. -- Perhelion 14:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirects are OK when they are an additional way of referencing an object, but for such technical stuff, the file should better be located at the most used title. (Even though we are told not to worry about the performance, I find that often we should.) But the main reason why I wrote "urgent" here is that several double redirects were created as a result of this move, and this means that all instances of the file's usage via those redirects were to be broken (and double redirects are not repaired swiftly enough here). The (not really) "correct" name "File:BSicon.svg" is not in use, don't worry, the Global usage only shows some cashed instances from that brief period when the file was located there.

About the purpose of this file: the original syntax of Wikipedia:Route diagram templates filled all empty spaces in a diagram with this file (all BSicons were 20x20px then). For those cells where an icon ID was provided, some "File:BSicon_ID.svg" was used, and where there was no ID, "File:BSicon_.svg" was substituted. Many major Wikipedias has since upgraded the syntax so that just an empty table cell is used (incl. en.wp), but this improvement is spreading quite slowly... YLSS (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, some bugs have indeed occurred as a result... cy:Nodyn:Camlas Sir Fynwy a Brycheiniog map is in a total mess now. If we browse to the description page of File:BSicon .svg and open the png thumbnail (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/BSicon_.svg/500px-BSicon_.svg.png), it's gonna be OK; but if we change the dimension to 20px — the most used one — then instead of http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/BSicon_.svg/20px-BSicon_.svg.png we get redirected to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/BSicon.svg/20px-BSicon.svg.png with "Error generating thumbnail". I hope the cache will be updated soon... YLSS (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Null edit 'broken' pages to force the server to rebuild the page and update the link tables -FASTILY 23:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixing sidebar

Hey guys, just to fix one small thing, based in this Talk:Main_Page#Interwiki_sidebar, could you create or fix :

MediaWiki:Otherlanguages/pt ♥ MediaWiki:Otherlanguages/pt-br	Na Wikipédia
MediaWiki:Otherlanguages/es	En Wikipedia

I still reluctant with the idea to keep this side bar moving the reader to Wikipedia... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: , thank you. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Unblock some pages to be updated

I don't know why this pages are blocked since 2012 ( this is not a high traffic situation...), and out of date since 2009; but I want to update then.

• Commons:Primeiros passos
• Commons:Primeiros passos/Catalogar e classificar
• Commons:Primeiros passos/Formulário de carregamento de arquivos
• Commons:Primeiros passos/Qualidade e descrição
• Commons:Primeiros passos/Reutilização
• Commons:Primeiros passos/Seleção de licença
• Commons:Primeiros passos/Transferência de arquivos e ferramentas

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done changed from ‎[edit=sysop] to ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Dyrektor PISF Agnieszka Odorowicz.jpg

Please hide the first version of this image, it is potentially unfree.    FDMS  4    14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

BSicon request

Could someone please delete the redirects and files listed here? Thanks. YLSS (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that many of the redirects are "in use" on project pages. --Túrelio (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Mostly it is expected that under the obsolete titles they would go redlinked or automatically hidden. Some project pages are discussions about their renaming, so at the same time they show both the older name and the newer, and only the latter should be correctly represented. Some usage in old archives I did not update because they're archives... YLSS (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

YLSS, how many times do you have to be told this? We went over it once already. We're not going to delete redirects that are still in use on sister projects. If the existence of the redirects bothers you so much, fix the links on the sister projects yourself so that the redirects aren't linked to anymore. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there are deleted! Maybe not by you, but by others. YLSS (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Which does not make it right. If you want to screw over a bunch of users on the sister projects because asking admins until you get one that says yes is easier for you than doing things the right way, that's your prerogative. If you continue to do so, however, I will refer the matter to AN/UP and argue that your deletion nominations are disruptive. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly I do not want to screw anybody! I always struggle to cooperate with all the users, across all the Wikipedias, regardless of what language they speak and how difficult the conversation will be. All the pages on all sister projects I do update, and I even take into account the requests some of the locals users made. Those that I do not update are a) archives – which it may not be proper to update, as they show the way things were at the moment of discussion; b) auto-filled galleries of BSicons at user pages – which are expected not to show any icons under the obsolete names; c) user sandboxes – unless I see that a sandbox is quite recent, in which case I usually update it, otherwise — no, I won't. If only all the users were kind enough to clear their sandboxes once they're done with them... But the things go like this: a user has bestowed upon us a piece of code that needs updating/maintaining/cleaning up, without any chance that it will ever be needed, or which is duplicated by an article in mainspace. So what do you want me to do in this case? Nominate it for deletion — somebody else's user page? Especially if it's in another project where I find it hard to understand the local policies? Or at ja.wp, where user pages are protected from editing by others? No, save me, let the users maintain their user pages by themselves. If you want to discuss this at AN/UP, go on; I do not violate any policies and can defend my position. YLSS (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luftbild Grindelhochhäuser Hamburg.jpg

