Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention/Archive 5

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

Sockpuppeter

A sockpuppeter from the English wikipedia has now starting socking and uploading copyvios on the commons. Jvolkblum is an indef blocked user who has used many socks at English wikipedia. Most of the accounts have uploaded copyvios, you can see the problem on the talk page of one of the socks. The sockpuppeter has four accounts at the commons that I know of. Smurfette143 (talk · contribs) and 15ParkRow (talk · contribs), match usernames that were confirmed to be Jvolkblum sock's by a checkuser. Eight of the twelve images Smurfette143 uploaded were speedy deleted as copyvios. 15ParkRow uploaded two images using Flickr upload bot, the images come from the schmaberton flickr account that is being used to flickr wash photos. If admin looks throught my deleted contribs the will see a number a number of images tagged for speedy deletion from that account, sometimes multiple times. The two images 15ParkRow uploaded were previously upoaded directly to the commons by Smurfette143 (Image:BrewsterSchoolhouseNR.JPG Image:ThomasPaineFarmhouse.JPG). KatieGrinn (talk · contribs) is currenly listed in a pending checkuser as a sock of Jvolkblum. I just tagged two of the images KatieGrinn uploaded for speedy deletion. KatieGrinn uploaded Image:NRHSflags.jpg which is in the schmaberton flickr account at [1]. RocketJohnson (talk · contribs) does not have a matching sock account at the English wikipedia account, someone took that name some time ago. RocketJohnson uploaded three images related to Glen Island (Image:GlenIslandPark.JPG Image:GlenIslandFerry.JPG Image:GlenIslandPass.JPG), the last one was uploaded at 12:21 on April 26. Two minutes later 69.86.92.251 added them to a page on the English wikipedia, 69.86.92.251 was blocked as a sock of Jvolkblum. 69.86.92.251 (talk · contribs) has also commented at deletion requests of Smurfette143's images and flickr washed image from the schmaberton flickr account. RocketJohnson uploaded Image:PresbyterianChurchNR.JPG which is in the schmaberton flickr account at [2]. RocketJohnson also commented [3] [4] at the deletion requests of the images uploaded by 15ParkRow, claiming that the versions of those image uploaded by Smurfette143 were most likely copyvios. Could an admin look into this and see if anything can be done. BlueAzure 18:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look... -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that given the evidence from the English Wikipedia the users are all the same. I have blocked all of them and deleted most images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. BlueAzure 19:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: ConcertoNo.888's contributions have included moving several apparently clean images from en.wikipedia. Unfortunately, some of the moved images may not have suitable licenses for Commons. If any are deleted, they will need to be restored in en.wikipedia. (Part of Jvolkblum's disruptive modus operandi is making needless work for other users.) --Orlady 12:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Gee thanks :) Anyway - given the above, Bryan's comments & the en wp situations I have just blocked two IPs & four accounts.... With that in mind a review of these contributions & this would be in order by someone who understands the problem more (& I'm off line for a bit now). Post again though if there is anything else. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick attention. :-) SaidieLou's images look like they could be self-made (as claimed), so this may take more work than some of the others. --Orlady 12:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There is one more account. SaidieLou uploaded Image:Sarah Lawrence Directory.JPG, which according to this message by Collard was the same as Image:SLCWestlandsSign.jpg that was uploaded by EdRichardson (talk · contribs). EdRichardson also uploaded two copyvios, one that Jvolkblum sock's have uploaded before and one from a source they previously copied from. BlueAzure 22:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hum - not quite as obvious as the other ones. However I think it passes the "duck" test. Blocked thanks, I've deleted some & will do more later unless others beat me to it --Herby talk thyme 09:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusion over an ogg file video upload

I've made a short video that in Theora that I'm trying to upload, but it keeps bombing out saying the file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension. It's named "Pike Place Fish Market flying fish.ogg", so the name is fine, and it plays fine on my PC on multiple media players. If I put this somewhere where someone can see it could someone take a look at it? The file size is 8 meg. I'm stumped on what I'm doing wrong. rootology (T) 03:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong but we don't do video.. audio only. At least, I have never seen video on Wikipedia or Commons. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 05:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
We've got a bunch at Category:Video. :) rootology (T) 05:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I out of luck on this? rootology (T) 19:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

License revocation/whatever review

This user has tagged all his uploads (as far as I can see) as speedy dels. The explanation on the couple I read is "I the uploader of this image want it deleted. It is also a violation of copyright as I previously used it elsewhere". I'm certainly not happy to delete them speedily (& suggest others may wish to think first) without more input. How is it a violation of copyright because "I previously used it elsewhere"?

Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

+ RTV on en wp for info --Herby talk thyme 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, RTV doesn't include deleting contribs, and they're not copyvios because they were used elsewhere previously. Barring a better explanation, these edits should be reverted, which I will do shortly. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That beside, I thought you legally could not unrelease something from GFDL or CC? rootology (T) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No you can't. Free licensing is irrevocable by definition. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes just wanted other opinions rather than a wholesale revert. I'd not seen speedies like that. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess equally strange is the fact they only tagged some of their uploads. Anyway reverted now - cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What we have to legalistically do ... (we can keep properly licensed things, licenses are not revokable) and what we tend to do out of courtesy (we tend to honor deletion requests if the images are not that "important" and not used, out of politeness) are different things. It requires a judgement call, in my view. Take Image:Wallington flood under bridge - 20 july 2007.PNG for example (which was tagged)... this seems at least possibly a newsworthy image, but it's also not an image that we absolutely cannot live without. However it's used on en:wp so I'd typically not necessarily automatically delete. We tend to grant these requests more readily when asked nicely (human nature I guess) and when there's more of a reason than "I changed my mind, I don't like you any more". ++Lar: t/c 11:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My better reasons for wanting them deleted are: 1) they identify me in the real world can due to some issues I'd rather they were deleted to prevent people from tracking me. 2) "I previously used it elsewhere" is a violation of copyright because they are not originally my images but a fried who now wants to sell her collection. I never informed her I used the images on this site. 3) I am the only contributer, and to be frank the images are pretty crap and add very little if anything to wikiprojects. 4) As for why I only tagged some of my uploads, I only tagged images I was the only contributer to. The other images I didn't tag were uploaded from wikipedia on behalf of another editor, so should NOT be deleted. I am only asking images which I am the sole author of to be deleted. Think outside the box 14:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this a copyvio?

Image:Seattle Art Museum 01.jpg is a photo I took of a public street corner, with a statue thats about 60-70 foot tall, and that has been there I believe for 10+ years. It was pointed out at User_talk:Rootology#Seattle area images that the statue is copyrighted--is this photo then a copyright violation, as it's so utterly visible (you can see it coming for over a quarter-mile, easily), and if it's a copyvio than any photography of that entire area of a core urban area that happens to catch it is possibly a copyright violation? rootology (T) 20:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just took another reading of Commons:Freedom of panorama and I would say as there is some of your creative element in that image, it's probably OK. A second opinion may disagree, however. giggy (:O) 01:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, cool. I'll leave it be for now. I'd read about the panorama factor when I wanted to go shoot the Olympic Sculpture Park, which apparently patrols with staff for aggressive photographers--I'd figured the Seattle Art Museum image was likely fine as it's dead in the heart of the city, on a public area. Thanks Giggy. rootology (T) 04:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Change of Image. "Extremes_points_of_Europe.png"

I tried to upload amended version of image "image:Extreme_points_of_Europe.png" however as a new user was not allowed to change this. I therefore uploaded a changed filename "image:Extreme_points_Europe.png". Could you please swap the image which shows Slea Head as the most western point of mainland europe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gralt258 (talk • contribs) at 19:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Saloth Sar (Pol Pot), in Phnom Penh after 1975. Picture of Ung Pech for Ben Kiernan in his work "The Pol Pot Regime, Race, Power and Genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-1979", Yale University, Chian Mai, Thailand, 1996, scanned by Albeiro Rodas for wikipedia in Poipet, Cambodia. July 2006.

Death of Bara

I work at the Virginia Tech Art and Architecture library, and have been catologing the image for our digital image collection. Today, I ran across the wikipedia link for the file, and after checking five different books, noted that its listed repository was incorrect. How would I change the information accompanying the file?

Account creation or new password

Hello! I was idiot enough to forget the password of my previous Commons account (User:Dipa1965) which had a name deliberately identical to that of my Wikipedia account (I use Commons for creating maps for my Wikipedia articles). Unfortunately, I didn't had configure an email address, so I cannot get a new password. So I tried to create a new account under a name Dipa_1965 (because I want it to match my Wikipedia name as much as possible). Of course, it failed because of the similarity with the old name. Could you please create Dipa_1965 for me or (even better) sent a new password for my old account? My email can be reached from my talk page en:User talk:Dipa1965

My added content deleted why?

Spiritus Nirin aint a joke and aint bad content so can any of my edited things to be here?

T: Angry people of Spiritus Nirins exellence —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritus Nirin (talk • contribs) 13:08, 9 Jun 2008 (UTC)

Well looking through you contributions I can see nothing that has been deleted here. However equally I am not sure that your offerings are within our project scope so they may be. It might be better not to post your message in random places & call yourself "Angry people" maybe. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
When looking to your contributions in Special:Contributions/Spiritus_Nirin, only the images that were an exact duplicate of Image:Spiritus Nirins real outkook.JPG have been deleted.
There is however a problem with the Image:Spiritus Nirin.jpg as the source is the internet, so you don't have the copyright of internet images and you can hence not give it any permission. --Foroa 15:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted all his uploads, offtopic and copyright violations only, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 12:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Zhang Heng image

Over at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Zhang Heng.jpg, someone has tagged this image for deletion, and I have given my rebuttal as to why it is ridiculous to assume this image needs to be deleted. Can an administrator please tend to this? I am putting up Zhang Heng for FA status over at Wikipedia, and because of this problem, the article now lacks a lead image.--PericlesofAthens 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jimmurphy.jpg

Just an FYI rootology (T) 05:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Gone again, and protected from creation. giggy (:O) 09:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This image was just uploaded tonight, and the template says

This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted seven days after this template was added: (10 June 2008).

The code for the template (as generated was) {{no license|month=June|day=10|year=2008}}. Its probably pedantic, but the wording is a little confusing. Is it meant to say it will be deleted on June 10? Or seven days after June 10? Made more confusing because this automatically placed tag was placed on 21:34, June 9, 2008? rootology (T) 05:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be deleted 7 days from 10 June (so on 17 June). History shows it was added on June 10 UTC; might wanna check the time zone in your preferences. giggy (:O) 09:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vanessa Carlton 2 by David Shankbone.jpg

Would someone please take a look at Image:Vanessa Carlton 2 by David Shankbone.jpg? Thanks. Evrik 19:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What is it you're seeking? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Some claiming to be the singer's PR people is trying to get it speedied to replace with "an approved" version.[5] rootology (T) 05:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If David Shankbone took the photo, he can release it under a free license. Her PR people have no say in that as far as I know. If this is their concern, the PR people shouldn't have let him get that close to her. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Her PR firm does *not* (added by Siebrand) control wiki commons. That they've released that shot to PD is fine and if they file an OTRS is fine, but them calling it "Approved...." only makes me chuckle. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Page Moves > Category:Mack vehicles and Category:Mack trucks

I need a couple of pages moved:

1) Category:Mack vehicles
2) Category:Mack trucks

Mack trucks is incorrect, it should be the proper legal name, Mack Trucks, capital "T". It is a legal entity proper noun.

Category:Mack vehicles and Category:Mack trucks should be moved to Category:Mack Trucks.

  • TO: Category:Mack Trucks

Please move. Thanks. ~ WikiDon 02:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've listed these at User:CommonsDelinker/commands for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved now and old ones deleted. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone with OTRS access please

Can someone check exactly what the ticket says for this image? I deleted one as a copyvio because it was a games screenshot when I noticed the OTRS tag on the second one. It strikes me as unlikely to be valid but maybe. If it is valid then this needs undeleting (with my apologies). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK - the first one got deleted by another admin bit I still think they should be checked - thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a permission by Ubisoft for every Ubisoft game. The first one got deleted because of Free Radical Design Limited's rights on the work. Code·is·poetry 14:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:ShreveNewsMan uploads

This user has not edited in over a year, so I doubt asking him on his talk page about this will do any good, so I come here for licensing advice. I know US GOV images are generally PD, but AFAIK most state images are not. I found four images uploaded by this user and tagged PD that may well be copyright violations. Image:Shreveport-City-Seal.gif is a city seal of Shreveport, Louisiana and it's tagged PD-self and in use as the city's official logo. Even if he made it for the city, I doubt it's PD. Same deal with Image:Shreveport-City-Logo.png‎ . Image:Flag of Pasadena Texas.jpg‎ is the flag of the city of Pasadena, Texas and is tagged PD-ineligible. Same deal with Image:Seal of Pasadena Texas.jpg‎ . Please advise. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's great when on one answers your questions. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
All deleted. My apologies for me (and others) missing this the first time. Feel free to delete any others you find that are in the same boat (see Template:PD-USGov also). Have a good one, giggy (:O) 10:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Review maybe

I found these contribution. They may well be ok but given that a "clinic" has "authorised" them and they are unlinked etc & I cannot understand the user's page another view would be good. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing they come from http://www.kishiclinic.com, but I can't see them on there obviously, nor can I see an obvious copyright notice. That being said, I don't speak Japanese. If nothing else, there's no explanation as to why they're free and since they're not claimed as self-made, there's no AGF to prevent us deleting them. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The user's page is a resume--they claim they're a dentist heading up the high-class implant center at the Jujyo Kishi Clinic in Tokyo (http://www.kishi-clinic.com/). The page bears a very clear copyright at the bottom, but I haven't managed to hunt down these specific pictures just yet.... --jonny-mt en me! 13:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Check that, actually, I've found a few. I'll go through and start tagging. --jonny-mt en me! 14:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Tagged what I could definitively nail down and left them a message explaining why we can't take those pictures and advising them to contact me again through OTRS. Sadly, I couldn't find all of the pictures they uploaded on their website, so the copyright status of a few of them is still in a kind of limbo.... --jonny-mt en me! 14:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The help on that is appreciated. I've deleted the tagged ones. Given that the others are labelled by the uploader as being from the clinic I'll delete them too I think. If they are validly licensed & within scope they can always be re-uploaded. At least they know what is going on because of your message, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of a deletion tag from an article

Discussion regarding premature removal of a deletion tag. Is there any appeal or recourse to letting folks voice their opinion, as the deletion discussion was removed from the page which was summarily deleted based on the first few days of being on the article, however, the deletion discussion was not left on the article. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on my review of the comments on the DR and the lack of interest in the undeletion request,[6][7] I think that your proposal has little chance of success at this time. With no discussion occurring after June 4, the DR was closed on June 9 and the project page deleted.[8] Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
There was no discussion after June 4 because the discussion went away when the deletion tag was removed from the article. If the tag was still there there would have been discussion,as there were people signing up to join after June 4.SriMesh | talk 00:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the deletion tag was removed by Shizhao (talk · contribs) at 14:18, 4 June 2008 with no edit summary. Shizhao seems to have removed the tag because it was originally tagged by his/her bot because it was created in main space, not project space.[9] Royalguard11 (talk · contribs) and Arctic.gnome (talk · contribs) joined after the deletion tag was removed, the latter on June 6. While they have little experience on Commons, fewer than 50 edits each, I agree that they might well have opposed deletion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done Restored by Shakata.[10] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You could say that I would have opposed deletion. Although I'm not too firmiliar with Commons deletion policy (I'm an admin at en.wp), a simple search reveals several projects which are Commons branches of local Wikiprojects. If there is some "rule" against collaborative projects, it's only selectively enforced. -Royalguard11(Talk·@en) 04:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
(Indent Reset) I was leaving this topic alone, assuming now that since the page has been restored - this was over, but apparently not. So a few words: I was the very first person to vote this page for deletion - and also the one to restore it. The {{Delete}} tag should not have been removed by Shizhao. My assumption is that they removed it because their bot "improperly" placed a {{Speedy}} tag. Which in the first place was valid since the WikiProject was created in the "gallery" namespace and had no images. Which of course was the wrong place to create it. But who cares - So a bunch of things "wrong" happened to cause this. No one is really at fault - it was just a "glitch" in the way things are setup.
As for "rules against collaborative projects". There are none - that I know of. It is the belief of some of us (obvious enough by whom voted to delete) that Commons doesn't need all of the WikiProjects that the Wikipedia's have. Some are handy like the WikiProject Chemistry - but others are probably "overkill". My feelings aside - they WikiProject Canada guys wanted to try something out and maybe we didn't give them a fair chance. That is why the page is back, and that is how this little story ends. --ShakataGaNai Talk 04:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

PD-Polish images with no sources

Hi, lately I started tagging new {{PD-Polish}} images with no sources with {{No source since}} tag. Can one of Polish Admins familiar with the license look over my exchanges with user:Poeticbent who keeps deleting tags and arguing about the license. I would like to remove myself from this discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OTRS check please

I found this image tagged as speedy. Given it is Matt Groening sourced copyvio would not surprise me - however it has an OTRS tag. Is it valid? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find anything on the system regarding that. It is a copyvio. Majorly talk 13:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Can permissions be noted

Can someone handle my request here - User_talk:Yonatanh#OTRS_permissions. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked to Krimpet to look into it. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Krimpet Approved. ShakataBot Tagged. All Done. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks ! Shyamal (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Review contribs please (de)

Looking at new pages I found these contributions. the naming looks a little non standard (using ":") for a start. Equally most of the material on this page could well be copyright violations? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what I also saw when I was page patrolling. Looks like copyvios if you'd ask me, but I left it and asked Lewis about it. He didn't know, and here we are. I suggest asking the uploader, or if a german reading admin can check the description on those images. --Kanonkas(talk) 12:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Missshit

I believe this username is a violation. I don't know the correct place to list it, so, I brought it here.--Paloma Walker (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

✓ Dealt with. Bad name & uploader of copyvio. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nepali main page

I am a user from Nepal. I have created a nepali main page for Wikimedia Commons. I need to list that in the below listings of international languages.


