Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 50

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Category:Paviljoen_Vondelspark

Dear admin,

Could you please rename (move) Category:Paviljoen_Vondelspark to Category:Vondelparkpaviljoen, so without the -s- and in line with the wikipedia article w:nl:Vondelparkpaviljoen. The -s- in Vondelspark is obsolete and a nuisance now on Commons. The current name of the park everywhere, on the gates of the park etc. is without the -s-. I have consulted the creator of this category User_talk:Editør#Category:Paviljoen_Vondelspark and (s)he suggested this new name.

Thanks for considering this request, Hansmuller (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Done, See Commons:Rename a category#Rename_process for the next time. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

please delete as copyvio

File:تصميم مقصورة البوكسر.jpg google finds bigger resolution version.--Motopark (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Please just flag such files with a {{Copyvio}} tag in the future. BrightRaven (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll try but link was black listed--Motopark (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The url is blacklisted globally via meta --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please delete first revision of uploaded image

Some years ago I took this image File:Registerblad for Frederik Rasmussen Christensen.jpg and yesterday I realized it could be useful to a Wikipedia article.

However, when I first uploaded the photo to Wikimedia, I made a mistake and uploaded a different photo of the same object (I have about 30000 such photos and I guess I could organize them better).

I (thought I) fixed the problem by uploading the correct photo using the 'Upload a new version of this file' on the incorrect upload.

Now I realize that unlike the new one I don't actually have the right to distribute the old photo and that it is still accessible (although currently not linked to from any Wikipedia page).

I would much appreciate assistance in removing the first revision of this image without removing the new one.

Thank you and apologies for the inconvenience. Lklundin (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Done No problem, we all make mistakes from time to time. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we hide phonenumbers from talk page

see User talk:Maakaliupasak talk page, now in every pictyre name are phone number, can we hide the number--Motopark (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This is spam, User talkpage are noindex by default, therefore no need to delete the page. Technically it is possible (hide uploadlog, deletion log, revdelete the usertalkpage), but imho not worth to do that this case. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Fitzlbua

See Special:Contributions/Fitzlbua. Making many useless edits every minute and is probably an out of control bot. I think this may have something to do with User:Fitzlbua/common.js; looking at the code, it seems Fitzlbua plans on making 100,000 useless edits. Recommend blocking asap. 2605:E000:1C0D:C066:D4E:7ABB:852C:233C 20:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Strange. I have blocked him, but his "test"-edits on his talkpage are still continuing. --Túrelio (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I could stop him only by also blocking him from edits to his own talkpage. Though this may have been only a proof-of-concept test, IMO it has shown a potentially dangerous loophole. Our Java coders should look into this and try to close it. --Túrelio (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

He has performed similar edits on :de[1], though on a far lower scale. --Túrelio (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If you consider personal JavaScript a loophole, the test might be considered successful. But in the end it doesn't matter whether the edits are performed by userJS or by an externally running (malicious) bot. The code was simply a loop that scheduled 100000 API edits. If the user had a malicious intention, they were probably interested in the error messages when the API returned an error. And because they were not a new user, there were no rate limits on edits. Perhaps we should consider changing that? -- Rillke^(q?) 21:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Not OK to abuse commons as personal playground and making thousands of testedits. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Manhhai a Flickrwashing account?

Dear Admins,

Is Manhhai a flickrwashing account? I notice that many of this person's images have passed flickr review and are on Commons as this indicates And yet Manhhai places sets of images by third parties on his flickr account such as John Hansen Bill Russell But did John Hansen or Bill Russell license their images freely or place them in the public domain? If not, it may be safer to 1. delete all of Manhai's images on Commons and 2. place Manhhai's flickr account on the blacklist before Commons gets sued. We need proof that this person's many flickr images--which are licensed freely--are really free.

Finally, it may be better to delete this image by Bill Russell too. PS: This image by Manhhai is by Mike Vogt Did Mike Vogt license it freely or is Mr. Vogt's descendents going to sue WikiCommons next? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone had better make a decision since this innocent user just uploaded more images from Manhhai's flickr account. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Curious - I see the account is already on the Questionable Flickr images list. So is UploadWizard not checking the list before the upload?? Tabercil (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- The account was added in December 2013 here. INeverCry 04:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like he just uploaded manually - download and upload - in that case, I'm not sure if the UW checks the blacklist or not. — revi_msg 04:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Just did a test of the wizard using a randomly chosen account (doctorwhospoilers) and it properly blocked it. Tabercil (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I've nuked all the newer uploads. There's some old maps and a flag left. INeverCry 05:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank You for all your help. Flickr accounts like Manhhai's are the worst sources of flickrwashing as other Admins like Lymantria may know since they have thousands of images on them. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Eight pictures of children's authors/illustrators - hide previous revisions?

For the following eight images, cropped versions have been uploaded due to the presence of copyrighted artwork in the original images. (The original images were made available on Flickr under a CC license, but it is not clear that the CC license also applied to the artwork depicted in the original images.) Please consider hiding the previous revisions for these images. Thanks.

--Gazebo (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons Delinker command help

Not sure why this here didn't work?

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

See notes: Note: To avoid World War III, CommonsDelinker will ignore a command to replace an image if the new image is svg and the original is not. — Revi 04:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Failed Flickr Uploads

One user uploaded a whole bunch of images and maybe 25-32 images failed to upload properly as you can see. I reuploaded only 2 images as in this case but can an Admin decide what to do with the others. There is just too many for one person to deal with sadly and I have to sign off soon. I don't understand why some users transfer large amounts of images to Commons without making sure that the images were properly uploaded sadly. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Done deleted & reuploaded --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

help needed

File:Nanyue001.png, the original upload version was written in Chinese, but was changed into Vietnamese by User:I Love Triệu Đà. I think it's really unsuitable, these two versions SHOULD BE slipt into two files.

This file was used in the Chinese good article zh:南越国. Most Chinese cannot know Vietnamese. So I think it should be slipt into two files immediately.--122.90.100.105 02:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Done (sort of). Vietnamese version at File:Bản đồ các quận phía Đông Bắc nước Nam Việt.png but moving the file has resulted in some pages using the Vietnamese version, not the Chinese version, so you will need to rectify this manually. Nick (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

New pictures uploaded after deletion request

we will have Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Children's Peace Monument and there are uploaded new versions to Category:Children's Peace Monument, how about those--Motopark (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A treasure trove of photographs! But I need some help with it....

Examle

.

Dear Administrators,

Mrs. Megan C. Robertson has published a great number of well researched photograps on het own website. They are all photographs of the various orders and medals of the world. Many of them are hard to come by! The photo's are all of good quality and have a uniform model and background. They are to be found on [2] etc. I have asked het permission to release the rights on her photo's and she gave us permission to use them on Commons!

That is very kind of her. I have downloaded one of them, with the relevant email, on[3] Is it possible to make a licence called "from the collection of Megan C Robertson" to facilitate the use of her photo's on Wiki-Commons?

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Double post, conversation at Commons:Village pump#A treasure trove of photographs.21. Multichill (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Please close this DR

Please close this DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Santos Henriques Maia.jpg, thanks.--Motopark (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Yann (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Rename files

Please, rename these files, without redirections; some of its names aren't appropiated, and to homogenize the files of the same category:

Thanks in advanced, --Unapersona (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Unapersona. While editing a book on ca.wikibooks, we realised that these names are part of undercover vandalism (meaningless), although the files are educational. Thanks. --Xavier D. (Messages) 19:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Done INeverCry 04:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

deleted image

I have obtained legal copyright clearance on photos that were previously uploaded to wiki commons and subsequently deleted because the copyright info was missing. I would like to resubmit them with the copyright info, but because commons recognizes the content I cannot. Is there a solution? Thanks.

Yes, email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 03:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Russavia's failed uploads here

Can an Admin delete all of Russavia's failed uploads in the flickr human review category above? They are most likely duplicates. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

DR ddeleted but DR still open

see File:Kochi Katsurahama Sakamoto Ryoma Statue 1.JPG and deletion request in the link.--Motopark (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kochi Katsurahama Sakamoto Ryoma Statue 1.JPG exists. Perhaps you need to clear your browser cache? -FASTILY 18:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If I log off, It will go same page that you give, but with logged in and tried with 2 browsers, I will go on the link to page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/, cache deleted, no help.--Motopark (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Might be an issue with your common.js then (is VisualFileChange broken?). Try blanking the page and then clearing your browser cache, history, and temp files. -FASTILY 19:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Are these Chinese 2 images OK?

I was looking at these 2 images here:

Both image's metadata says they were taken by a 'KODAK EASYSHARE Z710 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA’ But the source for the first image says it was actually taken by a 'Panasonic DMC-FX7’ camera while the source for the second image states it was taken by an 'Olympus camera'. Are both images OK...or is there something funny stuff going on here. I just ask this question since I just marked maybe 15-20 images from this panoramio account--including the second image--and there are still a few more images in panoramio human review that maybe someone else can mark. I don't know why the metadata has changed or if this is just something innocent. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I ran identify -verbose from the ImageMagick toolkit on the originals and the versions on Commons and compared the results. The files on Panoramio look legit, and the metadata from there is clearly the correct set. For some reason, the files were edited in Adobe Photoshop before they were uploaded to Commons, and in that process, the EXIF was modified. Perhaps Aethelwolf Emsworth has a good explanation for that? Personally, I see no reason not to use the original version from Panoramio. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this issue up. I will mark the rest of the images from tis panoramio account. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I think it depends on the fact that when transferring the photographs from Panoramio to Wikimedia Commons I saved the original versions (ex. this) copying them to pre-existing files. I apologise for the mistake.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Usepage moved

Check this [4] move.--Motopark (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Deleted as out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of original non-free image

Kindly delete the original image at "File:Spekkoek.jpg", which showed a sign with a non-free photograph on it. I cropped the photograph using CropBot. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Yann (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are Romanians loading up things using bots on Commons.

Every time I make a search here they come, loads of them. What is this? https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=George+Vicat+Coles&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 I don't know if Unauthorized bot is a user or a bot, but this is the uploader. [sre https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Monitorul_Oficial_al_Rom%C3%A2niei._Partea_1_1948-09-06,_nr._206.pdf&action=history] --Hafspajen 19:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Unauthorized Bot should be tagged with {{Indefblockeduser}}. FDMS 4 19:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What shall we with all this paper? Is somebody trying to use commons as a national archive? Or can this be undone? --Hafspajen 19:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

All of that is perfectly acceptable material for Commons, entirely usable for the Romanian Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I added that tag. --Hafspajen 20:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that there are copyright concerns with some files uploaded by User:Unauthorized Bot, see my comment at Commons:Bots/Requests/Unauthorized Bot. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Unblock e-mail function

Hi, I am working with the project Videos for Wikipedia Articles in the German Wikipedia. I wanted to thank the contributers and notify the winners of our video contest by e-mail, as some of them apparently don't reguarlly look at their talk page or watchlist. After some e-mails I was blocked from sending e-mails due to an anti-spam mechanism. The according note said it would be unblocked after a few minutes but since last night the status didn't change. Could anyone unblock me, if that's possible? Many thanks --ALi (VWA) (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to wait 24 hours. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Only way to override ratelimit (6 things (account creating, emailing, etc something I am not aware of) per 1 IP per 24 hrs) is becoming sysop / bot / account creator. Otherwise per Steinsplitter. — Revi 11:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I understand. But it would be good than to change the note according to the acutal waiting period – as I said, at least in the German version it says explicitly "a few minutes". --ALi (VWA) (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It is MediaWiki:Actionthrottledtext, not sure for which throttles it is used, therefore change should be made on translatewiki or , if needed, filing a bug on phabricator --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Renaming user

Pehebot (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) I want to operate the bot acc, but before I want a more common significant name → User:PeheBot ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 13:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Perhelion: See COM:CHU. It will be renamed globally. If it's ok, I can do it for you. — Revi 13:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course (the acc has 0 edits)! Thank you. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 13:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Done as a global renamer. — Revi 13:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a bad idea to run a global bot without user page and approval on meta. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean I can really get this on meta? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 17:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, But if you you operate a CrosswikiBot , (containing Bot in username), it is very likely that you get blocked on some wikis. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, yes I'll try this before… ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 20:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons talk:Welcome log

What should we do with that? Is there some archiving/cleaning done by a bot? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Questionable policy on Wikidata regarding Commons categories

This issue: Commons:Village_pump#Questionable_policy_on_Wikidata_regarding_Commons_categories has a big impact on how interwiki here on Commons works, and hence the ease of use of our viewers and editors, so I wanted to make sure admins are aware of it. Please excuse the cross-post. INeverCry 01:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

5 Images

Are these images flickrwashes from dubious flickr accounts? If they are, they should be speedy deleted. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove/Change author name original image

Hi,

The following image has not my name as an original author, but my ex's. Is it possible to change the Author under "File History" to "Rvervuurt"? It was never supposed to have her name as the author, so I tried editing it, but I can't.

That the image is publicly available is no problem, but I (and she) would prefer it if it was a bit more anonymous. I think I could've gotten edit-permissions if it was me that moved the image, but now it's a bot that did it, taking away the edit functions?

Thanks!

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

The current author-field entry Emilie Nielsen links to your account on :nl. Also, I don't understand your "I tried editing it, but I can't". The image page is not protected. --Túrelio (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Fastily and Russavia starting again

Russavia made [5]. Attack against wikimedia. and Fastily follow him by changing Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA wich started new edit waring. If commons decide to ignore Wikimedia decisions may be it is a time to remove commons from wikimedia projects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.232.12.193 (talk • contribs)

The Wikimedia Commons community follows Commons community agreed policies rather than stuff made up elsewhere.

P.S. if you are not going say who you are, I doubt anyone is going to care much what you have to say. --Fæ (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I do care. I've not much personal interest in this topic; but not a fan of Uncle Sam's domination in Wikimedia projects. Here we have first a discussion Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. Some people thought the decision is contradicting to our COM:PRP; so MichaelMaggs started Commons:Review of Precautionary principle. It was also very poorly prepared; so didn't attract many people to participate. Based on it, Odder made this amendment at COM:L.

I can accept that much; but many attempts to impose personal opinions in various pages carried out after that. Moreover, some random undeletion requests pop up; admins close them to "undelete", "not done" according to their personal view points. These are not acceptable.

