Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention/Archive 4

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

2 duplicate files need DELETION

Hi: I made a 'mistake' naming 2 files of mine, and reloaded the exact same pictures with proper file names. I just wanted to ask if an admin has time, could they delete for me the old 'duplicates' They are same pictures with different, more descriptive file names are already uploaded. Thanks--Mikerussell 05:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please replace image.

I made a new version of an existing image by another author, but it won't let me replace the old image.

Old image: Image:Parabola-and-inscribed triangle.png

New image: Image:Parabola and inscribed triangle.png

Please copy the new image onto the old one. Thanks — Jim.belk 06:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done, and marked Image:Parabola and inscribed triangle.png as a duplicate.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Vthapsus sheet.JPG (done)

Would an administrator be willing to review the arguments at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vthapsus sheet.JPG and decide whether or not to delete it? The debate has been inactive for a month now, (and the template been on the image page for two). Circeus 21:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 

… --Polarlys 23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting an image

I have uploaded an image, without searching good enough the facts about source, author and license information.

So I would ask you to delete the image, and I will later be sure that I have all the information cleared befor uploading any image.

The Images filename is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Herbert_Chapman-1.jpg

Uploaded by me, the user: polljen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Polljen (talk • contribs) at 16:18, 20 Aug 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 16:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the history of file description

I have a question (hope this is the right place to ask): is it possible to delete the history of file description? While updating this file a year ago I revealed my name, which I would now like to keep private. Is it possible to delete the file description and then re-create it without my name (in the history)? Thank you. --Milan.sk 13:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I or another admin would be happy to delete any revision for this reason. I had a look at the image but I can't find the offending version. If you could email me with specifics I would be happy to do it. cheers --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It's in the edit history. / Fred J 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing a protected image, en.wikipedia mainpage, and WP:ERRORS

Someone reported an "error" at en:WP:ERRORS. The image Image:Braveheart edinburghcastle.jpg does not explicitly say that it is William Wallace. It instead just uses his nickname, "Braveheart". Through google image searching, I'm convinced the image is actually of William Wallace, so I am asking someone who can edit protected pages to please simply add a note in the description that the image is of en:William Wallace. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 03:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. -Aude (talk | contribs) 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Lynn.art uploads

The uploads of this user look worth review to me. The website that is on the pictures does not appear to exist and I would question the validity of the licensing. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, [1] exists. About the licensing and to verify that this user indeed has the rights to upload and license their images, I would contact office@lynn-art.com per e-mail. If the licensing turns out OK, photoshop away the advertising (name and web site). Tell them also that we frown upon (visibly) watermarked images, and that we give credit not on the images themselves but on the image description pages. Lupo 11:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Really must learn to use this internet thingy! No idea what I was trying to get to so thanks Lupo. I've left a message on the user's talk page which will hopefully result in some action - cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Juiced lemon - one man initiatives and initimidation

  1. One man initiative -- while other people are still discussing the subject
    • User:Juiced lemon seems to think it is necessary to make a mess of category:Bruges. A number people are still discussing, but ignoring this all, juiced lemon just empties categories, creates parallel category structures, makes moves against consensus etc.
  2. Threat
    • Somehow, he thinks it is good behaviour to make threats to other people ? [2] Quote: "Stop to remove the move requests and to empty the pages I create, and I'll stop to move the files." I don't even know what that's supposed to mean?

--LimoWreck 23:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a mess. Every time we try to discuss the point and put things back allright, he starts spreading it all around again, without any consultation. I think it's clear we all want it to be correct and consistent, but therefore we need DISCUSSION. Wikifalcon 08:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

More problems

Also here User_talk:Juiced_lemon#categorys are problems with categorys. He made a strange mix, uses unknown or wrong names, no discussions, not a policy, and no reaction. Can something be done to protect commons against users making such problems? --204.13.236.244 23:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yikrazuul's uploads

User:Yikrazuul has uploaded a series of World War II pics (see towards the bottom) claiming PD as the licensing. However, there is no way to verify this status and there are also issues with captured WW II German photographs that make their fair use status questionable (they can be claimed as fair use). I suspect that they are just using the PD tag as an expedient. BrokenSphere 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have started a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/WWII WWII images uploaded by Yikrazuul (the extra WWII was due to a mistake). It is not yet complete though, but its a start. / Fred J 20:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I can add what I find to that list. BrokenSphere 21:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Review a mistake please?

I've made a mistake (not my first & probably not my last!). I deleted this image "out of process". Having deleted a number of uploaded images that have been used as "shock images" across projects when I saw this one I went into "vandal mode" and deleted it and hit the block button. Reflection indicated that this was not a "one off" contributor but an established Commons user. I guess I was then distracted - anyway I did not get back to it again and had forgotten it until I had a message on my talk page.

So - should this go back for a deletion vote, should it stay deleted (& is it correctly licensed)? I have apologised to the user on their talk page. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, license looks good, and it was by a regular contributor. I'd say undelete, but please don't ask me to look at it again :). --SB_Johnny | PA! 12:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I have restored it. --MichaelMaggs 12:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Request account creation with "similar name"

I'd like to register under the name "Kim.o" but can't since it's appearantly to similar to the existing "KIMO". Registration page said I could ask an admin to create it for me.

  1. I've used the name on Wikipedia for a long while
  2. It's based on my RL name
  3. KIMO has no contributions

I guess you'll need to email the pw: wingstwitch@hotmail.com. Thanks. --82.209.155.212 17:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please make reference to an existing account with the same and an edit with that user about this request. Cheers! Siebrand 18:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
...What's your reasoning there?
The only reason the software stops this account being created is to stop "impersonations", right? I'm guessing there is not much value in impersonating someone who makes no edits. So (my 2c) I think we should be pretty open when it comes to fulfilling these requests. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
My reasoning is that this user would like to assume the name User:Kim.o on Wikimedia Commons, because he claims to be Kim.o on another project. I'd like to see him confirm this on his text wiki. If you think this confirmation is not needed, please create the account for the guy. Cheers! Siebrand 12:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh right, good point. I didn't read Reason 1 closely enough. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion: Urgent

Image:AaliMounds.jpg needs to be deleted per an OTRS request. It's a copyright violation and has been tagged such since August 28. The case was closed successful on August 26, and the copyright holder was informed that the image will be deleted soon. But this has not been done yet. Administrators with OTRS access may view the ticket (#2007082610002511). 202.54.176.11 12:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done Sure thing. If it had been tagged with the the {{Copyvio}} tag instead of the {{Speedy}} tag, as the template suggest one should do for copyright violations, the deletion would have gone faster.
Fred J 14:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag of European Union.svg

The image Image:Flag of European Union.svg giving as reason Dupe of Image:Flag of Europe.svg

As far as I know there not exist anything like a flag of w:Europe, so the name European flag seems me not appropriate. For the same reason a name Flag of European Union is much more appropriate (the flag is of the European Union, not of the Europe. So I can not see any reason in deleting Image:Flag of European Union.svg giving as reason Dupe of Image:Flag of Europe.svg

For this reason I kindly request undeletion of Image:Flag of European Union.svg , and I kind ask you to keep in mind that any action take here reflect to any project that include commons image, so before taking action as delete or renaming an image, it should be asked atthe project that include the image (and I think no one would prefer to have the incorrect name of European flag. -- AnyFile 07:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The European flag is originally th flag of the Council of Europe, see: http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/About_Coe/flag.asp
The Council always had more members than the European Union. Thus, its flag can bee seen as a real "European flag". Naming it mearly the "flag of the European Union" would be wrong. See in more depth the article on the English Wikipedia: en:Flag of Europe --ALE! ¿…? 11:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway Image:European flag.svg now gets replaced by Image:Flag of Europe. Image:Flag of Europe.svg is simply a wrong name, in the same way Flag of America instead of Flag of the United States would be wrong (while, otherwise, Flag of the United States is a bad name as well, since the country's name is en:United States and not the United States). Many duplicity problems are created by bad naming. Here we're creating a new problem. --Matthiasb 11:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is only one solution to fix that problem. The image should be kept as Image:Flag of the European Union as well as Image:Flag of the Council of Europe - even if they are appearing the same, still are symbolizing different entities and therefore are different. That means in articles referring to the European Union should be used the former, in such relating to the Council of Europe the latter. --Matthiasb 11:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Speedynote

I have created Template:Speedynote based on Template:Copyvionote because we were not notifying many uploaders of the impending speedy deletion of their files (we were only notifying uploaders of copyvios). Please consider adding the following, a variation on part of Template:Copyvio, to the instructions on Template:Speedy delete text, Template:Bad name, and Template:Duplicate (all of which are protected), or developing and implementing specific notes for them. 

Please notify the uploader of the impending speedy deletion by adding to the uploader's talkpage: <span style="color:purple"><tt>{{subst:[[Template:Speedynote|Speedynote]]|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} ~~~~</tt></span><br />

Here on this page, it would look like this:

Please notify the uploader of the impending speedy deletion by adding to the uploader's talkpage: {{subst:Speedynote|Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention/Archive 4}} ~~~~

Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful to add it to Template:Bad name because that's supposed to be used by the uploader him/herself. When tagging an image with Template:Duplicate, all instances of the image to be deleted should be substituted (by hand or CommonsDelinker), so I don't see the usefulness of informing one of the uploader's the image was deleted. It's of course a matter of courtesy, it's nice to say something but how useful? No objections in adding it to the Template:Speedy delete text. PatríciaR msg 11:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Gerhard Launer images

User:Toppa80 has uploaded duplicates of images because the first lot was marked as not having permission. The second lot has "self made" on it, and does not mention the website (http://www.luftbild-shop.de) nor "Author WFL-GmbH". Images in question are: Lot 1:

Lot 2:

The website mentioned above has a link to the German wikipedia, where the article on this photographer basically has one contributor (Toppa80) so might be a case of selfpromotion? I could not find the photographs uploaded here on the website, but think that we need a OTRS permission for these images. Perhaps someone with German can talk to this user and explain the concerns? Deadstar 08:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:2007 06L 5-day track.gif and en:Image:2007 06L 5-day track.gif

Hi, since that Image is used in other language versions as well it should be maintained at Commons only. Yet there is an issue with that. The version in EN:WP has a lot of old versions, for each of advisories and this makes sense. Could an admin please move those versions over there to the version at commons and afterwards delete it in EN:WP so that further updates will only be cone at Commons? Thanks if you can do so. --Matthiasb 11:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an issue that should be raised at the English Wikipedia, not here. If a local project wants to upload/keep duplicate files from Commons, it's that project's problem. A Commons admin may not be able to perform that task unless he/she is an admin at English Wikipedia. You are welcome to upload previous versions of those files to Commons so they are used in other projects, as you pointed out, and tag those for deletion as duplicates in English Wikipedia. But I'd like to hear other opinions, since I'm not acquainted with local procedures on en.wiki. PatríciaR msg 11:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:FalkirkWheelSide 2004 SeanMcClean.jpg

Someone vandalized this image, so I reverted it, but there is some kind of server error, and the vandalism image file is partially subsisting. I tried purging the page, and it hasn't fixed itself in many hours. This is a fairly important image by the way. Basar 15:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bastique used his magic skills, should be fixed by now. Thanks for bringing this up! PatríciaR msg 16:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it! Basar 06:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

pornography sockpuppets

There is a person who uploads primarily “lesbian” porn, of course copyvios, with several accounts:

I blocked all accounts mentioned above but there are certainly more. --Polarlys 17:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your actions look good - maybe look at User:Spotscourt. Got a feeling it could be an open proxy but can't find anything to support that for now. Maybe User:4chaner as well? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 17:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Why Sportscourt? --Polarlys 21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because of this upload? (Is there a way to preview the image that he uploaded without actually restoring all images? The image this person had uploaded was deleted. In other words: is there a way to preview selected image revisions?) Lupo 13:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Stupid me. Just clicking on the links in the "file history" section gives the preview. Lupo 14:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Believe me I would be embarrassed to admit how long it took me to find that out! I'll sort the IP out later but worth folk keeping an eye i think --Herby talk thyme 14:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • reset

Yep - take a look in the deleted file history (Special:Undelete/Image:FalkirkWheelSide_2004_SeanMcClean.jpg. My bad - I should have picked it up (not that it is exciting). Collection of puppets/friends etc on an IP I think (or open proxy but I couldn't find the evidence & haven't got it with me). Blocked anyway now - cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Italian palaces requested for deletion

Could someone, preferrably italian-speaking, help these people out. See [3] and various deletion request... (is this the right place to ask?) Finn Rindahl 12:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I also asked User:Dantadd (random Italian speaking admin I picked) to have a look at the Italian translation of the Deletion guidelines page as I don't think it's 100% up to date. Perhaps there is someone else that can have a look at that too? Thanks Deadstar 13:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Account creating

Hello, I would like to create the account MickaëlG, but "Mickaël g" already exists. Is it possible to create this account, or must I create another account

Thank you

Sweetest Day/National Candy Day

Recently moved by from Sweetest Day to Sweetest Day/National Candy Day by Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs), who was topic banned at en.wiki for POV pushing on this topic. I don't know if "X"/"Y" article names are against naming conventions here (sorry, I don't do much on the commons side of things), but the naming is essentially more of Miracleimpulse's POV pushing on the topic and doesn't really make sense as "National Candy Day" isn't in any way a name that would ever be used in relation to this observation. I'd move it back, but I can't over the redirect. Could an admin have a look? there is also a Sweetest Day/Candy Day redirect that was created in the process.--Isotope23 12:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done; I judge ample justification exists.[4] Sweetest Day has been protected before and will be again, if Miracleimpulse (talk · contributions · Statistics) persists.[5] Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Historically Sweetest day/National Candy Day is correct. As you can see, the event was referred to as National Candy Day as well as Sweetest Day in many cities:

New York City

Buffalo, New York

New York City

Cleveland, Ohio

Miracleimpulse 16:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Page has been move-protected. Will place a warning on the user's talk page about this, and if it happens again, he will be blocked for harassment. The reasoning for harassment is because of what happened on en.w and here. —O (说 • 喝) 18:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pol Pot

I really would like to know what it is possible to do with the image of Pol Pot and many others of the Khmer Rouge. I worked in the article about Pol Pot in es.wikipedia and it got to be a feature article. The English version is rich in pictures but those pictures are not on Wikimedia Commons. Therefore, the Spanish version is better in investigation than the English one, but the English one has more picture material. Working here in Cambodia I contacted the Cambodian Documentary Center more than a year ago. I told them about my investigation to write an article about Pol Pot in Spanish. I asked them the possibility to use pictures such as the one of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouges cadres plus other materials. They, who are the owners of the rights of author of the material related to the Khmer Rouge, were very pleasent with the idea and told me that the material could be used giving credite to the DC-Cam. I uploaded some of those materials explaining that DC-Cam gave the authorization to use their material in the wikimedia campus. Sometime after they were deleted. Afterward, another uploader placed the picture on commons and we could use again the material in the Pol Pot Spanish version. Then, it came another curios deleting storm. My questions are:

  1. Why this? My identity is well known. I have worked to wikimedia with all my delight. I have gone to DC-Cam expending my own time to have the material in order to get a good document. Is it just to have the pictures only in the English version and not in the Spanish version that is even a better documents? If you should delete the material from the Spanish version, do it with the English as well, though it is better to have in both the material.
  2. Are not we exagerating sometimes with this deleting storms without a real gentle and respectful collaborations with the volunteer work of the wikipedians? If we delete from our unilateral point of view, you give not courage to the work of the wikipedian and your actions could be considere from my point of view a real vandalism to my investigation. In that case, qualify work and professional wikipedians are being treat in the same way that beginners and we would prefer not to "lose" time with wikipedia and start to move our science (I speak in the name of those who could identify with this position) otherwhere. --El Viajero Paisa 13:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the deleted pictures, but thats not the matter. The english WP allows fair use, which enables them to use copyrighted work to illustrate the article of Pol Pot. But fair use is not allowed at commons (read here why) and many Wikipedias (I think the spanish one too). Thus pictures are only then usable if they are really free. You just telling us that you have the authorisation of somebody is not enough. The owner of the picture has to confirm that. And I don't think that your so called deleting storms are unjustified. When there is no real proof that the pictures are really available under a free licence they have to be deleted. Otherwise it would be against the scope of this project. That's nothing against you and all the other volunteers (including me), it is just a problem we have to cope with in a worldwide project with to many different laws. -- Cecil 22:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I should mention what one of the images contained. image:PolPot.jpg, when it was deleted, contained: 

== Licensing ==

{{GPL}}

I feel bad if perfectly legal images were deleted. But evidently, this image is missing permission from the book author, who appears to be Ben Kiernan! Sorry.

Fred J 23:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, then I contact Ben Kiernan by email in the Yale University - I have the email in my archive - who said at that time that the rights of the pictures he used in his books about the Khmer Rouge belong to DC-Cam. I went to DC-Cam and I got their permissions. All those letters still with me. --El Viajero Paisa 13:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, then email those emails to permissions@wikimedia.org . Say that it concerns the images

"Image:TuolSlang8.jpg" "Image:PolPot.jpg" "Image:Duch1.jpg" and "Image:DKleaders.jpg" .

Fred J 18:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Can somebody revert my edition in Image:Escudo de España.svg?. I uploaded a new version of the coat of arms, but there was an error. I want to recover the old version. Thank you. --Durero 18:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Cecil 18:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--Durero 13:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Kyrillic categorys

Not sure about it, but how many percent of the users here can read these signs? Looks like category-forking to me: [6] but I'm not sure what to do. Are these categories really necessary. -- Cecil 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Thumbnail

I updated my image but the thumbnail was not updated. Now the thumbnail does not reflect the changes and it looks ugly. I think this is a Bug with the software because the new version has the same filename and the thumbnail routines do not handle this case properly.

Image in Question: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Happy_Birthday---Commercial_Style_Western_Hemisphere.jpg

Wrong Thumbnail (should be deleted and I guess it will be recreated): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Happy_Birthday---Commercial_Style_Western_Hemisphere.jpg/400px-Happy_Birthday---Commercial_Style_Western_Hemisphere.jpg

Please fix this. To be selfish only fix mine, in any other case put it on the list to delete all thumbnails related to an image if the image is uploaded under the same name again. Thanks.

