Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 7

1000 duplicates identified

Hi. I have identified 1000 duplicate media pairs on pages linked from User:Siebrand/dupes. "Duplicate" has been indentified by the sha1 of each media file, so it is safe to say that these *are* exact duplicates. If you feel like helping with the tagging, please do not hesitate. Please remove the links from the pages once you have processed the duplicate pairs. Cheers! Siebrand 10:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to rain on your parade, but isn't this somehow a dupe of the Find Double Images tool? I'll grant you it's quite often unavailable. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Haven't seen this advertised before and didn't know about it. Nice tool. Also: no parade. Just trying to do what I can with the knowledge I have. Cheers! Siebrand 11:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember where the tool was announced, perhaps on the mailing-list? It sure deserves more publicity. Also, as neither of us is a native speaker, I wish to make clear that I wasn't accusing you of gloating. "To rain on one's parade" just means "to spoil something for someone". Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

:) I think the tool is far from perfect at the moment. I left a JIRA feature request for the programmer. It needs all the JavaScript bells and whistles for easy tagging and such to be really effective. Until that time, I'll just go for the clickable lists. 1000 fresh duplicate pairs are awaiting us monks... (about 14.000 to go according to the tool) Cheers! Siebrand 23:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet another porn uploader

I'm a bit concerned by Axz1v (talk · contribs)'s uploads. He (presumably) signed in on Nov., 10 and uploaded about 20 pictures best described as porn (have a look at his gallery). My usual position on this is that we have already more than our fair share of porn. However, I know this is a sensitive subject. Should we just delete the whole bunch and say to Axz1v "thanks so much, but we don't need this kind of content"? Note: The user seems to speak German as a native language. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Jastrow - whatever else the internet may be short of, porn is not one of those things. Nothing to do with censorship at all. We have enough in my mind and I feel deletion of new material should be the default setting. If something "different"/"needed" arrives - fine, it can be considered, this collection is not different --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with deletion; but note that apparently other people have properly categorized these images without taking any further action, so presumably think such content were fine here. What about the 2257 record keeping requirements?? See also [1]. And of course we're all aware of Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007Oct#Explicit_image_uploads_by_User:Taric25.E2.80.8E... Even if 2257 were not an issue, we'd need a model release. And even then, I'd still delete all the images in which the woman's face or a recognizeable part of the background appears. I guess she's recognizeable to people who know her, and to people who have visited them (the shots appear to have been taken in the living room). At the utmost, that'd leave the "Sex position..." pics and AktPICT0049 as possible candidates to keep (if 2257 is satisfied), all the others should be deleted. Lupo 11:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm deleting everything except the images excepted by Lupo (though I wouldn't cry if they were deleted later), and informed the uploader of such (and this thread). So much fun doing this at work... EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither would I (cry if they were gone, I mean). Lupo 20:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've deleted another bunch, which were uploaded after EVula purged most of them. Contributor warned to stop it. Lupo 12:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  Note: I've also deleted the "Sex position ..." pics. I've actually read 18 USC 2251 et seq. and the related administrative provisions now: 2257 record keeping is required for all images of explicit sexual conduct, including masturbation, and irrespective of whether the persons are identifiable and also regardless of their age. Lupo 12:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  Does this mean that we can clean up Category:Penis a little bit? :-) --EugeneZelenko 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think our general approach should be to delete these on the basis of "thanks but we have enough of these and the new ones offer no further education purpose". There has been comment that our images lack ethnic diversity so new uploads that correct this could be kept. Images of spectacularly higher quality than our current ones may also be OK. Oh, (and this may amuse some) there is a running debate on en.wiki about the shortcomings of the present available photos to illustrate w:Pubic hair - good illustrations of that topic may help resolve an edit war so do keep on the lookout ;-) ... WjBscribe 16:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the general approach should be to require minimal quality and the possibility of some encyclopaedic use. The subject doesn't matter as long as there is an encyclopaedic subject. --Juiced lemon 17:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Still uploading more images of his naked girlfriend in suggestive poses. Someone please delete these too. Ridiculous personality rights problems here, folks. Patstuart 19:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - they were warned, I blocked them, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to delete the images too? Patstuart 19:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call on the block. In the entirely likely even that he picks right back up in a couple of days, I'd suggest we bump it up to indefinite.
As for the images, I'd do them myself but I'm at work, and deleting a bunch yesterday was difficult enough for me. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• reset

Deleted and yes I would expect an indef block if they don't get the message, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Another one Herby, this time from a new user: User:Eliasvl. Care to un a checkuser? Patstuart 04:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call thanks. Plus one maybe/maybe not - another porn uploader User:Yoelias, worth keeping an eye on I think --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Axz1v was just blocked for a month by Seibrand.[2] Would it be possible to get a German speaker to warn the user properly? It occurred to me that he might have no clue as to why we're blocking him... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A possible Image upload bug

Tonight I've uploaded this image. The upload went with no warnings. Then I tried to add the image to the end of the gallery of the article. When I previewed my changes there was a different image added. This image has the same name as mine does, but it was uploaded to English Wikipedia not to Commons. IMO Commons upload process should check not only the whole URL of an image, but also an image name and give the warnings that the name has been taken already otherwise the image is useless because I cannot add it to the article. I'm not sure it is the right place to report the problem, but it is the only place I know of. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 03:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, and what would be your proposed solution? That we'd check all Wikimedia projects to see whether an image with that name exists already locally somewhere? That would take too much time, and besides, if someone wanted to use this Muscovy Ducks image in some other project (for instance, at the French Wikipedia), he wouldn't care about a name clash with a local image at the English Wikipedia anyway. Lupo 08:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mbz,

As Lupo states, it is not really practical to check > 400 wikis at time of upload to make sure there is no nameclash. There are two solutions: you can upload the image here again under a more descriptive name, or you can ask for the local image to be deleted (possibly via transfer to Commons or just uploading under another name). Hope that helps, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

PS> we have a Help desk.

Of course we've replied with the obvious replies, what code changes would it take to hard link an image from here to another project (e.g. commons:Image:Muscovy Ducks.JPG)? — xaosflux ^Talk 12:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for the responses Lupo, pfctdayelise, Xaosflux. Of course I should have given a more descriptive name at the first place and sure I'll figure out how to make it work with this particular image. I just believed that it should be really easy to change the upload code. I assume the program as it is now checks for the whole URL http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Muscovy_Ducks.JPG. IMO it should be easy to put all possible names like en.wikipedia; fr.wikipedia, ru.wikipedia and so on in a hard-coded table. Let's say we'll call the table "Wikipedia-Names" . Then we could write a code like for example this:
  
  for I= 1 to 400
  

name-to-check = "http://" & Wikipedia-Names(I) & "/wiki/Image:" & name-of-the-uploade-image

Look for this name at the NET and, if found, give a warning and exit the loop.

Next I

IMO this simple "for" loop should not take much time to work, but maybe I'm wrong.Anyway thank you again for your time.--Mbz1 13:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's 400 HTTP requests... but maybe a variant of this could be developed? The Commons' image lives at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Muscovy_Ducks.JPG, while the en-WP image is at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Muscovy_Ducks.JPG Couldn't the upload server offer a function to do that check locally? Lupo 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it requires 400 HTTP requests, it could take a very,very long time, but I kind of believe that there should be a way to check for an URL without actually making HTTP request that would not take so much time to run. Anyway it is not an urgent task, just maybe something to think about. I could have looked how to do it myself, if I had the access to the upload code and a safe way to test my changes. Thank you, Lupo.--Mbz1 15:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to use CheckUsage to see if an image name exists on a Wikimedia project. I couldn't find an existing feature request at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org for forcing an image to load from Commons when there's a local naming conflict, but I've heard this suggestion before, so perhaps it's time to file one. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, LX. Should I file it myself? Could you please tell me how to do it?--Mbz1 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Spanish speaker needed

Could someone have a word with User:Jorgebarrios? He's uploading images scanned from magazines, such as this one: Image:Héctor Noguera.jpg. Lupo 15:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Patstuart (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it helps. Lupo 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dutch speaking admin please help

Before list it at COM:DR, i aks for other opinions for Image:Drivograms.jpg. I cant understand the description, but I dont believe the uploader is the photographer of the photos used in this file. --GeorgHH 17:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks like sheets created from stock photography. I would indeed list for deletion. Media have not (yet) been used on a Dutch language project. Siebrand 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this should be taken to COM:DEL. At a glance it seems to be a copyvio to me. Giggy\^Talk 21:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Is now listed for deletion, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Drivograms.jpg. Thanks for your comments. --GeorgHH 12:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Tokajské víno

Hello!Please change name of this category, becose original Tokajské víno (Tokaj wine) is form Hungary. I propose to this category called Slovakian Tokaj wine. --Orange.man 19:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Category:Tokajské víno deleted, all images moved to Category:Slovakian Tokaj wine. Hope this helps. Giggy\^Talk 22:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute

Yes, even here on the Commons :-) The dispute regards the use of the w:Palestinian flag for the Atlas of Palestine. w:Palestine is a term given to several meanings, but as the entry states, it refers in this context to a geographic-historical region, and not a national entity. This confusion has also led to the use of a map of the w:Gaza Strip and w:West Bank to represent the region. When discussed, these points have seemingly been countered with personal assertions. Content policies on Wikipedia are clear on these issues, but I'm unsure as to how to proceed on the Commons. Tewfik 02:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That is propaganda, but there is an amazing indulgence towards propaganda issues in Wikimedia Commons. This case is quite similar to the case of the “Western Sahara” flag (see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of Western Sahara.svg): make one's mark on what you covet.

I have designed this page Commons:Territorial division of the World as an anti-propaganda tool. Maybe, it could help you to find arguments. --Juiced lemon 21:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not asking for anything controversial. These content disputes have already been hashed out on Wikipedia - how does one deal with it here? Tewfik 16:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik asked me to have a look at this issue so here I am. I understand his concern regarding the flag, but like Rarelibra I believe that this discussion is a solution looking for a problem. The flag is regarded as the flag of Palestine. I understand the semantic distinction between the two (Palestine as a historical/political entity vs the identity of Palestinian people as such) but, in the absence of a better solution, I believe the flag should stay. Perhaps one could include a short note on the atlas pointing this distinction out, but I find that the presence of statements like this are more likely to be controversial than their absence. All the same I do understand Tewfik's concern and a few more second opinions would be nice. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to comment. My concern though was that these specific disputes have already been hashed out by Wikipedia's advanced content policies. And because everyone has their own feelings, including myself, I don't want to represent any of those opinions, my own included, and then repeat those disputes, but if at all possible we should be able to defer to what has already been established there on the basis of reliable sources etc. Cheers, Tewfik 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

double redirect in the Anon notice

Hi, the anon notice currently links to foundation:Wikimedia:Fundraising, which in turns links to foundation:Donate. Could someone fix the notice please? Lucasbfr 10:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done - thanks Lucas :) ~ Riana ⁂ 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

review of deletion requested

I have speedy deleted Image:Stripper04.jpg, which was a photo of a woman in minimal clothing standing next to a door. My concern is that nothing in the picture actually proves that the woman is a stripper, and I've been in bars where that outfit would be considered "somewhat risque" rather than outrageous. In light of our increasingly strict standards on possible defamation of living people, I decided it would be better to be pro-active, but I thought I'd put the deletion up for review. Thanks, BanyanTree 02:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no issues with this deletion - if she isn't confirmed as a stripper, I think the deletion is justified. I'm sure we have plenty of other images of (confirmed) strippers anyway... Giggy\^Talk 22:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I won't challenge this deletion, but it does bring up some questions and issues. If I understand correctly, the image would not have been a problem had the uploader's description been something like "Woman with a tattoo on her back", but the use of the term "stripper" was considered so potentially offensive as to require speedy deletion of the image? Describing someone as a "stripper" is one of no doubt many descriptions that could be considered defamatory in some cases, but simply accurately descriptive in others. Should we have some sort of guideline or at least rule of thumb for such cases? I note that Commons:Deletion#Speedy_deletion seems not to have any criteria regarding defamatory or liableous material-- should it? Pondering, -- Infrogmation 17:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad uploads as pd-old

User:HAZapata has uploaded a lot of images inappropriately as pd-old - including some as recent as a few years ago. I don't have the time to go through all this user's uploads and propose deletion, though I already did with many. Some help would be appreciated. Thanks. Patstuart (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

While some of the images seem PD old, like Image:Conde de Nieva.jpg, several of them are obviously copyvios, I could speak to him in spanish if you want, to find out where he got the images from, as he said they were "reproduced" by him. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I do speak Spanish, even if it's a bit rusty. But yes, please do go ahead (I can read your conversations on my own). I think he's either being lazy about the tagging or he's confused. Patstuart (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea I asked him where did you got the images from. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears I have a stalker

And his name is User:CarolSpears. I incurred his wrath my tagging some of his images as {{Uncat}}. He's decided to leave me a few friendly messages here and on en and to go removing uncat tags because... well... he doesn't like the fact I'm tagging them. After I reverted his undoing, he's left this lovely page, and put several images in it. I would actually ask that someone either block this user or give him a very stern warning (please read his correspondences with me), especially as he's been removing every single uncat tag that he can find and being as rude as he can. Patstuart (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool down. Carol's point was that it takes only marginally more time to categorize an image than it does slapping the {{Uncat}} tag on it. Besides the little practical joke with the category, Carol has then also categorized a bunch of images tagged as such. I have now categorized the few in the joke category and deleted that category. (Insofar, your tagging then as {{Uncat}} was not in vain, either. Carol could cool down, too.) Lupo 15:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User:CarolSpears is a bit of a phenomena and is spreading a bit unconventional energy throughout the project - have a quick look at her contributions lately - she has single handedly categorized all the uncategorized entries under 'I', 'T' and is working on 'C' (that is a lot of work!). This is commons, not en:wp, fun is allowed, good will is abundant :-) --Tony Wills 12:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:SFO at night.jpg

Hi guys. We received a request at OTRS today from the copyright holder of this image, requesting that we use the large version at flickr instead of the (much higher res) version we are using currently. Obviously the copyright holder's wishes are to be respected, but I'm unsure of whether the picture would still be of FP quality at this resolution - and I'm a bit hesitant to overwrite a featured picture without some discussion :/ Any thoughts? Feel free to tell Riana she's being silly and overwrite anyway, of course. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 04:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What would we do if he was asking for it to be deleted ? Answer: [3] Megapixie 07:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If a lower res version is uploaded over top of the FP version, the appropriate action would be to remove the FP status and nominate the new version or perhaps just nominate it for FP-delisting which would have a similar effect. I don't think being a FP need have any influence on how this request is handled. @Megapixie, he is indeed effectively making a deletion request. --Tony Wills 07:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - duly overwritten, left a note on the image description page also. I'll e-mail him back to see whether he wants the old high-res version deleted.I shall delete the old high-res version in accordance with his e-mail. IMO the image is still quite spectacular but probably not FP-standard - I will let others judge that ~ Riana ⁂ 08:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Having read the ticket, I'm not sure that deleting the hi-res version was the right thing to do because the author has'n in any way explained why he regrets releasing the image with CC. "What if I change my mind?" from creativecommons.org Samulili 10:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I was wary of that part of it myself. If anyone else thought it was a bad idea I'll gladly undelete, of course. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm also in the opinion that it was not good to delete the version of the high resolution. Firstly, I can't understand why, secondly, Megapixie showed us the license, which is on our side and says that we can still use the high resolution. --my name 13:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - I've undeleted the version. Thanks for the help, guys. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This all seems very strange, and I'm unable to find any ticket number 1184224 in OTRS (zero hits). I'm concerned that we may have removed a high-resolution image without good reason, given that the licence is and was irrevocable. Unless good reasons can be shown I'd be inclined to revert to the high-res version, but would like to see what 1184224 actually says. Anyone else have problems seeing that ticket? --MichaelMaggs 20:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I can open the ticket without any problems. --my name 21:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The message was sent to info-en-c - maybe you can't read that? Anyway, the message is a bit encryptic but the way I see it is that it's basically just a request to remove the hi-res image without any clear reason. Samulili 13:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We often honor requests even though we don't have to, if the request seems to be well founded and explained, is polite, and or is from a contributor here of long standing (the more of those are true, the better, I guess. :) ) that said I think it would be a shame to go with a low res of this. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Has anyone gone back to him and explained that he legally can't revoke, and that we are reluctant to do this unless there are very good reasons? --MichaelMaggs 20:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We could also point out that the low res version will almost certainly no longer be rated a featured picture and that he has already received lots of free publicity from it being POTD on the basis it was a high quality image and was freely licensed --Tony Wills 21:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would go with the high-res version. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SFO at night.jpg shows that the photographer quite knowingly licensed it as {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} back in August 2006. He's now trying to retract that license (his Flickr page now says "all rights reserved"[4]). I see no reason to go along with this. Lupo 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What part of irrevocable is unclear? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Was that directed at me? Lupo 11:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No. My bad for being unclear. For me, irrevocable should mean irrevocable. Well, at least, absent a good reason otherwise. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the "ir" part. :-P —LX (talk, contribs) 16:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you being irreverent?  :-) Ben Aveling 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• So no compelling reason to accept this change of license? Is this discussion over? I see no reason to not revert this to the full version. Tell me if I'm wrong before I step on toes here :-) --Tony Wills 10:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

please go ahead. --MichaelMaggs 07:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. (Does one have to be an admin to do this?) Regards, Ben Aveling 08:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, one doesn't, but it's easier for admins, as they can just click the "revert" link and don't have to download the full version first. Anyway, I've done it. Direct all the flak at me, and all the praise at the others. :-) Lupo 08:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

{{Personality rights}}

I think instead of twice linking to en:Personality rights we should add a link to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, so users can find Commons specific information. Any objection? --GeorgHH 20:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I made the main link to go to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, whilst the other link still points to en. That OK? Giggy\^Talk 07:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's better. --MichaelMaggs 09:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 DoneThat's fine, so I thought to myself that. --GeorgHH 11:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request

Can some attention be given to my deletion request at this page. Thanks. EvanS 20:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Deleted. Giggy\^Talk 07:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Giggy, I think you've been a bit too hasty in deleting this picture since it's now deleted from Commons and WP. — Xavier, 14:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, definitely too fast. None of the reasons for a speedy delete was applying, so it would be really interesting why you did it. I already told the user that and that he should make a normal request or upload the duplicate. So how to you think a newbie should understand the basic rules here if you act against them? -- Cecil 22:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the proper name? The deletion request perhaps should have documented that for correlation purposes. (can it be added by someone that knows?) Once uploaded under the new name, have the Delinkerbot change the references, THEN delete it... it's certainly speedyable once that was done in my view. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

At the time Giggy did the deletion there still was no new version under a new name. 10 hours after the deletion EvanS uploaded the new version at Image:Balanced Rock.jpg. At that time the CommonsDelinker had already delinked it. -- Cecil 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to have been relinked now. Is there any other harm done? Giggy\^Talk 07:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if the previous usages are relinked, since I don't remember all of them anymore. Would have to look through the log of CommonsDelinker to see in which WPs it had to work concerning that picture. Those links now are mostly new usages through the FP-nomination. Only harm now is that german wikipedia can't use the picture anymore (but that's not your fault). But you should tell the user the details and differences of duplicates/speedy deletes/normal deletion requests, since I don't think he would do it correct the next time after he got his request through the wrong way this time. After all I told him he either has to upload a duplicate or make a normal request, and then you came along and made the speedy delete without a valid reason. -- Cecil 16:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)

