Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention/Archive 6

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

OTRS request.

Can someone check to make sure the OTRS email was sent and is vaild (IE: sent by the NAA) for Image:TasmanBridge8746-30.png? Bidgee (talk) 04:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The permission received on October 16 is for Wikipedia use only, and there's no response for the clarification request from October 18 yet. --Para (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Still no response. J.smith (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oddity (possible underlying problem) observed in commons area (pictures)

If this is not the proper place for this post, please move it as needed. I claim no special ownership of this post, nor desire any response. It is intended as an aid to site improvement. I am not familiar with Wikipedia reporting/posting conventions and will leave it to responsible parties to update and/or delete this as appropriate. (Thank you)

On Oct 31, 2008, I observed that two variations of accessing what should be the same material yielded different results. Unless this is merely a timing issue, it likely indicates a systemic problem which might be undesirable to many people and could indicate larger underlying problems. If anyone wants to look deeper, here is the information:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Provo,_Utah yields only 6 media files http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Provo,_Utah?uselang=en yields 7 media files http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Provo,_Utah?uselang=de yields 7 media files

This was observed on Oct 31, 2008, at 10:45 AM MST, and was checked 15 minutes later with no changes. Seen on a Linux system(Fedore core 8), using Firefox Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.17) Gecko/20080923 Fedora/2.0.0.17-1.fc8 Firefox/2.0.0.17

UPDATE: after posting this, a third check (at11:08AM) showed the discrepancy to be gone, possibly indicating that the 3rd file was new and had not yet propagated fully. However, it is unclear to me that the first two URL's should differ even through propogation delays, so I will leave this in place.

You may have hit different servers with your different requests.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure why this html code for a license i obtained from creativecommons.org shows up merely as a jumble of HTML, and not the License that it codes for?

I am unsure why this html code for a license i obtained from creativecommons.org:

<a rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/hk/"><img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/3.0/hk/88x31.png" /></a>
This work is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/hk/">Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Hong Kong License</a>.

shows up merely as a jumble of HTML, and not the License that it codes for?

it is for this picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Autumnleaveslondonstreet.JPG

thank you! --Enig nes (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am greatly mistaken, this user has been downloading material from NZ government sites and claiming copyright for his/her self. I tagged one but then looked at the user contribitions and found hordes more. Please could someone deal with all his/her contributions en masse?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Doneby sterkebak and me. abf /talk to me/ 20:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Spanish municipalities and cities and villages

Could a Spanish speaking administrator please step in for the spanish city level categorisation ?

I estimate that a big part of Spain is categorised in "Cities and villages in xxx". I am tired of all the Spanish moves and edit wars back and forward from "municipalities in xxx" to "cities and villages in xxx" and vice versa. Moreover municipalities is not equal "cities and villages". Unless there is a clear definition how it will be organised in Spain, I was blocking and reverting any move at that level. Moreover, some contributors seem to hate english texts and interwiki's. Now it escalated to Category:Navarre with the Basque Country, so I protected it and blocked Patricia Rios for a day to calm down. As communication in English seems to be a problem (and Spanish a probkem for me), I think that further intervention of a Spanish administrator is needed. --Foroa (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

El usuario Foroa (talk · contribs) se atreve a intervenir en temas que desconoce e ignora. Insiste una y otra vez en descategorizar a Navarra como "Autonomous communities of Spain", y le añade la categoría "Basque Country", lo cual, no sólo es irreal, sino también profundamente insultante para la mayoría de navarros.
Le he intentado explicar que estoy en un proceso de homogeneización y saneamiento de las categorías de los municipios españoles. A los municipios, que estén en "Municipalities of (y su provincia)", y el resto de núcleos (pedanías y entidades locales autónomas) pues que se categoricen en su correspondiente municipio, y comarca si se considera apropiado. Pero lamentablemente mi nivel de inglés es nulo, y Foroa se cree que soy un vándalo... En fin... 79.145.126.145 15:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I will not have the discussion here but:

Disregarding Commons licensing policy

The Commons:Licensing policy, specifically relating to icons in screenshots (see Commons:Screenshots), is being disregarded wholesale while people argue what the policy should be, rather than following the policy and separately discussing changing it:

Note that some contested images have remained in this limbo for almost three months. Is this proper procedure? —Danorton (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This looks almost divided down the middle. I think it is gonna end up coming down to what the administrators and high people with copyright knowledge know. For now, I would see this through to the end before discussing this situation.Mitch32(UP) 00:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I had started adding categories to uploads by John Thompson05 (talk · contribs); but now, I'm wonding about the validity of the copyright claim on the images. I've located many of the images at http://www.peacecorps.ro/Resources/Environment_Resource_Center/Useful_Training_Lessons/Environmental_Ed_Manual.pdf I haven't located the copyright information on the document - but the website where the document is stored (peacecorps.ro) is copyrighted.

As a result of finding those images, I also began googling for some of the other images uploaded by this user, and found many of those scattered on multiple Romanian websites.

Unfortunately, I can't work on tagging these images at the moment due to real-world timing. But there are a lot of images to re-check and tag - so if someone wants to start reviewing them, I would welcome the assistance. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

From al his uploads 75 % came from the pdf. I am going to nuke them all. Thanks for the notice. Sterkebaktalk 19:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

K Sonar

I wrote my first wiki page the other week about a product, I linked it to two sites both of who sell the product but both of who have the most information on this product. This is a reasonably new product and I do work for one of the companies involved but we have been getting requests from blind societies all over the world that information is not available on this product. I appreciate that you do not want your site used as advertising space so can you explain how I can get information included without it being considered as advertising so that information is easily obtainable by the blind comunity. We do not care if we cannot put links to our site, we consider ourselves a tiny but ethical company and it is more important that people know about stuff like this and then they can buy or not based on knowledge.

Hi. This is commons. We work here with images. Information pages are out of scope here (here you can find our project scope). For articles you have to go to Wikipedia. But i have to tell you that almost all wikipedias will delete "new" products or company's. Suc6 Sterkebaktalk 09:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

service for blind people

do u provide service for blind persons who cannot see but can listen? or where to find sound based articles?

Some wikipedias make use of spoken articles. But that are just a few. Sterkebaktalk 13:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
You can find sound files in Category:Ogg sound files for example.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an area of wikipedia that I would love to see expanded. J.smith (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
There are sound files on en.wiki too. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with access to my old account after renaming to new account

As I already wrote down in the village pump http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=15631689&oldid=15615696 I first used the Miho_NL account here on Commons. I asked for change of username to Miho so I could add it to my global account (SUL). This was done. The remaining Miho_NL I want to add to my global Miho_NL account. See also the red line on this page: http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Miho_NL. But because of the renaming of the commons account I don't have access to this account anymore. The function to send the password to my email adress does not work anymore. Maybe I need to do usurp, maybe someone can unblock this account? Miho (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't understand it, why do you need to access your old account?
hoi, ik snap het niet helemaal. Waarom heb je toegang nodig tot je oude account? Groetjes, Sterkebaktalk 12:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, because I have two global accounts, Miho and Miho_NL. To this global Miho_NL account I want to add the commons Miho_NL account.
Hallo, ik heb twee globale accounts, Miho en Miho_NL. Aan dit globale Miho_NL account wil ik alle Miho_NL accounts, dus ook deze hier op commons, onderbrengen. Miho (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done - gedeblokkeerd - Sterkebaktalk 13:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi SterkeBak, Thanks en bedankt. Nu heb ik alleen nog geen toegang tot dit account en ook de emailfunctie van dat account werkt niet. Kun je dat nog geregelen? Miho (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm na het hernoemen horen de instellingen en wachtwoord gewoon hetzelfde te blijven. Ik kan jouw instellingen niet bewerken. Dus daarmee kan ik je niet helpen. Je kan het eens vragen aan gebruiker Lar mischien kan hij helpen. Sorry Sterkebaktalk 14:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to this on my talk page for the record. Giggy (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

MY talk page also has some info on this. I don't quite see how things went awry, I don't think Giggy did anything wrong. Normally the old name SHOULD be blocked after a move, unless the move is being done to allow a usurp. In this case, something went wrong. Don't know what. The Miho_NL account that was created had no contributions, so I usurped IT (!!!) to Miho_NL_Usurped, which allowed the global Miho_NL to SUL claim it, which was done and all is now well. The thing is, I don't know what went awry so don't know how to prevent this in future. But we sorted it out in this specific case. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove my name from image

I'd like to have my name removed from the names of this image and this image. Reason: I admit I wanted some credit for them after all the preparations done for the photo, but I didn't consider that google would snap it up and give the picture as a top search result of my name. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
I can remove the name but it will stay in the history than. But what name can i put on the author place? Than i will reupload them without a remove your name. Sterkebaktalk 17:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I think my name can remain in the author place - it doesn't seem to attract search engines to the same degree, and I could change it myself later if needed. Then I can still satisfy that little ego of mine by having some credit for it. In short, I only want the name of the picture itself changed. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I can see why you don't want google to see you solely as a naked person. I'll reupload them myself. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Reuploaded as Image:Naked human male body front anterior.png and Image:Naked human male body front anterior (annotated-en).png, and set commonsdelinker to universal replace with the new names. Old images deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Great job! Thank you very much! It's ok to show myself for encyclopedic purposes, but when any friend, colleague or boss googles me, I may prefer a more civilized clothing. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I prefer to be wearing a top hat, my dignity covered by barnacles, but each to their own. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This user either has had a wide variety of cameras over time or has been misrepresenting the copyright claims of the following images:

The copyright status of the remaining images uploaded by this user may also be incorrect. EagleAg04 (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Right now I cannot see an image in searching for them, but it is also possible that the date when these were taken were different, I mean look at the differences in the images. There are distinct differences, and quite possibly could have been taken at different points of time. I wouldn't go on and say that he's misrepresenting copyright, but I would like to see better descriptions for those images. Mitch32(UP) 21:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Insanely overdue deletion discussion needs closing

This discussion has been active for almost exactly three months. Can someone please close it? Three months is just far too long. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 04:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Handled  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Violation -- Use of my image without credit

Hi,

I was just looking at the Wikipedia page on Nagorno Karabakh conflict and noticed you have used one of my images. It says that permission was given from the originating site, but actually they stole the image in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Damage_to_Stepanakert.jpg

This is the image which should be credited to myself, Onnik Krikorian.

Anyway, the image is licensed under Creative Commons so it may be used. You can see it is my image from the following URL:

http://blog.oneworld.am/2008/11/01/nagorno-karabakh-peace-in-sight/

Thank you,

Onnik Krikorian --- http://www.oneworld.am http://blog.oneworld.am http://www.globalvoicesonline.org

Actually, you have it under a non-commercial license, so we can't use it :-(. Would you be willing to change that? --SB_Johnny talk 12:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi, I have no idea how to respond (only signed up to try to sort out this image use) so I guess I just add my response here by editing?

Anyways, don't know why but I always considered Wikipedia to be non-commercial, but regardless, you can take this response as permission I suppose without having to change the CC license? If you need an email or something tell me where to send it and I'll do so.

Otherwise, as I make extensive use of Wikipedia, feel free to use it in return. In fact, someone requested use of my images in the past for Wikipedia and I authorized that. I suspect that I can waive the full terms of CC for individual cases?

Cheers, Onnik

You can, however Commons is a repository of free media files. That means that our images must be reusable by others (not just Wikimedia projects) for creating derivative works, for commercial purposes and for distribution. You can require that derivative works are also freely licensed (this is the ShareAlike clause of the cc-by-sa-3.0 license, or the viral nature of the GFDL for example) and you can require attribution (again, both licenses I mentioned require attribution).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


--- So there's no way I can allow it for use on Wikipedia, but require that others may only use it for non-commercial purposes? Incidentally, the derivative aspect particularly concerns me because this year I've had a number of photos modified and used for not so sophisticated and often down right alarming political posters and images.

That's correct. Note that by requiring attribution, you are also being not credited for work you didn't do (ie "alarming political posters" etc).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User:WizMagno posting copy violations and removing deletion templates

The subject in question has uploaded Image:Wizards of Waverly Place.jpg and initially declared it under GFDL. When User:Deniss disputed it as a promotional image,[1] WizMagno removed the copyvio template and falsely declare the image as under OTRS #2008100310024006.[2]. I disputed this and templated it for deletion.[3] WizMagno then removed this template and declare the image as text-logo with simple shapes and a trademark.[4] Jappalang (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done image deleted. The user has a block again. Just one day ago his block ended. Thanks for the notice and keep up the good work! Sterkebaktalk 06:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at new pages I came across this. I thought I'd tidy it to gallery format & curiosity made me google'd it..... one hit only on an en wp user page (& I can't actually see it there). So is this a hoax, original research or what? With no information about it at all I'm inclined to think it is out of scope? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It may not be a hoax as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has a document aboit it. The effect of magnetic anomalies on transient electromagnetic data (Document isn't free however). Bidgee (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Bidgee, appreciated. Odd that nothing else comes up on that specific anomaly however, given it is a 2008 issue I would have expected a real number of hits. --Herby talk thyme 10:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I would have thought so also. IMO request a deletion of the image on the ground of lacking a source for the data since it has no true source. Also found the very same image uploaded by the same user Image:DA.PNG. Based on that source I've found nothing[5]. Bidgee (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Cppcat - serial copyvio uploader

Can admins please review all uploads of User:Cppcat? Following the trail of a deleted organisation spam page on English Wikipedia, I stumbled on this user's massive uploading of images with unknown source; he simply changes all "no source" tags to {{PD-1923}} which is a sign of being evasive about where he took all these images from. Many are obviously copyright violations, being scanned from printed materials. I am certain that almost all, if not all, of his uploads are copyvio. Please delete as necessary. Thanks! (w:en:User:Pegasus) 155.69.19.43 03:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted all unused images, because there were either no source information or only {{PD-1923}} which is no real source information (I'm sure that some of them were taken later)
Three images are left, but maybe shozuld also be deleted.
--D-Kuru (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Red pog2.svg

Hi there, on the 11th November someone uploaded a new version of Image:Red pog2.svg which is used on thousands of Wikipedia articles as a location map marker. However the upload caused all map markers to be a very small size, which is unsuitable for the maps. Could an admin please delete or rename the newly uploaded image, and restore and protect the redirect to Image:Red pog.svg? Many thanks --Joowwww (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joowwww, is there a reason why you cannot simply use the real filename of the image instead of the redirect? This would make things less complicated. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I found a reason. However, the original problem seems to be long gone. Is there any reason why this can not be set back to the actual image? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly how everything works regarding the locator maps, but it seems to me that the problem is User:Matrix0123456789's uploaded image. If that was deleted or moved, then linking to Red pog2.svg would not show the new image, but instead show Red pog.svg via the redirect which was its original purpose. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, but if I do this, I just stop the symptoms of the underlying problem: Why even use the redirect if you could also use the image directly? If the redirect is used, the usage counter for the actual image does not work and it causes extra server load. So, unless there is a good reason to use a redirect instead of the actual image, I recommend using the image itself. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I changed the template to point at the right image. That should resolve the issue, right? --J.smith (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it should. I will try to reach admins at other projects. Thanks and best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the problem has been fixed. Many thanks --Joowwww (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Pisethforever's contributions are suspect