Thank you. And the page I created is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/गृह_पृष्ठ


Something we ought to know about?

This maybe? I do know some people here use it - I'm not sure what if anything the implications are. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - haven't seen it around here, but malfunctioning semi-automated tools are always worth watching for. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I do know one or two people have "huggle" pages. I guess the problem would be if other start using it to any degree here. --Herby talk thyme 06:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Huggle for the record. giggy (:O) 09:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
And a userlist at Commons:Huggle/Users... anybody want to ping all them and remind them that we don't want EnWP drama? :) giggy (:O) 09:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I really don't use Huggle, but removing it no thanks. Maybe we can protect the config page? --Kanonkas(talk) 20:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Contribs query

Doing AGF for now! I cam across this image and it got me wondering. I then looked at the contribs... Personality issues, plain "out of scope" personal pictures or what? Review appreciated, cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. All gone - project scope + kiddies. giggy (:O) 10:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Cheers - I am conscious that sometime I tend to be a bit speedy at deleting! --Herby talk thyme 10:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please rename User:Ww to User:Dwi Secundus

Please rename my username Ww to Dwi Secundus for SUL. --Ww (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please make a request a Commons:Changing username. —Giggy 02:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Review contribs

Short on time these are suspicious to me. I've deleted a couple as obvious copvios but it looks to me like most are & maybe are promotionally intended? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 17:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Zillaman sockpuppet

I think it's fairly obvious that User:Firckman is a reincarnation of User:Frickman, a sockpuppet of Zillaman. Same as before - uploading obviously copyrighted photos and claiming authorship. --Ytoyoda (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, not the first time I've blocked this guy's socks. Gone, and deleted. —Giggy 06:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Account issue

In der deutschen Wikipedia bin ich als Benutzer "HaTe" registriert. Unter diesem Namen würde ich mich gern auch in Commons registrieren. Dies scheitert aber, weil es schon einen Benutzer "Hate" gibt, der allerdings eine Karteileiche zu sein scheint. Könnt Ihr mir da helfen? Danke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.221.128 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, am einfachsten wäre es, wenn du einen anderen Account anlegst und die Umbenennung auf Commons:Changing username anforderst. Die genannten Anforderungen müsstest du erfüllen. PS:Deine Email-Adresse habe ich sicherheitshalber entfernt. Grüße, →Christian.И 16:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[11]

How did an account with contributions qualify for usurption? -Nard 10:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks as though User:Producer (usurped) doesn't have any contributions. Wouldn't any contributions by this user previous to usurption result in them pointing to the new user name after renaming? /Lokal_Profil 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts?

This user and this one have to be the same (I've not checked CU but...). Do we mind, are they doing any harm etc etc? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The same user created accounts on other wikis about the same time.[12][13][14][15] I left a query at User talk:The Pattern and watchlisted it and the other talk page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
They haven't yet done anything very useful but mostly harmless? ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling error on high use image

So the image "Seal Of The President Of The Unites States Of America.svg" in in use on every project, often on hundreds of pages.

The problem is that there is no such thing as the "Unites States". It's spelled wrong. Thousands of pages will have to be redirected. Is this worth fixing?--CastAStone (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a rename tag to Image:Seal Of The President Of The United States Of America.svg. It is used more than 100 times on 5 wikis; it looks like several thousand uses in all.[16] A highly visible gaffe, it seems like it would have been caught by now, but I didn't see anything in the edit history. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Main problem I see is that it's probably used on a lot of edit protected pages so commons delinker won't be able to change them all. /Lokal_Profil 00:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RFD Image:Waltham.jpg

Please delete Image:Waltham.jpg, which has a name conflict on en.wiki. I have already uploaded Image:Waltham_supermarket_sign.jpg to commons and used in en.wiki, so nothing is pointing to Waltham.jpg. Thanks! Jmorgan (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Contribs

On a similar track to my last posting (go figure if it interests you :)). These caught my attention. Maybe just a "heads up" but for what the contributions appear to be about (see deleted too) the photography looks more like modelling to me! There is a sense in which it is spam - I don't think the organisation is actually notable. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Vietthanh91 (talk · contribs)

I just tagged one of this user's uploads as a copyvio, and when I went to their talk page to leave a note I found that I wasn't alone in doing so. From looking through their upload log, it seems that the current warnings haven't taken, as they've continued to upload images with improper permissions.

I'm going to see if I can't track down a Vietnamese-speaking admin, but in the meantime could someone take a look at these and delete what needs to go? --jonny-mt 04:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, we don't seem to have any Vietnamese-speaking administrators, so I requested help from active user Binh Giang. --jonny-mt 04:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted the copyvios from his upload log. Commons:List of administrators by language may help if you need a Viet-speaking admin. (Don't you speak Japanese fluently or something like that Jonny? Maybe just take a chance with Google Translate? And, of course, why aren't you an admin?) —Giggy 04:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, sir! I had looked through the list at COM:ADMIN, but since I didn't see anything there I dropped by Category:User vi instead. Hopefully we can set this user straight, although considering they fake passed one of their own Flickr images, I'm not particularly encouraged....
As far as online translations go, if speaking Japanese has taught me anything it's that once you get beyond basic sentences, translation software and Asian languages just don't get along--if you want a laugh, run the statement on my userpage through Google Translate and see for yourself. As far as your last point goes...well, I've replied on my talk page ^_^ --jonny-mt 06:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

GautAd (talk · contribs)

GautAd (talk · contribs) has been uploading some lovely photos about the Gautrain under Cc-by-sa-3.0, Own work. They are a welcome addition to the article at en.wiki, but I am unsure about the licensing: These photographs have also been published earlier at various places on the official website, but normally at lower resolution, with a watermark, which is not present on the uploaded images. However, the site provides a "media section" with higher resolution pictures, probably without the watermark. As such it is probable that it is this user's own work, or that they were uploaded by the media, or PR, or otherwise by the public (I believe that there are higher resolution copies of the pictures on this forum, but could not confirm as the site is currently off-line). Unfortunately I know nothing about the complexities in this case.

How do we proceed from here?

G.A.S 05:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OTRS check please

Found these with OTRS tickets on. They would be copyvios without a valid OTRS, can some take a look. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not found in OTRS.--Ahonc (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Ahonc. So are we assuming good faith or bad faith here (might it be on the way?) - I am not familiar with OTRS. --Herby talk thyme 15:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Come to think about it, I'm curious why you haven't volunteered for OTRS yet. Permissions queue is always backlogged, and you've posted here several times asking for information. Surely it would be easier for you to get the information yourself? Majorly talk 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't do enough work....? I do have plenty of other reasons. --Herby talk thyme 06:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor uploading screenshot and falsely claiming self-work

Solange 87 (talk · contribs) is uploading screenshots from profesionally shot videos and claiming them as "self-work". See example Image:The fixx - how much is enough 014 0001 24.jpg. 156.34.142.110 01:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. All images deleted, and given him a further warning. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Review of some images tagged as speedy

Rather than go into mass deletion mode can someone else review this and the logic. All "Suicide Girls" images are being tagged with the rationale that The images on the Suicide Girls site are intended for individual use only. Any other use or reproduction, digital or conventional, without the express written consent of SG Services, Inc. is strictly prohibited. Violators will be pursued and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law per this.

Given that it is a "commercial" website it seems quite logical but I'd rather have another view before starting deletions. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree - SG uploads a photo from each set to flickr under CC-BY, and those are the images we use here, so it's fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and to that end I told him so, and removed all those images from the copyvio list. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:SODIS procedure.jpg

Subject image is a montage of images found at http://www.sodis.ch/Text2002/T-Howdoesitwork.htm and appears to be a copyright violation.

Hope this isn't out of place here – I've looked all over Commons and don't see an obvious quick and easy way to flag copyright violations. If such exists, it needs to be made more apparent. — Kbh3rd (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Marked as copyvio. No commercial use allowed as per website. Thanks for notifying. Lycaon (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Venezuela - Guyana maps are not usable for wikipedia

I discovered a series of maps of Venezuela Category:Maps of Venezuela, which include the nation of Guyana. Guyana is a recognized nation, a member of the United Nations and also of the Commonwealth. Strange, that this nation is included in maps of Venezuela. After reading a bit through the articles I found the following: Guyana - Boundary disputes and this in the article en:Guayana Esequiba: "Venezuelan maps produced since 1970 show the entire area from the eastern bank of the Essequibo, including the islands in the river, as Venezuelan territory. On some maps, the western Essequibo region is called the "Zone in Reclamation"."
So, all these maps are showing the nationalistic Venezuelan view that half of Guyana is part of Venezuela:

This is unacceptable! It is in no way encyclopaedic to allow the view of one nation (and such a pretentious view too) to be the view presented by wikipedia. Therefore these maps need to be corrected quickly or they must be deleted. Leaving them does give the impression that wikipedia does accept the Venezuelan claims as legit. Wikipedia must fend of this attempt to instrumentalize our good reputation for propaganda purposes. --Noclador (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

They sound useful to me - as examples of said bias. Make new ones. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
As long as it is made clear on the image page it shouldn't be a problem. /Lokal_Profil 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

duplicated image

This image is a duplicated of another one. Could you please delete it?

Thanks,

--Torax (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And this one was taken from the La Opinión newspaper. It was scanned.
--Torax (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OTRS check for Image:Eva - Johan Limpers.jpg, please

Did OTRS receive any e-mails regarding Image:Eva - Johan Limpers.jpg? If so, keep or delete? It's currently up for speedy deletion as a failed flickr review. Lupo 10:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything in the system, unfortunately, but it was only tagged as OTRS pending a day ago, so it might be worth it to wait a little while longer (or tag it {{Nld}} so it has 7 days to go through the system). --jonny-mt 13:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I just saw the "June 18" date... Lupo 14:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It might be an idea to date tag the {{OTRS pending}}-template. Not to put a strict deadline (as for no source/no permission) but so one can easily spot images that have been left alone for to long. /Lokal_Profil 15:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh goody...

This may be worth watching! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiple deletions

This user marked a number of his uploads for speedy deletion. I think some of them are potentially in scope so I removed the speedy tags from them. Some, such as Image:IMG 00632.jpg are just awesome and should not be deleted. -Nard 23:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems they have been deleted, despite all rights being released from them. If they are in scope, and the rights are released, there's no good reason to be deleting. Majorly talk 14:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Having looked through the images (a few I deleted myself), it seems that they were not being used on any project. None strike me as being without alternative or of such quality that we really cannot do without them. Though users have no right to insist images are deleted, doing so is a courtesy which I feel should be offered unless there is a good reason not to. If someone has very strong feelings that the quality of Commons was diminished by one or more of the deletions, we should look into restoring them - ideally, with the uploader's consent, otherwise I think everything is in order... WjBscribe 16:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I deleted two. One is a large picture of sea, the other an indeterminate out of focus sunset. If folk feel that should be undeleted, I have no problem but I concur with WJB otherwise. --Herby talk thyme 17:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Herby and WJBscribe... at Commons we sometimes stand on rights for important images that would be a serious loss, but usually we will delete as a courtesy if the images are getting little or no use... this deletion activity seems fine to me. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you really need a picture of some ocean water, and some scribbles I made on PhotoShop, then whatever. There are already tons of pictures of ocean, and my photoshop scribbles don't serve any purpose. Also, none of them were being used, and I really can't find a reason why any of them would be used. Besides, they were just sitting there and I would just rather have them be deleted, if possible.

I have also changed this section title because it would be nice if my name was not the title of a section on the Administrators' Noticeboard. If you need to change the title back, then do what you must.

Thank you for understanding, GM 17:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem with the title change - really it would have been better if someone had chatted to you about the images before bringing here anyway. If someone does feel strongly that one or more of the images should be kept, I hope you will take that as a compliment. WjBscribe 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

More explicit pics

Well at least its not a ton of penis pictures this time... Do we really want all of these?--Nilfanion (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is the "wholesale" nature that bothers me. All gone but if anyone wants them they can always undelete. That was on a big scale (the uploads not the lady concerned!) --Herby talk thyme 13:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
We need to come up with a modified version of this :) - Alison ❤ 04:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

New sockpuppet activity

New images with suspect license status have been uploaded by users who appear to be sockpuppets of the banned EN Wikipedia user (Jvolkblum) described at this archived "Attention" item. (The newest sockpuppetry case is en:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (13th).) Rather than my tagging all of the individual images, I'd like to ask for administrator attention to the contributions of Yuckycurry. Here are some of the images that I think have doubtful status:

I have not enumerated all of the images with possible issues. Note that a few of the other images in the group are scanned postcards that almost certainly date from before 1923. --Orlady (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted a few that are obviously unacceptable. Do you suggest we delete all this user's uploads, or would you suggest examining images on a case by case basis? I'll ask Lar to run a checkuser on the account as, having checkuser access both here and on enwiki, he seems best placed to confirm the connection. WjBscribe 16:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I think some of the uploads probably are OK (for example, I am inclined to believe the date information on Image:NewRochelleHomes.JPG), so I don't see a basis for having to have all of them deleted. I would like the collection to be reviewed (case by case) by folks who are knowledgable about the licensing issues and about examining images (and who can take action).
Thanks for initiating the checkuser process. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Review is difficult where one isn't able to trust the uploader. The validity of most of these uploads turn on when the original images were taken. It seems one cannot trust the word of the uploader (especially if he is as you suspect a Jvolkblum), so that really leaves it to the judgment of the reviewer as to whether the image is from the period claimed. If we delete all images where there is nothing to confirm the date given, I suspect we will end up deleting the lot. My issue with Image:NewRochelleHomes.JPG is that it doesn't seem clear to me (it might be to others) whether this is a photo or a painting. If a photo it's probably OK, but if a painting it could have been done significantly later. I think it's more an expert on examining old images than in licensing that is needed here... WjBscribe 17:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't trust Jvolkblum, so I could support a decision to delete all content from confirmed sockpuppets of Jvolkblum. However, it must be acknowledged that some of this banned user's contributions in EN were OK. I'm a rank amateur when it comes to understanding the issues involved with images, and I'm happy to leave decisions on handling this matter to people who have more knowledge than I. --Orlady (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple more specific images with obvious issues:

I've deleted these three, as well as the postcards listed above. I was unsure on the ones from http://www.nrpl.org/photos.html and hope for a second opinion on those. Any others? —Giggy 04:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Regarding other images, does Commons make a practice of storing scanned images of old newspapers? There are many such images among Yuckycurry's uploads. For example, see Image:WykagylCC.JPG and Image:Westchester Railroad land purchase.JPG. I haven't seen similar content in Commons, but maybe I just haven't looked in the right places.
I'm inclined to believe that the images scanned from old books probably are from the sources claimed, and photos sourced to "WalkingGeek" on Flickr seem to be legitimate. However, some additional photos with doubtful license claims are Image:WykagylOldPic.jpg, Image:WykagylStation1.JPG, Image:Wykagyl Gardens.jpg, Image:Wykagyl Gardens Apartments2.jpg, Image:NorthAveBridge.JPG, Image:WykagylStation3.JPG, and Image:AllView6.JPG. --Orlady (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

CU request and result

At the request of User:WJBscribe (see [17] ) I have run a crosswiki check.