This bot has started uploading some images with odd names, some starting in "PENIS Xx" with misleading/incorrect attribution. Can someone block it?? Thanks, --SunStar Net 22:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit hesitant to block the bot, since it's used by CommonsHelper... it also looks like it may have returned to normal. I've deleted the vandal uploads. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I just deleted four more vandal uploads done in the last few minutes. --dave pape 23:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm having to delete some more as well... including the hilariously named Image:FUCKTHEPENISOFFEVULA.jpg. As much as that would be a good way to go, I'd like to request that nobody follow that advice, please... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nude Flickr images

There's a stack of nude images at Category:Flickr images needing human review which Flickr isn't allowing me to view, despite changes to my security settings there. Could someone who's able to review the images please go through and check the licenses? Thanks, Giggy\^Talk 07:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, but do we really, erm, need them? I saw 2 on DR already, fwiw ~ Riana ⁂ 08:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

*shrugs* Some people prefer to get that sort of thing from an encyclopedia. Giggy\^Talk 07:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Spanish admin please

I think that Image:Burning Glass Society.jpg and Image:BGSTeam.jpg private images against project scope. Am I right? --GeorgHH 12:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not Spanish speaker but the gist is a group of school/university friends as far as I can see. To me "out of scope" but another opinion would be good --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a group of guys who like to get together and get drunk, etc. Definitely out of scope. I'll go and do some cleaning. Patrícia ^msg 12:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides: Why not spain? Cantabria is a region of spain, not? --GeorgHH 12:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't understand your question. Patrícia ^msg 13:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Help Pages and Namespaces

This stems from a discussion here Commons:Graphic_Village_Pump#Proposal:_an_SVG_How-to_page which I initiated and which seems to have arrived at a consensus that it would be useful to have a help page for contributors of SVG files. Now, in helping to decide where to put it, I have read Commons:Help_page_maintenance and Help:Namespaces which both make it clear that help pages should go in the Help namespace. This seems eminently sensible. But then I had a look at Category:Commons_help. Clearly, a lot of pages that one might well think were help pages, have actually ended up in the Commons namespace. Being charitable, one concludes that this haphazzard arrangement evolved before the guidance. Moreover, as a newbie round here, I refer to help pages quite a bit, and feel that at present they are rather add-hoc and might benefit from some rationalisation and enhancement (I have already, I hope, improved a little on the clarity of Commons:First_steps/Upload_form). As a precusor to this, it seems to me that it might be helpful to move help pages to 'Help' namespace, leaving 'Commons' namsepace for ... what it's for. I am happy to have a go, and think I am reasonably competent, but clealy it would be a change in some pretty fundamental parts of the organisation of Commons pages, and I do not want to cause mayhem without warning jump in with both feet without asking: there's "bold", and then there's "foolhardy". I would first list here the pages I think want to be moved, before actually doing anything. Is this a really bad idea? Globbet 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree some of those pages in Category:Commons help should clearly be in the help namespace. However, most of them fall somewhere between "help" and "guidelines", and I would follow Wikipedia's lead and leave them in the Commons namespace. We don't really have that many (compared to en.WP) - I wouldn't worry about every last page. As long as people can find them. Rocket000 22:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Modification in Template:Potd2

Template:Potd2 is protected. There should be made minor fix according talkpage Template_talk:Potd2#Fallback --Li-sung 11:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Giggy\^Talk 01:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Link 智 智 利

Hi,

These characters " 智 智 利 " appear in the page Category:Chile under Pages in category "Chile" and are probably a incomplete link or Category. It links to the same page (Category:Chile).

Can any one correct the page?.

Best regards, --[[User:Createaccount|Antipatico]] 17:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Chinese name for Chile is 智利. The page was a redirect to Category:Chile, but as someone left off the initial ":", the redirect also put the page into the category, unintentionally. I've redirected the page to the Chile gallery instead. Cary Bass ^demandez 17:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wikipediafinishjpg.JPG

I'm not sure what to do with the image. Mønobi 17:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd personally go with deletion, if it's sole purpose is to illustrate the MS Paint articles across all projects, I would prefer that those projects use a genuinely free image rather than the WMF logo. There's also the problem that it might not be in compliance with the Foundation's guidelines on visual identity. Cary's probably better placed to confirm whether we would really want this logo hanging about though. Nick 18:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Nick that deletion would be the best option - quite a few issues around its copyright status. — Giggy 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 Comment — the image is not used anywhere. --Boricuæddie 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wikipediafinishjpg.JPG. Mønobi 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting copyvios that have become established

I'd be interested to hear if we have a 'best practice' for dealing with obvious copyvios like Image:Funkenschlag table.jpg which have been around for some time and are already in use on several projects. Normally when I see an obvious copyvio I delete it on sight using the Deletion guidelines. But deleting an established image without notice generally results in howls of anguish from users of other projects who feel they should have been consulted or at least warned, and can easily harm the reputation of Commons. Nobody likes long-established images to vanish without trace overnight. In some cases I've attempted to give warning of imminent deletion by opening a Deletion Request, in this case Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Funkenschlag table.jpg. That's not ideal either, though, as it wastes people's time in arguing about an open-and-shut legal issue, and gives the incorrect impression that we don't know what to do and will decide on the basis of a vote of personal opinions.

What I'd like to see is a new tag such as {{Copyvio2}} that provides advance warning of deletion in, say, a week's time. An alternative would be a bot that compares the upload date with the date the {{Copyvio}} tag was applied, and moves the image into Category:Established copyvios based on some rules (where in use, when uploaded etc). Admins should then wait 7 days before deleting images from that category. Maybe there are other ideas for handling this? --MichaelMaggs 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Needlwork

Empty category, obvious misspelling. Please delete. Durova 11:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done thanks, feel free to tag any others you find --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How do we tag them here on Commons? Durova 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates generally are here, all wikis hide them so well :) Specifically {{Speedydelete}} covers the usual "junk" quite well. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'll get the hang of this. I see in the deletion guidelines that categories normally get redirected instead of deleted. So I've redirected the redundant Category:Cloth production to Category:Textile production. That's good I hope? Durova 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, I've also found that {{Db}} is a common template across projects. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[OK] - No problems there. — Giggy 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What is educational

There is an issue regarding what was apparently a hate-speech cartoon at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon that was judged "not educational" and therefore speedy deleted by our foundation head. Eric suggested that it could possibly be an educational example of a political cartoon. It occurs to me that it might be an example of a hate speech cartoon and that the issue is proper categorization so a hate speech cartoon does not appear at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon without a proper NPOV description at least. I don't know where the conversation of "What is educational and how do we best deal with situations like this" is occurring and I thought it important that admins here be aware of the situation, so I am posting this here. Good luck sorting this all out! I'm done here. 4.250.177.145 13:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What is principal difference with Лев Троцкий cartoons? --EugeneZelenko 16:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What I am confused by is the perceived double standards operating here. What is the difference between cartoons on Ariel Sharon and these? ~ Riana ⁂ 16:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Shall we start a Commons:Neutral point of view page and focus all discussion there? Basically, to put together ideas of where POV is acceptable and where it is not (I won't do it now, too little time, but I can work on it tomorrow if it's still a red link). Patrícia ^msg 23:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I started drafting something in a subpage of mine, but have not come up to the point of formulating proposals. You're all welcome to do so, and improve the text that's already there. Patrícia ^msg 13:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply clarifying a few things in case someone reads this who's uninvolved with the numerous discussions elsewhere regarding these cartoons. Everyone else please bare with me. I just wanted to set the record straight, the chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation removed the cartoons from a gallery, she did not delete them. The removal was her personal choice and not in any way an action by the Foundation. Furthermore, she did claimed these images were "not educational". Her response can be seen here. Please don't respond to this. See the other discussions if you have questions. - Rocket000 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Change username Kuai Le Long to Kuaile Long

Because of some mistake last year, I registerd with the name "Kuai Le Long" and not with the same name "Kuaile Long" as I use it at the de.wiki. Could you please help me doing that? I can change the signature of my pictures by myself. There won't be too many. Thanks, Kuai Le Long 06:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You can request a rename at Commons:Changing username, or a crat might pass this noticeboard and do it for you. — Giggy 07:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not this crat. That page (COM:CHU) gets archived in a regular/predictable way. I would strongly prefer all requests go there and that no crat take requests other ways. That's not being too bureaucratic I hope, it's just trying to keep things well organized. Thanks for pointing the user to the right place, Giggy. ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for beeing wrong. I will go to the right place now. Thanks, Giggy. Kuai Le Long 13:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bader passed away

Dr. Imre Báder passed away some time ago, his funeral was on December 3rd. Besides being a professor of the University of Miskolc he was also an editor of the Hungarian Wikipedia and a contributor of Wikimedia Commons. His user name here is User:Bader (also User:Bader in huwiki). May he rest in peace.

I'm not sure about the policy in situations like this, but I guess it would be a good idea to post a little note on his user page then make it protected. Please help me with this. (The discussion in hu:wiki about him is (mostly) here, though in Hungarian). Thank you! --Hu:Totya (talk!) 17:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear :(. How about adding the diff of your announcement here on the user's talk page (with something like "This user has passed away" and then protect? I haven't dealt with such a situation before, so I don't know :(. Patrícia ^msg 18:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds quite callous, but blocking the account might prove sensible too, just to make sure no unpleasant edits can be made from the account in the event it is hacked etc. Nick 18:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a (somewhat rudimentary) "this user has passed away" notice on the user and talk pages[5], and protected the userpage. hu.wp hasn't blocked the account,[6] though, and I'm comfortable taking their lead on this.
Meh. :( EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we know for sure this is that user, and that this has happened? there have been hoaxes or bad info in the past if I recall, which sometimes has caused upset. I think some other wikis don't actually do anything about the accounts of deceased users, as over time we all are going to die. ++Lar: t/c 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

EVula, thanks. The blocking in huwiki is on the way, we now just wait a bit if someone has anything against it, but his account will be blocked I'm sure.

Lar, yes, it's for sure. This question came up in huwiki, too. His collague told us (difflink, sorry, in Hungarian) and he also mentioned that a local Hungarian newspaper (Északmagyarország) mentioned his funeral. He had a userpage on a Hungarian social network site (iwiw.hu) and his family put the news there, too (link, but you need registration.). Based on these I have no doubt, that it's unfortunately true.

His huwiki account is now protected and we put a remembrance note on his userpage (hu:User:Bader) --Hu:Totya (talk!) 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just wondering, has the University mentioned his death on their website anywhere, that would be a useful way to confirm the death and a useful link for visitors to Bader's userpage. Nick 22:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing on the University website (which is a bit strange for me), but I found this. The site is for the obituary notices that will be published in the aforementioned newspaper (Északmagyarország). It's the sister site of todesanzeigen.vol.at . I'll keep searching, if I find anything else I will post it here. --Hu:Totya (talk!) 23:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Spambot

Can someone keep watch on 89.179.0.19 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user? Right now it is being used by a XRumer spambot. -- ReyBrujo 03:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef (account creation enabled if anyone wants to edit from that IP produtively). Thanks for notifying! I also deleted Commons talk:Deletion requests/w/w/index.php where it was spamming. — Giggy 06:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My 0.02. I would never block an IP indefinitely. The internet is a changeable place and IPs become insecure, get secured etc over time. For sometime now I've been blocking Open proxies for a year only (but hard blocked as it is against policy to edit from them) and no longer. This does not appear to be an open proxy, it appears to be a dynamic ru IP address (though much spambot activity comes from such ips). It does have a history so a block is appropriate to me but I would ask that it be reduced in view of teh fact that it is a dynamic IP. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, happens in the English Wikipedia as well: most XRumer spambots run in dynamic ips, that is why I said "Right now". Just yesterday I reported 10 or so different pages in as many Wikipedias, all from different ips. -- ReyBrujo 12:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that IP is now blocked for a week (as of today). Apologies for the mistake. Account creation is still enabled — Giggy 22:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit to the MediaWiki namespace

I wish to edit MediaWiki:Deletedtext/es. Is there anything that must be done before making a change to the MediaWiki namespace? --Boricuæddie 23:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You have to have the administrator rights. But you should be able to use the Discussion page where you can propose what you would change. --my name 02:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

He does. And there nothing you need to do beforehand, just be careful not to break anything! :-) j/k Rocket000 04:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

www.rn.cl CC 2.0

I upload a image from www.rn.cl Carlos Larrain. In the site of the Party, rn.cl there is a link to CC 2.0, I send an e-mail asking if this was true and they told me that we can use all the images in Wikipedia, so I need a OK from and administrator to start uploading al the usefull images. Thanks--Emilio Kopaitic 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be very useful if you would send the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org first. --my name 02:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, in fact the site uses a CC-BY-2.0 license, so that the mail IMHO would not be actually necessary. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 23:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:PanchoHardy

Hi. Could a Spanish speaking admin leave a message for PanchoHardy (talk · contribs). Previously he uploaded a lot of WWE images that were deleted as copyvios, recently he has uploaded a lot more that he is claiming as PD-self but that look like they have been collected from around the web. Thanks, —JeremyA 05:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. I'll watch over this user. Anna 20:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that I'm one hundred per cent sure all the uploads are copyvios, even if I'm not being able to find the source of them. Any idea about how to deal with such a case? --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely - I am also fairly certain they are copyvios --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So then? --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 17:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to wait for some days, if the user does not add the speedydeletion tag to the images as I asked him, then they should be deleted. I'm also sure they are copyvios but I could not find them. Anna 19:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S: The user left a reply in the wrong place which I've moved to his user's page. He denies the images are taken from web pages. Nonetheless he admits some of them are not his but from Flickr whose authors released the images but he forgot to add the source. I've warned him the images must be deleted due to lack of source and permission, besides the fake license he tagged them with. Anna 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much every image he has ever uploaded that isn't a transwiki is unreliable as to their source, even the images dated months ago. All of his uploads, excluding the transwikis, should be deleted simply because even the ones that could arguably be free use there is no way to be sure at all. Lid 09:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Open proxy: 69.10.36.4

The IP address 69.10.36.4 has been blocked from en.wikipedia on account of it being an open proxy (it identifies itself as charlie.sureproxy.com). Based on this edit, I think it would be a good idea to block this IP address from Commons as well. -- Sakurambo 11:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done about 3 hours ago :) It was listed here and I don't miss much on that page! Thanks for the heads up though --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion requests - substitution and backlog?

I was looking into the status of a rather old deletion request I made: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tiffany Towers.jpg since October 29, and found a couple of problems.

1. It doesn't seem to show up on Commons:Deletion_requests/2007/10 - that page only goes to October 28 for whatever reason. Is it a bug? Could that be why no one ever got around to closing the request?
2. Or maybe it's simpler than that - is it true the Commons:Deletion_requests/Older_Discussions backlog really goes back to July? Five months?!? What's with that?

I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia. A little while ago, someone asked me if I wanted to be an admin here on Commons. I said I didn't have the experience, except for creating COM:QFI most of my edits were restricted to my own images, and supporting categories, etc... but if the backlog really is five months, that's pretty grim. Do we need some more commons admins just to cut the deletion backlog down to merely overly long, and not completely shocking? --AnonEMouse 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've closed Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tiffany Towers.jpg. The problem with the backlog is that, for many admins, Commons is not a home wiki. For them, their Commons account is merely a side account with sysop powers to compliment their admin status at other wikis and make their interwiki work with images easier. There's really not a lot of people willing to dedicate all of their wiki time to Commons, causing already-large backlogs to become scary big. IMO, the main problem is not that we don't have a lot of admins; the main problem is that most of the sysops we have aren't very active... --Boricuæddie 22:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think not many people regularly close deletion requests. It is usually not easy, which makes progress slower. It would be easier if more people made comments, even just saying "I agree with the reasoning above, delete/keep". Some requests are not explained properly, so the admin has to do a lot of research just to understand what the problem is.

Badly formed requests could be closed by anyone, e.g. reform multiple requests into a single one, if they should be a single mass request (ie. all have the same reason); remove ones that should be {{Bad name}} or {{Duplicate}}. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/29, Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/30, and Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10/31 not properly transcluded on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10? Lupo 10:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Elektron (talk · contribs)

Seems to have problems with understanding Commons licensing and scope. Uploaded bunch of Star Wars (derivative works) and useless (Image:CD scratching.jpg, Image:Ubuntu CD.jpg) images. See also user comments in deletion requests. --EugeneZelenko 15:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicated images

Hi. I have created a list with (du)(tri)(...)plicated images. Check image usage before to delete. Enjoy. --Emijrp 11:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --Boricuæddie 14:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

For those who just can't get enough!! Siebrand has a bunch here too :) ~ Riana ⁂ 16:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nasty list. As you are displaying the images, they turn up in CheckUsage. Now it is harder to decide if a duplicate has actually been replaced :( Best only use links... Siebrand 23:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a cat naming misunderstanding

Not put on /User problems since it isn't vandalism or a negative problem, just a misunderstanding I believe

This is a case that just needs someone to talk to a user, but if someone can handle it I'd be grateful. Simply another case of category renaming and a misunderstanding of category naming guidelines.

Categories titled "SVG -- whatever" are being created, and a user is moving all kinds of SVGs into categories titled that way that haven't been created yet. As far as I know nobody decided to separate filetypes into separate categories, and all filetypes should stay in the same umbrella category and then svg-specific categories can be added to the svgs as well.

You can see here, there are many "SVG -- " categories that were created and images were moved from standard cats such as "Electrical components" into "SVG -- Electrical components" categories. Many many images have also been "moved" to nonexistant cats.

Now, IF I'm missing something and there was a discussion about this and this category naming structure was decided on I apologise for bringing this up, but to my knowledge it wasn't and this is more of a self-initiated effort which is noble but not within cat-naming guidelines :) If someone can talk to the user (nicely! ;) In Ukranian would be great too, I believe that is their mother tongue) and explain things and sort stuff out that would be great.

I apologise for dumping this on the rest of you and leaving, but I can't really handle it right now - if I could I would! Thanks to whoever looks into this. -- Editor at Large • talk 02:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you are talking about User:Albedo-ukr, they seem to have a reasonable grasp of English. I agree that the different branches of the category structure shouldn't be inter-twinned in this manor. The users intentions and thinking are clear, and not unreasonable, and this isn't the first time this approach has come up. Can we suggest a better approach to him? --Tony Wills 12:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

png unwanted file type?

When I ty to upload >Gdp ops.de 300.png< (a second version) I got the error message "Upload file From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository Jump to: navigation, search Upload warning

".png‎" is an unwanted file type

   List of allowed file types: png, gif, jpg, jpeg, xcf, pdf, mid, sxw, sxi, sxc, sxd, ogg, svg, djvu "

It is a png file! What is wrong?