Thanks - or - hey this fixed itself on it's own. --Mot2 22:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

very odd...

see undeletion request in the contribs here... an image was deleted saying it was a duplicate of another image (it's not), and the warning on the userpage is about another image that was not deleted. No time to sift through it this morning, but follow the contribs (deleted and otherwise) of Manonmex (talk · contribs). --SB_Johnny | PA! 08:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Manonmex's Image:Explorar.jpg was deleted, and the current file was uploaded later. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Explorar.jpg William Avery 11:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, but why was this image deleted then? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Image%3ADr_Ignacio_Alcocer.jpg&file=0ju9a5gdlho7gixjqvx0ijlu3yz9ewib.jpg --SB_Johnny | PA! 16:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted for lack of license. I have handled the issue on the undeletion request. / Fred J 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

uploading pronunciation files in batch

Hi,

I mostly make nl.wiktionary unsafe and would like to upload more pronunciation files. I think that the addition of sound material is a very valuable part of the wikti project period, but I must also admit that creating and uploading material is a cumbersome drag. It would help greatly if one could make a bunch of files (each one for one word!) and upload them in batch so that you do not have to go through the fill-in-the-blank copyright procedure again and again and again and again. And again for yet another word. Is there a way to upload in batch and attach the GNu/FDL blessing on the whole batch at once?

nl:wikt:Gebruiker:Jcwf NlJcwf 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. By the way: why is it that if you happen to make a mistake by not clicking the licence box this is cannot be corrected??? I tried to re-uplaod a file and correct my mistake. No chance. This is really infuriating. I fail to see how we can get audio material for the wiktionaries this way. NlJcwf 22:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To change the license of a file you have to edit the image description page. The license selector does not work when uploading new file versions, since the new version in almost all cases should use the same license as the original file. /81.231.248.36 22:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
And of course there is no help available for that. Nothing clickable underneath the edit page of course. For what reason? Just to make it harder and more infuriating to upload anything?

NlJcwf 22:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi NlJcwf,
There are several tools that allow batch uploading. Have a look at Commons:Tools. Also, do you know about the program, I think it's called Shtooka? It makes it easy to record lots of short files like pronunciations. User:GerardM told me about it; maybe he can give you some advice.
To edit the image page after you've already uploaded the image, just click the "edit" tab at the top of the page like all wiki pages.
If you have any other problems please let us know. cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Some assistance please

Could I ask that someone else at least review this. Given that it is me that seems to have upset them the most I feel I should stay out of it. It is true I deleted a picture of this user's, my recollection is that is was marked as a speedy for a valid reason by someone else - I certainly do not inform people of every deletion I make if it is in other speedies for a valid reason, I don't have that much time.

I do not see that I have acted unreasonably and I have apologised to the user but another view would be helpful please - many thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Here's the image, which got deleted for "valid" reasons The "valid" reason was that there were some problems with Commons images at the moment, and the image did not displayed properly, but I really do not care much about that image deletion. I tried to explain to user Herbythyme that I do not need his/her apology. The only thing I needed that he/she asked me to tell him/her my part of the story and try (just try) to understand why I acted as I did before making conclusions. Herbythyme took a big effort to find a French-speaking person to follow up on the other user complains. He/she did not make any effort to listen what I had to say. There's really no need to review this stuff. I wrote it for myself with the only reason to get some stress out. Few more days and I'll get over it. Another review could only add fuel to the fire. It is time to let it go. Thanks.--Mbz1 16:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese user requested to help solve issue with no source tagged uploads by user:Shizhao

user:Siebrand has been busy tagging many uploads by user:Shizhao with a no source template. For a list, please see User_talk:Shizhao. It includes images such as Image:P-Plate-HK.jpg, Image:Oct.jpg and many other that to me appear to have all necessary copyright info. Perhaps I am wrong, since I cannot read the Chinese characters. user:Shizhao is on the other hand not that good in English and he might not know what the problem is. It is possible that unless someone checks up on this issue, a lot of images will soon be deleted, perhaps for no reason. / Fred J 17:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

All images are properly described and sourced. It is probably the language barrier that's causing this. O2 (息 • 吹) 17:55, 13 October 2007 (GMT)
That meant everything except images that I have not reverted. O2 (息 • 吹) 18:08, 13 October 2007 (GMT)
Perhaps you could add the {{Information}} template to the images, so that we others could see that all necessary information has been added? / Fred J 15:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Images with unknown source as of 9 October 2006

Just wanted to point out Category:Images with unknown source as of 9 October 2006. I saw it when I was looking at Special:Wantedpages. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I added them to Category:Other speedy deletions. Siebrand 08:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone close this req for deletion?

Image:Transparent.gif is up for deletion since september 25. It was nominated with "Do we really need this?". This file is used in userscripts like monobook.js and should not be deleted. Can an admin please close this? I don't feel very comfortable having to wait for possibly months, then possibly have many usescripts broken. Thank you. — Edokter • Talk • 22:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done O2 (息 • 吹) 23:04, 13 October 2007 (GMT)
Thank you. — Edokter • Talk • 14:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Categories

One problem that cascades into multiple frustrations (as a result of several other problems):

Looking at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Categories, it states: "See also Commons:Categories for a hierarchical outline," with a link to "Commons:Categories."

In the first place, "hierarchical outline" should simply HAVE A LINK to the outline directly.

In the second place, I can't find for the life of me anywhere on the Commons:Categories page where I can actually GET to such a hierarchical outline.

Back to the first point, the author of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Categories could (a) be wrong; or (b) not be aware of the fact that a link that USED TO BE on the Common:Categories page isn't there any more (so--again--there should simply be a direct link to "hierarchical outline [of Wikimedia categories]" (text in brackets should be added for clarity).

Back to the second point, if the hierarchical outline IS available from Commons:Categories (which it SHOULD be), it should be made much more obvious (e.g., perhaps even in the heading of the page).

Thanks for (e-)listening!

Philiptdotcom 22:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Special:" pages should have a "discussion" tab, even though the pages themselves can't be edited directly. Otherwise, the process for providing feedback for those pages is too cumbersome/ambiguous for most folks (basing this on "me," a not-completely-computer-illiterate person) to deal with (therefore, most suggestions RE: things that need to be improved will simply never get to the appropriate person for attention).

Thanks for (e-)listening!

Philiptdotcom 22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there could be a link to Special:CategoryTree/CommonsRoot or Special:CategoryTree/Topics . It would be nice to have in top level topics an alphabetic category jump table such as:

Special:CategoryTree/Topics Category-index
0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

or something similar. --Foroa 05:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackheart rpg game

Blackheart rpg game << Something tells me that isn't a valid entry. --Sasoriza 09:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct & thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong license descritpion on upload form

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=ownwork

"GFDL if public domain is invalidated" - someone please remove this text from dropdown box.

A.J. 11:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Matt314 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Need suggestions for improvement of deletion request handling

The deletion requests are bundling up because of the time needed to deal with deletion request. It takes longer to close a deletion request than to open it.

Since the closure always includes the "delh" and "delf", a line, and a comment+signature (in many cases the comment is just "deleted" or "kept"), could that part be automatized by a script? / Fred J 16:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It could. Hmmm... maybe even auto deletion... I'll see if I have time in the near future. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
That's good. In my opinion the deletion request should be used more, and be prefered to speedy deletions in some cases. Deletion requests notify the uploader and gives him a chance to respond; if the toolserver is watching it is informing the CommonsTicker giving the Wikipedias a chance to replace the image before it is deleted, to argue against deletion, or upload it to their local Wikipedia as fair use. / Fred J 10:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


I already do this by script (User:Polarlys/quickbar.js), please ask User:DerHexer for details. ––Polarlys 11:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have tried your quickbar script but couldn't get it to work. How is it supposed to work? Or do I need AW or some other tool installed? / Fred J 11:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll forward this topic to my technical advisor :)) ––Polarlys 11:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, if you want to use all script you should add the content of User:DerHexer/monobook.js. Otherwise you could remove each part separately—but do not remove the last section (User:Polarlys/quickbar.js). … Ask Polarlys what the scripts do. :P DerHexer 19:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
There are possibilities to delete files with a pre-defined reason (“fair use, see … for details”), to close requests (deleted/kept) for deletion automatically (for obvious cases) or manually (possibility to add a reason), to link the discussion automatically when deleting a file and to add files with the duplicate template to the bot's interface for global replacement with one click. That's it. ––Polarlys 23:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be a very good idea if someone (like, DerHexer :)) put this into a standalone page and put it in Category:User scripts. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Like MediaWiki:Delete.js, MediaWiki:DeleteLinking.js MediaWiki:DeleteKeep.js, MediaWiki:Duplicate.js? ;) DerHexer 12:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you anyways. I have installed it and it seems to work very well. / Fred J 12:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't get it to work. --Digon3 talk 14:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Which browser do you use? It works with FF (and Opera, imho). DerHexer 16:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, works with Opera too. -- Cecil 17:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm using IE7. I got the js buttons to pop up but they don't do anything. --Digon3 talk 21:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
@Digon3: you have to be editing the deletion request. / Fred J 10:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I was. :) --Digon3 talk 13:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that it will be possible to use it per IE7. DerHexer 10:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah those damn busy weeks. I had already created something to close deletion requests and delete requested files, but some people are faster than me ;) -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_5#New_script:_UserMessages ;) DerHexer 21:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A bit late now, but if anyone is interested in yet another approach for closing deletion discussions at COM:DEL and wants to try to polish that, see User talk:Lupo#del.req. and my monobook.js (functions closeRequestLinks, delRequestLinks, autodelete, and autokeep). Works on FF, and gives me one-click deletion/keeping of images with nice edit summaries and {{Kept}} templates, but would need work to work with other browsers. Also relies in part on tabbed browsing; I guess opening new windows would make for a confusing user interface. But maybe the open-for-edit thing could also be done via an XMLHttpRequest. Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. Maybe someone finds it useful. Lupo 14:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of the existence of http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/comdel.php ? I used it a few days ago, and although I think there could be a few improvements, it saves a lot of time and gives a nice overview of work. Siebrand 21:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Furry" things

I see Image:Foxie with player.jpg has appeared again. It was uploaded this time by User:Putnik. This image has been deleted, restored and voted on here with deletion agreed and then undeletion request rejected here. I guess others should look at this - cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It actually isn't the same image. In this version, the foxie has panties on. I would say that it shouldn't be speedy deleted. / Fred J 17:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this one is less explicit than the other. It should go through a deletion request if it is to be deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, if only because Putnik is an administrator.[7] Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads of Liftarn

Can someone please close the discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads of Liftarn which seems to be a most inappropriate deletion request. If the member is indeed being disruptive a block etc would be appropriate, threats of mass deletion of personal uploads as well as transwikied files sounds like punitive action and has no place here. --Tony Wills 09:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is inappropriate , but please let it stay open while there is active discussion. Thanks. / Fred J 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I need someone to re-name an image I uploaded

A few days ago, I drew and then uploaded en:Image:Trickling Filter Cross-section.png to the English Wikipedia. Yesterday, I also uploaded it to the Commons, but somehow I made a mistake and named it Image:Trickle Filter Cross-section.png.

Now, the English Wikipedia has two identical images but with different names.

Would a Commons administrator please rename the Commons Image:Trickle Filter Cross-section.png by changing the word Trickle to Trickling? That should result in the Wikipedia having only one copy of the image rather than two, should it not? I will watchlist this noticeboard, and thanks in advance. -Mbeychok 19:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Is "trickling" better than "trickle"? I ask this because another solution would be to tag the en:wp image ("trickling...") with {{subst:ncd|Image:Trickle Filter Cross-section.png}}. Samulili 05:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
And if it's not, just upload the image under the name you prefer and use {{Badname}} to mark the old one as an incorrectly named duplicate and an administrator will delete it for you. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Samulili and LX, thank you both very much. I decided to go with the Template:badname because it was much easier to understand. The explanation of how to use the Template:ncd was incomprehensible to me. Again, thanks to both of you. - Mbeychok 08:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

issues with Image:Tilfleresnytte1823.png

its under icons, but its not an icon. also its HUGE, 4768 × 3694 pixel, file size: 11.4 MB (Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters or PNG file with more than 12.5 million pixels)

please sign your comments with ~~~~. Best thing to do is resize it to under 12.5M pixels and reupload it over the current image. That way we both preserve the original media file and make it fully usable within MediaWiki. Cheers! Siebrand 07:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Voisin brohers

Image:Charlesvoisin.jpg and Image:Gabrielvoisin.jpg seem to be mixed up. See [8] or [9] 15:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

French speaking admin please

Could a French speaker review the post on my talk page here and respond to it. The user (User:Acarpentier) has blanked their talk page (not intentional I think) but the history will show the dialogue that has occurred. It seems possible/likely that some form of puppetry has occurred (voting on FPC), however my competence at French extends to understanding the post not responding to it in an acceptable way I'm afraid. If anyone wants more info let me know, thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to Xhienne for both the posting (here) and the excellent research.
In summary it seems to be a case of "two wrongs do not make a right" (outside my competence in French again!)
  1. There is evidence of puppetry by User:Acarpentier along with good faith editing
  2. There is evidence of some postings that do not assume "good faith" on the part of User:Mbz1
I'm happy to post something on Mbz1's page asking to assume good faith if Xhienne (or Jastrow) could post something for User:Acarpentier's benefit encouraging them to continue contributing via one account only? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You are fully excused for not understanding him, that guy can't write properly in french anway ;o) Michelet-密是力 17:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • There's no evidence of a good faith editing by user Acarpentier, just the opposite. How one could call "a good faith editing", if the user votes 3 times under different names to support his own image here and again here. Please notice the user not just contributing under different names, he supports his own images under different names.If it is "a good faith editing", what is not? I also would like to know what happens, if User:Acarpentier decides that for them own benefit it is better to use few accounts? I also would like to know why user Herby uses words them and their while talking about User:Acarpentier? Would not it be more appropriate to use words he and his, when we're talking about single person? --Mbz1 18:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • In English language you may refer to one person as they (them, their) if you do not know their (see!) sex. Samulili 19:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Samulili. It is great to know, one more English lesson for me.--Mbz1 19:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      • But many would and do take exception to the use of the plural pronoun when the singular is meant and use constructions such as "he or she" or "his or her" or reword the sentence to avoid the use of the pronoun. For informal speech, "s/he" and "his/her" may be appropriate. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving from the discussion of French (!) I think we should keep an eye on User:Mbz1. They are not appreciative of please to assume good faith with Acarpentier. They have deleted posting from me, Finn & Digon (and another user) on this subject. For my part I am happy that Acarpentier understands the situation and will I hope contribute correctly now. Thanks all --Herby talk thyme 07:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems Mbz1 might be leaving the project User_talk:Finnrind#RE:Another_piece_of_unwanted_advice, which is a sad outcome of this exchange. This project really is big enough for both Acarpentier and Mbz1, but appearently Mbz1 doen not feel this way. Finn Rindahl 10:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to be fair and balanced I've deleted all posts from all users and not just some particular posts from some particular users. I blanked my talk pages (both Commons and Wikipedia). Becides after reading the last post by user Herbythyme here at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention about keeping an eye on me I've decided to stop contributing my images to commons all together, you know just to save the time of administrators. Thank you all for your time and for being so fair. --Mbz1 12:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My last post for info in case there is confusion --Herby talk thyme 12:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Dear administrators, I wonder if you still "keep an eye on me"? If you do not, I'd like to start to upload my images to Commons again,please. If you do, I'd rather do not. The thing is I upload many images and I'm afraid it would be hard on your time "to keep an eye on me". Of course, I would not nominate my images on Commons FP or/and Commons quality or/and take a part in any Commons discussions - only upload images. Thank you.--Mbz1 13:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Koalorka unblocked

After receiving an email from the user promising to not upload copyvios anymore, I have unblocked this user on strict parole. Any administrator can reblock if the user uploads copyvios again. O2 (息 • 吹) 02:38, 30 October 2007 (GMT)

This is my fourth attempt, over the course of several months, to ask for a correction of a copyright violation on wikipedia pages. I have received no response of any kind from Wikipedia ('info-en-c@wikimedia.org'). I’ve not been able to figure out how to modify or delete the image.

Image:Emerald_ash_beetle.jpg

The image in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Emerald_ash_beetle.jpg There are actually 2 copies of the image in the database.

The image is associated with boilerplate indicating that it is public domain, a work product of USDA APHIS.

But I have registered copyright to the image, and never worked for USDA. It is simply an error.

Please help me understand how to change the attributions, or delete if that is difficult.

This problem has unquestionably hurt me economically. And it does real damage to Wikipedia, if users must conclude that the project does not respond to a problem of this sort.


DAVID CAPPAERT <> Dept Entomology

1112 Olden Rd <> Mich State Univ

Ann Arbor, MI 48103 <> E. Lansing, MI 48824

734-662-4162 ph <> 734-635 7750 (cell)

cappaert@comcast.net

Yes it should be deleted. Weird respons on English Wikipedia [10]? They could at least verify that the image on http://www.forestryimages.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=9000019 is larger than the one uploaded...
Fred J 11:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted Image:Emerald ash beetle.jpg, and also the confusing page (without image; the image was the one at the Commons) at en:Image:Emerald ash beetle.jpg. Even the USDA Forest Service credits the image to David Cappaert in their EAB Pest Alert. Unfortunately, we cannot keep the image because it is licensed at forestryimages as {{Cc-by-nc}}, and we don't consider "non-commercial-only" licenses to be free. Lupo 11:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
A note to Mr. Cappaert: "And it does real damage to Wikipedia, if users must conclude that the project does not respond to a problem of this sort." — maybe so. But note that all editors at Wikimedia projects are volunteers, and many do not know much about copyrights. The proper way to get your own images removed in cases such as these is to make a request for deletion (see COM:DEL; at the English Wikipedia, you could have placed "{{imagevio|url=<reason>}}" on the page and then listed the image as a copyright violation by following the instructions—though in this case, that wouldn't have helped as the image actually was here at the Commons). If that doesn't work, get the attention of people who care about such esoteric things as copyrights (which you evidently managed to do finally :-), and if that doesn't work, contact our designated agent. We do react to such complaints if they're well-founded (as yours is), but as with all projects, the responses you get depend upon with whom you're talking. Lupo 11:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Final note: the IP 35.9.6.175, through which this request was made, resolves to MSU. Lupo 11:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

should this be on the commons...it has a non commercial licence, although it also has a GNU.... perhaps he used the wrong one? It's confusing!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Badumna_insignis_%28Black_window_spider%29.jpg#filelinks

The idea is that you have the choice of which license to use, we only require that at least one license is a free one, but you may prefer to use it under the conditions set by one of the other licenses instead. Personally I think the description is more confusing "Black window" spider!? Perhaps they meant "Black widow" which it is not, looks like a "Black house spider" --Tony Wills 12:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:ManuelSadosky.jpg

I marked this image as a copyvio 7 days ago, and no one has been around it since. The problem is that it's obviously not 25 years old - this subject first took office in 1983, and this is a government shot. Can someone please address this? Thanks. Patstuart 18:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot uploading thousands of files without flag

User:DerbethBot is uploading thousands of files without a bot flag. This is important, and a violation of the rules listed at COM:BOT#Bot_Flag. Patstuart 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you left a message similar to mine on the user page. I'd hope Derbeth would stop now and seek approval, thanks --Herby talk thyme 19:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Didn't stop so blocked for 2 hours, hopefully Derbeth will look at this now --Herby talk thyme 19:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Given the lack of response the bot must have been running unattended I guess, that said Derbeth is a respected admin, 'crat & CU elsewhere so I trust he will turn up soon to discuss this although I shall be offline shortly, thanks --Herby talk thyme 19:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
He has already contacted me on my talk page. Patstuart 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please block.