I have blocked Yuckycurry accordingly. —Giggy 04:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Jvolkblum is a notorious puppetmaster on en.wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I saw no signs here though. Yet. Careful watch is called for. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Damiendamien (talk · contribs)

Would someone mind going through this user's contributions and nuking the pictures that need to go? They seem to be using Commons to either confess to past misdeeds or level accusations at someone else, accompanying their Spanish and English texts with out-of-scope images and copyvios. --jonny-mt 08:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted obvious copyright violations first. Could a Spanish speaking admin have a look at the rest? They look like improper self advertising to me. Lycaon (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I ran the two remaining image descriptions through Google Translate, and they seem to be attack pages. I also just noticed that they seem to include personal phone numbers, so I went ahead and requested oversight just in case. My Spanish is non-existent, but better safe than sorry.... --jonny-mt 10:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted the final two. —Giggy 11:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't hesitate to block that user if he continues creating such pages. I've found two more very similar pages while googling through the internet. This account seems to be created to promote hatred... there is no more reason to assume good faith. →Christian.И 11:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right; I looked over some more of his stuff and got to the same conclusion. Blocked. —Giggy 11:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I received the oversight request and reviewed the two images that were referenced. Can a Commons admin who speaks spanish contact me, I need some help in determining what the nature of the material is and whether it is sufficient that it was deleted, or if it does in fact need to be oversighted. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hum, I guess at least all image descriptions containing a telephone number should be hidden if we have the possibility. We all know how sensitive personal information can be. →Christian.И 14:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Air Force marks are not public domain

Dear Wikimedia Commons,


The United Air Force Symbol is a registered trademark. Permission to use it for commercial use and advertising (free or paid) is required.

The use of these registered U.S. Air Force marks for commercial purposes, including reproduction on merchandise, is expressly prohibited unless the producer completes a license agreement with the Air Force. Use is governed by the terms of the agreement. Click here to download licensing application. For more information contact the Air Force Trademark Licensing office at 703-695-2414 or email afstory@pentagon.af.mil

Department of Defense and Air Force policy and regulations prohibit use of official Air Force markings, insignia and symbols in ways that imply endorsement of a commercial entity or activity. (See CFR Part 2635.702 and the DoD Joint Ethics Regulation, DoD 5500.7-R.) This applies to all Air Force markings and symbols, including the Air Force symbol

The Air Force Seal is protected by law from use by any party for purposes not specifically authorized by the Air Force. The seal is permitted only as outlined below (AFMAN33-326, 01 Nov 1999). Falsely making, forging, counterfeiting, mutilating, or altering the seal, or knowingly using or possessing with fraudulent intent is punishable by law (Title 18 U.S. Code 506, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

Your website states these marks are public domain which is not the case. Please remove all public files relating to these trademarks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestica14 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


Public domain is a copyright issue, not a trademark issue. --NE2 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Was there any proof of permission to upload Image:Deaerator3.png?

The subject image is a direct copy of the image on this online advertsement by the Stork Company of Holland. It was uploaded by unregistered user BerkeleyLab on June 12,2008. It is the one and only contribution to Commons made by him and he has not made any others since making that one.

He also uploaded it on June 12th into an article on Wikipedia along with text from that same online advertisement of the Stork company deaerator and again it was and is his one and only contribution to Wikipedia. I am concerned that his only intent may have been to advertise the Stork deaerators.

I note that he does not seem to have furnished any proof that he had permission to upload that image which is clearly the property of the Stork Company. Did anyone perform any check as to whether or not he had permission to upload it into Commons? Mbeychok (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The same comments also apply to IMage:Deaerator2.png. Has anyone checked that image for permission? Mbeychok (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Lukaaz (talk · contribs)?

This user has been consistently uploading copyright violations, failing to provide sources, the whole deal. In addition to the horde of deletion templates with Portuguese links, their talk page also includes a message from a Portuguese-speaking user trying to help them out. They don't seem to have gotten the point of copyright and licensing, though, so I believe all their uploads are suspect. Would someone mind taking a look through their contributions and deleting what needs to go (which seems to be most if not all of it)? I just left them an endcopyvio note in Portuguese, so I'm not sure if it's time to consider blocking them yet. --jonny-mt 04:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Uploads of Weissmann (talk · contribs)

It seems very likely to me that some of Weissmann's uploads (most of them in Category:Festspiele Balver Höhle) are infringing the personal rights of depicted persons. It could be necessary to remove some difficult files (especially images depicting children and/or adolescents). Please let me know your opinions, see also w:Personality rights. →Christian.И 21:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see also COM:IDENT. →Christian.И 08:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Planed vandalism

It's maybe just a joke, but on German wikipedia a user informed about this. For Non-German-Speakers: the guy there tells that he has created several accounts at Commons (at the time of the post four) and plans to overwrite images with racist motives. His goal will be pictures which are on the main pages of Wikipedia projects (once again main project will be the German one). -- Cecil (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, keep us informed. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The only possible target I could locate is Image:Hw-bolivar.jpg. However, we should be watchful on Thursday but it shouldn't be a big deal to revert ;) Thanks for drawing our attention to this. →Christian.И 08:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem, we'll get that fool. But thanks for pointing it out :) abf /talk to me/ 09:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How to move an image?

I uploaded

as i didn't know what the name of hte species was. Now it has been positively identified can someone rename it to something more descriptive?

I don't think regular users can move an image but some do have the ability. I am sure someone will be along to help you with this. Please sign you edits so we know who you are. If you hover your mouse over the buttons at the top of the edit box you will see "your signature with timestamp" click that and it will insert you signature. Another way is to type 4 tildes ~~~~ which also inserts you signature.--Paloma Walker (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No user can move an image. What you have to do is re-upload to a better title and tag the original image with {{Badname}}, and an administrator will delete that file.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Or you can use {{rename media|New filename.ext|Motivation for renaming}} and a bot will do the re-uploading etc. /Lokal_Profil 14:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so, I tried this with some mispelled titles of images I uploaded and no joy several months down the track. We need a better way to get this done, surely at least the person who uploaded an image should be able to rename it.Nick Thorne (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The code needed to move images is already there, but still under review, see here. It is unknown however when it will be enabled. Until then, the fastest way is to reupload and propose the misnamed image for deletion. --Rosenzweig (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Related to the bot. Yes, there is a bot that renames's images if an admin or trusted user tags them with {{Rename}}. Unfortunately that bot is only run once a month. Personally, I don't trust it. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Heather Vandeven, June 2006.jpg

I uploaded this image but it won't let me edit the description and it seems that it don't have a description at all.--Sdrtirs (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, please reupload. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It worked! Regards, Sdrtirs (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag/Straw Poll

A sitenotice or something to that poll might be beneficial. Thanks, →Christian.И 15:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Milos75

Please take a look at Milos75‎ (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log), he uploaded the same picture like yesterday with his first login Budva123‎ (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log). The files are lousy retouched (wm). I allready nominated his contributions for deletion on Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by User:Milos75. --Martin H. (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I opened a copyvio/sockpuppet-thread on AN/U before seeing this one. --Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Closed the DR and blocked/deleted at that AN/U thread. Thanks for the heads up, Martin. —Giggy 08:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


The Perez-case is getting serious, have a look at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#User:Pérez (header was User:O). --Túrelio (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Views on contributions?

I found this user page which intrigued me. Would someone else care to look at the uploads? Looks like a class project or similar maybe - not sure about "within scope". Thanks --Herby talk thyme 06:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like it's an art teacher uploading his/her students' images. Copyright issues aside, I'm more concerned about the fact that they seem to be adding their students' names to some of the filenames. I'll leave a note outlining some of these issues and asking for clarification. --jonny-mt 07:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good for now, Jonny, let us know if any further action is necessary (though chances are you'll be an admin by then.... ;-) —Giggy 10:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw him upload a photo by his young son yesterday, but figured I'd let that slide. Uploading students' artwork as his own though - give him the cane. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't jinx it! But yeah, I'll keep an eye on it and let you know/push the magic buttons myself if need be :P --jonny-mt 14:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The categories he is adding to his images, e.g., Category:Themed car design JFK of Granada Hills Gaier do not exist and would not very useful if they did, but is an issue of secondary importance to those identified above and can be addressed later.[18] Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Duplicates with different authors

Hi, I want to bring a duplicate (this at 2,560×1,920 and that at 800×600) to your attention. Both images come from the very same photograph, they just have different resolutions. But it is not a simple matter of removing the lower resolution variant because both pictures claim different authors. The high resolution variant names two conflicting authors Daderot and Maksim. Perhaps Daderot is the creator of this photograph and perhaps Maksim moved it from the English wikipedia to the Commons. The second photograph (at the lower resolution) names Jibi44 as author. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The high res was taken by Daderot from en wiki. The second one does not claim any author and is probably only a reduced size copy from en wiki. The 100 KiB size of the low res image nearly matches the size of the 800x600 preview from the high res image.--Denniss (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, GFDL requires the name of the author to be mentioned. If the author is wrong or missing, its a copyvio. Do you delete the low res image? --AFBorchert (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated the low resolution variant that fails to name the author's name for deletion. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Views would be welcome...

New page patrolling I can across this gallery. I'm not sure it is the sort of thing I would expect on Commons - maybe/maybe not?

Then I got thinking - what would be the case if every pageant/fayre etc all round the world published this kind of page for all their "results"...... Other views would be interesting, thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If we can get(/encourage) free images for everyone involved, I think it's a good idea. —Giggy 12:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is a public event and the winners of such contests are public figures in the context of that event. I do not see how documentary photographs of public events are outside of the scope and I do not see any problems with photographs of people that participate in such a public event. I do not think that people whose photographs we are keeping have to be notable in the sense that a Wikipedia article about them is likely to survive. I do not even think that the event itself must be notable. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
To me, the most important is that the commons are living and it is really used. Frankly, I don't care if it is used for a monkey, donkey or horse beauty contest or a Guinness record in eating hamburgers, because I know, those will be an indication that there is serious work too. --Foroa (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hum

Need I say more? --Herby talk thyme 15:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful to read this discussion as well which provides the context. Emilfaro seems to have been a victim of such a case. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
A discussion at Commons regarding this case is going on here. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Uploads by User:TTaylor

Hi, I came across multiple images uploaded by this user which are without author information and correct licenses. It is very likely that TTaylor has shot these photographs himself/herself and simply didn't knew how to do it correctly. As TTaylor photographed Gothic sculptures, he or she simply added {{PD-old}}, apparently without taking into consideration that he or she is also creating a new work by photographing it. When I came across the first two images by TTaylor, I simply filed deletion requests in the hope that this will be fixed by him or her. But I just came across more photographs uploaded by TTaylor and I wonder how to resolve this issue in an optimal way. TTaylor has neither email configured nor am I able to find any Wikipedia account named TTaylor where I could post an alert. Hence I do not see how I can contact him or she besides the local talk page. TTaylor was the last time active at Commons on May 28th and I am afraid that he or she might not react in time to save these images. Some of these images (like this) would be a real loss as it is simply the best photograph for the statues at this jamb and it is also used at the Dutch wikipedia. Any suggestions how I shall proceed in this case? --AFBorchert (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

TTaylor's page is signed "Mandy", and some of TTaylor's recent uploads were added to en.wp articles minutes later by en:User:Amandajm. That's probably who you want to talk to. --dave pape (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, dave pape, this seems to be a wellfounded guess. I have posted a notification on Amandajm's talk page. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect from a regular page to a category

I just came across this redirect from a regular page to a category. This is confusing as if you find a regular page named "Chartres Cathedral" within the equally named category, you'll end up at the very same category but not at a gallery page which currently does not exist. I suggest to delete this redirect but I am not sure whether this qualifies as a speedy deletion. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is another redirect of the same kind. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
And finally this redirect. I found meanwhile a gallery page but I cannot rename it to Chartres Cathedral as the redirect still exists. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects from pages to categories are far better than category redirects to categories. You don't have erroneous blue links and you don't get it suggested by the various java tools. If I had the choice, I would forbid all category redirects and category dis ambiguity pages: all category redirects/dis ambiguity should go through galleries. Moreover, all external interfaces (references from other Wikipedias) should go through galleries and not directly to categories. This allows to buffer/decouple in as many languages we want while remaining free to change the internal categorisation system without invalidating thousands of references from other Wikipedias. After all, we need to be a stable server with stable interfaces. --Foroa (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this one. Redirects are not ideal but they do help people to find some media if there isn't a page. So, for example, I've been intending to create a Devon page for a while but as I have not had time so far I created a redirect to the category for now so that media may be found. You can always put content into a redirect page (they do not have to be deleted). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I always search through Google for stuff at Commons, using "site:commons.wikimedia.org term...". I never assumed that people look for possible galleries by typing full URLs with wild guesses about possible gallery names. Instead I thought that people find pointers to galleries within the category tree or end up at a gallery page through Commons links from the various Wikipedia projects. Anyway, I ask you to delete the Chartres Cathedral redirect as I am otherwise unable to move the existing gallery page to it. The other redirects can then be updated to point to the gallery instead of the category. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange, we are all different - I always use "search" here on Commons (& in which case I expect a UK county name to have some media :). --Herby talk thyme 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It is quite simple, Google results are superior, at least in my experience. Compare, for example, the search term "Canice Cathedral", i.e. Google vs Commons Search Engine. The category is presented by Google as the very first entry, Commons presents the category at the bottom of the second page. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest to do some cleanup categorisation work for a couple of days amongs the hundreds of thousands images in category:Uncategorized in languages you hardly understand. I am sure that you will appreciate any possible search help. In the mean time, a {{Need to move a page name here}} should work quickly for your problem at hand. --Foroa (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
{{Speedy}} done. I have categorized and recategorized hundreds of images around Chartres Cathedral in the past days. Given the complexity of Chartres Cathedral with more than 1000 stone carvings and many unsufficient descriptions, this is not a trivial task. Please do not assume that I do not attempt to contribute my small share of cleanup work at Commons or that I do not appreciate the Commons search engine. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not complaining nor accusing; I noticed that you are a busy and productive "ant". Just saying that if you are working in a world where the descriptions are limited to one to five words in foreign languages and grammar, sometimes using non latin fonts, then every search facility is more than welcome. --Foroa (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note as well that for galleries, there are no naming or languages rules, so we tend to leave them in the language of the original author. This avoids move wars. --Foroa (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think that it is helpful to have twins of galleries and categories where both share the same name. It is, of course, useful to have additional galleries and also galleries supporting languages other than English. In this case, however, there were initially a category and gallery which were both named Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres. On 20 May 2008, the category was renamed to Category:Chartres Cathedral, and a category redirect was left at the previous category page. By this act, the twinship between category and gallery was lost as nobody took care of the gallery page. I do not find any discussions regarding this category move at COM:CFD or elsewhere. I just found this strange state and try to bring some order into this. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Remember that there have been some "english language" fundamentalists active overhere that changed category names without discussions. This chased away many users as the people that put a major effort in a gallery (including continued maintenance), mostly use and respect the name as it is used locally. If you want to chase users away, a good way is changing the gallery names. Gallery redirects from the name you do prefer will certainly cause less damage. --Foroa (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted equally that according to the commons rules, that the category should be named Cathedral of Chartres or carry its proper (French) Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres name (as it has been renamed uselesly several times back and forwards). --Foroa (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Be sure that I do not belong to any group of fundamentalists. So far, I had not a single edit war with anyone either here or any other Wikimedia project. I understand your concern, however, and have added a notice on the corresponding talk page. But I doubt that anyone will object, given that there wasn't much activity in this area for some time. There were apparently also some page moves years ago with no discussions either. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If you want that French people feel at home, then you better leave them with their names as there is no single rule on which ground you can request a move. After all, it is their cathedral. --Foroa (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that French people feel at home at an English language page. But independent from this, I do not think that the current state is helpful to anyone. I still believe that a gallery page that shares the name with the associated category is useful. Do you suggest to have Chartres Cathedral and Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres as gallery pages in parallel? This makes not much sense to me as long as both pages share the same scope and the same language. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Can I suggest to apply your own personal naming logic first to the galleries in Category:Cologne and its its various subcats such as Category:Cologne Cathedral. Once you managed this, you will better understand the problem. --Foroa (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that multilingual galleries work. Imagine Kölner Dom with dozens of languages for each image in the gallery. Here is an example for two galleries, each of them in a single language: Molana Priory and Kloster Molana. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have summoned some of the contributors of the gallery page and one of them proposes the associated category to be moved from Chartres Cathedral back to Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres (with was shortly moved into the other direction, apparently without any discussion). To seek a consensus and to avoid any further discussionless moves, I have opened a discussion here at COM:CFD. Your input is welcomed. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Uploads review