The outcome of the two existing discussions are contradicting; but one is noway overtuning other. So if the current status is not clear for the Commons community and acting admins, start a fresh discussion covering all points, try to ensure maximum participation of the community, and make an attempt for consensus. J e e 14:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to start a proposal, I suggest you take on board the reasons why the current result remains unclear, including the fact that unpaid volunteers have yet to have any published legal advice from an attorney (general statements from the WMF, as has been made clear multiple times, are not legal advice to volunteers). This thread was created to have a slightly pointless crack at Russavia and Fastily. It did that job, and if you really want to take our policies with respect URAA DRs further, this needs to be followed up in another place with calm and moderated discussion against a carefully developed and consensus based proposal or even a grant proposal for legal advice. --Fæ (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

See this and this. If experianced admins like Steinsplitter and Russavia are making directly contradicting decisions, I don't think any further need to prove the current policy is not clear. Otherwise we can de admin the one who ignore the policy. :)

I don't know any crack here; but I was reverted by Prosfilaes at here; that's why I noticed this discussion. J e e 14:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There are two contradicting policies, each user is following one policy. The new URAA policy allows Steinsplitter to undelete images, the Precautionary Principles policy allows Russavia to refuse to undelete images. If you wish to deal with this, Commons needs reliable legal advice from the Wikimedia Foundation on what to do and how to proceed, before having another discussion and vote and discussion. Nick (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nick for clarifying we have two policies which are not overtuning each other. I'm happy with that status quo and going to revert Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA to remove all the new edits. J e e 14:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Correction. Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA is not policy. COM:PRP is policy and overrides that in its entirety as was reinforced at MichaelMaggs' review. russavia (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

COM:PRP states " where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." It never states about the freedom of a particular file in a particular country.

Now we have a court ruling that "removal of a watermark, which contained copyright information, violates the provision "You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work" of the CC license." So such files are no longer free in Germany, at least. My disagreement is the use of COM:PRP to protect the interest of Uncle Sam only. :) J e e 03:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Precautionary Principles policy is a general policy for the cases where we don't have specific rules. The new URAA policy is a specific policy that non of the changes of Precautionary Principles policy can deny. If we follow COM:PPP as it is we should delete every photo of new user ect. COM:PPP comes only in the cases we don't have policy.

It is also clear to me that the undeletion of user Steinsplitter was innocent and the decline of undeletion by user:Russavia was motivated by his obsession to the URAA. The background to the URAA case is much more clear to me.-- Geagea (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am here to make one comment and one comment only. I have reverted the IP and protected it so that only auto-confirmed editors can edit it. Past that there is nothing more needed from me here. Thanks. russavia (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure why I am being named here. I added {{Historical}} to Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA based on my understanding of Odder's closure of Commons:Review of Precautionary principle. FWIW this wasn't intended to be a controversial change, so I'll leave it to the community to decide on the next step. Cheers, FASTILY 01:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Please hide wrong versiosn

Please hide wrong versiosn File:Equine massge.JPG, thanks--Motopark (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. --McZusatz (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirect enigma

I have come across this redirect for an 1835 Blenheim Palace map, which seems to behave oddly. It shows up as redirecting to itself (using the what links here and on querying the redirect table on the Commons database), yet it actually does not. Any thoughts about what might cause this apparent anomaly? --Fæ (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe related to "#redirect" being written in lower-case? Usually, it's written in upper-case as "#REDIRECT", which also gives the nice arrow (which I don't get if it's written in lower-case). Lupo 14:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"& # 39 ; = Apostrophe" may have some connection. J e e 03:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's been weird ever since it was uploaded -- see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2014/03#Disappearing_image; various people have tried to redirect or delete it away ever since. But it would be good to get to the bottom of it. Jheald (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Mistake and script error

Sorry, My filemoving was made script error so only file was moved without description File:Flag of the Islamic State.svg(original) File:Flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant2.svg(massed). Could you guys revert to original one so can another filemover or admin can decide? Thanks.--DangSunM (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Done by russavia. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please fix file versions: File:宋逸民.jpg

宋逸民 is the name of a person not a weapon. Please restore the deleted version which is a photograph of a person and delete the wrong versions that show a weapon.--Wcam (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Appears to be related to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 蕭嘉錡. I notice that basically the same image (the photo of the person) exists as File:宋逸民.IMG 1391.jpg. No idea why someone uploaded a picture of a rocket/missile under that name. Lupo 17:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. In this case, could File:宋逸民.jpg be deleted then, or another deletion request needs to be filed? --Wcam (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at User:Cmnf's uploads

Cmnf (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Batch upload of porn/erotic pictures, mostly without metadata and with other (larger versions) already available on the web. --Eusebius (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

German-linked Commons images survive deletion?

‎Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Korean War Veterans Memorial resulted in deletion. Yet, the category and images are still ‎here on Commons — how can this be? Even if German FOP allows derivatives of 3‎-dimensional artworks and are allowable on de-wiki, it would seem that these images should not be on the U.S.-hosted Commons, or am I overlooking something? JGHowes ^talk - 16:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC) ‎

Nothing to do with "German-linked". You are overlooking something: the deletion request was closed on March 12, 2010, while the five images showing these sculptures were all uploaded much later in 2013 and in 2014. Feel free to nominate them for deletion again. Lupo 17:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Will speedy through these, with all the regret and sadness expressed in the DR. Someone needs to include a short outline of FoP in the United States next time wiki loves monuments is run.--KTo288 (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Before deleting them, please check whether they are in use on :de-Wikipedia and postpone the deletion of these ones, as :de sometimes allows local upload of such images. --Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The :de ones are all local uploads.--KTo288 (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate a second opinion on File:President Lee greeting war veterans (4520358542).jpg, I've overwritten the original file with a cropped version, the focus of which is now, Lee Myung-bak and Hilary Clinton, with what remains of the monument reduced to de minimis. I think its now ok, if anyone thinks otherwise either speedy or start a dr for it.--KTo288 (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I deleted the old version. Yann (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Royal Australian Navy Rank Images

The images of the rank slide from the Royal Australian Navy page were removed by Filedelinkerbot for no reason at all. Only two remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunno2014 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 6 December 2014‎ (UTC)

You really could do more for those of us without mind reading capabilities by signing your entries and linking to what it is you're talking about. By digging through the history of the page, I've identified that you are User:Dunno2014. By looking at your global contributions, I se that you've been editing over at the English Wikipedia project, including the article Royal Australian Navy. Digging through the history of that page, I see this block of edits by the bot Filedelinkerbot.

If that's what you're talking about, I still don't know what you're talking about, because the reason for deletion is clearly stated in the edit summary, which links to the deletion discussion here on Commons, so it's not at all "for no reason at all". It's also not very clear what you want Commons' administrators to do here. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

WTF?! Dcoetzee globally banned

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.

No action required. It seems that there are privacy issues, so better not to pursue this, as suggested below. Yann (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=globalauth&page=User%3ADcoetzee%40global. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I am very surprised. Not a clue what may have happened. I know Dcoetzee as a very valuable colleague for several years. Jcb (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

en-Arbcom seems to be involved, but declares it as top secrettalk:GorillaWarfare#User:Dcoetzee. And it seems that this kind of handling the "case" even led an :en-admin to renounce his rightsnoticeboard#Please remove my admin rights.--Túrelio (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

See also m:Steward requests/Permissions/2014-09#Dcoetzee@en.wikipedia, Dcoetzee@commons.wikimedia. Dcoetzee apparently resigned as an administrator on Commons and Wikipedia because of some unspecified "abuse". --Stefan4 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I'm surprised as well. I'm willing to give arbcom the benefit of the doubt here. If privacy is of concern here I can appreciate them protecting the information. My sugegstion is to rather ask Dcoetzee himself what happened. He can and should make the decision on whether to reveal information about his case himself. --Dschwen (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a Wikimedia Foundation ban, all queries should be directed to legal@wikimedia.org, as is clearly indicated at User:Dcoetzee. Nick (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Dcoetzee has every bit the right to answer or refuse to answer questions about a ban affecting him. --Dschwen (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems, Office also blocked [6] the fair-use upload bot, which has been developed by Dcoetzee. That could mean our template {{Fair use delete}}, which is of value to transfer images, which are going to be deleted from Commons, but are in use on :en Wikipedia and may qualify for fair-use at :en, has become useless. --Túrelio (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

As long as source code is available, we can have a replacements... — Revi 10:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a big problem. I'll look at setting up a replacement later today.

FYI m:Steward requests/Username changes#Commons fair use upload bot@global (usurp)

FYI 2 - I now operate the account. As a precaution I have notified en.wp Arbcom by email. I'll look at the technicalities later today, it may take me a few days but this is not an "urgent" sort of bot.

--Fæ (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Fae, thanks. And yes, beware not to become the new targed of the EN arbcom :-P - Jcb (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that User:Commons fair use upload bot (usurped) contains a notice that the bot runs on the Toolserver and that it "will" stop working on 30 June 2014. The latest edit to English Wikipedia also seems to be from that date, so I would guess that {{Fair use delete}} has been useless for quite some time. If Fæ or someone else is willing to make a new bot, this is of course welcome. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Moving over to WMFlabs may take a while, I have commitments for the next couple of weeks and as Stefan points out, the migration may need some changes to get the bot working again; I'm considering this a Christmas holiday project and will probably be looking for one or two co-operators to help maintain the bot at that time. As a sensible precaution I am waiting for an email reply from en.wp Arbcom to confirm there are no issues with me taking this further. I have had a reply from Dcoetzee stating that he is happy to see me take on the code maintenance and in his email to me he made it clear he agrees with the Office action. I know nothing about the reasons for the office action, neither do I want to know as there are likely to be privacy issues. At this point it would be a matter of good ethics for folks to avoid poking at an (uncontested) action and potential legal matter, where harm may result were all information public.

I suggest this thread is archived as there is no Admin action required. --Fæ (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

WondersHOOHA2014

WondersHOOHA2014 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

According to what appears to be the assessment of en.wikipedia and ja.wikipedia CUs, User:WondersHOOHA2014 probably belongs to a sockmaster who used dozens of accounts to add their images to those Wikipedias. [7][8] (Note "WondersHOOHA2014", "頑張る丸" and "ばっさーばっさー" among others) What do we want to do with this account on Commons and their images claimed to be Ryota Nakanishi's? A quick Google search show no evidence of them stolen from somewhere. whym (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yann started DR on the images: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by WondersHOOHA2014. whym (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Werner K. Giesa 152744.jpg

Would someone wish to mark this 2009 image upload? The uploader says it is own work but on flickr it has an NC restriction. But he says what the license is on the source so maybe an Admin needs to license review this image. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Done - The uploader seems to be the accountholder of the Flicr account. The image is also licened onder the FAL so the file is released under one commons computable license. It is not forbidden to add a cc-by-nc license as well. Natuur12 (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank You for your help. In this case, I felt an Admin should mark this image. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Touching base with administrators who have become almost inactive

In my daily report of 'active' users, I have started to include a table of administrators who have had minimal contributions in the past two years. You can find the list (currently 30 admins) tucked away at Userlist#admins. There is bound to be a natural life-cycle of interest for volunteers in any project, however some contributors can feel that their works go unnoticed. Christmas holidays are a good excuse to drop them an encouraging note or a private email if you have worked with them in the past. It may only take a friendly contact to encourage them back to being an active part of our cooperative volunteer adventure. My aim in creating the table is to provide a friendly proactive way of picking up on declining activity, rather than getting a notice from a 'crat after a year of not using the tools, with the risk of being desysoped a few weeks later. --Fæ (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Fæ: Good initiative. If they are leaving I think it's also nice to say a proper goodbye and acknowledge their contributions. I've previously relied on another stats page, but it is usually a long way behind. As a suggestion, could you link the usernames so we can visit them directly? --99of9 (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You can follow the 'GAM' links for their CentralAuth page. I hesitated to stick in user page links due to the notification thingy. If there is a handy way of ensuring the report is not going to annoyingly ping everyone listed, I would be happy to amend the report (maybe next week though). --Fæ (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Does linking to their User talk generate a notification? I guess that's where we want to go anyway. --99of9 (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Even a link to the user page should be no problem, if I remember correctly, pinging only works if you do not mention more than 20 users at the same time, and the notifications can be circumvented by blacklisting your bot, even if I don't remember correctly. --Didym (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ad in newspaper "looking for models", can I use it ?

I am writing the article in french wikipedia about a french movie director (John B. Root). That would be nice to have some pictures to use ! I stumbled upon a scan of an old ad he has put in newspaper to find new models.

Would it be ok in regards to copyrights to use it / upload it in wiki commons ?

Here it is : http://coulmont.com/vordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/parispaname3.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffinmyrtille (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 December 2014‎ (UTC)

@Muffinmyrtille: IANAL, but it looks to me like there is nothing copyrightable in this. Uploading it with {{PD-text}} in the license field should be fine. If the scan was done by someone else than you, use {{PD-Scan|PD-text}} instead. --El Grafo (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I goofed-need help, please

File:Thelma Todd 1933.jpg I uploaded a photo of the William Crooks instead of the cropped photo for Thelma Todd. Could someone please delete the locomotive photo? Thanks! We hope (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks!! :) We hope (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please delete

page Bouniki, user removed my speedy again and creates again page.--Motopark (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And also protected 1 week. --Alan ^(talk) 22:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please check both edits with same text

[9]] and [10], same text added--Motopark (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

BassPrada since 2011 only out of scope pages. Laurenmorales1 seems to be a sock.

Blocked for two weeks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

OTRS competence

Could someone produce a list of OTRS volunteers who represent the Commons community by responding to emails to permissions-commons but have fewer than 1,000 edits to Commons? Though I can search the SQL database for rights flags, it is not possible for someone without OTRS access to find out who has been granted access to the permissions-commons queue. I suggest this is published on Commons.

On the basis that we only give the filemover right to editors with at least 1,000 non-bot like edits, I would would like this analysis in order to raise a proposal for a similar minimum competence to access the queue, now that the OTRS flag is no longer managed on Commons.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Fæ - everybody with global OTRS permission should have access to the permissions queues (in general, i.e permissions-x) and in turn all of those with access to permissions queues should have access to permissions-commons. I don't know if there are exceptions to that rule, but that's what has been said in recent conversations. The current global OTRS permission enables anybody, whether or not they've got access to permissions-commons, to add OTRS templates, and that's without any level of community oversight. I suppose you could use an edit filter to tag OTRS permissions being added by editors here with less than 1,000 edits and they could be checked by experienced Commons editors. I wonder if we should maybe do that and assess who is adding what and if there are any problems as part of your suggested analysis. Nick (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on my years on OTRS, my understanding was that every queue had its own access permission and can be switched on or off separately for each user at any time. There is no particular reason why someone with "global permissions access" who happens to have never engaged in any significant copyright related discussion on Commons should need access to permissions-commons.

This does not stop someone with, say, access to info-en passing emails to the permissions-commons queue, so that someone with relevant experience (such as a demonstrated understanding of copyright policies on Commons) can handle it.

Yes, it would be possible to retrospectively report on who is adding tickets to images and then guess which of them might have OTRS access to permissions-commons, however that seems exceedingly bizarre compared to reporting who has been granted access as of today and then discussing what the minimum criteria for handling emails in that queue ought to be.

Keep in mind that OTRS volunteers may reply or close emails on permissions-commons without any indication on Commons that these actions have been taken.