I don't know why Heinz-Josef Lücking's post here get reverted; but it pointed me to this DR. I think it is a serious matter and need a wider discussion than just within a DR. As those files are deleted and I see no link to the "custom template" I don't understand the whole issue. But it seems those files have a valid CC license. Note that any additional conditions that mentioned along with a valid license are just "requests" unless agreed by both parties. CC 4.0 clearly mentioned it (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode S7 a, b.). CC 3.0 has many ambitious terms; so depending on it for matters like attribution is not very logical.

Anyway mass deletion of the files (if any) by a potential contributor without proper discussion/guidance is not appreciated. Heinz-Josef Lücking, I'm open to any discussion and willing to clarify your doubts if required. Jee 12:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a long Diskussion on Commons:Forum. I have blocked Heinz-Josef Lücking for editwarring with a dotzend of users on other pages. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I can't follow the German forum due to language difficulties. But it is quite usual that a user behave that way when disturbed. Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Luftbild Grindelhochhäuser Hamburg.jpg gives me the impression that we should be more careful in future. It a waste of volunteer time, if files get deleted from all articles and restored soon. Jee 12:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The files were deleted because the custom template had a requirement to place the attribution on the image or near the image, this rendered the license invalid as no additional restrictions are permitted. All images uploaded prior to this change to the custom template (or even using a standard license tag that was later changed to the deleted custom version) were undeleted by me as the license had always been fine and the later-added restriction was invalid for them. This has been discussed to the with the author but he's resistant to arguments. --Denniss (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

1. It works in the opposite way. "no additional restrictions are permitted" = any additional restriction placed on the file description page can be ignored if it restricts the permission granted by the license.

2. Attribution is always required near to the work to help the viewer to identify the copyright holder. But it can be in any reasonable manner like image hyper links, text links, link to another page where all information available, etc., etc. "Near", "immediate visibility", etc. has no strict concrete meaning like "within 1 cm".

3. Some people including many admins here prefer attribution "near the work" for off wiki uses. But there is no such provision in a CC license, and they amended the "reasonable manner part" to "For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." in CC 4.0.

4. IMHO, all these unwillingness to accept the "attribution requirement" as generous as possible is against the spirit of free concept; but we can be much soft to them. ;) Jee 13:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Jee, this case has been extensively discussed among the German-speaking community at Commons:Forum, involving more than 1 admin, users with legal expertise and even a bureaucrat:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luftbild Grindelhochhäuser Hamburg.jpg
• Commons:Forum#Creative_Commons_by-sa-3.0_Bilder_in_der_deutschen_Wikipedia_nicht_mehr_m.C3.B6glich.3F
• Commons:Forum#Creative_Commons_Weiterverwendung_.26_Korrekte_Lizenzierung_mittels_Verlinkung_der_Bildinformationen_.C3.BCber_das_Bild
• Commons:Forum#Die_Entscheidungen_sind_gefallen_-_Hier_auf_Commons_darf_keine_bildnahe_Namenspositionierung_gefordert_werden
• User_talk:Heinz-Josef_Lücking#File:Luftbild_Grindelhochh.C3.A4user_Hamburg.jpg

Due to the language barrier and the fact that this uploader exhibits a trollish behaviour, IMO an involvement of non-German-speakers in this individual case wouldn't make much sense.