This user: Dennis_the_Menace. Thanks Lycaon 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks ✓ Done after a posting on another board --Herby talk thyme 08:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Herby. It took about an hour to get this one blocked actually. That seems a bit long to me. Luckily he was not too persistent, he could have done far more damage. I hardly couldn't keep up undoing when he started. Is this (or the vandal) page frequently enough monitored (I don't have access to IRC)? Lycaon 08:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I would say we were normally pretty responsive. May be that the "vandalism" board might get noticed faster (& no I ma generally not on IRC either!) --Herby talk thyme 12:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:SPSM.05.jpg

I hope somebody on this board would be able to help me in resolving this matter with this Commons Image, which is nominated at English Wikipedia for FP status.
I do not feel I'm in position to change the description and the license of the image myself, yet IMO it should be changed.
Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 12:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems a clear-cut case. I've changed the licensing. Lupo 12:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--Mbz1 12:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:בורקס.jpg

A user who 1st asked for their uploaded image to be deleted, now explains that that they actually need to exercise the right to vanish. They also say that this is an urgent matter. Could somebody please help them? --Simonxag 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How would not deleting the image interfere with his right to vanish? The image must be kept; the GFDL is non-revocable. --Boricuæddie 19:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I realize this, but if the user doesn't wish to keep the image, perhaps we could delete it and reupload it under someone else's name. Besides, quite often we delete files when someone uploads them here as a valid license, but they refuse to so license them on their own website. I don't see any problem deleting this file, if only as a courtesy, and because (this one at least) isn't very high quality anyway. Patstuart 19:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
We could re-upload the image and put the old address as a source, change author to anonymous and delete the old image. Samulili 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
as I underatand the GFDL/cc-by-sa-2.5 requiers reference to the creator of the image. I cant see any way how this can be done and I cant think of a reason not to respect my right to vanish. Why is it so hard to do such thing? This picture is not one of my best and my request was simple. א.שטיימן 20:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A simple pseudonym should handle licensing. I was hoping an admin might help this guy with his vanishing. --Simonxag 22:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Why does the image have to be deleted just because the user is vanishing? At Wikipedia, when you decide to "vanish", your userpages get deleted, but not your contribs. Shouldn't the same principle be applied here? --Boricuæddie 22:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Block candidate solliciting.

Herewith the contibutions of user Dollyhumbert. Lycaon 08:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done - blocked, deleted, CU'd, cross wiki checked, thanks Lycaon --Herby talk thyme 08:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Btr trying to retract CC licenses

Btr (talk · contribs) is apparently trying to retract the CC licenses he had granted for his own images he had uploaded and is marking them all as {{Copyvio}}. It appears he's disgruntled over some incident at the German Wikipedia. See also de:Benutzer Diskussion:Btr#Hinweis zu Interwikilinks. I would propose to revert him. Lupo 22:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User reverted my undoing his wrong copyvio claims. He now makes the (not very credible) claim the account had been used by several people to upload images, and his images were uploaded without his consent. I don't believe a single word of this. I now propose to block him. Lupo 23:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: See also de:User:Btr before he left there. I do think these are indeed his images. He can't retract GFDL/CC licenses. Lupo 23:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • He is a user that has contributed 100s of high quality images. I would be much, much, much more interested in trying to resolve the dispute than battering him with 'you can not revoke licenses'. I expect such action will harden any resolve to quit contributing and just generate ill will. Maybe turn the copyvio notices into delete requests so he can explain his request and it will give cooling off time. Then get a diplomatic person to delve into the problem (preferably someone who speaks German :-) (would someone care to translate the dispute?) --Tony Wills 11:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    Right. Which is why I did not "batter him with 'you can not revoke licenses'". Quick summary: I first simply asked him why he was tagging his images as Copyvio. His answer was because they were copyvios. I next asked for evidence, and pointed out to him that it looks more like a disgruntled user leaving and trying to take his contributions with him. He then claimed the account had been used by several people, and his images had been uploaded without his consent. I then said that this wasn't very credible, and that he should stop this nonsense, otherwise he might be blocked. (Note: I never intended to block him myself; at en-WP, where I come from, we have the (wise) policy of not blocking if personally involved, and I follow this rule here, too.) He then claimed to be able to prove his version, and said without an OTRS permission we had no proof the image uploads had been ok. To which I told him that was fine and told him again to present his evidence. To OTRS, or the WMF, if he wants. But that I wouldn't remove these images on the word of a disgruntled ex-Wikipedian alone. Lupo 20:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The most current problem seem to be discussions about the Volapük Wikipedia. Btr apparently removed interwiki links to articles on the VoWP, and was therefore accused of vandalism. The interwiki links in question led to bot-generated stub articles. Also, there seems to be a bit of general frustration with the direction the German Wikipedia is taking. --rimshottalk 12:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I still think he should be reverted, and blocked if he tries again to label these as copyvios. {{Copyvio}} is a speedy tag, and if some unsuspecting admin cleans up the category and deletes these 100+ images, CommonsDelinker will also remove them from the articles at de-WP. We'd then have twice the work to clean up this mess if we indeed decide that these images were uploaded by him and he's just misbehaving now. OTOH, if he's right, he is free to provide evidence to the WMF or to start a regular deletion request. If his evidence is judged credible, we can still delete the images. Lupo 20:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I've been bold and have now reverted User:Btr's adding {{Copyvio}} to his own images. I've also left him a note to open a regular deletion request at COM:DEL (or try to go through the Office, if he prefers—he mentioned that before) if he still wants these images to be removed. Lupo 12:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Found a bug in the watch feature

I hope this is the place for reporting that kind of bug. Here's the pattern to reproduce it.

  1. Go to any user page: For exemple User:Herbythyme one.
  2. Then click on the “watch” link on the top navigation. (I guess if you are already watching this page you will have to unwatch first then refresh and test).
  3. On the next page, you should see the message: The page "User:Herbythyme" (unwatch) has been added to your watchlist, etc... Remark that the unwatch link will apear just like this one and that the link href pass the title variable is equal to $1. This situation look like that the variable where not interpreted at the generation of the page but simply passed as a string.

Is this a simple template bug that I can fix or something like that?

Does this error apply to you also? Thanks Acarpentier 19:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I verified this behavior but don't know how to fix it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so if you see it than it must be somekind of template error. Is there a repository of templates in here? where we could find the "Watch action success notice" template or something like that? Acarpentier 20:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
No problems here. Might be a browser specific system? Using Firefox 2 -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Mmm.. I'm too on Firefox 2, but on a Mac. And I'm using the English language on my preferences, are you? -- Acarpentier 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, English, Windows XP. I tried with IE6 and had no problem. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Mmm... incompatibility. I've downloaded the source of MediaWiki and notice on the file /wiki/languages/messages/MessagesEn.php, there is the line:
'addedwatchtext'       => "The page \"[[:\$1]]\" has been added to your [[Special:Watchlist|watchlist]].
Maybe the problem is when passing arguments to it... anyway, good luck with this... Acarpentier 20:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Confirmed with FF2/Linux. You can also find the addedwatchtext on MediaWiki:Addedwatchtext. More specifically, the wrong URL is generated by {{MediaWiki unwatch page}} which seems to require a parameter that is not passed to it. I would try {{MediaWiki unwatch page|$1}} in MediaWiki:Addedwatchtext — Xavier, 21:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
That's it! I sure would be able to fix this but I dont seem to have access to edit those kind of page... Acarpentier 22:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, not so fast, I mixed up template parameters and parameter substitution in mediawiki (php). The solution may be what Adambro suggests here (subst the template). — Xavier, 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to enter this in bugzilla or is an edit to a MediaWiki page possible as a way to sort this? I'm not sure I totaly understand this. I have a bugzilla account and could enter it, if I could get a succinct explanation, or perhaps one of you guys could? ++Lar: t/c 23:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Both. According to Adambro, the "glitch which prevents parameters from being passed to templates or pseudotemplates from an interface message." was known in June, therefore I suppose it's already on Bugzilla (the problem seems that "$1" is escaped with "%241" in {{MediaWiki unwatch page}}, which prevents the further substitution of the $1 parameter). Anyway, an edit of MediaWiki:Addedwatchtext, the way Adambro suggests, may fix this issue and is worth a try. — Xavier, 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sort of new here, but I am sure that a quick fix would be possible if you have the right to edit this page Zavier found: MediaWiki:Addedwatchtext. The thing is that the $1 is the variable representing the page you want to watch. Remark there that the page name display correctly because the $1 variable is ok, but in the link the dollars sign is "encoded" and that's why it's not interpreted. If I'm correct, you should see this %24 in the unwatch link. Just replace it to $.Acarpentier 00:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Oups, sorry. I just notice it was already explained. Thanks Xavier ;) Acarpentier 00:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The current contents of MediaWiki:Addedwatchtext are:

The page "'''$1'''" (<span class="plainlinks">[{{MediaWiki unwatch page}} unwatch]</span>) has been added to your [[{{ns:Special}}:Watchlist|watchlist]], which will list edits to this page and its associated {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{TALKSPACE}}|content|talk}} page. The page will also be '''bolded''' in the [[{{ns:Special}}:Recentchanges|list of recent changes]].

What are you suggesting should be changed there? I'm not seeing the %24 anywhere. ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The %24 is generated by {{MediaWiki unwatch page}} (see how the URL is displayed). What Adambro suggests is to replace
{{MediaWiki unwatch page}}
in MediaWiki:Addedwatchtext, with
{{fullurl:$1|action=unwatch}}
Hope this works. The template might be necessary to work around the glitch I mentioned above. If this fix does not work, it is better to remove the whole "(unwatch)" thing. Thanks. — Xavier, 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with that, in the current distributed version of MediaWiki they have remove the link (unwatch) and refer to the one on the top nav... Acarpentier 02:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This section is not marked ✓ Done, but it appears to be completed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
No,  Not done, nothing has changed yet. Check it: just chose a random file, then click watch, then click "unwatch" in the popup message. — Xavier, 02:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Now ✓ Done. "(unwatch)" simply removed. — Xavier, 00:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

New deletion request if an old one was closed for the same file

How to make a new RfD? Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ESA Columbus module.jpg was closed in July with result keep, but i think it must be deleted because a paragraph of the ESA terms are against Commons rules. I listed the file again and with the same subpage/file name. Is this right? --GeorgHH 18:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen it before with no complaints. If the earlier deletion request was really long though, I think it is preferable to create a new deletion request and call it something like "Commons:Deletion requests/Image:ESA Columbus module.jpg (2nd nom)". / Fred J 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Paeonia suffruticosa Botan pink001.jpg

I found one of my file Image:Paeonia suffruticosa Botan pink001.jpg had been deleted as "No license specified since 2005" Log. But it is/was my own photo, and I believe I had marked it as GFDL as well as CC. Would you restore it? --miya 14:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

✓ DoneRestored and message to Miya that he/she must add a copyright tag. --GeorgHH 19:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Old deletion request, still open

This deletion request has been open for over a month and seems to have slipped through. Can someone close it please? Thanks, Future Perfect at Sunrise 00:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It didn't slip through; we're just backlogged up to August. And while we're at the subject of old deletion requests, more attention is required for the following deletion requests:
Also comments from non-admins are very much welcome. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request

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

On how many different places have you posted that? By the way, you are wrong. Deleting it here would affect the Wikipedia articles of all Wikipedias except the english one. There is nothing hindering you to upload the picture under a different name, even though I can't see why it should be necessary to waste the extra space for a second version (after all nothing will ever be deleted, only deactived). The name is okay, so a bad name can't be the reason. You still can add the picture to your Commons-gallery. The only thing you gain through uploading it a second time would be one edit. Right now I can't see any reason for a speedy delete, especially since there is nothing to replace it. -- Cecil 21:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion urged

After a research by User:Liftarn, showing that Image:Latuff cartoon Israeli soldier voting.jpg, a cartoon by Latuff, is actually based on an (non-free) AP photograph (see image in: [11]), and thereby confirming the reason given for the deletion request and the status of copyvio, the image now should be deleted asap. -- Túrelio 14:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done Patrícia msg 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Image:LocationSouth_Korea.png without CheckUsage

For reason of not having answer from the sysop himself, I post this question/request here. I am concerned about the deletion of Image:LocationSouth_Korea.png, due to duplication. I guess no image usage check has been made first, otherwise the admin would see that at least the Bulgarian Wikipedia uses the image. No appropriate measures have been taken to fix the possible negative consequences of this action (CommonsDelinker?). The articled seemed to have been staying with a broken image link for ~ 3 months...

As you maybe know, the images of this sort are used in templates where the parameters follow some naming conventions which however are problematic in cases of 2+ words in the country name and presence of "the" (like "The Netherlands"). That is why I've seen many of these images deliberately uploaded under various filenames so that all naming conventions be covered and no wiki suffers. Having in mind the image file size of 5 Kb, I can't really believe that economizing the resources of Wikimedia Foundation justifies the deletion. And I am puzzled of the why the given reason is “duplication”, when this very same image even now is available under (at least) two other filenames: Image:LocationSouthKorea.png and Image:Location South Korea.png? This was my reason to upload this third version of the file name, in order to fix our local problem. I suppose what you would say - to upload it locally. But this doesn't solve the problem of deleting images without even checking what damages may occur of this action.

Now, I will be grateful to have this image reloaded under the same filename and being notified afterwards on my talk page on BG WP. Thank you in advance, Spiritia, sysop on BG WP, 08:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not having replied sooner; I was travelling and had limited access to a computer (let alone the internet!) for several days. I've just returned home as of 28 minutes ago and will look into the matter now that I can do so with due diligence. :) -- Editor at Large • talk 05:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've looked into the reason for deletion of the specific image mentioned. It had (supposedly) been universally replaced by bot, and the template{{Universally replaced}} had been added by said bot; the adding of this template placed it in Category:Universally replaced by CommonsDelinker. When instances of images were not able to be replaced there is usually a warning on the template listing which instances, in which case I used to fix those manually or if the page was protected ask an admin at the site to fix it. On the image in question there was no such warning so I presumed it, like all the other hundreds of images which have been replaced by this method, had been replaced everywhere and it was safe to delete. Obviously I was in error and I apologize for the mistake. -- Editor at Large • talk 00:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As for your comment that the location images are uploaded to various names, I do not think this is a wise idea. Having 2 or 3 or more versions of all Location images (note that there are 194 countries in the world) so various wikipedias don't have to change a template syntax seems to be a rather skewed way of doing things. Wouldn't it be easier for less than 50 wikipedias to edit a template or two to fix the issue than for us to host 580+ images when all we need is 194? Duplicates cause more problems than you might initially expect; with three versions floating about people are unsure which to use, and all three end up getting used various places - then if one image is fixed or updated (as countries and maps do change) the other maps may go unnoticed and remain un-fixed, or they may be uncategorized and nobody knows about them except the one or two places they got used away from Commons. A standardized naming system that all wikimedia sites can base their template syntax on seems a much better idea, to me. -- Editor at Large • talk

Well :-) then either all duplications should be deleted or none. Once upon a time, I remember that I spent several hours in meticulous search for the bug in the template but it never made problem with any other country name, only with South Korea, so I didn't manage to discover the actual reason. If you feel more comfortable with template bug fixing, please give it a try: bg:Template:Държава :-) I don't want to argue anymore, I believe I got my point clear: image deletion without consequent measures for image replacement or removing the invalid links is not very polite to the article readers. On the other hand, it's also strange that the Broken Image Links Tool which is ran in BG WP on a weekly basis didn't notify us of the image deletion earlier, but after 3 months... This, of course, is not your fault :-) All the best, Spiritia 12:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalismo y borrado rápido de categorías!!!???

En algunas categorías creadas por mí el usuario Ies ha puesto la plantilla de borrado rápido ({{Speedydelete}}), luego de vaciarlas. Véase por ejemplo Category:Cacteae, Category:Trichocereeae, Category:Pachycereeae y Category:Cactoideae. A su vez, estas categorías contienen otras, algunas de ellas también marcadas para borrado rápido.

Se dice que son un vandalismo (sic), ¿cómo es posible? No conozco a fondo el funcionamiento de Commons, pero entiendo que crear categorías no lo es. Tampoco veo la conveniencia del borrado. Las categorías creadas se ajustan a la estructura de Wikispecies y son usadas en ese proyecto, véase por ejemplo http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cacteae.

Además de estar enlazada en Wikispecies, Category:Cacteae tiene 23 sub-categorías. Me parece descabellado decir que es un vandalismo (?) pero dejé la plantilla de borrado rápido porque esto parece ser un problema serio. Por favor, solicito la atención de un administrador. Muchas gracias, --200.40.88.182 14:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand any word, but this anonym user needs to be stopped. He or she likes to overdo and recently super-categorized articles in Category:Cactaceae a third time. The species articles, previously easy to find in the main category are now again hidden in overdone subcategories down to tribe level. A rest of genera he or she doesn't seem to know about lonely remains in the main category. So for any not completely familiar with plant family Cactaceae the species are now again very tricky to find. The overdone categorizing also builds a barrier for new entries. Of course divisions into subfamily categories are sometimes useful, particularly if the family is very large and if the plants in the certain subfamilies are quite different. In the medium-sized and pretty consistent Cactaceae however a division is soon overdone. I generally doubt the sense of tribe categories. Before I revert the overdone categorizing a third time I'm asking a Spanish speaking admin to warn this user of overdoing a forth time. Btw, for any actually interested in a tree structure down to tribe and genus level there is already one present in article Cactaceae. Thanks. --Ies 17:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Urgent assistance requested

Hello... sorry to bother, but I've a somewhat urgent request. I reverted vandalism here that was done by the self-admitted IP of blocked/banned enWiki user/sockpuppeteer w:User:EverybodyHatesChris. The IP is currently blocked on enWiki, but has already vandalized my page on Wikinews and now HiDrNick's page here. Anyway, I've now realized that I reverted while not logged in; given that the banned user is making threats about attack web pages and so on, I'd like to know if my revert can either be removed completely (in which case I'll redo it while logged in) or changed to my user name. I'm happy to authorize any checks etc. that are needed to verify who I am. Thanks - you can leave messages for me here on enWiki. --Ckatz 09:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done, reverted & blocked, thanks for the "heads up", cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ulster/NI flags

Can an admin protect both Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg and Image:Ulster Banner.svg pending resolution of the discussion? Riana did so but the protection expired. Sceptre 01:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done - All are indef protected at the moment. When consensus is reached, unprotection can be requested. Giggy\Talk 01:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


User:Purpletext4

This user has moved without discussion the contents of Category:Man-on-top positions and Category:Woman-on-top positions to his new-created categories Category:Receiver-on-top positions and Category:Giver-on-top positions (his contributions, in particular [12] , [13]).