--[[User:Createaccount|Antipatico]] 10:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Known bug. Your filename has two periods. Try uploading at as "Gdp_ops_de_300.png". Or even better, give it a truly meaningful name! Lupo 10:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Known bug, since when? This file already exists, he was trying to upload a new version:Image:Gdp ops.de 300.png. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I thought to remember I had problems such as this with filenames having two dots. Oh well... Lupo 11:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Any way, I got it. Btw, I named it "Gdp_ops.de_300.png", but it was changed to "Gdp ops.de 300.png" by the system, because for wiki "_" (underscore) is a " " (space). Lesson: do not use " " or "_" for names. One point for Lupo!. --[[User:Createaccount|Antipatico]] 06:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested change in MediaWiki:Uploadtext/hu

Hi! I would like to ask you to change a line in MediaWiki:Uploadtext/hu, from:

* ''Date'': A készítés vagy publikáció '''dátuma''', lehetőleg ISO 8601 formátumban.

to:

• Date: A készítés vagy publikáció dátuma, lehetőleg ISO 8601 formátumban (pl. 2007-12-16).

Thanks --Dami 19:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

done. ChristianBier 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Dami 22:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Dhadden

The above user is continuing to post obviously copyrighted or trademarked images as self-licenses. -- Avi 22:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

 DoneCopyvios deleted and user warned. --GeorgHH • talk   22:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi 02:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Commons:List of administrators by adminship status in other Wikimedia projects

Hi all, after talking to Lar, I've created Commons:List of administrators by adminship status in other Wikimedia projects. It aims to show the adminship status of the Commons administrators in projects other than Commons. I think it might be useful if a direct action in a given wikipedia is required by us. I haven't modified Commons:Administrators/Lists of administrators since I think that some kind of "approval" is needed. On the other hand, I've only included information that is available in the admins' user pages here, without further investigation in other projects. Therefore, the list is likely incomplete (please, update it if it's not accurate). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as nobody has objected and people has begun to update the list, I've decided to include a link in Commons:Administrators/Lists of administrators. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Now that we have 4 (!!) lists, I'm wondering if some of them could be consolidated by judicious use of sortable tables. I think the "by name" (alpha order), "by date" (date order), and "by primary language" (language code order, with name as secondary key) might all be doable in one table if we have sortable table support (I think we do but I have never done one myself). The new one listing other projects where admins hold adminship probably not, as admins can be in the list multiple times. But maybe this would reduce the maintenance burden in updating? ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:YummyCover.JPG

Cover image. I would think that it is fair use because it's a cover, but I can't check OTRS. Could someone look into it? Mønobi 02:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket is about these images, so the image at hand is not covered (hehe) by it. Should be speedied. Jon Harald Søby 02:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Senang Hati

FYI: It seems a wikipedia squabble may have spilled over into commons. See [7] and [8]

As far as I can tell, Senang Hati is the old user name of an en admin and another user has started using it, and has been blocked, and has brought their discontent over here. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 14:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Change nickname

I'd like to change my nickname to User:Vyo. --Uyu 10:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You can request a rename at Commons:Changing username, where a bureaucrat will do it for you. RedCoat 10:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hi all. Upon suggestion from Bryan, I've begun to review old backlogs. August has been the first one, but as I told Bryan, I don't dare to close all of them since some of the requests seem to require a high degree of expertise that I don't own yet. There are seven request waiting to be closed. I'd like to ask any administrator to finish my work in the August backlog. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah for some of those old requests I don't think anyone knows what to do with them. That's why there still open. I was thinking of starting to close some of the inactive ones (like no discussion for 2 months) as "No consensus". I hate doing that when copyright status is the issue but they can always be re-nominated. That would at least bring about fresh discussion. Rocket000 05:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've closed quite a few old DRs as No consensus (with a bit of backlash in some cases) and a strong suggestion to re-open the discussion - this should only be saved for cases where there has been no comment for months, not weeks. — Giggy 00:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

PD-Flag

Hi could an admin please take a look at the "edit protected" request on Template talk:PD-Flag? Thanks. /Lokal_Profil 00:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done A fine example of why I hate page protection. Thanks. Rocket000 15:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Upload error on Image:3D crystal structure of cholera toxin.png

Hi,

I've uploaded the bad file in Image:3D crystal structure of cholera toxin.png, and then reuploaded the right one.

Can you delete the first revision? It's http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d2/20071224155210%213D_crystal_structure_of_cholera_toxin.png

--Dereckson 16:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done --Boricuæddie 16:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jellobie

Jellobie (talk · contribs) has tagged all his uploads as {{Copyvio}}, after having uploaded an image saying "deleted" over his original uploads. I've only spot-checked Image:Candle and rose.jpg; this image was licensed as {{Cc-by-3.0}}. One of his uploads apparently has already been deleted: Image:Bridge.jpg. (Note that the file deleted on February 16, 2007 was some other image.) What's going on here? It seems to become fashionable to try to retract CC licenses on own works... :-( Lupo 12:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, something legitimately published under a free license remains under that license, but if there was some sort of mistake in the original upload and for some reason the original license was not valid, corrections should be welcome. I have asked the user for clarification on their talk page, which perhaps should have been the first step. -- Infrogmation 17:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jellobie replied on my talk page saying:

"Since recently I work at a photographers group. Due to the inner regulations within the establishment I am obliged to make sure non of my pictures are accompanied with a free license. My pictures should be licensed under the following license: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Belgium (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/be/deed.en_US). Scince this is not compattible with this site I asked for the removal. I'm using the copyvio because the license mentioned above is already placed upon the images. Your sincerely, Jelle Verheugen Jellobie 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)"

Opinions on the best way to take care of this? -- Infrogmation 18:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that Jellobie joined that group after he had already freely licensed the images he had uploaded (and of which he was the author, and presumably also the rights holder)? And then he joined that group, and as part of that, they now want him to retract free licenses granted earlier? Frankly said, that strikes me as preposterous. I should think they can make rules about how he should license his works published since he joined this group, but they cannot make him retract free licenses he has granted earlier, as that would make him violate the conditions of these free licenses, which are non-retractable. Lupo 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I joined the group as of august 21st 2007. I have but one image uploaded before I joined. Jellobie 14:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Oh well, let's delete these 20 images. They don't appear to be used anywhere; several have an artistic flair to them that makes me wonder where on a WikiMedia project we might use them, and the portraits might need to be tagged {{Personality rights}} anyway. Image:Woodblock on fire.jpg might have been useful, but a similar image can be recreated easily by someone else. Lupo 10:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere we should make clear that {{Copyvio}} is not to be used to try to get own uploads removed. The tag is reserved for obvious cases, and removal of own uploads is never obvious (except for the uploader). Lupo 10:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to delete these we should hurry up before they start being used. Rocket000 11:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Milevand gaard Sør-Aurdal (1927).jpeg

The images from the website GalleriNOR are owned by several museums and persons. Images by en:Anders Beer Wilse is owned by en:Norsk Folkemuseum, which has said that they don't want to have the images removed from commons as long as the images are not work of art. As long as the images are not such images, that is work of art, they fall into the free (sort of PD) 15 years after the photograper has died or 50 years after they been created. See also Template:PD-Norway50. The actual image is mistagged as PD-old. Btw, all images from this site should be retagged. I'm not sure if any other images are deleted that belongs to this website. Note that to my knowledge there are no work of art on the website GalleryNOR. Work of art by Anders Beer Wilse is protected until 2019. In Norway there are very few court cases on the distinction between a photography and a work of art. They flagged a very strong wish that any images should be linked back to the site and the photographer should be given credits and due respect. The simplest solution to this would be to use a specific tag which organize the images in a category as in Image:Reinli stavkyrkje.jpeg. en:Axel Lindahl is another of the photographers at GalleryNOR. Jeblad 15:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC) (Note that his is also a request for undeletion) (Also Image:Heen_NBR9404-08821.jpg and a whole bunch of files deleted by User:Giggy[9])

See also no:Wikipedia:Tinget#Anders_Beer_Wilse. Jeblad 17:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The 70 year rule frees all of Lindahl's photos. Should the Wilse photos be reintroduced, use a proper licence. Crazysuit 21:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else have opinions on this? I'm reluctant to undelete and then see a counterargument in favour of deletion. — Giggy 04:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion seems fine, as simple photographs by Mr. Wilse are in the public domain in Norway. But I am very skeptical about the bloated template {{Photos by the Norwegian Museum of Cultural History}}. I have created two alternatives, see User:Kjetil r/temp. Kjetil r 13:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions are has the work become PD in Norway, has there been any legislative/treaty changes that could have revived the copyright in Norway or US. Gnangarra 05:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

First things first. Unequivocal evicence that Wilse's work is PD (e.g. the statement from Norsk Folkemuseum referred to by User:Jeblad above) should be posted here. In the absence of such a confirmation, the photography/work of art distinction needs to be worked out individually for each of the photographs. Generally speaking, Wilse is considered a true artist. Crazysuit 18:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very found of mr. kjetil ree's alternate templates and his continued arguments against such templates. When it comes to work of art, Wilse's photos, nor any other photos of any photographer in Norway are work of art per see. Some photographers claims this from time to time but as it stands in Norway, it does not seem likely that any photographer will get a statement that all of their works are eiter work of art or simple photographs, neither from any official authority nor from any publishing house. I am not going to consult Norsk Folkemuseum about such a statement, simply because they can't give such a statement, and I am not going to upload those images again because the removal of the images are plain vandalism by the admin that removed them. What Commons do for the moment is to destroy any attempt to broker a deal with those that are willing to let us use such images. This I find very disturbing, and I seriously regrets that it seems impossible to get such deals. I believe this comes down to the simple fact that commons admins don't know what is the current state of law in the countries they attempt to make statements about. Just take a look at "public domain", we don't have public domain in Norway. Images "fall in the free". This is a direct translation. The only thing that become "free" is the exclusive rights to make copies of a work for sale. You can't even change it if that isn't "respectful". I can't even release the rights to be attributed so strictly speaking I can't contribute under GFDL, neither in text or with photos. Jeblad 23:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We (both the Wikimedia Commons and the Norwegian Wikipedias) are American projects, and the public domain exist in the U.S. Trying to brand Norwegian photos as "fallen in the free" makes no sense in an American context. However, the Norwegian translation of the template (i.e. {{Photos by the Norwegian Museum of Cultural History/no}}) should use Norwegian terms (i.e. avoiding the use of the term "public domain"). Kjetil r 03:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Questioning this deal also makes it necessary to delete all other images from GalleryNOR that originates from Norsk Folkemuseum as the deal was that they let us use digital copies which they clearly own. The work of digitalizing photographs has its own protection even if the images as such are older than 70 years. That means the digital reproduction of Axel Lindahls photos are not free to use. Jeblad 21:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, you seem to take the completely opposite stance when discussing Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Jorunn (uploaders request). Have you changed your mind? Kjetil r 00:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! The longer I read, the heavier becomes the mind-fog. To refumble a little: Both common sense and the Norwegian Åndsverklov agrees that a snapshot may be anything but a work of art - but in some cases may be so, mostly, but not always, depending on who snapped the shot or who fixed it in Photoshop. Even for simple snapshots, there are some rights to respect, like selling to a news agency. These rights expires with the exeption of the right to be mentioned as creator - and the work not to be edited to some ridicule - which seems either to be for 15 yrs, 50 yrs+ or 70 yrs+ or eternally. To digitalify starts a new process, probably depending on what expertise is necessary to get good reproductions. (My old HP does some OK work, but even copies of my ovn pencil-drawings could be better if I went to an expert.)

But back to timing: Photography is a relatively new techniqe, and started out as expert-work with no art-label. Later there seems to have emerged an understanding that some photos simply were works of art, and some artphotoproducers were artists on even ground with painters and sculptors. Their respective unions infallibly forwarded claims of equality e.g. Bad work and bad artists are non-existent. Lawmakers then had to make some compromise - and in Norway we got the Åndsverklov. As I understand these rules: If the expertise, and the copymakers agree that an old B&W photo is no great art, but good illustration, the protection of that pic is moderate after some yrs, (but NOT quite equal to PD). If then the digitalizer gives a right to have these pics in the Commons files, I see it as a question of what label has to be chosen - to give them exactly the right kind of protection. Seeing so many good legalese-writers and interpretors at work here on Commons, I see this as no big problem. Flat-out deletion is, as I see it, no good answer, but an easy way out. --Bjørn som tegner 11:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Big can of worms here, what I understand as being said is that because Commons is based in the US and images are stored in the US and displayed/published in the US they are subject to US laws. We are then also adding a copyright for the country of origin, in this case Norway as that is the source country and most likely place where the image may be used outside of foundation projects. In reality while the image maybe considered free its usage may be restricted by local laws and that its the responsibility of the uploader and end user to ensure they have complied with any such laws. So while the image may be PD in the US if its copyrighted in the country origin then it cant be uploaded and should be deleted if it is. Gnangarra 16:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

this case in point what is the copyright status of the image, is it a "free license" with or without attribution. If its not free do we have the necessary permission to host the image? Does the copyright tag clearly explain the images status as applied at source and in the US. Gnangarra 16:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done I have now undeleted the ten Wilse photos, so that the users who mean that they were wrongfully deleted can retag them as template:PD-Norway50. I will delete those which aren't retagged in three days or so. Crazysuit, you should now wait and see which photos that are tagged as PD-Norway50. You may than open individual deletion requests (see Commons:deletion requests) for the photos you consider works of art and thus protected for life+70. Kjetil r 09:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

PD-old and Norway

The template PD-old is not correct for Norwegian old work of art. A quick fix is to make a ned PD-old-Norway or PD-Norway70 that also makes the notion that the work of art has to be attributed, and that any heirs can object to modifications that does not give the work or creator proper respect. Probably the tamplate should not use the word "public domain" as it is not not a correct description at all. Jeblad 00:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, these works are in the public domain in the United States. The tags are thus correct in an American context. Kjetil r 03:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I may be confused, but... Is it not the policy of Wikimedia Commons to host works of countries other than the United States only when those works are freely licensed in both the country of origin and the United States? --Iamunknown 03:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeblad's point is that there is no such thing as the public domain outside the US & UK, and that we therefore should avoid using the term "public domain" when talking about Norwegian works where the author died 70+ years ago. If so, the same would of course also apply to German works, French works, Italian works etc.

The works in question are freely licensed in both the country of origin and the United States, in accordance with Commons policies. Kjetil r 13:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No such thing as public domain outside the US & UK? Well, the concept of public domain (dominio público in Spanish) is a well known concept outside those countries. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 20:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Any work has an origin, and if the origin of a work is Norway then it does not become public domain in other countries according to American laws except inside US borders, and then only to the same extent as similar works of US origin. This is regulated through the Bern convention. As this is an international project it is very difficult to claim that something is public domain according to US law on an international basis when it originates from another country. The concept public domain as such is not an universal concept, and in fact copyright as such is not even an universal concept. 87.248.6.31 21:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for moving a category

According to NPOV-principles I would like to have category:nude photographs moved to category: Female nude in photography in order to be equal to Category:Male nude in photography. The category:nude photographs could then be a head category for the male and female subcategory. The present categorization is very POV and objectifies women. If there are other gender-specific categories with the same POV-categorization they need to be recategorized too. Very grateful for your time and effort. Jorva 19:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: These categories have the same problem:

*category: Nude computer-generated imagery ->category: Female nude computer-generated imagery See below

• category: Nude paintings ->category: Paintings of nude females

Jorva 19:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of renaming the cats (where the resulting redirects would have the same POV problem), I suggest creating new "female" categories and moving all female nudes there. We should keep these non-gender specific ones as parent cats. and to hold images with both male and female nudity in the same image (at the very least, serve as disambiguation pages). Rocket000 20:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, what ever that is simplest and gives the best result :-) Jorva 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, is there a male version of Category: Nude computer-generated imagery? If not, we shouldn't rename it. Seems like the sub-division would be unnecessary because it's too small of a category. We can't help it that so far they all been female. Rocket000 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have checked and searched for any such images now, and actually there isn't, so we could leave this category as it is for the moment. Jorva 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll start moving the others. Rocket000 20:50, 26 December 2007

(UTC)

Great! Could you move category: Nude paintings to category: female nude in paintings instead of the above? Jorva 21:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done Since most were women, I did go head and move the entire category. After they were moved, I went back through them and put the paintings with both men and women back in Category: Nude paintings. I'm sure I missed some, so you may want to take a look at it. Thanks for the great suggestions! Rocket000 21:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

PD-Old or PD-Art of German Paintings

could somebody please have a look at this discussion.
If User:Thuresson should prevail with his opinion, we would have to delete all works of art originating in Germany which have so far been uploaded to Commons, with the exception of selfmade works.
Also this paragraph has to be reworded in such a way, that the facts about reproduction photography of two dimensional works which also apply in Germany are made clearer even to people that are not native English speakers. --Wuselig 00:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if Germany had messed up laws like that, these wouldn't be deleted. It wouldn't make sense. Our severs are in the U.S. and according to the U.S. government these are copies (not even derivatives) of the original work and thus the original artists own (or owned) the copyrights of these photos, NOT the photographers. It would kinda silly, but if it was illegal in Germany for someone to distribute these because of the photographer's copyright, someone outside the country can just reupload them. As far as we're concerned, a copy is a copy. It makes no difference who made it. At least in sane countries, and if it's PD in the U.S., it's PD to us. Rocket000 05:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

they are PD in Germany according to the links from that discussion they need to have some form of creativity before they can be considered copyrighted. Gnangarra 06:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Germany the images are not free. From Commons:Licensing: "When uploading material from a country outside the US, the copyright laws of that country and the US apply." Thuresson 07:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Germany does not reflect the legal situation in Germany correctly. The wording does, but the tick-mark does not. Let me disect the wording to make things clear:

(a)"A carefully lit and exposed reproduction photo enjoys no protection as a copyrighted work ("Lichtbildwerk"), exactly as in the US."

(b)"Mere mechanical reproduction, such as photocopying and scanning, produces no new rights and is hence not as problematic (BGH, 8. November 1989, GRUR 1990, 669ff. – "Bibelreproduktion"), similar to the UK."

(c)"However, a significant minority opinion holds that reproduction photos may be seen as simple photographs in Germany only (my emphasis) as long as they can be distinguished clearly from mere photocopies, and that this is usually not the case"

(d)" However, Germany has additional exclusive rights for so-called "simple photographs" ("Lichtbild") which, according to the expertise created by German lawyers for Wikimedia Germany, includes reproduction photographies (Rechtsfragen März 2005, II.3.A). The protections is shorter than for copyrighted works and lasts for 50 years after publication."

The last two sentences make clear where the protection of the photographer starts. When the photo can be clearly distinguished from mere photocopies, i.e. when the photographer added some "Schöpfungshöhe" to his photograph. That is the case in all three-dimensional subjects, where proper lighting and the correct point of photography is essential to the outcome of the reproduction. And these, and only these photos receive protection as "simple photographs (Lichtbildwerk)".

I suggest to reword sentence (c) like the following and exchange the red tick-mark for the green one, with a specific warning to three-dimensional subjects, or that it only applies to two-dimensional works of art:

"Reproduction photos may be seen as simple photographs in Germany if (and only if) they can be distinguished clearly from mere photocopies. That is not the case with regards to two-dimensional subjects, but will apply to all photographs of three-dimensional objects."