Anyway, a short summary: the problem started when a user detected that File:Luftbild Grindelhochhäuser Hamburg.jpg carried a user-created license template 1) that was transcluded from the user-subpage {{User:Heinz-Josef Lücking/Creative Commons by-sa-3.0 de}} and 2) that showed within the license information the statement "Sichtbar in der Nähe des Bildes - Visible near the picture", which is a specification for the location of the attribution. As CC has stated in its FAQ, CC-BY licenses do not allow the licensor to request (mandatory) a specific location where the credit has to be placed. Therefore, such a specification (as understandable as it is) is a restriction of the CC-BY license and thereby - as we know from CC's last year statement - no longer a CC license. The individual case seems to be complicated by the fact that the user added this license-restriction even to images that he had earlier uploaded without this restriction. However, due to the transclusion from his userpage, the change had gone unnoticed until recently.

Besides, this is not a new issue; in the past we had regrettably to delete valuable images because photographers had made comparable requests in regard to the credit-location and weren't willing to change their mind. As I am a photo-contributor (and have also experienced the massive abuse of my images) myself, I can understand the initial motive of these users and have shown them an license-compliant way to ask (non-mandatory) re-users for a near-image credit. However, many won't give in. --Túrelio (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Túrelio for the detailed reply. I still believe we can handle such cases in a more friendly way with slow actions. We have to agree that many of our volunteers have no clear knowledge about the attribution requirements. Our upload tools are also very poor in this regard. Many think there is strict attribution requirements for off wiki uses; they don't care how attribution is provided in Wiki pages and Wikipedia "export to PDF" pages. Sometimes even WMF projects failed to satisfy proper attribution requirements (that we discussed on PDF and Media Viewer matters).

My conclusion is that all we need is to check whether a viewer can identify the copyright holder from the links, texts or any other means. In free culture, we can only expect the minimum requirements. Otherwise go for ARR and deal with reusers individually with specific requirements. (See how a famous site like GBIF uses my work: my name or username is not mentioned; but a URI is provided: http://www.gbif.org/species/1944503. This mostly due to the failure of the automated tools that failed to pick attribution from the pages.)

I'm aware of the "custom templates" issues. I add them to my watchlist whenever noticed and warn users when any improper change occurs. Usually a friendly note is enough. Here I made a friendly comment to this user on his talk page and willing to discuss with him if required. Jee 14:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that this issue is also open at UnDR. This seems to me open and shut. Even WMF projects do not post attributions near the image -- they are under a link. Such a requirement would eliminate all film and video use since they use end credits, and eliminate all print works that collect attributions on one page, all of which is permitted by the CC license.

More to the point, unless an uploader wants to spend time and money policing his attributions, he or she must accept that putting a good image anywhere on the Web means that it will be used in some places without any attribution at all, despite all requests and license requirements. Offenders include major magazines and newspapers as well as individual web sites. Trying to specify the location of attribution is naive -- we should concentrate on trying to get any attribution at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)

Thanks Jim; but my argument was not to support attribution positioning. In fact, I was against it. You can see my templates explicitly allows/encourages mere linking is enough. My protest is against deleting files stating license is invalid due to the extra conditions stated on file page. You all know CC license are machine readable and most uses are made by automated tools. They have no facility to read the "extra terms" and conclude whether a license is valid or not. If the license is invalid, all those users (mostly big sites like eol.org, gbif.org who gather files from Commons and Flickr) will be in trouble. On the contrary, they will be safe if the "extra terms" are treated as invalid as suggested by Martina Nolte in that DR. I made a post at cc community list, but not sure whether a get a formal reply. Nowadays, they avoid legal advise as much as possible after the "whether a license is applicable for all file resolutions" issue. ;) Jee 12:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I can speak only to USA law, but I suspect that most legal systems are the same in this respect. If you have a standard printed contract and modify it in ways that conflict with the standard contract, then the modifications control. That can be the case even if the standard contract says that no modifications can be applied. Thus it is well and good to say that as a practical matter the extra terms would be ignored by machine reading users, but if it came to a court case in the USA, while the outcome is unpredictable, I would bet on "attribution near the image" being required.