To summarise, it seems logical that just as with Commons rights there are minimum standards to meet before having access granted, yet there is no Commons policy with an agreed minimum level of experience or demonstrable competence for OTRS volunteers to represent this project in the form of emails to permissions-commons. In practice being added to permissions-commons can be requested on the OTRS wiki and may never be discussed in public, so keeping an eye on who applies for OTRS access on meta and what queues they ask for at that point, is not in itself a solution to this absence of transparency. --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

All OTRS members with access to one or more permission queue, are added to the recent introduced global OTRS members group, see here. OTRS members who e.g. only have access to an info-XX queue, have not been added to this group. Jcb (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. This list does throw up more issues with how global OTRS access is granted, for example why users such as "B" (with no matched Commons account) or GB fan with only 300 edits on Commons need to have access to permissions-commons and therefore may or do represent the Commons community to email correspondents.

However the original question of how volunteers, like myself, can find a complete list of the users trusted with access to permissions-commons, rather than only those with global access, has yet to be addressed. Could you publish it in a transparent way, such as on Commons, please? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There is something like that at Meta, here, but it's incomplete. (A complete and up-to-date list is however available for all OTRS members at our private wiki). Please note that I can only tell you what and how. An OTRS administrator may be able to tell why. Jcb (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we please record what (if any) permissions are being added to Commons uploads by members of the global-OTRS group, ordered by number of edits on Commons, and ascertain what, if any, competence problems we're actually encountering. That way we (and the OTRS people) can perhaps come to a compromise agreement on what needs to be done to ensure only competent agents. I've spoken to Rjd0060 today and he has reiterated that the OTRS admins do not want agents with poor copyright knowledge and are very open to changes to weed out candidates that don't have the necessary knowledge. I don't think we actually know the size/scale and scope of the problem yet, so perhaps we should ascertain what we're needing to repair before embarking on repairs. Nick (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

We need to report on both global-OTRS and those with access to permissions-commons. Based on the above explanations, they are different things. Even though I know how to set up a bot to sniff through everyone's contributions, I would still need access to the list. Indeed nobody has given any reason as to why it is in this project's benefit (or covered by our policies or community consensus) to keep this information secret to the OTRS-wiki.

Nick, with regard to your point that OTRS volunteers who handle copyright issues should be competent on copyright, then this needs to be assessed before they are given access to permissions-commons, rather than months or years afterwards. It would be a pretty unpleasant system if the few volunteers on Commons experienced with copyright issues are effectively given the task of looking to trip OTRS volunteers up on copyright, in order to "weed" them off permissions-commons. --Fæ (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that new volunteers to OTRS should have their competency in copyright and closely related matters assessed, but to do that effectively, we really need to know what problems exist, if any, right now, with the existing OTRS agents. We've got a large number of permissions handlers who have little demonstrable experience of copyright and surrounding policy/legislation (on WMF - they might be experts through their work or from other online activities). The current agents (and those with little demonstrable experience in particular) really should be checked out and where necessary either helped to get back up to speed or if absolutely necessary, their permission be removed. I think it would be slightly pointless to start all of this by assessing new candidates and saying Yes/No on what would be a fairly arbitrary set of criteria then looking at the existing user base and finding there are specific gaps in knowledge and that we haven't been really looking for that knowledge in new candidates.

I would certainly hope that someone from OTRS could provide you with a list of all those users with access to permissions-commons, just to provide a double check that there's nobody adding permission templates on Commons who doesn't actually have permissions queues access, and that everybody that should have global-OTRS access actually does. I don't expect there to be any significant discrepancies between the two lists but it's a nice safety check really. Nick (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been told in a private channel on IRC that the global list is definitely everyone who has access to the permissions queues (I'm not quite sure why that needed IRC). So nobody else should be approving tickets. A report should be do-able. I might get to fiddle with SQL for this, I'm unsure if I will have time, so a request at bots/work request might be wise.

With regard to what problems exist, it probably is not worth me spending time thinking about that aspect as without access I can no longer examine specific cases. Hardly worth me investing time to get parked with "trust me, nothing to see here, move along" for reasons I will never know. --Fæ (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We can at least check the stuff on our side, looking for files where permission has been accepted but there are Freedom of Panorama issues, Derivative Work issues or other local legislation issues which make the image non-free in country of origin or an outright copyright violation. I totally understand about the OTRS internal competency issues, which require those with OTRS access to assess, but it may be that some concerns worthy of investigation become clear when doing some competency checks here on Commons. Nick (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes that can be done. I'm just speaking for what would motivate me as a volunteer with relevant experience and skill but can neither access OTRS nor deleted files; for an investigator/assessor one would never take a case without proper access to evidence. --Fæ (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Related example of an OTRS volunteer

A related example is the OTRS volunteer, Hahc21 (talk · contribs). Hahc21 has c. 1400 edits to Commons, is a license reviewer and does verify OTRS emails for permissions-commons, for example here (consequently I can adduce that they have access to the permission-commons queue, but I cannot verify it as who has access is not available to me as a Commons volunteer). Unfortunately Hahc21's recent candidacy for Arbcom resulted in a closer view of their contributions which resulted in serious questions being raised against their understanding on copyright issues. They have today resigned as an Admin on Wikipedia, the same day as the Arbcom election closes.[11][12]

There seems little doubt that their competence to handle copyright questions on permissions-commons should also have been examined in more detail before they were both given access to the OTRS queue or given the authority to mark images on Commons with OTRS tickets with the trust of the Commons community. It is circumstances such as this that should worry all of us that rely on the current arcane and non-accountable (to the Commons community at least) OTRS system. Hahc21's OTRS request in February 2013 can be found here, the fact that they were an English Wikipedia ArbCom clerk trainee was raised by steward Rschen7754 and may have influenced the decision. There is no evidence of any relevant questions about copyright being raised, only a suggestion by the meta bureaucrat Thehelpfulone that they should request access to info-en, which appears to have been added at that time.

By the way, I have no doubt that Hahc21 had the best of intentions. The process, an absence of community agreed competence criteria and its lack of accountability has seriously let them down too. --Fæ (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Fæ in relation to Hahc21 it's actually an interesting case. It would appear that the copyvios on English Wikipedia were an oversight on his part; AGF and all that. The fact that it involved the usual en.wp lynch mob concerns me more. What's interesting about Hahc21 is that when the Belfer scandal was exposed I wrote an extensive report on the issues surrounding it, and I noted that there was copyright infringement in en:Russia–United States relations.

I responded to usual deflection from the usual suspects asking them to deal with the copyright violation. This got the usual response that shows that people don't read but merely attack mindlessly. It was then rammed into people's heads by Jayvdb. Still, the copyright violation remained in the article. We even had board member Sj refusing to remove it, but instead asking the Belfer WiR to get copyright clearance (which was never forthcoming). I also raised the issue of copyright violations in #wikipedia-en, and was discussing with GorillaWarfare quite openly the issue of copyvios; even with the evidence she refused point-blank to remove it, because she was more concerned with playing MMORPG than in removing the copyright violation on that project -- she actually claimed (and I have logs of such) that people are not allowed to remove copyright violations on my request as it would be proxying -- and this is although she dealt with a copyright violation raised by someone else immediately before it.

It wasn't until I discussed the issue with Hahc21, that he clearly saw what the problem was, and proceeded to do what all those people on wikimedia-l, Sj, GorillaWarfare, other editors/admins in #wikipedia-en, etc should have done -- removed the copyright and revdelled all the edits -- one week after it was brought to the wider community's attention, yet only a matter of minutes after being brought to his attention.

Do tell where the issue of copyright violations and dealing with them suitably lays. At Hahc21 feet who made a couple of AGF mistakes? Or the wider insider community who were more concerned with ensuring that Sue Gardner could proceed with posting this monstrosity in which she clearly stated he "seems to have generally adhered to Wikipedia policy in his article writing" (ignoring the overt POV pushing for Belfer as well as copyvios, etc). Of course, by selling out the community in her Legal-reviewed report, this was able to continue culminating in the announcement of a $1.39 million grant (no doubt secured by Sue herself).

Let's not rag on Hahc21 here, and I have full faith from his demonstrated history of actually dealing with copyvios when brought to his attention in him having continued access to permissions-commons queues. Of course, we know that the OTRS admins play petty wikipolitical games and his access will likely be revoked (in fact, according to their recent standards, it should be revoked), which is all the more reason why the Commons community needs to ditch that OTRS and implement our own system with oversight from this community. russavia (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Extra large picture!

Hi. there is a problem in Category:Anatomy of the human muscular system. Thanx.SaMin SAmIN (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I fixed it for you. Someone uploaded a larger version of File:Vesalius 164frc small cropped.png. This image was used by the {{Human anatomy}} template without specifying a size. I modified the template to use a fixed 60 pixel width for the image. —RP88 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Leehandsomef150

New user uploading a bunch of junk. All uploads should probably be nuked. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Done by Denniss. --Túrelio (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please check contributions of Obamabane

Obamabane (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log)

Hello. Can any admin please review the contributions of the user listed above? It looks like a single-purpose accounts to upload copyrighted images depicting President Obama. I feel that some of them such as this one are offensive. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC) (PS.: I have notified the user about this thread. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC))

Blocked by Steinsplitter. All files deleted. Yann (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

He started on enwiki and now he is continuing here. I indef. blocked also users main account (Dorkakiin) --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Yann and Steinsplitter: Thanks for your attention. Best regards. -- M\A 13:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

These pictures

Are these pictures free, do they have to be marked or are they copy vios? An uploader says they are by Mike Watts but there is no online source like this example--and the uploader's name is not Mike Watts. Perhaps someone can fix this issue as they are high resolution images. If they are copy vios and not freely licensed, Mike Watts could initiate legal action against Commons. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Turelio for your help. I could not find a flickr account named Mike Watts. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please delete

User:Anderson6539 pictures have 0 x 0 pixel, out of scope--Motopark (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Done all nuked. Lupo 06:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

pop up request for donation

I had a pop up asking for donations to support wikipedial. Was it valid? I wanted to check it out first. Do you accept donations? And if so, what site do I use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b10a:f5dc:85fd:5ca8:cda0:a0b9 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 12 December 2014‎ (UTC)

I assume it is, but we are generally not notified when and especially how our hosting organization conducts fundraising. You have the possibility to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation -- this is the organization responsible for running this site (but does not care about contents) or you decide to donate to individuals like this who contribute to our content. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please delete the following files:

In the original uploads ABC offers them copyright free with attribution--they're just not worth fighting over. We hope (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 00:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. We hope (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

CAT:LR

Hi fellow admins,

We have +600 images (76,009 as of the time you're reading this page) waiting for review. If you can take 5 minutes to review images, that will help reducing backlog. (Note: for *.tistory.com images, go to bottom of the source file, and scroll down, and find BY icon or BY-SA icon on bottom right side. Version is -2.0-KR, per COM:사랑방#티스토리에서 올려진 사진들의 CCL 버전에 대한 의문. When unsure, feel free to ask me.)

— revi_msg 08:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I will take care of images from Bollywood Hungama‎. Thanks for reminder. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Two Picasa files were cropped, somebody with admin rights can update the "bot didn't find it" tags (1, 2). –Be..anyone (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems done by Jkadavoor. Next time, please crop it after review bot has run. (IIRC, it is set to run every ten minutes.) — revi_msg 05:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good trick to convince the bot, but it would eat too much of my limited mobile broadband bandwidth. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There are cropbot and croptool. And as for uploading the original image, you may apply to become a License Reviewer, then you will be able to upload by URL. I think it would be straight forward to add Picasa to the whitelist. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Now it's almost exceeding 1,000! Please help them by reviewing some... — revi_msg 10:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a tool similar to DelReqHandler that would allow us to check the license at Flickr or elsewhere and then add the tag in one click without the several pageloads now required. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

We already have two JavaScripts (not a gadget - see COM:LR) that helps admins/reviewers to pass or fail the LRs, but it only works when you are in the file description page. — revi_msg 13:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it necessary to see the whole file description page for performing license review? -- Rillke^(q?) 08:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course you should see full file description to do LR. — Revi 10:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Double Post

I recently uploaded this file but didn't realize that it already existed. How do I delete it? Al Khazar (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Only admins can delete files, but at any rate,

Done -FASTILY 19:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive check

Hi! Could someone please check what was the license for the following to files. Before deleted, the files were moved to the Estonian Wikipedia, but without license information. Thanks in advance!

--Pikne 09:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Both carried the template {{KunstiteoseFoto}}, though initially had been uploaded as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. --Túrelio (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

same usergage

User:Elber andres bonilla and User:Vinced & caballo de oro will have same spam text in userpage--Motopark (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted by Fastily. Yann (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

Please have a look at Special:Contributions/DJ_Erick_Roman and clean up accordingly. Thank you, --M7 (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Khoon Ka Khoon.jpg

Would an Admin wish to pass or fail this image as I cannot verify if this image is indeed free...from 1935. The resolution is also quite low. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please close this DR

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alfred Nobel i Björkborns herrgård..JPG seems to be local guide--Motopark (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 22:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please close this DR

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wikipedia_Edit_2014.webm - Small attribution problem that has since been corrected by the up-loader within the video. Rationale no longer applies, Sadads (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Old version deleted and DR closed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalized track file

The English closed caption for File:National Anthem of Bahamas.ogg has been vandalized. I'd fix it myself but I have no idea how. Reported via OTRS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Grrrrrr, deleted TimedText:National_Anthem_of_Bahamas.ogg.en.srt. Thanks for bringing this up.

Should we prohibit it for anon users to insert Swastikas completely? -- Rillke^(q?) 23:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Pls delete

I accidentally uploaded the same image of mine twice. Can you please delete it one. Delete this one, as it is a duplicate: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Divine_Liturgy_1.jpg Thank you. --Zakharii 01:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Next time please use {{speedydelete|uploader requested}} within seven days of uploading. Green Giant (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)`

Images uploaded by user:Pmsocialmedia

Hello! I am not sure whether I am posting this in the right place or not, feel free to correct me if I'm not.

In September of 2011, a (now no longer active) user uploaded several images. All images are tagged as being 'self-made'. However, some images (for instance File:The ten Boom Family.jpg) were made ca. 1900 which makes this claim rather unlikely. It could be argued that an image of that age falls under PD-OLD, but (see the same image) it looks as if might be saved from a website. That goes for File:Casper Ten Boom's family bible..jpg as well. Other images, e.g. File:Ten Boom Museum.jpg and File:Ten Boom Museum1.jpg, might be self-made, but could be 'borrowed' as well. Given the unlikelihood of earlier mentioned images, I am a bit suspicious. A co-editor on the Dutch Wikipedia has tried to contact the Museum but to no avail.

What would be a good course of action? Richardw (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Many have come from the museum's Flick River site:

ten Boom Family photo link.
ten Boom Museum photo link.
Casper ten Boom's Bible photo link.
Casper ten Boom Pinterest link.
From Flickr-looks like the Flickr uploader took the photo and it's under copyright.
Hiding Place photo from the museum.

It looks like everything uploaded by the account belongs to someone else. Would suggest putting them up for Deletion Review with the links to the other photos posted here. We hope (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. I will start deletion requests for all images concerned. Richardw (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Images uploaded by User:Hoary

That's me. I'm untrustworthy, it seems. Here, Jameslwoodward suggests (politely and amicably) that I ask one of youse to verify that the claim I have made for the copyleft status of each of

is true, and to mark that you have done so by adding a {{Licensereview}} tag to it.