--Wuselig 09:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is correct and balanced as is and needs not be changed. The mainstream opinion holds that reproduction photos are not copyrighted, but yet restricted by additional law governing simple photographies in Germany, and that no Schöpfungshöhe is necessary for that; Leistungshöhe is sufficient. The argument (d) is a minority opinion and has never been used by any court, and its reach is unclear anyway. (For example, User:Historiograf claims that it even covers some photos of three-dimensional objects – such as decorations, medals and coins –, if only a reasonably equivalent picture could be made by putting the object onto a scanner.) The page only reports the facts, and it is dishonest towards the uploaders to rewrite it it in a biased way such that the complicated situation is hidden. If people choose to upload such photos, they should know about the associated problems, and take the responsibility. I disagree with how you want to change the paragraph. Your new version dishonestly states as a fact what was previously correctly admitted to be a minority opinion. --rtc 17:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

@Thuresson: You are about the uploading thing, that's why I said someone outside the country can upload these. But I think it's pretty clear these are PD in Germany too. Rocket000 20:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of boolos.gif, in spite of all Wikimedia requirements having been met.

An Administrator named LX removed the image, a photograph of George Boolos. I had obtained permission to use the photograph from the Massachusetts Institure of Technology, satisfying all of the requirements under the GNU licensing conditions. In fact, I received an email from an administrator after the photograph was first posted, asking me for the additional information, which I then provided to that person's satisfaction.

Please advise how to restore the image and/or what additional information is required, if any. Also, can anyone question any image and does the admin than just delete it in response to such a question without doing any research (which is what was done in this case)?

See note below posted on LX's talk page and emailed to LX.

Thank you.

Roberterubin 01:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)roberterubin

Image:Boolos.gif I believe you removed this image believing it did not have sufficient permissioning under the GNU license guidelines. Please clarify what is needed, because a previous administrator had told me that it was adequately permissioned. Also, I was not notified of any problems with the license, which I understand is customary policy, as a courtesy to contributors. Please advise how the image can be restored and what permissioning specifically (eg, what language specifically) is required. Thanks, Roberterubin (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)roberterubin

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LX"

Read COM:OTRS. --Boricuæddie 01:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Boolos.gif. It seems permission was asked for Wikipedia use, not for it to be released under a free l and license. Rocket000 02:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

From the permission request: I would like to enhance the existing Wikipedia article on George Boolos with material from his tribute page at...

Reply was: You certainly have my permission. If something from higher up is needed that will take me a few days to figure out.

This image is not allowed (yet). Rocket000 02:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to see my notes on this (I send to all three email addresses to make sure): en:User:Rlevse/Tools#OTRS — Rlevse • Talk • 03:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the responses. If you look at my Talk page, I went over all of this in February, 2007 with GeorgHH. I only need to post the photo on Wikipedia. Is there a way to can be restored with the existing permission I obtained then, or is more required?

Thanks. Roberterubin 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)roberterubin

Deletion of {{OTRS pending}} tagged files

I ask you admins colleagues how to handle files like Image:Dessel-Kwaadmechelen.png. It was tagged with {{OTRS pending}} on 29. Nov. 2007, but until today no OTRS confirmation was added, so the license status is unconfirmed.
Questions: First, how much time is needed/appropriate to wait before further action? Second question, if no OTRS-ticket number is added after this period, should such images going trough a regular deletion request or can we do speedy delete it?
My suggestion is to wait maximal three weeks after adding {{OTRS pending}} and then, if nothing has done, to speedy delete the file. What's your opinions? --GeorgHH • talk   18:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that depends on the circumstances. Where there appears to be active discussions going on with the copyright owner, images are often left for longer than three weeks. On the other hand, if there is no apparent action a maximum of three weeks seems fine. What I and others quite often do is to post a message after a reasonable time saying that the image will be deleted after (say) a week unless the OTRS permission has arrived by then. That sometimes draws a reply from someone saying that the negotiations are nearly complete. It can take a while, especially if the copyright owner has no idea what is needed and initially sends a permission that's too limited. If the image is a clear copyvio in the absence of permission it can and should be speedy deleted, not put up for discussion. --MichaelMaggs 18:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile examining the possibility of adding images needing OTRS permissions into a category and after 4 weeks, 6 weeks or whatever, looking at deleting all the images which are still awaiting permission. If permission comes in after the image is deleted, undeletion isn't a major problem either. Some clever syntax can be added to the OTRS template showing the date when the image would first become a deletion candidate. Nick 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick's suggestion makes sense to me. We should decide how long to give these and keep track to make sure they don't slip through the net. Undeletion is no big deal if permissions are obtained a long time after upload. Ideally we should really be encouraging uploaders to get those permissions before uploading the image here. WjBscribe 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediawiki login page update request

Hi there,
I've been asked by Consta to add Greek here, but I don't know how to do that. I hope that someone here may be able to do such a thing or let me know how to do it :)
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 21:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (GMT)

User:Sebjarod

For your Information: I blocked User:Sebjarod for 3 days because of this. User don't want to accept better versions, replacements and Uploads of Images which were cleaned up when he was the original uploader. ChristianBier 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, touchy subject there. If the original uploader doesn't want to accept a "better" version, then the new one should be uploaded under a different name. I'm sorry, but I oppose your use of blocking. A single personal attack on your talk page is not a good reason. Especially because you are involved. As an admin, you got to have tough skin - many users will become upset with you for just doing your job. Unless there's more to the story, I would unblock him. Rocket000 22:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't use your powers where you're involved. IMO, the remark should have earned him a "bad boy", at best. I suggest you unblock and upload the new images under a different name. --Boricuæddie 22:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, there does appear more to the story. I'm unblocking him. I suggest undeleting those images too and putting through COM:DEL like there suppose to be. Please don't abuse your powers. Rocket000 22:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For future, I strongly suggest against blocking for a single personal attack; revert it if you feel like it. Otherwise, one attack is nothing, as I do image deletion on en wiki, and lots of it, and I get users showing almost daily sometimes and demanding that I restore, saying that I'm abusive, why the hell/fuck I did what I did, being arrogant or ingnorant, etc. Maxim_(talk) 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I undelete Image:Timbre Allemagne 100pf Therese Giehse 1988.jpg especially for the User. So, he could do what he want with the image. ChristianBier 22:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ChristianBier. I'm sure he appreciates it. Cheers, Rocket000 22:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I offer him now to do some philatelic work together. Maybe he wants to. We should try to find good pictures together. I've got over 20000 stamps in my collection and I only tried to help with clean images and Scans but everything I earned, was such a personal attack. ChristianBier 22:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Best to offer to talk first, before escalating things, and in the general case I think that having two versions of the image, crosslinked so that people can find both and choose the best one for their use, is a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Restoring links when a deleted image is restored

When an image is deleted, Commons Delinker gets rid of the links. If an image is then restored, is there any way to find out on what pages it was previously used so that the links can be put back? --MichaelMaggs 10:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As Siebrand announced on this page in November, Commonsdelinker keeps a log of its activities. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I missed that. Thanks! --MichaelMaggs 11:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Protecting non-existent pages

Since the update of Wikimedia's copy of MediaWiki to r28904, a new feature that allows protection of non-existent pages now exists. This is achieved by a new MySQL table being created, which stores the titles of non-existent pages that are protected. Now the question is, what will be the fate of COM:SALT? 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:20, 27 December 2007 (GMT)

I think we should tag it as inactive and start using the new feature. --Boricuæddie 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to generate a list of what's protected this way, or will they just appear in Special:Protectedpages? Rocket000 23:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. I protected User:Boricuaeddie/POTY, but it doesn't appear in that list. --Boricuæddie 23:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the protection type is create, which is unlike move and edit. If someone messes around with SpecialProtectedpages.php enough, create may show up in that list. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:24, 28 December 2007 (GMT)

Bugzilla, anyone? --Boricuæddie 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind—Special:Protectedtitles 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:59, 28 December 2007 (GMT)

For us old fashioned folk - how would we add pages on the new basis? I can see some are protected, I can see how to get them into it - me I'm sure but...! Not sure I would abandon SALT yet? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok maybe I should have looked first :) Whatever else we all need to know how to access whatever we are doing (& I personally like the history that is in SALT), cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. COM:SALT gives the ability to identify different categories of protected pages, its talk page creates a natural and central forum for discussing such protections, and as you mention, there's an accessible history. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• reset

Reflecting. To me spambot pages would be fine with the new method, quicker and no real need for "record keeping". However for other pages maybe the record in COM:SALT of who did it and at least rationale in the form of the history would be good?

If folk agree may be worth spreading the thoughts a bit? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've only skimmed this discussion, but I should point out (if nobody else has) that the create protection is gone when the page is created. Commons:Protected against recreation (COM:SALT) continues to protect even after. Different uses, so we should keep it. — Giggy 08:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Errr - early, brain not working, more explanation required.... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The "protect against creation" option only does that - you can change which usergroups can create the page. Once the page is created, the protection is gone - anyone can now edit the page. With COM:SALT, the protection level (in this case, sysop editing only) applies to creating the page and to editing it once created. So the creation protection is good for pages we don't want now (but may want in the future) while COM:SALT is good for pages we never want. :) — Giggy 08:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with the deletion of the page; it has been done on other places, such as MediaWiki, and is going well. Still, if it need be tagged as historical, so be it, I just wanted to note what other places have done. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Per the same conversation on Meta - there is at least one other who agrees with me that SALT has its uses. Maybe it is & should be different for different wikis? I still think there is a rationale for some pages having more detail/history etc but - hey - it's a New Year (for some at least!) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Usage?

On a related note, we don't have a general guideline on when to SALT, do we? Like is it acceptable to block potentially offensive names[10][11] (both only created once) or what appears to be completely random names that were only deleted twice[12][13]? I'm not saying these should be recreated—it's just there's so many pages/images with bad names that shouldn't be created. It wouldn't be practical or reasonable to block them all. I just picked a couple examples at random, but since these weren't continual problems what's the justification for SALTing them? Rocket000 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And why would things like مجوز مستندات آزاد گنو, which appears to never have been created, be block? Rocket000 16:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, issue with the language. Rocket000 16:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) In part this is why I favour SALT - at least there is a way to access all the information in one place even if we don't have guidelines. There is a tendency for one person to start off a page like this and maybe a few others join in. By the time it gets bigger the rationale is lacking!

I think I was responsible for structuring the page the way it is as I did the same on the other "SALT"s I dealt with & it was easier for me:) To me offensive stuff gets block (we can have a long discussion about what that is but ...). I probably picked up pages from other Wikis block lists for here too so some may have never existed (global listing would be good - bugzilla:12484 would help). A couple of those you've given links for were pedo porn which seemed sensible to deal with that way. Discussion would be good (& I think we should still keep SALT for exactly that reason). Thanks Rocket000 --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't questioning the reasons for those specific instances. Like I said, I just picked them at random, but others may oppose a creation protection just like they do a page protection. I'm in favor of keeping COM:SALT for the reasons of tracking and discussing the protections. I guess tracking can be done by Special:Protectedtitles but it's nice to have the rationales all in one place. Being able to sort and organize them is also a definite plus. Rocket000 16:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is (always?) good. So long as you don't tell anyone else idleness plays a part - relatively it takes longer to SALT something than merely to protect it. I still say spambot pages should just be protected and have done with (might be less of them - this should help). As to others it depends on the circumstances, how many times deleted, possible threat to project (kiddie porn/extensive vandalism), preferring not to block someone who keeps creating a page etc. Other views would be good - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Feelings!!

I wish from the respectable Board to remove all the portraits of Prphet Mohamed, peace be upon him, immidiatly from the Prohet Mohamed (pbuh) page . Posting any portray or drawing of the Prohet is considered as hurting Muslims feeling and their faith. As you wouldn't like anyone to hurt your feelings or your beliefe you should also consider the same towards other religions. I konw its only a mistake that was done with no bad intention , so please delete those portrays and drawings immidiatly. Thank you for understanding in this matter. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.238.95.234 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, if you would not like your feelings to be hurt by the portraits, then please do not look at them. This project is not censored. Videmus Omnia 02:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Censorship hurts my feelings. Rocket000 14:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We are getting an average of three such requests per day in m:OTRS. There are a number of English and Arabic petition websites that are suggesting that people contact the Wikimedia foundation and its projects, which accounts for the influx. Similarly, it will likely not die down for a while either. -- Avi 18:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have alreday blocked IP's for making del-requs on Mohamed Images. This is really getting on my nervs. I can understand religious intention, but Commons is FREE. Sorry, we cant do anything for you. Best regards, ^{__ ABF __} ϑ 18:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's really sad to hear. I don't like offending people but it's not like were throwing it in their face. It's their choice to view that material. If they don't like it then don't look at it. Forcing personal beliefs on others sucks. Rocket000 00:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ed veg

Ed veg (talk · contribs) has removed {{Delete}} tags (here, here) and added licenses without any evidence (here, here, here). User has also good edits, but licences doesnt get right, seems to be warned before in talk page. Maybe hes English is not that good, should be warned in Spanish? --Tomia 11:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I warned him the last time with much help of codeisporetry. ^{__ ABF __} ϑ 15:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking care of that. --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 00:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

CSS Update

An administrator may handle the request I made here. HujiStat 20:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been  Done (not by me, just noting this is resolved). — Giggy 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bundesautobahn 73 map.png

I tried to upload amended version of image "Bundesautobahn 73 map.png". However as a new user was not allowed to change this. I therefore uploaded a changed filename "Bundesautobahn73 map.png". Could you please swap the image which shows the course of the German Autobahn 73 across Germany. --Schimmelreiter79 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done The images weren't the same so one of them is wrong - I don't know which. I'm assuming good faith here, but if it gets reverted I suggest using a different name. The original wasn't rendering correctly in the preview, anyway. Rocket000 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates

The instructions say that candidacies are supposed to run for nine days. Some discussions that have been open since December 19 haven't been closed yet. I hope this is the right place to come about bringing the page up to date. Thanks, Durova 07:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need admin help there, any user can close voting, just follow the instructions (very carefully ;-). (Maybe voting was deliberately left open as there were not many people about to vote over xmas/new year.) --Tony Wills 09:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bringing this up at the FPC talk page, or at the Village Pump, could potentially bring a more suited response. — Giggy 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Diegomb

I think sysops should be aware of this user. He continues to make unsourced and problematic uploads. --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done User blocked and uploads deleted. Majorly (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Did we try a short block before going to indef? Was the user told that they could get another chance if they agreed to stick to what our guidelines require? I think an indef block with account creation disabled might be a bit much for a first block, but I might be missing some context. ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

information template reverts by an admin

I try to start adding the information template to some coat of arms, but the User:Notschrei reverts it (see here), because in his opinion the template isn't usable for coat of arms, because of heraldic problems like date or author. In my opinion it is usable (for general data like source or description). Because Notschrei don't want to communicate, I want to hear your opinions for usage of Template:Information in Coat of Arms. ChristianBier 18:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think all images should use {{Information}} regardless of the subject. I don't like that Notschrei is reverting these improvements. Rocket000 18:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is my opinion. But what should we do now? De-Admin-Request, Block for 1 week (so he has time to think over), or something else? ChristianBier 19:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The only valuable quality of {{Information}} is its wide usage and its being a de facto standard. It's otherwise a pretty lame template in my opinion, so I wouldn't throw too many stones at Notschrei, though I admit his is not a very constructive behaviour. My advice would be to scold him for his reverts, then ask him to design a specific template for coat of arms, based on Information. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Template for Coat of Arms was discussed long time ago but no one designed it. I ask him, because he said, there have to be an special template. Maybe he could design it now. When the template exists, I would use it in every image which shows a coat of arms. But when there is no special template created in the next days, I think we should use Information. ChristianBier 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, {{Information}} has its flaws, but reverting people for using this, as you say, de facto standard is not a good practice especially for an admin. Making an alternative template (or hacking the existing one) would be better. As for dealing with Notschrei's actions, I'm unsure myself. BTW, I asked him to comment here. Rocket000 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW: In the head of every page, MediaWiki shows the Message: "Please consider adding the {{information}} template to your previous uploads. Thank you!". ChristianBier 20:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Where I have felt {{Information}} was not sufficient, I have added additional material before or after it as a supplement. If the template removal results in loss of important information about the image that is very bad. If it merely results in reformatting of information (what it appears to be here), that's not as bad. But it still seems like a discussion ought to be held on whether using the information template is a good practice or not. I think Jastrow puts it fairly well... I hope Notschrei chooses to comment here. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not as bad, but reverting something that every page tells you to do and something that is auto-generated when uploading is definitly a problem. Even if he disagrees with it, which is fine, he's still going against the apparent consensus. Rocket000 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So he decides to revert the information template again. I think, we could delelte the information template message on every page when he decides in the right way. I tell him, that I will block him if he reverts again, but he only said, that he will remove the block himself and will block my account. This is not the way we should communicate between admins. ChristianBier 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

After he said, he isn't able to create such template, I offered him to create such one. In his opinion, Uploaders and Workers in the Coat of Arms section here at commons should decide about usage of Information-Template. But this ist not the way our "de facto" standard works. I don't know why he isn't able to give a small comment here. ChristianBier 00:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be best that you not block, as you're an involved admin. It would also be best that anyone who IS blocked (or told they would be blocked if behaviour did not change) did not respond by unblocking themselves and threatening (or actually doing) a block in retaliation. That would be completely unacceptable wheel warring. I hope that this was a misstatement. I am going to suggest directly to the user that they should participate in this discussion. Christian, I suggest that since you're a relatively new admin here that you look to your peers to help you resolve this matter. (see meatball:DefendEachOther) ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I must second that - Christian, please don't use the admin tools in this issue before Notschrei has commented here - as far as I can see he hasn't. Keep it mellow - that seems to be our motto around here. — Giggy 05:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, being also a newby admin, I'd like to say that I don't see any problem in the initial reversions. I mean, it's only a way of formatting information. However, once it turned into a disagreement point, it should have been mandatory to ask for the community opinion, in order to determine whether there is (or not) a consensus. That's much better than involving in an edit war (this is an edit war). --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 06:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC) PS: a comment, whenever a potential conflict between administrators is discussed by them, please use English so that the rest of the community is able to understand the discussion.

And now? The discussion is very quiet since I stop to set Information-Template. Notschrei ignores my offer to create a correct template for CoA. What could we do now? In my opinion, there are three possibilities: 1) Create a special information template for German(!) CoA. -or- 2) Set information template everywhere -or- 3) Revert User Notschrei, Block, De-Admin, and set information template everywhere. ChristianBier 11:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we're all waiting for Notschrei to explain himself here. Lar urged him to so some hours ago, so a little patience is all we need since there doesn't seem to be any urgency. If there is real need of a specific template for COAs, COA-related users should design one, or at least set specifications for someone to design one. The COA community (if any) may launch a Wikiproject to discuss it. If Notschrei persists in keeping silence, we shall have to deal with it, but discussing sanctions now would mean escalating the issue unecessarily.Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that discussing sanctions is way premature. Christian, not to put too find a point on this, but you've been calling for sanctions from the very get go, over what is a matter of a few reverts. That's a bit over the top and it's not how we do things here. Please just relax and let this process work.