Because this project is not dedicated to the persons which use the particular vocabulary of User:Purpletext4 (see Category:Sex positions in the English Wikipedia), I request the reversion of all the contributions of this new user. --Juiced lemon 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I went through and recategorized one of the cats (and deleted it), but I don't have time to do the other one - could someone else finish it off for me? Cheers, — Giggy 08:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It is a good idea to notify the user in such cases, I think. ✓ Done Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
✓ Done Following Giggy's lead, I re-categorized the other and deleted it.
Purpletext4 (talk · contribs) appears to have been created only for disruption and should be indefinitely blocked, but others may have different opinions. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should block yet - he's been notified, and will hopefully stop now. — Giggy 06:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
With Giggy here "assume good faith" for now, though watch I think --Herby talk thyme 08:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for letting me know that I should bring proposed changes to categories up on the talk page before making any changes. I'll do that after I've done some research into seeing if a similar change has ever been discussed before. If any of you have some past guidance let me know. I'm a bit confused, and frankly put off, by your statement that Purpletext4 (talk · contribs) appears to have been created only for disruption and should be indefinitely blocked. May I ask what led you to such a conclusion? Purpletext4 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I made the quoted statement (but didn't block) based on the edit history of Purpletext4 which consisted solely of brief comments on his/her user and talk pages, and undiscussed recats of sexual content, all on 3 December. I'm certainly willing to apologize if I was wrong regarding the user's intent. Edits by an experienced user, such as Purpletext4, with no edit history on Commons, and no description of background or interests on his/her userpage, to a sensitive or controversial subject may indicate a disruptive user. I'm sorry I didn't explain my reasoning above. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Italy.svg

Hi, there is a long long discussion in the talk page, where we are trying to find a satisfactory solution for a complicated question about the colors of the flag. Recently, ignoring all the discussion that you can read, the picture was silently changed, uploading a version which is different from the one we seem to find some consensus upon. A rollback has been made to restore the version that seems to be the most correct one, but I understand that this kind of approach is little wiki and quite strange. I'm more a Pedian and in it.wiki we would have protected it, but I don't know how do you deal with such situations, so, hoping that I'm not mis-using this page, I think that perhaps some attention on this image could be useful. Thank you in advance for your help --g 00:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I told the user to come here. While I am an administrators, I am heavily involved in this image, so I cannot apply protection to it. However, we need some more eyes on this image, since it feels like it is going to be a battle between the Commons and it.wikipedia again. We had two of these before, I refuse to let a third one go on. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I've protected the image, in the hope that some sort of consensus can be reached. I don't know what else can be done - it's up to you guys I guess. Unprotect, or come to me, when something has been decided on. Giggy\Talk 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Giggy, I hope that other opinions will help us in the discussion, so that consensus will be broader :-) --g 01:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Zscout370 recently stated (on the image's talk page) that he would not protect the page should it be changed to the Italian government's legislated colors... which I took partly to mean that he wouldn't oppose the change itself — yet he reverted the change after two days (during which the change was not even recognized, let alone fought over). This misrepresentation or contradictory behavior seems incredibly useless to me.

I'm not sure what Gianfranco is after - it seems maybe he wants to justify the use of #ffffff by taking a photograph of a flag that uses #f1f2f1 and then sampling from an overlit area. Obviously complete nonsense.

No consensus was ever reached — that's why the talk page continues to grow — and it's not my fault the software doesn't report file changes (pretty sure we have a bug on this; find it and vote for it if you care).

I rather thought the #ffffff-supporters had finally bowed to the reality that the Italian government has modified the definition of the colors of their flag, and that the file in question is meant to represent the official flag of Italy today. We'll never know if bureaucrats like Zscout revert changes just because they're afraid something might happen.

It very well may no longer need protection, but if it does, Image:Flag of Italy.svg should only be protected from editing when it uses the official colors as defined by the Italian government. ¦ Reisio 20:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Reisio, print that image on "fiocco", then you will have the official color and you will be able to protect it. Italian Government unfortunately only indicates colors for the print on "fiocco" tissue and says nothing about monitors' rendering. You should probably be reading me on a monitor, right at this moment, unless you are used to print Commons' contents on tissue and read them on it. There could eventually be some difference, I believe, in printing the flag on tissue and including it inside a webpage. You could however watch at it just the same, but differences might come out. This is not bureaucracy, this is "rendering".
Whatever your habits, we were discussing, trying to reach consensus on how to interpretate the legal text, and you just took a shortcut reverting to the opposite sense whithout saying a word. The rest has already been described in the talk page. If you have better ideas, better than my poor nonsense, please don't keep them secret, let us know. Discussing, please, as usual. We heard nothing from you, you just changed the image and that was all your opposition in the discussion. When you'll come back to a search for consensus, you will have to refer to the Italian law; knowing it would be deeply appreciated --g 00:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You make no sense. Do you know what happens when you cover something — any material whatsoever (including fabrics) — in red paint? You see that red paint. It doesn't magically become merge with the material and make some new color... that is the whole point of Pantone: to have exact colors. If they didn't want the color to be the Pantone value they've designated, they wouldn't have so designated it.

...and no, you were not discussing — there had been no discussion for months until Xagasi, confused at the inaccuracy of the image, asked why it was so. I also did say plenty of words, and neither you nor Zscout370 were in disagreement with me.

The law is clear, and our image at this moment is an inaccurate rendition. ¦ Reisio 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

g called for the protection of the image, independent from my actions or words. I stated that I will not personally protect the image due to my heavy involvement of the image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Also nonsense — he mentioned protection after you reverted my change. You are both either very deluded or very inattentive or both, etc.. ¦ Reisio 13:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

About tissues, are you sure, Reisio, that you really read the talk page? Because it was me who posted, time ago, a picture about firemen, explaining the whole, so I know there is such a picture in that talk page, and an explaination too. Since time ago.
Whatever, one might also change of mind if he believes that a different solution would be better. That's simply what ordinarily happens in a productive discussion: that someone might change his mind because he finds something better. One never discusses if he already agrees, this one would be true nonsense. You seem not to care at all about the fact that the law didn't describe "absolute" colors, but only "colors for fiocco tissue". While the supreme law, the Constitution, says "bianco" (white). Explain me why I should look at this situation the way you suggest, and if what you are going to say will be satisfactorily reasonable, I have no reason not to prefer what we will identify together as the better solution we can achieve. At the moment I'm not convinced by your idea, but reverts on the image are not a good way to persuade me.
Now, step by step: wouldn't it be better to go back to plain discussion (perhaps in the talk page) letting actions on the image to be left as a final passage? --g 01:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I read the talk page, and your idea of sampling #ffffff from the overlit/reflected part of a photograph of a color that isn't #ffffff was just as silly then as it is now.

The law does describe absolute colors. Pantone colors are absolute colors, and they are used in Italian law... and if you had read the talk page, you would know that "white" does not mean #ffffff, never has meant #ffffff and never will mean #ffffff.

You're just looking at it wrong. The regulars were going about their business improving and making more accurate all flag images we know of, when you lot started reverting our changes.

...and we're only on this page partly because there has been recent discussion, and my file update was the logical result of it. If either of you hadn't wanted me to make such a change, you should've just said so instead of wasting all of our time (even more than you have in the past). ¦ Reisio 13:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, mr. regular, the only silly thing here around is that you really hope that you can explain me my law as if it was me the foreigner in my country. And, of course, discussing this way is another silly idea.
Just a note for other readers: this matter has been object of long debate in it.wiki too. One among the many, in this old request to it.wiki's embassy of last June. You will read in that discussion that Reisio had already been indicated as the author of some sort of personal crusade.
Italian wikipedians do deeply believe instead that their own flag is white. We might discuss what exactly "white" means, but for sure it doesn't mean "grey", nor "greyish". And a law with precise specifical indications cannot be considered a law with general indications. This is why all the users, there, agree that this law is specifically for tissues, which is not strange, since it's what usually flags are materially made of. If you need a general law, the Constitution says "bianco, rosso e verde".
Being a spicy topic in Italy, I hope we are not going towards other nationalist excitement; we have had well enough in the past, so it's better not to give reasons for any more trouble and maybe we can now finally start cooperating like users in sister projects, as we should already have been since the beginning. As a matter of fact, the interest in having the correct flag here - and consequently reproducing it in all WMF projects - is well beyond, I presume, personal funny ideas of individual users and single projects. This, I believe, will be in the interest of the Commons too. Or is perhaps the first thing to look at --g 17:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no opinion about what the right colors are here, all I'm posting for is to ask people to please be excellent to each other. I can see that people may be getting a bit passionate about this topic. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

May as well archive this. The sillies are unsurprisingly happy with an eternal stalemate as long as the colors they want are up, and nobody with the power to protect the image will do so when the proper colors are there... and obviously a page of Gianfranco and myself ignoring one another is not useful. The score thus far: Accuracy: 0; People that don't know what 'white' means and useless admins: 2. I'll see you all next time someone runs into Image:Flag of Italy.svg and asks why the colors are wrong. ¦ Reisio 03:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That response really motivates me to want to get involved. But... if someone on each side can summarize the points about this, including cites, that back up the whitish part of the flag being either FFFFFF or a less white value (respectively), I'll take a stand and then take the heat for it. How about both sides write up the argument for the OTHER side (that'll remove bias since you're arguing against your preference), then I'll pick what I perceive as the weaker argument. (that'll motivate you to do a good job). Of course if anyone else wants to get involved instead of me, that's fine too, but this low level sniping is not goodness. ++Lar: t/c 05:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll come back to this later; they've made so many different claims in support of #ffffff, it will be quite a chore to reduce to a concise statement — might resort to a list. ¦ Reisio 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm very interested to see what comes out of this... 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 05:46, 06 December 2007 (GMT)
The shortest summary I can think of is: is Pantone 11-0601TC still a white? What is the final result? In it.wiki many users, and I am among them, say "no, please, it seems grey, it's not my flag any more". --g 11:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Not our flag. --Frank87 13:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Croatia

Could somebody please have a closer look at the discussion here: Image talk:Flag of Croatia.svg. thx! --Minestrone 23:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OK I looked at it. Looks like another dispute about flag colors. Sigh. Short of setting up a flag color tribunal (as if!), was there something you wanted admin action on? ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think they just were trying to get wider input before it degenerates into a two-year-long discussion like the one over at Image talk:Flag of Italy.svg :-( Well, I have given them some outside input. Lupo 13:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting the lay of the land over here at Commons. Would someone give me the background on how flag color disputes turn nasty? User talk is fine. Thanks, Durova 09:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Explanation given on talk page. Siebrand 13:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Italian-speaking admin required

Riccardo il rocker (talk · contribs) keeps uploading copyrighted material (album covers) and highly suspicious pictures without any description nor license. Can somebody please talk to him before we have to block him? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, this message just to inform you that Riccardo il rocker has been banned on it.wiki as sockpuppet of an already "jailed for copyviol" user. Bye --79.6.10.141 18:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. The user has not paid any attention to messages and just went on uploading. I've blocked him for 3 days. I propose to delete all his uploads as copyvios. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. Lupo 11:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

create a new account

Hi..

I want to create this account The name "HernanFernandez" is very similar to the existing account "Hernan fernandez" (contributions • logs • user creation entry). Please choose another name, or request an administrator to create this account for you.


my email is: <email removed> I currently have masteruk account but I want to change it to my own name

thanks —the preceding unsigned comment was added by masteruk (talk • contribs)

If you already have an account, you may change your name at COM:CHU. --Boricuæddie 14:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he's masteruk (talk · contribs) - Go to COM:CHU and request a rename there. — Giggy 22:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate deletion request - can someone delete the others

Hello Admins,

Due to have the wrong tab in focus in Firefox, I have listed Image:Grand_union_flag_large.png for deletion more than once. Can someone clean-up the duplicates?. Thanks. Hoshie 09:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Deadstar (msg) 12:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Broken link report:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Life-size_robot_model_on_top_of_Ghibli_Museum

The images are not present on this page.

Thanks!

The problem is that the images have been deleted. They have been deleted because they were not free, see this. --rimshottalk 11:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Windows screenshots

Discussion moved to here -- Cat ちぃ？ 16:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Are screenshots of windows copyrighted when the software in question is free? If so should the images be speedy deleted on sight? Removing "Windows" bits of the larger image isn't that hard. It can even be done in paint. I think deleting them is an overkill. -- Cat ちぃ？ 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved to here -- Cat ちぃ？ 16:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Create user account help

Hi, I'm trying to create a user account here named Bruce1ee, to match my account on the English Wikipedia, Bruce1ee talk, but I'm told that it is very similar to "User:Brucelee" (contributions • logs • user creation entry). Note that the existing user only uploaded one file here, which was deleted, and has done nothing else. Is this possible that I can keep the same name? What do you need from me? You can talk to me on the English Wikipedia or send me an email at my address there. Thanks. --196.15.185.134 08:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Check your email. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 17:44, 31 December 2007 (GMT)
Thanks for that! --Bruce1ee talk 07:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

small edit war going on

Hi! I'm not sure if this is the right place ... but there seems to be a small edit war around these three files: Special:Contributions/MilintelTR

Somebody adds a "no source". Another guy removes it. Somebody else reverts the removal. and so on ...

I don't wanna nominate them for deletion, cause I'm not sure whether or not these pictures are OK. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 92.227.120.128 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 January 2008

✓ Done Restored no source tag; added note to uploader's talk page, MilintelTR (talk · contribs). I didn't find the images with Google; no evidence of a copyvio. I'll wait another week and speedy delete them, if no response or if the no source tag is removed again. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done to the opposite direcetion. I removed the no source tag because the images were tagged with self and there is no reason suspect that they are copyvios, like Wsiegmund said. Samulili 17:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of No source since

A couple of days ago i noticed a lot of pictures bein tagged with the "no source since" template. It looks like user OsamaK is tagging lots of pictures with this template. With most of the pictures nothing seems wrong, but the uploader isnt even notified of this tagging so he or she will probably not even notice it! Bogdan already reverted a lot of edits but this looks like destroying a lot of perfectly fine pictures. How many pictures have already been deleted because of this tagging? (an admin can of course see this at Special:DeletedContributions/OsamaK). And how many pictures will be deleted? The tagging is done at such a speed i wonder if each picture is checked. Could an admin have a look at it and maybe recover some images? Is this a normal way to use this template? This looks like a way to circumvent the deletion debate and destroy content. Thank you, Multichill 19:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Most images I checked didn't actually have a source. Most were merely tagged "PD-old" and that was that. I don't know how you can say that e.g. [14] [15] [16] [17] are sourced when they have nothing of that kind. Even images that are public domain due to age, such as Image:Giovanni 2.jpg, should have some basic information to them, such as who the painter was and when it was painted, and preferably where the image was taken from (in most cases this means: which website).
But I think that it is important to contact the uploader and I don't know why OsamaK didn't do that.
Fred J (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, some are tagged right. But some are not like [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. The fact that he didnt notify the uploader is unacceptable. This way uploaders dont have a change to update the information. Multichill 01:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This is why MediaWiki:Quick-delete.js is recommended. I've left him a note informing him of this discussion (please do so in future) and suggesting that script. — Giggy 02:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, sorry for that. I had many images uploaded by same user. If I click "No source" I'll get edit conflict. For example look at User talk:Carlosar. If I wait until saving, that's will lost my time. Otherwise using a bot, And I think you'll not allow =) --OsamaK 07:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Warrings given to the up-loader were clear: If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. I hate it when I get 10 notes when 1 should do the trick . --Tarawneh 07:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:012 lrg.jpg which you complained about was uploaded by User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske). The notification is here. I don't know why you expected to see a notification on your user talk page as there is nothing linking the image to you. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Agência Brasil}}

(This template, adds a standard license and puts the image into category:Photographs by Agencia Brasil)

  • A large number (279) of images tagged with this template have been marked with {{No source since}} on the basis that the template 'demands' that there be a link to the source image, and that there is no such link (eg Image:RJ106100.jpg, Image:Valdemar105987.jpg, Image:General140430.jpg, Image:Funeral140675.jpg, Image:Moraleslula 20060113 01.jpg). Whereas most of the images are properly sourced in Commons terms, ie they come from Agencia_Brasil, and the image page contains a link to their site. The image pages also usually credit the photographer as stipulated by the license. So my point is that in most cases the {{No source since}} template is wrong, they are properly sourced - 'no source since' should not be used just because the demands of some other template are not fulfilled (If we substituted a standard license template CC-BY-2.5-BR, and a link to the site instead of using the {{Agência Brasil}} template, they would meet the sourcing criteria acceptable for most other images on commons).
  • Of course it would be nice to have a deep link into the site to the exact file location, but as we all know websites change, and are re-organised and material is archived. So we have an on going situation that even if a deep link is supplied it may not be valid in a years time, and without some sort of 'flickr review' process it will be difficult to 'prove' the link was real. This situation must exist with most web-sourced images on Commons. What is the policy? --Tony Wills 13:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The policy is that all images should contain information sufficient for others to verify the licensing status. The address to a news agency's homepage is not sufficient for others to verify the licensing status. Even an outdated link is more helpful in tracking down the image than no link at all. The images were obviously taken from somewhere, so it should not be that difficult for the uploader to disclose that information. (This also applies to images with no further source information than "en.wikipedia.org".) —LX (talk, contribs) 13:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The filename here usually reflects the source filename, and the dates (verified by EXIF info) can be used to "verify the licensing status" as the site has a good date filing system - up until the time they archive material. --Tony Wills 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Mostly the old images dont have a deep link. Take for example Image:CPI MarcosValerio111490.jpeg this image was uploaded at 6 August 2005. The template looked like this the remark about adding a deep link was first added 18 May 2007. Adding the deeplinks now seems impossible because when you look at the archive it only goes back to 2006. Multichill 17:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
@LX From the dates, many of the images would have been on the main page of the site when they were uploaded here, a link to the site *was* a link to the page containing them, so at the time it was trivial to check their validity, My point is that they may well have been checked (many times over 2 years), but there is no process in place to show that, and this applies to most web sourced images on Commons (flickr being a notable exception). I have no great interest in these particular images, but it seems to highlight a point. Are we destined to purge all material that no longer exists on the web? (in which case we might as well just provide links to source images and save our bandwidth ;-) --Tony Wills 21:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that. We can still assume good faith and awareness if the circumstances make the claims credible, which it sounds like in the scenario you describe (also, in a lot of cases, even deleted contents tend to leave traces around the web if you know what the original source was). Perhaps images uploaded before they started archiving should have a different tag, explaining the situation. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

please delete Image:Jubileelinetrain.jpg

I am new to Wikicommons and uploaded the image not realising how clearly the faces of fellow passengers could be seen. I did not have their consent in taking the photograph and so I'd like to withdraw the material - but i haven't been able to do so as yet.