Given our conservative attitude toward uncertainty as expressed at COM:PRP, I think it is a serious mistake to depend on rules of law and courts all around the world saying that additions to the CC license have no effect. I think we have to assume that there is at the very least a significant doubt whether "near the image" would be enforced in all places and therefore that deletion is justified unless the copyright holder changes his license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, it seems a good argument at least for the safety of WMF projects. And it seems more cases are coming. Jee 13:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Jim is right that the extra restrictions placed on a CC licence are theoretically enforcable, but issue with this is that CC themselves don't regard such a modified licence as a "CC licence" any more, and so dispute anyone claiming it is. I think that is quite reasonable for them to demand the purity of their licences. Our right to use the CC logo and name is dependent on us keeping within the terms that CC themselves require of the licensor -- that no other restrictions are imposed. Theoretically, CC could request we take down the page that misuses their logo/name. But since Commons and CC are supposed to be friends, we shouldn't ourselves permit such abuse. It is in all our interests that licences are clear to understand and recognise, rather than 101 personal variations. So I don't think it is satisfactory for us to say "We'll just ignore your extra restrictions then". Either people use a valid CC licence (or other free licence) or we delete the images. -- Colin (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Colin, modified license (legal code modified) and "extra terms" outside the legal code are entrely different. CC has a FAQ about it: "What if I have received CC-licensed material with additional restrictions? - It is possible that CC-licensed material will appear on platforms that impose terms in addition to the copyright license (though Creative Commons strongly discourages restrictions that interfere with exercise of the licensed rights). These additional terms do not form part of the license for the work. For example, if you download CC-licensed material from a site that does not permit downloading, you may be breaking the terms of use of the site, but you are not infringing the CC license." Jee 15:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

See this section in the FAQ: "Except in the limited situation where more permissions are being granted or license conditions are waived, if the additional arrangement modifies or conflicts with the CC license terms, then the resulting licensing arrangement is no longer a CC licensing arrangement. To avoid confusing those who may mistakenly believe the work is licensed under standard CC terms, we must insist that in these instances licensors not use our trademarks, names, and logos in connection with their custom licensing arrangement. " I think an additional restriction on attribution would modify the CC terms and thus invoke the wrath of Creative Commons :-) -- Colin (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"...with their custom licensing arrangement. " Custom license tags are not custom licenses. They are just explanatory texts with links to actual legal code. Further, it says "Even for the visitors to your website, any separate terms and conditions do not become part of the license—they remain a separate contractual agreement, and violation of this agreement does not constitute copyright infringement." See this comment too. Jee 02:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course custom license tags are custom licenses. Especially when the additional requirements are supplied as a parameter to the actual license tag (which is what the user in question did [18]). As has already been pointed out, additional restrictions in conflict with the license text void the license ("visible near the image" vs "reasonable to the medium or means"). And I will also reiterate what Jim already stated for the US: courts in Germany (and probably some more places) will generally look for hints of the copyright holder's intention when determining what license was given out. It is highly unlikely that they will simply disregard restrictions added by the copyright holder even though it is clear that he wanted those restrictions in place. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 07:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• 1.st: I've not been blocked because of "I have blocked Heinz-Josef Lücking for editwarring with a dotzend of users on other pages" (diff please). I've been blocked beacause i dont trust the german specking forum an wanted my case to be seen for the english specking community too (tried to post here twice and after informing Mr. Steinsplitter).
• 2'nd Because of my block and the changes made while i was blocked, I realize, that i can do nothing against deletions of my pictures or change of attribution.
• 3'rd In many of my images, the attribution was changed without consultation with me and against my will. I do not agree with this procedure and see changes in the attribution by third parties as well as a use, other than in the sense of my original permissions attributing, as a violation of the license. I reserve the right to take legal action in such cases.
• 4'th Beside that. After the deletion of my pictures with the "near the picture" attribute you left all the users outside the wikipedia in an illegal state. They can'nt link to the licence here. And even with a correct attribition they can'nt prove that the usage of my pictures is legal.
• info: The coutrts in germany have a quite clear understanding of "near". The district court of Munich (Germany) wrote in a judgement about the attribution: “Besides, is the court of the view that a duty requires a naming of the name deposited by the originator in the immediate spatial connection with the photo to the naming of the author ("copyright notice")."
• info: The Creative Commons Best Practices page shows quite clear examples for "reasonable" attribution of images in different medias: only examples for attribution close to picture and even with a text proposing a more or less "exact positioning "below".