The contributions of Pisethforever are highly suspect. I have only gone through a few but found all his declarations of self work to be false or highly suspect. This is ignoring his naming of his uploads in question marks. Please take a look. Jappalang (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Lookslike a few folk have taken a look at these. Mostly cleared now & thanks for the information. Regards --Herby talk thyme 13:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

VERY old deletion requests still unprocessed

Today, an unexpected entry flashing up on my watchlist alerted me to the fact that an old deletion request of mine, which I'd quite forgotten about, got its first outside feedback – after exactly five months. I know deletion queues always have a hell of a backlog in this place, but five months? This was a copyvio case. Perhaps somebody could put Commons:Deletion requests/Images from mk-wiki out of its misery? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's not great, but admins really can't close DRs without any comments. I have voiced my opinion on a few requests, and soon enough, the requests were closed following that. I would suggest that editors comment on DRs as much as, say FPCs, so that the backlog can be reduced from 5 months. That is a long time for a project with so many admins, How do you turn this on (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on the necessity for comments. There is a serious need, in particular, for comments on two very old requests, namely Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coat of arms of Monaco.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/Images from webchantier.com. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Shame I know very little about coats of arms... How do you turn this on (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, why can't admins close DRs without prior comments? The instructions say they should be closed "once an administrator has sufficient information to come to a decision". It's not as if this particular case was that unusual or complicated. I wonder, are admins keeping track of which old requests have comments on them and which haven't? (It happens that the request actually got processed minutes after I posted here; thanks to the kind soul who did it. Was that triggered by my reminder, or by the outside comment earlier today?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's always better to get at least one opinion other than the nominator's before taking action. I don't know about keeping track, but recent DRs get closed fairly timely if there have been votes and whatnot on them. Pinging admins here seems a good thing to do to get attention. How do you turn this on (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Contribs review - pt user probably required

Looking for something completely different I came across these contributions. Some of them are fine I think. However there is a least one logo which I guess is a copyvio and some coats of arms. I think this user needs the concept of "own work" explaining a little better because, at the very least, I doubt the satellite photography is :). Looking at it I feel it is one for communication preferably to start with. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've went and asked where he got to confirm his sources. If he does not understand, I will make it clearer. Sorry about the deadness of this thread.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 22:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the help. Regards --Herby talk thyme 10:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad images

Hi.

I was wondering who is the proper authority for this. I came upto this point, where I could post for administrator attention.

the following material is offensive to a lot of Muslims around the world. you see, we muslims consider it unholy to see our prophets picture or any kind of depiction. that is why i think the link of the following pictures, (quoted in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad ) should be removed. I hope upholding Wikipedia's image as a moderate, open and equal to all website will be maintained. that is why i hope the following images should be removed from the quoted article.

thank you.

Mohammad Khan,

Worried Muslim

(quoted in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad )

images:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Siyer-i_Nebi_298a.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gagarin_PropovedMagometGRM.jpg

Dear user We also accept that the images are necessarily speculative.This applies equally to images of other historical or religious figures,but the images are included as an indication of historical views and portrayals of the subject and accuracy is neither claimed nor relevant.

We understand that there is a campaign among certain groups to have the images removed, and that as part of this campaign people are comparing notes and co-ordinating messages to this address. Unfortunately, this will have no effect, as this comment address is for handling factual errors and has no impact on content policy - content policies are set on Wikipedia by the Wikipedia community. Everyone is welcome to register an account and become part of the Wikipedia community, but it is extremely unlikely that policy will change to support removal of images to appease one or another religious viewpoint.

However, Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopaedia, the evidently well-organised community on the Internet that would like the image removed could start their own fork, with images removed (see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks> for more information on setting up a fork).

I hope you will understand that we cannot help you any further in this matter --Mardetanha talk 17:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Mohammad, please read our policy on this, which you can find at COM:PS#Censorship: "Files and other material which are not lawful for Commons to host on its servers in Florida will be deleted on sight even if they otherwise fall within Commons scope as set out above. However, Commons is not censored and does quite legitimately contain content that some readers may consider objectionable or offensive. The lack of censorship means that a lawfully-hosted file that is within scope will not be deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be “child-friendly” or that it may or does offend you or others for moral, religious, social or other reasons".--MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Perculiar situation with an artist

Assuming Martinho is indeed Martinho Dias (his user page is written in third-person attributed to someone else), there is a perculiar situation with his uploads Special:Contributions/Martinho, especially Image:Martinho Dias.jpg: I have no idea what is with the numerous revisions and licensing that should pertain to this... Getting back to the point, all his uploads (Image:Eueu.jpg, Image:Applause-1.jpg, and Image:Martinho Dias.jpg) are ripped from Saatchi Gallery (http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/artist_profile/Martinho+Dias/6954.html). I am not too certain over the wording in Saatchi's terms and agreements, but I would believe they retain the copyright over the photos that they used to represent the artwork and artist on their site. Can anyone more experienced look into this? Jappalang (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For me these would have to have OTRS licensing from the artist. Otherwise they are definitely copyvios. Thanks for checking. --Herby talk thyme 10:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Qantas images

User:Sheepunderscore has uploaded images which are clearly owned by Qantas which was sent to the media as part of the A380 launch and can be found on a number of sites [6][7]. Bidgee (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Deleted & warned  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Gorelov: Cyrillic reader needed to check contribs

Please check Special:Contributions/Gorelov. I have doubts... Siebrand 07:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I know no one has replied. I am starting the check on these. I can tell that the first upload, from October 8, Image:Kazinets.jpg, is a copyright violation. The site's copyright in Cyrillic is "All rights reserved 2007". I am still translating and searching. Mitch32(UP) 00:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The second: Image:Kazinets medvedev.jpg is from the same site as the first one and therefore follows the same violation. As per photo #3, Image:Koshman.jpg, I do not know to tell you the truth. No copyright has been stated on the site, and I would lean towards deleting it. Photo #4: Same site as #3, follow #3 for my opinion. Photos #5, 6 and 7: The same site as #3 and 4. The final photo, dated for October 21, is from a blog, and I don't trust it. Right now I would warn him about copyright violations and see if an administrator can delete the pictures.Mitch32(UP) 00:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
This can be marked as resolved. The situation has been solved mainly.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

World Stadiums is a bad source

Commons is hosting several pictures from World Stadiums (a site claiming to have "free" images of sporting stadiums around the world). However, many of those photos are copyrighted or taken without attribution. I have shown evidence at Commons talk:Bad sources#World Stadiums. Please discuss. Jappalang (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, even if we give them the benefit of the doubt, the copyright release on that site wouldn't be enough for us anyway. DR the bunch of them. J.smith (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, see for example Image:Est.ejercito.jpg (which is a copyvio, therfore i searched it with tineye): This image is from http://www.guate360.com/galeria/details.php?image_id=157&mode=search, the image is also on worldstadium at http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/middle_america/guatemala/guatemala_ejercito.shtml, cropped at the top. I dont know how the original author or cr holder is, but definitive not worldstadium. Maybe they have a permission to use the images, but it is very unlikely that this permission is extendable to everyone for every purpose. --Martin H. (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Xqeriske language?

A check is needed: Special:Contributions/Narqalaq. I'm not sure, but I think that if "xqeriske language" does not exist, all contribs should be deleted (or rollback). Thank you--Trixt (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

After reading this i removed all his additions. Multichill (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Puzzling contributions of User:Maqsoodshah01

User:Maqsoodshah01 has within the past week, created the Balochistan page and populated it with his uploads. There are a few derivative works that violate copyright (his images clearly has the copyright and web addresses still on them), which I have tagged. There are also those I am confused on how to handle...

  1. Many of the Quetta images are actually taken from the British Library online.[8] Examples include Image:Quetta Image 1800 .JPG (BLo:[9]), and Image:Quetta1880---.JPG (BLo:[10]). Maqsoodshah01 has slapped some watermarks on them and labeled them as his own works (with PD-self to boot). The license and Information can be easily corrected, but should the watermarks be removed?
  2. Is there a no original research guideline here like Wikipedia? On Wikipedia, the images in Balochistan#Observations would have been deleted for that.

Maqsoodshah01 has claimed his uploads as his own works, but I am fairly certain that they are all taken from the web, forums, screenshots, and scans (although would be hard to find traces of the last two). Finally, it seems either Maqsoodshah01 has overtaken the user page of User:Syed Maqsood Shah, or he is that user as well. Jappalang (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In general all watermarks should be removed... however, if he just lifted them from site without having appropriate permissions they should be deleted.
If you take a closer look at the WP:NOR page it states that NOR does not apply to images, to a degree. To add to that, there is no equivalent policy on Commons. Some of the projects we service actually involve original research. J.smith (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Well... the images he took from the British Library are PD (made in the 1800s, the creators would have passed away more than 70 years ago), so I think I will proceed to upload the originals over them and correct the Information and Permissions. For the NOR, I take it that means that users can upload graphics or text that advocate certain ideas, regardless of factuality, as long as the images (and the original sources) are "free"? Jappalang (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
To a degree. Our Project scope requires that all media we host has a realistic potential for educational use. --J.smith (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


Chuzito (talk · contribs)

It seems that new User:Chuzito is uploading again all those files that Skylu (talk · contribs) had uploaded 2-3 weeks before and that had been deleted due to copyvio or missing permission. In addition all his uploads carry an "a" instead of a description. --Túrelio (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Worth mentioning thanks. Nudged the other CUs! --Herby talk thyme 10:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Quack! ... Although the CU results I found don't show a strong technical correlation, the behavior gives me pause and suggests complicity of some sort. I would suggest we block for that behavior and revert all the uploads. ++Lar: t/c 12:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Eventually it is mainly a language problem, as the uploader seems to be/com from Latin America. It could be that he/she didn't understand any of the messages and notifications on hi talkpage. I remember that I wasn't able to stop the 1st upload session of Skylu by any communication (even on his userpage) but only by a short block. --Túrelio (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Blatant copyvio

Hi, all, just popping over from en.wiki. This image is an obvious copyvio of this one (note the watermark having been removed). Can someone delete this, and perhaps have a look at the uploader? He's been vandalizing/violating copyright on en.wiki as well. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done - you can use {{copyvio}} in the future.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Help needed

Please give a hand to process a couple of pictures in the Category:Duplicate - It's getting somewhat overflowed. Thanks. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking care of this since some days, but it grows very fast! oO Ok I'll hold on. →Diti the penguin — 12:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
We've had this down to zero a few times but yesterday it was over 1900 items. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I've done a few... but man, are these tedious. This really seems like a good job for a bot. Make sure the images match, shoot a command to the commondsdelister, wait for confirmation and then delete the image. Come to think of it, why isn't the entire rename automated via bot? --J.smith (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree to J.smith, the bot-renamed images are allways exact duplicates, the original name of the renamed image is provided at the new imagedescription so it is traceable. If possible all usage should be replaced by the rename-bot (direct or via command to commons delinker), images with all uses replaced should end up in a separate category so that we can delete them quickly without any further work, only images with irreplaceble usage should go the regular process. --Martin H. (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a very good idea. Do you want to set that up?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Im sorry, but i don't have any technical skills. --Martin H. (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I asked the bot operator about this, this guy realy does a great job and he now provides a CommonsDelinker command list here. My suggestion again:

Administrators will copy BetacommandBots commands from User:BetacommandBot/log to User:CommonsDelinker/commands, so we will save a lot of time in replacing images and can delete them from Category:Universally replaced by CommonsDelinker faster. But: It is possible that this process will cause some errors, e.g. this image contained an error in the Flickr template, we can track this errors by watching the bots talkpage. If the number of errors is on an acceptable low level CommonsDelinker can take the commands directly from BetacommandBot.

The Category:Duplicate now contains a total of 2,860 files, any ideas or opinions? --Martin H. (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

More admins who want to slave through them? :) How do you turn this on (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate images could be detected immediatly after download and be send immediatly to the delinker. This would free up valuable time for all sorts of human interventions. --Foroa (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

...Now over 3000 files - still increasing ! Should we swich to a "no verification" mode? Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Gryffindor (de-adminship)

Hello to all sysops,

This could be the last time I am posting here as a sysop. Disputes with three users about the naming scheme of files that I took from the established Yorck project has now led to a process for de-administration. After I tried explaining my actions on the discussion pages, to no avail, I stopped renaming files since I thought it would be best to avoid further conflict. It seems that that was to no avail, German user User:Herrick has now started a campaign and gotten other users from the German Wiki to vote against me as well[11]. Since I don't rename files anymore since those discussions, I don't know what else he wants from me or what to do. I get a feeling it's more a personal thing than really any rules having been broken, none that I aware of at least. Maybe if someone wants to take a look here and comment would be appreciated Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Gryffindor (de-adminship). Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my dear: It's not a problem with only three users by nation but with your general misuse of sysop rights, deleting, renaming and faking files. The Yorck project-names are not established or logic. Don't play the german vs. english card because I have to inform the community. Also Users from Netherlands, Italy, Norway, Austria and Finnland see the problem. And it's not a personal thing. The fact that you take a real break isn't true[12] Image:Wilhelm von Schadow Felix 1830.jpg And preparing such a request and vote by collecting the facts need time. --Herrick (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Please take this to talk pages (if anywhere). How do you turn this on (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
And the reason for...? If Gryffindor wants to conceal the real facts it's not correct. --Herrick (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Because this page is for bringing things to admins' attention, not having arguments. There's a perfectly good page to use: the talk page of the RFA, or your own talk pages. How do you turn this on (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • May I quote your "not having arguments"? You describe Gryffindor's technique of concealment? --Herrick (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    • How do you turn this on is right when saying that this is not the place to have this argument. Please take further (civil) discussion to the de-adminship page. Patrícia msg 11:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
      • again: Gryffindor = "not having arguments". Is it civil to conceal facts, fake file historys and abuse sysop power like Gryffindor? EOD from point of view. --Herrick (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Again: it is not useful for you, me, Gryffindor or anyone else to read about the same discussion in several places. I'm asking to please concentrate all argumentation in one place. Personally, I'm having trouble to follow all discussions on Commons, and spreading the same talk across different pages is not helpful. This goes both ways. Patrícia msg 13:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest any further postings/discussion etc here are reverted immediately. I do not feel it does anyone concerned any good to continue to post here when there is a page specifically available for discussion.