In deleting a copyvio I came across these contribution. The user has quite a history of copyvio uploading and has been warned. I was inclined to block the user (still am) but thought someone else might look through the contribs maybe? It is the "own work" ones that mostly seem suspicious to me. I didn't see an exif data and most looked like the could have been taken from websites (I'm assuming the Flickr contribs are ok). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked the last of Rubashkyn's images, Image:Bibliocentralbta.jpg, and found it within the slide show of the corresponding web site. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
A Russian quotation appears on his/her userpage and s/he appears to upload mainly Latin American subjects. I found no edits to talk pages. Perhaps a Russian or Spanish-speaking administrator could have a look, but I agree that the history of copyvio uploading and complete lack of community interaction does not suggest that this user can contribute constructively. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted a couple more copyvios and looked through the contribs again. The ones with exif are as confusing as the ones without as there are two cameras involved (possible of course).
Equally this one may well be the work of w:User:Mattgrundy by the look of it. I have blocked the user for a week (based on the number of copyvios so far) so we have some time to run through things. --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

unprotect yes check sign please

can i just request unprotection of the yes check symbolManutd22 (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the link, please? Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Filbot

Hi, this bot tags perfectly licensed images (see here, here and here) and floods my talk page, and, because I get an email for new messages, floods my mailbox. I've put some notices on the talk page of the maintainer who is apparently not active in this moment. It would be nice if someone could stop this. I certainly do not want to get such a notice for each of the images I have uploaded recently. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would presume that is because you are using a custom template. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess so, too. But my user template is in conformance to COM:USER. It is not recommended practice, though, but please take also a look at this discussion. As it is obvious from this discussion, I am not the only one using user templates that include licenses. Hence the bot should look for the categories instead of the templates. Anyway, as there exists thousands of such images, it is not helpful to let the bot continue. Even if just the images of the recent week is considered by this bot, this would generate for me alone about 100 notifications and 100 image pages which need to be cleaned up. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The bot continues to tag my images. Apparently not the images of the past days but every new uploaded image gets tagged by this bot. This is no fun. --AFBorchert (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Filnik, the maintainer and operator of Filbot has kindly reverted all the edits in question and also adapted his bot such that this will not repeat. This closes this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This means that we can change for all your images the author, licenses or make them all ready for speedy deletion just by fidling a bit with the template. Interesting. --Foroa (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We had already this discussion here and I do not think that we should reopen it here. Point is that numerous high-volume uploaders use user templates for this purpose and that this helps them to maintain large number of photographs. It should also be obvious that template changes are recorded in their history. And I wouldn't object if my template becomes edit-protected. I need rarely updates and I wouldn't mind to contact some admin for this. So far, there was just one change that extended the number of applicable licenses. This is documented on the template page itself. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I put AFBorchert's template in a wrong list of templates to skip. His template was the only one (wrong) so now the bot should work fine also with other licenses created by users. Sorry for the problems given, --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 18:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Need help to delete

Can some one delete last two edits from

That is "2 august 2008 kl. 15.37" and "2 august 2008 kl. 15.28". They were only created due to my confusion and are only duplicates of previous versions.

Klebom (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done --Boricuæddie 19:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Need an OTRS check

Can someone with permissions access please check out Image:Yuko_Nishimura.jpg? Thanks. rootology (T) 16:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a (quick) look around but couldn't find any emails relating to that file.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Template has wrong name

This template

Template:Svensk porträttgalleri

Should be renamed to

Template:Svenskt porträttgalleri

Notice the missing "t"

Klebom (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done --Boricuæddie 19:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Category:Images from Svensk porträttgalleri has the same mispelling. Can you correct that too? Note that the previously named template also needs to be corrected since it assigns a misspelled category. Klebom (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

High usage files

Whats our general protection policy on really high-usage files? For example, I noticed that a lot of the copyright/copyleft logos that are used on thousands of pages across hundreds of projects are protected, but things like country flag svgs, which are similarly used on thousands of pages across hundreds of projects, aren't. rootology (T) 15:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Page protection says to indef full protect heavily used images, but I've only seen a few flags protected. My guess is that they're generally not really targets for vandalism. --Boricuæddie 19:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you at least semi protect any flags you come across; they're highly used, somewhat prone to edit warring, and rarely need significant changes. —Giggy 04:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, Semi would do nothing. The concern I have with highly used images is someone uploading a new version that is... not appropriate (we've all seen it done before). Unfortunately the only way to properly protect the images is will a sysop prot. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

GSS

Dear Administrators, I don't think articles belong on Wikimedia commons, must less spam. Came here with it because I am not sure of the correct deletion tag for commons.--Sandahl (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done, in future you can use {{Speedydelete}} —Giggy 04:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User deletion request

Looks like Nyo has decided they want their contributions to Commons deleted. The "other" speedies are rather full at present. I guess it may well relate to the top (currently) request in the undel archive (Fixed the link. --jonny-mt 07:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)). Sadly someone deleted their user space pages and although I undeleted them immediately I guess they were not pleased. --Herby talk thyme 07:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC) No Herby, it's not related to the deletion of my sub-pages. I was just cleaning Wikimedia Commons from ugly/unuseful/wrong images. --Nyo (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that...I'm glad to hear that CAT:O is not always that full. I know that we're normally sympathetic to user requests, but a large-scale deletion like this seems a little over the top, and spot-checks show that some of these images are in use.
Time to start hitting "rollback"? --jonny-mt 07:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes I reckon so personally though it would be good to have someone interact with him. The pages really shouldn't have been deleted (if that was the issue). However I do recall some speedy requests in the past I think. I'd help but I've got some stuff I need to do in RL at pres. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I've done what I can for the time being (yes, that was me flooding Special:Recentchanges), but a lot of the requests can't be undone with rollback because there's nowhere else to rollback to. I've also left a note on their talk page--I'll go through and decline the rest of their speedies later (unless User:Liftarn beats me to it). --jonny-mt 08:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page I got the comment "I'm the author of some of the images, I can decide if delete them or not.". I don't think so. You can't just give something away and then demand it back. // Liftarn (talk)

Ok, this is getting disruptive. Perhaps we should wait with the reverts until Nyo come to his senses or is blocked. // Liftarn (talk)

Sadly, I have to run right now, but I'll be back a little later. I see Giggy's involved now, so if I'm not back on in time then I trust this can be resolved under his capable watch :) --jonny-mt 09:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not disruptive, Liftarn! I just want you remove all images I requested for deletion, because I'm the author and the uploader too. I've chosen to clean some categories from some images (I uploaded) because they're uncoherent, unuseful, unrealistic (some maps) or just horrible drawings I did when I was young (such as the dosojins). So, please, accept my request and delete the pictures, since I'm the copyright holder. --Nyo (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Please read Commons:Ownership of pages and files where it says "If you upload an image but then decide that you don't want it to be on Commons any more, then you have the right to list it at Commons:Deletion requests, and the other users there may sympathise with you as the uploader. However, if the consensus is to keep the image, it will be kept, and you have no special right to protest about this.". // Liftarn (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know the policy when I uploaded the images. So now I've the right to ask for their immediate deletion; if you force to keep them I think it's a sort of robbery. --Nyo (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
You have my sympathies, but you have no such right. You have the right to ask, but you don't have the right to demand. And demanding something back that you have given away may also be seen as a form of robbery. // Liftarn (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't ask for deletion of all those images at Commons:Deletion requests. And, as I wrote in your talk page, I didn't know those policies when I uploaded the images. Now I have the right to clarify. --Nyo (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure you can, just make them into a single DR. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to write down the name of 200 images. It's impossible. --Nyo (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It's just a matter of cut and paste. Please note that several of the images you tagged may be uploaded by you, but not made by you. // Liftarn (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Try this (max 1000 in this example). You can insert a list of pictures for the checking of their use (tick bulk checkmark). --Foroa (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

GNU Public Domain

This seems to happen twice a month. See for example in Commons:Village_pump#Removing_my_files_from_commons. I have not the faintest idea how we can be clearer about public domain definition. Maybe we should have in the first place a look on what caused the anger with Nyo. Commons (and all users) have the right to copy these images, but I fail to see what's the benefit of copying them all, except maybe the fact that we could satisfy the demand of Nyo. --Foroa (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not angry with Wikimedia Commons (don't think it's for the question of my sub-pages... it was an error and I think errors can happen). In requesting for the deletion of those pictures, I was just cleaning the categories from unuseful-unreliable and low-quality pictures. I'm the uploader of them all, and I'm the author of the vast majority, so I thought there wouldn't be problems in asking a speedydeletion. In addition, some pictures are taken from Photobucket, and their permission was on Photobucket. Since the account with the pictures no longer exists, it's not legal to take them, since I we can't proof that on Photobucket there was the permission. --Nyo (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you have to have different deletion requests for the different reasons. So far I have noticed
  1. low quality (may be an issue, but only if better images are available)
  2. unused (may not be an issue as it's usability rather than them being used that is an issue)
  3. unreliable (unreliable? how?)
  4. permission no longer available (may be in the wayback archive or google cache)
  5. you feel like it (not a valid reason)

Did I miss any? // Liftarn (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Upload templates

Would it help to avoid this to make the language on the templates even clearer that copyleft is technically irrevocable? rootology (T) 13:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It does say "When you upload your work to commons you are donating it to the world by using a free content license which allow everyone to use, modify, and redistribute your work for any purpose. This donation is non-revocable.". (original emphasis included). // Liftarn (talk)
Maybe adding w:Donation or similar on commons in many languages ? --Foroa (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Batch of deletions anyone?

These need deleting (I think!) because they are just bloody awful quality. I got to them via this req. I don't think this one is part of the puppet collection simply because what the others uploaded was high quality material (copyvios though).

I don't have time to delete them at present (& I have not checked more than half as far as quality is concerned). If any are high quality then maybe we are on the puppet issue again. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Note the visible mouse pointer in Image:GolfA (32).jpg and Image:Golf (34).jpg - they're quite possibly all copyvios. --dave pape (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was about to say they are either photos of a TV screen or computer screen (there is a reflection in one, and interference in another, though I didn't see a mouse pointer). Deleting them all now.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Gone; user blocked for 6h to force some communication.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks folks - I missed the mouse too. I'll give some thought to this. I wrote off the puppet idea because of the wildly differing quality of upload however it may still be the same person. The help is appreciated. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Commons:Deletion_requests/2008/06/30

Over a month. Megapixie (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You obviously haven't seen COM:DEL/OLD. I'm waiting to get a little more hands-on experience with the Commons deletion process before I dive in. --jonny-mt 04:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Images of User:Stahlkocher

Many will still remember the problems surrounding Stahlkocher and his de-adminship here. If just noticed a that the IPs 89.244.202.134 and 89.244.246.117 both have vandalised several of his uploads by overwriting source and licence with the nosource-tag. Seven of the images I have already restored and the no-source-tags removed, but there will probably be other IPs too, which have done that. What can we do to find already deleted images and prevent them from being deleted again? -- Cecil (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

83.135.190.52 managed to get three images deleted. -- Cecil (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite clever really. Without many RC patrollers not easily spotted. Thanks for the info. The only thing I can think is to go through Stahlkocher's contribution/logs. If we see this as a real issue maybe s-prot them? --Herby talk thyme 16:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I've already checked through his uploads a little bit, that's how I found the third IP. Problem is, the image where I first noticed it when going through the no-source-images, was a transfer, so no upload by Stahlkocher. I wondered why somebody would delete the used image at de.WP, when the Commons description is that lacking. -- Cecil (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Difficult - too big a range of IPs to consider blocking them. Hopefully a few other admins will also see this. I'll keep more of an eye on RC when I can but if you have any other ideas that might help it would be good. --Herby talk thyme 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

es speaker please

To look at/talk to this user. They keep trying to create a gallery page as a user page & their uploads look more like a form of advertising. I may need to place a short block if they go on but anyone can revert it if the message gets through. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely little wiki experience, I guess a Spanish (only ?) speaking archeologist from Peru that want to put his museum on the map. I created a couple of cats for him so he would feel more at home. Spanish speaking contact and if possible coach suggested. --Foroa (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - they seemed quite determined to have their own way at one stage! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 17:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision maps & Emilfaro

Anyone know what is going on with Emilfaro (talk · contribs), RasterB (talk · contribs), Image:Circumcision by Country.png and Image:Forbidden Knowledge 2.png? Seems there's a bit of trouble over on English about it, and I noticed edit warring here. Emilfaro's user page is also talking about faking images. rootology (T) 23:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We have a hard case pushing sourced and neutral map to the article about Circumcision. See the Archive 43 (could be moved by RasterB, search history). At the beginning the image of mine has been faked by RasterB. To see how take a look at my Knol on it as it has been deleted from Wikipedia as well as Commons. Emilfaro (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
When I deleted the image I invited Emilfaro to e-mail me about achieving a more productive resolution to his problem. Durova (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not my job to catch bugs. But no offence taken.Emilfaro (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
As a courtesy, please revise your user page. It's not really helpful to attempt to solve your problem that way. Durova (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It is the only way, that got me this far. As I didn't even know of the existance of this page. And now I need some time to sleep, sorry :-) Emilfaro (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I have revised my pages as you have requested :-) Emilfaro (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. And best wishes. I hope your problem has resolved itself. Please give a heads up if it continues. Durova (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

HELP!! I'm trying to download the image of Merchant's National Bank in Mobile at the resolution on file on Wikimedia (1200 x 1600). The link to it is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:56_St._Joseph_Street_Mobile_AL_01.JPG.

My problem is that I don't see a "download" option anywhere. This being the first time I've used this service (as opposed to Getty, Veer, etc.) I can't find where to perform this function. I already have an e-mailed release from the photographer (who e-mailed me the link to your site).

HELP!!HELP!!HELP!!HELP!!HELP!!HELP!!

- Kaye Smith kaye.smith@luckie.com

HELP!! I'm trying to download the image of Merchant's National Bank in Mobile at the resolution on file on Wikimedia (1200 x 1600). The link to it is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:56_St._Joseph_Street_Mobile_AL_01.JPG.

My problem is that I don't see a "download" option anywhere. This being the first time I've used this service (as opposed to Getty, Veer, etc.) I can't find where to perform this function. I already have an e-mailed release from the photographer (who e-mailed me the link to your site).

HELP!!HELP!!HELP!!HELP!!HELP!!HELP!!