Heinz-Josef Lücking (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Such a legal action will fail miserably because you added an invalid requirement for reusers months after uploading under a non-restricted license. This requirement is and was invalid and therefore discarded. The other images, which were uploaded with this requirement in effect, were deleted as license violation. --Denniss (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Heinz-Josef Lücking, I have only one question to you: Are you willing to make a change in your license tag as I suggested (as a compromise) so that your files get undeleted? Or you prefer them as deleted? I don't want to part with any here; only trying for a better solution. Jee 16:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • For CC-sa-na 3.0 pictures: Are you willing to change the reuse page, the image description pages or other important instruction pages on commons.wikimedia.org that way that it is absolute clear that an attribution of images is NOT a requirement which must be allways followed by a picture user outside wikipedia including examples showing legal ways of not providing an attribution near the picture? Heinz-Josef Lücking (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kreativer Kommunarde --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You can stop it. I tested as a sockedpupped the willing to implement such a sentence on the reuse page. If you set up the request just to make me quiet like with the not existing editwar with a "dozen of users" and to block me then block me. Heinz-Josef Lücking (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jee With the pictures in which the attribution were not immediately added after the uploading my attribution have been deleted against my will have been replaced against my will with an attribution by the User:Dennis. It is entitled to me as an originator to decide on whether in which form (attribution) my work is spread to the public and attributed there . My rights were injured by the action. I cannot tolerate that. The practice of handling of license offences with missing attribut, the description of the Best of all Practices, the texts for the uploading of pictures and the automatically generated picture description pages suggested that the attribution was legally. Additionally, my pictures with my attribution have not be complained for years. Should a picture close attribution not be callable by the license I appeal to have been deceived on it roughly. And no user has the right against my will to change the attribution of my pictures. I request you, hence, either to restore and put all pictures in its original state with the attributions I’ve chosen or to remove the aforesaid graphics in were the attribution was changed immediately from your page. Heinz-Josef Lücking (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Heinz-Josef Lücking, I'm well aware of this issue; many professional photographers here expressed their discomfort on the way CC dilute the attribution requirements. They think it created a backdoor for the reusers to neglect the attribution part. I have noticed many admis too expressed their discomfort. See the comment by Rillke. But, IMHO, your one man protest will lead you nowhere. Please follow the community guidelines, and try to create community consensus with polite discussions with people who have same view points. Regarding, license tag updates, we had already made some attempts, but lack of participation from other volunteers is the main difficulty we are facing. Jee 03:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify my stand. I'm well aware of the licensing terms and contributes on my own will. But I'm sure that many contributors here are not well aware of the terms. Main confusions are in three areas:

1. Attribution: Many people think we can demand attribution near the work used in off wiki cases. But according to CC, a mere link/hyper link to the source is enough for attribution as we practiced in WMF projects. I don't know whether all courts agree with it; but our contributors should be aware of it.

2. File resolution: Recently CC clarified that the license is applicable for the copyright eligible works; so it may applicable for high quality file of that work too.

3. Personality/privacy rights in case of self portraits: Here also CC advised that such rights may affected.

So we have a responsibility to educate the contributors than misusing their ignorance in such cases. Here the user in question says there is no problem for his works here for years. And it is natural that he get upset when a sudden DR pop up and all his files get deleted. Jee 04:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Seems more complicated; so forwarded to WM list for a wider community attention. (not this single user case.) Jee 12:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

My understanding on http://bilderklau.lucan.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/LG-M%C3%BCnchen-I-37-O-9798-11-Endurteil.pdf

"In this case, the Court considers that a duty to name the author ("copyright notice") requires a mention of the filings by the creator's name in the immediate spatial context of the photograph. Specifying the picture authors in a linked site, the first by clicking the light image can be achieved, in contrast, does not meet the requirements of the license conditions." - So a copyright holder can demand attribution in the immediate spatial context of the photograph used?

"Linking to another website does not constitute Attribution in this sense, and therefore already complies with the wording of the non- agreed license terms. In addition, this approach is not sufficiently answer the end of the license conditions, as the Internet users who visit the guide - section of the web page of the Defendant, the set there photography not necessarily clicking . If it fails , but the use of the links, viewing the disputed photograph without knowing the author of the image." We are using the works in many language Wikipedias, Wikinews, Wikimediafoundation.org, etc. and only maintained author information in Commons through a "click"? Nowadays mediaviwer added another burden which is slow and make the file page two clicks away?