Thank you for your trouble. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Hoary in future on such images just add {{Licencereview}} to the licencing field and it can be checked in due course. russavia (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent; thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please delete this image

Hello, Please delete my Photo link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elekrownia.jpg Thank You Krzysztof1997 (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC).

Done Yann (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Mark teague 8564.JPG - hide previous revision?

For File:Mark teague 8564.JPG, a cropped revision has been uploaded to avoid any copyright issues with the artwork shown in the previous revision. Would it please be possible to consider hiding the previous revision? Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:IMG 0853.JPG

Could someone please delete the last two revisions of this file (uploaded by Angelrodrigues87 in violation of Commons:Overwriting existing files – and probably in violation of Commons:Licensing as well; RobertOA1987, who has uploaded multiple copyright violations, has also uploaded File:Puto1.jpg|the same photo and claims to be the author and copyright holder)? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Close deletion request

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Snsd album 1.jpg

This old DR was never closed. Probably because it was not listed anywhere. It was tagged for speedy deletion then nominated to deletion. After being deleted following speedy tag, the DR wasn't changed. Somebody may want to close it just to avoid any confusion. Thank you.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 07:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Done --Krd 07:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Derzsi Elekes Andor

Could we have some eyes on contributions of this user? It looks like a case of blatant self-promotion; the images might be in scope, but there may be issues with permission and/or the description text the user adds to their files. -FASTILY 20:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I blanked the user page as blatant spam, and added a warning. We will see if more is needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted it - only one edit, and all spam. Regards, FASTILY 20:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, check out uploads such as File:Skálmöld - Club 202, 2014.12.10 (11).JPG, File:Masha Scream Arhipova - Club 202, 2014.12.10 (4).JPG, File:Skálmöld - Club 202, 2014.12.10 (6).JPG. The file description text is all spam -FASTILY 20:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. Probably all uploads descriptions should be cleaned, and this URL should be added to the black list. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Skálmöld - Club 202, 2014.12.10 (11).JPG and File:Skálmöld - Club 202, 2014.12.10 (6).JPG contain a lot of text from Facebook. There is no evidence of permission and the text seems to be out of scope for Commons anyway. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for Your help. Regards -- Biberbaer (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I once again, it is accurate as a source simply Courtesy of Derzsi Elekes Andor to write down. I'm not sure. He is not the author. Can he provide the images "are courtesy" upload into the net? Regards -- Biberbaer (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

a request

I don't think User:Allo002 is a vandal. I think they are a well intentioned newbie.

Unfortunately they have a notion that when two cameras have been reported to be "identical" all the images should be merged into a single category. They requested deletion of Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10 -- twice. Before making these requests they emptied the category, one image at a time. Both these requests were closed as delete -- because the category was empty.

I requested restoration at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive#Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10 on December 5th. Allo002 changed the category to a redirect on December 12th, to Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ20.

I think this was counter to the conclusion at Commons:Undeletion requests. Oddly, we have close to a thousand images that have exif data that says they were taken with a DMC-ZS10, but only thirty images taken with a DMC-TZ20.

I know a bot could put all the images currently in Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ20 into Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS10, where most of them belong. But there are the thirty images actually taken with a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ20. Could someone get a bot to restore the images where they belong, while arranging for the thirty images actually taken with a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ20 to stay where they belong? Geo Swan (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I did it with VFC fairly easily -- although you do have to unmark all the images you don't want to move, the gallery is in alpha order, as is the VFC list, so it's just a matter of paging though them. It also helps that the EXIF appears on VFC. Several comments, however:

Category:Taken with Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ20 actually contained over 1500 images, not "close to a thousand". Or am I misunderstanding something?
File:Seefeldquai - Bacchanalia 2012-01-25 16-30-40 (TZ20).JPG was not in the gallery, but should have been
File:110831 A380 JFK Airport New-York.JPG was in the gallery, but was taken with a ZS10
File:May 9, 2011 Wall, South Dakota tornado damage.jpg (as above)

Should I delete the gallery? If for some reason you want to keep it, it should be corrected.

I note that it would have been even faster if I had realized that many of these are also in Category:Photographs by Geo Swan, as those could have been moved without paging through them.

. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Rename File:XFCE4 en Debian GNU% 2FHurd.png

I recently uploaded this free screenshot and I want tu rename to File:XFCE4 en Debian GNU/Hurd.png with the slash, that is part of the name of the distribution. Because the slash causes serious issues with already uploaded files, I decided to don't move the file and request some admin help, in order to rename the file to the correct one. Yhanks in advance. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to rename a file with a slash... I will rename it to GNU-Hurd, which is the closest thing... --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 00:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Softpedia Logo 3.jpg

Hey. I was just coming to see if you could check on the DR of the above file as the file is a vandalized version of File:Softpedia Logo.png, which is the correct Softpedia logo. Seemingly, one of the vandals of the correct Softpedia file has created an account called 99991 to upload the vandalized file. DLindsley ^{Need something?} 13:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Yann (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

User-Made US County Seals

I was wondering if I could have someone take a look at the contributions of Mr. Joshua Lyman (talk · contribs) and Pittsburgh Sealer (talk · contribs) (possibly the same person). Both accounts are bulk uploading svg county seals for various counties in the United States. The seals appear to be their own creations that are derived from the US State seal for the states that they are in. My concern is that these are not described as the unofficial, unsanctioned, original research seals that they appear to be. These seals are being placed in Wikipedia County articles and I am afraid they are being improperly represented as "official" when they are probably not real. They are also not being listed as user created, and they creation dates and licenses appear incorrect or misleading. Could someone take a look at this and possibly perform some automated / bot edits to properly describe and license all these files? --Dual Freq (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This User's uploads

Dear Admins,

This user uploaded 7 images on December 29 but they seem to come from this flickr account with low EXIF and uncertain copyright/context. This uploader had at least one image deleted in this DR on his talkpage. The context of the 7 images are unclear. For example, this image is dated to 2014 but the person pictured in it died in 1939. The 2010 camera metadata only suggests that this is a picture of an older picture. Does an Admin have a solution for dealing with these 7 uploads from this flickr account or are they considered own work? They appear to be derivative images or flickrwashes--at first glance. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

COM:LL. All files from the Flickr account deleted. The account added to the black list. User blocked. Thanks for your good working (once again). -- Geagea (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action Geagea. I thought that the flickr account needed to be blocked ASAP and the user had several images deleted already and persisted in this activity of uploading derivative images. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

Almost all my uploads are my own work files except 7-8 files which are work of others or PD-India. In all of my own work files, I have mentioned Author's name as author=ABHIJEET, which was my previous username. As it is my real name, I changed it for privacy reasons. Now my new username is Rsika. I request following change in my all own work files - Author=ABHIJEET --> Author = Rsika.

I have learned that it can be easily done by using VisualFileChange.js. Unfortunately I use mobile and I don't have access to computer in my village. I request some admin to help me out. Rsika (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aoi Sora Fest - Marseille - 2011-12-04- P1300310.jpg

Since it is manually reopened, it may not be in the chronological list. J e e 05:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Child porn

User:Ilhuween immediately needs to be stopped! -- Ies (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I have notified the Wikimedia Foundation. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

WMF locked account, I deleted three more blatant copyvio. Haven't checked rest. — Revi 14:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

File:SHAMIM-ARVIND.jpg

Can you take a look at this Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm want this image deleted. The image is Selfie taken by Shamin Zakaria a noted journalist and photographer this can be checked here and uploaded by Shamin Zakaria 2 years ago in 2012.Shamin and Ankur are friends are both photographers have worked together.You can verify it here on January 13th 2012.Ankur J Das has made no claim for copyright An OTRS from Ankur has been requested and is being complied with but he is not the copyright holder and is non Wiki user.I have faced harassment and legal threats hence quit English Wikipedia hence not logging in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2770::21a:4aff:fe2c:4029 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 31 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Don't forum shop. BTW, User:Ankur J Das does have a Wikipedia account. He even uploaded a number of photos. He has been contacted through two different channels; if an OTRS confirmation is forthcoming, the story of that image surely will be resolved. And if he is not the copyright holder on that image, he can surely say who is, and then that copyright holder can provide the necessary release. Lupo 14:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

File thumbnail doesn't display properly

I have uploaded the file File:G&SWR 1850.gif.

It shows fine in Wikimedia and is used in the wikipedia file Glasgow and South Western Railway; it's a map about halfway down on the right.

If you click on the map, the thumbnail doesn't expand properly and you usually get the error message

Error: Could not load thumbnail data. could not load image from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/G%26SWR_1850.gif/1024px-G%26SWR_1850.gif

I have re-uploaded it a couple of times without success.

I tried renaming the file here on my own computer and uploading that using a different filename, but the uploader wouldn't let me, as "that file is already uploaded."

I don't know what to do next. Afterbrunel (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Most likely a size issue due to limitations of the .gif renderer. Is there any reason you use an improper file format for maps? .gif should only be used for animated stuff, .png or .svg should be used for maps. --08:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"Is there any reason ... ?" Well, here are the first sentences of the Help information on wikimedia about creating svg files: "The source code of every SVG file should begin with the basic information of its dimension and namespace. Document type declaration or DOCTYPE is entirely unnecessary. W3 insists that character encoding declaration is essential, but its validator does not. " I don't find that a great encouragement to carry on. On that theme, I am just trying my humble best to help to provide useful information; it might be considered that the word "improper" above was discouraging, rather than encouraging. Afterbrunel (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Kirman ortiz

Kirman ortiz (talk · contribs) has uploaded about three dozen photos, many of which are copyvios and the rest are selfies. (all have random text as the file names) I can tag all of them, unless someone wants to just go through his contributions and delete them. I've already left a message on his user talk page asking him to stop. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I went through them and speedied the copyvios and did a batch DN on the rest. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Tmwets

This user requires help regarding an image transfer from wiki travel. Until now the only file description of the transferred images is always "copy from wikitravel". See for instance File:Aurora Borealis Alaska.jpg. - Ies (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Probleme mit Kategorie

Hallo, ich schreibe mal in deutsch und hoffe es findet sich ein Admin der das versteht. In der Kat. [Category:Delosperma congestum] sind sämtliche Bilder (das Sämlingsbild ist nicht eindeutig bestimmbar) falsch bestimmt. Die dargestellte Pflanze ist warscheinlich noch nicht mal ein Delosperma. Alle gelb blühenden Pflanzen in der Kat müssten nach [Category:Delosperma 'Gold Nugget'] verschoben werden. Ich habe hier 2 Fotos von dem echten Delosperma congestum, die sid allerdings nicht von mir. Wie wäre das Prozedere für den Upload? Der Urheber würde die Bilder auch an Wikipedia spenden. --Michael w (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Michael, beim ersten Teil des Problems habe ich Dir schon mal helfen können. Die Bilder der falschen Delosperma congestum stehen jetzt, wie von Dir vorgeschlagen, unter Category:Delosperma 'Gold Nugget'. -- Ies (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Danke, sollen/müssen die Dateien jetzt auch noch umbenannt werden? Der zweite Teil meiner Frage hat sich vorerst erledigt, da der Urheber im Moment nicht per Email erreichbar ist. --Michael w (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion discussion getting out of hand

Would someone mind helping sort out the issue on this undeletion discussion? It's been getting out of hand, mostly because of how the opposing side of undeletion is responding to the supporting side of undeletion. Thanks. DLindsley ^{Need something?} 23:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki

Request to admin. Please create these messages [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18][19]. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Done except MediaWiki talk:Aboutpage/ce - Are you sure? The page don't exist. Do you really like to link here to the /ru subpage? --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I found this MediaWiki:Aboutpage/ru Here on this asked to create but now everything is translated. Everything is OK. Thank you so much. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry there something wrong. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong? Looks ok for me. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The moment so делахь, хатта Commons:Upload help агӀонгахь. should be so Боца хьехам дӀабешначул тӀехьа файлаш чуяхарах лаьцна хаатарш делахь, хатта Commons:Upload help агӀонгахь. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your translation is incomplete, the {{#if: are missing. Please post the complete translation here. Thanks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

| en = Please visit '''[[Commons:Upload help]]''' if you need to ask questions about uploading files{{#if:{{{form|}}}| after reading [[Commons:First steps/Upload form]]}}.

Made a better translation. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

it is also necessary to translate. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it please refresh. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

OK --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Files without a file information page

947 files on Commons have somehow lost their textual file information page, see [20]. It would be nice if an administrator could go through the list and try to fix the files:

If a file is supposed to be deleted, also delete the file (not only the file information page).
If a file isn't supposed to be deleted, try to undelete the textual file information page.

Also: Why do some files lose their file information pages? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I just looked at one of them, File:- Pure Oil Service Station, Intersection of U.S. 130 Northbound and Collingswood Circle. Southeast side of circle., Collingswood, Camden County, NJ HABS NJ,4-COLWO,2-10.tif. That one looks like an upload with the GLAMwiki Toolset gone wrong. The logs show only the upload, not a deletion of any kind. Judging from the filenames and the TIFF filetype, I guess most of the files fall in the same category as that one. --Rosenzweig τ 22:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I restored one page which was deleted because the file was missing; seems the file has turned up now (File:Вики-конференция 2014 в Москве 06.webm). I also deleted one pageless file as a copyvio grabbed from the web (File:Wolfgang Bodison.jpg). --Rosenzweig τ 22:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I deleted or restored a few more where I could. But it seems like the majority of those were indeed uploaded without a file description page, so there is nothing to restore. --Rosenzweig τ 22:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how GLAMwiki Toolset or other tools can upload files with a file information page. I would have thought that Mediawiki always creates a file information page when you try to upload a file (although the page could be empty). If there is no file information page which can be recovered, I guess the right thing to do is to create one (with a "no source" tag, a "no licence" tag or something).

Many of the files seem to be part of a batch upload by User:Fæ. I hope that he remembers where he got the files from so that he can fix file information pages for them.

Although you deleted File:Wolfgang Bodison.jpg, there does not seem to be any visible log message showing your deletion. Maybe you need to create a file information page in order to put something in the deletion log? I think that it would be a good idea to do that as it makes deletions more transparent to users. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be the case,

Done. The others I deleted once had file description pages that were already deleted per DRs (and the files mysteriously left behind). They were the LA2-Blitz-... files on page 6 of your list. --Rosenzweig τ 23:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WMF server drop outs are the probable cause of any of my uploads missing text pages. It was rare, but there were 290,000 HABS images. Regenerating any missing pages can be done, but is something that I will need my desktop for and I'm traveling for a few days. Fæ (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have given you a list of the "HABS" images without a file information page on your talk page and extended the time limit for File:- Pure Oil Service Station, Intersection of U.S. 130 Northbound and Collingswood Circle. Southeast side of circle., Collingswood, Camden County, NJ HABS NJ,4-COLWO,2-10.tif so that it isn't deleted while you are still travelling. Try to fix these once you get time to do so. Many of the remaining ones seem to be part of other batch uploads made by you from similar sources such as HALS and HAER.