I'd suggest to you that you develop an "information supplement" template that could go below the regular information template. Work with other heraldry/shield/coat of arms editors to determine what is needed. Then apply it to a few pages and see what happens. If you have consensus behind you for the changes and they get reverted, THEN we can decide what to do... the first step would be just to firmly state that was not acceptable. But even this is speculation that is ahead of ourselves. This is a hobby. sometimes people go away for a while. It's weinacht after all and Notschrei hasn't edited since the requests for him to participate have been placed. Waiting is the thing to do now. There is no rush. ++Lar: t/c 11:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually he has made edits since my request. Looking at the history here, I understand ChristianBier's eagerness to resolve this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't {{Information}} have consensus? If not, we should take the suggestion off of the top of every page and stop auto-generating it when people upload. Rocket000 12:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, {{Information}} has consensus. Even if there are exceptions where it should not be used, I think that taking the suggestion off and not autogenerating is not a good idea. That's just crazy talk. It's not either or, here guys... Ping Notschrei again if you want but I just don't think we need to act rashly here. Talk of deadminning someone over this matter is just way over the top, which is what I want to see stop. Peace, love and images, everyone. :) Again, develop a supplement for this special use, try it out and see what happens. That's my suggestion. ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rocket, you're raising two different issues here. We need to organize image descriptions, so autosuggesting a basic, all-rounder template is a good move. Encouraging the general public to use it proceeds from the same principle. However, I wouldn't say {{Information}} has consensus. There are better description templates on Commons, such as {{Painting}} or the ones derived from {{Meta information museum}}. There's been a whole debate about this on the mailing-list, see here. Back to the matter at hand, I think that {{Information}} is better than no template at all, but there really should be a discussion about this, because Notschrei's not the first one I see stripping away {{Information}}. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just like to point out that {{COAInformation}} exists. It was created some months ago to use the information template and to deter the inclusion of categories in templates (since this makes it hard for other users to recategorise them). /Lokal_Profil 17:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was more or less totally unaware of that mail thread. Gah. We need to remember that not everyone subscribes to the mail list, or has time to read it and summarize back from time to time if there are important decisions arrived at. There are a number of important points raised there. Can someone summarize the outcome? ++Lar: t/c 17:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

{{COAInformation}} is a fine try for creating such a template, but when I looked at the templat, I don't think tat it will be the right one for German Coat of Arms. I will try to ask User Notschrei. ChristianBier 19:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A special template for german COA can be created (like {{COAInformation/fr}}, which looks like {{COAInformation}}, but presents some options for French-speaking COA-project). But I don't understand what is the problem of Notschrei with Date and Author. Zigeuner 00:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Where do we stand on this? template work underway and all will be fine? Waiting for Notschrei? Somewhere else? Not sure where we stand? Thanks for any summation. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I don't like admins ignoring issues like this and requests for comment, but maybe things are working out? ChristianBier? Rocket000 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I try to offer him the template Lar Mentioned above but he only answered that COA are not the topic he is interested in. So I ask myself, whether he was reverting? I have no idea. ChristianBier 00:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd note that Notschrei is around. He may be the "strong silent type", see this where he reverts without comment a template about something. I do wish we could get better participation from him. I'm not sure what to suggest next. ++Lar: t/c 23:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish speaking admin please

For Image:Super-Tirititran.jpg the uploader says he has a permission (link: es:Wikipedia:Autorizaciones/www.super-tirititran.com), can someone check it, please. For me it looks not ckeckable because there is no email address or similar given. The original source says: Cc-by-nc-sa/2.5/es. We need OTRS confirmation. Please contact the uploader in spanish, he doesn't speak english. Thank you. --GeorgHH • talk   19:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

He says that he got the image from a source that has already authorized the use of their images under the GFDL. No OTRS confirmation is needed here, just a more specific URL. BTW, Super-Tirititran, the video game, is licensed under cc-by-nc-sa-2.5-Spain, not the other images. --Boricuæddie 13:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism deletion requests from IPs

I've been noticing an increasing amount of invalid/vandalism deletion requests from anons. Most of these are incomplete so not all show up at COM:DEL. Sometimes just the image page gets tagged. If the page is protected, they can't tag it but they can still nominate it. Yes, we can protect both the image page and the respective nomination sub-page, but that's not ideal and the image's uploader still gets the deletion warning. Our deletion pages are already somewhat of a mess - we don't need this. I think the "Nominate for deletion" link in the sidebar makes it too easy. Maybe we should only allow registered users access to the function. Or at the very least, disable it when the page is protected (they can't tag it anyway). Thoughts? Rocket000 06:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The nominate for deletion sidebar link is part of the sitewide Mediawiki:Monobook.js (as part of Mediawiki:Quick-delete.js). Removing it for anons would also remove it for logged in users. One option would be to strongly encourage anyone who wants that button to install Quick-delete, and then to remove the parsers (or whatever they're called) in that JS so that everyone gets the DR, NSD, NLD, etc. options, not just those who have it viewed twice (in english: Those who have it in their monobook and the sitewide monobook). But AFAIK there's no way of having it only appear for logged in users but not anons. — Giggy 00:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

*cough* Bugzilla *cough* --Boricuæddie 00:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be possible to chech the variable wgUserGroups in javascript. I think it is null for user who are not logged in, and something else for logged in users (admins, autoconfirmed, ?). /90.229.135.159 00:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/41.235.129.229. This user left a deletion request notice for Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg, which I had restored to a previous version after vandal Learnsales uploaded another picture on top of it, at my talk page. (I'm not the original uploader). I reverted and semiprotected Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg for a month and blocked the IP for a week. Mentioning here for the sake of transparency. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked another IP for a week and the range for 2 hours. ^{__ ABF __} ϑ 21:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/41.232.22.161 blocked for a week and Image:Maome.jpg semiprotected (again) for a month. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

90.199.1.90 blocked for a week for blanking the information on Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg. Image description semiprotected (again). Three months this time, since the vandalism resumed almost immediately after the previous protection expired. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin recall...?

This probably isn't the best time to bring up such an issue (if you don't know why, don't ask..;) ), but has anyone ever contemplated an admin recall system here, a la en? I would be curious to see its effectiveness, popularity, etc on a project like Commons, but thoughts here are welcome...— Giggy 21:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for deadminship has worked before on commons (I forget the name of the user, but it was recent). I think that the drama on enwiki regarding admin recall is too much for Commons, and I wouldn't want it here. If an admin is bad enough, they'll get desysopped, most likely. But it just isn't the same as enwiki. Majorly (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The archive has the information on Joymaster's successful de-adminship ... see Commons:Administrators/De-adminship for the policy details. I don't think we need another formal process (part of policy) for recall. If some admins want to put themselves into a voluntary recall process that is their perogative, though. It does work and much of the en drama, in my view, is due not to the idea, or the process itself, but other factors. (I admit bias, I was one of the developers of the process and am actively taking steps now to urge members to do things that I believe will avoid drama if they are subsequently recalled.) ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit, I like the idea in theory, but do we need it? It does seem to create a of unnecessary drama that's right at home at en.WP, but might be a little too much for here. Some recent incidences here seem to be fueled by users largely from other projects. I know Commons isn't really a home wiki to many, but when they come here they act like it is and apply WP rules and ideals here. I know we all have witnessed certain events that have pulled users from their home wiki en masse to the unfamiliar grounds of Commons and come with misunderstandings. Having a process like this might do the same. Another thing, we don't have that many admins so having the occasional deadminship works. I am interested in hearing Giggy's reasons, though. Rocket000 22:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is some specific need that I'm unaware of, I agree with Rocket000. This type of en Wikipedia invitation-to-have-a-big-row -about-everything type of formality is unlikely to improve the lives of most Wikimedians here. --MichaelMaggs 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want it to be a policy (re. Lar), but purely a voluntary thing. The process in itself doesn't breed drama, rather it can/could be quite effective if used properly. Then again, I agree that many non-Commons users could treat it poorly. Still contemplating...— Giggy 02:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally would not want Commons to get closer to the way things on en work; they have many problems here, and that de-adminship thing worked here. Let's leave it at that. --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with many of the comments here (& I am open to recall on en wp) I would not want to see it here. However - as a Meta admin (etc) - I would be very happy to see some form of annual confirmation process. It would also be useful in allowing the removal of rights of those who are inactive in a relatively good way. I've said in many places - tools are for people who actively use them. They are quite easy to get and removal should be seen as no big issue either. The whole admin policy could do with more eyes - the review here has been stalled for too long. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd support an annual reconfirmation process. Herby... Can we draft you to start writing up something to float around for initial comment? And then bang the drum to get more eyes involved in the policy review overall? ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also support an annual reconfirmation process. It may be good to look at meta's confirmation page - there are confirmations up every 3 months (January, April, July, October), for all admins promoted in the three months prior to that. Herbythyme and I are also discussing if other positions (e.g. bureaucrat, checkuser) should be reconfirmed too, as at the moment they are lumped in one on Meta. Majorly (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take this off the backburner I think - help would be welcome though. Whatever we do it has to be simple so that it is not a distraction. There is certainly an issue about "confirmation" in relation to those with multiple rights (& the timing of that confirmation too). I'll go think --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to reconfirm 'crats and CUs as well. I would hope one process/page that handles all of them would be the way to go rather than three separate ones. I like meta's quarterly approach too rather than yearly. Note that I think en:Wikisource uses monthly, see s:Wikisource:Administrators#Scheduled_confirmation_discussions I have no strong preference for monthly vs quarterly... one might be less lumpy, the other less work. ++Lar: t/c 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a process similar to what Majorly noted (per meta). — Giggy 00:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I support that. Rocket000 05:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This could form the basis for discussion (I was aware Fred had been working on it). As to confirming other rights my answer would be a definite "yes". For simplicity it should be done at the same time as admin confirmation and allow the retaining of admin rights while relinquishing say 'crat rights. If the rights have only been granted recently it is highly unlikely that the would be removed in such a process --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, that's a pretty heavy voting burden on concientious Commons users: we have around 245 admins, so that's 245 votes per person per year, and the burden would rise with the number of admins. --MichaelMaggs 10:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Really important point - no vote is required. Default, no vote, rights retained. So there should only be a need to vote if anyone votes remove for someone & their rights. Equally - hopefully - it would be less drama that forcible de-admin. Also with that I would expect admin numbers not to rise that much as quite a few would go quite quickly through inactivity (that policy is frankly labour intensive too)? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I obviously missed the 'really important point', but the proposal does say "75% support is required for adminship", which seems to imply that votes in favour are actually required. Could that be clarified so that votes in favour aren't being sought unnecessarily - eg "if you are in favour of this admin retaining existing rights there is no need to vote unless one or more votes have already been cast against the candidate"? --MichaelMaggs 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - the "really important point" was the way it is done on Meta (I've removed the "stress"). The words you've used must be incorporated. The beauty (?) of confirmation is that nothing needs be said unless someone opposes. If you look here there are a fair few inactive admins and while the current policy works in a sense it does require quite a bit of time to deal with it - confirmation - once set up - needs little?

I fully accept that it depends on your views of inactivity & rights. I happen to feel very strongly that admins merely have tools for some clean up work and that is only relevant while you are doing that work --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If aint' broken, don't fix it. I  Oppose. Samulili 11:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you opposing the original suggestion for an admin recall process (voluntary or otherwise) or the new suggestion for a yearly reconfirmation? Or both? Thanks for clarifying... Note that I don't think we're at the point of checking for consensus on any of this yet. ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There's only been one commons admin desysop that I know of. It seems less of a problem than on some other wikis. But that does not mean a process for desyop or recall can't be looked at. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've put some thoughts on confirmation here, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Hello everybody!

I am the author of the website which is mentioned as the original source for Image:XSD-typessimples.jpg. I have to thank Ballinette for having put that image here... and therefore pointed a mistake I have made, for I must admit I have copied the image from elsewhere. When I put the whole site on GFDL, I forgot that image, which resulted in a copyright violation. I hope I will have time to fix it before the end of the week. But could you please delete this image? Thank you! GillesC 17:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Some clean up

What should I do with all the useless pages like in Category:Deletion requests April 2007? They are very old deletions requests that were done wrong. The subpages only have deletion templates on them. Rocket000 02:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems most of the DR's in that cat were created by accident, and could be deleted or fixed so that they are an actual DR. Takes time and patience, of which I have minimal supplies :) — Giggy 08:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

After watching all pages I decided do delete all. ChristianBier 15:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Rocket000 16:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

More clean up

Can someone possibly make a bot to delete all these (mostly) empty and entirely useless pages? I was going to close the few noms. that were still open (some are older than a year!) but then I figured what's the point? The whole superseded deletion thing is over. Also, no one answered my related question here, but I decided to delete the cat. Rocket000 06:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact that my right hand was faster than a bot, I decided to delete them all manually and after some time, it's done now! ChristianBier 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you. You have more patience for tedious work than me :) Rocket000 07:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad protection info

To let folk know I've protected Muhammad today. I appreciate that people do see this as offensive to them & that is a pity but all that has happened for a while now is I've s protected for a period and a few days later it happens again. I do not like indefinite protection but see no alternative. If others do feel free to change it - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrators who speak portuguese

I'd like to make contact with some adminitrators who speak my language. I need to clear some doubts. Thanks for the attention. User:Mizunoryu 08 January 2008, 18:35 (UTC)

Please try and contact one of the admins listed with "pt" at Commons:List of administrators. — Giggy 22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I aprecciate your help.Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Doncsecz‎

User:Doncsecz‎ has nominated his userpage and talkpage for deletion, and gave the reason "I want cheking" (sic). I have asked user what he means, but I have a feeling it might be a language issue perhaps. From his uploads it looks as though he might speak Hungarian, and has only been a user for 3 days. He also nominated all his uploads for deletion (but they are all incomplete requests). Do we have an active admin with Hungarian - what other language would he be likely to understand? Thanks -- Deadstar (msg) 12:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He has since updated it to "I want to leave". What is the procedure in this case? -- Deadstar (msg) 14:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of a Hungarian speaking user here I think we must assume that he was unaware of what Commons was when he uploaded the pictures. As such - even if licensed - it is may be that the licensing is not valid. My view would be that we delete everything (rather sadly) if we are unable to communicate in a way that he understands? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

+ User:Szajci seems to have said something to him. Worth a message on their talk page? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Herby - I have bundled all his requests at Commons:Deletion requests/Images by User:Doncsecz for ease & have asked User:Szajci to leave a message in Hungarian for user. Hopefully it'll get sorted. Most the images uploaded do look to be old enough to be in PD, but then I'm not an expert. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

With kind help of Rimshot and Szajci query is resolved. Thanks! -- Deadstar (msg) 13:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good news - thanks to all of you --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Stefania svizzira

Hi, I found that User:Stefania svizzira has uploaded many images that are under copyrights (all Scorpions album cover). I think there should be a block for the user. Please contact me on it.wiki for problems. Sirabder87 15:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Album covers were deleted and user was warned. I think block will be justified if user will decide to violate Commons:Licensing again. --EugeneZelenko 15:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the user for a week before reading this. As I've had to delete their copyright violations in the past and since I had already given them final warning with {{End of copyvios}}, I think this was justified without waiting for them to do it yet again. Hopefully this will give them enough time off from uploading copyright violations to read Commons:Licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirects

See also Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_15#Cross-namespace_redirections

Do we have any type of policy on these? Rocket000 21:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Commons' level of documentation of common practices is comparatively low even in less obscure details. en:Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect? can lend some guidance, and I know similar practices are applied (without necessarily being documented) at other language editions of Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I know en.WP's policy on it, but it seems we're a little more lax here. I agree with en.WP's reasoning (see this essay) but of course their project is different in nature. The main point is "namespaces were created for a reason". Personally, I think the gallery, image, and category namespaces should almost always be kept separate. (I'm talking only about redirects, not cross-namespace links).

I don't think we need any documentation, I would just like to get an idea of what others think about it. Specifically, Gallery -> Category and Gallery -> Commons. Rocket000 23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like 'em either. Aside from "namespaces were created for a reason", it implies galleries and categories are somehow mutually exclusive (at least if understood as "use this instead!" rather than "you may be looking for this"), which they're not. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like cross-namespace redirects, as they generally don't work they way they're supposed to. Cary Bass ^demandez 01:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image move

My stupidity mislabeled the filename of Image:1919 Stalin and Wife.jpg, should say Lenin, not Stalin. Sherurcij 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just upload it under the new name and tag the old image page with {{Badname}}. I'm not sure {{PD-1923}} is a valid license for an image which was taken in Soviet Russia though. /Lokal_Profil 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumably should be PD-Russia. -- Infrogmation 03:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cascading protection

With regard to our last discussion about COM:SALT, I think if we're going to keep it, we should at least merge all the cascading protected pages into one (that being COM:SALT). I was not even aware of other pages being used until I cam across Template:Coord/salt, User:Notschrei/protected pages, and User:Zzyzx11/En main page. I'm not sure if there's some special reason why these are all spread out. Now, I can see the reasoning behind User:Zzyzx11/En main page as that changes constantly, but I'm not really comfortable with the idea of personal SALT pages (User:Notschrei/protected pages). I oppose the creation-protection all those listed on User:Notschrei's page. I think it's a complete misuse. Most of those categories should have been redirected.

These four pages are the only ones that use cascading protection with the exception of a single user page. I don't think that's needed for a userpage. Even if you want to protect all your subpages, it doesn't take long to do individually. Doing it with cascading protection only leads to problems.

I would like to propose a single sentence guideline on this: Don't use cascading protection, except on COM:SALT.

• Revised guideline: Don't use cascading protection, except on COM:SALT and in rare situations where there's a consensus to do so.