- Kaye Smith kaye.smith@luckie.com

Click Full resolution then right click on the resulting image and select "save image as..".Geni (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OTRS check

I need an OTRS check on Image:Line 91.jpg. I doubt that there is one but since the template is there... BTW has a time limit on OTRS pending been discussed anywhere else? /Lokal_Profil 16:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Taxonavigation

Could an admin please add the Smith System (for ferns) to the list on Template:taxonavigation/classification? It is locked from editing, so there are currently a lot of red links in the fern taxonavigation (see e.g. Category:Polypodiales). --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why has this been deleted instead of hooked in like all the other such pages? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Galleries are supposed to have media. --O (谈 • висчвын) 20:40, 19 July 2008 (GMT)
It would have been more courteous to ask the creator "Did you accidentally neglect to include the gallery?" rather than summarily deleting without any notification or discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

categories with wrong name

Moved here from spanish Cafe:

The following categories Acient Achaia and Category:Acient Patras have a bad name, their names should be Category:Ancient Achaia y Category:Ancient Patras Can any admin rename them? thanks. Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 commons es 12:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
done :) -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 13:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:2008 Election suffrage poll open

The poll is opened for 31 days at Commons:2008 Election suffrage poll per discussions and has been added to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details so that no one can possibly miss it while it is open, even if they do not log in daily or check Village Pump and Admin noticeboard, where I'm noting it's open. Please weigh in. :) rootology (T) 13:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Images from Svensk porträttgalleri is misspelled

Category:Images from Svensk porträttgalleri is misspelled, "t" missing in "Svenskt". Can any one correct? Note that the template Template:Svenskt porträttgalleri assigns this misspelled category and needs correction too. /Klebom (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the typo on the template, and put a request through on User:CommonsDelinker/commands. The old category can be deleted when it's empty and everything's updated. —Giggy 11:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image can not be rendered

There is trouble with image:1st US Armored Division SSI.png. sometimes it is there, sometimes it is not - the full size image is there, but all kinds of smaller versions (be it thumbs, or the image for itself) on some page will be displayed, on some pages it will not be displayed and changing the colors or the size of the uploaded image don't change a thing. the image in question does still only appear randomly... even a svg version, does not work: image:1st US Armored Division SSI.svg. after over 300 graphics uploaded this is the first time I run into this problem. Does anyone know what the problem is? thanks, --Noclador (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's worked for you in the past, chances are it's an issue with the servers. If it's still not working in 48 hours, then we might have a problem... until then we wait it out. —Giggy 11:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
See;
This has been going on all day. System is very slow at generating new images at some requested size. I've been getting the alt-text for about an hour. If you try and view the image, you get a 500 internal server error. After a while you get your images. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

User:Trist.tlc.123 was warned in March about uploading photos which breach copyright and the user has done it again. Bidgee (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

These are also copyvios Image:Phone-room-1-telethon-2007.jpg, Image:Phone-room-2-telethon-2007.jpg and Image:Natalie-barr-te-telethon-2007.jpg have been taken from http://telethon.7perth.com.au/view/telethon-weekend/phone-room/ . Bidgee (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, deleted & user blocked. Regards --Herby talk thyme 10:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible bot-net exploits - heads up

I've been a bit slow working this one out but having discussed it with a few folk off wiki I think there may be attempt to place spam links with a view to attracting folk to a site which may contain trojan downloads. In turn these machines can be used in a distributed bot-net fashion to place links (spam mail or whatever).

This & these caught my eye. The domains there are now blacklisted at Meta so cannot be placed again but I doubt that will stop people if they are determined and doing it in the way I think they are.

Can I ask admins (or anyone else) seeing these sort of pages on Commons (or other wikis) to let me (or Mike) or a steward or project CU know. The users need checking and any sites blacklisting. For those without access to the detail ask me - the domains were theamazingsysrem.ws/spiderweb & ezy-money.ws/spiderweb (note /spiderweb - that might come up again I think). Any one with any queries feel free to ask. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a nice notice to see. I'll report in if I see any. Thanks for putting this up here. Regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 15:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Flickr images not found

I was just poking around and noticed that Category:Flickr images not found is crazy backed up--500+ images. I knocked out a few, but it needs major TLC from multiple folks to catch it up. :) rootology (T) 18:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok not poked around in this cat before (& it does need some work!). So thanks for raising it. However the first two I looked at just left me more confused - one had been deleted & the other was a "private" picture.
What assumptions do we/should we make over stuff like this? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This is where it gets confusing for me as well, and I wanted to get some more opinions on it. User_talk:Rootology/Archive_1#Mistaken_deletion is how I came into it--this is all old stuff that may predate a lot of us. Let me ping ShakataGaNai, I think he knows more. rootology (T) 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Good - I feel less inadequate now :) --Herby talk thyme 14:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Part of me says delete unless we can verify the images, since we have no way to know in some cases whats up, but... lets see. I pinged Angela and Erik Moeller also about this, since this was when they were more involved. We may need to just manually flickrreview all these? I don't know. rootology (T) 15:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Going to be good to get some input in this thread. The next one I got to (here) is now "all rights reserved" (there is a pair of similar ones). So - what was it when it was uploaded (Flickr bot couldn't find it at some stage) and what do we do?! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Most of those will be when I did a bot run a week or so ago. One positive note is there will be some false positives, such as when the Commons user is the same as the Flickr user. Unfortunately, many are from months or years ago and back then the only user we can inherently trust is User:FlickrLickr. Ultimately, we are going to have to manually review them, the bot failed so that leaves humans. If its 2 years 2 late and the file can't be confirmed I can't see what we can do :(--Nilfanion (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
(BK)As far as I know it was something like if the licence was confirmed by bot or trusted user, we keep it even if the licence at Flickr will be changed, but if that has never happened it should be deleted, because we can't be sure that it ever had the correct licence. But I am also confused by all those discussions concerning Flickr-images which is why I only delete them if I get a speedy from one of the people who work in that area. Maybe they should make a diagram, what to do in what case. Then other people (meaning 'us') could help with the back-log. -- Cecil (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Useful posting Cecil - thanks.
I have no problem working my way through some if I know what I am doing. If this - delete, if that - keep. I do thinking the community need to be happy with this as I forsee a lot of "why did you delete my favourite image" postings. --Herby talk thyme 15:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the ones uploaded by FlickrLickr need review. This tool did not allow anything other than cc-by images to be imported. So, even though they might have since been removed from Flickr, they ought to stay on Commons. I believe that every image here was wrongly deleted. Angela (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Not convinced by the fact that the flickr license being correct means that it is ok for Commons though. There are photos of statues etc that have been deleted, as I understand it, correctly. Then I am not a licensing expert. --Herby talk thyme 16:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, just because the Flickr license is acceptable does not necessarily mean the file is free. FOP is a particular nuisance.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
FlickrLickr can check if the data at Flickr is something that is ok on Commons. What it can't check is if the Flickr-author has given correct data. The bot does not understand flickr-washing, meaning: uploads at Flickr under an invalid licence. I just checked through the first 15 deletion requests there and they were all correct, be it derivative work, violation of FOP or an invalid licence at Flickr. -- Cecil (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"Invalid license at Flickr" - do you mean when the Flickr user uploaded someone else's work or when it is licensed as cc-by-nc? The latter situation is irrelevant if uploaded by FlickrLickr (which only allows free uploads).--Nilfanion (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I mean when Flickr users have uploaded images that they don't have the copyright for. -- Cecil (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, admins should look through Special:DeletedContributions/FlickrLickr. The first file on the list when I looked at it was deleted inappropriately; if non-free Flickr license is the only deletion rationale they should be speedily restored.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cecil here. The fact that the Flickr license "appears" valid makes it no more valid that the licensing on much of the stuff we delete here does it? The other day I deleted this. The Flickr license is valid - however, even to me, it is a clear copyvio. How do we know that FlickrLickr is so correct? --Herby talk thyme 07:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. If a file uploaded by FlickrLickr is deleted solely because "License on Flickr is all rights reserved / *-nc / *-nd" it should be restored (as is the case with this image). If its possible that the image is not the Flickr user's work or is unfree for any other reason there is no point restoring. We know FlickrLickr is correct in the same way we know that Flickr Upload Bot is, it only allows freely licensed images to be uploaded.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok - for the ignorant (me) - how do we know they are correctly licensed on Flickr? The one I deleted above was "correctly licensed" and a copyvio. --Herby talk thyme 07:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
And that is the real pain in the neck! Basically, treat any upload from Flickr the same as you would an upload by a new user on Commons, with a healthy dose of suspicion. Commons:Flickr images/Guide is probably the best resource and Commons:Questionable Flickr images is also helpful. In the case of the image I referred to in my reply, its not exceptional quality and was taken with a EOS 300D, which the Flickr user clearly owns from other photos. Like the guide says "EXIF data is your friend".--Nilfanion (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
(EC) What is the question here? How to detect flickwashing? Same way we detect wikiwashing (i.e., copyvios on WMF projects), for instance for a celebrity shot:
Look at other images from the Flickr user. Compare EXIF data (if present). Different camera models used? Copyvio. Google search. Found elsewhere? Highly likely copyvio. Search professional databases. Found? Copyvio. Does it look like a scan? Image has watermarks? Low-res only? Highly likely copyvio. Flickr user is not a "pro", but image setting looks professional? Highly likely copyvio.
See also Commons:Image casebook. Basically, if the image would be problematic if uploaded originally here, its Flickr license cannot be trusted. See also Commons:Problematic sources. Lupo 08:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
OK - that is very helpful & I am learning. Hopefully others will pick something up from it too.
Returning to the original topic of the thread on Category:Flickr images not found which is the situation with licenses that are not available "now". I've come across "image deleted", "you are not permitted to view this image" and licenses that are not compatible.
As Cecil said above I've always understood that if the license "was" valid that is ok. But we have situations here where maybe the original licensing cannot be trusted or, in the case of unreviewed ones where it may have been but is no longer or no longer available.
I'm happy to work on the cat but I'd prefer no to make more than my usual number of mistakes! --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
If the file is deleted or "you are not permitted to view" (meaning the image is set to private view) and it has never been reviewed by the Flickr review process (or by FlickrLickr) we don't know the source, so no-source tag it like any other uncertainly sourced image. If it is currently available under an unfree license and has never been reviewed either delete it or tag it with a failed {{Flickrreview}}, following the instructions on Template:Flickrreview. Generally, it is probably best to keep old files (<2007) with a failed review and delete them through COM:DEL and speedy recent uploads.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh and if you doubt the copyright status of the image and can't readily find it on Flickr, speedy it; its not worth the hassle. If you doubt the status, but can find it on Flickr, go through the advice Lupo and myself gave above and deal with appropriately (basically: speedy if you are certain its bad, COM:DEL if you think its probable). Only pass a Flickr review if you have no doubts.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Useful instructions and appreciated. I'll take a stab at some later on & maybe others seeing this thread will give it a go too. BTW what did you say your password was - easier if the complaints come to you :). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite a few of the old ones (2005/6) have quite legit reviewers (Angela, Para, Andre Engels). I take it we can safely assume that they got it right when the files was originally uploaded? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

An example

So let's see. This is now a private picture. But it passed Flickr review in November 2006. It looks to me like a mistake that it is now in that category having passed once? Cheers (I promise I will get the hang of it in the end but it may help others too!). --Herby talk thyme 09:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep that's fine. The problem there is with FlickreviewR, it shouldn't have changed a "pass" to a "uncertain", I'm going to poke Bryan about that...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The code has stayed pretty much the same over the years. I can vouch that the code to review a pass, fail or pass change has been correct ever since I ended the test round November 2006. I don't remember though why I ran a second run over some images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And to answer a question Nilfanion sent me by mail:

  • Does the bot still show this behaviour?
    • If an image is for some reason revisited, it will replace the old tag disregarding its previous status.
  • Do you have any idea which files were treated in this manner?
    • As above, don't remember. I will see whether I can find anything documented.
  • Are there any other circumstances where FlickreviewR may have changed a "pass" to any other status?
    • As above, when the status really has changed and the image is visited for a second time. This normally does not happen unless I order it to do so or somebody fucks up the image page.

-- Bryan (talk to me) 20:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bryan, if I had to guess as to why you ordered the re-run it was when the EXIF check was introduced (and it would have been logical to overwrite prior reviews when it was instated). I'm not sure if the revisiting behaviour should overwrite a pass though.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Derivatives and dupes...

This image was uploaded a while back and is a trivial edit of this file. The oldest Commons file is a Flickr image with license confirmed, but the derivative was not tagged. This is not a serious issue, as it doesn't need license confirmation again. However, I'm worried about a problem that could well have occured, not to do with derivatives but duplicates. Take the following example:

  1. Image:Oslo Subway.jpg is uploaded through FlickrLickr in 2007
  2. A duplicate file is uploaded at Image:Jernbanetorget stasjon2.jpg (which is the preferred filename) in 2008
  3. The older image is replaced and deleted.
  4. The new version is Flickr reviewed and passes.

Now, as the last step here was a "pass" there is nothing more to worry about with this image. But what happens if the review failed? The following chain of events is possible:

  1. A file is uploaded from Flickr to a useless location (eg Image:150379909 2dab6565e5 o.jpg) and its license is verified by FlickreviewR
  2. The Flickr user changes the license
  3. A duplicate version is uploaded on Commons and replaces the original
  4. The original is deleted
  5. The new version is Flickr reviewed and fails.

If the duplicate does not link back to the original we would have no way of confirming the status of the image, so we would be forced to delete the image. What measures can we take to preserve the chain of evidence in these situations? All I can see is making sure that when administrators clean out CAT:D, they check for this sort of situation and ensure the license is copied. I wonder how many Flickr files this has cost us.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Holding Flickr images to a higher standard than other sources?

Every minute of every day, people are uploading images, claiming that they are the photographer. They are unable to provide a link that proves their authorship, but we're not tagging those images with "no source" because "no source" means "you didn't state your source", not "you stated your source but now you can't prove it". As a result of the above thread, we're now tagging as "no source" images that do state authorship, do state their source, and even do provide a link to the website. We are tagging them "no source" not because no source is provided, but because it is no longer possible to prove the source claim. Many of these images were uploaded by trusted longtime users and even administrators. Why do we not trust these people? And why are we demanding proof for Flickr images, when we demand no such proof for images from other sources? Hesperian 12:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If not the source, can you prove the license? If we don't have access to the original page on Flickr it will fall into {{No source since}}, {{No license since}} or {{No permission since}} - which are procedurally identical, and arguing about which is the correct one is just semantics. To be able to host an image which isn't made by the uploader we need proof of the license - which typically means a link to the website with that license, to OTRS or that its PD. Maybe "uploaded by an administrator in 2005" can be treated as an equivalent level of proof to a present {{Flickreview}}, and we can discuss if that is reasonable, but can you give an example of one of the "many images" in question?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You haven't responded to my point. Every minute of every day, people are uploading images, claiming that they are the photographer, and that they release the photo under a given license. But there's no proof! Are you going to tag every alleged "own work" photo as "no source" and "no license", just because uploader can't prove they're telling the truth? No you are not. Every minute of every day, people are uploading old photographs that they say they scanned from old public domain books. But there's no proof! Are you going to tag every alleged "PD-scan"/"PD-art"/"PD-old" upload without a link to an online source as "no license" and "no permissions", just because they can't prove they are telling the truth? No you are not. So why are we doing this for Flickr images? Hesperian 13:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
That's really not the issue. If someone says it's their own work, that's fine - we tend to assume good faith here unless given good reason otherwise. If however they say they got it from flickr, then we need some evidence that the flickr user released it. If we can't see the image, we don't have evidence. It doesn't matter if it's a flickr image or something from a film - if the uploader is not the author, we need evidence of the licence release. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Matt sums it up pretty well. Its not that flickr is held to a higher standard than other images--its held to the same standard as any other web source, but since so much of the useful images we can use come from flickr, which has built in CC functionality, we have a couple of processes specifically for it. For example, of my images that I upload, I don't put flickr as a source, even though I put some of them on my own flickr as well (at this time) as an Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 license. When I put them here, I simply use the 3.0. But, if I never posted a word on any talk pages and wasn't part of the community in a speaking capacity, and just uploaded images--there would be no reason to not trust them. So, it's not a higher standard; it's just that when someone says, "I got that photo from HERE," it's a more stringent standard in that we now follow through on where they said they got it. Silly? Possibly, but it is what it is. rootology (T) 13:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd add to what Matt said in that, we treat the claimed creator of the work equivalently. We assume good faith and assume the Commons uploader of self-made work is the copyright holder. We assume good faith and assume the Flickr uploader of a Flickr image is the copyright holder. In both cases, if their uploads are suspicious we start distrusting that person.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyvios through uploads by User:FlickrLickr?

Hi, I just came across an image uploaded by User:FlickrLickr and filed it for deletion as it seems to be a copyright violation. In this, I attempted to follow following guideline at the FlickrLickr user page:

A picture uploaded by FlickrLickr is a copyvio! What should I do?
There are two possible answers to this questions. Sometimes Flickr users mislabel other people's photos as Creative Commons licensed. Flickr makes that very easy, as it chooses the same license default for all pictures the user uploads. FlickrLickr volunteers may not recognize such a copyright violation and upload it to Commons, assuming that the image is free. Such pictures should be dealt with as regular copyright violations through COM:DEL or speedy deletion.