There are 16 files without a file information page which were not uploaded by Fæ. The database report now only shows those 16 files. What should be done with those? --Stefan4 (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

See this list about Zombie images. -- Geagea (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It is sad that the WMF don't fix such bugs... --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

File:Jalalk357.jpeg upload with different pictures--Motopark (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Done as well as several other social-media style files. Green Giant (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:History_merging_and_splitting/Requests

Commons:History_merging_and_splitting/Requests – None of the requests posted during the month of December have been fulfilled. Can someone please look into these requests? Instructions on how to complete these tasks can be found at Commons:History_merging_and_splitting. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

And a huge backlog at Category:Media requiring a split up. *Sigh* Splitting files is a very time consuming task --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I understand how you feel. The task requires thinking, planning, and making judgment calls. Very time-consuming. I've split some articles at Encyclopedia Dramatica. Once, a sysop account was hijacked, and the hijacker merged a ton a pages into ED's Main Page (NSFW). I ("JuniusThaddeus") was the one who undid that mess:

Ensuring that each revision ended up in the proper location was very time-consuming. I would love to help empty that backlog, but the entire wiki would panic if I could delete and undelete file pages :) --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

File:Porin vaakuna.svg.png not official, some fake picture--Motopark (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Done by Denniss. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

CAT:LR again

Original discussion was archived...

Hi folks again,

We now have a nnnuuummmbbbeeerrr (read:number) of CAT:LR backlog.

As of 17:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC):1,259
As of the last time this page is purged:76,009

Your help on reviewing images will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for helping backlog reduce, and happy new year! — Revi 17:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It was 1600+ 3 days ago... Yann (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a script, similar to DelReqHandler, to make it much easier to deal with these. We certainly could not keep up with today's volume of deletions without DRH (remember the good old days, when you had to load every image to remove the {{Delete}} tag and manual add {{Delh}} and {{Delf}}?). The same seems to be happening here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so, because you have to make sure 1) file source has that file 2) EXIF is not problematic 3) license is tagged properly (and more). There is no way to show these information in one-page. We have two scripts that gives you option to [pass] or [fail] above the lr template, though. — Revi 14:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What scripts are currently available to help with this task? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you all, backlog is now dropped to 254. Yay! — Revi 05:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Closing of UDR with the rationl COM:L is wrong

User:MichaelMaggs closed UDR as "Not done" with the rational The formulation that "URAA can't be the sole reason for deletion" is wrong. I do understand why he have done so. that's because there is no real reason to decline the UDR. I'm sorry Michael you can not close UDR saying COM:L is wrong and therefore this UDR is not closed. If you thing that The formulation that "URAA can't be the sole reason for deletion" is wrong so suggest to change it to the correct formation. Until that I dont see any reason to delete files that falls under URAA agreement.
As far as I understand this vote nominated by you But I dont think you meant it be unsuccessful. You argument that changing or keeping PRP will affect was wrong. The Precautionary Principles policy is a general policy for the cases where we don't have specific rules.
I may not answer her today because I am busy. So I apologize in advance. -- Geagea (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that COM:L does not say what you allege it says. I quoted the actual policy wording in my closure of the undeletion request. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I know that my English is not very good. But reading in a simple English it says exacly that. Can you explain in a simple English please. -- Geagea (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, it may be that this is a language issue. The actual policy wording at Commons:Licensing#Uruguay Round Agreements Act reads "Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle."

When people say "URAA can't be the sole reason for deletion" they are usually arguing that an image is allowed to be hosted here if is copyright-protected in the US only because of the URAA. In other words, the argument is that Commons should ignore US copyright-protection because we don't like what the URAA says. That is wrong, as Commons policy is not and never has been to pick and choose which US copyright laws we will uphold.

To put it simply, we must not blindly delete merely because someone mentions the URAA, but we should evaluate the US copyright position carefully. If the file is found to be copyright-protected in the US, then we must follow US law and delete it. So - don't delete on a mere allegation of URAA copyright-protection, but do delete if the allegation is well-founded. That is what happened here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This interpretation is contrary to WMF suggestion found here, and to a widely supported RfC. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I would assume you mean the sentence, at the link you gave, that says "The community should evaluate each potentially affected work using the guidelines issued by the Legal and Community Advocacy Department, as well as the language of the statute itself, and remove works that are clearly infringing." Right, Yann? Those 'guidelines' it refers to being the exact ones I specifically discussed point by point, explicitly showing, since people were wanting to play "I don't hear that", that based on the facts, those guidelines, and the law the book is clearly under copyright in the US, and thus illegal to host on Commons. Revent (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

A minor slightly tangential point of language, it is probably more accurate to say unlawful rather than illegal, though as a community we might be better off avoiding expressing our assessment of copyright status in a way that may look like legal advice. --Fæ (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ: Fair point, and I expressed it differently at the DRV, more along the lines of 'unless there is some other evidence no one has brought up, this work is clearly infringing.' I'll freely admit that the repeated insistence on ignoring that WMF legal repeatedly said works should be individually assessed annoys me, especially after the way that Yann refers to anyone that disagrees with him as 'basically a vandal' or other such things. My sarcasm probably made that a bit obvious, tho. Revent (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You guys only read what you want to read. The guideline says: However, if a work’s status remains ambiguous after evaluation under the guidelines, it may be premature to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice, because these notices often contain information that is crucial to the determination of copyright status. Due to the complexity of the URAA, it is likely that only a small number of the potentially affected works will be subject to such notices. So clearly, you made up you own interpretation. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a never ending (?) drama. Imho WMF Legal should writ a statement how to proceed on commons with uraa affected files. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Yann, I've read the entire thing, more than once. "If the status remains ambiguous after evaluation" means you actually evaluate it, on the basis of the guidelines and the law, not that you pretend the URAA doesn't exist. @Steinsplitter: WMF legal gave 'general' guidance on how to assess works at here, pointed at the statute, and specifically said "If a specific work obviously has restored copyright under these guidelines, Commons may choose to apply the regular speedy deletion procedure used for potentially copyrighted works." At the DRV, after much silly arguing, I specifically went step by step through that 'process', just to make it explicitly clear. At neither the DR nor the DRV did anyone actually contest that the book in question has a restored copyright under the URAA, or even make any arguments at all about the copyright status of the book. The opposition to deletion was, to my reading, just 'we should ignore the URAA, for whatever reason' (and off-topic drama). That position is contrary to repeated statements by WMF legal, contrary to COM:L, and, given that the community explicitly rejected 'relaxing' the PRP with regards to URAA-affected files, contrary to the statement "that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." Yann's slow-burn edit war at COM:URAA, where he removed mention of individually assessing works despite him being repeatedly reverted, does not change that fact. "The existence of the URAA" is not a reason to delete files, but, to paraphrase what MichaelMaggs stated above, a well-founded allegation that a work is in violation of COM:L is. I, personally, would think it would be great if someone would raise some kind of reasonable doubt as to if this book had a restored copyright under the URAA, as I think the term of copyright in the US is grossly excessive, but no one has made any argument to that effect, and we cannot ignore US law. Start a new DRV with actual arguments about it's US copyright status, or host the damn thing in Canada. Revent (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks to me that File:La Nación Argentina. Justa, libre, soberana. Tercera edición.pdf was forgotten in all this because it never was in that category... or am I missing something? Lupo 22:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The uploader made a comment on my talk page about having 'uploaded other copies' and never previously having a problem, and my response was that I wasn't going to go hunting for them. You destroyed my willful ignorance. :P Yes, I only DR'd the individual page scans that were in that category. That edition seems to be missing the copyright page for some reason, but per WorldCat all three editions were published in Buenos Aires in 1950, so the same argument would seem to apply. Revent (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Michael, now I understand your UDR closer, but there are few problems with it:

From reading the just UDR closer your point is not clear. without the addition her it really look like you closed the UDR as COM:L is wrong.
When you say, in simple words, that the interpretation is we must not blindly delete merely because someone mentions the URAA you really mean that we must blindly delete because someone mentions the URAA. It is not rational to assume that this part of COM:L speaks about irresponsible DR's. The part where admins guided to check irresponsible DR's (of any kind) covered in another part of our guidelines.
Actually, only if we add the word "irresponsible " to this sentence it can be understand in your way. But it is not. If we choose to add words to a sentences in COM:L it may change the whole content. Allowing non simple logical interpretations of CON:L will open a new range of interpretations. The correct understanding of COM:L or any other of our guidelines should be the simple understanding of it. You must to admit, at least, that there are more then one understanding of this sentence. And the way I understand it cant be less good then yours.
Michael, even though I do appreciate your long threads about URAA, which only means that you try seriously to solve it, I dont think that choosing a deletion of those files was not the correct thing. The correct move is to gather them together and move them to the local wikis or to the new formation that include the local wikimedias that send a letters her (which I prefer not being formed). Together with the other act done against this decision it looks like Commons dont care the other projects.

I just want to mention that for non-native English speakers reading long threads is really a problem. when they see long thread they just pass on it. I admit that I didn't read your threads because of that.

As far as I understand, Commons is not the only place that cares copyright. There is a decision that accepted in Commons. WMF doesn't say that they ignore URAA, they only say this low tested in one trial and the real effect of it is unknown. In any case they think that, at least in the 4 countries that send the letter, that it is not significant enough that the files be deleted. The template {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} could cover any other implication. That is the meaning of wikimedia as I see it. And they willing to fight in court if it is necessary (that part I know as they are visited in Tel Aviv).
@Steinsplitter: , WMF can't say more than they already say because it will being considered as they Violate Commons independent. They can't tell you what to add to COM:L or what changes be needed. But I do agree they can say more. -- Geagea (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Geagea, I've tried very hard to understand why you think the wording I relied on in COM:L is unclear, but I can't see it, based on your long explanation above. There may be some language issue, and as I don't speak your language the only thing I can suggest is to find a fluent Hebrew/English speaker who can translate the policy into Hebrew. One problem, though, is that you say that you did not read earlier threads as they were 'long'. I would ask you to bear in mind that this is a complex and quite subtle area of US and international copyright law. In order for your really strong opinion to be given due weight it is important that you fully understand not only the relevant law but also the quite lengthy history of how the Commons community has already tried to deal with the issues. I agree that it's not easy for non-native English speakers to have to read everything in English, and I do wish that Commons could become more genuinely multi-lingual. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the people voted her understand it in my way. The supports and also the opposers. This was necessary because everybody understand it in my way. as a matter a fact you also understand it in my way until you come up with this UDR closer. It is not matter of language it is only matter of simple logic and common sense. I will comment about the comment of User:Jkadavoor below, hopefully tonight. Just wanted clear this important issue. -- Geagea (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

We must not blindly delete merely because someone mentions the URAA means, in simple terms, research the image, establish source, publication date and copyright status using any and all resources available, i.e copyright libraries, library catalogues and online resources. If it cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt, after significant, non-trivial, in depth research, that the work is in the public domain in the United States, it must be deleted. If the copyright status genuinely remains unclear after extensive research, then not deleting the image is a viable (but not necessarily automatic) option, which then follows the WMF guidance of awaiting a DMCA takedown to provide the additional information needed to determine copyright status. Nick (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The question is what is reasonable doubt. If I understand correctly the WMF - URAA is not reasonable doubt as a sole argument, we have to check if there is more problems that together with URAA that become to reasonable doubt. I am not sure I understand correctly your argument about DMCA takedown. But already mentioned the template {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} which can cover any potential. I hope this answer your question. -- Geagea (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as the URAA itself (and other non-US copyrights), a useful reference is USCO Circular 38A (it's here), which not only gives the text of the actual relevant law, but a detailed list (which is 'arguably better' than what is on enwiki) of when various countries established bilateral relations with the US or joined the various treaties. Things such as simultaneous publication in a Buenos Aires Convention country, but not the US, can affect URAA eligibility (the Convention State is always the source country in such cases, as far as US copyright is concerned). Revent (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment The issue here is poor handling of RfCs. First we have a RfC Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA which was voted and again voted for the closing rational too. But a few people are not happy with that result and start edit warring on DR and UDR pages depending PRP as a rational to override this consensus. To achieve a solution MichaelMaggs started a new RfC Commons:Review of Precautionary principle with rational "to relax the scope of the Precautionary Principle policy to allow Commons to host more of the locally public domain files that are being deleted because of the US URAA law, and also to keep more photos that have freedom of panorama in their home country but which might be copyright-protected in the US" which was rejected. But what rejected is merely relaxing PRP; not the previous RfC. So please be careful in making new RfCs. The subject should be clear and simple so that participants (many of them are non English speakers) can understand what is proposing and discussing. Also, closers should close as "approved/rejected"; never try to find new solution which is not discussed. Solution Now: Start a new proposal to re-evalualte the first RfC and notify all early participants and VPs of all WM projects so that a wide community can decide what should do. At the minimum, stop pushing individual POVs for the time being. Revert all new edits on the existing discussions as vandalism. J e e 15:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a new proposal to re-evalualte the first RfC should be started. The proposal should be written in simple english (and if possible translated) and the community should be notified on all VP's. It is very very hard for non involved user to understand what this URAA thing is exactly. For now i suggest a moratorium for URAA related deletions until we have a community wide consensus. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Another round of URAA discussion is a depressing thought; considering how this issue seems to set well established Commonsists against each other it would be great to find a way of avoiding it.

Perhaps we can create a community proposal to IEG (or whatever the right bit of WMF grants is called) to pay for independent legal advice against a community created statement of the issue and publish the legal advice to volunteers as a Commons-definitive paper? My previous estimate of $5,000 might be conservative, based on my experience with legal advice for Wikimedia organizations, perhaps $10,000 might be needed to commission a detailed paper and statement of advice. --Fæ (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Steinsplitter; we can declare a moratorium for URAA related deletions and undeletions until we have a community wide consensus. I hope this will help both sides to calm down. J e e 02:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Bringing back that Yosemite screenshot

Please can you bring that picture back, upload that picture to Wikipedia English only, and reduce the size to 450px? It feels awkward for the Finder (software) article to have that picture removed. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Temporary restored to permit transfer to enwki (which permits fair use). --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyxp2000: Please add {{copyvio|Transfer to enwiki completed}} to File:Yosemite Finder.png upon completion of the transfer. Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

user:TheTalkerBot

TheTalkerBot (talk · contribs) seems to be uploading professional erotic photographs, and claiming them as "own work" but which contain watermarks -- 65.94.40.137 23:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@65.94.40.137: I uploaded them all to eBay for sale. I then re-copied them off of eBay. I add watermarks to some of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTalkerBot (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC) (UTC)

Are you the photographer who actually photographed the models? Doesn't Playboy own the Playmate's photograph, not the photographer? -- 65.94.40.137 23:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by Elcobbola. J e e 03:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Aditi Indian Arts Heritage

Judging from their uploads and the file descriptions this appears to be a promotion-only account. De728631 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Done, user blocked and uploads deleted. Green Giant (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

User:Roestm pictures, if I remember right, same pictures has been deleted before--Motopark (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm back

After a break I want to continue my work. Please unlock my user and my discussion pages. Thx in advanced, regards --Pitlane02 _talk 12:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Done i unprotected your user and usertalk --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

thx --Pitlane02 _talk 13:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

tren arribando a Torreón

The picture Tren arribando a Torreón File:Ferrocarril_torreon.JPG was taken by William Henry Jackson ca1885 is a blurred version of https://www.flickr.com/photos/jesusduarte/5969111720/ which is in The Library of Congress digital collections and is not arriving at Torreón, is arriving to Guadalupe, State of Zacatecas, México. Best Regards from Torreón, Coahuila, México

Thanks, taken care of.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons fair use upload bot

I have been working on getting the FUUB re-running, it never was migrated off the toolserver and has been out of action since last summer as a result. Could those admins who are active on DRs please take a moment to think about what it does, there is a scope definition on the bot user page linked, and if any DR you are considering closing has images that could be localized to the English Wikipedia, English Wikisource or the Estonian Wikipedia, then please use the {{Fair use delete}} or {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}} templates. When the bot is done localizing, the template is swapped to a speedy delete template.