"At Wikipedia you reach the image description page of Wikipedia , which is on the same server." Not true; we are using works in many websites and provide attribution only in Commons?

"The contents of this file description page , however, the defendant has no influence." True. Volunteers in another Wikimeadia projects have no voice here; here everything is decided by Commons admins.

"Moreover, it is conceivable that the image description page , which is so far on a "foreign" server sometimes is unreachable." True. Sometimes Commons can be down even if the other WMF servers are up.

So I doubt whether any legal support for our current practices? Jee 13:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

License reviewers

I discovered that reviewers has enabled Commons:Upload Wizard/Flickr. I'm a member of Amical Wikimedia. We are working in a pilot project to engage members of Flickr's Community to take useful free licensed images for Wikimedia Commons. We sent two photographers (Angela Llop and Maria Rosa) to take photos of Can Papiol Romanticism Museum. It's a first phase with this GLAM agent. They uploaded different albums by CC-BY-SA in Flickr. The next step is upload these images to Wikimedia Commons. We would like to use this special "Upload Wizard/Flickr" to upload these photos. Probably, we will use it in projects coming, too. For that reason, I would like to become a reviewer. What can I do?--KRLS (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Normally I would direct you to Commons:License review/requests. However, you are an admin on three projects, have OTRS access, and have 3,000 edits on Commons. I'm pretty sure we can trust you, so I'll just give it to you now. Just please be sure to read Commons:License review and familiarize yourself with the freedom of panorama laws for the areas your project is going to operate in. While you should be fine in Spain, Països Catalans extends into France, and France's laws regarding FoP are very different from Spain's. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this quickly answer. I have read Commons:License review. I know freedom of panorama laws in Spain, copyright laws in France and Italy (Alghero).--KRLS (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Tools like flickr2commons or Flickr upload bot would have easily uploaded all the images from flickr (provided its cc-by-sa licenced) there and would have been reviewed by the Flickrreviewbot, don't really see the new to hand out Licence reviewer rights, but I do agree, Commons:Upload Wizard/Flickr should in the near future be available for 'auto confirmed' or 'patrollers' in the near future..Its currently a bit buggy and won't upload more than 50 images from a any set..--Stemoc (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Tiny suggestion: Please take the extra time upload a small test series first, and spend time with each image uploaded by the bot and be sure it is not missing any template information, like source, author or license that would result in dozens of images being tagged and needing additional edits later Some of the museum uploads have had that happen and it's most distressing to have to go back and edit hundreds - or thousands - of images for faulty templates. I think your project sounds really neat and I'm looking forward to seeing the pictures (but not on any of the problem page categories)! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Weird Problem

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T68248

For some reason, User talk:Dralwik showed up in new page patrol as a gallery, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ANewPages&namespace=0&tagfilter=&username=&hidepatrolled=1

Since there was no link for "Mark this page as patrolled", I did what I always do in that circumstance, deleted the page to clear it lout of the NPP log, with the intention of restoring it ten seconds later. This works when a page has been moved from gallery space to another space, leaving the page in the NPP queue, but without a link for "Mark this page as patrolled".

However, the page is now clearly deleted, but it is still in the queue.

There was an additional anomaly here. Note that the edit comment for the item in the NPP queue is a DR notice. However, that DR notice did not appear on the talk page before I deleted it and the only history for the talk page was one edit, setting the talk page to a redirect to WP:EN. The edit to the talk page is in Special:Contributions/Thegreyanomaly as a blue link, despite the deletion. So what happened to that DR notice? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

there is usually a 'delay' in page updates on the 'Special' and search feeds, sometimes as long as 72 hours...--Stemoc (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't surprise me, but it has never happened before that a deleted page was not immediately removed from the queue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Rename on the wrong wiki

I am sorry, I clicked rename on the wrong wiki when fulfilling a user rename request. I have reverted myself.

--M7 (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem ;). You're not the first one who has accidentally used steward right here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A well, everyone makes misclicks. So don't worry, be happy and eat a stroopwafel ;). Natuur12 (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to both of you! Ciao, M7 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

On April 27, 2014, I was looking for a file to add to an article when I noticed what I felt was an inappropriate photo. I nominated it for deletion, along with a number of other photos by this same editor named "High Contrast". Most seemed to have no educational value, while others were amateur porn. The uploader got upset, referred to me as a "troll" and "spammer", and actually removed some of the nomination for deletion notices.