Indeed I would suggest to Herrick that if this continues here you may well undermine your own arguments and will be showing yourself as rather disruptive. Please do not reply here - you are well aware where you comments should be placed and you have already done that. If disruption continues the community may well be influenced by that. So - nothing more here, thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Deletion of my account

Please delete my account, sincerely --Nérostrateur (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nérostrateur, accounts are never deleted at Commons or other Wikimedia projects. I've just deleted your user page according to your request. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: at German Wikipedia Nérostrateur requested to be blocked both here and at that project, which was done now too. -- Cecil (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
We don't usually block users on their request. --Kanonkas(talk) 15:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Please provide the written rule that forbids a user to leave this project and let himself be blocked. -- Cecil (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Blocking policy. Blocks made outside of policy can be questioned (it doesn't mean they're wrong, but people can have different views on them). Patrícia msg 15:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Policy is what we do; sometimes it gets written down. In practice, we normally decline such requests. Users may choose to not use an account, and since blocking is to prevent disruption of the project, I don't see why this one was necessary (note m:RTV makes no mention of blocking - and with good reason). That said, the request was clear enough, and if Cecil still believes it is the correct course of action, I will not undo her block.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
WE (in this case WE means the German Wikipedia) respect the wishes of our users. If Commons does not do so then go ahead and unblock the user against his wishes, wishes that he expressed on several talk pages in several projects (en, de, Commons). There is nothing written down that forbids me to respect another user and the Blocking policy does not mention user wishes. But since you guys don't agree with that (what a joke, Kanonkas even has the 'stay mellow' on his user page), tell him yourself. -- Cecil (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Cecil, I think you tone is unnecessarily aggressive. We're just questioning the validity of a simple block, it's nothing personal, ok? Lighten up, everyone... Patrícia msg 16:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have enough of being attacked and accused. I had posted the link so there was no reason to question anything. Kanonkas would not even have noticed the block if I not have posted about it to complete it. He does not know anything about the story before but still tells what WE don't do. In the last few weeks I noticed a lot of "WE DO" and "WE DON'T DO". This "WE" always comes from the same few users who tell everybody what WE do. So sorry but those few users are not WE, and if you don't like my tone you know what to do. -- Cecil (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Attacks? --J.smith (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The we is a collective admin@commons. I have seen no attacks on you, at least not here. What I see is someone saying that we generally don't block people unless they're disruptive, and then you complaining about it. I apologise if this is in error, but I haven't seen anything I'd label an attack. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No Photo Credit

This photo was taken by me and has not been credited:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Serzh_Sargsyan_2.jpg

See:

http://oneworld.blogsome.com/2007/08/27/pan-armenian-games-finale/

Please add the credit and inform the user he should check and credit image sources.

Image is on Wikipedia and not Commons but I've listed it for speedy deletion as it's not free-use (CC Attribution Noncommercial No Derivative Works 2.0) and again could be questions if the image was taken by the Flickr uploader as sometimes copyrighted images from other sources are uploaded on it and Freedom on Panorama could be questioned. Bidgee (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit needed to protected template

Template:Assessments has a typo in it. Make me an admin, and I'll fix it myself. Or look on Template talk:Assessments for the misspelled word. --Ed Poor (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Really unnecessary to say you need to be an admin. All you simply have to do is ask that it needs fixing.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, in the old days it used to be no big deal. I thought it would be easier that way.... ;-) --Ed Poor (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, things have changed. Also, please do not remove others comments such as the below one.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I just reviewed the page history and I see what you mean now. I don't understand how I could have done that - it certainly wasn't intentional. --151.202.96.23 16:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC) (unsigned edit by me: Ed Poor (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
✓ Done thx for reporting this typo, i removed the extra s in Template:Assessments/temp. --Martin H. (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

source=internet

Dear administrators,

If you look on this link you will find a user who is uploading a lot of images with the source=Internet.

If a admin now a solution please do so, i don't feel like editting 150+ image with {{subst:NSD}}

See ya, Sterkebaktalk 15:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we need a cs speaker to explain this to him. Most (if not all) his files uploaded today seem to be unsourced (source=internet, no author). Multichill (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Some of his images look like PD-art/PD-old to me. For example pictures by de:Constantin Bauer (right now this article is only available in german).
May the uploader could add {{Painting}} to the images. I think that "internet" is no valid source as "google" is no valid source. It could be taken from somewhere and there is no proof that this image shows what the uploader claims it to show.
However, I think that the uploader should fix his images. Tagging 150 images with nsd is a lot of work and I'm quite sure that the uploader will not do anything if he sees 150 "this file is missing essential source information"-messages.
--D-Kuru (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I am taking care of it. --Zirland (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Without knowledge of this thread I left him a note on his talkpage to which he responded. It seems he uploaded a large batch of files and is now filling in the source data. At least he has started with it. So, IMHO we should give him some time. --Túrelio (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
If he started to fill the images I would support not bothering him, but for the future it may be a good idea to remind somewhere that an eventualist approach should not be used when providing licencing information and that such information should be provided from the start. Belgrano (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Tagged as copyvios but I have doubts

These have been tagged as copyvios but the EXIF data is consistent across the pictures I looked at. I'd prefer not to see them deleted without some investigation/opinions. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The EXIF data matches because they are were all taken by the same photographer and uploaded to that Russian iceskatting site as a set. This set smells like copyvio. It might be legit, but I think a letter from @iceskating.ru to OTRS would be the best way to clear this up if it is. --J.smith (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Darldarl (talk · contribs) and "anonymous" images

Could someone please have a look at Darldarl (talk · contribs)'s contributions? He seems to have uploaded a lot of images marked as "anonymous" and tagged with Template:Anonymous-EU or something similar without proper sourcing. Some of his contributions are outright copyvios, e.g. Image:Erich Kaestner.jpg. --Daggerstab (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Daggerstab, thanks for checking recently uploaded files. I've just found one instance among Darldarl's recent uploads that was tagged with {{Anonymous-EU}} and filed it for deletion. There was another image of Erich Kästner from 1933 that was tagged for speedy deletion which I deleted. Anything else? --AFBorchert (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Help needed (2)

Please see here Commons:Administrators noticeboard#Category:Duplicate as well... Perhaps it would be better to keep this conversation in one spot. It seems the counter is out, there are less than 600 actual images in that category. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - 3 pages * 200 images are less than 600. What's wrong, then? Michelet-密是力 (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned the counter bug a while ago in the tech channel. Seems to be a known problem, but nobody seems to really know what to do about it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done The counter seems to be fixed now - thanks Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

user:Destok

Hello,

This user is uploading a lot of logos. Logos are Fair use and so not allouwd on commons. Can a Administrator stop him?

See ya, Abigor (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done, left a warning on the user's talk page. Next time, feel free to try talking to the user before asking for admin support. Thanks and best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding logo to common.wikipedia - but being deleted

Hi. Can I get an admin help please? I am starting to post about a company. I have a long history with them as a customer. Every time I upload their logo, it is being removed by an admin. I think I put the right copyright/trademark saying it is the company logo and can be used if Company name is stated.

Can any admin assist me step by step? At the same time explain to me in laymen term what type of license I should select? I appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sftwin (talk • contribs) 22:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we can only accept images that are free to use by anyone for any reason. We can only accept busness logos if that busness contacts our OTRS (e-mail) team directly and makes a clear statement that they are either releaseing the logo into the public domain or an acceptable license. Please see COM:OTRS. J.smith (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, but that article is headed for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A privacy concern has arisen over the gallery at User:Cumulus Clouds/gallery and I'd appreciate it if an administrator could delete that page as quickly as possible. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done by Zscout370 Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 21:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyviolation due to use of logo in "kit body"

The user Bruno-ban (talk · contribs) has imported many kit body, I couldn't check all but I saw that several files contains a flagrant copyviolation due to the use of logo in the kit. (some are already deleted with the help of an admin). Since I spent too mch time already in wikipedia:fr, I'm putting here the message so that you can take care of it when you will have time :)

Thanks for your time

Cheers, Tomas Dionysostom (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Young Siamese Seal Point.jpg and File:Mansion House Kawau.jpg

Hello there,

Two of my recently uploaded images to the Commons area, and which I then added to wiki pages, have been listed as problematic. I have messages to say that the images don't have sources/authors specified, when in fact they do!

I don't want these images deleted by mistake. Can someone help me, please?

The two photos are Young Siamese Seal Point.jpg and Mansion House Kawau.jpg. I certainly hope other photos I also recently uploaded don't have the same problem.

Thanks for your help in advance.

"Kudosmaker (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)"

While the first image looks fine, the second one looks like a still from a film and has "Windows Movie Maker" in its meta data. --Túrelio (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
May it should be mentioned that Fair use is NOT allowed on Commons (see COM:FU) (just because of the socond image's meta data)
May you should change the author to "Seamus Kearney ([[User:Kudosmaker|Kudosmaker]])" which will look like this: "Seamus Kearney (Kudosmaker)" so that it's clear that the uploader is the author
--D-Kuru (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Lots of copyvios

Priyesh.786 (talk) has posted tons of copyrighted images as PD-self, which are now listed for speedy deletion. This user hasn't done anything since early November, so nothing likely needs to be done about the user himself/herself, but admin attention might be warranted to check the user's contributions (I think I tagged all the problem images, but I'm not sure). Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

TigranMets images

I came across several images uploaded by User:TigranMets that appear to be taken from other websites and are copyright violations. I don't have time right now to go through all of the user's uploads, but listed a few for deletion. If anyone else has time, please take a look. -Aude (talk | contribs) 04:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See previous AN thread - Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_6#TigranMets, and the user is blocked on English Wikipedia as en:User:Artaxiad. -Aude (talk | contribs) 04:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Huge backlog

There is a huge backlog for images needing flickr review. I have uploaded an image 3 days back and still it is pending a review. --gppande (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Join the club. Multichill (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
If you have one or two images that you want to use right away feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'll review them immediately. Otherwise, if it can wait please just be patient. --J.smith (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded impatient. Just wanted to know why is it so? Lack of volunteers or sheer load of new incoming images? I know this is not COM:HD but maybe it will bring some focus on this matter as admins usually are the reviewers. --gppande (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
There are also some non-admin Flickr reviewers (see: Commons:Flickr images/reviewers). --Túrelio (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
There is also a vote for three new trusted users. How more people can help the faster the backlog is gone. Abigor talk 22:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested moves - Attention needed

Hello people - Category:Requested_moves is REALLY in need of an admin with Siebot privileges to move those categories for automatic renaming. I admit that I produced most of the 100-odd rename requests ;-) but I think you will find that 90% or more are very logical (such as simple requests for the correct plural form, or to bring a subcat in line with the correct topcat naming). Thanks very much! Ingolfson (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't rush. It's custom to at least wait a couple of days so that people can respond to your move requests. Multichill (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
For many moves, it is indeed better to wait some time so that people can respond on it. To avoid undersnowing, obvious move requests such as singular/plural, capitalisation errors and harmonisation (in/of/from), it is suggested to put them in [[13]] as this generates the least work for all of us. --Foroa (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Error on Aluminum Foil entry

There is a major problem with the entry for Aluminium Foil. The History section has the text for 'tin foil' repeated dozens of times.

I attempted to delete the repetitions but the shared IP address I use is blocked for repeated vandalism.

Dave Mason Victoria University

If there's an issue with an English Wikipedia article, you'll need to report it over there (although it looks like this issue was reverted quite a while back). Stifle (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"Tin" foil is a colloquialism for aluminum foil. --J.smith (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kolomaznik (talk · contribs)

Please have a look at his contributions. -- 92.226.228.45 11:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly would you like to draw our attention to? --J.smith (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Presumably the user's source=internet uploads and similar issues. If these are tagged appropriately as lacking source/licence info then they'll get deleted in time. Adambro (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't look like any of his uploads are properly sourced :( Multichill (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Taoist_monk_5.PNG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Taoist_monk_clothes.PNG

User "Nyo" has posted my (and other photog's) images without permission. [1][2] He is skirting the law by first uploading my (and other's) images onto PhotoBucket (under the user name Lavelk) [3], then linking to WikiMedia, claiming that it is "fair use" because the images first appeared on PhotoBucket. I know he took one of my images from my Flickr account, but I have no idea how he obtained the other (full-resolution) file. Not entirely sure WHY this person is going through so much trouble to distribute other photographer's art instead of just creating some of his own, but either way he does NOT have my permission to do so. I would like to request that WikiMedia immediately remove the following copyrighted images (they appear in my published book CHINA: Portrait of a People, so I can assure you they are mine, they are copyrighted, and I will take legal action if they are not deleted) and please also suspend this user and his IP address from further uploads. Thank you. Tom Carter --Tomcarter (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom. First off, threatening legal action doesn't help anyone - please be mellow. You see, we have a problem here - it's your word against his. Nyo may well have obtained the images in good faith - we have no proof he's LavelK. I'm not willing to ban a user for the actions of someone else. I personally agree with you on Image:Taoist monk clothes.PNG, as the flickr image actually has info about it that the photobucket one lacks. I'd personally go for deleting these both as possible copyvios, but I'd like to see what others think. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hm, what about the permission ticket 1360068 (OTRS) as it was noted here? --:bdk: 00:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Rjd0060 on IRC, http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l98/Lavelk/ the guy releases all the photos here in the ticket, says they're his. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any other information on the ticket other than what I told mattbuck (see above). Based on that, and the fact that Tomercarter has also left notes on Photobucket requesting the deletion of the images, I would assume that Tom is correct here and delete the images. One isn't used and the other does have a few uses. Also note the user who uploaded them to commons wanted them deleted before, but that was declined (for good reason). See also [14] and future revisions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
sounds reasonable --:bdk: 01:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Not seeing any issues with deletion so I've went ahead and done it. Both image are deleted. Sorry for any inconvenience, Tomcarter. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Mattbuck, could you please provide an internet link to the file you call "the flickr image" about which you say it "actually has info about it that the photobucket one lacks" ? Teofilo (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This image File:Taoist temple on Mount Mao.PNG has the same problem. Originally uploaded in 2007 under OTRS ticket 1360068 as coming from photobucket (but no longer found there), but now found as "(C) All rights reserved" on Flickr, where it was uploaded in 2006. Delete? --Túrelio (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think so... →Na·gy 08:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Please note that this has escalated into Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention#Require immediate attention below. Jappalang (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking at the page and the deletion was not done properly, I thought it was strange then realised what had happened. Maybe the whole section needs to be deleted. [[15]]Please check [[16]]

Username

Hi, I am working as de:User:SchorSch on de:WP since 2005. I think, I created the Commons-Account User:Schorsch too, but I don't remember the login and I do not receive the "Forgot Password"-E-Mail. Is it possible to reactivate the old account or create a new account called SchorSch? Everything, I contributed as User:DerSchorSch should then be unified in the SchorSch-account. --SchorSch Diskussion 19:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Try at Commons:Changing username -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 19:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If you lost your password a bureaucrat can't help you. The only way to reactivate a account is with the database. You can place a bug in Bugzilla, but I don't think a developer will help very fast. Abigor talk 20:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The account has no contributions. It would be a simple matter of an "usurpation" to get the name back. See Commons:Changing username page for more details. J.smith (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a note that sysadmin intervention basically never happens - please don't give people false hope by mentioning it.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Nor should it. We have procedures in place for the exact kind of request. J.smith (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture delating

Hi,

I uploaded a picture by mistake some time ago and change update it immediatly with the rigth one.

However, I just realised that the initial picture is still accessible for consultation. As my son is on this picture, I would like to have it deleted of wikimedia.

Can someone help me on this topic?