I suggest sticking to obviously non-contentious images for the next couple of weeks, as this may delay deletion for more than a week as the bot may stay in a 'passive' mode for that long.

If there is anything that the FUUB could do better, please comment here, as I can either patch easy things in at this point while I'm thinking about it, or they can be noted for a future update. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for operating the bot! --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Fæ! -- Rillke^(q?) 14:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I fulfilled this editrequest. Concerns? --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

German caption error to Leopold and Loeb photo.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-00652,_Richard_Loeb_und_Nathan_Leopold.jpg

In the above photo link, the original German photo caption incorrectly identifies the two villains. Richard Loeb is on the left in the photo, and Nathan Leopold is seated on the right. The German caption identifies Leopold on the left (links) and Loeb on the right (rechts). The two words "links" and "rechts" should be reversed in the caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prman (talk • contribs)

Taken care of. --Túrelio (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Database reports

I'm just wondering why some of these are up to date, while the others haven't been updated in 6 months? Is there any way to get the rest updated? BernsteinBot, which used to do some of these, has been asked about, with no results. INeverCry 17:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

See https://github.com/mzmcbride/database-reports/issues/12 --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Where reports are widely relied on by contributors and stable, it might be an idea to push for a group of bot maintainers run these under an opt-in single labs service. With, say, at least 4 active maintainers, it would then be much easier to find someone to ask to look at problems. The presumption being that all relevant code for key reports would be released and running on labs. Those that are not released this way, are by definition going to be less reliable in the long term as volunteers come and go or just get busy with more important stuff.

It may even be an idea to make well maintained 'core' reports distinct on the page from others, which may be more transient or a bit of fun. However I would be cautious about getting overly bureaucratic about it, most bot writers will quietly get on with something else more interesting if there are too many semi-arbitrary rules. --Fæ (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty much how it's setup right now, except there are only 3 of us in the "dbreps" tool on labs, and they aren't that high on our priority lists. All of the source code is on github, and patches are welcome :) Legoktm (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool. I'll have to play with github a bit more. --Fæ (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Anybody know of a working alternative to Commons:Database reports/Users by log action? INeverCry 17:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@INeverCry: Rewritten the script, the DB report is now up to date. I added a few new reports. "surpression" stats is no longer possible because surpressions are not replicated on toolslabs. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Speed delete photos

Hi, I want to delete this photos: File:פסגות בית השקעות.jpg File:Wiktionary-Logo-He.svg. Both pictures are not in use and have copyrights. BTW: Next time, how can I delete photos faster? רונאלדיניו המלך (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a "Nominate for deletion" link in the toolbar. But this logo looks like PD for me. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleted File:Wiktionary-Logo-He.svg (duplicate) --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Tal (רונאלדיניו המלך, talk) 14:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you delete all but last two versions in File:Wiktionary-Logo-he.svg? Tal (רונאלדיניו המלך, talk) 15:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no need. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It should be an official file and those sketches (based on discussion on Heb wiki) are degrading the file. Tal (רונאלדיניו המלך, talk) 16:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Laaglander

I nominated several of this user's uploads because they are PNG duplicate files of SVG flags that we currently have on Commons. The user appears to have misunderstood my intentions and taken this as an insult, based on their response in DR. Would it be possible for a user or admin who speaks Dutch to explain to this user why I nominated these files as duplicates and perhaps about the scalability of the SVG format making such duplication unneccessary? Fry1989 ^eh? 16:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker

User:CommonsDelinker doesn't work for 2015-01-15. No delinks log and no replacements log. Can someone fix it? --2003:4D:2C31:1E62:6C13:8BA9:94BE:DFC6 17:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have notified Siebrand but he hasn't been active since November. De728631 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I restarted the bot. Magnus Manske is currently rewriting the bot, see phabricator:T86483 (hoping that we can replace commons delinker with magnu's delinker bot soon). --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Magnus has some cool tools. I am confident. Thank you for restart and everything else. --2003:4D:2C31:1E62:6C13:8BA9:94BE:DFC6 19:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Great to hear. Magnus is a maestro in terms of building useful tools. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Need to move a template over a redirect

This is a minor thing but {{TOCright}} should be at {{TOC right}} (which is a redirect is at present). Convention, usage, etc. Regards. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Russavia

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closing. I don't think there is something to do with Commons Administrators. Odder's re-sysoping is discussed at COM:BN and discussion about WMF-GLOBAL-BAN is on COM:VPP. Please comment on appropriate forum. Thank you, — Revi 17:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Russavia has been, in accordance with the Term of Use, "banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing [all] Wikimedia sites" by an office action. This includes all accounts related to him, such as RussaviaBot, which also needs to be locked. This notice is not a view/opinion from my side, only a notice. Josve05a (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

RussviaBot was globally locked at the same time, per https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=globalauth&user=WMFOffice Revent (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see that, since the same templates were left on the page. Josve05a (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hell, what is going on here? First, they banned Dcoetzee (incl. his Commons fair use bot), now Russavia. Who is next? --Túrelio (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like primitive revenge.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Is that really what you think?! Do you believe there is no other possible reason for such a ban? --Dschwen (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There are many possible reasons for this Global Ban, but unfortunately the secrecy involved with this ban prevents us from knowing and genuinely responding accordingly. One troubling aspect is that Russavia was involved in asking for and obtaining permissions from other photographers, so there could be copyright problems involved in his Global Ban that also exist for other users on Commons. It would be, at the very least, reassuring to have some indication why Russavia was given this Global Ban, and if it's not down to the well known behavioural issues, advice given to the community on avoiding similar problems which could lead to further Global Bans.

I believe, in not providing warnings, in not providing a detailed explanation of why users are banned, and failing to provide explicit examples of what will lead to a Global Ban, the current policy, as constituted is unfair and incompatible with the culture that Wikipedia, Wikimedia and our other projects have grown under. Nick (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that as we say on the WMF Global Ban page (meta) , and as we said for the earlier bans, we can not generally talk about specifics. However, just like we were fine with Commons fair use bot being taken over by anther use (in fact, I was very happy about that, especially since it had been dead for a while), RussaviaBot was only locked because the ban applies to any and all accounts controlled by him. Jalexander--WMF 08:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As a bot operator that has successfully worked with Russavia for years to create significant valued content for this project, I will be applying to usurp the bot account. WMF, please do not ban my account for unexplained and unaccountable reasons. No doubt someone will start a request for this case to be publicly discussed, please notify me about it when it starts. (Global usurp request here.) --Fæ (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The en wiki hate squad has now finally succeeded to get rid of a disliked user. This may or may not include Jimbo who more than often stated he did not like him. Smells fishy like someone misusing his powers/influence.--Denniss (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hard to imagine a legitimate reason behind this action. --Nemo 09:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I wish Russavia best of luck with whatever new activities they may direct their energy into. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
More importantly, who will add pics of Planes now? :( ...--Ste moc 10:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that Russavia should have been banned. Did they ban him for annoying a few WMF members? Or for getting on the nerves of a few Wikipedians by creating fascinating articles on Polandball and Pricasso? I don't believe that those should be a reason to ban people. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- The bans are also "permanent and non-appealable", so Russavia and other banned users can't reverse the WMF's actions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Does we deserve just a non-informative explanation of the block reason? This is very far from any kind of transparency expected on a open-source governance organization −ebraminio^talk 16:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
WMF says they aren't gonna comment on centrally-imposed site blocks. I'm sure it doesn't P take R too I awful C much C to A read S between S the O lines to figure out the primary source of this action. You Commonsers did your friend no favors by allowing him to continue to taunt and flaunt through this venue. I'd like to think it's a good first step to turning around the culture of this place, but sadly I rather doubt it will be. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, we can but hope. I, for one, applaud the action. If there was a "clap" icon, I'd use it - although, bearing in mind where I am, I'd have to carefully check where "clap" linked first. The WMF has taken a back seat with regards to antisocial behaviour affecting multiple sites for too long. I hope this step is not "too little, too late". Begoon - talk 17:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

But even in the real world, ASBOs are open to appeal. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Fry, I love you dearly, and we've had great interactions in the past, but you just posted on Commons and said "real world". You might want to proofread that. Nobody has a "right" to edit a privately owned project. The site owner can enforce the terms we all agree to whenever we edit as they see fit. I'm happy with the action taken here on my behalf. Begoon - talk 17:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am simply stating my agreement with Michaeldsuarez that I think it's wrong this can not be appealed. Russavia and I were not friends, we had our fights and we had our times where we got along quite well, this has nothing to do with my opinion of them. But get blocked on any other project, banned even, and there is a clear appeal process. Here that option appears to have been precluded. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And you have every right to that opinion. I think, though, that, in this case, given that the user was blocked indefinitely on 5+(?) projects, had multiple ban appeals, some openly heard and accepted in great faith, only to be followed by exact repetition of the same behaviour, and thus reinstated for the same reasons, there maybe comes a point where "No - we don't believe you, you've been too disruptive in too many places, too many times, despite the chances we've given you" becomes a valid thing to say. YMMV. Begoon - talk 19:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Begoon: You should perhaps note in your not-so-veiled hatred against @russavia and your obvious joy at seeing him banned that three of those blocks were imposed by a single administrator based on actions on one of those projects, and the fourth was based on political grounds that had nothing to do with his contributions to the Dutch Wikipedia. The only block that should stand is the one on the English Wikipedia, which is not nearly enough to see russavia globally locked due to legal concerns, which is such obvious bullshit that it doesn't warrant any further comment. odder (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no hatred, veiled or otherwise, for anyone. I have admiration for some folks, such as yourself, who have worked, outside the norm, to effect change. I praise you. For Russavia though, I choose contempt - well no, he chose it by inviting it so hard, and so often. A disruptive user has been banned. Wikimedia is better off. Works for me.Begoon - talk 22:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The 'community' global ban process has existed for years, and there is no reason why Russavia could not have been taken to that venue. None of the 'reasons' stated above (which I, personally, think are incorrect, though they obviously did not help) merited an 'office action' under the long-standing criteria. The meta:WMF Global Ban Policy was only written three days ago, but still states "A WMF global ban is an extraordinary action that only supplements, without replacing, the community global ban process." Regardless of if you are of the opinion that Russavia should be globally banned, none of the above IMO merits an 'extraordinary action'. Revent (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Russavia is just one piece to fall, many users will leave, including me. You feel the smell of shit in this situation. I find it extremely disgusting that are blocked other users like smoke pot to cover blocking Russavia. I am deeply upset and hurt, I feel as if I had been stabbed in the back, I reuse minimally to continue working with the commons project, I feel I wasted so much time. However, many users still work free, they deserve to know the truth. Especially the CU abuse case. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)11111

"I find it extremely disgusting that are blocked other users like smoke pot to cover blocking Russavia." Do you have examples, and links? That sounds outrageous. Begoon - talk 19:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

More info here and here --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Don't see anything too worrying there, at first glance. Which bit bothers you? Begoon - talk 20:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume the ban may be related to this issue --Denniss (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it a lot more likely it's due to a long term pattern of trolling, and being a dick, on multiple projects, with no remorse? Sorry, just trying to use Occam's razor here. Begoon - talk 21:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Many users detest Russavia, including me, however, this is like hiring a hit man, because my neighbor puts music blaring every morning. I think an illegal response, abuse, disrespect what WMF has done. That this is not confused with something happened to a user, this is something they have done to the community. I am deeply hurt by this. I have nothing to do with Russavia, he's not my friend, I do not know him, however, I am also Russavia because we are all community. The details may confuse more than one person, however, the end result is an attitude made with malice aforethought. Unfortunately I can not contribute to a project like commons where in one day, I may be locked by a fad "completely logical" that will never be explained.--Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not from any RA fanclub (as few as of Beta_M, Dcoetzee,...) , but - again - let me say that I find this untransparent global ban practice by ~~Jimbo Wales~~ the WMF just disgusting, and I'm afraid that the inhibition threshold to globally ban someone will decrease with every further performance of that so-called office action. If it is already no longer a taboo to indef a current admin, and/or an uploader with more than 100.000 correctly free licensed uploads; so it is not unlikely that the WMF someday will globally ban anyone for public criticism on WMF, on Jimbo, on its fundraising practice etc.. Especially this kind of intransparency / concealment is really worrying. I tend to agree with Ymblanter (as often). --A.Savin 19:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the Recent Changes log is being frequently cleared today to suppress notice of Russavia editing his talk page, and then to suppress notice of the second removal of that edit. The edit was only to a copy of an email to Russavia hosted elsewhere. Recent Changes was last dumped about 20:46. [as I wrote this. I just looked. Last edit now shows as 21:27.] This also, of course, suppresses notice of this discussion, which appears to be the ongoing purpose. This damages vandalism patrol, and is a sign of administrative incompetence. No surprise. The WMF officer involved has no significant experience with enforcing global bans. An admin here hid the revisions,[21] as (Inappropriate personal information)

Was it? The IP edits were from IP geolocating where we know Russavia lives. They simply pointed to a copy of the email purportedly sent by Philip Beaudette to the user. The email was to the real name of Russavia, that was the only "personal" information linked. There are two possibilities here: first, the IP was not actually Russavia and the email is fake. This seems quite unlikely! The other is that the email was genuine. I have seen one other such email, forwarded to me, and the boilerplate was the same. What was different was a very sketchy description of the cause for ban. One might consider the real name personal, though that particular cause was lost long ago, and Russavia himself, apparently, was willing for that to be seen. There is no personal information revealed, in the reason, that is not routinely revealed in any of many on-wiki processes about users. However, at this point, given the apparently arbitrary, without warning, global ban action, that violates the global ban policy on meta, I'm concerned about who is next to be banned, and if I question this, am I next? We have an admin here using revision deletion for a harmless edit, and if I were to copy that ban reason, I could be seen as defying a local admin, which is the number one most common reason for a block. And if I'm blocked on another wiki, by global ban policy, I become eligible for a community global ban discussion. I'm not willing to shut up completely, but if anyone wants to discuss this further with me, please email me. --Abd (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It now appears that the recent changes log simply is not working beyond holding one minute of changes. This clearly began with the User talk:Russavia IP edits. Recent changes had been cleared but started up and worked normally for a time. Now it's completely borked. --Abd (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The Recent Change feed issue is unconnected with this, it was flooded due to a problem with the GWToolSet. The bug report is at Phabricator:T87040; the RC flooding issue was resolved by Krenair, tgr and ori-livneh, who worked for quite some time to kill the job that was causing the problem. They were attempting to find the bug that caused the issue when I went offline last night. Thanks are due to them for their perseverance. Nick (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I am the one who has hidden the mentioned IP's 2 postings/revisions, they were not deleted. My only rationale was, as already stated above and here, to protect Russavia's privacy (and avoid a violation of Outing), as the email contained his (likely) real name. As another user later has posted the links again in this thread, any further discussion is useless. --Túrelio (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the "You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention" line at the top of this page, I'm curious as to the purpose of this thread. What admin intervention is being sought here, when according to WMF policy such intervention is an impossibility? Tarc (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Originally, as you can easily see, a block of a bot was sought. But then user started to find out that an admin was globally banned, and nobody cared even about informing the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems someone with higher powers is censoring the links to http://pastebin.com/vtuacCKv without even having shown this censorship in the page logs. --Denniss (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Above, Túrelio acknowledges hiding links. (Thanks!) Yes, the email contains Russavia's real last name, the cat is long out of that bag, I can find the real name in a few seconds if I want to, and Russavia clearly intended to allow that. It looks like Túrelio hid the deletion log entries, which is odd. Hint: Revision deletion is a dangerous tool, to be used with high caution on a wiki, because it makes what is otherwise transparent, hidden. The action might have been proper, and better safe than sorry when outing is concerned, but ... those revisions could now be unhid, and hiding the log entries was unnecessarily asking for suspicion to form.