Since then, several of the photos I have uploaded have been "targeted" with nominations for deletion. What is interesting, is that those nominating my uploads for deletion "appear" to be connected; three IP addresses: 188.104.125.224, 94.223.178.12, and 178.7.237.121; and one registered user, "High Contrast".

For example, after I nominated one of "High Contrast's" photos for deletion here, 178.7.237.121 quickly defended it, and was soon followed by 188.104.125.224.

On several edits, such as this one, 178.7.237.121 and 94.223.178.12 appear to work together.

After 178.7.237.121 nominated for deletion this photo I had uploaded, "High Contrast" soon joined in.

Here's what's interesting. I looked at some of the places "High Contrast" has been taking pictures lately, and they are places such as Vilshofen, Vilshofen, Dürrnberg, and Munich - all in central Germany. Then I looked up the 3 IP addresses, and they are all registered to Vodafone DSL in Central Germany. If it's just a coincidence, forgive me. But if "High Contrast" is using socks to attack other users and inflate votes for or against deletion, then this is very serious.

Thank you for your help with this. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Because High Contrast is an Admin, it may take a little while. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• One more possible IP sock of High Contrast. Notice that High Contrast edited the file "Progress D-27 propfan (Antonov An-70).jpg" here on July 13, 2012.

Then on May 29, 2014, IP 188.104.113.128 made a forum inquiry about that same obsqure photo here (right after High Contrast's post).

Then, 11 minutes later--of the millions of photos on the Commons this user could have nominated for deletion--that user selected this one. And guess where the IP address is registered? Vodafone DSL in Munich. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Using 17 different IP addresses in the last ninety days, User:High Contrast has

1. Commented at the DR of an image uploaded by High Contrast, including signing as both a non-existent user and as an IP
2. Started a DR which High Contrast supported with several comments. This was ultimately reopened and then closed by me as a keep.
3. Started a DR against an image uploaded by the editor who started the DR above. This was closed as a keep since the image was actually in use.
4. Started 2 other DRs that were closed as keeps after discussion
5. Started 19 DRs which were closed as deletes without discussion
6. Made 7 miscellaneous edits

The first two of these are serious violations of Commons rules against commenting on the same issue under two or more names. The third is simple retaliation. The last three are not, strictly speaking, against the rules, but it makes me uneasy to have an active Admin starting DRs under an IP name.

I, and other Commons Checkusers, would appreciate the community's input as to appropriate action.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion. Clear cut case of the worst sockpuppet abuse possible. Wilfully deceiving the community, wilfully manipulating DR's, damaging the commons stock with his actions, targeting other users and nominating their pictures out of sheer revenge - there is no doubt that this person has to end his responsibilities as an admin himself or have them revoked as soon as possible. There is nothing more harmfull as an administrator abusing sockpuppets. It is also strange that High Contrast has become inactive after this was brought to the noticeboard.

As to other measures taken I hope others can give input as well. Now we also will have to look into matters to screen all his actions that could have damaged the commons collection. I hope he is willing to cooperate and will tell us what he did and where. Depending on his reaction further measures can be taken. I highly respect High Contrast for his good work but this, I have no words to describe how disappointed I am. I want to thank Jim for executing this difficult task. Natuur12 (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I also found several cases where he kept his own uploads. While I understand that he was not happy about the nominations, keeping your own uploads is wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jim, for diving into this. I understand this is a difficult situation and nobody will be happy with measures that have to be taken, as High Contrast indeed does a lot of valuable work here.