✓ Done - Deleted. — Giggy 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ozama

I blocked Ozama (talk · contribs) for a indefinite time after he vandaliced the Main Page. I saw this request as a way of saying Im sorry, so I unblocked a few mnutes ago. Maybe I have to much AGF or to less experience (because Im a newbie sysop) to deal with this situation, so please tell me what you would have done.
If he continues please block him without any new warning. Regards, __ ABF __ ϑ 09:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted his talk page and will block if he vandalises further. AGF is good :) — Giggy 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image rename/replacement request: Expressways and semi-expressways of Singapore

I attempted to upload an image to replace Image:Expressways and semi-expressways of Singapore.png, but am unable to do so because of being a new user. As instructed, I uploaded Image:Expressways and semi-expressways of Singapore 2.png, and so I am making a request to have the new image replacing the older one. I gave my reason here. Thanks! --Unkx80 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Review of user contribs

And maybe keep a close eye - I came across Image:Uitleg.jpg from User:Gerritjansma. Not "quite" sure what it is all about (& I always put my foot in it with the "sex" pics) but I've never seen anything quite like that before :) Other views and do we assume good faith for now. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mauro.45

This editor has a long term problem with uploading files under false claims of self-made/public domain. The user's talk page has 67 separate warnings for inadequate file information, most of which were deleted, and the editor was blocked for 3 days in October for copyvio uploads. The problem continues as recently as January 9 and 10, with obvious falsehoods such as these:

This editor appears to be Chilean, so perhaps a fluent Spanish-speaking admin can straighten this out. In the meantime I recommend deleting all uploads by this person and a possible userblock to prevent further copyright violation. Durova 02:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. Durova 12:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Our luck is in at present

You will all be delighted to know that we have some additional male genitalia recently made available to us courtesy of some of our users. category:Penis appears to have "swollen" in the past few weeks with contributions, among others, from this user & this one. I realise that you can never have enough of some pictures but I thought I would seek other views, thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that much of the work in the category is duplicative and low quality. That is true of the recent additions, in my judgement. Age, racial/ethnic, and species diversity is poorly to very poorly covered. Image:Colored_3812.jpg is exceptional, in this regard, despite foreground obstructions. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone object to deleting the uploads for both of those accounts? I mean seriously, off all the things we lack, penis isn't high on the list. — Giggy 22:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I think RFD would be better here. Some may disagree and think they are better than images there already. Majorly (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Small versions of image not being created correctly

Hi, my image Image:Litter rescue basket.jpg doesn't have the small versions created, but you can click on full-size to see the original picture. I created this image just like most of my other images (no progressive jpeg, exif data, baseline jpeg) in Gimp. I tried the "Purge" link, but that didn't do anything either. I tried uploading a new version of the same picture, but that didn't help either. Is it something I did, or is the problem with the commons resizing thing? Thanks, Hustvedt 22:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It works fine for me.--Mbz1 05:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, yeah, that is bizzare. I can see the small versions properly, but the page itself doesn't include the small versions of that image in the page there. I guess that would be "my fault"... Thanks. Hustvedt 15:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Upload Bug?

Hello,
Today I uploaded this Image. After the image got uploaded not only file name, but also the description was changed.The file history shows user:Ellery. As of right now the last contributions of this user were made on 1/11/08. When I reverted the image, I've got the image, which probably coresponds with its description, but then I reverted it back as it was after my initial upload for somebody to see and help me to understand, if I've done something wrong. If you click at my image, you would see the image that IMO should have been at my image place. Thank you--Mbz1 04:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you uploaded an image with the same name as one that already existed. You should have received a warning about this during the upload process. I reverted to the original, because I doubt zhwiki wanted an image of a starry night sky for their article on Woo Tsin-hang. This is why you should give your uploads better names. Or are you saying that you tried to upload it with a different name? If so, what? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, LX.
The name of my image was "Comet Holmes in San Francisco 1-12-08.jpg." or something close to it. I would have never given the name "Image 8.jpg" to my file. Besides I've used simple UPLOAD and not "UPLOAD a new version of this file" and in this situation IMO it at least should have taken my new description. Something was not quite right with the upload last night. Please take a look at the prior post.Looks like the user also had some problems.I guess it would remain a mystery, but thank you very much for looking into this and revering of the image. --Mbz1 13:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The only thing I can think of is that you or the server accidentally deleted the first part of the name in the destination name field. Even if you don't use "upload a new version", you can still overwrite an existing image if you write in a destination name that already exists (this is based on the source name by default). When you do that (whether you do it via the "upload a new version" link or by specifying an existing name), the image description you enter becomes that version's edit comment in the file history (rather than replacing the image description page). In either case you should also get a warning showing the image you're about to overwrite. If you didn't get this warning, something was definitely wrong on the server side. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, LX. I agree that it looks this way. Of course there was not only the deletion of the part of my name, but the word "image" was added to the word "8" from my image's name. I'm sure I did not delete anything in my file name. I'm almost sure I was not given a warning that I was about to overwrite a file. On the other hand I probably got the warning that my file name was changed. I often get such warning, for example, if a space in my file's name is replaced with "_" or something like this. Of course I ignore these warnings without giving another look. From now on I should be me more careful.Thank you for your time and for your help, LX.--Mbz1 14:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Image: is just the namespace for media files. It gets added to all uploads and is not really part of the file name. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. For some reason I believed the name of the file was Image:Image 08.jpg. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.--Mbz1 16:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

fr speaker needed I think.

Image:Eglise de Colleret.JPG keeps having its "no source", "no license" tags removed by the uploader. May well be a misunderstanding? It would be good if someone could help (my french is way too primitive I'm afraid). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Source is "personal travels"; licence is GNU FDL. Only thing left is categorisation 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:05, 16 January 2008 (GMT)
Cleanup ✓ done; good to know my high-school French classes were worth all the hard work ;-) BTW, O: travail personnel means "own work", not personal travels :-D --Boricuæddie 02:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
My French is really getting rusty :-$ Thanks anyways 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:44, 16 January 2008 (GMT)
Thanks to you both, I was out of time as well as out of French! --Herby talk thyme 12:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh the shame - I fell for the same thing O did. My French teacher will kill me... — Giggy 13:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

concerning Licence/ Copyvio?

Hey! I discovered the following picture while looking at the "latest Files" [23]. It says "Flex Linhas Aéreas" as source at the discription table. I found the same picture right here [24], which is the homepage of the airline. Now I wonder wether this is a copyrightviolation or not. best regards 87.179.175.187 00:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it's a clear copyvio. The image shows also the colors of the airline. Thanks for the advice, it will be deleted ;) --Christian NurtschTM 11:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please delete.

Please delete the images: Image:Cynthia Rodriguez.jpg‎, Image:Richard Belzer.jpg‎ and Image:Mariska Hargitay.jpg‎. --Tarjetero 20:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Marking them with speedy delete tags is enough. You not need to tell us here. Also, these already had a deletion request open. Don't take things so personal. :) Rocket000 08:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done as you can tell by the red links. Rocket000 08:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Atentos! Imagenes robadas!

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Atencion.21_Imagenes_robadas.21. Please keep the discussion at one place, not multiples. -- Cecil 08:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

PD-70?

Someone might wanna check the photos with hebrew names in this category. 84.108.245.222 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated them for deletion here. 84.108.245.222 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I am author of this picture, it was uploaded from Slovak wikipedia. (To confirm my identity I made this change to my discussion on sk. wiki: http://sk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskusia_s_redaktorom%3AMz&diff=1396005&oldid=1396004) I would like to have my personal photo deleted. Thank you. Milan.sk 16:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no other value for Wikimedia, I have deleted the image. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

russian user

Can anyone have a look to uploads by Kvid (talk · contribs), please. The files have different sources but are self-licensed. --GeorgHH • talk   19:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion needed

Please delete Image:Fedfunds.svg. Firstly, I meant to name it the same as the PNG version at Image:Federal Funds Rate (effective).png, which it meant to supercede, and secondly I need to regenerate it anyway because it didn't render correctly. Thanks. Kbh3rd 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done :) - Alison ❤ 22:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone to review rather a lot of uploads?

Could someone take a look at these contribs. Massive collection of pics. However the contributions on en wp are being reviewed as possibly having a conflict of interest as links are being placed to a website of the same name. There is no meta data on the ones I've looked at here and some are rather small. An issue or....? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Severe Personal Rights Infringement

This is regarding Image:Beggar Bodhgaya India.jpg which is an "exploitation of this man's poverty and disability by exaggerating his helplessness at the time of begging." There has been considerable debate and a clear majority has voted to not have this image on the Poverty in India page. [25]. I think this image should be deleted as per [personal rights issues].

Not all legally-obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable to Commons even if they otherwise fall within the project's scope. The following types of image are normally considered by the community to be unacceptable:

  • Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject
  • Those that are unfairly obtained
  • Those that unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life

These are categories which are matters of common decency rather than law. They find a reflection in the wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: (No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation).

[26]

This image has been deemed unencyclopedic by a vast majority of users on Wikipedia who have discussed the image here. This image has been uploaded by a user who is trying to evoke feelings of disgust by portraying a person in such a light. Indianhilbilly 23:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

File a nomination at Commons:Deletion requests. No Commons administrator is going to rush in to remove an image that is currently in use at English Wikipedia and possibly other projects based on a discussion with no clear consensus at a single Wikimedia project. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection requested

This is going to be on the English Wikipedia main page in a few hours.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SS_George_Washington_Carver.jpg

This may be on the main page tomorrow. Image:George Elliot illus 60.jpg Image:William Gibson by FredArmitage.jpg

Can you protect it for 1-2 days? Thank you. Archtransit 19:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Majorly (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Account creation request

Would you be so kind and create account GhosT for me? I use this login on Polish and English Wikipedia. My email: email removed.

Regards, GhosT 09:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems that a Ghost already exist. I don't know the particular policies for names of commons but on it.wiki we usually ask to a Bureaucrat to rename that account in order to have it or to ask them what to do. By the way, the user has already some edits so I dunno if the Buro will let you take the nickname. Try to ask ;-) --FilnikRock! 09:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Created and password send to the given adress. abf /talk to me/ 10:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have a very similar request. The system won't let me create account "RaNo" that I use on Polish and English Wikipedia because it says that a similar name ("Ra No" - with a space inside) already exists. Can you advise? 195.20.1.74 15:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I need an E-Mail adress. abf /talk to me/ 15:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There you go: <removed e-mail adress> 195.20.1.74 15:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done abf /talk to me/ 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Rizuan

User:Rizuan appears to be Rizuan on the English Wiki whose account was recently blocked for repeated copyright violations. The user is now uploading images of dubious copyright status ([27]), falsely claiming them as CC-BY images from Flickr and deleting deletion templates from images (see here). --Ytoyoda 05:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see a long term pattern of abuse of this which apparently has restarted? Repeatedly uploading copyvio images after being asked to desist is not very mellow. I'd warn the user and if the problem continues, seek a block. You can quote me if you want :) ++Lar: t/c 16:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Continued to disruptively blank out {{Delete}} tags for ongoing deletion discussions in spite of direct instructions not to do so. Blocked for a week. Keep an eye out for edits from 218.208.39.33, 219.93.35.33 and possibly other IPs. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Linking to Afrikaans pages from menu

Could an admin please make MediaWiki:Portal-url/af link to Commons:Gemeenskapsportaal and MediaWiki:Welcome-url/af link to Commons:Hartlik_welkom (I believe those are the correct MediaWiki pages. I have created the Afrikaans Community portal and welcome page, but the navigation menu still needs some attention before it'll link there. (MediaWiki:Portal-url/af currently links to Commons:Gebruikersportaal, which is already been used by the Dutch community portal.) Thank you, Anrie 07:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done both of those; gimme a yell if anything isn't working as it should be. Cheers, giggy (:O) 08:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, very much. The links work now, although they still read "Welcome" and "Gebruikersportaal" (instead of "Welkom"/"Hartlik welkom" and "Gemeenskapsportaal"): is there any way to fix that? It's not the end of the world or anything, but I thought I could at least ask. Thanks again, Anrie 11:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed both problems.[28][29] I'll likely spend some time later fixing some more of the af localisation (I see a lot of English fallthrough still).--Nilfanion 12:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch, it looks much better now. Anrie 14:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Uploads of user Fogo

That user is uploading several images of brazilian actors that resembles those found on magazines, some even have magazine text like Image:Malvino_Salvador_2.jpg please watch this user since I'm already cleaning his mess on the portuguese Wikipedia.--Pediboi 16:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, GeorgHH has blocked him for a week and all contributions have been deleted. Patrícia msg 11:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Esta imagen: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Azuqueca_de_Henares._San_Miguel%27s_Church.jpg es una modificación de: http://azuq01.azuquecawireless.net/fotos/azuq01/.thumbs/Nodo_azuq01_AzuquecaWireless_2003-04-06_15_vistas.jpg.html

Puede observar las ramas de los árboles, las sombras y la falta de veleta en la torre para poner otro cielo entre otras cosas. Según Sonsaz hay 3 años de diferencia entre las fotografías, pero claramente se ven que es una modificación. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.216.21.104 (talk • contribs)

Não, existem diferenças no tamanho de uma das árvores e o céu é diferente também. Parecem-me duas fotos distintas. Patrícia msg 11:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
El encabezado está trucado y ha sido editada con un programa de edición de fotografías. Si son imágenes de 3 años de diferencia, ¿cómo es posible que TODAS las ramas y hojas de todos los árboles estén exactamente en el mismo sitio? ¿cómo puede coincidir las sombras si hay diferencia horaria? ¿por qué ha desaparecido la veleta si sigue estando? ¿por qué donde estaba la cigüeña ahora hay una mancha negra? ¿por qué hay esas sombras tan marcadas si el día está nublado? Está claro que ha cambiado el cielo, eliminado algunos elementos y oscurecido la tonalidad de los colores.
Sim, entendo. Penso que teremos de pôr esta e outras imagens para eliminação, pois os uploads do usuário não são de confiança. Apercebi-me disso depois de verificar os seus pedidos abaixo. Saludos, Patrícia msg 12:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No entanto, acrescento que os dados EXIF são diferentes nas duas fotos. Patrícia msg 13:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
EXIF data can be forged. I notice five things:
  1. in our version, there are several trees missing, and the one tree on the left looks cut off at the horizon (as far as I can make it out in that crappy resolution).
  2. How come the photo has such strong shadows in the foreground and in the middle distance, when the sky was overcast? And if the sun had been shining from behind the photographer, I would expect brighter colors.
  3. The image is available only at a low resolution here. If the uploader took this image himself, challenge him to upload a larger version.
  4. Take a look at our image in a graphics program at about 400% magnification: it is evident that the sky was photoshopped in (look at the horizon line/rooftops). The rooftops are heavily pixellated, but the sky is pristine (except just near the rooftops, and in a spot at the very left where that tree was cutoff; there are some artefacts there).
  5. Scale our image by a factor of 1.11 (96/86) so that its size is 636×446 pixels. Then try to overlay it onto the source image. It matches exactly.
I don't understand why someone would go to the trouble of photoshopping this image so much. But yes, it looks like someone manipulated that image. Lupo 13:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Some images from User:Sonsaz is up and running. Patrícia msg 16:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Pico_Ocejon_desde_Usanos_2006-06-03.JPG es modificación de: http://guadalfaxara.iespana.es/Fotos/Usanos%20-%20Trigales%20de%20la%20Campinna%20y%20pico%20Ocejon%2002%202006-06-03.JPG —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.216.21.104 (talk • contribs)

Same EXIF data, all rights reserved on the main page -> deleted. Please be careful with this website, it seems to be infected with a downloader trojan (fortunately, I have excellent anti-virus and firewall :)). Patrícia msg 11:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tercera violación de coyright que veo del usuario Sonsaz

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Campillo_de_Ranas.jpg es modificación de: http://biblioteca2.uclm.es/biblioteca/ceclm/libros/camineria/graficos_C2/f2605.jpg —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.216.21.104 (talk • contribs)

Confirmada, imagem eliminada. Patrícia msg 11:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Y esta podría ser otra violación de Sonsaz

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Flag_of_Guadalajara.png derivada de: http://bp3.blogger.com/_fFHs9P4ED9M/RwnaTvp2u0I/AAAAAAAAAEk/xwqrr148cQA/s1600-h/Bandera_provincia_de_Guadalajara,_Castilla-La_Mancha,_Espa%C3%83%C2%B1a.png

¿Puede alguien revisar todas sus imágenes[30]? Gracias. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.216.21.104 (talk • contribs)

Parece-me que bandeiras e brasões não terão problemas; todavia, essa imagem parece incorrecta (ver [31]). Vou propor a eliminação e rever os outros uploads. Gracias, saludos, Patrícia msg 11:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Picturit

User uploaded black squares and erased the licenses from his images today. Apparently he doesn't want them on Commons anymore. -Nard 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rama's taking care of it. Apparently, he wants to leave and take his images with him, something he obviously cannot do. --Boricuæddie 21:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Category:Villa Angarano Bianchi Michiel

I assume it would better for the title/headings relating to the material on Villa Angarano to display in the same way as the entries for other Palladian villas (there are photos of a number of separate villas, eg Villa Badoer). I am sorry I don't understand the system better, I think the problem is to do with the images for Villa Angarano being separate pages. When creating an article in Wikipedia for Villa Angarano, I found that the link to the commons material shows with the word "category..." whereas with the other villas, such as Villa Badoer you don't have the word category, just the name of the villa. --Alanmaher 06:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Imágenes de Sonsaz

Todas las imágenes subidas por mí marcadas como posible violación de copyright puedo asegurar que son propias. El problema está en que algunas las cedí a otros sitios de Internet, por lo que entiendo podría acarrear problemas de derechos ante estos sitios. No sé cómo está el tema legal acerca de los contenidos de Internet en casos de que no se especifique el copyright, por lo que no puedo manifestarme ante esto. Por tanto, por el bien de la Wikipedia, y si es cuanto antes, mejor, acepto que sean eliminadas aquellas que puedan generar esta controversia, es decir, las imágenes de Abedular de Somosierra.jpg y Ocejón desde Valverde.jpg (que, además, equivoqué el título), así como las que ya fueron eliminadas. En cuanto a la del Busto de Mose Ben Sen Tob.jpg no me suena haberla cedido a otro sitio de Internet por lo que creo que es exclusiva de Wikimedia Commons, a no ser que alguien la haya copiado de aquí para otro proyecto, que no lo sé.