Others thought likewise and filed similar deletion requests. Some of these were actually deleted and then restored, simply under the premise that images uploaded by FlickrLickr are always ok (see, for example, this case and this log). I am now confused as the FlickrLickr user page itself suggests that copyvios are indeed possible and several admins consider FlickrLickr infallible. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See the thread just above this one for more discussion on related issues. As for your concerns, there is confusion here which needs clarifying. There are two sorts of copyright violations relating to Flickr. One is when the Flickr user uploads someone else's work and freely licenses, and we copy it; the Flickr user is the one breaking copyright. The other is when it is the work of the Flickr user, who does not license it freely, so it is the Commons user who committed the copyvio when they uploaded. The first sort of violation is the sort referred to on the FlickrLickr page. The second sort is the sort that FlickrLickr inherently prevents, so on that aspect it cannot upload a copyvio.
Now with regards to the images you refer to.
  1. The one you have just submitted a deletion request for was taken with a phone camera, so is probably the users own work. As it was uploaded by FlickrLickr, we know that it was available under cc-by-2.0 at the time of upload. The fact the user has since changed their license is irrelevant. If you doubt that the Flickr user created that image, rephrase your deletion request. If however, you believe it is their own work then because FlickrLickr uploaded it we know that it was available as a freely licensed image then.
  2. The image that I overturned the deletion request for is the same, but somewhat more unusual. Again, the deletion rationale was "license on Flickr is not free" but we know because FlickrLickr uploaded it that it was freely licensed. The image is unusually old, but the Flickr user seems to be a competent photographer with a long history, so it is likely to be his work. I restored that file because the nomination rationale "Flickr license is Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works" is an irrelevancy.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
That image is actually interesting. It was uploaded through FlickrLickr on July 30, 2008, reported at COM:DEL the next day (visible in the one revision you did not restore), and deleted on August 1, 2008. The image was uploaded at Flickr on July 13, 2005. And the Flickr user changes his license just the day of the upload at the Commons? Looks fishy to me. How current is FlickrLickr's database? Does it check before uploading that the license didn't change between the date it added the image data to its database, and the date the image file was taken from Flickr? If not, there's another source for confusion through the following scenario: Flickr user uploads an image in 2005 as CC-BY. FlickrLickr comes along in 2006 and records the image as "Flickr URL, CC-BY" in its database. In 2007, Flickr user changes the license to CC-BY-NC. In 2008, the image finally gets uploaded to the Commons by a FlickrLickr user. Technically, such an image is fine (CC-BY is not retractable), but it may look like a mistaken FlickrLickr upload. FlickrLickr should state in the image description the date it found that CC-BY license. Lupo 08:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think something fishy may be going on as well. I think we need to contact Eloquence to find out what exactly the bot does. One thing I fear is that the bot has malfunctioned due to a change on Flickr and it is able to upload files that never were free - but I can't verify that either...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I have removed the deletion request for this image. However, I would like to ask

  • to add a notice on the images uploaded by FlickrLickr that tells when which license was found at Flickr (as suggested by Lupo),
  • to describe more clearly that the license status is indeed verified by FlickrLickr itself and not just by some human user who might overlook something, and
  • to use the {{Flickr-change-of-license}} template whenever a change is detected. This includes those cases where such images are restored because the bot is trusted.

The point is that not everyone of us (apparently including several admins) is familiar with the FlickrLickr process but such license issues must be easily verifiable by everyone. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good points. I hate all the nonsense that Flickr forces on us, and will try and work out how to streamline things. I'm tempted to do a bot run to add {{Flickreview}} to all FlickrLickr uploads, with FlickrLickr being the user parameter. This should solve the majority of issues.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with that - no image from flickr should skip the flickr review process. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

TOL specialists

Could someone with more botanical expertise than me (not difficult) have a look into the Category:Lemons and Category:Oranges because I am under the impression that Cillas confuses botanical and popular categories. --Foroa (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Theshaft

Could someone delete this Fucking mouse? I notified the user and gave them a vandalism warning. I doubt they are here to edit seriously.--Paloma Walker (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the page and an upload - I agree they're very likely not going to be a valuable contributor, but I'm not blocking quite yet.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Uploads by Ulicnihodac

I could need a second (third,...) opinion to the uploads of Ulicnihodac (talk · contribs). They all are just about en:OK Kakanj, but for most of them the different teams of the last few years obviously posed, so most of them were no snapshots, but made by someone professionally. Can we trust that this user is the official photographer of the team and also allowed to publish all his work for free? -- Cecil (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Cities and villages restructuration

Special:Contributions/José_Luis_Abaixo seems to reorganise all the cities and villages in Spain by placing massively category redirects (which will not be executed) without any form of discussion or consensus. Could a specialist have a look at it ? --Foroa (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge accounts

Hello, could someone please delete User:Freiddy?

I didn't create the 2 accounts on purpose. I have [19] at Wikipedia, and saw the "global sign-in" system. When I converted it into a global sign-in name, I wanted to log-in to the Wikimedia Commons, but forgot that my old account already existed and had a different user name. So I accidentally created another account on Wikimedia Commons User:Freiddie. This meant that I wasn't able to link to the old account and a duplicate was created.

So is it possible for an administrator to delete User:Freiddy on Wikimedia Commons, and redirect the pages to User:Freiddie? I have already moved all the info from User:Freiddy to User:Freiddie.

Another idea would be simply to usurp User:Freiddie and transfer everything to User:Freiddie, but I'm worried that it might affect my other linked account on Wikipedia (if that's true). --Freiddy (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll want to ask at COM:CHU. There is no way to merge contributions but depending on what account has more contribs it is possible to usurp, redirect, etc as needed to give you the desired outcome, especially so since you already control both accounts. Think about what you want and post there. ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll see what I should do. --Freiddie (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

IP marked image for deletion

An IP has marked this image for deletion Image:Cyclone Helen 3941.jpg. Can an Admin remove the tag since I didn't steal the image, I infact took it myself in the middle of a Category 2 Cyclone and almost got killed in the procces. Bidgee (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone close it! Their reason is rubbish and if anyone thinks that they can delete just on the means that it has no meta data then they need to think hard for a vaild reason. Bidgee (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedily kept. A baseless allegation, no evidence offered; deserves short thrift. Hesperian 04:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Bidgee (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

deletion

could the images i uploaded here and here please be deleted? LukeTheSpook (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done-mattbuck (Talk) 22:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Jelahi

Disruptive editor engaging in demanding that pictures of Mohammed be removed, personal attacks, and deletion requests for "inaccurate" maps. This user is here solely to disrupt and has been warned. -Nard the Bard 23:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't edited since the warning/report here. I'll try to keep an eye out. Let me know if the issues continue. —Giggy 08:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Images with problems for colour blind people

Hello all,

I have modified an image from Images for cleanup - Category:Images with problems for colour blind people.

Original image:-

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:USA_military_relations_2007.png


Ammended image:-

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:USA_military_relations_2007b.png#Summary


As the image is a derivative work of a Commons Public Domain image I have tried to upload it using derivativeFX but it did not work. I also tried to upload the image and overwrite the orignal, but as a new user was prevented from doing so. How should I proceed from here, is it possible to delete the original image so that I can replace it with the modified version?

Any help much appreciated

Bha9023 (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

An obvious answer would be to wait a few days and then upload over the original. Or, just add it to the "other versions" info. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason to not upload over the old version. The change is trivial, and nobody should be choosing to use images which pose difficulties for colourblind readers.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Dirty Bob photos

Hello everyboy - "Est modus in rebus" Dirty Bob photos category is just ... that, dirty photos, claimed as such, and a possible self-promotion. I checked a couple of pictures, apparently none are used in articles. Is Commons the place for a porn photograph repository? Is there a policy on that kind of file? Or is that a case for a "mass deletion" request? Michelet-密是力 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked 3, 1 was used. Nothing against those files. OTRS confirmed. Can we get some of those in Category:Malformed mammae? Siebrand 22:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Just check that the relevant pics ARE dirty bob, the uploader has been known to apply that cat to ones which aren't covered by DB OTRS. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The technical term is probably "mammal hypertrophy". OK, leave it as it is, then. Thanks Michelet-密是力 (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

OTRS query

Can someone with OTRS access take a look at these contribs. I have my doubts about the OTRS validity & even if they are valid it looks promotional to me. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And see here too. --Herby talk thyme 12:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

These OTRS tickets look somewhat "self-made" to me, as the target URL ("available here for OTRS...") doesn't direct to OTRS but to an outside webpage (http://www.shinekid.com/) that has a copyright notice CC-NC-ND, thereby making the images unfitting for Commons. But, truely more troublesome is the make-up of a fine-looking "fake" OTRS-ticket, eventually made without any bad intention. --Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
✓ Deleted & notified the user - I think this will require someone who knows that language though.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Another OTRS one

The pic here has an OTRS tag on but it looks a bit unlikley to me? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 Didn't find anything, I guess we can delete the image and restore it if there's something incoming. Regards, →Christian.И 14:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brigate Rossonere.jpg

This image is from a Italian site that gives permission to use text and images requiring attribution. The uploader inserted an {{Attribution}} tag but below s/he inserted a {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} tag.--Sdrtirs (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with upload

I have just uploaded an image and I have put it into the articles in German and Bulgarian that regard the person I photographed, Urs Faes, a Swiss writer. Now, the image appears in the articles, but it appears as non existent in Wikimedia Commons (please, check this too). I also have problems with the description of the file: I did it thoroughly and it appeared only in the section "Comments"? I can't understand what is the problem, would like to know whether I provoked it unwillingly. Thanks. --Neva (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The image now shows fine, but the upload comment still isn't on the image page. We had a similar problem on July 31; it seems to be some kind of server problem. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10#Server hiccups. Lupo 19:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like this is the same problem again. I found a number of similar images without descriptions uploaded between 17:19 and 17:39 on 31 August 2008 (UTC). All fixed manually. Lupo 08:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I put the license manually too. Unfortunatelly, I had the problem with the disappearing upload comment and license for the first time on August 25th, so I think that there are maybe other images with lacking info in this period. --Neva (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hm, Image:TheWorldWontListen.jpg is a different case, it appears to have been uploaded without upload comment at all (the upload summary in the file history is completely empty). Incidentally, this image is also a copyvio. Lupo 10:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it seems it is a copyvio (sorry!), but that was not the point: I filled every part of the form as usual and then it came out there were no comment, neither license. Anyway. Lupo, would you please look at my Talk page and see wether the other two photos are to be considered copyvio too? Thanks alot. --Neva (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Camera location information for Image:Potturinn.jpeg

Could an admin please move the camera location information from Image_talk:Potturinn.jpeg to Image:Potturinn.jpeg? Thanks. Nerzhal | ?! 20:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done -mattbuck (Talk) 20:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

en.wiki stalker has followed me onto Commons

Nathanial Ott's Moms Clitoris (talk · contribs), a sock of Jetwave Dave (compare the user name to Jetwave's confirmed socks). Please block this account indefinitely. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked him due to his inappropriate user name and his non-constructive contributions. Regards, →Christian.И 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt help. Parsecboy (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete

This user's a lot of cont. must be delete. bygem.gov.tr: "Her hakkı mahfuzdur" means all right reserved and wowturkey says:if you want to use our image you must take permission from photographer. Thanks--Machiavelli talk 23:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else have a take on this one? Cirt (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I am only posting this because I was kindly asked to do so. I confirm that "Her hakkı mahfuzdur" = "All rights reserved". I will not be monitoring this thread, page, or wiki. E-mail me if you need any other clarification. -- Cat ちぃ？ 23:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment, as a Wikipedian whose mother tongue is Turkish: Mach is right; most of the user's contributions are indeed copyright violations; bygem.gov.tr and wowturkey both state very clearly that photographs found on their web sites/publications are indeed under copyright and in both sites there's no statement that points to a CC licence. I don't know how user came up with those CC licences; because in both sources there isn't a single line about photographs being under a CC licence... - Noumenon talk 02:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. I believe I got all the images that listed "bygem.gov.tr" as the source, would appreciate it if someone else wanted to go back over the user's other contribs though. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gave the user a copyvio notice at his talk page. This is his 2nd such notice, so if this continues further a block is in order. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

75.47.xxx.xxx ip's

Please see User:Kanonkas/Admin Sandbox, these ip's are currently disruptive & seem to change to a new ip after a day. Recently I saw this edit which was more or less a personal attack directed at me. I'm asking more attention from admins to watch out for these ip's. --Kanonkas(talk) 13:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The exact range seems to be 75.47.128.0 - 75.47.159.255, it's a AT&T DSL range from Brazil. Multichill (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Vickywhitaker

This user has just re-uploaded deleted files that were the subject of a discussion at w:en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and in one of them has left a particularly vile edit summary directed at Alison (talk · contribs). Thanks, AC aka --Kelsington (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done user got indef blocked by Herbythyme (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes). --Kanonkas(talk) 16:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes - sorry I was in a hurry. Also the information has been posted to the CU list as there seems to be an en wp connection. --Herby talk thyme 17:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both :) - Alison ❤ 18:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Głos PSB.jpg

Could you please check if this image has a valid OTRS ticket.--Sdrtirs (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Will someone dare to take action on COM:FOP deletions

Commons:Deletion requests/Le Corbusier artwork (DR open since July 1) and Commons:Deletion_requests/own_photographs_violatoing_COM:FOP (July 18) ? Either hack them (and prepare to hack many thousands more) or change backbone policy. Current ambiguity - Don't ask, don't tell - is the worst of three possible scenarios. NVO (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There were a few smaller ones too, before I made the large one (that one really showed the problem we have). AFAIK they all are closed by now except the Le Corbusier one. And there is a really huge amount of images still waiting to be noticed (it was just France, and just architects). The users simply don't know about FOP (which normal fotographer knows about something like that) and upload in good faith. So something definitely needs to be done, either by more information about the existence of this law or by changing the rules and putting a template on the images (this image is not yet really free in France, Italy, Belgium, and a few other countries). -- Cecil (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is still Commons:Deletion requests/Images of skyscrapers in France... Lupo 10:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
That one was not made by me. But since I've made a lot of the other ones I think it would be unfair if I made the decision in that request. -- Cecil (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think the key here is what is the FOP law in the country the building is located in. From this discussion it seems there is no such law and the images are not free. What about the Soviet Union/Russian ones? It also is clear we are not consistent in how this is enforced. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

thing is no one is consistent in how this is enforced. In much of the world where there is no FOP there is a tendacy to let it go unless they can think of a particular reason not to. This isn't an acceptable atitude for commons though.Geni (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I applaud user:NVO for nominating his/her own images and bringing this to the administrators' attention. Since we have a clear rule about COM:FOP, it is a violation on our part to keep all those images. And since we're not changing the rules, our inaction on this issue makes us all a part of this violation. Of course there are lots of images from Russia and France with the same problem, but since no one brings it to our attention, we do our best to locate and deal with the images one at a time. However, when there are clear cases like this, and there are no on-going discussions on changing this particular rule (as far as I know), we have to remove them altogether. Or is it too soon, and there's an ongoing discussion about this somewhere else that I should check out first?
We're not consistent on how we enforce the rules on Commons. We let some people slip in images that violate the rules just because the uploader is trusted or has been around for sometime and assumes good faith. I volunteer to do the job and face hundreds of hate messages on my talk page. Again, please let me know if there's an ongoing discussion about changing the rule on what to do with thousands of images that violate our FOP rules. Thanks --Kimsə (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User uploading obviously copyrighted images

Socom88man (talk · contribs) has uploaded several M-16 related images, either as having been posted on Flikr or as PD-self, but they are obviously from the Colt website. Can an admin speedily delete them as copyvios? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done thank you for reporting. --Kanonkas(talk) 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

trying to create an account named Dr.J. can you help?

Concern on Tor node blocks

I am posting to let the community know that I am concerned with blocks placed on Tor nodes by Kanonkas with no reason other than the fact they are Tor nodes. Because of my CU role I am aware of a number of valuable contributors to Commons who post via Tor nodes. As we still do not have IPblockexempt as an option I believe these should not be blocked unless there is evidence of vandalism on the IP.