Technically, the admin did not know that the IP was Russavia. We can be sure, however, that Russavia, who has direct email addresses for many of us, would let us know if someone was impersonating him. I consider that likely to happen, by the way. --Abd (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Abd, I did not hide the "deletion log entries". I hid only the content of the edits, neither the IP nor the edit-summary or anything else. However, since then the 2 IP-edits have been oversighted (eventually for the same rationale), so that now even I cannot unhide them, which I just wanted to do as Russavia had contacted me. --Túrelio (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, especially for confirming Russavia's permission. The oversight means that not even admins here are allowed to see what was a completely harmless edit by Russavia as IP. Oversight is being used, then, to hide a link to a page that is merely a copy of an email from the WMF to Russavia, put up for review by Russavia, and obviously linked by him. --Abd (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Close with no action. There is no action proposed here for an administrator to take. The issue of global bans is being discussed at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#WMF_Global_Ban_Policy. Meanwhile, I plan to email Russavia to offer him my condolences and whatever support is possible. He cannot use the email interfaces, so he can only email us if he already has our address, unless we email him. --Abd (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Afaik, a global ban includes (unlike a standard administrative block) impossibility to log in, to see own watchlist, use wikimail etc. That's what makes it even more disgusting than it already is. --A.Savin 10:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, a global ban is implemented with a global lock, which does this. When global locks were introduced, the claim was that they would only be used for spammers and vandals, extreme cases, and there was debate over how many wikis must be affected before a global lock was used. Six? Once the tool was in place, naturally, off-label uses were found. Thekohser was globally locked. However, a global lock was not considered a global ban of the person. Further, local bureaucrats could delink an account from the global account, and some did. When Poetlister was globally banned and locked through discussion on meta, I asked the closing steward if a local wiki could decide to allow the user to edit. His opinion was, yes. That was within global autonomy. However, later, the WMF enforced the global ban and Wikiversity, the only affected wiki, did nothing. That user locked, Collingwood, had not been disruptive, was an administrator, and was standing for bureaucrat. Privately, Poetlister claimed he was not Collingwood, but knew Collingwood and had edited from the same location. The WMF Office was very sure, but would not disclose what they knew, only what they concluded. The truth is for God to know and us to guess. Wikiversity was seriously damaged, a long story. No harm was being done on Wikiversity by Poetlister or Collingwood, there was no disruption -- other than the response to a status offense.

More recently, a series of global locks were issued by a steward, of alleged "spammers," whose offense had been to be, apparently, fans of Augusto De Luca. One of these users had never edited outside of it.wiki and was the acknowledged daughter of De Luca. When I began to document this and other cases, the documentation was deleted and suppressed on meta, so even admins could not read it. And nobody cared. Oppression starts when well-meaning people go after Bad Things, and usually, the first thing they go after is what almost everyone thinks is Bad. And then when they go too far, we still like that the Police are stopping Bad Things from happening, and tolerate it. So what if a few mistakes are made? Then they come for you or your friend, and it's too late. Old story.

That deleted material is mostly available elsewhere, if someone wants to see it. Part of this was a study of the last 5000 global locks issued in 2013. Of 5000 actions, maybe 0.1% were questionable. On the other hand,behind that handful of locks, investigated, was widespread attack on and suppression of all references to the academically published work of a certain professor, an expert on the Inquisition and the suppression of heresy. Basically, a steward was unilaterally making global content decisions (and threatened users who challenged these with a global lock, and did temporarily lock one user, simply for reverting him). It appears that nobody watches the stewards, and if one does, and talks about it, blocks are threatened. The situation I uncovered is about one steward out of many, but stewards rally around their own. (I did not claim abuse, I merely documented actions in that study. "Abuse" would have been a judgment that the community might have made in an RfC arising out of the facts.) One steward found some actions questionable, but did nothing. After all, "community unity, stewards should support each other." (And they should, but within limits!) So good people stand by and do nothing. And so goes the wiki. It may take many years to completely decay, but the rot can be seen. As long as it doesn't affect My Favorite Topics, it's too much bother to even read about it. Tl;dr.

The ability of local wikis to opt out of a global ban was destroyed by changes in SUL, and account renaming, the tool used, was removed from local 'crats. I pointed this out as an issue on meta, a loss of local control and local accounts, and nobody cared. The new WMF policy bypasses the prior community global ban policy, which would not have allowed a ban of Russavia, and is very clear: it's a ban of the person, not the account, and exceptions will not be allowed. No appeal. However, Commons may decide to challenge this. The procedure would be to allow Russavia to create a new account on Commons, explicitly linked to the Russavia account, with Russavia pledging not to edit with that account outside of Commons. The community would need to explicitly, by consensus, allow this and request the WMF not to touch that account if it is not abused cross-wiki. The community may grant that account admin privileges if it chooses. The WMF will then either respect local autonomy, or not. If it does not, it may or may not explain why. However, if the account is not being used cross-wiki, the concept of community control will be tested. Community control is essential to the legal protection of the WMF, otherwise the WMF would be open to many legal challenges.

I am not a major Commons user. However, I have, for about three decades, been interested in community structure, and in hybrid organizations, where communities exist and corporations exist (like the user community and the WMF) and cooperate for mutual benefit. One of the dangers is that a community becomes accustomed to the corporation representing it, and abandons its own process, such that a few people within the corporation actually run the show. The danger is that this works. Usually. And when it doesn't work, the community is flat-footed, and has no process in place to guard its own interests, which will inevitably vary from the interests of Staff, and so the power of genuine community consensus is lost. There are ways to address this, proposed years ago on en.wiki, and rejected as unnecessary. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo has spoken and claims it wasn't him. --Túrelio (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As I can not comment on that page, polite requests to be allowed to do so as part of an open free speech dialogue being blanked, no comment. --Fæ (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating. I cannot, of course, comment on that page either, being blocked on en.wiki -- and not being willing to sock. However, the discussion there makes Jimbo's position clear: Russavia should be banned, and the evidence cited was socking on Wikipedia alone, and Jimbo considered that "enough." In other words, if considered or actually disruptive on Wikipedia, global ban, the hell with policy. Jimbo also claims "extensive abuse of other users," but that could be claimed about hundreds or thousands of users. Indeed, Poetlister, one of the new WMF-banned users, was roundly abused by many users, probably illegally so (a WP admin blackmailed him, threatening to expose him to his employer if he did not disclose all his socks), and this is well-known. The WMF policy allows banning for RL threats and harassment. Was that admin banned? Russavia is caustic. It's claimed that he's "racist." Thousands of WMF users are arguably racist, maybe more. He may be, for all I know, properly blocked on Wikipedia, but he wasn't banned there, not by global ban policy definitions. The community is bypassed. --Abd (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Info Since the flag restoration has not yet been reverted, I have opened Commons:Administrators/Requests/Russavia (de-adminship 2). IMO it does not help the project to have a banned user listed as an admin. --99of9 (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of a copy vio

Infrequent commons user here. In the course of my work on en.wiki, I came accross this (File:The Goddard Scholars Academy Logo.png). It is an obvious copyvio and should be removed immediately. i do not know how to request that here, but I opened a deletion page for it. Could an admin please step in. The link to the copyvio is on the file's page. John from Idegon (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Please use {{Copyvio}} to request speedy deletions. --Alan ^(talk) 11:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of user JS pages

Please delete my JS pages User:Ireas/myskin.js and User:Ireas/godmode-light.js as I do not use them anymore. Thanks! ireas (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Done --Alan ^(talk) 11:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Moon DRs

Can the various moon related DRs started by Stas000D (talk · contribs) (18th/19th Jan by the looks of it) be rolled up into a Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. Since he has used the same rationale for every image, and in the case of one image I had uploaded, this was clearly erroneous (he either hadn't looked at the specific category it is in, or is deleting them as a class, on cat/moon specific grounds that are unclear/unspecified to non-experts such as myself, this should be debated in a centralised location. And regardless of the merits or otherwise of the deletion rationale, it just makes good sense from a time saving/record keeping perspective. Ultra7 (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just closing all these should be considered as there is so little to discuss. We do not delete a large proportion of our amateur images of the moon based on having sufficient.

Update, checking through "moon" related DRs raised, unfortunately some images have been deleted on the grounds of being lesser quality than others, while a few have been deleted on reasonable scope grounds of the content having no realistic educational value or being inferior duplicates. If we want to change Commons policy so that we handle all images under similar criteria to images of nudity, and delete images when we feel we have sufficient of a higher quality already, then admins doing these deletions should consider gaining a community consensus to change policy to support this type of subjective quality assessment as a rationale for deletion. --Fæ (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

List of related DRs

Ive done many of these moon-related deletions myself. We already have a policy that explicitly covers deletions like this: Commons:Project_scope#Examples (of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose -COM:EDUSE-) - the last example reads "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." As for assessing the merit of these quality-related DRs, who's to say where subjectivity ends and objectivity begins? INeverCry 20:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with INeverCry. Its perfectly fine for such images to be nominated for deletion - it doesn't mean they will be deleted.

One thing to remember is technical quality is not the same thing as educational value. A low quality image may have value precisely because of its poor quality. With a well-known subject like the moon, low quality images could be used to illustrate the following:

Atmospheric conditions
Camera performance
Poor photographic/post-processing technique

As each image should be considered on its merits, lumping them together is not necessarily appropriate.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I nominated these images for deletion because it is already difficult to find fully appropriate images for illustrating Wikipedia articles among lots of low-quality pictures. There are already hundreds of images in categories Full moon photographs, Photographs of the waning gibbous moon, Photographs of the waxing gibbous moon, Photographs of the waxing crescent moon‎, Lunar phases‎‎‎, Sky with the Moon‎, Moon photographs with foreground objects‎‎, and, I think, photos like this one are not very necessary if there are dozens of photos like this and hundreds of photos like this. Even if they have slightly different composition/brightness/proportions etc. But the quality is a matter of taste to some extent, and that's why I never insist on deletion, I only propose it. But the Commons is growing, and it seems that quality threshold should also grow: it is an educational project, not a hosting.
The situation with "clearly erroneous" DR mentioned by Ultra7 is explained here. Stas (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussing personal information in the context of copyright issues

An editor has uploaded various photographs, claiming them as their "own work". However, they appear in several of these photographs, and do not appear to be the photographer. The photos were apparently taken for use by an American organization, and the copyrights, if not owned by the actual photographer, would belong to the organization as works made for hire. The photos are group shots, and would not belong to one of the many subjects pictured. The uploader has disclosed their name on Commons, though not prominently. When making the relevant deletion proposal, should I be explicit about the name or vague? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This User's uploads

Dear Admins,

On January 17, this user uploaded a whole bunch of images which passed flickrreview...and then 1-2 days later the images were deleted. This is quite likely a form of copyright violation and these uploads should be deleted. I also suggest that the source flickr account be placed on a black list ASAP. Even the flickr account owner's image is unprofessional.

PS: In this image the camera metadata says the author is Devon Christopher Adams...so clearly the flickr account owner is taking other people's images and putting them on his account--and then deleting them once they pass flickrreview. Devon Christopher Adams may have stated that he licensed his images as "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" in the camera metadata but he puts a NC restriction on images from his flickr account...which I assume is the source of the uploader's stolen images.

Update: The image I refered to come from here and the license is NC. This flickr account should be blacklisted and the uploaded January 17 images should be deleted ASAP. Perhaps the uploader can be temporarily blocked too. Best Regards,--Leoboudv (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Devon Christopher Adams went to quite some length to put CC-BY-SA-3.0 into several EXIF fields, see [22]. If he then chose at Flickr BY-NC as the display license, I would say the Flickr user effectively multi-licensed the file. If you want to be sure, contact the author at devoncadams.com and ask him. In any case this Alex Mars Flickr account looks like a flickrwash account; the other images that C.Jonel (talk · contribs) uploaded have already been removed from Flickr again; and File:Prism truck Mexico City.jpg came from a tweet. However, in general the uploads of C.Jonel (talk · contribs) don't look problematic. Earlier uploads from Flickr are all correctly sourced to other Flickr accounts and also still available at Flickr. Lupo 22:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- User warned, 2 files deleted, 1 DRed: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Katy Perry California Dreams Tour 01.jpg Yann (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the information Lupo and Yann. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

COM:CFD seems to be awfully backlogged. I noticed that a number of 2013 CFDs I participated in were closed today, and there still seem to be open requests from 2011. If admins have some time left, consider trying to close some old CFDs. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

We need more new active admins. (hint)

INeverCry 23:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There is really very much to do there. Maybe it worth to train special group for that. They doesn't have to be admins. -- Geagea (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Overwriting

In picture File:Jalal Khan.jpeg are plenty of overwrintings--Motopark (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleted --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Continues File:Cover photos of Jalal Khan.jpeg, please delete--Motopark (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Green Giant (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion request: User:RikBos

User:RikBos uses his Commons user page to advertize his webpage (including commercial advertizing). See also his latest uploads which advertize his website. Thanks. Kleon3 (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Done I deleted the userpage due to advertizing. Taivo (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Weirdness

Strange stuff happens... Special:Contributions/ChristianSchneeberger and Special:Contributions/StefanKlostermayr - no idea what/why etc but I guess someone might want to know. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and nuked. I assume some kind of automated software running wild. --Denniss (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like socks of Fitzlbua --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I knew I had seen this somewhere in the past. --Denniss (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks folks - things haven't changed much I guess... ;) Locks requested - probably worth CU here (well would have been in my time!). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

ChristianSchneeberger & StefanKlostermayr are

Confirmed. They are

Possibly related to Fitzlbua. Trijnstel_talk 12:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes spammed by GWToolset

Is there a way to filter out all these (GWToolset log); 21:46 . . Tounoki (talk | contribs | block) metadata job created. <h2>Step 4: Batch upload</h2>Metadata batch job created. entries? -- Rillke^(q?) 21:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like no :/, see also phabricator:T87040 --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Well if you don't care about changes to files, all these log entries are considered to be in the file namespace, so you could add ?namespace=6&invert=1 . OTOH, that's still pretty broken... Bawolff (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Rename a template

Can please someone move Special:MovePage/Template:Coa_Sweden with all the subpages!? Thanks in advance. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 18:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Undo DR?