Ante la imagen del mapa de la sierra de Ayllón creo que está aclarado en la descripción de la imagen por lo que creo que no tiene sentido el aviso.

En cuanto a la modificación de imágenes, es algo que a veces hago para mejorarla o hacerla más visual. Ahora, si la consideran incorrecta por algún motivo, bórrenla también, no me opondré.

Siento las molestias que haya podido ocasionar. Sonsaz 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Si modificas "tus" imágenes para mejorarlas y hacerlas más visuales, ¿porqué trucas también las cabeceras EXIF? No cuela, las originales que se encuentran en Internet tienen otras cabeceras EXIF y no aparecen recortadas y las que no se han encontrado en internet son, por lo menos, sospechosas. Claramente has violado reiteradamente copyrights de varias imágenes haciendo creer a la gente que eran tuyas.

Serbian (?) speaker required?

user:Ujambor has created a page a couple of times today with nothing other than "work in progress" or similar on (which have been deleted). The other work looks ok to me so I am wondering if there is a language/understanding issue here. There is English in the pictures info but some language assistance might help a newbie, thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As he creates his pages in english I do not belive there are no language Problems. I gave him a final warning in english language a few minutes before you reportet him here. But telling him what is correct in his language cant be wrong. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 12:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Review of block/es Admin assistance please

User:Ed veg is a user with a troubled history on Commons (the block log speaks volumes!). I had a request to remove Image:Armoiries du Canada.svg.png which has been uploaded a time or two & is a copyvio. Reading the talk page it looks to me as though there have been two final warnings recently (ABF & Ecemaml). Assuming I am correct (& taking into account the block log, warnings etc) I have indef blocked this user. This is not action I normally like to take & I would appreciate others taking a look at this user's record to ensure I have not been unreasonable. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see here, I endorse. However, I would suggest that an es admin attempt to communicate with the editor, just in case something useful can be salvaged (so to speak)... giggy (:O) 09:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please change my user name

User:피첼 -> User:Ficell --피첼 12:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please request the renaming here. Thanks. →Christian NurtschTM 14:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Layout/Display issues

For the past two days pages on the commons do not display properly after I log in. Sunday evening ok, Monday morning broken :)

Prior to login all pages i have visited display correctly After login all that can be seen is the bar column on the left (without wikimedia logo) If I view the page source I can see that the content for the page is all there If I save a page and then open the file the content displays

I have tried clearing the cache, using diferent browsers, computers and ISP to no effect I do not have and user .css files (that i know of) I have modified my monobook.js, did not have any issues after the last changes

Any thoughts, or a solution?

Sorry, can't login -- Rooivalk

Today, it seems to work correctly. Please let me know if you're experiencing the same difficulties as yesterday. →Christian NurtschTM 13:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Still have the same problem, before login all ok, after login can't see much --Rooivalk
Well, the only possible reason for your problems might be your monobook.js. I'll delete it temporarily. Please retry to login and report if your problem remains. →Christian.И 12:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, all back to normal --Rooivalk 18:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Help

Could anyone speaking deustch (I think) check if this permission is valid for these images: Image:MarquesCaballero.jpg, Image:CanibalesGoya.jpg, Image:GOC02432.jpg, Image:Chinchon1.jpg, Image:LareinaMariaLuisaacaballo.jpg, Image:4ba9a02c64.jpg Image:Goya 33 small.jpg and Image:Museo thyssen d CTB.1983.38.jpg ? The uploader had already uploaded several Goya images with a wrong info, title and a copyrighted source and the rest of his contributions are rather suspicious as well. Thank you. Anna 02:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources seem to be accurate as mentioned here. In that case, the permissions are okay (but I cannot proof it completely without owning the mentioned DVD ;) ). →Christian NurtschTM 10:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No not at all. We already have all the images from the Yorck project, see Category:PD-Art (Yorck Project). Bradfield (talk · contribs), who uploaded these images, is either seriously confused, or he's deliberately mislabelling these images. Also, he's uploaded a whole bunch of images with the identical (and wrong!!) description from Image:Francisco de Goya y Lucientes 063.jpg. Or do you seriously think that this image came from the Yorck project and showed the Marquesa de Pontejos y Sandoval?? Lupo 14:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Very seriously confused, I should say. The three plant images he uploaded were all copyvios, and two of them had the wrong species: Image:Myrothamnaceae.jpg, Image:Circaeasteraceae.jpg, Image:Austrobaileyaceae.gif. Lupo 14:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I've tagged all his remaining uploads that weren't already so tagged as {{subst:nsd}}. Lupo 14:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, or that Marquesa is the first transsexual in the history or the user is deliberately uploading copyvios. I should say the second, the image has a Fotos.org embbeded which I hadn't noticed, so I think all those images should be deleted. Anna 00:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image not showing up

Please see Category:Second Intifada casualties. I can see the thumbnail images for both images there. But I can't see the full-size image for Image:Israeli deaths. 2nd Intifada.gif.

I tried uploading the image over the old image, and still have the same problem.

Also, the editing bar is not showing up on the commons editing windows for me. It is showing up fine on wikipedia, so I don't think it is a problem on my end. I had to go to wikipedia to copy the timestamp wikicode, and paste it here.

Also, Image:Israeli deaths. 2nd Intifada.gif is not showing up on my commons watchlist.

In my Firefox browser I can see all of the image description info on Image:Israeli deaths. 2nd Intifada.gif. I just can't see the image on that page. At the bottom of the page I see "Waiting for upload.wikimedia.org", but the image never shows up.

I have the same problem in Internet Explorer.

In both browsers I can see the full-size chart image for Image:Palestinian deaths. 2nd Intifada.gif. It is just the full-size Israeli deaths chart that I can not see. --Timeshifter 09:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I just uploaded a different image: Image:Intifada deaths.gif
The same problem is occurring. I can see its thumbnail image in this category: Category:Second Intifada casualties, but I can't see the full-size image. --Timeshifter 11:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem seems to have gone away. I didn't do anything, so if you guys did something, it may have been the reason why the problem no longer exists. I can also see the editing bar. Thanks! --Timeshifter 12:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Asking attention of another administrator in the case Category:Don Bosco

I would like other admnistrator to check the case of the request of move category:John Bosco to category:Don Bosco. Evidences for the move has been proven in the discussion and there are seven supporters. The only opponent to the move does not want to recognize the evidences and does not provide his own ones. Where can I apply an official voting or request a mediation in this case? Thanks. --AlbeiroR24 15:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Luigi Frutti XLC

The image that User:Luigi Frutti XLC has uploaded today and then announced on the Village pump[32] looks like a bad joke, may violate personality rights and seems to be out of our project scope. The same applies to the other image uploaded by this user. Alltogether this does not look very promising. -- Túrelio 11:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Túrelio - I've deleted them as outside scope & warned the uploader. Worth watching certainly --Herby talk thyme 12:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit of protected page requested

The current Wikipedia home page has an image of Barbie but the image description does not link back to the article.

I'd like to to a minor edit of the Image:Barbie.jpg description to change

Description=Barbara Millicent Roberts

to

Description=[Barbie|Barbara Millicent Roberts (Barbie)]

TIA Marc Kupper 08:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. giggy (:O) 08:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Giggy - I really zoned out on the link syntax but I see you figured it out. :-) Marc Kupper 08:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries, if you need anything else, you know where to find us. giggy (:O) 09:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tristan.jpg

Yesterfay someone chose to replace a historic image of Tristan and Isolds, used for examploe by the English Wikipedia, woth one of a bank. I don't seem to be able to revert this replacement. Could an administrator please replace this damaging replacement? Thanks--Peter cohen 10:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done --rimshottalk 11:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks--Peter cohen 11:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh goody

More porn! Image:Ejaculating on face.jpg - I am not at all bothered by any such images personally. However I question the value to the project I think. I guess I think we should maybe have a discussion somewhere about what additional material we maybe "need" in this general area. I have a feeling that most images of this nature might be found elsewhere on the internet if anyone wanted them (of course I have not looked myself....). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 17:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I totaly agree. We have got a cupple of senseless porns and we often get spammed with them. If I see such I delete them strahight away if there isnt any real special sense. abf /talk to me/ 18:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
After having a loock at check usage I deleted this one also. abf /talk to me/ 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete an image - please!

I have realised that an image that I uploaded wasn't my work... It's a bit embarrassing, but I would appreciate if someone could delete the image Image:SSSF2003.jpg, thanks! --Oddjob 23:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. giggy (:O) 23:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --Oddjob 08:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Unknown - No timestamp given

Noone cares about them. So what to do with them? Any Ideas? Regards, abf /talk to me/ 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect many of them are not deletion candidates - just badly tagged images. The ones I checked all have people using {{PD-author}} instead of (or in addition to) {{PD-Self}}.--Nilfanion 20:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This is probably caused by commonshelper. I will do some cleaning up soon. Multichill 22:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot upload of "user taken" images from en.Wikipedia has grabbed several copyvio images

Pictures such as this one Image:Iron Maiden 95g.jpg that were bot uploaded from en.wiki are images stolen from a regular Wiki editor who is known for lifting copyvio pics from random internet sites. User:Leo4313660 on en.wikipedia had most of his uploads deleted by Betacommand and others as they were easily found with a Google image search. Some, like the example above, have slipped through the cracks and are now available at Commons een though the original upload contained a dishonest 'self-made' tag. I found this picture simplky searching for the word 'maiden'. These falsely tagged pictures are now skittered about on Commons and will likely find their way back to en.wiki and other interwiki pages if they aren't cleaned up. Sorry for the headache. I am noticing quite a few of these images are slipping throught the cracks lately and having them on Commons is setting a bad example. 156.34.142.110 18:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of the picture in that category eighter taken less that 50 years ago (such as Image:100 NIS Bill Obverse & Reverse.jpg) but seems that most of the images came from Israely National Photo Collection which is a copyrighted site. In some cases - such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:AbbaEban1951.jpg - the link was represented only by it's ip 147.237.72.31 (or whatever the search engine brings) or in others - mof.gov.il/pictures.

There are many Images from this site - as Hidro (talk · contribs) had pointed out to me - though it seems most of them were uploaded by Derwig (talk · contribs), Nudve (talk · contribs) (which also uploaded copyrighted images from knesset.gov.il), סוצאנג (talk · contribs)

There are also some copyrighted pictures from The Knesset Website falsely marked as PD-Israel (all the images are copyrighted).

In conclusion - there are too many pictures for me to handle, without being helped by some administrators and/or bots.

Yuval Y § Chat § 01:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In short - the original image may be {{PD-Israel}} but the derivatives in INP or Knesset are strictly copyrighted. Yuval Y § Chat § 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that israli copyright law will be changeing in may 2008 and this change will impact the copyright status of official publications of the goverment.Geni 15:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I've noticed that... With all the images we're talking about, I guess it would be better to wait and see what comes out... Yuval Y § Chat § 21:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User...harassment?

I'm not sure if harassment is the right term or not, but a particular user keeps throwing speedy-delete tags on Image:Khadr medic 2.png and Image:Khadr Medic.png even though they're both clearly tagged as being photos by US Soldiers. I think his original problem was that I'd uploaded all the files in Category:Omar Khadr at once with the same licensing (Release by the family, as most of the photos were family photos), and then went through and manually changed the sources/licenseTags...I'm not sure who he *thinks* took the photo, since it was a military operation without anybody present *except* for US Military forces still in a hot zone...but when I requested that he use a Request for Deletion rather than "Speedy Deletion", he simply changed my userpage to say I was a sockpuppet of User:Geo Swan (I'm not, feel free to do a CheckUser if you'd like) and reinserted the tags saying that I wasn't an administrator so my opinion wasn't valid...wth? I've got thousands of images on Commons - I'm pretty aware of policy, and I'm finding it increasingly annoying that User:Executioner continues harrassing me. Sherurcij 21:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, viewing his talk page I see that he has gotten in disputes about images about Omar Khadr before, referring to the uploader as "anti-Islam" and telling him to "stop uploading sick images where they show humans in such awful conditions", and that led the uploader [a Village Pump] discussion on the fact that User:Executioner said that the images of Omar Khadr shouldn't be allowed because "Children use the Commons". Sherurcij 21:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed one of the images says of its source: NOT RELEASED BY U.S. MILITARY. I don't know about harassment, but we really should know who's releasing photos. If these aren't military owned pictures then they are the property of the soldier who took them and as such copyrighted images. Did you take them? If so consider releasing them under {{GFDL}}. Anynobody 03:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
They were taken by a US Soldier in commission of his duties, User:Executioner just considers them "anti-Islam" "not appropriate for children" and "still top secret, not released" -- there's no actual doubt about the photographer (Special Forces Group 19, in commission of duties, presented at military tribunal as evidence, released 'accidentally' to media) - just his constant "new excuses" to demand they be deleted. Sherurcij 05:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand why coming to that conclusion is really easy, They were taken by a US Soldier in commission of his duties..., but the problem is not all pictures taken by soldiers are necessarily DoD public domain images. For example a teacher of mine, who happened to fly F-100s during the Vietnam war carried his own 35mm camera and caught some interesting images of his right wing missing the middle leading edge slat in flight as well in addition to photos on the ground of his and other planes. Those are his pictures, whereas the gun camera footage of the same mission is the government's and therefore public domain. The good news is that resolving the question is usually really easy, as many DoD photos are available online and can be easily cited. For example: This photo of a F-35 from Air Force Link.
A real problem exists if the only source is from the media. (In which case it may need to be uploaded to Wikipedia with a fair use rationale.) Anynobody 08:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Change 2 image file names, please

Image:Melbourne in Freemantle overhead 1980.jpg Image:Melbourne in Freemantle 1980.jpg Hi there, I just uploaded the above two photos, and was not paying sufficient attention and they have an incorrect spelling of the place name Fremantle in the file name (it is spelt Freemantle in the filename) Could a friendly admin change the word Freemantle in both image names to Fremantle? Neither image is yet linked to anything, so there should be no consequences, if there are, I am happy to deal with those. Thank you in advance. I will pay more attention in future. Nick Thorne 14:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please use the {{Bad name}} tag to request renaming of files that you have uploaded. To suggest renaming of an incorrectly named image, use {{Rename image}}. More information may be found at COM:IFD Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Nick Thorne 11:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

es admin/assistance please

I really don't like blocking people who could be genuine contributors so could I ask for an es admin to review these contributions from this user. Obviously they have a "music group" I guess and keep uploading cd covers, logos & photos relating to it. As the talk page shows they have had numerous warnings and then a week's block from me with absolutely no change in behaviour!

I guess I'm thinking of a longer or indef block however would prefer someone who could actually communicate with them to try some sort of last message? Many thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done I've checked all the contributions, and all his uploads are for promote his band. I've also delete his article on es.wikipedia, SPAM and rated as a Featured Article by himself. Thanks for the information Herby ;). Greetings Rastrojo (D•ES) 12:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated Rastrojo, glad I was on the right track, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion candidate?

This image was put up for deletion, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vincennes shot.jpg but I think it qualifies for speedy deletion because it as well as the site it came from clearly violate our copyright rules and I doubt any amount of discussion will change that fact.
Image problems:

  • No author is identified despite claiming to be released under a GFDL.
  • Appears to be of professional origin making identification even more necessary.

Site problems:

  • Incorrectly releases images it has no right to, (real owners can be shown), under the GFDL. Note these two photos from the same site: Photo 1 and Photo 2. These photos were actually taken by the w:International Solidarity Movement as this CNN article says.
  • Features another photograph elsewhere on the site someone took of news on their TV.

Is this something that should be deleted unless more info can be provided? Anynobody 03:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, it's a supposedly GFDL image that doesn't identify its author, which I'm under the impression casts doubt over whether it really is a GFDL image, meaning it's possibly copyrighted and unfit for including here at the Commons. Anynobody 03:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Why not calm down and let the deletion discussion take its course? I doubt anyone is willing to speedily delete it before the due time. -Nard 03:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

First I should explain that I am calm, and that this image has gone through similar discussions on w:Wikipedia for about a month without resolving who took the picture. If it's really GFDL then it obviously shouldn't be speedily deleted, but if we can't confirm it's GFDL how is discussion going to solve that? (Especially when the original uploader doesn't know and the site doesn't say.) Anynobody 03:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The image is gone but Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vincennes shot.jpg is still open, would an admin please close it? Anynobody 02:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Closed the DR. In future, you can if the image has already been deleted (instructions are at the top of COM:DEL). cheers, giggy (:O) 04:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Review and/or da speaker maybe

I came across a user who's work I think might be worth reviewing. The talk page shows a fair disinterest in Commons policies in terms of licensing (never mind the "Stay away from my own pictures!" comment). Equally the now licensed stuff seems to relate to this website - if it is the user's website I have to wonder why there are no larger images available? It may just be me but another set of eyes would be good and maybe a note saying please comply in future? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Public domain images from Hungarian Wikipedia

Dear friends,

After receiving no responses to pleas for help posted on a couple of Talk pages on the English Wikipedia, I went ahead and uploaded a couple of "public domain" images from the Hungarian Wikipedia to English Commons. In both cases, I specifically requested help with transferring the file information from the original to the English. Now, both images have triggered a response from Filbot (see my Talk page). Please advise me on how I can rectify the problem (no, I don't speak Hungarian or have access to a Hungarian–English dictionary), or please "do the needful" for these images. Many thanks.

Please note that I shall be travelling this coming weekend, so may not be able to get back to the images until early next month—Grmanners 15:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

change my user name

Hi

I chaged my name in the spanish wikipedia, I was wondering if I can do the same here. C arango 14:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you can put in a request here. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

fr admin assistance please

I blocked User:Saki27 four days ago for continuing to upload unlicensed material (warnings etc. I confess I was concerned yesterday to get an email saying "three days is up please unblock & why did you block me anyway" in French (I can read it to a degree but not to the degree I can answer!). I do have issues with the fact that a welcome template was never posted on their page given that they would have had more information that way but that is a sideline.