I thank you in advance

--DudeFromFrance (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Effacée. Lupo 13:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You've uploaded a bunch of images... what one is it that needs to be deleted? J.smith (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Already done. Lupo 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Ggreat. :) J.smith (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please Delete

Please delete this version of my User Page. Thanks. --Marvin_101 (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Túrelio (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User contributions check

Gianniforever2000 has uploaded some images as PD-self, but I found that 2 of them (File:Giorgio Chiellini.jpg and File:Fabrizio Ravanelli.jpg) are screenshots from videos on youtube. Could you please check if also the other images uploaded are screenshots? --Simo82 (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done already, thanks for the report. --Martin H. (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OTRS check please?

Looking at this I am a little suspicious... If it is PD how come it also has/needs OTRS? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it should be replaced with {{OTRSPending}} for the time being. --J.smith (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I've done some checking in the OTRS system and I cannot find any reference to this file in any past or current ticket. This doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a ticket in there somewhere - I just do not have enough information to find it. J.smith (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely one to watch

I came across this (odd what you find when you look!). It's "user space" so I guess it is ok BUT I (and I alone) shall tag them for deletion when I am done with them worries me. Someone who does not understand Common at all? AGF? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess this user mistakes Commons for his external hard drive... Somebody should probably have a talk with him about the project scope. --Eusebius (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
looks like this one is oneis more than a simple case according to the users edit history he's created user page for a nonexistant Redhearts11 (talk · contribs) as well as some user logo File:BrjTriad.png, for JP4Jackpot (talk · contribs) Gnangarra 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OTRS question

Here's a text of e-mail I sent to a photographer about his/her images:

"Hello Zoriah, Your images are amazing! I would like to upload two images to Wikipedia. I will upload small size only and link to your site, but the images should be released with Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

If it is possible, I would like to upload these images:

(there were the links to the images)

in the resolution they are displayed on your site.

Thank you for your time."


The photographer responded:

"Absolutely, thank you for asking first. As long as you put a link to my site in, I am fine with it. Send me a link when it is done. Thanks,"

I forwarded my e-mail and his/her response to the permissions, but was refuesed in uploading images. I asked a photagrapger to write one more release. Here it is:

"I, Zoriah am releasing the images:

(there were the links to the images) and their description for redistribution under an allowable licenses:

text: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

images: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing

I am the owner and copyright holder of these images and release them to be used on Wikipedia." Then there were his/her web site address, phone and so on.

I was still refuesed in uploading the images. May I please ask you, if the refuse to upload images in this case is justified? I am sorry, if it is the wrong place for this question. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think that the text ...to be used on Wikipedia is the problem - allowing use only on wikipedia, or even just wmf projects, does not satisfy COM:L, and so we cannot host these images. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I used the word "wikipedia" because I assumed a photographer mighht know nothing about Commons, but if you look at the links of the licenses I provided and he/she agreed with they are all creative commons licenses.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Most people have no clue about licensing. This is why it is important to tell people in detail what the license grants. Many mails on OTRS are like yours - the Commons contributor did somehow hear that permissions from photographers need to specify a certain license for the image to be usable on Commons. So the mail goes like Hi, great images. I would like to use them on Wikipedia, can I do this under license xyz? and the normal reaction of the photographer is Of course, please put them on Wikipedia! What they often do not know, is, that they grant everyone the right to make derivatives of the image and to use the image commercially. Thus many permissions in OTRS fail, when notifying the creators about the actual licensing terms and they go No, I don't want anyone to modify my image nor to use it commercially. So if you get permissions from other people (which is great work, make no mistake), please thoroughly explain what the license does and especially point out the part about derivatives and commercial use. It would be best, if you asked the photographer for permission and ask him to fill out the email template on Commons:Email templates and send it directly to the OTRS. Thanks and best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, ChrisiPK. I understood now. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Require immediate attention

Relevant link: Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Lavelk from Photobucket

Okay, long history short. User:Nyo has uploaded photos from a photobucket owned by Lavelk under an OTRS from the photobucket owner who claims copyright over the images. All images tagged by this ticket are suspiciously in the PNG format (which camera saves images in PNG?). My investigations have uncovered the images from the photobucket account as copyviolations taken from various websites. Lavelk's collections are stolen from professional and hobbyist work. However, admin User:Mbdortmund has removed the speedy template off File:Old Taoist monk 1.PNG under the assumption that the OTRS is valid. I am going to presume that he or she did not look further into the matter than simply seeing the OTRS tag there. Another admin Joku Janne think that the flickr users were the ones who stole the images, despite the mounds of evidence that point Lavelk as the culprit instead.

Admins are reluctant to even declare the OTRS invalid, despite the masses of copyright violations detected for it. Instead, they are fooled into defending a copyright violator, allowing the thefts to remain on Wikipedia. (ref: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Nyo: copyright violations, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible to revoke OTRS?, the various threads within the previous two discussions, and User talk:Nyo). Does this mean anyone can post copyviolations to Commons, and have them remain on Commons just with an email that professes to "release my work (copyviolations) as GFDL or CC"? Jappalang (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Should I make a deletion request? --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 14:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Please read through the relevant discussions from the time the OTRS ticket was disputed. Are you seriously believing that Lavelk was the original photographer of all those various photographs, even the ones that appeared on jamd and getty images (note that the violations I brought up on User talk:Nyo are tagged with Lavelk's OTRS, you can visit his photobucket account to verify with the violations I have marked)? From the time it was raised to now, no one can even give a single concrete proof of his work as originally his, whereas increasingly more are exposed as copyviolations. Frankly, this is just plain fillibustering. Overwhelming evidence shows Lavelk's collections are copyviolations, yet there is the belief that he is trustworthy?! Jappalang (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe a deletion request is what we need. The OTRS claim is false and that makes the images copyvios and should be deleted as {{Copyvio}}, so a deletion request isn't needed. Mike Lifeguard helped me and told me that I could tag it again with copyvio. I don't understand why a administrator should remove the {{Copyvio}} again without asking for information or things like that. But I believe it should be deleted asap. Abigor talk 15:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll have a look at this tonight. I've deleted one from Getty Images, I'll continue looking through them later. Adambro (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Admin Sfu just reverted the tagging of File:Buddhist temple in Qibao, China.PNG on what I assume is his acceptance of the OTRS at face value.[17] Jappalang (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

deleted most of the images and marked some of them with "missing permission". User:Nyo had takens us for fools by claiming totaly wrong permission on images, for example he claims that the Corriere della Sera has allowed the publication [...] under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, but the photos are clearly marked with Photo:AFP at their website. I deleted most of the photoraphies and images with creativity from his uploads, this case bothered us so many times, just see what links here for Nyos talkpage, deleting them by case because they are from GettyImages, other webistes, Flickr, etc. is inadmissible, the number of deleted images was allready extremly long. --Martin H. (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Other opinions?

These look to have been lifted from some website? The most recent ones anyway - some of the earlier ones are questionable (I just deleted one obvious copyvio). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Tineye found a match to the first one, and they do look like promo photos. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Submitted a mass DR.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Broken thumbnail

The following is a post I made to the help desk a couple of days ago, which unfortunately hasn't attracted a reply. The problem seems to be that somewhere on the Commons servers there is a failed rendering of a thumbnail. Anybody know how to force a re-rendering of a thumbnail?.

The 180px thumbnail version of File:Karhun kapulalossi.jpg seems to be broken. The upper half of the image is fine, the lower half just comes out grey. I get the same results running different browsers on different computers over an 18 hour period, so I'm confident it isn't a local caching issue. The full size image, and the 200px thumbnail are both fine, so I'm guessing this is some kind of image processing/caching issue on the Wikimedia servers. See http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Karhun_kapulalossi.jpg/180px-Karhun_kapulalossi.jpg to see what I mean.

I've tried the trick described in the FAQ ( running http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Karhun%20kapulalossi.jpg&w=180 ), but that stills give me the broken thumbnail. It also ran remarkably quickly, which makes me doubt if the thumbnail really was recreated. Can anybody help here. I'm running out of options, and I don't really want to create a copy of the image, as it is used on WP sites in languages I don't speak and am reluctant to edit.

-- Chris j wood (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to purge the thumbnail cache (and possibly clear your browser cache) again after the thumb.php trick: all using thumb.php does is convince MediaWiki that a thumbnail of that size exists, so that it will be properly purged the next time. I just did it, and it seems to work fine now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. I've never come across action=purge before, but then I've only been editing WP for five years. :-) -- Chris j wood (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploader problem

Can someone check the uploads of User:Amar890? It seems like most of them may be copyvios. I don't have the time to check myself, sadly. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Checked, found copyvio evidence, deleted the lot [18]. Thanks. Giggy (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio-only account: MikeAnderson

MikeAnderson (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) is a copyright-violation only account. It has uploaded a total of 3 images, all of which were discovered to be copyright violations. There is also some evidence (see [19]) that this account is a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of community-banned editor en:User:PoliticianTexas, to wit: each of the three images was used on the English Wikipedia within a few minutes of upload by en:user:JWillems, since blocked as a sockpuppet of PoliticianTexas. How about a block on MikeAnderson? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Giggy (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting files

Earlier today I uploaded two files but made a spelling mistake in the Generic name. I have corrected this and uploaded correctly-titled files, band should now delete the files with the wrong names. How is this deletion to be accomplished? ACCassidy (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in the title of both files the genus is spelt Petrealea when the correct version is Petrelaea. Delete the ones with earlier upload times and the first of these two spellings. Thanks ACCassidy (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. Next time, just put {{bad name|new_filename.jpg}} on the incorrectly named files. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the help. ACCassidy (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Another Flickr-Israel-Gaza question

Hi, we have some images from ISM Palestine File:Cast Lead Mosque.jpg, it is courious, but the same image is here on another Flickraccount, uploaded the same day. So what do you think of this two accounts? To make it easy to track the transfers to Commons i will add the {{Qfi}} template for the authors here. --Martin H. (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploads from ISM Palestine and rafahkid to Commons

|- | RafahKid Kid | rafahkid | 30147108@N06 | search | What do you think about his cc-by-sa uploads? |- | ISM Palestine | ismpalestine | 33983113@N02 | search | What do you think about his cc-by-sa uploads?

As in wartime there is also information warfare, they may have used this approach to achieve a broader distribution. Also, Flickr-user rafahkid may also be a volunteer with ISM. As Flickr doesn't record the exact time of upload (only the day), we can't be sure who was first. --Túrelio (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The same is true of many other photos: [20] and [21], [22] and [23], [24] and [25]... For some of these, the upload dates are different, and as far as I can tell, ISM always comes first. Pruneautalk 22:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for your opinions. I also reviewed the both photostreams and i agree with Turelio: the ISM Project seems to be trustfull, they realy care about copyright and know the cc-licenses as we can see on their homepage. ISM also has some all rights reserved images in their uploads, so they make differences in content. RafahKids uploads are all licensed cc-by-sa, he also has images with cc-license that are licensed all rights reserved by ISM, so this uploader is very suspicious, fortunately we dont have his images at Commons by now. I propose to add Rafahkid to the QFI --Martin H. (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Move Image Into Wikipedia Commons

I want to move two images that I have to the following URL address:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Rail_Class_158

I do not know how to do this and at the moment I cannot move my images to where I want them to be.

--Peter Skuce (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Are the images actually on commons at the moment? If so, just add [[Category:British Rail Class 158]]. If not, then I suggest using toolserver.org/~magnus/commonshelper.php CommonsHelper to move it. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

File:TriosePhosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel.png at FPC

My Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:TriosePhosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel.png ‎has received strong support, but the consensus was clearly that I should scan a higher-resolution version. I have now made a new scan and uploaded it to Commons as TriosePhosphateIsomerase_Ribbon_pastel_photo_mat.png.
Since the candidate was still visible on the list (and I had asked for time to do this), I tried several ways to incorporate the new image, which once showed up briefly in the lineup and then disappeared.
Can you help me either to add the new version properly, or if it is really too late for this round (in spite of 6 support votes and 3 oppose for resolution votes) then please advise whether and how best to nominate the new one, preferably so that the previous discussion can be referred to? I certainly agree that I'd much rather see this new one in Commons than the older one. Thanks! Dcrjsr (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - whoever fixed it! Dcrjsr (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PNG rendering problem of text SVG

Hello,

I noticed some problems of PNG rendering of SVG when a text zone has text of several size: smaller characters appear at the end, e.g.

File:Designation aciers EN10027 1 2.svg, 1st box, 3rd line should be
— E + Re ; p. ex. E295
and appears instead
— E + R ; p. ex. E295e
This file alos has a parasitic line at the right of the bottom box.

But this also occurs for text of the same size, e.g.

File:Racine carree moins un representation geometrique.svg :
1st line should be
-1 = 1 × i × i
and appears instead
-1 = 1 × × i i

I worked around by converting text into path for some files (e.g. File:Diagramme fer carbone.svg), but this causes edition problems.

Probably a MediaWiki problem, but I don't know where to put a bug report, so...

Thanks for the great work.

Regards

Cdang (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be happening when the SVG contains several <tspan>...</tspan> elements stacked within each other, inside a <text>...</text>. The renderer seems to be flattening out the set of tspan elements contained in the text element into a single consecutive list. Looks like something to submit to bugzilla. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: I've been able to replicate the bug at en:File:Test tspan.svg. Now filed at Bugzilla Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Birdix

Special:Contributions/Birdix - all copyvios, methinks... ~ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

All deleted, user warned. Giggy (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Venezuela

Hola, al principio de la página de Category:Venezuela [26] hay un texto muy extraño que no tiene nada que ver con la Categoría. No se cómo revertirlo. Considero que no debe estar allí. ¿Alguien puede verlo?. Gracias, --Laura Fiorucci (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hola, it was only the spanish version of a template that had been vandalized. I've reverted it, should be o.k. now. --Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hola Túrelio, gracias por la ayuda. He revisado y está igual...--Laura Fiorucci (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Listo! --Laura Fiorucci (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, Laura. The categorize-template itself was ok, as the Category:Venezuela is far too populated with 276 files. It is a reminder that most files should be moved in sub-categories. When cat:Venezuela is less populated the message will be removed. Therefore I've restored the correct message.--Túrelio (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Darmin

This user may need some attention - all his recent uploads should be rewieved. He uploaded several art images in 2006 but started recently to overwrite them with completely different images without an explanation why he does this. --Denniss (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Upload issue

I have been trying to upload two files, File:US 10A.svg and File:NY-917A.svg.

Each time I try to upload, I get this message:
"You do not have permission to do that, for the following reason:
The name of the file you are uploading begins with PICT, DSC, image, ..., which is a non-descriptive name typically assigned automatically by digital cameras. Please choose a more descriptive name for your file."

I'm just wondering why I'm getting this message. Am I blocked from uploading? If so, why wasn't I notified? I can't really upload to a different name, as these are the naming conventions for similar files. Thanks. --Fredddie™ 09:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

At least you aren't blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
See MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. Seems to be some rule that was copied over from en-WP that requires more than two consecutive letters. Maybe that rule should be disabled here? Lupo 09:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Lista de Baronatos Portugueses

Sr Administrador Venho solicitar informação sobre como incluir um Baronato na lista respectiva. Atentamente, Dom Paulino Balão Fernandes 1º Barão e Paço d'Ilhas

As not so many people here a fluent in Portuguese, you better ask here.--Túrelio (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Other views?