Hi. Someone open a DR to this file with argument: "carly costello". Only contribs of user are about this DR. Can someone check and see if there is to be undo or DR should remains open? Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the license is wrong here. It should be {{GPL}} for the interface, and {{Wikipedia screenshot}} for the content. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't easy to add templates or say the uploader? Anything else? --Ganímedes (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:AMU claims new.jpg

loading unfree image from http://amunion.weebly.com/bulletin/official-map-released-membership-opened above (on place) the old file. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Renominating for deletion

I want to ask if there is a policy to re-nominate a file for deletion, and if there is a time or a specific procedure to do it. My doubt is because Diego Grez opened a new nomination for deletion of a image that was previously nominated by him, and this discussion was closed two days ago by Natuur12, and this user decided keeping it. Best, --Warko (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests#Appealing decisions states that renominations are allowed. Repeated nominations that don't raise any new arguments may be considered disruptive, but in this case, new arguments were presented. That said, I can think of a few files that are frequently renominated by single-purpose users offering no new reasons at all (people with the same lack of perspective that drives others to shoot up newspaper offices), and I hardly ever see any of those users blocked. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, LX. Best, --Warko (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No se exactamente si es la sección correcta para errores. Sorry

Soy novata en la astronomía así que estoy algo confusa Alnilam, Alnilam.

File:Orion_Belt_mapped_by_JA_Galán_Baho.jpg

Hola. ¿Concretamente que necesitas de ayuda? Alan ^(talk) 21:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The leftmost yellow caption must be "Alnitak", not "Alnilam". Stas (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a job for the graphics lab, but it would be best if the uploader just fixed it using the original photograph. Speaking of which, I can't read the watermark in the lower right corner but it looks suspiciously like a url. This would indicate that the photo was taken from a possibly non-free source. De728631 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

File:GameBoyLight.JPG and File:GB Hunter by EMS.jpg - hide unfree revisions?

Cropped versions of the following two images have been uploaded to avoid issues with copyrighted packaging depicted in the previous revisions.

Would it please be possible to consider hiding the unfree revisions? (For the second image, there is a cartridge label still visible near the top of the image which may or may not be de minimis, but at minimum, the image is intended to be an improvement over the previous version.) Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Done INeverCry 10:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Brunei to Keep Its Riches (The Straits Times, 3 February 1963, p. 1).png

Hi, could an administrator please delete earlier versions of "File:Brunei to Keep Its Riches (The Straits Times, 3 February 1963, p. 1).png" as these may infringe copyright? Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

PD because {{PD-SG-edition}}? --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't upload the file originally, but, yes, I think the layout is PD due to {{PD-SG-edition}}. The text of the full article may still be subject to copyright, but the portion shown in the latest version of the file is arguably de minimis. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I mean {{PD-SG-edition}} for the text. Please start a COM:DR (dr for deleting the old revision). --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, no, {{PD-SG-edition}} only applies to the layout, not to the underlying text, I believe. OK. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

ResolvedThe deletion request has been started here. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

During upload OGG audio files report banned

Does anyone know why ordinary ogg files would create a banned error? An exclamation mark inside a red circle appears with the text "This type of file is banned."

When converted to .flac the files do not have the message. Is this new? Khamar (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

See Commons:Village pump#Something wrong with the UploadWizard? (hint: the answer to the section title is always yes). —LX (talk, contribs) 07:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Script for fulfilling edit requests

Since some edit requests have piled up recently, I wrote MediaWiki:FulfillEditRequest.js.

Features:

Mark edit requests as done.
If the subject pages does not exist, offer a text box on the talk page and a button to create the subject page from within the talk page.

More details on MediaWiki talk:FulfillEditRequest.js -- Rillke^(q?) 21:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you! --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Association football logos of Turkey

Can an admin pop by and review and close this request. It became unlisted from the list of deletion pages needing closure after a disputed closure, and needs an uninvolved admin to quickly read through and close. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Closed. Taivo (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Same picture with different EXIF

First File:Vahtera Pauli Nettiin.jpg with studio EXIF-data and after then comes File:Pauli vahtera wikipedia.jpg with different EXIF ?--Motopark (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The first has camera EXIF, while the second has EXIF from Adobe Photoshop, so it looks as if the second is merely an edit of the first. They're the same size and, overlapping the one with the other on screen, they appear to be identical. We should certainly {{Speedy}} the second and DR the first, because it shows "Sini Leskinen" as Author in the EXIF, which is not the name of the uploader. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Problem

I check the New Page Patrol log on a daily basis. ([23]). If the page is a Gallery, then there is a link "Mark this page as patrolled" (MTPAP), which can be clicked to remove the page from the log -- it can, of course, also be deleted, which is more often than not the case. If it is a Category or User Page that has been moved from a Gallery without clearing the log first, the link does not appear, but it is easy to remove the page from the log by deleting it and then immediately restoring it.

Today we have eight new POTY candidates in the log. They do not have the MTPAP link and cannot be deleted temporarily. I don't know how to clear them -- can anyone help?

There is also "‎Translations:Commons:Checkusers/Statistics/6/hu", which has no history and does not exist but is in the log. I tried creating and deleting it to clear the log, but no luck -- same question?

Thanks, . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I will care for the POTY ones and mark them through API. It may take several days. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Done marked all as patrolled. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

And i fixed the summary a bit. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Steinsplitter, thank you and could you tell us all how to do it so I don't have to ask again? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Click on the timestamp (to open the revision) and then on the patrol link. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are my vote buttons grayed out?

I went to vote for the 2014 picture of the year and my vote buttons are all grayed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Lightning Stalker (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 January 2015‎ (UTC)

See Commons:Picture of the Year/2014/Rules#Voter eligibility, point 3. Your local accounts on English Wikipedia and here on Commons have not been unified into a global account, and only your English Wikipedia account meets the criteria (your local account here on Commons does not have enough edits). You need to merge your accounts before you can vote. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Linette saldanha: Mass deletion needed

The user has uploaded many images from Konkani Viswakosh (1999). [24] clearly states "सगळे हक्क गोवा विश्वविद्यालयाचे सुवादीन" (translated: All rights reserved Goa University) with copyright symbol. All images from the books are copyrighted and thus should be deleted. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Possibly the source is released under a compatible license File:Konkani Viswakosh Vol1.pdf. Is the source is released under a proper license. There is no need of deletion. Can the admins please check the source permissions. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Out of scope

I believe this selfie collection is out of scope. Palosirkka (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Recaranque --Alan ^(talk) 10:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Palosirkka (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Email not working - wish to publish appeal to deleted photo by allowing free licensing of privately owned image

Hi the email info-commons@wikimedia.org is not working as is permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

I wish to send an email affirming that I agree to publish an image under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. so that I can use it on my wikipedia page.

CountryCousins1951 (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The email address for sending COM:CONSENT is permissions-commons

wikimedia.org. Because of a backlog you need to wait some days for a reply. You can add {{subst:OP}} to the file affected (in the maintime) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Adverts in upload

The file File:Ece a 21-30.pdf contains advertisments with active links to the advertisers' sites. I can't help feeling this should not be allowed, but can't find a specific policy or speedy deletion criterion covering it. Possibly it could be deleted simply for not meeting the criteria for pdf - that is, it could be considered "a user-created original-research article". SpinningSpark 23:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Modifying the above, the adverts are not directly in the document, but rather the links in the table of contents go off-site and not to the relevant section of the uploaded document. Sorry, I did not realise that when I first posted, but I still think this is a dubious practice. SpinningSpark 23:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleted per COM:ADVERT, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This DR

Does any Admin have views about this DR? Secondly, if the Jan Sefti flickr account owner is in the USA as he says in his profile, how is he able to take the images I mentioned in the DR? These would appear to be derivative images and there are a few more of his on Commons. This may be his only own work image. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Life risk

I evaluate requests for file rename, but I got a file: this. I agree it's an unnecessarily long file name, but a person has placed a Criterion 3 move request tag (incorrect name) and given the reason, "potentially harmful to families of Airmen and friends due to increased terrorist activities.". I request the admins to have a peek at this case. Ethically Yours (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It sounds a bit overblown, however, if we can decrease the risk of harm, I agree to the request, as the names in the filename of completely unnecessary and as the image is not in use on any WMF project (and even not externally). However, the EXIF data would need to be redacted, as they also contain the identifying names. --Túrelio (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Túrelio: The requesting account was set up to just request for the rename. Agree with you. Ethically Yours (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The names are also in the description, in the EXIF, and on the DVIDS page for that image, so the names are findable anyway. Could be moved or not, but frankly said, it's just one more of those useless images caught up in a mass-upload of USGov (US Air Force, in this case) imagery. As far as I am concerned we could simply delete all these photos of arbitrary non-notable military personnel doing arbitrary things. Lupo 09:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As the uploader, I appreciate a courtesy notification of discussions like this about my uploads, particularly if deletion is being discussed. Normally this would be through a deletion request.

There have been several changes and deletions like this requested by anonymous people in the past 12 months on DoD photographs. Where these have been modified or deleted from the DoD's own websites then it is fair to presume that this has been done for good reason and we should follow suit on Commons. Until that happens then suppression of descriptive data on Commons is pointless as we link to the official source data, which is no concern to the people named or the US government. Claims that there is a "life risk" by mirroring the information about a photograph on Commons as is published by the US Government is over-egging it.

I observe that an experienced administrator would look twice at a single purpose account with the name Takingouttrash that created this move request but is not in this discussion. --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As the file is renamed now, it will be nice if the redirect is removed. J e e 11:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, there is no evidence of "life risk" or any verifiable complaint from anyone connected to the subject. Suppressing names by deleting redirects is a waste of time unless we have reason to suppress names entirely (including changing the EXIF data), such as if the images were removed from military websites and we had an actual complaint. If this were the case I would expect a DR to be raised and I would support it, as I have done with similar cases. --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is no improvement in protecting privacy unless EXIF is removed. I just don't like such a long filename. (We have no control on off-wiki matters; so no comments on external link part.) J e e 12:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned that an unverified request with claims about non-obvious personal data results in any changes by Commons rights holders. This type of anonymous request from single purpose accounts could easily be used to bias our content or just be a means to disrupt the project. We should stick to the same line we adopt with those complaining about possible personal rights with Flickr photos; their first step needs to be getting the photographer to remove the source image, there is then a perfectly good rationale to either delete the image or remove any possibly identifying information.

We have literally millions of portraits of people on Commons and we have no firm agreed definition of either the limits of personal rights, or an accepted definition of who is a "public figure" and therefore public interest might override sensibilities of 'intrusion'. We are certainly not competent to assess anonymous claims about "life risk" due to increased terrorism alerts. These are circumstances where I would prefer to see take down notices or private emailed requests that meet COM:IDENT definitions for action. A photograph like this, where it has been irrevocably published by the military as public domain, and there seems little doubt about the consent of the subjects at the time of publication, is a poor one to establish new Commons standards for administrators or file movers. Our actions should remain conservative, defaulting to keep content unless a complaint is verifiable or highly credible, such as by the source site taking down their content. --Fæ (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point. But I prefer to look any complaint without any prejudice. Here my thoughts are: "Does their name is important or add values to the image?" "Does removing them reduce the value of the image?" No; I think. For "non public figure", I prefer not to mention names; merely the picture with "some Airman and communications navigation specialist" is enough. J e e 16:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the file again, to re-add the removed VIRIN. The VIRIN is the easiest way to avoid non-identical duplicates from various DoD sites being uploaded. It is best practice to keep unique identifiers in the filename, for example as we do with Flickr photo numbers.

@Medium69: Please take care with aim 6 of COM:FR. With 50,000 other files uploaded and named using the same identifiers, there are many reasons to stick to the same structure. Most users of the rename request template are less familiar with the guidelines. --Fæ (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The file seems deleted on defenseimagery.mil --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No, all files were removed from public view on that website. A site notice[25] states "We apologize, but due to ongoing system migration, public users will not be able to search DoD imagery at this site at this time. Development of a public search capability is in progress and will be available in the future." dvidshub.net and defense.gov are recommended as alternate sources to find images. In the light of the fact that the US military have stated they will provide a public capability at defenseimagery.mil, I was intending to revise our image links when this becomes available. It should then be something that a bot can sort out. In the meantime, admins should take care not to presume that broken links mean that an image has been removed if they have not checked for it on DVIDs or similar under its VIRIN. --Fæ (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the photo should be deleted due to out of scope? What kind of educational value is here? Taivo (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As defenseimagery.mil is likely to stay down for a while, I have added a search query in DVIDs in {{milim}} for all files with declared virin parameters (this provides working links for over 40,000 of my uploaded images). We probably should add a multiple source link in the same way as we do for OCLC numbers etc. --Fæ (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This edit with spam

This edit with spam [26] Please check.--Motopark (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Edits nuked, new sock of self-promo sockmaster blocked. INeverCry 07:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone add this flickr account to a blacklist

Can someone add this flickr account to a blacklist? It has been used to source likely copyvio images below with very low resolution and no metadata to Commons:

Best Regards,--Leoboudv (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Done -- Rillke^(q?) 09:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

WWE uploader/puppets

The WWE poster here is an obvious copyvio. However I tagged the same poster as such sometime is the last couple of days or so and I don't appear to have posted on this user's talk page so there are puppets around too. Probably worth some admin action/CU I guess. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

See the history of that deleted file. Was uploaded slightly smaller on January 28 by ShaneH1990 (talk · contribs), and tagged by you. Lupo 20:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated - Public information (or information available to admins) suggests this also. On en.wiki, ShaneH1990 has edited before and after NevilleWWE, and has never been blocked on either project (i.e., the NevilleWWE account does not appear to have been used to evade a block and/or scrutiny). Also, the versions of the poster uploaded by the two accounts have been of different resolutions, had different sources and different summaries. Generally socks attempt to upload the identical image with a similar summary. Эlcobbola _talk 20:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Alwara-hoefels.jpg

Hi, can someone please delete the 2 identical file revisions? The photographer mixed up the pictures and only provided permission for the photo with the cigarette. Thanks! XenonX3 (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)