I see today they are at it again (Talk page warning). I'd appreciate a fluent fr speaker posting something that points out just what they are doing wrong & the consequences please. I guess they should be blocked again quite soon if they do not get the message. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

done. (:Julien:) 11:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup Julien :) --Herby talk thyme 11:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Zillaman and associated sockpuppets

User:Zillaman, who has been blocked multiple times for continuously uploading copyrighted images from news agencies and Flickr, is operating under multiple accounts:

Frickman and Gzill are the most recently used accounts, and the uploads are almost all footballer images taken from copyrighted sources.

The user continues to upload copyrighted images after repeated warnings, requests, and blocks, and continues to claim ownership. You can see further evidence of sockpuppetry in their user page vandalism:

The upload log should be enough evidence of sockpuppetry. Please block this user indefinitely. --Ytoyoda 01:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the evidence above, I've blocked all the accounts indef, and the IP for 1 month. giggy (:O) 02:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

German speaker needed...

...to figure out what's going on here. Finn Rindahl 22:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The user is promoting some kind of group. It's obviously out of our scope, so I'm deleting and leaving a warning. --Boricuæddie 23:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Questionable assertions on photos of New Rochelle, New York

A new user, Special:Contributions/Smurfette143, has uploaded several images that are remarkably similar to images that have been identified as possible copyright violations in the English Wikipedia. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FlanneryFamily for a collection of the notifications there.) Links to the new Commons versions of these images are being added in English Wikipedia articles, notably http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Rochelle%2C_New_York , in place of the images whose copyright status was being questioned. --Orlady 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Rename or delete user

Dear administrator, sorry, but I find no way to delete my mistyped user "GFis" which I want to be "Gfis" as in the German and English Wikipedia. I did not confirm the email, but the GFis user still persists. Should I wait - how long? - or can you rename it or can you please delete it? I would really like to start uploading pictures with the proper user name. Thanks in advance GFis 21:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A bureaucrat can rename you. Until then, please confirm an email on this account. As well, you can begin contributing with this username; when your account is renamed, your edits and uploads will be reattributed to the new name. If you need the same thing done at de.wikipedia and en.wikipedia, you'll have to ask there separately. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
To be renamed, go to COM:CHU. giggy (:O) 08:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Serious violation of personality rights

Though the 3 images Image:Illegitimacy 1of3.jpg, Image:Illegitimacy 2of3.jpg and Image:Illegitimacy 3of3.jpg are already on deletion row due to violation of personality rights of the depicted persons, I urgently recommend the immediate deletion of the latter image (Image:Illegitimacy 3of3.jpg), as it shows in full view the face of a child that is called "extra-maritally born" in the image description. However good the intentions of the uploader may have been, this is unacceptable. -- Túrelio 15:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. They appear to be clear attack images. They are also unacceptable under Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. --MichaelMaggs 17:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Túrelio 18:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response. --Svens Welt 20:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted site

Some dozens of images have been uploaded from http://gallery.spotimage.com/. According to the site policy http://gallery.spotimage.com/pages.php?pID=14 all of the satellite images are copyrighted and reproduction, redistribution and sell is not allowed unless an authorization is given. Are there any bots to delete them? They're a lot. Anna 07:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like User:Spot Image is affiliated with the site. Before deleting the lot, you could ask for OTRS permission. --rimshottalk 08:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks as if Spot Image, a company that sells images produced by the SPOT family of satellites, wants to use the commons as catalog for their images. They make them available watermarked and in a limited 500 px resolution, I guess in the hope to sell high resolution versions and prints. I think this could be acceptable if there is a OTRS permission and we have a better basic resolution. The watermark thing needs to be discussed, I guess. During the upload process, it would be better to include a better description and the wikipedia links already present on their spotimage website. --Foroa 08:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
As long as the free licence is valid, the watermarks are small enough that they could be cropped or cloned out per standard procedure without losing too much relevant image content. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Review of contribs please

Deleting an obvious copyvio led me to these contributions. The "licensed" ones look pretty unlikely to me and the "Source - I don't know what the license is" doesn't fill me with hope either! Can someone else take a look through these - thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done All tagged as nsd/nld. --GeorgHH • talk   18:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's revenge deletion request of all images (more than 200) uploaded by me User:Moldopodo

I would like to inform whoever is responsible for this that the request made by the User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (the request, which I by the way did not find either here, nor in archives of Wikimedia Commons!!!) is an act of low teenage-style revenge with the banal use of administrator privileges, normally not characteristic of an administrator (or any other reasonable user and simply person) already in dispute with a user on the other project (English Wikipedia)[45]. The FPS (Fut.Perf.Sunr) informed me only of the fact that the request to delete my images was made only after they were effectively deleted. When I asked to give a reason why she/he did not inform me in advance that some problem existed with license, or why all of a sudden FSP got inetrested in my images (right after two notices were put by me against her/him on Wikipedia administratirs' noticeboard) I got NO answer from her/him. This is however characteristic of this user, as when she/he was asked to justify her/his allegations of disruptive editing (himself/herself actually contributing to it) against me, she/he NEVER presented a diff or link or whatsoever. I really don't give a damn, as personally I have no desire to upload them again. Let all those articles by dull grey pages. --Moldopodo 16:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Best I can tell, Future Perfect is acting appropriately. See the deletion discussion. Gray pages are better than illegal pages. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 17:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Moldopoldo, please calm down. To insult Future Perfect at Sunrise does not help your case at all, nor does the spamming of this message across different pages on Commons. According to Commons:Deletion requests/All uploads by Moldopodo, you have been uploading images from a website. If they are your own work, we need proof, if not, we need permission. Please refrain from verbally attacking users, and explain your point of view about the images. Patrícia msg 18:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Revenge for what? I can only agree with Thisisbossi and Patrícia. Please do not attempt to turn a concern about copyright issues into a personal matter and attempt victimise yourself; you stand to gain nothing. Address the facts, not the person. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have explained revenge for what above, click on the hyper text. If you are ignorant to know more, that's your problem. Well, you really did not search very far into the matter to say what you said... and the best of it that nobody even contests, it's enough that one person says bullshit and everybody repeats... how smart. I am not ready to lose another couple of hours and change licenses to the proper self-tag or whatever there should be as a matter of principle, because of malicious manipulations of Future Perfect at Sunrise and her disruptive editing. Delete them all, I don't give a damn, poor geeks, but one thing is sure I am not uploading them or modifying the licenses to the ones there should be as a matter of principle. There are ways to explain it politely and to draw one's attention to improve in advance and not like Future Perfect at Sunrise did, by announcing a posteriori "they are deleted" in a revenge style action.--Moldopodo 06:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If the license placed on the images is incorrect, then it is irrelevant if Future Perfect is taking "revenge" on Moldopodo. Stop trying to deflect and make this about Future Perfect, and defend the claim at the deletion page, and/or get permission as requested. Otherwise I guarantee people will continue to ignore you (seriously, I've been around a while, I notice such patterns)Patstuart (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
And this sort of attitude is not making you look any better. Please remain civil. If you're really not interested in a constructive debate, then by all means stop uploading pictures and find yourself some other thing to do, instead of wearing down our patience here. I'm not always mellow. Patrícia msg 13:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Patricia, try to be more self-critical and rather copy the quote you have left on my talk page which supports the way I I've answered after. This would make it a better picture and will justify my statement of your rudeness.
-Please stop spamming Commons with the same message. I am deleting all of them except the one at COM:AN/A. Patrícia msg 17:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-Chill out and try to use better language next time. I could not find the deletion request in the first hand (as it is improperly listed even on my talk page), nor did I know where to put the message, you rude person!--Moldopodo 06:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
--Moldopodo 13:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

From the quotes you just provided, Patricia acted appropriately, too. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 16:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Moldopoldo, if everybody tells you that your behaviour is unacceptable, maybe it's because your behaviour is indeed unacceptable. I stand by what I said on my talk page: your behaviour will grant you a block if you insist on it. You chill out and act responsibly, without personal remarks, insults or any type of inappropriate language directed towards any user. Less patient administrators would have given you a 24h block to cool down - I want to avoid that. If you want images back, let's talk about them, the deletion request, and their source and permissions; but if you're here to simply tell us how bad and rude we are and that you don't want to contribute any further on Commons, then don't disrupt this project. Did you come here to ask for help or just complain? Do you want us to recover the images or not? Do you want any help whatsoever or just to annoy? Patrícia msg 16:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Spanish speaker needed

Unfortunately, my spanish is still really poor. Could someone please respond to that question ? Thanks in advance. →Christian.И 13:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Patstuart (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Spanish speaking help needed

See Image:Teodoro-autorretrato.jpg history, no permission-tag has been removed by ip (uploader I presume) but there no sign uploader has actually understood what the problem was to begin with. Finn Rindahl 17:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The user appears to be an English speaker: User:Peruartevalor. Patstuart (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I need someone to delete some images

i didnt know about all the copyright stuff, so i just want these images gone!

please help! Richmond96 01:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done --GeorgHH • talk   09:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Help!

ResolvedPatstuart (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody revert the editions of The Ogre in Image:Imperio español.png, Image:Map-Hispanophone World.png, Image:Map-Hispanophone World.PNG, Image:Spanish colonization of the Americas.png, Image:América Hispánica.PNG and Image:Spanish Empire.png?. He uploaded bad versions. The maps are wrong because he eliminated all he want. I want to recover the old versions. Thank you. --Durero 11:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You can revert yourself - click the "revert" link on the image page, if it's not protected. I don't feel comfortable stepping in when there's discussion taking place...someone more knowledgeable? giggy (:O) 08:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an edit war which really doesn't involve the administrators. In fact, I'm not sure I don't entirely agree with The Ogre, as stated on his page. Patstuart (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Jdvillalobos

Please, could someone check the contributions of Jdvillalobos. He has uploaded half a dozen of clear copyvios (book covers), buy I have currently no time to mark them all. Thanks in advance. --jynus (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done All images marked or nominated for deletion that appeared to violate copyrights. Patstuart (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Review of "out of scope" contributions appreciated

I came across IPs yesterday repeatedly removing deletion tags from pdfs. Looking more closely I found these contributions. I deleted two immediately as "out of scope" afterwards realising one had had a deletion tag removed by an ip which I had missed (comment here). This has since been re-uploaded byt the user.

Personally I still see these contribs as out of scope & would delete them speedily. I would probably block the user (uploading deleted material, probably behind the IP removing the tags etc etc) but I would prefer others to look & comment. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Commented on DR. giggy (:O) 08:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Alarming article on infiltration of Wikipedia

I read this article and felt someone at Wikipedia should be aware. I'm hoping you can forward to the appropriate administrator. I'm not sure what can be done about it but the more Wikipedia administrators who are aware, the better.

Thank you, 71.158.243.2 23:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Paz Stein pazstein@yahoo.com

Removed. Thanks for letting us know, I guess. It's a good thing Commons doesn't have any articles then, isn't it :) – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

User:Ineversigninsodonotmessageme, a troll to begin with, is now using unblock messages as an excuse to further trolling. Additionally, this user may be a reincarnation of Tarja Lawless brand. Please protect the talk page to prevent further trolling. Patstuart (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep agree, ✓ Done. I may prod Allie just for info, cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Daladier.jpg

This image was nominated for deletion, but a user removed the deletion notice, before it was closed and replaced it with a bogus license template. He claims the source says it is PD, but the part he quotes says the exact opposite, black on white it says : L'iconographie de la rubrique "Histoire" : Agence KEYSTONE : la reproduction n’est pas autorisée. (reproduction is not authorized) ! Jackaranga 13:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tag re-instated - off to warn the one who removed it - thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Replace Image:Subversion project visualization corrected.svg

I am a new user, please replace Image:Subversion project visualization.svg by renaming Image:Subversion project visualization corrected.svg

Unresolved 2007 deletion request

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sun Myung Moon 2005.jpg As I understand it, the New World Encyclopedia's assurance of its content being licensed under GFDL terms isn't enough for us to assume this to be true when it doesn't identify the author. Whether I'm right or wrong could someone close this? Anynobody 04:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. giggy (:O) 00:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Large number of copyvios found

Now that it has been established that the commons does actually enforce the laws of France in respect to the illegality of publishing photos of copyrighted architecture and buildings, I have found a large number of copyvios. (see this recent one and the original one) Category:Skyscrapers in France is almost entirely full of copyright violations, I couldn't see any that had a OTRS ticket from the architects. Please read COM:FOP if you are unfamiliar with freedom of panorama. As these are blatant copyright infringement (it is impossible to have a free picture of skyscrapers in France, as none of the architects of the big glass buildings died more than 70 years ago), should I tag each of them for speedy deletion ? I'm thinking there may be problems for other countries too, I only looked into the French ones for the moment. I find it hard to believe nobody had noticed this before! What is going on, this is hardly new. Should action be taken against the editors who violated copyright in such a way ? What about if I find one uploaded by an admin ? Any help would be appreciated, also I'm not saying all the images should be deleted without forethought, and each should be considered individually. For example a picture of a person in front of a copyrighted building can be released under a free license if it used to illustrate the person and not the building. Jackaranga 12:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For example Image:Mercuriales 3.JPG was uploaded by an admin! Am I missing something here ? Jackaranga 12:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
For an example of a borderline case see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg which was kept because the picture was of a fountain. Personally I didn't think the arch was "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité), so we must exercise caution when reviewing such images, so as not to delete legal ones. Please tell me if I should nominate each one for deletion separately or all in the same request, or speedy deletion ?! Please help. Jackaranga 13:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. French law should not dictate what the rest of the world sees. First, our servers are based in the United States. Second, this is an issue that the French Wikipedia should deal with, not Commons. English language websites, or Vietnamese, or Tagalog, or Portugueuse sites should not have to contend with French law. This is ridiculous. Illegal in France? Fine - don't use them on the French Wikipedia. But France can't go around dictating to the rest of the world its laws, and those deletions should not have been deleted. --David Shankbone 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"Uploads of non-U.S. works are allowed only if the work is covered by a free license valid in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work, or if it is in the public domain in both countries." (Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and foreign copyright law). Jackaranga's concerns look valid. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you are misunderstanding, I am not in anyway related to the French government, it is the commons policy, at Commons:Freedom of panorama that I am talking about. If there is such a long page on freedom of panorama, it makes sense it is applied, otherwise why did people go to the trouble of writing it ? Also the commons has made a commitment to upholding foreign copyrights. What you say makes no sense, you are the one asking that American law apply in France ! Pictures taken in France are subject to French law not American law. This is logical, I don't understand why you think American law should apply in France. I am not talking about the legality of it anyway, you are probably right that the photo could be published in the USA legally, want I am talking about is the policy here on commons that forbids such photos, not out of fear of legal problems, but because of a deliberate choice. Also see this email from Jimbo Wales. I am not speaking of law but of the copyright policy on this website Jackaranga 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that many images taken in France do indeed need to go. Commons policy on this has long been clear - it's just that nobody has so far focussed on French pictures in particular. --MichaelMaggs 19:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with MM etc. Significant deletions are in order. giggy (:O) 23:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Account

I came here to create an account, with the username Filll which is my name on English Wikipedia and on Wikiquote and on English Wiktionary and on Wikinews and on Meta-Wiki. Apparently on French Wikipedia there is an editor with the username FILLL and they have an account here on Commons, so I was not able to get an account here on Commons as Filll. Can an administrator help me?--Filll2 20:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User name changes can be requested at COM:CHU. --rimshottalk 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Check 67.79.109.245 edits

Check edits of 67.79.109.245 please --67.170.53.118 00:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

All edits reverted; would a warning or a block be more proper (I don't know the procedure for long term vandalism on commons, as it's less common than on en.wikipedia). Patstuart (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Easily reverted, no need to block. giggy (:O) 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree a block for that would be excessive but I think at least place a warning tag so that in future we are alerted to the fact that the IP's behaviour has not been spotless? I confess I rarely bother to warn for what are often genuine "test" edits however for that sort where a block in future is possible (probable?) some warning is better than none - 0.02 --Herby talk thyme 07:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request

Please delete this file, because I protested against publishing this photo (personality rights), and the photographer accepted it. 89.133.16.18 07:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted this old revision of Image:Meetup Budapest 01.03.08 no06.jpg. Lupo 09:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks in advance! 89.133.16.18 09:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

USA Number plate uploads

Ok licensing isn't my strongest point. I saw a license plate tagged as a copyvio with the URL it was from & deleted it. I then decided to look at the contribs of the uploader (great user name....). As I didn't know anything about the one who tagged the image I looked at their contributions - what do you know - another license plate uploader who is "releasing theirs into the public domiain". Is it just me or does this look odd? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And another uploader - anyone with views on the licensing of such material - thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
copyvios.Geni 14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
All three uploaders/license plates generally or or...? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think that license plates are copyvios per se, only if they have copyrighted images/logos on them, or whatever... but they probably still don't belong here as there are personality rights violation issues, no? ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Could someone please take a look at Uyu's uploads - a lot of images from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum tagged as {{PD-USGov}}. They're not (possible with some very few exceptions) works of the US Federal Government, and the copyright notice at the source site does not indicate that images are in the public domain. Because of the volume of images, I'm reluctant to do this myself, as others with more knowledge of US copyright might know something I don't. Cnyborg 22:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see that you wrote that message here. Uyu obviously is a sockpuppet of Nyo who uploaded exactly the same pictures under exactly the same names in February. They were deleted then because as you stated that page does not show proper sources and authors. Thus they were deleted again and Uyu is blocked indefinite. -- Cecil 12:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Museum photography

I recently had a heated discussion on the usage of museum photography where the house rules do not allow it, see Category talk:Galleria degli Uffizi. I was not aware of the Commons policy stated here Commons:Image_casebook#Museum_photography. I am however noticing a similar concern for interior images of the Taj Mahal for example, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:TajCenotaphs.jpg, so apparently I am not the only one. I would like to at least put up a sign on select categories where such a conflict could arise, in order to at least inform users of what they could get themselves into should they wish to upload "forbidden" interior images. This is only fair and should not be a big feat. The notice can be small, it shouldn't take up much space. Gryffindor 10:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not the job of Commons to inform people of the conditions of entry of different venues. That's the responsibility of the owners of such venues. If we do take that task upon ourselves, we risk becoming liable in cases where we get it wrong or neglect to provide information for some venues when we do it for others. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bora Yoon wikipedia image

Hello there,

I am looking to have Bora_Yoon.jpg replaced with newly uploaded Bora_Yoon2.jpg. Except my account is too new to have the changes reflected.