Thoughts? Rocket000 22:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should have them all in one place. But if we can't get consensus on that, how about at least just requiring that other cascade pages be mentioned from the main one as a first step? ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Or moved to subpages of COM:SALT? I think they should at least be in the appropriate namespace, but yes, linking them from them main page would be a good start. Rocket000 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Notschrei/protected pages is not necessary (anywhere) in my eyes. Some of the pages/cats in it never existed, and seem to be listed there because of a personal POV. Not good form. Template:Coord/salt could be listed as a new section at COM:SALT, while the En main page thing should probably stay separate, I think. Other than that page, I support Rocket's proposed guideline. — Giggy 03:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think User:Zzyzx11/En main page can be an exception. The user takes good care of it and none the images are protected for long. I see no problem there. Ok, revised guideline [Edit: See above] Rocket000 03:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, but also the above. --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed guideline updated. Rocket000 04:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was easy. Notschrei just deleted his whole page. Thanks Notschrei. Rocket000 14:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sounds good to me. ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some time in the future, I'll expand our policy page. It's not much right now. It'll be somewhere to describe the different types of protection and when they should be use. BTW, this page was kinda pointless to copy from WP, eh? Rocket000 23:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think copying over Commons:List of indefinitely protected pages was perhaps well intentioned, but not necessarily well thought out. Commons:Protected against recreation is the actually operative list, I'm not sure what Jeff had in mind with the other one. ++Lar: t/c 01:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Rocket's proposal should be added to Commons:Protected page (whenever he wants to), and Commons:List of indefinitely protected pages can be deleted, since it's not doing anything. — Giggy 04:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done I also added some documentation for the other protection types. Rocket000 15:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick question about bin Laden image

Regarding Image:DN-SD-04-12769.jpg, anyone knows the Afghanistan copyright law for derivative work? I doubt we can ask the US army to take pictures of promotional posters to make them free automatically. -- ReyBrujo 18:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal principles surrounding derivative works tend to be based on case law and/or common interpretations of the intent of the law and are relatively uniform around the world. US law puts any work made by the federal government into the public domain, but as you say, this can only reasonably extend to the copyrightable contribution of theirs, not to included contributions from others. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

File protection question

How do I protect a unexcisting file? An Example of a protected, unexcisting file is Image:2.GIF. --GeorgHH • talk   13:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just go to the "protect" tab like you would if the page existed. Rocket000 13:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. I'm spectacle wearer; it's embarrassing that I haven't seen it ;-) Thanks. --GeorgHH • talk   14:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem :-) Rocket000 15:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems with gadgets

Hi all, has anyone undergone problems with QuickDelete and DelReqHandler? Since yesterday, the links in the toolbox (QuickDelete) and the extra links in the header of the nominations in Commons:Deletion requests (DelReqHandler) have disappeared regardless of purging the cache, disconnecting... It's quite difficult to to maintenance without them... Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 06:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, in fact, the following gadgets are not working at all: Quick Delete, Hot Cat, Flickr Fixr and DelReqHandler. On the other hand, Check Usage and Add Information are working. My monobook is User:Ecemaml/monobook.js and my browser is Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071127 Firefox/2.0.0.11. Is there a way to debug javascript? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 13:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This may be also issue with recent MediaWiki update (there was a big delay before). --EugeneZelenko 16:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Also Special:Newpages isn't behaving the way it was - I guess this may be an "update" issue too --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So, is there any fix for it? Doing maintenance without proper tools is really exhausting :-( --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 23:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, I hate closing DRs now. I've come to depend on this script. We really need a fix really soon. Can someone with the skills please take a look at it? Or create a simple temporarily script? Please. Rocket000 03:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On a totally different note, is there a reason popups isn't there? Damn useful...— Giggy 05:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but you can add the following to your monobook.js (or whatever.js):

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js'
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

Works like it does on WP. Rocket000 06:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you already have it. ;) Rocket000 06:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do, but the little people don't :P *hides* — Giggy 07:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think popups as an option would be good - first thing I add on any wiki but I do know some folk aren't keen. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle would be good too... RedCoat 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't that much vandalism, plus we don't have nearly as many template warnings (if any, I don't know about them) so I'm not so sure about Twinkle. — Giggy 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

TW doesn't work here. At all. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 04:29, 30 December 2007 (GMT)

It doesn't work because the JavaScript can't read the interface. It should work with a few local adjustments, IMHO. Maxim_(talk) 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

All it'll need is to change en.wikipedia to commons.wikimedia. It's simply reading the wrong website. The whole setup is the same

on all wikimedia wikis (e.g. the edit forms are the same name). Majorly (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's true there's not much vandalism, but I still think it'd be useful. Once you make a habit of using it on WP, you take it for granted. I'm thinking about trying to import it here, but I'm sure there's more to it than just changing the URL. What about all the calls to templates we don't have or that are named differently? Rocket000 03:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the templates used here would replace the ones used on enwiki. These are minor things though. Apparently Azatoth, the creator of Twinkle is interested in getting it implemented on Commons, so we should make progress with it. Majorly (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Maybe we can even get some Commons-specific functions and remove the ones we don't really need. Friendly (which uses User:AzaToth/morebits.js) would also be useful. Really nice for welcoming users. It could be modified to tag images with our templates (like {{Watermark}}, {{Rename}}, {{Uncat}}, etc.) Rocket000 14:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• MediaWiki:DelReqHandler.js had a bug fix on January 8, 2008. See User talk:Lupo#DelReqHandler. If it doesn't work as a gadget, just use it via the includePage mechanism instead. Lupo 13:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And MediaWiki:Gadget-DelReqHandler.js has been fixed today. Lupo 16:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of game boards

A large number of open deletion requests for December, 2007 deal about pictures of game boards (such as Monopoly). Some issues seem rather obvious to me (Commons:Deletion_requests/2007/12#Image:Monopoly Junior.jpg for instance). Others are more difficult, such as Commons:Deletion_requests/2007/12#Image:GameCon 2007 in Pardubice - Dorn 1.jpg (simple design, only protected by industrial property?) or Commons:Deletion_requests/2007/12#Image:Zombies!!!.JPG (design is only part of a larger whole, I remember we've shown tolerance in the past for pictures of a whole bunch of DVD covers). To put it simply, I'd appreciate more input from you guys. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that Image:GameCon 2007 in Pardubice - Dorn 1.jpg design is too simple. Please also note manuals on photo. Image:Zombies!!!.JPG also contains mainly copyrighted material. So I definitely for deletion of such images as derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 15:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In my view all of the requests I've posted are pretty clear copyright violations that have simply slipped through the net. All the photographs show, and have clearly been taken for the purpose of illustrating, copyright works - details of boards, parts of boards or box designs. Note that even part of a copyright design, as in Commons:Deletion_requests/2007/12#Image:GameCon 2007 in Pardubice - Dorn 1.jpg can and does have a copyright of its own. You can't avoid infringing by omitting part of the overall design; that would be too easy. This is not an example of some extremely simple copyright-ineligible pattern, and suggestions that designs of this complexity are 'too simple' are likely to be founded on hopefulness rather than on legal considerations. I'm not sure which DVD-cover illustration is being referred to, but it may well be that in that case each individual cover was an extremely small part of the overall image and was de minimis in the context of the image as a whole.

In spite of several posted suggestions to the contrary, the fact that some include a hand, head or whatever does not make them essentially images of players in which the copyright design is merely incidental. In each case the copyright design is central, fundamental, and is precicely what the image is intended to illustrate; otherwise, why would people be asking "How are we supposed to illustrate the game on Wikipedia if these images are deleted?" Unfortunately, a reasonable wish to have a nice illustration of the game board does not justify our infringing copyright. --MichaelMaggs 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The point raised by Michelet for one of the pictures is that those designs are a matter of industrial property (as industrial designs or utility models) and not of intellectual property. All creative designs are not protected; we allow for instance pictures of cars. On the other hand, the field of intellectual property keeps expanding; a French court for instance recently recognized that the design of a squirt gun was protected by copyright… Meanwhile, Eugene and you already took part in the deletion requests so I already know how you feel :-) Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Those all contain artwork (at least the ones I've seen) and are clearly copyvios. What about things that don't like a PS3? BTW, when you guys say "industrial property" are you talking about patents? Rocket000 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You do need to appreciate that Michelet's views on intellectual property law are, shall we say, ... interesting and peculiar to him. Ask Lupo. The term 'intellectual property' (or 'industrial property' - they mean exactly the same thing) is a generic expression which encompasses a wide range of abstract rights including patents, trademarks, registered designs and utility models as well as copyright - so there's terminological confusion. In most countries of the world, copyright protection is automatically granted to 2D designs that show some sort of originality or creativity on the part of the author, regardless of artistic merit. Industrial designs and utility models (they are not the same thing) are types of intellectual property which may be protected in many countries by some sort of registration process in the same way as patents; some types of unregistered rights may also exist in some countries. A 2D board game design may or may not have additional registered design protection, but that generally has no bearing on the issue of whether or not the artistic work it includes is entitled to copyright protection. Both types of protection can and do co-exist, and Michelet's comment I'm afraid does little more than muddy the waters. 3D products that don't include any significant 2D artwork, such as the Sony PS3, are much less likely to be entitled to copyright protection, although they may be protected by registered design. Be careful, though, as although many more-or-less utilitarian 3D objects may not be entitled to copyright protection, that does not mean anyone is free to rip off photos of such objects found on the internet, since the photos themselves will normally be copyright protected. - --MichaelMaggs 22:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think about it, what we're trying to do here on Commons is pretty amazing. Not only are we trying to figure out what the copyright laws actually are but the philosophical nature of intellectual property itself. Governments can't even decide what to do in some cases. Many times just waiting around for uncertain case law. In this digital world, how far does one take the idea of ownership of ideas and the expressions of those. Here we are, untrained in the legal profession, trying to sort our way through copyrights, trademarks, patents, moral rights, personality rights, Public Domain issues, along with all the various types of licenses. For ALL countries! Working with every kind of culture and language. Not to mention trying to form some type of project policy around this. All by our own free will! And somehow... we do alright. Amazing. Rocket000 00:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael, Michelet comes from the French speaking Wikipedia, as I do. We've met before, shall I say :) Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I may be a little out of my depth here: I'm not as familiar with copyright policy as I'd like to be. But I read Commons:Derivative works and agree that all those board game images should be deleted. However, could a case be made for uploading some of them to local projects under a fair use claim, if they're needed there? Cowardly Lion 20:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, several might well be OK with a fair use claim, but unfortunately not all Wikis allow that. --MichaelMaggs 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:German Monopoly board in the middle of a game.jpg is displayed in the Wikipedia article, but the image seems to be hosted here rather than locally, and has been released under GFDL. To me it seems to be just as "derivative" as the others, but I do think it adds significantly to the article. Cowardly Lion 23:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I find the matter confusing in the extreme but I agree, this image is not that different from the others and should be dealt with the same way the rest of them are. Good find. ++Lar: t/c 04:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Monopoly is a special case. The 'original' Monopoly board is now out of copyright - it was published in a US patent application back in 1935: see w:Image:DarrowPage1.png. This German one has different text, and also shows the currency, but the main artistic elements are identical. Such differences are there are probably not sufficient to generate a new copyright. It does need the {{Trademark}} tag, though, as some of the artistic elements are protected by trademark I believe. --MichaelMaggs 10:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Would that image be allowed here? Rocket000 23:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would. --MichaelMaggs 15:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Files just disappeared, can someone help?

Something bizarre happened. I uploaded three images Image:National Museum KL 2008 (102).JPG, Image:National Museum KL 2008 (103).JPG, Image:National Museum KL 2008 (104).JPG, which all depict the same object from three different angles (headgear of the Sultan of Kedah). For some reason the last two ended up instead in Category:Bajau headgear, but not in Category:Kedah Sultan's Headgear, where they were supposed to be. What is worse, the two first original images of the Bajau headgear vanished and were uploaded over by the Kedah Sultan files, which is impossible though, because the three original headgear images had different numbers. The only file that still exists untouched is Image:National Museum KL 2008 (131).JPG, which means the other two had number 129 and 130, or 132 and 133. The history of the file also does not make any sense. if somebody could please help, that would be greatly appreciated. Gryffindor 22:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

May I please suggest you to try to revert the images you upladed? The revert button is below the description at the image page. You may get the lost ones back. I have not tried it with your images, but it worked with mine in the similar situation.Thank you--Mbz1 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried reverting, it won't let me [14]. Files cannot just dissappear. Gryffindor 22:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would just assume some blip in the system, probably too ill defined to submit a bug report about. I note Image:National_Museum_KL_2008_(129).JPG does exist, so the others were presumably meant to be 132, 133. Regarding 102, 103, 104, I presume you know that when you upload a new version of an image, it doesn't use the new comment text to replace the image page description. So I suggest editing each of the Image:National Museum KL 2008 (102).JPG, Image:National Museum KL 2008 (103).JPG, Image:National Museum KL 2008 (104).JPG pages, adding the right category to each. Then upload the missing images again as the system has no record of them so can not retrieve them. You can see a list of all the images you uploaded recently at [15]. Hope that helps :-) --Tony Wills 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your log more closely it appears you uploaded 131, 103, 104 at the same time (instead of 131, 132, 133), but 103, 104 had the descriptions that you meant for 132,133. You have since uploaded the 102, 103, 104 series using correct descriptions but because of the 'bug' noted above they were left with the original descriptions that you meant for 132,133 from the mistaken upload :-) You will have to edit 103, 104 pages to give them the correct descriptions (re-uploading won't work), and upload 132, 133 which where missed :-) --Tony Wills 01:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

user:209.221.90.204

user:209.221.90.204 has been vandalizing again. I reverted. Lycaon 14:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A troubled history across projects. On a long "school block" on en wp so obviously now roaming more. Thanks for the heads up and block for a period here --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Map compiled from 3 sources

Hi,

I am loading some images (like Image:SRTM-W71.00E68.10S27.00N26.00.Salvador.png) compiled from three sources: GMT, SRTM (ftp://e0srp01u.ecs.nasa.gov/srtm/version2/SRTM3/) an some US Toponymy data (http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/cntry_files.html). I put it under PD-GMT. Is it enough? If it is not enough, Which is the other licences in the Commons nomenclature?. (The other data is also free).

--[[User:Createaccount|Antipatico]] 14:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If they're all PD, I think it's enough, just make sure you always add the source of the data to double check (you never know, some evil admin may come and delete it ;P). GMT is under GNU license but I don't think that means works produced with the tool are also under GNU (else, all svg files made with Inkscape would also have to be GNU, and so on). My 0.02 (euro) cents :) Patrícia ^msg 17:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New "gadget"

Heads up. If you are looking at logs maybe take a look at the new gadget which is a very useful "log filter". Created by Mike Splarka but changed slightly by Mike on Wikibooks it is very useful at filtering log files - give it a try. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but the script isn't mine ;) – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are referring to MediaWiki:Gadget-EnhancedUndelete.js... Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I stole both actually. The "log filter" is great for all special:logs - try it on the deletion log, block log etc. Enhanced undeleted is great if you want to clean a page and selectively restore. Having selected it admins can see the functionality on the Sandbox. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Some gadgets (eg. delrg helper) still aren't working... :(— Giggy 12:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:DelReqHandler.js was never intended to be used as a gadget, and it is intended for Firefox only. I never tested it on any other browser. I don't know how gadgets work and whether something special would have to be done. If you follow the instructions at MediaWiki talk:DelReqHandler.js, it works in Firefox. It does for me, and User:Ecemaml also uses it. Lupo 12:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

*goes to test that* - In this case, should it be removed from the gadgets list? — Giggy 13:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope it works for you. User:MichaelMaggs also uses it. Lupo 15:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've put "FF" only in the description. Maybe others would benefit from better labelling (& save disappointment), cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Should work now also when used as a gadget. Somehow, function "includePage" from MediaWiki:Common.js was not available when DelReqHandler was run through the gadgets mechanism. That's fixed now. Lupo 15:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Works in monobook for me, so I don't need the gadget. Thanks, it's really useful! — Giggy 13:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

For similar bugs, check the order in which things are loaded. As well someone should update the copy here for a "new feature". – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - updated --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Media requiring renaming

Does anyone of you know, which Bot actually works in Category:Media requiring renaming? Or isn't a bot working there at this time? ChristianBier 08:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mir ist nicht bekannt, das wir dafür einen bot haben... --GeorgHH • talk   11:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But it's in the heading of the cat that there is a bot. But I can't find one. Maybe some of our bot professionals could code some bot for this work, because the cat is very large and theres a lot to do. ChristianBier 16:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The category has probably been processed uniquely by a bot (see here). I assume it was Siebot, because his owner created that page :) --Christian Nurtsch^TM 16:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand once promised to create the bot according to specs I wrote (see Commons:MediaMoveBot). Two months or more ago he let me know on IRC he would test it on en.wp and wasn't too interested in Commons. I have tried to get him to respond on IRC, but never got any response from him. So this category is *not* being processed automagically... Siebrand 16:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

2 Images with the same name?

There is an image on Commons called Image:Jim Heath.jpg which is a picture of the frontman for the band "The Reverend Horton Heat". But when the name is added to the corresponding article on Wikipedia it places an image of a politician with the name "Jim Heath"... who obviously has a Wikipedia image that is named the same as the good "Reverend's". Can the Commons image be renamed? Or is it just easier to rename the Wikipedia image? Wikilibs 00:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really easier to rename either. But first come, first served - so the politician wins. So upload yours under a new name and mark the old one {{badname|correctedname.jpg}} (probably faster than requesting a name change with {{Rename}} which will do the same thing anyway. --Tony Wills 02:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If the image on en Wikipedia is the same, add {{subst:ncd}} to it. It isn't here, so you'll need to reupload your Commons image and use badname per Tony above. — Giggy 13:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Commons upload isn't mine. I just happened upon it. Should the original uploader be contacted? It isn't "right" for me to copy/paste the image as my own... still using the original uploaders info.... is it? Forgive me I am new to the Commons side of Wiki. I just randomly browsed the image.... thought it would enhance the Wiki article... and wound up with some NN politicians face glaring out from the Reverend's rockin' article :D . Wikilibs 17:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I got it. I re-upped the other users image with the same/proper licensing info and then {bad name} tagged the original image for a Speedy Delete. Was that the right way? It's a great pic... total free use. It'd be a shame to lose it off of the Wikipedia article. Wikilibs 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been paying attention, if the original Commons upload wasn't yours, then {{Duplicate}} would be appropriate, I'll fix it. --Tony Wills 22:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, one more problem, you didn't click through to the full sized version and only uploaded the preview version (592 x 599 pixels), I have uploaded the full size version ... hopefully that's all fixed now :-) --Tony Wills 23:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that if the Commons image is used in several other Wikimedia projects (use CheckUsage to find out), it's often easier to move the local image out of the way. On English Wikipedia, that's requested using en:Template:ShadowsCommons. (This did not apply in this case.) —LX (talk, contribs) 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I was "goin' in greenhorn" at trying to fix it. I simply forgot about grabbing the max image. Is there a place to request images from that same Flickr source? Every image from that same Flickr source was uploaded to Commons except one image of Andy Timmons... which would have been a nice add to the Wikipedia Andy Timmons article. The FlickrBot grabbed every image that guy had... except the Andy Timmons pics??? Strange. Thanks for all your assistance. Have a nice day! Wikilibs 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)

A bot, violating copyright. It uploaded Image:Lviv - Shevchenko avenue - panorama 01.jpg as a work by Yarko. This picture is mine: ru:Изображение:Академическая Львов 3.jpg. Please block this user. --Russianname 13:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The correct author and source information was added (via commonshelper). --GeorgHH • talk   15:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Very similar images - different licensing?

My attention has been brought to Image:Ear-anatomy-text-small.png & Image:Anatomia ucha.png. The text is obviously different however the "original" image is the same (with the first being oldest at least). Both users have uploaded their share of incorrecrtly licensed files. Are the two different licensies correct & I guess did they both come from another source? Thanks for any advice - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they both got their translations from en:Image:Ear-anatomy-text-small.png. Samulili 11:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me Samulili - so which would be the "correct" licensing of the ones here (or can they be different)? Does it relate to the original source of the work done to it? Appreciated --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The only correct license for those images is {{GFDL-en}} (not {{GFDL}} either). Both images as they stand are copyvios and neither attributes the original. The backlinking can be fixed by anyone, but the license change is still a problem. The best way forward is to contact the uploaders and get consent for the correct license. If this cannot be obtained then send to COM:DEL. Its questionable if changing the captions is a copyrightable act, so open a discussion rather than a straight speedy as copyvio.--Nilfanion 11:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to contact the uploaders of the derivative work. After all, all they did was that they translated a handful of anatomic words which hardly passes the threshold of originality, so they will not have any copyright to the translated versions. Samulili 17:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The translation of a handful of words doesn't pass the threshold. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that the translator reupoaded as PD, it seems clear to me that he intended to waive copyright on his contributions to image in any event. {{PD-retouched-user}} could probably be used here. WjBscribe 21:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The base image is GFDL though, so a GFDL variant on the retouched template should be used not the PD one. The uploaders should be contacted to inform them of the problem, for their education if nothing else.--Nilfanion 22:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Block

Please block this IP, it's a school IP (de:Markgrafen-Gymnasium). Regards, 129.143.4.66 11:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• g* Yes, you easyly can say it, as you have a log in, but as long as we dont know if its static and as long its not vandalising to often there is no reason to block for me. Regards, ^{__ ABF __} ϑ 11:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think we should preemptively block school IPs. If they cause trouble they can be blocked but a lot of school IPs don't. In particular, I suspect schoolchildren who intend to vandalise are more likely to go for the Wikipedias - which are more the front line - whereas those aware of Commons' existence are more likely to have helpful intentions. WjBscribe 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

History page not getting updated?