As I am rather inactive I would appreciate others views and attention on this. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll limit myself to only block abusive TOR nodes if that sounds good. --Kanonkas(talk) 15:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Please do. I thought I had made this issue clear to you at several points and that you both understood and agreed blocking only those used abusively was acceptable. I am not happy to hear you are blocking TOR nodes which are not being used abusively.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how, as a non CU, you could identify abusive/non abusive tor nodes, Kanonkas. If there is Tor abuse the CUs will know about it and act accordingly. If there's vandalism off an IP that happens to be a Tor node, block it for a few hours so the vandal goes away, don't block it forever and potentially stifle useful contributions. My opinion, which I've given to you before. —Giggy 03:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
IP editors abusing TOR → TOR node gets blocked. In such cases I have no problems with blocking for 1 year. Obviously logged-in users abusing TOR are the purview of the project CheckUsers. Note also that we have mw:Extension:TorBlock on all WMF wikis now, which should reduce the amount of abuse from both registered and non-registered users using TOR. There is no need to go "hunting" for TOR nodes; feel free to block abusively-used IPs as required to curb abuse.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Blocking a single TOR node long-term due to abuse seems a bit odd to me, since it only takes a few seconds to hop to a new one. TimVickers (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
That's why we have TORBlock.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone else care to review?

These? Now I guess the user could be a highly skilled photographer attached to Russia military/air force.... Maybe it is just me & I'll do AGF but another opinion would be good. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Very unlikely that the same photographer is able to take navy and air force images. I checked the first 4-5 pictures, and here's what I've found. If you have tineye.com account, you can search for Image:Su35.JPG and see that it has 39 results varying from Chinese newspaper people.com.cn (which says KnAAPO photo) and Brazilian internet provider uol.com.br to Australian air power ausairpower.net (which mentions the same KnAAPO).
Image:Hms helsingborg.jpg is also present on Czech technik.ihned.cz. The article was written in December 8, 2007 and the uploader claims the date of taking the picture as June 26, 2008. I don't think he's the original author of any of the pictures. --Kimsə (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Lorca Deportiva}}

This template don't have an OTRS permission, so the permission may not be valid. This may be an issue due to recent image uploads based on this template.--Sdrtirs (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The original wording from the pasted e-mail on es.wp isn't good either, because it limits use to Wikipedia. Maybe open a regular deletion request and ask involved people to clear this through OTRS? Patrícia msg 20:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Lost image

For some reason, the image Image:La Argentina - Del Barco Centenera - Portada original.jpg can not be displayed. The description is still there as it should, nobody has deleted it or uploaded a new version, but the image is not there. Is this something that can be fixed by an administrator, or is it needed to upload the image again?

A copy of this image (wich is PD due to it's old age) can be found here, if the image is lost for some technical reason and you need a replacement Thialfi (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's displaying fine for me at the moment (may have been a server hitch). Giggy (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done The first uploader uploaded a new version of the image. I didn't thought it would work, but it dd. There's no more need for concern Thialfi (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's interesting why the first version of the file cannot be viewed. It links to an archive of other old thumbnails. --Kimsə (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

fr wp opinion required (admin would be good)

Could some fr folk take a look at this page & this page please? They strike me as rather "promotional" maybe? The user concerned uploaded a collection of Flickr images that were "all rights reserved" and has now amended the license on Flickr & asked me to restore them. Looking at the two fr pages I am not sure whether they are actually required.

If they are required & I am not around it is fine if anyone else restores them. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Herbythyme, for the information. Well, I'd say the project could certainly live without these images. They don't add any interresting information and, to be honnest, are not very... nice to look at. We certainly won't keep them for their artistic value. The articles also need to be netralized a bit, by the way. Alchemica (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright, the article where Image:Soiree raid nice.jpg was visible is now gone, and the other one got a wee bit thinner. I really think we can get rid of the picture, which will certainly not be "useful" anymore. Alchemica (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Diagrams on Mersenne primes

I just messed up trying to upload an updated version of Image:Mersennecifras.png, but somehow the old version already in the server replaced itself again and again. Then I changed the name of the file I have stored in my hard drive to Mersenne.png and tried to upload so that its destination name were Mersennecifras.png. It was uploaded correctly, but with the wrong name! (Image:Mersenne.png) I would like an admin to rename Mersenne.png to Mersennecifras.png and fix the history of the file. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I don't even know why the file didn't replace itself correctly. Sabbut (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kevin Sweeney.jpg - death threats

Image:Kevin Sweeney.jpg is a photo of someone who was incorrectly convicted and subsequently acquitted of murder. In Wikipedia Bio noticeboard a user has claimed the subject (Mr Sweeney) has received death threats and therefore the user has removed the link to the photo from the Wikipedia article. If these claims of death threats are true, I believe Wikimedia Commons has a moral duty to remove the photo entirely, as anyone sufficiently motivated to issue death threats would also be sufficiently motivated to trawl back through the article history and uncover the photo. A quick trawl through Google Images leads me to believe this Wikimedia photo is one of very few photos of this particular Keven Sweeney. I have no particular interest nor evidence, I simply wish to bring this discussion to the administrators' attention and will leave any further action/investigation/decision up to the administrators. My only interest is to ensure that the Wiki project avoids potential legal/moral problems and therefore remains available as a valuable resource to me. Evilandi (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed the links (thanks). Agreed, ✓ Done, cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Contributions by User:Gabriel Moginot

I'd like an administrator to review this user's contributions to ensure they are, in fact, free. This user claims to be a photographer for several large international publications, which is fine and I have no real reason to dispute that, but the images they are uploading appear to be stills from shoots for those magazines, which would presumably be owned by the magazine itself. I'm not very well versed on policy in this area, so if somebody else could provide some insight that would be great. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the user should get a verification on the images from OTRS? --Kanonkas(talk) 23:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Possibly, but they've since been blocked on the English Wikipedia for self promotion, which is what this appears to be. So, whether its a copyright violation or an advertisement, it still probably isn't appropriate for Commons. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin action for Image:Camelia.jpg

Could an admin please look at the history of this file, then split the new file to a different name. The old file is used on en:Camelia, which clearly does not have the correct image right now. I think the old file should stay at the original title, the new one be moved elsewhere and placed in Category:Camellia. Thanks. Mindmatrix (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We can not split, But we can revert and delete and thats exactly, what I am doing now. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 15:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done cleaned up. The other file will have to be uploaded again. abf /talk to me/ 15:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you also take care of Image:Natural.jpg, Image:Pinus.jpg, and Image:Musgo.jpg which user has also vandalized? -Nard the Bard 11:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
✓ Sorted I think :). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather odd contribs

These seem a little "odd" to me. How would this user know things about other users & most of them are in other people's user spaces? Maybe someone else could take a look. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks innocuous to me - looks like housekeeping relating to the userboxes more than anything: This looks odd until you see it is associated with this. Maybe he shouldn't be moving User talk stuff to User (I know some en users deliberately keep their user page as a non-page and have user info in the header on their talk...), but its not a big deal.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please complete a deletion request by uploader

From looking at the history of Image:Jean-Dominique Bauby.jpg, it looks like the uploader tried to mark it for deletion by uploader request, but it didn't work. That was over a week ago. Can a helpful admin zap it? For what it's worth, if the uploader hadn't asked it to be deleted, I'd be nominating it for deletion now; it says it's public domain, but provides no evidence, and the comment says (in Russian) "from doc.film", presumably meaning from a documentary film. --GRuban (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Evaaaa

Can a Spanish-speaking admin check Evaaaa (talk · contribs)'s contributions? They seem rather weird to me. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done I've deleted most of the images/talk pages as out of project scope. Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 13:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Acount setup failure due to username collision

Hi, admin, To upload images to Wikimedia Commons I wanted to create a new account by entering my username "OCTopus" (German Wikipedia) and my password but failed to login. The message said: "Login error: The name "OCTopus" is very similar to the existing account "Octopus" (contributions • logs • user creation entry). Please choose another name, or request an administrator create this account for you."

Could you please create this account for me to let me use my username for Wikimedia Commons, too? Greets --84.138.91.114 13:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you try to use m:SUL? --Kanonkas(talk) 13:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
That works, thank You! --OCTopus (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Scientology images

Resolvedimages restored, no more discussion needed.--Kanonkas(talk) 12:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
See previous discussion at Commons talk:Licensing#V for Vendetta mask.
This is a photograph about a V for Vendetta mask? How can that be argued in seriousness?

See this. Has this been discussed anywhere prior to deletion? What was in all those photos that was so copyrighted? Please tell me it's not the vendetta mask... Are we going to delete all costumes on Commons? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to concur with Steven. I hardly see how photos of people wearing masks at a protest are "derivative works" of the masks. I was never asked to take part in the discussion about deletion of my work of the protests, that are used on many articles about Scientology on en-wiki, and this appears to be a unilateral decision. --David Shankbone (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, we have been discusing the issue here. The design seems to be copyrighted, and all the photos were about the protesters using those masks. I really don't care if we are to delete all costumes in Commons, if they represent something copyrighted, they are not free content, and shouldnt be allowed in Commons. Cheers, Gizmo II ¿Eu? 20:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The photos aren't of the masks, they are of the protesters. I don't think anyone could care about the masks. So, what you are saying is that if a person happens to wear a Scooby-Doo shirt to a protest and we photograph them, them wearing it, it is not free content? This appears to be a decision made by two editors discussing it, and surely a wholesale deletion of 50 images or more of protesters deserves a bit more community review than that. I apologize I don't have an all-seeing eye on every discussion, but it seems customary to let people know their work is under review for deletion. But I fail to see how the presence of an item in a protest would make it a "derivative work", especially since the masks are hardly the focus of the photography - I don't think anyone was there trying to photograph masks. This is very troubling how this has been undertaken, especially given the heavy usage of these photographs. That, and your reasoning is flat wrong. --David Shankbone (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. I believe that many of the uses are de minimis, and even if they are not COM:DR should have been used. Anonymous101 talk 20:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it is a wholesale deletion, nobody can even see the images now to see what is being talked about. For instance, out of the 50 images or so, can you now point to the ones where the photos were about the masks? --David Shankbone (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What wing-nut started the discussion about deleting this? You'd have to zap every picture of someone with a bottle of coke or a t-shirt from their favourite band under this convoluted logic! --Brian McNeil / talk 20:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention any logos from companies, computers...just about every image on commons. This is ridiculous. And as david said, two editors having a discussion, that is not on a deletion request page, is not a consensus. Maybe if there were 3 or 4 images I could see this reasoning, but 75+ images? Something stinks of rotting fish. DragonFire1024 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Uh... Gizmo II taking a picture of something that's trademarked or copyrighted doesn't violate the mark in question. If it did, we couldn't have pictures of corporate headquarters (trademarked logos), or of things like this picture. So this is just silly. Gopher65 (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Brianmc, there was not proper dr about deleting any of the images. (Actually, few of the images have previously had drs with clear consensus for keep) Anonymous101 talk 20:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The picture just added is not a picture of the mask. It is a picture of a person, protesting, holding a sign. If it were for the mask then it would be cropped to show nothing but. DragonFire1024 (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed at Commons_talk:Licensing#V_for_Vendetta_mask by 3 editors. I strongly object, unless it's a very close picture showing only a mask, this is de minimis. Apparently, ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) is undeleting now. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with David Shankbone, Stevenfruitsmaak, Brianmc, Gopher65, and DragonFire1024. This is ridiculous to have deleted all these images and I am glad they have been restored promptly. Someone needs to fix up the mess with Commons Delinker quickly. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Stevenfruitsmaak for bringing this to my attention, I am pleased to see that by the time I learnt about this the images, including many of mine, have been restored. It is a great shame to see dozens of my images which I've put a great deal of effort into getting being deleted so quickly, based upon Gizmo getting agreement from one other user. I find it quite bizarre that Gizmo, who hasn't been particularly active on Commons lately, would suddenly appear, raise this apparent issue and take this action. Adambro (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to reconcile this comment by Gizmo II (talk · contribs) when he restored this image Image:V for Vedetta Mask.jpg, with his subsequent comments when discussing and then deleting many other images:

20:30, 14 September 2008 Gizmo II (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Image:V for Vedetta Mask.jpg" ‎ (4 revisions and 1 file restored: The mask is not copyrighted, and not originally from the movie or graphic novel, it's of common use.)

It appears to be 2 very different positions about these images in a very short period of time. I also agree with Adambro (talk · contribs) that this user's behavior appears to be quite odd. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I regard my position to licenses as correct, but maybe I rushed and should have proposed a DR, I admit it. It's not bizarre, and there is no obscure conspiration behind this, dont get too excited. I'm not regular in Commons, I do my edits on spanish wiki, and the article for the movie V for Vendetta was in a FA review, and the images caught my attention. I restore an image that was deleted under deritivative (the one Cirt points) and I began to discuss with another user from wp.es about the copyright status of the masks, which is why I brought the question to the place in Commons where licensing is discussed, COM:L, because I began to doubt my reasoning for undeleted it was right or not. As you see, there isnt something funny or conspirational involving this, please dont regard me or my actions as bizarre or with a double-meaning, and, Shakata, dont threath me again or I'll block you for violation of one of Wikimedia's pillars. Cheers, Gizmo II ¿Eu? 22:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
maybe I rushed... - "maybe"?? Yes, most certainly. Deleting tons and tons of images like that and then sending Commons Delinker off to wreak havoc across multiple other wikis without a DR discussion and just a talk page discussion about it between a couple users is most certainly out of process and inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I ask for Gizmo II (talk · contribs) to give up his status as an admin on Commons voluntarily. As others and he himself has already pointed out, he doesn't come on to Commons, and this latest action was no small problem. I remember when I applied to become a reporter for Wikinews and there was a lot of concern about keeping my photography work limited to Commons that I neither understood nor thought merited in the least. We have here exactly why they have these concerns, which have now unfortunately been reinforced. For someone who does not use Commons to have done this action--which a review of the material shows in no way makes the vast, vast majority "derivative works"--I think he should voluntarily desysop. I would not have made such a call had he responded with an, "Oh, jeez, I royally screwed up - sorry guys!" and not met with only a few comments defending his actions as correct. David Shankbone (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Suggesting a conspiracy is silly. Pointing fingers and threatening to block other admins is silly as well. Let's keep it calm and avoid unnecessary drama here. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Please remain calm and civil. Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Etiquette.
I was just begining to write an apology when I saw your post. I've been doing some thinking and now realized my actions were incorrect, and for that i apologise to all people who may have been harm (i doubt that is the correct word) or pissed in any kind of way. I've been a Commons admin for almost two years now, and this is the first time my actions bring such a fuss. I know now I should have thought it all over and follow a more 'by-the-book' procedure. I hanged on my actions before because I felt like I was being attacked by all sides, even insulted, which I was by the way. I was elected admin back in those days to care about content coming from the wp.es when we closed our uploads and to help my fellow mates back there who dont speak english or dont get a grip of the 'commons way'. I will now return to those jobs, if i'm not desadmined. Of course, I'm willing to make up for my mistake correcting the Delinker logs and whatever needs to be fixed. My apologies is all I have. Cheers, Gizmo II ¿Eu? 00:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)I apologize for my contribution to the trouble. I was myopic in my analysis as I was originally only involved in explaining that yes a mask could be copyrighted and that pictures of the masks in general would therefore not be free. I didn't really look into the fact that these weren't pictures of masks per se but pictures of protesters. I can't speak for Gizmo, I've never run into him before, but I may have inadvertantly urged him to this course of action by my adamant arguing that some other editors were wrong regarding the application of US law re masks and the implications of the Berne Convention, nothing at all to do with the ultimate question. I did not intend my input to be a final decision. Sorry.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 00:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you both, and I've retracted the desysop request. It's worthwhile to point out that copyright paranoia is a very, very contentious area and it's one where painstaking efforts of process are wise to employ if there are questions whether material is suitable for Commons or not. Anyway, I think the issue is resolved from where I sit. --David Shankbone (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

duplicate interstate signs

I put alot of Image:Interstate 110.svg and others for light blue tag of {{Duplicate}}. How long and when will those iamges been delete. normally it's by 24 hours or what?--SCFReeways 22:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It takes time but it will get fixed. --Kanonkas(talk) 22:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Official portrait johnso.JPG

I tagged the image back in September (3rd) but no one has commented nor has it been closed (whether it should be kept or deleted). Bidgee (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done, deleted. We have a rather hefty backlog on deletion requests. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem getting an image reviewed

Resolved

I have submitted several emails regarding an image. User:Rjd0060 seems to think that the permission given in the emails is not enough. Can I get someone else with OTRS access to review the correspondence? Evrik (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, Evrik, you sent me (to my personal email) different emails than the ones you just sent (a few minutes ago) to the wikimedia address. One of the ones you just sent to wikimedia is fine, since it shows the copyright holders response. This is the first I've seen that. Anyhow, with reference to the emails you just sent to OTRS, I've tagged the image. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

user:Flickr upload bot

Flickr upload bot (talk · contribs) This bot has a serieus malfunction and uploaded some images over 6 times. Even when there is nothing wrong with the image. Or even worse he places a bad version over a good version.