This set of contribs caught my eye. Looks professional with a few deleted - validly licensed or not? I have my doubts, no time to follow up - sorry. --Herby talk thyme 13:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Ford Motor Company - some of those images are proposed for deletion, as they had a CC-BY-NC watermark on them. --Daggerstab (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Elvanino (talk · contribs)

Hi, can i have a quick review of User:Elvaninos contributions? Most of the images appear to be copyvios, im unsure about those blured images taken with Canon PowerShot A75, thats ~40% of the uploads. The number of CPS A75 images and their chronological dispersion in his uploads dont know how to describe this in english making it possible that this images are selftaken, but maybe he just found a large source. --Martin H. (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. All deleted by ChrisiPK. --Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Working tools (by Lascorz)

Any idea is this Category:Working tools (by Lascorz) category tree is acceptable and how to handle it ? --Foroa (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is acceptable because it creates a unnecessary and confusing parallel cat structure/system.--Túrelio (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I think as long as the images are also in categories without reference to who took them, it's fine. (a review would be needed to ensure all are) This is an ideal use of hidden categories. See, for reference and contrast, Category:Taken by Lar. Note that putting Category:Working tools (by Lascorz) in category:Tools may not be correct. There has been change in how this has been done over the years so maybe these categories are just not conforming to most recent practice? ++Lar: t/c 16:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It's no problem that each user sort their own images in hidden user categories (as well as in prpoer commons categories), even if in a detailed category tree, as long as there are no links between topic categories and user categories. The problem here was that these user categories was a sub of category:tools, I took the liberty of removing it from there. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Request watchlist additions

I've just annoyed a serial vandal on en:Wiki, could a few admins put File:Tim Vickers crop3.jpg and File:Tuxedo kitten.jpg on their watchlists, to avoid any image vandalism? Thanks. TimVickers (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

On my watchlist. --Martin H. (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Much appreciated. TimVickers (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Me and Bert.jpg

Hello,

sorry for my bad English, I´m from Germany. I hope that it's the right place for my question:

How is it able to put out this picture File:Me and Bert.jpg, that I have loaded up ?

First my friend gave me the permission, now he says he doesn`t like it.

In Germany in this case I would have to do SLA and an administrator can extinguish the picture.

Thanks for your advice.

Yours sincerly, --Neverendingstoryy (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope I understood you right, I've deleted the image per your request. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes you did. You were very quick. Thank you very much. Kisses, Evi --Neverendingstoryy (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
@Evi, wenn keine es reine admin-Sache ist, kannst du auch auf Commons:Forum auf deutsch posten. Grüße --Túrelio (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please close encroching deletion request

Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Capitulacionsori.jpg has been open for almost 2 months and a half and there is a bitter fight going on over the authorship of the photo. Please close the deletion request stating if it applies under {{PD-art}} or not before it gets even more bitter. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done by Mattbuck (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes). --Kanonkas(talk) 10:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio backlog

Could someone please look at File:Nat Turner Slave Rebellion.jpg and File:NatTurner.jpg? We've had a take-down request in OTRS:2453450 and I tagged them for deletion on Saturday, but they're still up. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Need more (active) admins. CV-backlog is >400. File:NatTurner.jpg is used on 12 projects; couldn't it go under fair-use on :en? --Túrelio (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've notived them over at en:WP:AN, so wait some more hours to make the move possible.--Túrelio (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The backlog is much gone. (I deleted more than 150 files :S), I left some coat of arms, I don't know much about those a other admin can handle those. Abigor talk 13:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Images with prominent website watermark

New user Dogo Canario (talk · contribs) has uploaded quite some nice images of a special dog breed that all carry a prominent prominent watermark with his website address. In addition, the description of all his images actually doesn't describe the depicted dog/scene, but are a sort advertising for his website www.Dogo-canario.biz. Though this website doesn't seem to be really commercial (more of a fan/breeders website), IMHO the images are of little use due to the prominent URL. Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. All deleted by Lycaon. --Túrelio (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
For future reference, this type of watermark can be removed with relatively little effort, and that's what {{Watermark}} is for. However, it is important for images to have accurate descriptions and licensing information. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Overwriting issue

Hi - not got time to go through all of these so posting here. I had a message on my talk page regarding the overwriting of existing images with quite different material. I've sorted out a number, warned/asked the user to cease & upload under a new name. However quite a few of the "new version" uploads here need reviewing. Some are (to me) fine however a number are materially different from the original. Apologies for not being able to do more - regards --Herby talk thyme 12:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Recently, I have been sorting out the backlog on the Category:People of England doing a great service to the project, putting hundreds and hundreds of images in the correct category and uploading better quality images in some cases. Today - Richard Harvey was bored, now I had also recently cleaned up the entire backlog on the Category:West Yorkshire putting them in more specific cats. Some of these images he had uploaded; which he is extremely protective over and hugely overcategories (despite previously admins warning about huge backlog) and almost explodes with rage the second any editor touches a cat on them.
Thus today Richard took it upon himself to go through my logs and revert portrait image uploads on many English people images. When I reverted these "revenge" edits, he went to Herbythyme (talk · contribs) and carried on the tragic pantomine. Wasting more of my time. Herbythyme then, not only reverted some images which were actually uploads of entirely different images, proceded to waste my time greatly on trivialities by reverting other images, some of which were exactly the same, but I had simply cropped the borders of or uploaded a better quality of the exact same image; for example, Image:SirJohnDodson.jpg and Image:EdwardFowler.jpg. His attitude also for an admin I felt was quite poor. - Thomas Gun (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The overwrite made the images quite different to the originals in my opinion (& if I am wrong I will apologise. Members of the community may wish to look here too. I also dislike having my time wasted. It seems likely that this user may be socking - mail gone to a couple of projects CUs. I would ask any admin seeing this user overwrite any further images to block for a period as they seem indifferent to9 any perspective other than their own. --Herby talk thyme 13:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Equally - while some images are similar (I do not agree that tehy are identical) some are definitely not - see here & here for example. Such behaviour & not stopping leaves me irritated. --Herby talk thyme 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
How on earth does trimming borders from an image which is exactly the same, such as the two image examples I gave make them "quite different"? We even have a template (template:crop) that suggests this exact thing be done. I previously wasn't aware that uploading different images altogether over new ones wasn't allowed, which I can see now and the logic behind that being the case and for example I just uploaded a fresh on File:William Harvey 2.jpg for example as a result.
But there are some examples such as those give above which are the same and are just borders were cropped. This is a triviality, you are wasting my time with this. PS - I'm not sure what relevence Wikipedia is to this? You are allowed to edit on Wikimedia even if banned on another project (or so an admin on here told me). What is with the attitude? - Thomas Gun (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to share another example which I felt was particularly ridiculous; Image:Sir Robert Southwell.jpg a barely visible, tiny, tiny little image (useless to everyone). I uploaded over it the full scale larger version. Surely logic kicks in somewhere and says that is a sensible thing to do? But this was reverted also. :$ - Thomas Gun (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that your version is better. It is, however, not the same image, nor from the same source. Reupload the better version as a different image, and replace it where desirable.Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(indent) Bordercropping and overwriting is no problem within the current guidelines (there are some debate about if this should only be done by lossless croppping but that's a different discussion). Larger crops and/or significant alterings/improvents of images should generally be saved as new files, with a link to the original version and an explanations of which improvements that has been done. Uploading a different image over the original should not be done, even if the new image fits the original image description. Upload this as a new image.

Users banned or blocked at en:wikipedia or other projects are still allowed to edit wikimedia:commons, but there is generally very little patience with conflicts from other projects being carried on at Commons (not saying this is the case here).

I'll have a look at the images in question, and revert images where either new uploads has altered the image, or Herbys recent reverts have been incorrect (bordercrops etc). Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the obvious problems with Tomas Gun's replacement of images here, he is labelling his inappropriate reverts as "reverting vandal" etc. That is so not OK. You need to stop and I mean now.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
A Commons policy or Faq update might be a (partial) remedy against there recurring "image improvement" problems. --Foroa (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
This seems quite narcissitic. Mike had been kind enough to go through many, many images and simply revert any sign of something that looks like quality improvement. Yet when I asked him politiely, since he has the time to route through all these images at will if he would be kind enough to do the job properly and reupload the fresh images, he comes back with some snidey-snappy little comment. And on one image of a monument for example; which has a tourist and a car File:Battle of the Standard 055107.jpg which clearly doesn't belong in the image due to personality rights and the fact that the image purpose if the monument (so it has been cropped out). He comes back on my talk page throthing at the mouth claiming my point is "nonsense" and screams that he'll block me if I use common sense again. Is there any administrative review proccess; two admins so far have been extremely rude and are completely jaded in their attitude to the point of nausea. What is the purpose of the project if people who conduct themselves as so far on edge are actually given admin status? Although Finn Rindahl, to his credit, has acted very personable on the other hand. - Thomas Gun (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The comment was not "snidey-snappy" nor was I yelling. I'm sifting through the purposeful disruption of you and your socks and reverting where appropriate. If you continue being disruptive you'll be blocked. Simple as that.  — Mike.lifeguard 18:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Your comment was snappy from when I'm sitting, and you gave no explination for the above in your response where you came with the hystetics on my talk and threatening to ban me if I used common sense. While you screamed "nonsense" in the header, you completely decided to foregoe discussing my points in a rational way. You are making a complete mess reverting any image which has been improved with a better shading or cropped borders at all (which Finn Rindahl pointed out is allowed). On top of this distruption you are causing you also can't be bothered to reupload fresh versions which you are so partisanly ripping from the project. Thus you are making the quality of the project much worse. "Purposeful disruption??" what on earth are you talking about? I am very interested in taking this to a higher level, please tell me the proccess where admin behaviour can be reviewed. - Thomas Gun (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Give it a rest Thomas Gun, it has been explained (at some lenght) why overwriting is reverted. Please continue with constructive edits, and leave out the rest. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Now uploading new images cropped in a way that suits them & tagging the original as superseded. I'm going offline now but personally I favour blocking this user who seems determined to operate in an uncollaborative way. --Herby talk thyme 19:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly if any of the already observed socking continues, the main account will be blocked in addition to the socks. So this user should keep that in mind, stop socking, and start being collegial. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, now he is uploading images under a different name. But then he's replacing the original version with his version in galleries. I think I've merged in all the edits properly (at a rather unfortunate expense of time!). All in all, that seems extraordinarily uncooperative (especially considering the above, the socking and the user's history at enwiki). After spending an hour cleaning up the re-upload vandalism of his socks plus this new form of sneaky disruption I'm inclined to spare the community any further waste of time and resources and block the user. Thomas Gun has images of value to contribute, but is going about it in a totally inappropriate manner. One or the other needs to stop and at present Special:MakeUserCooperate/Thomas Gun doesn't exist... only Special:Block/Thomas Gun.  — Mike.lifeguard 01:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You still seem unduly obsesive here with me Mike and you are conducting yourself in the manner of a cyberbully. Not OK, not OK. Especially for someone who has somehow managed to become an admin. I meant what I said about taking this higher if you persist in this hysteric on edge forthing at the mouth business, I feel you are at the point of stalking me now. I did what was requested of me and uploaded fresh new versions of the images. You can get on with whatever else you're supposed to be doing and leave me alone now.
As for the galleries, many of the galleries you stayed up all night, obsessively following me around to revert any sign of me doing work on here at all were ones I created anyway. Replacing my own edits! I do not appreciate this active distruption on your part at all. Another example of your totally inappropriate destruction while following me around here (and going agaisnt consensus) is the gallery Pope. As you will find on the talk Grenavitar created it to be set out neatly like President of the United States so that each single Pope has one tab, which then links to the respective ones own gallery.
I cleaned up my own mess be reuploading tons the images, after you refused to cooperate and do it when asked politely. To suggest that I originally did this as an act of "vandalism" is pure personal attack on your part and a complete lacking of assuming good faith. Its all fixed now anyway, you can get over it. — Thomas Gun (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
That'd be the first appropriate revert I've seen from you yet (though of course the edit summary is interesting). I don't know why we should be giving you credit for cleaning up your own mess. That's the bare minimum I'd expect. Again, the attitude is somewhat less expected. Nobody should have to follow you around and clean up your mess (including you) since you shouldn't be making inappropriate changes as described above.  — Mike.lifeguard 14:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

scan of books

Hi! I don't know if I'm at the right place, it is just to tell that all the contributions of Special:Contributions/CNDK6BHENADEPOLBARRONJEA are scanned from books (source: livre) of different authors, surely without permission. Vonvon (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Big deletion request

I have a very big mass deletion/copyvio case: >300 images, all from a single dubious flickr source. Admin attention and/or advice on how to further handle this would be appreciated. Filed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files credited to flickr user "vesnamarkoska". Thanks, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Per Checkuser results at en-wiki, it has been established that User:Reggaeflow is a sockpuppet of User:Colombianorgulloso. Could some admin block him?. Best regards. Dferg (commons-meta) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Colombianorgulloso for more details Dferg (commons-meta) 20:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks likely, but not completely conclusive. --SB_Johnny talk 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Urgent

Could somebody with higher-than-a-regular-admin rights (maybe Jimbo-class), please tag File:[...redacted...] as attack image (or simply delete it) as soon as possible. When I try to add {{speedy|attack image}} the edit is (reproducibly) not performed and instead the Commons spam filter pops up and incorrectly claims that the edit contains the string http:// t.--Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the problem was at Meta and has been fixed. --Daggerstab (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Thanks.--Túrelio (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: Offending file name redacted in the post above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
O.k. ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Spam protection filter

How comes, that i got the message: 

The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site. 
The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://  t

http:// t... is http:// toolserver..., the error occured ~10:40 UTC but i cant find anything in the recent changes. Maybe its a error of my account/pc? The __ to the link is intended, i also edited Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive Template to make it possible to me to edit this page. --Martin H. (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

@Martin, look the paragraph above ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the problem was at Meta and has been fixed. --Daggerstab (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Help appreciated

POTY 2008 could do with some help if anyone has the time/feels inclined. Each of the pages of votes needs reviewing to check voter eligibility. No glory in it :) but there is quite a bit to be done. In passing, if you find a user who has been "welcomed" by me who has voted then they are eligible - saved me checking people I'd checked once! Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you doing things in any particular order, Herby? --SB_Johnny talk 02:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Help for usurpation

Hi I need some advice from someone with experience. I am bureaucrat on sw.wikipedia.org and have a problem I never had to handle. One of our users on sw forgot her password but wants to continue using her identity. How do i get her back to her account?

A) Is it possible just to delete her user account and to tell her just to register anew on the same name? B) could she register under a different name temporarily and I move her temporary account to the original name?

My sw-user-page

Kind regards --Kipala (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, AFAIK Wikimedia tech staff are the only people who can reset passwords. However, this is only done when the user is able that they own the account, which is often very hard or impossible. Your best bet is to set an e-mail address so you can have your password sent via e-mail in case you forget it. If the users hasn't done that, there is basically nothing that you as a bureaucrat can do. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Yellow Peices Of Card

ResolvedImages deleted by User:Abigor. Thanks! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 07:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yellow Peices Of Card (talk · contribs) has uploaded a number of images, claiming authorship. The source of the images is different in each case, and appear to be the work of a number of individuals.