It appears that the history page for Commons:Graphics village pump is not being updated properly. What is more, I have the page in my watchlist, but changes are not being reported. Globbet 00:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent messages are included on that page from Commons:Graphics village pump/January 2008. Whilst this will result in the page changing, there has been no edit to the page and this explains the lack of history and watchlist notifications. Adambro 00:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:1970_NYNH&H_map.png

Hello!

Can somebody tell me, what's the problem with the image above, please? With kind regards MKir 13 18:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing at all, actually. It will display fine at full resolution. However, because of memory constraints, thumbnails are not generated for PNG files with more than 12.5 million pixels, as stated on the image description page. (6,772 × 5,508 = 37.3 million.) This could be addressed by vectorising it and uploading it in SVG format, which is arguably amore suitable for this image.

Commons:Help desk is a more appropriate venue for this type of question, as answering it does not require any administrative privileges. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Upload-url/vi

Please change this system message to point to Commons:Upload, too. I'm using Vietnamese interface, and everytime I click Upload files, I have to go to Special:Upload with less helpful information. Thank you! Vinhtantran 08:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Hope this helps. Cheers, — Giggy 08:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Very very suspicious

Looking through Category:License tags, I ran across {{PD-North Korea}}, which has some formatting problems and a noteworthy lack of links to supporting documents. The user who created it NKorean_General (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user was even more interesting: Creating the this license tag adding it to an image up for deletion because of a questionable PD-self tag. I'm very suspicious that this user is possibly a sockpuppet of the uploader of that image, Dprk48 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. Also note that the deletion request for the images of that user Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by user Dprk48, is flooded with questionable votes.

Thanx and sorry if I'm too suspicious on Commons, 68.39.174.238 22:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable question however according to this translation article 12 does indeed state "The documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive, current news and bulletins shall not be the object of copyright.". Might need to find a Korean speaker to provide information on exactly what "documents of State management" means however to further complicate matters there have been some linguistic shifts between north and south Korean.Geni 12:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that can be worked out separately, however the suspiciousness with dprk48 and his images is still ongoing. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 16:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Old Stock.xchng images

What to do with Stock.xchng images uploaded before 29. December 2005 (like Image:BK 117 Rescue.jpg)? Commons:Stock.xchng images says ...will be decided upon later. --GeorgHH • talk   15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have at least a rough list of the images concerned, so we know what we're dealing with here? —LX (talk, contribs) 22:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Should be deleted. That's what we decided on Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Sxc-warning. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

please check OTRS confirmation

Please, and admin with OTRS account should check ticket 2008013010007367 for files uploaded by Webmaster de carl jacob (talk · contribs).

I don't believe that an living artist give permission to publish his artwork here with no restrictions. Examples are Image:Bargeme.jpg or Image:La Sieste sur la Plage.jpg. See also Category:Carl Jacob. --GeorgHH • talk   20:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. it's possible. He also seems willing to license his website's text under the GFDL. Rocket000 20:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that permission has been received. Regards. Adambro 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks dubious for me, but thanks for your help. --GeorgHH • talk   22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can also confirm it that the pictures were published w/out any restrictions. --my name 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Help:Block and unblock

Do we need this page? I don't think so. It was uploaded by User:38.96.132.43 on 18. Nov. 2007, it's used only on his user page. --GeorgHH • talk   13:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done deleted and orphanized (it is linked now only from here) --Filnik^Rock! 17:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Herby & Oversight on Commons

Thanks to all who supported me. As I stated I will log in outline any oversight actions I take. They are recorded here for now at least.

They both relate to personal information I have seen placed by IPs while watching RC (there can be no way of knowing whether this is valid/approved etc). While not looking for work at all may I ask anyone who does see such information & is concerned about it to notify Lar or I by email so that we can deal with it. Anyone with questions - you know where I am! Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Herby. Maybe Lar would want to log his actions on there too? (No need for separate logs.) Rocket000 07:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work Herby. Interesting; that log should be used against those who say we don't need oversight in future RfOs, since we clearly do. I would encourage Lar to keep one as well, if he wishes to. — Giggy 09:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We clearly don't need oversight. Stewards are more regularly available than Lar or Herby, and the minimal amount of times oversight is needed, they can be used. Majorly (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced that logging is necessary. That said. I looked at the oversight log (that only those with the oversight permission can see) and at Herby's log of actions. While the oversight log itself gives a great deal away (unsurprisingly, similar to how the CU log gives a great deal away, but worse in some ways, and that's why it is restricted to oversighters only, revealing anything from it is cause for loss of oversight privs...) Herby's log is very innocuous. It essentially gives nothing away about the circumstances, who, what... only the "why". It also doesn't really tell you anything "meaningful", though, other than that actions were performed so I'm not convinced of the usefulness of it, even though it correctly correlates to what actions Herby did (not numerically, one of the incidents described took more than one oversight action to carry out, but in term of identifying the incident so that someone with access to the log could connect the actions to Herby's log entry, if you see what I mean).

• The community should look at Herby's log and decide if this level of detail is satisfactory to it. If it is, I'm willing to log that level of detail as well, and I would suggest we put it in a central place rather than hung off Herby's userspace, so that all Oversighters would use the same log. (this is because the community's view of usefulness should, and does, outweigh my personal view on this, as long as it's not a privacy violation that is wanted)
• On the other hand, if community consensus is that more detail is wanted, I think we need to discuss this further, perhaps with the board, or perhaps with stewards, or perhaps with Cary, or some combination, to determine if there is a problematic privacy violation being asked for.
• On the third hand, if the community decides that this is not useful at all, I think Herby should discontinue logging and delete the log he has so far... he can keep a log privately if he so desires, of course.

I applaud Herby's willingness here, I think it's part of why he's a good choice for Oversight. And I'm willing to do what the community wants in this matter regardless of my personal feelings about it, up to a point (the privacy line I referred to). So, community, what do you want in this matter? Please don't recapitulate the nomination arguments about more general matters, I'm referring to logging alone. ++Lar: t/c 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a log is necessary. It tells us mere mortals nothing - and the same goes with you Lar, you don't know exactly what was removed. All it says was something was removed. And I don't think there's much point in logging it. Majorly (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the private log, I know more about what was removed than what Herby's public log shows... I know exactly what file was affected and exactly when. That information, in the wrong hands, is potentially quite damaging, which is why it's not to be disclosed under quite severe sanction. But you are correct, I don't know (and don't need to know) exactly what it was that was removed. I agree with you, I don't think there is much point in publicly logging the general information Herby logs either, but I do want to be open to what the community as a whole wants in this matter which is why I gave a detailed response. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I was looking to address both "need" & undue "secrecy" when I agreed to Nilfanion's suggestion. In practice I am someone who favours transparency as far as that is possible. Therefore I have no problem logging some aspect of oversight actions if the community wish me to do so (& if they don't equally speaking fine). I think it would be interesting to establish the "need" for oversight in the sense that if there are oversight actions it may well be desirable to have a further oversighter both for the work & as a checker. I accept that it provides little info however I am not at all sure what else I could provide without making the exercise rather pointless - a link to the page I've "erased" will not show anything (to me or anyone else).

In practice I guess that we (& other wikis) would merely tend to delete personal info which I imagine is fine in most circumstances. It is possible to assume that the email addresses etc are some form of spamming. There were a couple in my deletion log that I decided really were just spamming & I left them - this being an obvious example!. However the problem (to me) is that we do not know that. They could be placed maliciously & in which case I think it is probably best to ensure that the info is "erased". However I am very happy to have other views about this tool. I've just had a request to oversight an edit which for now I've not done (my talk page & deletion log shows the info). I've asked Lar for his views & will be happy to listen to others too. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with preparation for the results and fallout from the increasing popularity of this site - after all, as it grows, these risks become more real, and there is no harm in being ready for the negative aspects of further public attention. --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no harm in logging, and if someone is willing to do it, I really don't see why we should tell them not to. However, we really don't need more information (Lar's 2nd bullet point). giggy _(:O) 07:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the log isn't that informative, and cannot be without defeating the whole point of oversight. I had two rationales for asking for a log, and they are why I'd like to see it maintained for a considerable period. The whole point of a minimum of two oversights is to provide a degree of auditing. Two is not that many, by providing a public log the community as a whole can see that it is being used properly. The other reason is that a log can give us an indication of if oversight is actually needed. The current info in the log does not justify oversight: as it represents a few weeks of RC patrol compressed into a couple days.

Oversight only makes sense if we have a large (not 2) number of oversights who are able to deal with requests quickly round the clock and can make use of oversights-l or a Commons' version of it. Otherwise the stewards are in a better position and we can point requests to stewards АТ wikimedia.org. If we are to have a large number of people with +oversight the need would have to be established, as we don't have that many users who the community trusts in the same manner as Lar and Herby. Personally, I think it should have been established before their requests, but that's done now. The log will be able to demonstrate that need, if it exists.

One thing to do right now is create Commons:Requests for Oversight. If we have oversight, we should do it properly.--Nilfanion 12:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Largely agreeing with Nilfanion. However the ones dealt with so far I would not have thought of bothering a steward with. They should not be there but they are probably not critical.

I would resist a page for oversight request as that merely makes the content more public even if it is for a short period. Request should be made off wiki I think (& Lar & I are dealing with one currently).

However I would welcome more oversighters if the need is established (& some form of limited logging is the only option I can see too) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The point of a requests page is to so users know how to get oversight, basically it would list the relevant emails (remember anons cannot use Special:Emailuser). See en:Wikipedia:Requests for Oversight, which is full protected to prevent users adding requests to the page; we may be able to simplify it down to just one page at Commons:Oversight.--Nilfanion 12:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Aaah - understood (& agree completely). Well it's a wiki - go steal something :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a "here's how you request oversight" page would be goodness. a page to publicise requests made, not good. So yes, Nilfanion, if you have time/interest, please do go crib and create. If not, someone else should. ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, more Oversights would be great. I'm thinking of long-time users like Bryan; EugeneZedelko; Polarlys; Sidebrand; Rama; |EPO|; Raymond; Riana and so on. ^{__ ABF __} ϑ 13:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we want a LOT of oversighters... it's a fairly sensitive permission. But 2 or 3 more from the names you give seems goodness. ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The point to a LOT of oversighters, is if we only have a few then the stewards can do the role more effectively: they would have greater availability and a single contact point. I've created a bare-bones Commons:Oversight for further discussion here. I'd certainly strongly oppose more oversight until any actual need is demonstrated.--Nilfanion 12:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I oppose more oversight, also. I think two is fine for right now. Both oversights are very active and I truly doubt much will get by them. Let's take it slow.

Back to the log thing. I don't any information/deletion rationale is needed (not important since it tells us nothing), however, a mere logging of activity (when and how many reversions deleted) would be helpful to show how much is being oversighted. Just to add a little transparency so that not everything is done in complete secret. It would also help show us how much of a need there is and who's using the tools. I guess it's not really a big issue as long as oversighting's kept to a minimum—only where it's completely necessary.. →Яocket°°° 13:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

{{PD-Israel}} and {{PD-Israel-Photo}}

The templates are similar and I would have redirected one, but I'm unsure which one has the correct wording. --GeorgHH • talk   17:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would keep the more detailed one (the latter) and have the former redirect to that. giggy _(:O) 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyvios

Described at Commons:Village pump#Copyright violations. The fact that we have let such images be uploaded is problematic, something admins may need to look seriously at. Richard001 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

we can't do much about stuff before it is uploaded and in this case there is a reasonable case to be made that the images are public domain.Geni 16:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Pedobear in Image:Missionary Sex Position1.png

File:Missionary Sex Position1.png with pedobear

So Image:Missionary Sex Position1.png has this cute little teddy bear which a year and a half ago was considered scandalous because it might imply underage sex. So Image:Missionary Sex Position.png replaced it, and was eventually SVGized into Image:Missionary style.svg, which is now the only one of the three that should be used.

So, ever since people objected to the version with the teddy bear, anonymous users have been replacing it back over the version without. I guess they like it. But the consensus at the time was clearly to use only the version without the bear. Check out the upload history of Image:Missionary Sex Position.png.

So can we end this by deleting the version with the bear, please? 209.77.205.9 16:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Predates Pedobear and the style is completely different.Geni 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

... and on the substantive point, I think that the original is wholly appropriate and that the entire matter was a pointless waste of time.

James F. (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Excactly. We now have two versions at Commons, so edit warring over which ever version one prefers should take place at the relevant wikis, not here. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Another question is, why do Image:Missionary style.svg and Image:Missionary Sex Position1.png have different licenses? Presumably, they both should have the license of the original Rama image (though I guess that might have been non-copyleft). Superm401 - Talk 00:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pictures that possibly violate personality rights

Hi guys, I got an email at the OTRS system (#2008012910019642) that was worried about pictures similar to Image:Abu Ghraib 63.jpg as it possibly violates personality rights of the person(s) in the picture. It is very likely that these persons didn't give permissions to allow to be published. I talked about this topic in #wikimedia-commons and asked what to do. One user actually proposed to inform the board. How are or should we handle pictures like that? --my name 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:AbuGhraibPic discusses this, and I'm really not sure what we are able to do from a concerned citizen, so to speak. If they had some sort of official status (as the subject of the image, for instance) it would be different, but I really don't know. — Giggy 08:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is it possible to discuss this issue? Or would you think it would be the best to request the pictures for deletion? --my name 23:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the template's talk page, otherwise COM:DEL seems a good idea. — Giggy 09:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on the talk page of the template. If I don't get an answer, I will request all pictures the template is included for deletion. --my name 04:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked at some of the pictures, and the men depicted aren't identifiable (including the person on Image:Abu Ghraib 63.jpg). Personality rights apply to identifiable people, i.e. a judge must be able to say "yea, I clearly see that this picture is of you". So, keep them, and blur off the faces if they are not already (I noticed that some already had their faces blurred).

Fred J (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if you can say that that easy. If you can't (hardly?) identify the person on the picture, then it usually does not violate personality rights. However, these persons are shown as persons of "lower worth", tortured, naked etc. w/out any freedom. Here I think it is morally impossible to hold these pictures on a Wikimedia Project as there is still a small possibilty to identify them even w/out the faces. --my name 04:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The inhumanity of the captors is no reflection on the captives, and I think most sensible people would realise that. If it really were illegal in some way to display these photographs, I think most of the world's news media would have been in trouble by now. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What LX said. These pics are newsworthy and part of their newsworthyness is that they do show a possible frame of mind (of the captors) which is not acceptable and which is worthy of criticism, hence they are likely to have a use at WMF projects and fit our mission. I don't see personality rights violations if the faces (and other identifying marks, if any) of captors and captives are obscured. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Geocoding issue

I previously had an issue with User:Erik Baas to which the response was to protect the page. I am grateful for the protection, but would appreciate some further input on the subject. Basically, the issue is that the other user believes geocoding is not necessary for this image, whereas I believe it is. My viewpoint is that more information is good, and so long as the image is adequate enough to be maintained on Wikimedia; it is valid for having all information that can be attributed to it. I have attempted to express this on the talk page, but the debate appears to have gone stagnant. Any further input would be greatly appreciated, even if it's counter to my own viewpoint. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 02:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Block of PHGCOM (talk · contribs)

Hi all. I've blocked this user for 3 days for repeatedly uploading non free derivatives after warnings, see here. He was warned on EnWP but ignored the message (despite still editing), and in short has taken no note of requests to stop. The images are fair use worthy, so I've asked him to re-upload to EnWP in the time he's blocked; after that it's deletion time.

Comments welcome.

giggy _(:O) 05:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding some background: about a day and a half ago I left a message for PHGCOM at his en:Wikipedia user talk about copyright problems with dozens of images he had uploaded. My query and follow-up are at en:User_talk:PHG#Licensing_issues. Although the editor has made over 75 edits to en:Wikipedia since then, he has not responded. The issue is the uploads cataloged at en:User:PHG/Created_drawings. All of these are pencil sketches based upon photographs of three dimensional artworks. I checked the first 32 of these and every one that I was able to positively confirm was a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph. For example, Image:BunerReliefHellenistic.jpg is a pencil copy of this photograph, which is copyrighted 2006 to the Cleveland Museum of Art. Image:IndoGreekCavalry.jpg imitates this photo at a site that specifies this copyright notice. Image:AzesIIDepiction.jpg comes from this photo at another site that has a copyright notice. In many other instances the editor cites a book source, and my Library of Congress search indicates most or all of these books remain under copyright. Every instance I was able to confirm fully was an imitation of the photograph: same angle, lighting, etc. I hoped this editor could be persuaded to transwiki the group to en:Wikipedia and correct the license statements to fair use, but he is unwilling to communicate. From a review of his user talk on Commons it looks like there have been multiple copyright problems in the past with this person's uploads. I have notes on the other images I checked, in case anyone wants to contact for more information. Durova 05:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And yes, for the record, I did discuss this with Durova before the blockage (for the sake of openness). giggy _(:O) 05:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I asked Giggy for advice about how to proceed. I neither asked for nor suggested a block, though. Just wasn't sure how to move forward. Durova 06:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Image renaming

Per several threats on my life, Ive got around to coding a image renaming program. Please protect Commons:MediaMoveBot/CheckPage and use the talkpage for requests. Betacommand 00:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The page is currently semi, protected back in october. Do you want full protect? Who can/should add names? What does adding a name mean exactly? Some more detail might be good, although this sounds nifty. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

its very similar to w:WP:MTC which moves images to commons. A full protect is in order as this will serve as a check page for image re-naming. see Commons:MediaMoveBot for a list of templates. Adding a name to that list will allow users to re-name images via the bot. Images tagged by users not on that list will be ignored/have the rename template replaced with a move request. It is there to serve as a safety check to prevent abuse of the bot. Betacommand 04:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I for one am glad you won't be departing us under sad circumstances. Oh, and the bot's nice too. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done - protected. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this working yet? I would like to know more about how it operates before it gets set loose. For example does it relink images that are currently in use? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I was planning on letting commons delinker do that, instead of re-inventing the wheel. Betacommand 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is in my opinion the right way. So alle renames will checked again and if there are mistakes they will get corrected. ChristianBier 22:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it in work already. It takes the current description of the image and loads the image with the new name given in the rename-Template up. Then it replaces the rename with a dupe, so an admin still needs to actually request the replacing and then delete it. Successfull: [16], failed: [17]. -- Cecil 11:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Goddammit, we need proper image renaming, not these stupid hacks. Doing this totally breaks links in FP templates (nominations) and deletion templates. Those things then become impossible to find because Whatlinkshere is not going to have any results. :| --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, the bot says where the image came from, in the form of a link. Betacommand 02:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if that gets deleted, trying to use Whatlinkshere of a deleted image is possible but quite cumbersome.