However, I think that the modus operandi High Contrast has chosen is really reprehensible, sockpuppet abuse and perhaps even abuse of admin power (in the cases that Natuur12 mentions) cannot be neglected. Therefore I think that de-adminship should be considered and in addition a serious block would seem advisable. But of course first High Contrast should be notified and given opportunity to react to these findings and give his views, if he feels to. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and left High Contrast a message urging him to respond to this thread. Given the seriousness of the situation, and the fact that he has become inactive, I think he should be given some time to respond. As I wrote to High Contrast, if we do not hear from him in the coming 48 hours, I intend to start a de-adminship request to have his adminship privileges revoked by the community (as there is clear CheckUser evidence of his actions). odder (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Note for the record that I pinged High Contrast in the first line of my comments above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry is worrying and may perhaps warrant a de-admin process. Somehow this whole thing looks like a personal conflict that got out of hands. It might be sufficient to instruct both parties to stay away from each others' uploads. Lupo 10:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ohmy, this is so sad. As if we hadn't enough serious problems already. Thanks to Jim for this surely unpleasant research. --Túrelio (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) This is beyond a conflict between two people. The reporter ran into problems yes but I think it has become clear that this pattern is structural - nomination and keeping/deleting different uploads from different people, protecting his own uploads. It was inevitable to come out one day. Natuur12 (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As a regular helper evaluating pictures and checking matters here I feel very worried. I agree with Natuur12 and Lymantria above. This is definitely not a conflict between two people. The person reporting this ran into problems but if he/she would not have told us seeing the evidence above a next person had done so since the pattern is clear - keeping/deleting pictures and nominating and dealing with his own matters, misusing sockpuppets getting his way and serving his personal interests, protecting his own pictures and removing others out of revenge - this is very worrying indeed to see happening and should be dealt with. I truly hope the person will come clean and help us out by telling us what and where has gone wrong and help restore matters and give an open account of it at least. As an admin I think the trust has gone for him. I would feel insecure working here knowing in advance things would be dealt with we do to help out here in such a wrong way. MoiraMoira (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

We already warned him earlier; so no excuses now. Jee 10:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A word of encouragement for High Contrast.

High Contrast has been contributing here for the last 4 years, becoming one of our top contributors by most measures, certainly far more than most users that are trusted with the admin tools.[19] I think it is fair to say that, though at times I would have appreciated them being a bit kinder in expression and said so quite firmly, the points they made about my uploads were invariably correct, and I went on to try and learn from the points made and improve my future uploads. They have worked hard for this project for a long time, and I hope that members of our community treat them with respect and kindness if they are found to have behaved inappropriately in using alternative accounts, or editing while logged out, in ways that were misleading. I hope that High Contrast will respond to the above assertions, and if they realise they have made an error of judgement, that they will consider handing back the mop without making this a big deal. I note High Contrast has made no edits for the last 4 days, and it would be fair to assume they might have real life commitments making them unavailable for a week or two to reply here properly.

I hope that High Contrast is encouraged by everyone concerned to continue with their support of this project, and that the discussion here is handled in a way that achieves that outcome. --Fæ (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

In line with my previous comment, I started a request to remove administrator privileges from High Contrast. odder (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Template_talk:Cc-by-sa-4.0#Delete, fork or update?

Are you sleeping? Or you only interested in your own agendas? Jee 05:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for edit requests to take a while to be processed. In this case I am reluctant to do it because I don't think there is a clear consensus on what the new version should be. As long as this is the case I will not make a change. Also such a substantial change should IMHO be discussed on a more important community page than just a template talk page. I'd suggest taking this to COM:VPC. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 07:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree; it is a tedious job, considering translation requirements, etc. But it is not an excuse for not changing it. Moreover, the issue is not of that single template. CC updated the deed of all versions; changed words like "remix", "work", etc. So every tags need to be updated.

Regarding CC 4.0, there is some differences. 1. "you must indicate if you modified the material and retain an indication of previous modifications. In 3.0 and earlier license versions, the indication of changes is only required if you create a derivative." 2. "URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable."

I don't know which is the right place for discussion. It was told earlier that VP/VPC (?) are language specific; so not attended by all. What about creating a separate page for it (like RfC)? Jee 07:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(The Template is only semiprotected, not fullporotected. Because it is widely used i have changed the protection to edit=sysop) --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all; just made a proposal at VPC. Jee 07:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Rename File:Radarstation PS-615.JPG

Can you please change name of this file to Radarstation PS-640.JPG ? It is a newer type of radar. Best, Peterappelros (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done, but please use {{Rename}} for rename requests --Didym (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Junior Franklin

This user has recently returned from a block but continues to upload non-free images with fake licences. De728631 (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Danke. De728631 (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)