This problems are more than 2 weeks now. Maybe whe should temp stop the bot so it can be fixt first before it runs again.

Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 20:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Platonides (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes). Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 22:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I have fix't all files this bot created that don't have image's or licence (34 pieces). Now let's hope that the bot is fixt soon. Sterkebaktalk 03:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, let's hope … but apparently this is not a new issue, see my questions at User talk:Bryan, 2008-09-17 (messy uploads since 2007). I guess the higher notice of the bot's bugs is due to its recently increased usage. Perhaps someone promoted the bot a few weeks ago somewhere, dunno.
Hmm, I have no idea if there's a real chance that it will be fixed soon as Bryan seems to be too busy to work on such Commons issues atm … perhaps looking for other volunteers is a good idea? --:bdk: 14:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the web interface now states "Due to ongoing upload corruption, this service has been temporarily disabled. I hope to fix this after the weekend. Apologies for the inconvenience. Bryan, 1 October 2008." :-) Thanks, Bryan! --:bdk: 08:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

image:Schweinsbach Niederschlag.png

Could someone move the picture image:Schweinsbach Niederschlag.png to image:Niederschlag Münchberg Bayreuth.png? I generated it for using in my article Schweinsbach, but now its been used in the german Wikipedia in some other Articles. --Iglheaz (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hat kurz gedauert bis ichs verstanden habe: Der Namen ist unpassend, da es auf alle Ortsteile Münchbergs und nicht nur auf Schweinsberg anwendbar ist, richtig? Ganz einfach: Bild unter dem neuen Namen selber neu hochladen und die alte Bildseite mit {{badname|Image:Niederschlag Münchberg Bayreuth.png}} löschen lassen. Einfach umbenennen können auch Administratoren nicht, und mit {{rename|neu.jpg}} dauerts erstens, macht die gleiche Arbeit wie badname und ein Bot macht nichts anderes als das Bild neu hochzuladen. Viele Grüße, --Martin H. (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoax contributions

Please speedy Special:Contributions/Raldo.

User has been blocked on it.wiki.
Thank you,
--M7 (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't get it, what about these images is a hoax? And can you give a link showing he's blocked on it wiki? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciale%3ARegistri&type=block&user=&page=Utente%3ARaldo&year=&month=-1
The municipality of San Vito De Medici (and the homonimous Saint) do not exist.
--M7 (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef here now and images deleted. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Promotional users

I found two users who both seem to have an involvement with promoting golf and other commercial enterprises & who have uploaded a number of copyright violations.

I'd appreciate anyone taking a look at this user and this user contributions (deleted ones too). They are editing from the same IP addresses however they are editing concurrently at times so are probably not the same person. I do feel that the intent is promotional though. The images appear to be being used on en wp to promote hotels, businesses & the like.

I feel blocks on both would be appropriate however rather than being hasty I thought I'd ask :) Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted this users logo uploads though marked/licensed as own work they link to a source page with a clear copyright notice "© Viajes Beda S.A. de C.V. 1984 - 2008. All rights reserved. " will check the rest of the images and delete where appropriate. Gnangarra 12:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Gnangarra - no idea how I missed that :(. Even more reason for a block (I've let en wp know via teh CU list). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Blackholdups.jpg

This is a really difficult request. I have never dealt with one like this. What would you do? Should we trust the IP? abf /talk to me/ 14:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is probably related to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#Harassment. This person must provide further evidence, some random claim won't do. I'd close that as keep. Patrícia msg 14:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:PD-Finland50 images requested for deletion

Do we need a unique speedy category/queue for this one topic? Category:PD-Finland50 images requested for deletion rootology (T) 16:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Penarc

This user is a serial copyright violator, constantly claiming works as much as 100 years old as "own work", with warnings stretching back a year and a half. Surely it's time to start enforcing on this user. -Nard the Bard 01:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days --Mardetanha talk 02:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:ZZeBaH Punk

Yet another serial copyright violator, with many warnings but no enforcement. -Nard the Bard 01:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked - thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Leoyazn

Yet another copyright violator with a series of dubious "own work" photos but no enforcement. -Nard the Bard 01:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All images deleted and user have got his last warning --Mardetanha talk 02:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Mt Dew ur mom

Inappropriate user name. Sole upload appears to be a copyvio. -Nard the Bard 01:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

They've been warned. Given the username, I'd be shorter with them than normal, but no block yet.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
user just had one contribution which was deleted . but about user name as i checked with some native English speaker they told , it is coming from the joke. so it seems to be Inappropriate but i think it is better native English admin decide about this --Mardetanha talk 02:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks mike --Mardetanha talk 02:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Vitinho1st

Yet another user with copyvios and warnings back to August, but no enforcement. -Nard the Bard 01:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have nuked all his images --Mardetanha talk 02:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Great. You also gave him another "final warning" despite the fact he received one on 30 August. -Nard the Bard 02:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I always look to blocking as last step.--Mardetanha talk 02:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"New" user uploading numerous images with implausible claims of origin/ownership

Newly registered user User:ChucksBike-O-Rama has uploaded numerous images related to Sarah Lawrence College that are claimed to be self-made or from a personal collection but are unlikely to be as claimed. Many of the images have the characteristics of published photos (some clearly have the little dots of a screened photo), several are obviously formal portraits of people (probably official portraits from the college files), and the diversity of topics (including portraits, photojournalistic images, air photos, and sports action) and time span covered (more than 75 years) are not consistent with being one private person's own work. Although this is a new account, the user clearly knows their way around Commons and knows what to say on the upload form. I've nominated several of the images for deletion, but I think that all of the user's contributions probably are falsely characterized, and that the user should be appropriately sanctioned. Because of the subject matter of the images (ephemera related to Sarah Lawrence College), the characteristics of the images uploaded, the user's name, and a burst of related editing activity at EN, I believe this is another manifestation of the same sockpuppetry (prolific EN sockpuppet Jvolkblum) and flickr-washing problems described earlier at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archives/Attention_5#New_sockpuppet_activity and Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archives/Attention_5#Sockpuppeter. --Orlady (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I oppose both the opinions and actions of Orlady in respect to my recent addition of images to Wikipedia. As I said in my response to several image deletion nominations, these images are from my personal collection of college photos and documents. I am a member of the SLC community and have a large stock of related materials dating back throughout the schools history. I do not believe that the diversity of the images (ie. topics and time) necessitates such accusations as brought forth by Orlady. The additional details in her notice (or what I feel to be more like her 'conspiracy theory') are of no relation to me whatsoever. While I have limited abilities when it comes to the technical aspects of computers and the internet, I do not find the processes of Wikipedia very difficult to follow. I have viewed Wikipedia a million times and understand that there are many who enjoy working on the site on a regular basis. My motivation for signing in as a user was to share material and improve on the school pages.Thank You. --ChucksBike-O-Rama (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
There is also a sock report on this user at en:Wikipedia:SSP#User:Jvolkblum_.2818th.29. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've filed CU reports at en wiki and here on commons: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama and en:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama... blocked and tagged. will crosslink to en when done. ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started to review the Commons contributions of the users that Lar blocked. Contributions by 22Barclay, ITWEEPS, and CNRSeminary appear (at least on superficial review) to be either PD material or amateur photos (in some cases amateur photos contributed to EN by other Wikipedia users and added to Commons by these users) that are acceptable for retention in Commons. The material at Special:Contributions/Duuuracel also might be OK. All of the contributions by AgentHart and ChucksBike-O-Rama are highly unlikely to be be "self-made" as claimed; I think all should be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Geezalou imported many files from EN and may have uploaded others directly; I have not sorted through them all. However, I think there might be a license problem with Image:1910GWBromleyMap2.JPG and several other images acquired from davidrumsey.com. These are old maps that are tagged as PD, but davidrumsey.com claims an "Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic" Creative Commons license. I think that someone better versed than I in licensing issues needs to figure out the appropriate handling of these images. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Orlady--the thing to do here is make a group nomination for deletion. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
In slogging through the histories of the blocked users, I find that, in violation of procedure, one of them (User:Civlov) closed two deletion discussions for his/her own images: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NRHSaug08.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NRHS2aug08.JPG. (Another participant in the deletion discussion had helpfully advised Civlov to replace the obviously invalid source/license information on these images with correct information. Civlov supplied a new version of the story of the inages' creation, but I don't believe it. After that, Civlov closed both deletion discussions and removed the deletion templates from the images.) I don't know Commons culture well enough to know how this kind of thing should be handled at this point. --Orlady (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting policy statement added

Admin "mattbuck" (Talk) MichaelMaggs (talk) just added the De minimis policy statement, but it conflicts with the precedent Licensing policy statement. This isn't a matter of convenience, but poses a legal liability risk for Commons. I have started a discussion at Commons talk:Licensing. Is there a higher level policy discussion somewhere? Do Commons officers/attorneys need to be involved? —Danorton (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't panic. There is no real conflict and there is no problem. I suggest keeping the discussion in one place where you originally started it, namely Commons talk:De minimis#Policy Conflict: Crops of de minimis images. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Who's panicking? We disagree on whether or not it' a problem. I'm simply posting here to ask for additional administrator oversight and confirmation that this does not warrant corporate legal review. —Danorton (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? Where did I add the dm policy statement? I think you have the wrong person. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I have corrected my original statement above. —Danorton (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Bulk copyvio uploader?

This user was asked (in two languages) to cease uploading watermarked images. They appear to have continued uploading quite a lot of images from www.zielos.de. I've deleted quite a few - to me that are either copyvios or possibly intended to promote the website. Other views welcome - cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have asked the user one more time in German to not upload watermarked images and to confirm via OTRS that she is indeed the woman who has made the images. -- Cecil (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Cecil - the support is appreciated. Regards --Herby talk thyme 13:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it's a copyvio. I rather think it's the owner of the website tryiong to upload their images on commons. notafish }<';> 08:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Joseac15

All the contributions by the user are copyvios. On es-wiki we are extremaly saturated on reverting his text copyvios also. Could you please block him? Thank you. --Dferg (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is important to protect his talkpage. I have blockt the user and i think he is angry about it. The only way to show that is with his talkpage. I think a revert is enough, but if he does it again i will make sure he can't edit the talkpage again. I think he needs to calm down. Sterkebaktalk 10:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If he keeps doing it I would reblock and disallow talk page editing. Protesting is fair enough but not if it keeps going on :). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say three times your out! I give him a new block. Sterkebaktalk 14:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA discussion of provisional adminship at en.wiki

It would be helpful if some of the Commons:Bureaucrats involved in the discussion at Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/SterkeBak/Bureaucrats discussion could comment at w:Wikipedia_talk:Removing_administrator_rights/Proposal#New_proposal_-_provisional_adminship - where editors are discussing the possibility of implementing a similar idea. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, since I am not very acquainted with the dynamics of en.wp and its community, and I also think that the technical requirements for admins on both types of projects are fundamentally different, I'll decline any commenting there. Thanks for pointing it out though, it's interesting they are also thinking about it. Hopefully some of our en.wp active bureaucrats will comment there. Patrícia msg 10:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know the communities are different, just a friendly FYI/heads up, for those that might want to comment. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyvios surely?

Most of these (the recent & obvious one) seem to be screenshots & copyvios or is it just me? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Would need OTRS from the broadcasting company. The letter is a copyvio, too, would need permission by its author, not by its recipient. The photos of him in the Radio Studio would again need permission by the photographer. In any case, looks very much out of scope and self-promotional. (Note that the uploader claims to be Andreas Klemm. The alleged news wire company seems to be an insignificant one-man-show.[20]). Lupo 17:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Uploading mistake

I found, categorizing pictures, this: [21]. In the discussion is written "Please excuse: This is an error. I intended to upload this image as a new image, but instead I destroyed a former image uploaded by Benjamin Lefèvre that matches here. I contacted the author on his personal page, apologized and asked him to repair the image". Something interesting? Servo Vostro--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done fixed, next time you can just use the revert button! I hope I solved the issue. Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 17:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Other duplicates

I put pale blue tag on Image:Interstate 215.svg for 4 days Can somebody deelte it?--Freewayguy (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Giggy (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Erm, when looking at both of the files, they're not exactly duplicates. I can see the difference. --Kanonkas(talk) 10:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Singapore MRT

Singapore MRT I cannot judge if a vandale is acting here, but I saw strange things in the history. Can someone have a look. Havang(nl) (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There are only three edits in all of October. Can you be more specific and give diffs? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The edit of 19 sept is a strange change, destroying a section: [22]. Two later anonymous edits are changing sectiontitles without correcting the 19 sept. edit. Havang(nl) (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done I reverted the edit of the anon and preserved your edit.[23] It looks like profound ignorance, rather than malice, to me. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Havang(nl) (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thumb is not working

Hello. The thumb of this image Image:Tughra_Mahmuds_II.gif. I uploaded today a new version and since then, there is no thumb version. But the thumb of the earlier version from 14. October is gone too. This thumb was there until the new version of today. A revert to the old version could also not fix the problem. What can I do now? --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thumbnails have been only working sometimes right now. Hopefully it will get fixed soon. Nothing to do but wait. J.smith (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
It is still not working. Since days! --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Email abuse

I'm a sysop at en.Wikipedia, where I blocked an account for its username and vandalism. I'm now getting dozens of abusive emails from its account here, User talk:BUT AND itemLOAANS ... IT AND .. ITEM LOADS (same username as at en.W). I've disabled my email link here but could someone take care of this user? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Kanonkas(talk) 22:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Kanonkas was faster than me.. I have seen the emails, this kind of user is the kind we don't need Sterkebaktalk 22:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The ones he sent from Commons (which you saw) were toned down. Thanks y'all! Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Filbot tweaking

Just a heads up that filbot is malfunctioning. Tagging a lot of my legitimate uploads and what not. Annoying actually. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Should be resolved soon, see User talk:Nesnad#?. Giggy (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

OTRS check required

Could someone check the OTRS ticket for this image Image:CDSidebarsCover.jpg? It needs more verification than "sent to OTRS according to". This and the users similar uploads have been deleted as copyvios per the deletion log.-Paloma Walker (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Permission is now verified.--Paloma Walker (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Lenkererhebung1.jpg

Please immediately delete Image:Lenkererhebung1.jpg. It was an accidential upload by me and it includes personal data. Thank you!--DI Florian Fuchs (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done by ShakataGaNai. Please consider using {{speedy delete|reason}} next time. Regards, →Christian.И 07:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nuke

Hi all,

If you look at this you will see that te most images are copyvio's some already deleted some not. Logo's from soccer teams where i am not sure the are free.

Is there a way to handle this, we need to tag one by one? or can it be nuked.

Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 03:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing most of his contributions: booom. Multichill (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sterkebaktalk 07:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mama Jane Njenga.jpg

Hi Commons admins and other more knowledgeable folk,

What's the proper procedure to complain that I don't believe a particular picture (Image:Mama Jane Njenga.jpg, in this case) is really the author's work as claimed? I have no idea where the picture came from, but the user who uploaded it has an "interesting" history of interaction on en, and nothing in his interactions on the articles surrounding the use of this image (or of Image:Ed Kalnins and Thomas Muthee in Africa with Rick Joyner books.jpg, for that matter) indicated that he had ever been to Africa. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wasilla Assembly of God and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas Muthee for details) The user in question was blocked for sockpuppetry on en, and hasn't chosen to return even though that block expired a couple of days ago, so I suspect there may be no more information forthcoming from him. At any rate, I'm relatively new here too, and just wondering whether this is a legitimate matter for investigation. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to a deletion request. Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 10:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I actually found the source from which it was copied without attribution, so I marked it with {{Copyvio}} instead. Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Attention/Archive_5&oldid=371842462"