I'm active on en.wiki, and monitor the sock puppets of an indefinitely blocked editor who targets Scottish topics, particularly Scottish musicians and bands. A number of socks have used images uploaded by "Yellow Peices Of Card", so I suspect that that this user is the same as the blocked user on en.wiki (though I realise that blocks don't operate cross-wiki). I am concerned, however, that this user is passing off other people's work as their own. Of concern is that at least two of the images require attribution, and the original image creators/photographers do not appear to have been credited.

Also worth noting is that I suspect that this user is the same as the blocked user Ificouldlistentoyou (talk · contribs), and is evading a block here on commons. The modus operandi is very similar - they upload dubious images here, and then use them on en.wiki.

First posting to this board - feel free to move this discussion elsewhere and slap me with a trout if I've posted in the wrong place!

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 21:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Closing debate?

This categories for discussion request has been going on since 1 February, with near unanimity among the 14-or-so editors who have weighed in on the question. Could it be closed now? Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete previous versions of a file?

My first real foray into producing a moderately complex SVG image has demonstrated that one difference between these and raster graphics is that what I see in local tools can be different than what I see on Wikimedia in my browser. Is it possible and advisable to remove the first four unsuitable versions of File:Ogallala changes 1980-1985.svg? They're moderately large and consume over 6.5 MB collectively. By itself that may not be much, but I'd rather not have wasted that space — what if every upload wasted 4x the space it actually needed? Thanks. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. There is no need for us to maintain a history of you trying to iron out the kinks in an upload; therefore I see no reason not to delete the old versions per your request. Hesperian 04:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The deleted versions stay there available to administrators for review and undeletion. A bit of bandwidth should be saved by most users not viewing them. --AVRS (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the owners of a 19th century plantation house have threatened legal action over photos of the building on Commons. I think this needs wider attention. See Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Rosemount Plantation. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Username change request to sync with WP

My Wikipedia username was changed from Jamesrward to James R. Ward on 9 February 2008. Though I'm now able to log into Commons using the new username, my old Commons contributions are still associated with my original username. Could this be synced so that only the new username, James R. Ward, appears in Commons and my contributions are associated with it? Thank you. James R. Ward (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see COM:CHU.  — Mike.lifeguard 20:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I've decided that's it's easiest (and conforms to a CHU recommended alternative) to leave the old account stagnant. There's only one file associated with it. I'll redirect user and talk pages to my new username. Let's consider this issue closed. Thanks, Mike, for your response. Jim Ward (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope query?

Are these within scope? His first user page was a link to his website which I deleted as promotional. I'm not sure I see the value of the uploads really or is it me? Regards --Herby talk thyme 11:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid they aren't as he does not seem to be notable. According to his own summary he has been barely noticed by the press and there were just two exhibitions so far. I would change my mind if the uploader would use his uploads as specimen for wikibooks about techniques in art or courses at the wikiversity but I don't see this happen. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done - out of scope - Abigor talk 13:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Luisa Micheletti.jpg

File:Luisa Micheletti.jpg was uploaded under a free license with a claim that it is the uploader's own work. However, it has in its lower left corner an insignia with a legend in Portuguese, a language I don't speak, but it appears to say something to the effect that use of the image without permission is prohibited. This is a contradictory situation that needs to be resolved. I wonder about this user's other uploads, including a Kelly Clarkson picture from the pre-Grammys, all claimed to be his own work. Dtobias (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it got deleted already.  — Mike.lifeguard 15:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Somebody should scrutinize that user's other uploads too; several more have either been deleted or are up for deletion now, but one of Kelly Clarkson is currently being used on the en.wp article on her, but this user's claims of copyright ownership are dubious at best. Dtobias (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone did that.  — Mike.lifeguard 22:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nude uploads (that will get attention!) views?

These caught my eye :). I guess there is the usual "we have enough" issue? However - call me picky but the implication is that they all belong/are of to the uploader - is it just me that sees a difference in skin tone between the images? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 18:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just changes in lighting, AFAICT.  — Mike.lifeguard 22:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Not happy about these contribs?

These worry me somewhat. Out of scope I would have thought, privacy issues, even possibly promotional though at a glance I'm not sure how. Views/action welcome. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they have the permission, to release the images under a free license. They would need permission first. I'd delete the images as out of scope. --Kanonkas(talk) 15:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that these images are out of scope. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Some uploads by Lanfra (talk · contribs)

Some of Lanfra (talk · contribs)'s uploads seem to be portraits of your average Joe or Jane (see for instance File:Jug Simona.jpg, File:Janja Kisilak.jpg or File:Farič Katja.jpg), all in category:Prekmurje. They seem out of scope to me. I left a note to User:Eleassar, who is a native Slovene speaker, but I realized that isn't very active any more. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User problem

I was warned today in my user page (in Italian) that Ricusdella (talk · contribs) is uploading images which are not his, stating they are his work. He had been warned in the Italian Wikipedia already not to behave this way. As an example I was given, this image comes from here. I ask some adm to take the appropriate step with this user. Thx. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently he's been warned only once on it:Discussioni_utente:Ricusdella. Cound you or an Italian-speaking admin explain him here that taking pictures from the Web isn't allowed here? He'll be blocked if he persists. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Zaryaz

User Zaryaz (talk · contribs) is uploading copyvios after the final warning, thanks. Manizalita11 (talk · contribs) is also reincident. --Dferg (commons-meta) 10:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Zaryaz hasn't uploaded anything in 2009. Therefore a block doesn't seem to be necessary in the moment. Also, could you (or do you know how to) come from such an URL "http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2388/2086018404_cac963d812.jpg?v=0" (that doesn't have any information besides the image) to the usual Flickr page of that image? --Túrelio (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Túrelio, a search shows that it's a copyvio from Skyscrapercity [27] [28] --Dferg (commons-meta) 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. However, I could fid File:MazuerVilAvenueBogota.jpg on any of those pages.--Túrelio (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Found here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=715270 --Dferg (commons-meta) 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Sherlock Holmes ;-) - however, now we have the problem that the file was uploaded to Commons on 14. Sep. 2008, but to skyscrapercity on 25. Sep. 2008. --Túrelio (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User name change

I recently linked my wikipedia account here and now have two usernames. I had an admin help me with this on WP a while back...
Could I have someone change my history, talk and user info to my new user name?
Old: Travisthurston
New: Travis.Thurston

Thanks admins! --Travis.Thurston (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

At COM:CHU, you may request that your username be changed or you may usurp a disused username. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Spanish-speaking admin help pls?

Can I get someone who understands Spanish to take a look at a problem for me? I've found what is presumably the source for File:Recibe el mando.JPG - here - but there doesn't seem to be anything which jumps out as saying what the copyright status is for the site... Tabercil (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Catalan language actually, and I can see no copyright notice. I'd assume "all right reserved". Authorship/copyright attribution on the source website is not clearly stated (probably either the municipality of L´Hospitalet or the political party). --Eusebius (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, that's not spanish. In any case, the "PD-Self" tag is clearly wrongly used, as it isn't the uploader's work Belgrano (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted work

File:WikiFullASoIaFSizeEdit.JPG is a collage from the original book covers fron Bentam Books, so copyrighted. --Rondador (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Next time, you can simply tag it with {{Cover}}. Thanks for notifying.--Túrelio (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2009/03

Commons:Deletion requests/2009/03 is not properly including subpages for dates beyond March 11. March 12-16 are missing, even though the subpages exist (e.g., Commons:Deletion requests/2009/03/12). I took a look at the code for the March page, March 11, and March 12 but didn't see any obvious errors. Powers (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Gnome-globe.svg

Can someone remove the {{convert to SVG}} template from this protected image please, it's already an SVG. Thanks! — Ch1902 17:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Adambro (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo

Correct me if I am wrong, but Wikimedia Commons is not a language-specific project, all languages are ok in image descriptions. Well, as some of you may know, on English Wikipedia there are quite a number of nationalist users from all over the world who push their POV by moving pages to their preferred name and deleting the alternative names from the text. They have already started to pay attention to Commons, where their activity can become much more disruptive, as it affects links from other Wikipedia projects and virtually nobody is watching the situation. Apparently they cannot move images (I hope so), but they can recategorize them and erase descriptions nevertheless. One of such users is Tadija (talk · contribs), deleting useful material from descriptions of Kosovo-related pictures [29], [30], blanking categories [31] and even category redirects [32]. I've seen some others here, and who knows how many more are to come. Please watch the situation, it can become unmanageable. Colchicum (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree from quickly looking at the diffs you provide that these edits aren't really acceptable. As you say, descriptions in other languages are welcome and users shouldn't be blanking categories, there are appropriate procedures that can be followed if they want them to be deleted. Adambro (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
My answer is here; [33]. Best wish...
Tadija (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Crest_toothpaste.jpg

Please, delete 2 last version of File:Crest_toothpaste.jpg. These version are bad and looks like a spam. Serguei S. Dukachev (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Lycaon (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) Serguei S. Dukachev (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete first version of file accidently uploaded.

Could an admin please delete the first version of this file [[34]] I accidently uploaded the wrong image from my computer the first time, which is why i overwrote it immediatly...... I had posted a message on the image page a while back but i guess it never read by an admin.. Thanks --Ltshears (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You --Ltshears (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Irish/celtic mythology

Would some expert havin a look to the changes made by Special:Contributions/Asarlaí: he is emptying quite some categories, especially Irish and Celtic mythology ones. --Foroa (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pattonphoto.jpg should be a four star general?

Hi,

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pattonphoto.jpg is a photo of Gen. George Patton which shows him as a three star general. However note the decorations on his chest which show 4 stars. Note also there is apparently the same photo on the web which shows him as a four star general, see e.g. http://www.henrymakow.com/Patton.jpeg or http://www.dnronline.com/photos/patton2_5876.jpg and others.

Even the Encyclopedia Britannica has this photo with four stars: http://www.britannica.com/dday/article-9058757

In fact, I found the three star photo nowhere else, other than in the Wikipedia Commons. Knowing that George Patton was promoted to a four star general in 1945, and also taking into account that no source is given for the Wikipedia Commons Pattonphoto.jpg, someone should check whether Wikipedia has the wrong photo.

--Wendemuth (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that on the non-Commons pictures, the four stars on his hats are retouched. They have no shadow and look very flat. Also, I think that on these pictures he has only three stars on the right side of his collar. I'm not a specialist in retouches, though. --Eusebius (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
He looks much younger on File:Pattonphoto.jpg than on [35]. I think it's quite plausible that he was still a 3-star general when the picture on Commons was taken. –Tryphon☂ 17:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC) PS.: Why do you ask on the Administrators' noticeboard? You would have a wider audience on COM:VP, and this isn't really an issue that requires admin intervention.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg

Could someone please else please consider administrative reactions. Editwar in a close request. involved parties myself and user:Drork (Yes, me undeleteing and reopening/selfreverting was clumsy, but this discussion is closed). Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is part of a wider issue. See here. Adambro (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Fully protected it for a week. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Starr images – change of license

I would like to request attention for an issue that I found by accident, see the little discussion with Multichill.

Category:Images from Forest & Kim Starr contains nearly 60,000 images at the moment, a lot of which were uploaded by BotMultichill recently. But many others exist here on Commons since 2006 (or earlier, dunno) with a (at that time) valid PD license. Now the license on the source website was changed to CC-by-3.0 obviously, and Multichill generally marks the old (and often widely used) images as duplicates for deletion. On the one hand I can follow his argument that he does so because he knows that the files he uploaded are "properly sourced and licensed", but on the other hand I don't see the need to delete masses of correctly licensed (and often better categorized and better described) files.

Could you please comment on this issue and work out a general solution? -- \mu/ 20:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael.yoo (talk · contribs)

I have serious doubts about this user's uploads, but for most of them I couldn't spot a source. The only obvious copyvio was from Samsung.com. --Eusebius (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done - All deleted, images can all be found on www.samsung.com Huib talk 16:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced assertion of ownership

An IP user added a comment to Template talk:Copyrighted free use asserting ownership over images of a particular church. Obviously, this is misplaced. I think the comment refers to File:Lalique glass altarpiece in the Glass Church Jersey.jpg, but I'm not 100% sure, and I don't know if there are others to which the comment applies. Powers (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

File:KevinVearncombe.jpg

Can somebody please delete this image? It was uploaded by the user to be solely used in an attack page on Wikipedia. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 22:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, --Martin H. (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Luketh.jpg

Someone please deleted this vandalism. Thanks. --✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 18:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 18:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) ✓ Done, I warned the user, but if anyone feels a block is warranted, I won't oppose. Patrícia msg 18:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please check these images

While trying to categorize some images in the "media needing categories" page. I came across these images.. The copyright name on the photo, doesn't match with the name of the uploader.. So not sure if the person who uploaded them, is actually the owner.. File:תצפית דוחל חום גרון ב.jpg and File:תצפית דוחל חום גרון.jpg and File:דוחל חום גרון3 תצפית.jpg. Not sure if these should be nominated for deletion or not.. --Ltshears (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Based on the copyright statement, I'm guessing they may have come from http://www.birdforum.net, but I can't find anything on the non-registered side to indicate what the copyright status of the site as a whole is. Given that there's a large "©" present on the images, I'd tag them as permission missing at the least until someone can come up with more info. Tabercil (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me for sounding stupid.. But where could i find the missing permissions tag? Thanks --Ltshears (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
You can use {{subst:npd}} to tag files as having "no permission". Patrícia msg 18:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The uploader has provided a link to the original images.. They come from here [[36]] . Could someone who can traslate Hebrew, check the website and see if it says anywhere on there about copyright or images being public domain..Thanks --Ltshears (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Bipple.jpg

Uploaded and used to vandalize http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twink_(gay_slang)&diff=280302009&oldid=280301669. Please delete. --✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, uploader warned. WJBscribe (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Ayman2.jpg