Please, if you transfer {{Featured picture}}, make it add the subpage parameter so the link will still work. subpage=Commons:Featured pictures candidates/Image:oldimagename.jpg should work. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, If the image is GFDL licensed, it's technically a license violation to delete/move (§4J if I remember correctly) _→AzaToth 12:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AzaToth its not a vio if you maintain the file/page histories. which is what the bot does do, so per the GDFL Ive got things covered. Just like when moving pages on wikipedia just keep the records intact. Betacommand 14:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Vector images

Could some admins, especially those who are more knowledgable in copyright please swing by Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Vector-Images.com (2nd request). The latest communication from VI.com makes it pretty clear what they define as free use and it doesn't seem to coincide with what we require. /Lokal_Profil 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I closed request again and protect it. As I explained on my Userpage: V-I.com can't forbid revectorization. If the raster images are free, the vector images, which were drawn are free to. And I explained too, that V-I.com, IMHO has no rights to set copyright on the COAs or Flags, because there are official signs of the states and no private company could set copyright on them. ChristianBier 19:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Closing and edit-protecting a deletion debate which you have obviously not understood is vandalism. I reopened it because your arguments for closing it weren't relevant to the discussion. You had obviously not understood that Coat of arms and flags arent free by default and that own interpretations of these are copyrightable by the artist. What VI.com has done is recreate their own images for the case where the "official" image is copyrighted and so they do own the copyright to those images. /Lokal_Profil 19:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can get a Compromise in this case: We could keep the template until all COAs have been replaced by other works (SVG & PNG/GIF/JPG). I just could help by drawing COAs in SVG based on other graphics and images. ChristianBier 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for replacing rather then deleting, thats why I recommended that the images would not be all be deleted straight away, similar to the fase out of fair use images on the wikis which have dissalowed them. Keeping the template as a "allowed" one is however not a solution since it is in fact not true. VI does not allow us to "freely use" their preview raster images in the way that we interpret as free. So by keeping the template without marking it as "obsolete/no longer true/do not use these images for derivative works/do non-commercial only" we are missleading the other users into believing that these images are infact ok. We are also knowingly ignoring the fact that what the template says is not true and was never (except through a missunderstanding) true. /Lokal_Profil 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have re-opened the DR. We're never going to get to a compromise if we're not allowed to discuss it, ChristianBier. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We have communicated with the website this time around and we were upfront of what our licensing requirements are. They said their terms do not match ours, so we have to make a process to remove them. If other Wikipedias will have a hard time trying to use coat of arms images, tough. We have vector replacements for many of these images anyways, so there will only be a few that might need some time to tinker over. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Last comment. I wouldn't say that only a few images might need some time. There are some 5000 images tagged with this license. The majority are exact reproductions of official Russian CoAs/flags and are PD-RU (need retagging). Some (~200) images have replacements which I'm organising but a lot of the images don't currently have free alternatives. /Lokal_Profil 19:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Some are on en.wp now, just not transwikied yet. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that protecting a deletion discussion is a good approach, in general, unless consensus has been established... has it? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Porn again

BestSummers (talk · contribs) and his girlfriend are dedicated to the noble goal of providing us with more porn: Image:Woman Engaging In Oral Sex.jpg‎ and Image:Blonde Woman and Man Having Sexual Intercourse.jpg. As the young lady is quite identifiable and category:Oral sex and Category:Woman-on-top positions are already well-endowed, I guess these two pictures do not pose any problem. On a more general note, have you guys got any rule of the thumb for such cases? Do you hit 'delete' on sight? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the images was at COM:DEL, I've sent the other one there now. giggy _(:O) 08:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy closure of deletion requests

I have seen in the last few weeks several deletion requests being closed as keep or delete within few days after its start. And those are often not uncontroversial copyright violations, but subjects that are complicated and should be given the time to be discussed. Remember that not everybody visits Commons every day and that it may take a week before a deletion request is noticed. If admins feel in the need of closing deletion requests, please start at Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10 and Commons:Deletion requests/2007/11, which is much urgent. Give discussions the time to run. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no rush in most cases. Sometimes there is and exceptions should be made, but mostly, no, let things run their course. ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Marie1981 problem

After uploading a number of images that were speedily deleted as copyvios the other day this user has continued to upload copyvio images. See Image:Boucheron Cel.JPG as a typical example (look at the exif). Uploading all of this stuff as "own work" is asking for a block. Megapixie 12:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pics of prominents and products from the website boucheron.com. Got a warning at her user talk page, which wasn't done before. Next time she will be blocked. -- Cecil 14:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Project scope

please take part at it. Thanks, abf /talk to me/ 14:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong activity

When working with Commons:Welcome log for awhile, I noticed several users (LaseAPX (talk · contribs), HKCLAN08 (talk · contribs), ChaterGDSun (talk · contribs), GloucesterTR (talk · contribs), JavaSat26 (talk · contribs)) who upload Hong Kong photos made by same camera with same resolution and same HK image name prefix. Also users looks very experienced: images are categorized at uploading, changed categories for other images and so on.

In general case these users are not causing any problem, but it's difficult to communicate problems (such as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:HK Chater Garden Sarah Geronimo In Motion Concert Poster.JPG) to user when account will be abandoned after day of use.

User:Herbythyme did some CU, but IPs were different (probably images uploaded from different Internet cafes of via WiFi).

EugeneZelenko 16:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Overloading of maybe-copyvios

Is this really desired/necessary? If I go to the image page of a deletion request and then have to look through the upload history to figure out which picture it actually is, thats rather user unfriendly. That thing also appears in the articles of the wikipedias that use it. -- Cecil 14:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention replacement is spelled incorrectly.-Andrew c 14:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted; really not needed. giggy _(:O) 10:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

UserMessages.js

Hi! Could anyone please fix this? Regards, abf /talk to me/ 14:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. You had one spelling error ("uTemolate" instead of "uTemplate") and a copy/paste error ("28" instead of "29"). Now you just should write the language-specific sub-templates such as {{No re-uploading/de}}... Lupo 14:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Öh, can you please also add the speedywhat-template? Regards, abf /talk to me/ 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lupo 16:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit template

It's been a while since I marked a template with a request for change, but there's still no answer, so I directly request some administrator to please take a look at the template. Thanks, - Keta 15:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Boricuæddie 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :) - Keta 09:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Special:Nuke

Please see Commons:Village Pump#Special:Mass delete (Special:Nuke). Are there any objections, or should this be taken to Bugzilla? --Boricuæddie 22:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In Files PNG can step out HIDDEN LAYERS?

Jestem młodym wikipedystą ale nie wiekiem (z zawodu plastyk). Zauważyłem w zasobach Commons np. zbiory pana Macieja Szczepańczyka ( Category:User:Mathiasrex np. plik IMAGE:Golden_Gate_in_Gdańsk.PNG ) W jego przypadku większości prezentowanych zdjęć ma przekroczony limit wielkości zamieszczanych zdjęć-grafik. Ponieważ niektóre pliki znajdują się już kilka lat i nie wzbudziły niczyjego zainteresowania, moją uwagę jedynie kieruję do Dyskusji dla Administratorów Projektu. Ponieważ przy stosunkowo niewielkiej jakości -widoczna redukcja kolorów oraz braki równomiernego naświetlenia- tak duża wielkość plików graficznych (PNG) może wskazywać że,

1. 1) Wielkość plików została niepotrzebnie zwielokrotniona - prawdopodobnie ustawiono format wydruku nawet dla drukarek A1.
2. 2) W PLIKACH PNG MOGĄ WYSTĘPOWAĆ UKRYTE WARSTWY, co istotne o treściach niekoniecznie związanych z projektem Wiki???!

Niestety pliki nie posiadają informacji EXIF?. Być może posłużono się nieznanym programem graficzny lub po prostu nieprofesjonalnie. Moje zabezpieczenia przeglądarki wskazują że ten typ plików może być aktywny? Edytorem tekstu z zakodowanego formatu wyróżniam jedynie format plików PNG oraz polecenia "#include <png.h>" a więc typowe dla np. Portable Network Graphics (PNG) Reference Library 1.2.2; ( http://linux.skryptoteka.pl/man.php?m=strona&id=LIBPNG,1434 ). W tym przypadku dala systemu UNIX

 PS. Na wielu stronach polskich środowisk akademickich można natknąć się na dziwne
 prezentacje np.  http://www.qltura.art.pl/  (strefa kultury multisensualnej).
 Ale być może w ramach duskusji pokazano jedynie kod pliku PNG?

--Alians PL 08:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Metro Warszawskie.svg

This deletion request had been closed as kept, but was reopened by another administrator, who strongly disagreed with the decision. It would be appreciated if some administrador with good grasp on "PD-ineligible" issues could close this discussion, since there is an obvious disagreement between the ones that are already involved in it, and the level of argumentation is somewhat aggressive. Regards, Patrícia ^msg 11:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Request deletion of my work

I ask kindly that my last bit of work here at the commons be deleted. I have tagged the remaining images for speedy deletion (see Image:Human-fetus---20-weeks---B&.jpg, Image:Human fetus - 6 weeks - B&W.jpg and Image:Human fetus - 40 weeks - B&W.jpg‎. The other files that I originally uploaded have already been deleted). However, matters are a bit more complicated because another user has taken my work and uploaded it over another file name. I am here now to ask an admin to please remove these revisions from the file history. I really do not want my work associated with overwriting original files. As you can see from the revision history, I have no guarantee that my work just won't be reverted to, so it needs to be deleted. I regret ever having tried to help out in this regard, and I hope that you please respect my request to remove my work. These are the affected revisions that need to be removed because the images were created by me:

• For Image:6 weeks pregnant.jpg: a 6KB 120x120 B&W file, revisions 03:14, 19 January 2008 and 18:54, 3 February 2008

• For Image:10 weeks pregnant.jpg: a 5KB 120x120 B&W file, revisions 03:11, 19 January 2008 and 02:50, 25 January 2008

• For Image:20 weeks pregnant.jpg: a 6KB 120x120 B&W file, revisions 03:08, 19 January 2008 and 02:54, 25 January 2008

• For Image:40 weeks pregnant.jpg: a 6KB 120x120 B&W file, revisions 02:55, 19 January 2008 and 21:44, 24 January 2008

Your help in clearing this matter up is greatly appreciated. I'm sorry to be a trouble, and I'll be more careful in the future about what image work I want to donate to the project. Thanks!-Andrew c 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? Patstuart (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely was familiar with the concept that uploading to the commons means that others can take with and do what they want with your work. But I never anticipated a scenario where someone would take my work (which was simply converting an existing color image to black and white) and then upload it over the original color file (without my permission) and ask that the images that I uploaded be deleted. The whole situation has given me quite a headache and I regret ever having worked on this issue. I kindly ask that you respect that I have regret and do not want this work of mine to be used anywhere on the commons. This shouldn't be problematic because no image is really being deleted. There will still be a set of color images, and there will still be a set of B&W images (only the B&W images will not be the ones that I created). Yeah, it's complicated. -Andrew c 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This should never have gotten into this situation. The original images (the color one) should be at the original location. Your version of the image (B&W) should be at a distinct location, the one you chose to upload to. Both versions of the file are different and should be kept. All that was needed was the wikipedia article edited to point at the new B&W images instead of the old ones if there was consensus for that there (what an extra 4 characters in wikimarkup?). The easiest way to resolve this is to have only the original version at the original location, and only your image at the second location.

We can clear this up, but I ask that you reconsider your position and consent to having your images here.--Nilfanion 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thank you very much for saying my exact thoughts. I really appreciate that someone else sees things the way I do. But I may have a slight correction: the user who uploaded my work over the original, uploaded the originals again at a different location (with the prefix "color"). So right now there is a full set of color images at "ColorX weeks pregnant.jpg" and there is a full set of B&W images at "X weeks pregnant.jpg". The 3 images I tagged for speedy (listed at the top of my first post) are the only redundant images, and 2 of my original B&W files have already been deleted as duplicate 2 weeks ago. So if my request to remove those 8 revisions goes through, nothing will change to the status of having 1 complete set of color images and 1 complete set of B&W images. But it will make sure that users in the future don't revert back to my images. So, as of right now, I see no reason for my images to exist at the original file, so my request to remove them from the history still stands. That said, you have made me reconsider some, so I will say this: if someone really wants to go through the trouble, I wouldn't mind if my images were undeleted at the separate file name (or even re-uploaded at a new file name, but of course my preference would be for the file name I originally choose). But under no condition do I find it acceptable for someone to take my work and upload it over the original, so pretty please, someone with the proper tools, I kindly request that those revisions be removed from the files listed above. Thank you very much.-Andrew c 01:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The file histories have been cleaned up. There are two options to close this off:

1. Have your B&W images at the B&W filenames, as you orignaly uploaded and have the colour images at the original locations, as was originally uploaded. This is what you tried to do in the first place of course.
2. Have the colour images at the different location and the B&W at the original location; ignoring the fact that the colour image is an old version (by the original uploader, not uploader to Commons) substantially altered by a 3rd party.

I much prefer the first alternative, which would then require editing the en:wp article accordingly. This way the other projects that use this image, use the image that they selected and not have consensus on another project change their image arbitrarily (one of the prime reasons for NOT altering uploads substantially).--Nilfanion 11:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer the second alternative, which is how things are now. The colour version is the older version which was originally uploaded at Wikipedia by the image donor, and then the color version was uploaded by myself to Commons. Subsequently, I changed the color version at Commons to black and white with the approval of the image donor, and moved the color version to a separate Commons file. The image donor stated, "Thank you for notifying me. The black and white version as currently online, are fine! Thnx for the change. With kind regards, Wouter."[18] This is how things are now, and I support keeping it that way.

The reason why the second alternative was chosen (with the unanimous support of the image donor and the original uploader at Commons) is because several editors raised objections to the color images at the Fetus article, and they insisted that it would be much better to use black and white images instead. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to have the B&W images at the primary Commons page for these images. Anyway, that's the way it is now, and I support keeping it that way, and the original uploader at Commons is in agreement with the original uploader at Wikipedia (i.e. the image donor) about this. Incidentally, I am currently requesting improvements in the B&W images.[19]

Wikimedia rules say, "Files should only be replaced by the original uploader, or by other users in cases of obvious quality improvements which cannot be disputed (better ask first!)." If removing tint is not considered an obvious quality improvement, still the change can be made by the original uploader, and that is what happened here. Note that there is no consensus to use the tinted versions in any wiki project, but the tinted versions remain available at Commons in case that situation changes.Ferrylodge 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons is not here just to serve en.wikipedia, but all Wikimedia projects. Therefore a consensus on en.wp is not relevant to decisions here. For instance, the editor of this article chose to use the coloured image not the B&W; and has had the consensus from a different project imposed on it. There is no such thing as primary name (incidentally Image:40 weeks pregnant.jpg is a bad name). The best solution would have been to just change the code on the article, not make substantial changes. And an administrative note: The Commons uploader has no ownership, its the original creator who does: as its their copyright.--Nilfanion 16:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

While a consensus of various editors on en.wp may not be relevant to decisions here, it seems like a unanimous consensus of the image creator, and the original uploader to Wikipedia, and the original upoader to Commons should be relevant to decisions here. Regarding whether the Commons uploader has ownership, or the original creator has ownership, it seems to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that no one has ownership after the image is released into the public domain; in any event, both the Commons uploader and the original creator were in agreement to remove the tint at the original upload file. Regarding the editor of this article, that editor did not choose to not use the B&W, because that B&W image had not yet been created. Now, the editor of this article can click on the B&W image and find out how to use the color image instead (a link to the color image is provided at the Commons file for the B&W image). This seemed to me the best way to alert all articles that they now have a choice of images, rather than being required to use the color version. Anyway, I still support the Second Alternative that you described in your comment above; this Second Alternative is how things are now, and it is supported by the image donor as well as the uploaders.Ferrylodge 16:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(indent)The sentence containing "unanimous consensus..." is a bad thing to believe, there is clearly no such rule (If it did, I could put a Cross over all my images and the community would have no recourse); please try not to think in such black and white terms, as it will only lead to further conflicts. In future, do not make significant alterations to an image and upload over the original file - especially if the file has not recently been uploaded. Converting an image to black and white is a significant change, I'd have thought that obvious. Simple advice: If a change to an image needs discussion it is a significant change and should be uploaded at a different location. Incidentally the picture is not in the public domain but is CC-BY-SA, something very different.--Nilfanion 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. If you were to put a cross over one of your images, it seems like anyone would be able to take a previous version and upload it to create a separate image file. The crossed version could also be nominated for deletion, since it would be pretty much useless.

If I see an image at Flickr, and only part of the image looks like a worthwhile contribution to Wikimedia Commons, my standard practice has been to upload that image from Flickr to Commons, crop it, and overwrite the original. Is this wrong? At the Village Pump, another editor indicated that this is okay. Maybe the answer depends on how long the time-lag is between uploading from Flickr and overwriting? It seems like the rule at Wikimedia Commons allows for changes that are more than obvious quality improvements, if the file is replaced with the approval of the original uploader: "Files should only be replaced by the original uploader, or by other users in cases of obvious quality improvements which cannot be disputed (better ask first!)." I definitely would not over-write an image without the approval of the original uploader.Ferrylodge 23:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually you shouldn't delete the original image, as you would be destroying the file history (license requirements), that situation is very complex and would need careful handling. In the case of the Flickr if you want to crop an image, I'd suggest you should download it and do the manipulation before uploading. Your practice with regards to those images is fine, but doing the manipulation before upload might save time and effort. The file overwrite warning is a courtesy to the original uploader (to discourage overwrites), its not permission for the original uploader to do what he wants. Use common sense with these things, and yes bear in mind the time-lag. For example, if there is an active discussion about the image, don't upload over the image.--Nilfanion 23:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much for the advice. I would like to note that, although I uploaded the B&W during an active discussion of the color image, I was the one who had advocated keeping the color image, so uploading the B&W image was kind of like waving the white flag of surrender. Anyway, I'm sorry that this turned into such a huge controversy. I didn't think it would be a big deal.Ferrylodge 02:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nilfanion for removing those versions! FL, you should know by now that in the future, please do not upload a significantly edited version of an existing/longstanding image over the original. User were discussing the color images at en.wikipedia's Talk:Fetus page. When you uploaded the B&W versions over the originals, those users no longer could look at the original color images for comparison. From the get go, it would have been better to have two different sets. But what's done is done, and I don't want to deal with this anymore. I had made the above request because I intended to completely disengage from this debate. And I still intend to do so. As for my images, FL has requested over at en.wikipedia's graphics lab for users to create a set of improved B&W images sans artifacts, so there won't be a need for my images. Thanks again, and good luck to all!-Andrew c 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I also thank Nilfanion for removing all mention of Andrew c's versions from Commons, since Andrew c changed his mind about having them on Commons. This may make future discussions of Andrew c's images a bit confusing, but I support accommodating Andrew c here. Andrew c, as I've explained elsewhere, I often upload images from Flickr to Commons, and I then crop them and overwrite the originals. I'll continue to do so until there is a consensus that I should stop. We have already been through this in the discussion you started at the Village Pump.[20] Anyway, good luck to you! Ferrylodge 16:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)