I own the copyright for this photo, and would like to please replace the current image with this one. Can someone at the Help Desk pls replace the image for me?

many thanks in advance,

Foundsound 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)foundsound Brooklyn, NY

Request to delete duplicate

Please delete Image:GG1.jpg (not used outside Commons) - it is a duplicate of Image:PRR GG1 4890 at NRM, Green Bay, 20040426.jpg. (used on 16 pages on 7 projects). Many thanks Iain Bell 16:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio claim: Image:Denbigh_stadium_aerial_july_06.jpeg

Sorry but surprisingly there is no info at the FAQ on how to report an copyvio. An en.wiki user asserts at talk:stadium:MK that Image:Denbigh_stadium_aerial_july_06.jpeg violates his [father's] copyright. I have deleted it there and advised the poster (user:Zorro77) but presumably it needs to deleted here and at any other wiki that uses it. I don't know the procedure. --Concrete Cowboy 17:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Copyvio|source or reason}}. More at Commons:Deletion guidelines. -- Cecil 17:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Imbris

I know for sure that User:Imbris is a sockpuppet of User:Rainman. I'm from croatian wikipedia, where he is blocked for a period of 6 months. Rainman is now blocked for indefinite here on Commons, and reason given is "Intimidating behaviour/harassment: general problem editor, causing disruption here, hr.wikipedia and other places". Imbris discuss about same things like Rainman did (for example Flag of Serbia) and work on the same manner like Rainman did. --Suradnik13 08:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you give some further evidence that Imbris is Rainman? Neither of them are blocked on HrWP, and editing the same topics is not a blockable offense. giggy (:O) 09:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, i forgot. Rainmans username on croatian wiki is Goran. We can ask CU, but i'm sure. --Suradnik13 12:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I know that Imbris is Rainman. The two have the same attitude, the same beliefs, and way of speaking, the two accounts are highly critical towards people who oppose their edits, the two accounts edit the same material on Wikipedia but have never engaged in conversation with each other, and lastly the Imbris and Rainman accounts have never shown disagreement with each other. This is why I am sure that Imbris is Rainman.--R-41 15:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide some diffs? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't think of many. All I know is that the Imbris account is most often used for the Serbian flag, while the Rainman account is more often used for the Croatian flag, though I believe the Imbris account also has done editing for the Croatian flag. Since Rainman was banned, the Imbris account has become far more active in the same area of images of flags which Rainman edits, that indicates to me that it is Rainman.--R-41 18:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that R-41 is telling stories. I have edited Serbian flag issues on en:Talk:Flag of Serbia and en:User:Rainman is not me. Why should anyone have different user names than on his/her orriginal wikipedia. I have not edited Croatian flag in any way and Suradnik13 is possibly the User:Minestrone on commons. -- Imbris 19:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You can ask CU. I'm not Minestrone, but i know that you are commons Rainman (i know for Rainman on sr:wiki an en:wiki, who is other person). Can you ask that CheckUser disprove my and R-41 suspicion? --Suradnik13 19:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for my mistake, Imbris edits the Serbian flag, while Rainman edits the Croatian flag. This is a difference. But their manner of speech is very similar. Both say things like "R-41 is telling stories" (Imbris as shown above), or "you're seeing ghosts man" (said by Rainman on my talk page[46]) These two statements by Imbris and Rainman have the same dismissive tone, both have differences with me, and both specialize in editing flag images, I've never seen a conversation between the two users in the past despite the two having highly similar opinions, these all make me suspect that the two user accounts are the same person. User:Rainman on English Wikipedia was only created two months ago, the User:Rainman on Wikipedia Commons has existed before March 2008. The issue at hand is User:Rainman on Wikipedia Commons.--R-41 22:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, since Rainman has been banned, Imbris just recently rejected my upload for the flag of the Independent State of Croatia, which formerly has been edited by Rainman on Wikipedia Commons.[47] He rejects all of my uploads. As can be seen Imbris edits in the same areas as Rainman has, which combined with other evidence above, points further towards sockpuppetry.--R-41 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I have edited on english wikipedia and not here, your claims show that you are able to interpret the crutial difference that exist and this is the fact that I have not came in contact with either of you before. Also your "sppech recognition" software needs to be adjusted. The sentences are not comparable. And there has been shared interests when I have notified Rainman that Flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (state).svg is under consideration of being deleted. This is when you came after me at English Wikipedia and continued to do so even today. -- Imbris 23:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
All I know is that me and other users have been pushed to nerve's end by both Imbris and Rainman, who both have very similar attitudes, both have criticized me in a similar attitude on my uploads for the flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. I cannot tolerate the insensitivity of Imbris and Rainman or Imbris/Rainman, which ever proves to be the case. Imbris and Rainman have mututually insulting attitudes to those who oppose them, which attempt to belittle and humiliate other people's work, that is intolerable. I have tried to be civil to Imbris but he is not civil to me and others. If Imbris is not a sockpuppet then he should at least be banned for the same reasons as Rainman, he is abusive, insulting and a bully. But don't just listen to me ask Suradnik13 and this User:Minestrone who Imbris has been abusive to as well.--R-41 23:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's even more proof that Imbris is Rainman. I recently uploaded a new version of the flag of the former Socialist Republic of Slovenia. In the past Rainman has constantly opposed my uploads, while the user Imbris has not uploaded there prior. But now that Rainman is banned, Imbris has uploaded Rainman's version of Socialist Republic of Slovenia's flag as can be seen here,[48] and has argued against me for the same reasons as Rainman has. Very few users are active for the Socialist Republic of Slovenia's flag image. Only me and Rainman and one or two others, and now suddenly Imbris after Rainman was banned.--R-41 02:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

From looking at the user creation logs, it is highly unlikely that Rainman and Imbris are related, as Imbris existed before Rainman. They just happen to have similar interests. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 04:20, 16 May 2008 (GMT)

Yes, similar interests and similar way of conduct. Suddenly Imbris start working on commons after Rainman was blocked. If that would be neccesery, i suggest that CheckUser check Rainman and Imbris, but i'm sure that Imbris is a sockpuppet. --Suradnik13 11:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've handled hundreds of sock cases at en.wiki and account being created at different times is no proof of not being socks. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Note "highly unlikely", not "[definitely] not". :-) 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 03:31, 17 May 2008 (GMT)
I have found additional evidence, so I blocked the account indef. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Intifada deaths.svg

Image:Intifada deaths.svg - Why has this image stopped showing up? It is used in w:Second Intifada and in this discussion:

Image:Intifada deaths2.svg is showing up fine. It is also in the above-linked discussion. --Timeshifter 12:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me... purge your cache? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be working now after the last recent upload just a little while ago. I had purged my cache before I made the first request. --Timeshifter 15:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

COM:AI

To make the progress faster I created that page. I hope you like it. Please add it to your watchlist, but the changes will also be reported to #wikimedia-commons. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 12:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Err - why? Do we not have enough admin boards already? I often see the "I didn't know where to post" type comments. May be worth re-organising what we have (I often don't know where to post) but I am not sure about another one. --Herby talk thyme 12:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh & it would need incorporating in the header etc? --Herby talk thyme 12:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I hoped to make it easyer by adding this one. And i allready added it to the header. Lets try it out for a while. abf /talk to me/ 12:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't stand out much to me & surely the vandalism one is redundant at this point? Doesn't bother me but people don't know where to go as it is --Herby talk thyme 13:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I am really shure we should organize the AN part new, but AI is important as a speedy way to handle things. abf /talk to me/ 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's really messy at present. There's very little distinction between the main ANB, vandalism, attention, and user problems pages. Doesn't vandalism require attention? Isn't a vandal a problem user? There's not enough activity on all the subpages to justify them all. Here's my suggestion:
  1. Keep the main ANB for general discussion and problems with users (other than disputes)
  2. Keep AI for simple, urgent cases (quickly move misplaced issues elsewhere to maintain discipline)
  3. Keep blocks and protections for discussions regarding those (or don't, this could go in the main ANB too)
  4. Redirect attention and vandalism to AI (more complex and non-urgent issues go to the main ANB)
  5. Redirect user problems to ANB
  6. Maintain prominent links to the disputes noticeboard, checkuser and the helpdesk
—LX (talk, contribs) 15:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Much better working than mine - thanks LX & I agree with you --Herby talk thyme 15:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
What a silly idea. Please do not encourage the proliferation of noticeboards. There are too many already! – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
What comment do you mean? abf /talk to me/ 19:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll follow it up with a silly question: how does removing three noticeboards (attention, vandalism, and user problems) encourage their proliferation? —LX (talk, contribs) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I totaly agree to LX. abf /talk to me/ 19:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No I meant creating yet another is silly. LX's idea is much better. Sorry for being unclear. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I also like LX's noticeboard consolidation idea, though user problems could also be redirected to disputes, since some of the threads that appear in user problems are disputes where one user complains that the other doesn't listen the first user. O (谈 • висчвын) 04:18, 22 May 2008 (GMT)

My suggestions...(similar to LX's).

giggy (:O) 04:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy with this - as long as we reduce not increase the pages & make them clearer for folk - fine --Herby talk thyme 06:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If I'm reading you correctly, the main difference between our suggestions is that you also note that simple issues from attention, vandalism and user problems should go to AI. I don't oppose that (it was meant to be implied), but I think it would still be good to have the old page names have proper redirects rather than some sort of disambiguation page. Those are minor details, though, and it seems we have consensus for the big picture. Time to start restructuring! —LX (talk, contribs) 08:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I think that's the main (only?) difference. Not a big eal. To start restructuring...well, this board here is fairly out of the way (hence, as part of the plan, it's being redirected!) so I'm thinking some Village pump advertisement would be good first. giggy (:O) 09:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

System message translation

Hi, for some reason, the link "Donate" in the left bar is displayed in english for the french interface. Maybe the page MediaWiki:Sitesupport/fr should be manually created so that the message is displayed in french. The message value is the same as default: "Faire un don". Thanks. PieRRoMaN 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not the problem. But apparently the MediaWiki:Sitesupport message needs to be configured on the server to take into account localized versions. See bugzilla:5925. In fact, all the messages (including the "-url" ones) referenced at MediaWiki:Sidebar should be enabled for localization. Lupo 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Please delete the first two versions of the Image:Brockenbahn.jpg. Unfortunately they show a person, which I have removed in the latest version. Thanks! Nawi112 13:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, what? I don't see any difference between the images... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 14:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Uh, yea, I see no people at all in any version. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You can see the train drivers face in the first two versions. Nawi112 16:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Uhh, that is silly - you cannot identify the person's face - it is a blob. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done I deleted these versions.--Ahonc (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Subcategory listings on first page

Please see Category:Maps of Berlin.

I had to add <categorytree>Maps of Berlin</categorytree> to that page in order to see the subcategories on the first page.

Otherwise there is no way an average user would know there are any subcategories. I did not know of this problem until now, and I have over 4000 edits on the commons. I only found the subcategories by going to the second page of images.

I only had a notion there were subcategories because I had Category:SVG maps of Berlin on my watchlist. Is there a MediaWiki bug report about this already? --Timeshifter 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This problem drags on since many years and pops up here from time to time. See for example Commons:Village_pump#How_to_show_first_all_sub-cats_of_a_cat.3F. Because we have unavoidably some very large cat/subcat structures (many with 10000+ images), these displays are often close to useless if you need to search in the subcats. --Foroa 13:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hello, I'm tech inept. I attempted to edit minor info on Pat Sansone's page and apparently ended up editing the code for the photo and not the body of the page! Can someone reverse the revealed html code above and below Nik's photo?

Also, I uploaded a photo of Pat under wikicommons a little bit ago. I want this to be up on Pat's page as we took it last week and I want a photo that best represents him now, as opposed to Nik's nearly 20 year old photo. Thanks! -Maehem—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maehem (talk • contribs) 23:25, 29 mag 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done--Trixt 23:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Attack image?

To me, this Image:HENDOISAGYPSY.jpg with its original description looks like an attack image by a class mate of the depicted guy. Recommend deletion. --Túrelio 12:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too :) Deleted & (assuming good faith) warned user about project scope for now. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete request

An admin please delete Image:Hugglecaptcha.png, which I uploaded, as it's been viewed by Gurch and is no longer needed.

Also Image:DYK.jpg and Image:Muhimage.png as house keeping. Thanks. ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

All three are ✓ Done. giggy (:O) 00:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! :] ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 00:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

de speaker/admin review required

Can someone take a look at these contribs. There is obviously a plan involved & considerable work but no actual media? I would say something but I barely read de at all. I see Codeispoetry seems to be talking to the user but I'm guessing there is confusion somewhere. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Help: Andrew Jackson has disappeared

An image named Image:Andrew Jackson.jpeg has been used on several pages here and in en.wikipedia.org, but it has disappeared without leaving a deletion log behind. Pages linking to this vanished image include Andrew Jackson, President of the United States, and formerly [49] (see [50]). How can this missing image be recovered? --Orlady 04:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 

15:41, June 1, 2008 Kameraad Pjotr (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Andrew Jackson.jpeg" ‎ (Copyright violation) (restore)
Here's te log entry. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And a bit more information from the deleted revisions: according to http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/museum/collections/governors/about.cfm?id=1, the painting was made in 1960, so the {{PD-old}} statement it was tagged with by its uploader, en:User:Kross, was false. Based on this, it seems unlikely that it will be restored here, and since there are free alternatives, I'm guessing it would fail the English Wikipedia edition's fair use criteria. By the way, this is a really good example of the importance of providing the original source even for works that appear to be "obviously" {{PD-old}}. (I had actually edited the image description myself and thought nothing of it.) —LX (talk, contribs) 06:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User name conquest

For information: I have requested the Arbitration Committee at sv:wikipedia to look into the matter of the user Islander at en:wp illegally conquering my user name. Normally I suppose I first should have contacted an administrator here, as the discussion has been made at commons, but as this is a matter inflicting wikipedia globally, each part should be able to deal with the conflict in his/hers mother language. User:Islander 18:35 3 June 2008

"Illegally conquering"? Can you give a bit more detail on this, and (making allowances for english perhaps not being your first language) do so in a bit more neutrally phrased way... Do you have any links to where this was requested? I looked in archive 3 and 4 and did not spot a request that included the word "Islander". What were the names involved? The log doesn't seem to have anything either: [51] Thanks for any additional info you can share. ++Lar: t/c 11:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Judging from User talk:Islander#Single Unified Login, or SUL (posted both here and at en.wp), it's a SUL fall-out. It appears there are two good contributors at different WPs using the same name. Looks like they have different home wikis, one at en-WP, the other at sv-WP. I'm not sure what the problem between these two persons is, but either it's that one wants the other's account name "Islander" here at the Commons, or that the sv-Islander cannot unify accounts anymore since the global name "Islander" is already taken by the en-Islander. Lupo 11:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that the account holder on en.wikipedia is a sysop and has more contributions. Both these facts give him technical priority to perform SUL. The win-win situation will be if one of them, perhaps the account holder on sv.wikipedia agrees to release the username and chose a non-conflicting new one. However, in order to keep his contribs he should be able to have his accounts locally moved, which in case of already performed SUL by the other person may not be technically possible until the global account is (temporarily) deleted.
I have already negotiated in a situation when one of the account holders (actually the one with more contributions!) got convinced to retire from the account and choose something different, yet close to the original. A lot of tactfulness and care are needed to handle such cases, especially when all affected users are actively contributing and prominent members of their communities. I would sincerely advise the account holder on sv.wikipedia, who is presumably Swedish, to agree to has his account renamed to the swedish translation of "Islander" or anything alike for which the SUL username collision detector does not return results... Or manage to convince the other user to chose another username... The most favourable situation for both of them is to separate their accounts and have two global SULs, rather than one shared. →Spiritia 14:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Tactfulness is clearly not a dominant property of many wikipedians (be bold). And upfront stating that a (young) sysop has higher priority than a long standing contributor is not that tactful neither. --Foroa 14:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, then also note that the en-User made most of his contributions at en (where he is indeed sysop) under a different username. Only in January 2008 he got himself renamed to 'Islander' and now requests the global rights of that name when the Commons/sv-Islander was using that name already quite some time. For me the actions of the en-sysop are rather indiscutable since he made that rename at a time when many sysop already knew that SUL will be here soon (as far as I read the discussion he knew about it). So a few weeks after renaming he took the global account and now expects that some user who was established under that name should give it up because of not being sysop. -- Cecil 14:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sending an email to both users in order to get the situation resolved. Hopefully, they'll both participate in the process. Bastique demandez 17:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to add here that, not being hugely active on the administrative side of commons, I didn't even know that this discussion was taking place. It would have been polite to inform me that this matter was being discussed, just as it would have been polite for the sv Islander to inform me that they had created an arbcom requestover at sv:wp.
As for "And upfront stating that a (young) sysop has higher priority than a long standing contributor is not that tactful neither." - firstly, what does age have to do with anything? Secondly, check the facts - sv Islander registered around a month or two before me, thus is hardly any more long standing than me. As stated on my talk page back at en:wp, I took quite some time wording my message to sv Islander, to ensure that it was as tactful as I could make it. From my understanding of the SUL process, I do indeed have the senior claim on the name, and as such (again, from my understanding of the process) sv Islander would, further down the line, be asked to change his name by Bureaucrats at the relevant projects.
"...when many sysop already knew that SUL will be here soon (as far as I read the discussion he knew about it)." - I knew nothing of SUL until around two weeks ago, at which point I started looking in to it. I certainly knew nothing back in January.
I felt it only polite to bring him up to speed with the situation, and give him the choice now. At the end of the day, all I did was ask if he would be willing to change his name, nothing more. TheIslander 18:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a precision. Sv:Islander is active on various wiki's since more than two years. You moved to the name en:Islander since Jan 11 2008. The tactful given choice was: turn in your user name right now or within a couple of weeks. --Foroa 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually it was much more along the lines of "consider giving up your username now, or we'll just wait and see what happens". He could have and did say 'no' now, and it could be that a bureaucrat gives him the name later on. TheIslander 21:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment on agree to has his account renamed to the swedish translation of "Islander" or anything alike: As far as I can tell, Islander is the real surname of the user at the Swedish Wikipedia, a Swedish-speaking citizen of Finland. It is not a noun that means "a person who lives on an island". Both users have been active since 2006 and until recently the other user was named TheIslander, which is a noun and not a surname, and still goes by this name on commons. It seems to me, that the easier solution would be for that user to switch back. I assume that TheIslander is still availble for SUL. Would that be an acceptable solution? I do regret the rudeness expressed by some of my fellow Scandinavians. --LA2 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Attention/Archive_4&oldid=264578923"