Someone brought the above image to my attention. My question is, if the digitizing date is January of 2008, how can this be an image of an attack that purportedly took place on 14 Jan 2009? Unfortunately, there has been documented cases of misrepresentation of imagery in many current conflicts, the one in Gaza is no exception. If the picture is being used to deliberately misrepresent events, it at the very least needs to be corrected with the proper information. Furthermore, if the information on the flickr stream is wrong (if not deliberate propaganda) then it is very possible that the licensure listed there is also wrong. I would appreciate your collective comments as to whether or not this picture should be corrected or deleted, and if this casts aspersions on the entire flickr stream of the flickr uploader that flickrwashing and propaganda pushing may be in progress. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A perfectly plausible explanation could be simply that the photographer hadn't set the correct date/time information on the camera. I can't deny the possibility that this isn't the case though but considering, if we ignore the year, the image was uploaded to Flickr the day after it was taken it seems to make sense. So early on in a new year it is very easy to make the mistake of forgetting the current year. I also note that another photo taken at the same time showing the same subject just using a different camera has the year as 2009 [37]. I therefore don't consider there to be much reason to doubt the image uploaded here was taken in 2009. Adambro (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
According to you licensing question: The licensing is ok in my eyes, i also once doubted it because of different cameras and similar Flickrvios, but it seems like ISM contributors agree with the licensing. The ISM makes differences in licensing and the website denotes the license http://palsolidarity.org/about/use. My personal opinion on this is, that free licensing is a good instrument for propagandistic purposes, Commons must be aware of this, its the same with this images just as well as with the US military propaganda images and descriptions we copy every day. --Martin H. (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Avraham, I believe you are absolutely right to doubt the image. If you are to look at the photo stream of the flickr user, you would see quite a few images taken in November of 2007, but claimed to be taken in March of 2009 [38],[39] while some other images have correct date [40]. IMO it is clearly too much of the coincidence for Commons to keep the images by this Flickr user. The discussed image is too inflamatory and cannot be proven to depict the correct information.The Arab sources claim just the opposite:The head of the International Committee of the Red Cross said as Human Rights Watch said he had seen "no evidence" of anyone wounded by phosphorous bombs Al Arabia reports. That's why I believe that Flickr user cannot be trusted and the image should be deleted. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've put a "fact disputed"-tag on the image as a sort of first remedy. Eventually the description might be neutralized and/or the sources for the claims should be named more clearly, especially in regard to the doubt in what conflict that happened. However, I don't see the need for deletion. The wounds shown are probably real and it doesn't matter in what war they were suffered. Eventually we should create a new message tag for warning to take an image as proof for what is claimed in the description.--Túrelio (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

1. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross Web site, "We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorous weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports."[41] 2. Another photo of the same subject uploaded from ISM has the correct date [42] so it could be a camera setting issue as Adambro points out. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
In the Guardian link supplied in the description, there is video image of the victim, this video is from ISM [43]. The doctors are making the claims that the wounds were caused by white phosphorus not ISM. So claims that ISM took photos from some other event or that they are making up lies about the phosphorus should be thrown out the window. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You said Guardian? But the thing is that not only the facts are doubtful, but the license and copyrights are very doubtful too. The images with so called "correct date" were taken not only by a different camera, but their quality indicates that they were taken from a picture, or from tv/computer screen. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
It is so funny, you only pay attention to concerns raised but not to the rebuttals. I suggest that you stop posting until you are ready to consider all the facts. Thank you. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The bad quality in the other photos can be explained by the fact that they were taken by a camera phone. I don't know why MBZ1 would think that ISM took pictures of a TV or a computer screen, since they have clear images and video footage to show that they are the owners of the images and video. What are the other issues that need to be addressed? I will remove the accuracy dispute tag if there is no response in 2 days. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe it has been two days now and it appears that no one is disputing the accuracy. I am removing the tag. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

photograph of the S.M.S. Leipzig

Your photograph of the S.M.S. Leipzig (WW1) is incorrect the foreward mast is in the wrong position. I know the original book was wrong. Check websites.

Does not need any administrators attention. --Martin H. (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nefertiti

dear everyone i am concerned that in the location of (((((nefertiti))))) there are some pictures that do not have any relation with it .i do mean the pictures and the drawings about piercing. could we have it moved to another place that could be named piercing. just imagine if a young is asked to find pictures of nefertiti bust for his history study section and finds naked picture of that piercing !!!!! best regards abdelhamidelsayed@hotmail.com abd elhamid elsayed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelhamidelsayed (talk • contribs) 13:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Abdelhamidelsayed, to complete your request: You are refering to the search task nefertiti, not to Category:Nefertiti. The name of the piercing is w:en:Nefertiti piercing, Commons is not censored, so what about someone searching for images of nefertiti piercings and only finding images of ancient egyptian artwork? No censorship here. --Martin H. (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Spanish-speaking admin requested

File:Manzuiz.jpg uploaded by Zuizamont (talk · contribs) is a Web-resolution picture supposedly showing a "manzuiz", "a kind of prehistoric primate". "Manzuiz" yields only two hits on Google (Commons excepted) -- misspellings by Google Books' OCR ("manzuiz" actually transcribes "marquis"). The user also uploaded File:Rubenguerrero.jpg, supposedly a portrait of "necglected 19th-century poet" Rubén Guerrero. A cursory search on Google shows no Spanish poet of any eminence going by that name. I feel both files are pranks, but I'm not certain. Can a Spanish-speaking admin contact the uploader to check all this? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it realy need attention? I think it is an obvious copyvio if you enter Borneo Proboscis Monkey to google images. --Martin H. (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You certainly know your monkeys! Deleted as a copyvio. Any hint concerning the other file? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
No, nothing found, regretably there are much more poets on this planet than probiscis monkeys. You was right with your request on spanish speaking admins needed, w:es:Especial:Contribuciones/Zuizamont needs a check, w:es:Usuario:Zuizamont/manzuiz seems to be nonsense, there are no monkeys with prominent noses (nariz más prominente) in the amazon basin. --Martin H. (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Camille Pissarro 040.jpg. Thanks to TinEye. --Martin H. (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
es@wiki admin reporting. Indeed, the user's contributions in es@wiki appear to be hoaxes. I've deleted all of them and warned the user. Thank you for the heads up. KveD (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

same name for DIFFERENT pictures

may someone FULLY separate File:Husarz.jpg and File:Husarz1.jpg ?
in history File:Husarz.jpg has the same picture as File:Husarz1.jpg - so I'm afraid that some one will revert File:Husarz.jpg to its older version :-( both pictures are important just one picture is the first quarter of 17th century (File:Husarz.jpg - new version), and the second is the third quarter of the same century (File:Husarz.jpg - old version)
please, solve the trouble! (82.115.54.150 01:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

It's been this way for 4 years, what makes you think it's a problem now? –Tryphon☂ 05:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like someone accidentally uploaded over an existing file, so to make up for that, they re-uploaded the file the overwrote under a new name. Or maybe they did it purposely... who knows, it was many years ago. I guess we could delete the old revision? -Andrew c (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ainaud (talk · contribs)

Based on this image which contrary to the other contribs of the user has a watermark, with a name that does not fit to the family the user claims to represent, I think we should check the contributions of this user which contain artwork, very old images, ... Mostly he just claims the author is family, no details, and some of those claims look really weird. The images also differ a lot when it comes to quality, resolution, ... A few of them have been moved by BetacommandBot like File:Manuel Ainaud Sanchez 6.jpg, so also the already deleted contribs need to be checked because they mostly were just moved. -- Cecil (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk page needs to be moved

Can Help talk:Mass deletion request be moved to Commons talk:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request? It looks like Help:Mass deletion request was moved, but its talk page was not. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Huib talk 07:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I was hoping to get the history too. So I did not paste in the old talk page as I was thinking of doing at first. Can you move the page with the history? --Timeshifter (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

deWiki main page

For your information only: deWiki is having the image at File:Nyamata Memorial Site 13.jpg on the main page tomorrow. Because I can imagine that some users find this image shocking or even inappropriate, I ask some admins to keep an eye on it and take appropriate measures in case it would get vandalized. Thanks. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the image :) I placed it on my watchlist.. When it gets vandalized I will notice it. Huib talk 20:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I do agree that it is a really good image, but it really may be shocking (at least I was a bit shocked when I saw it first). --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Added a 48 hours semiprotection just to be on the safe side. Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Usual images on de.wp mainpage are cascade proteced by User:LinkFA-Bot, think he will act at 22.00h (0.00h in germany). --Martin H. (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the hint, I didn't know that. BTW: Cool workaround to allow the bot to indirectly protect pages without the need to grant sysop rights to the bot itself. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with image

I updated, corrected the background color, File:Flag of Indian Army.svg but now having problems viewing it in my browser. It looks like the image has been deleted(?). Can any one find out what the problem is?Sumanch (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This does not really require administrator attention. The SVG is utterly broken. The old version just contains an embedded PNG file, which is not the point of SVG. The edit contains a link to a BMP file. Linked files do not work, BMP is not an accepted file format either. --Dschwen (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The file can now be found here File:Flag of Indian Army.png. No need to wrap that PNG in an otherwise empty SVG file. As for the color correction: I wouldn't use photos as reference. Rather look it up on FotW. Btw. you did draw that flag yourself, did you? --Dschwen (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Enough already?

May I please ask you to take a look at this image: File:Assassination of 14 year old boy.jpg. Do you see a 14 years old boy, or any other boy for that matter? Or maybe you see a mosk? Please take a look at the image name and the image description. There are more than enough antisemitic and Israeli hater sites on the Net. Is Commons becoming one of them, or it already did? There are quite a few single purpose accounts that were created with the only purpose to flood Commons with Palestinian propaganda. Well, they succeeded, and now let us see what is going to happen to Commons and to the world.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done See File:Israeli soldier in Hebron.jpg. -- Avi (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This makes me really wonder why are we constantly bending over backwards trying to be oh so tolerant for people like Liftarn. These kinds of uploads make me seriously doubt that he has the best interest of commons at heart. It is just blatantly obvious POV pushing. --Dschwen (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have an issue with a specific contributor, it should be brought here: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not only with one specific contributor, but rather the way the community seems to handle this type of situation. And since this specific contributor came up ad nauseam on on COM:AN/U in connection with the Latuff crap, I have very little motivation to start yet another user-specific discussion where I can expect approximately zero backing. --Dschwen (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There is clearly no evidence to support the suggestion that the image portrays what the description claims. However I would note that the description is the Flickr user's, not Liftarn. Liftarn could either not understand how to upload Flickr images whilst changing the name to something more appropriate or he might be deliberately leaving questionable names as is suggested. Whilst Liftarn should understand that the appropriate filename for Commons is often not the name given by a Flickr user, has anyone actually reminded Liftarn that he should be changing these names or is everyone just happy to criticise him without having the courtesy to first raise the issue with him? I'll point him in the direction of this discussion so he can take note for the next time he uploads an image from Flickr. Clearly then if the problem continues we can consider taking appropriate action to prevent it.
I find it irritating that Mbz1 insists on suggesting that Commons is turning into a "antisemitic and Israeli hater site" every time an issue like this is raised for discussion. The community have acknowledged the problem and acted to address it once he raised it. It isn't endorsed by the Commons community, it is actively discouraged so please give a little time to get these things sorted, we can't monitor every upload. Adambro (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Avi. Thank you Dschwen.
Here's one more thing about this specific user Please scroll down to the image description. You will read "A christian graveyard in Bethlehem vandalized by jewish extremists." Please notice, not even Israeli extremists, but "jewish extremists". If you're to look at the categories, you might be surprised to see that the user added category "Judaism". I responded to the allegations at the image talk page. The question is, if Commons should host such images at all.
I've already proven that some of the images that Commons host are antisemetic pictures by WORKING DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM established by EU in 2005. OK Commons are not censored. So, if Commons are not censored to host antisemitic images maybe Commons is also not censored to add the category "antisemitic pictures" to these images. It seems to me that Commons are not censored in its own very strange and very specific way. That's why I do repeat that Commons is becoming or already did just another antisemitic site.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Adambro. You must have missed the controversy around Liftarn that unfolded during the last few months, and your attempts at A'ing G F are admirable. --Dschwen (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I checked who uploaded the picture before it was deleted and it was uploaded by flickrbot. Whoever the uploader was, it doesn't give Dschwen and Mbz1 the justification to personally attack another user. and your attempts at A'ing G F are admirable. Dschwen is not the one to be talking about AGF, I find his/her posts here reeking of bad faith and not to mention inane and irrelevant. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Please spend five more seconds in checking and you see that Liftarn initiated the flickrbot upload. You do know what flickrbot is? Your bad faith accusation is hollow and can only result from a lack of insight in this particular subject matter. I suggest you take a look at Liftarns contribution list. --Dschwen (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
As I said it doesn't matter who uploaded the pic. If you think it is antisemitism to show the actions of Israelis against Palestinians and it is antisemitism to show protest of Israeli actions, then perhaps the problem is with your perception and not with liftarn's uploads. It is a case of a boy crying wolf, and when there is a real wolf who will believe you? Also you're complaining about someone not AingGF of user Mbz1. Maybe you should check Mbz1's 'contributions' You are defending a user who lied about dates of certain pics of Israeli victims/destruction so she can shove the pictures in the 2008-2009 Israel Gaza article. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Bad discussion style on your part: where am I defending Mbz? Where am I saying it is antisemitism to show the actions of Israelis against Palestinians. Where am I saying it is antisemitism to show protest of Israeli actions. You are entirely missing the point. --Dschwen (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If I made some mistakes in the dates of the images, they were absolutely not intentional at all. The wikipedia article's name is 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict So what the difference does it make, if the image was taken in 2008 or 2009. It still belongs to the article. As you could see from here I even thanked to Falastine fee Qalby for correcting the date of one of the images I uploaded. What is the difference on what day the image of the rockets fired by hamas from Gaza toward Israel was taken? What is important here that 1,571 rockets and 1,531 mortar bombs fired from the Gaza Strip struck southern Israel only in 2008. Anyway I'll try to pay more atention to putting the correct dates in the images I upload. The most important thing that I have to add is that I came to Commons to share my own images of amazing and beautiful nature, but I found myself to be forced to upload the other images because I felt it was important to tell the other side of the story, not only the one that is told by uploads of single purpose accounts. I was left no choice. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You justified Mbz1's post with a response that was silent on the claim Wikipedia is becoming an antisemitic web site. Furthermore, I didn't think you were accusing adambro of not assuming good faith on your part, because it simply didn't appear that way. Perhaps you should be more clear and more thorough, so one would not think you are agreeing with users like Mbz1. So POV pushing is really your only problem with liftarn? So what is your solution, for him not to post free pictures because it is sympathetic to one POV? Perhaps you will be satisfied that there are users like like Mbz1 who are 'flooding the commons with Israeli propaganda' albeit from questionable sources and inaccurately dated. This will balance it out. But are you against any political related photos? Is it the caption or the photo title that bothered you? Those were from the source. You are not clear and so you are right you won't get backing on this. I suggest refraining from commenting on other users' choices especially when you have no clear reason. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There are also some other images that needs NPOVing. Examples include File:Insured by hamas rocket Israeli woman comforts her daughter.jpg (no evidence for those claims either), File:Injured Israeli after rocket fired from Gaza hit the town.jpg, File:Two qasam rockets fired from civilian areas in gaza toward civilian areas in sderot in Israel.jpg, File:Israeli Paramedics rush to help an injured Israeli after a rocket attack.jpg, File:Bloody child's shoe after rocket fired from Gaza hit Israel.jpg (talking about israelwood!), File:Israeli Woman Injured after Rocket Attack fired from Gaza toward civilian areas.jpg, File:Israeli Woman Injured after Rocket Attack from gaza.jpg, File:A wounded Israeli Child is taken to hospital after Rocket Attack.jpg, File:Elderly Israeli woman Injured after Rocket Attack from Gasa hit civilian area in Israel.jpg, File:Beersheva kindergarten after rocket attack from Gaza 1.jpg, File:Beersheva kindergarten after rocket attack from Gaza 2.jpg, File:Beersheva kindergarten after rocket attack from Gaza.jpg, File:Tzipi Livni at kindergarten rocket site.jpg, File:A Home in Ashkelon in ruins after a grad rocket fired from Gaza lands in the Southern Israeli city..jpg, File:A rocket fired from a civilian area in Gaza towards civilian areas in Southern Israel.jpg (amazing mind reading abilities!), File:Use of ambulances in Gaza.jpg (knowingly using a misleading description) and probably several more. // Liftarn (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work finding these pics but alas I don't think anyone will notice. Many of these if not all are uploaded by Mbz1 who gave her own spin. Example, original source: Viva Palestina arrives in Gaza - > Mbz1's spin: Use of Ambulance. I hope to hear your thoughts on this dschwen --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder why you are alledging that I am biased here. This frankly is an audacity! You have pretty much disqualified yourself here for a rational discourse. --Dschwen (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Where is the part where I said you were biased? I asked for your thoughts and this is how you respond? I think you disqualified yourself. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
File Use of ambulances in Gaza was not intentional mistake, but yet IMO it is not the way to ride the ambulances donated for humanitarian aid especially after apparently so many? wounded people need their help. Otherwise thanks for bringing the images I uploaded for everybody attention. The more people to see them the better! On the other hand it also shows one more time how extremely unfair you are in your judgments. Good work!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
User Falastine fee Qalby blaimed me in lies and deseption and in being a propagandist. I feel I need to repeat my response to the user here for the history. My response to the user is:
Have you ever thought that the source could give a wrong date just as Flickr does? Look here See what date Bloomberg went to Israel. Say it aloud and write it down to memorize. See here What date it says Bloomerg went to Israel? Say it aloud and write it down. Now compare the two dates digit by digit. I do hope you could perform this task, could you not? Any more questions? So it was not even a mistake. I gave the right dates all along, the date I was told to use by the source.
Now it is really funny that you call me a propagandist? you, SPA both here and on Wikipedia, you, who forced me to upload the images that I would have never uploaded otherwise? Stop disrupting Commons with your stupid accusations.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Stupid accusation and disruptive behavior? This is coming from a person who was once blocked for telling users that Israeli buses get blown up because of them!![45] Just yesterday, you referred to one of the users as "it" in contempt. This thread is enough to show exactly the type of erratic and irrational behavior that you have displayed here to warrant a block log such as yours. You are the disruptive editor that should be blocked. As for your intentional date fixing, the diffs for the examples I provided speak for themselves and anyone can check to see exactly what kind of deceptive tactics you are trying to pull off here. The bloomberg photo wasn't even one of the photos in question, you wasted your time but I am not sure if you will even realize that. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I usually do not do this, and I apologize for the intrusion, but I am asking both of you, MbZ and FFQ, to PLEASE take this argument off-commons. If either of you would like to file a user complaint, we have a page for that. Our goal here is to amass free-use, in-scope images, NOT to wage partisan political propaganda proxy warfare (sorry, I could not resist the alliteration). It is obvious that the two of you come from very different backgrounds and have very different opinions about the Middle East conflict. That is perfectly fine, but the Commons is not supposed to be the battle ground where this is waged; if anything, the two of you could make strides by trying to work TOGETHER. Wouldn't that be something? But if that is impossible, please carry out any name-calling or accusations that is not directly related to imagery via e-mail, and send complaints about user behavior to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. This bickering detracts from our purpose in the commons, and prevents the two of you, and the others involved, from approaching this issue rationally instead of being blinded by emotion. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status catalan newspaper page from 1929

I would like to upload a photograph I took from a Catalan newspaper page from 1929, taken at the National Library of Catalonia. What is the copyright situatiin in this case?

According to Commons:Licensing#Spain the copyright is probably not expired (author most likely died before 1987 (which means it is PD next year), if not then it will be protected for decades to come). Find out who the authors are and when they died. And try uploading next year. --Dschwen (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sairu (talk · contribs)

This user was already blocked once in 2007 for uploading copyvios, warned again in October 2008 and again just yesterday, but keeps uploading files like File:Toreros46.jpg - IMHO a clear copyvio (magazine cover from 1946). There are 160 copyvio warnings on his talk page at the moment. IMHO time for another block. --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that name sounds very familiar. Did I really put over 100 copyvio-warnings on the talk page? Infrogmation has blocked him. -- Cecil (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I am a bit surprised that he continued uploading images even after this hailstorm of warnings. --Kam Solusar (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
His problem is that es.WP does not allow local image uploads. So he has to use Commons if he wants to picturize es:Pepín Martín Vázquez, an article I already had on my watchlist since last time. Is it to early to block Sairu01 (talk · contribs) who has no edits yet? -- Cecil (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sairu01 is now also blocked, he did it again with this account. But since they deleted his article yesterday at es.WP it should stop now. -- Cecil (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sblow2.jpg

Would an admin please close this before User:Dmitry G has a brain stroke over homosexual imagery? Thanks. --✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 06:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks on other users.--Túrelio (talk) 06:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I see no personal attack. Please stick to the issue at hand. --✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 08:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Then we maybe should block your account for a few hours so that you can think about what and how you said it. Maybe then you can see the personal attack which is very obvious. -- Cecil (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Do whatever you feel is necessary but there is no personal attack anywhere. It's obvious he doesn't get the message that "personal opinion about homosexuality being right or wrong" has nothing to do with why the image was nommed for deletion, as evidenced by his latest post at the now closed deletion. Good day. --✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 19:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The dr is closed as delete (not by me) but please note we don't accept the way you just talked about your co-worker! Next time please calm down en use other words.. And remember we are working on free media, that is what it is about. The opinion of other users isn't important. But please talk about a other user with respect, we are all human and we all have our opinions Huib talk 20:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Italian-speaking admin needed

I think I got a little communication problem as Archibonarrigo (talk · contribs) keeps creating pages of the same content with different names and in different namespaces despite several notes on his talk page. A short note in his (probable) mother tongue would be much appreciated. Thanks, →Na·gy 19:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Image Kevinmuskerportrait.jpg

I'm only an occasional contributor to Commons, so I'm not quite sure how to flag the image File:Kevinmuskerportrait.jpg in light of the following circumstances.

It seems that there is no such person. The image has been removed a long time ago from the EN Wikipedia article and that article is now nominated for deletion as a suspected hoax. Should the image also be deleted? Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha, that picture does look pretty fake.. It looks like a modern day person. --Ltshears (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is the deletion log for the article that was deleted off English Wikipedia [[46]]--Ltshears (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hundreds of copyvios from PDB

From the information I just discovered, probably all 276 images in Category:PDB.org's Molecules of the Month are {{Copyvio}} candidates. I tagged one and then discovered the category. The applicable license information is at http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/static.do?p=general_information/about_pdb/policies_references.html, and reads:

Molecule of the Month illustrations are copyrighted. They are available for educational purposes, provided attribution is given to David S. Goodsell and the RCSB PDB.

I suspect that there are many more that are not categorized there. —Danorton (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The supporting reference links are no longer valid, but this page from archive.org at about the same time does not provide any suggestion that the works are creations of the U.S. Govt. or that they are in the public domain:
The bottom of that page reads "© RCSB Protein Data Bank". (This seems to be symptomatic of the common misconception that anything that is funded by the U.S. Govt. is a creation of the U.S. Govt. and, consequently, in the public domain.)
—Danorton (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Here are a couple of dozen more:
—Danorton (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have requested deletion of the related category: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:PDB.org's Molecules of the Month. —Danorton (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Change "hundreds of {{Copyvio}} violations" to "tens of thousands of {{Copyvio}} violations". That's how many images I'm finding that were created using PDB data that is subject to similar restrictions:
More details on the data licensing restrictions are at Commons:Deletion requests/File:1axc tricolor.png
—Danorton (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please update MediaWiki:Uploadtext/hu

Please update MediaWiki:Uploadtext/hu with the content in MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/hu (sans template and request). Thanks. --grin ✎ 09:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Please check if I did it correct. Huib talk 10:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct, but please made a small modification for me because I wasn't able to test this feature (since it's switched by javascript):

old content: {{MediaWiki:UploadFormQuickHelp}}
new content: {{MediaWiki:UploadFormQuickHelp/hu}}

And as I see I have to go on fixing up MediaWiki talk:UploadFormQuickHelp/hu as well... :-) okay, done, please update it as well. Thanks! --grin ✎ 11:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done - Thanks for your hard work on this :) Huib talk 19:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaaand dont forget to remove {{Editprotected}} ;-) --grin ✎ 19:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have some concerns...

Here. There was the original delete request for the "nopenis" template and I'm not at all sure what/how/why these bits here actually fit in to Commons. Maybe it's me but others maybe should take a look. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would move everything to his user namespace: it is a private sandbox and does not fit in the general naming scheme. --Eusebius (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done, Moved, useless pages and no bearing on gallery namespace. Im concerned, that this user tries to develope a maintenance structure, not only in this field of basic page and category creation, we dont need or already have. Maybe he is not aware of, how large Commons already is ;) --Martin H. (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks folk - not really sure how good the attempts at categories are - I seemed to go around in circles...? I'm aware that the user probably is not a fan of mine after my closure of the deletion req so I may be better keeping my feelings to myself :). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Upload help

Help! I feel like an idiot trying to upload images to a wikipedia page. I've uploaded the file and refreshed the page like 10x and it still says the same thing: author not named page may be deleted. I own the copyright to the material. i even did the cut and paste so that the code is entered exactly as demonstrated and still the wikimedia doesn't recognize me as having the copyright to post or upload the content. HELP. vpm911

vpm, i have edited your image so that it is correct, however you had several different license templates on there and you can't have both PD and CC GDFL.. I left up the CC GFDL license, if you would rather it was PD then you can go ahead and change that. or add up the the other license info that is needed. --Ltshears (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
In addition, that photo, File:Rocksmall.jpg, looks an awful lot like the one at http://findoutwhois.blogspot.com/search/label/Octavia%20Spencer and http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrities/people/dating/octavia-spencer.htm and numerous other sites on the web. We've had problems with people downloading images from the Web and claiming they owned them. If you are Octavia Spencer, and really own that image, and want to release it, you'll need to send an email to that effect to permissions-commons, and tag it with otrs-pending in the meanwhile, as detailed in Commons:OTRS. --GRuban (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete permission of administrator 최종욱@ko.wikipedia

  1. 최종욱@ko.wikipedia / Long time ago (more than one year), he wrote that ' I do not running on wiki. I hope to give back my admin permission. It will be good. ' on user page of him. [47]

He is good one of oldest admin group. In thesedays, he did not anything on ko.wikipedia.org.

Look at this[48]. I asked for other none-act administrators also.

Thanks, Min Ha Mhha (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How is this related to Commons? --AFBorchert (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
For removal of permissions, please refer to meta:Steward requests/permissions. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
IMO, I think not removing his right would be desirable. His thoughts might change.--Kwj2772 (msg) 14:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Daniel Wells.jpeg

Seems to be an attack image and file. 71.139.8.120 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done and gone. --Túrelio (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

DRBot

Is DRBot broke? It removed an entry at Commons:Deletion requests/2009/04/20 and said it was moving it to Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/04 when it should have been moving it to Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/04/20. --✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 17:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, not technically broke.. it's doing the actual move, just not leaving the correct link in the edit summary. Carry on I guess. --✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 17:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It is broken in the sense that it randomly leaves some closed DRs unarchived. Bryan knows about this but hasn't been able to find the problem, and doesn't have enough time to look into it in detail. I asked Lupo if he could help, but apparently DRBot is written in Python, which is not a language Lupo is that familiar with. However, faced with hundreds of unarchived but long-closed DRs, Lupo has very kindly written a tool to pick up the missed ones and archive them properly. I used it extensively a few weeks ago to clear out all the old closed requests, and it has been a huge help. I suppose in the long term we need somebody to take over work on DRBot from Bryan. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. If it is broken and not doing what it's supposed to do, it needs to be fixed or a replacement found. Maybe Lupo could code a new bot to take over fully? --✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 21:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't do that. Would need too much time, and I don't even have a toolserver account. Lupo 06:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Request guidance on resolving "unresolved" deletion request

The Wikipedia article, Inauguration of Barack Obama, is currently undergoing a Featured Article review. However, the audio clip for the retake of the oath flubbed on 1-20-2009 is the subject of a deletion request in which editors of the article are not parties. This deletion request has been tagged and remain open since January 2009, and the consensus in that discussion is Keep. My understanding is that the audio clip was released by a US governmental source, which is also a public domain source. Last week, I posted a message on the Wikipedia user talk pages of the person who requested the deletion and the person who uploaded the file (Commons user page in one instance director reader to the Wikipedia user page). I've not heard anything back from either party about resolving the deletion request. The editors of the article need to resolve this issue, since the audio file included in the article is relevant for the historical record. The editors of this article request guidance for resolving the closure of the deletion request, absent replies from the parties to the dispute about the audio file. Lwalt (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done --AFBorchert (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the file's (talk) page should have a link to the deletion discussion, placed there by the user who proposed it. Odd that it's missing.--Elvey (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I found that, since my request for assistance, the matter has been closed and the analysis of the discussion archived. Thanks for your help. Lwalt (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

File:KidCudiMTV1.jpg

Can someone verify the source of this image? The uploader claims that this is his own work, but I highly doubt it, especially the file has MTV in its title, thereby increasing the likelihood that this may be a copyrighted image. I've searched Google images, Flickr, MTV and I've not found this picture (so far), but like I said, I don't think this is in the public domain in any way. Whip it! Now whip it good! 02:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Professionnal-looking photo in low resolution with no EXIF data. I deleted it. →Diti the penguin — 09:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Move request

Could the File:Kreisbewegungen-Coppernicus-1.djvu .djvu please be moved to File:Kreisbewegungen-Coppernicus-1.djvu? Something went wrong with the extension, and uploading this 20MB chunk is not something I'd like to try again. BTW: why can't files be moved more easily? Naming is often very inconsistent (or wrong) and should be sorted out in a simple manner. --Matthead (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ordered the bot to do it. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks. --Matthead (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion problem

I have a problem with deleting Special:Contributions/Mrs_Dubble_Yooo. The images are deleted - reason coypvio, but: the deletion does not show up in the deletion log, the imagepage including its history is not deleted. The description page is still shown after logout, so it is no problem with my user rights or browsercache. The last file deletion is from 22:42 UTC, in case it is only a temproary problem I excuse my attention posting. --Martin H. (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

See Special:AbuseFilter/27. I've disabled it due to false positives. You should be able to delete now. --Kanonkas(talk) 23:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I dont understand it, but its working again. Thank you very much for the help :) --Martin H. (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Contributions review

These could do with other eyes I think. They say that they have been "released" however the licensing seems rather less than straightforward. The motivation looks possibly somewhat promotional too? I deleted one (File:LASCAUX and the North Shore Unitarian Church.jpg) which does have this mixed licensing for a mixed photo - however I doubt that the Lascaux images are copyright free. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request from uploader

Could an admin please act on this request from Asian kung-fu (talk · contribs) and delete their uploads, File:Logomiserables.jpg, File:Seyuu.JPG and File:Les Miserables Shoujo Cossette.jpeg? The images are missing complete source information and appear unlikely to be free images. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. →Diti the penguin — 09:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

copyvio uploading by same user

user:Pravata is uploading file and claim his own work of copyvio image. The same user trying to upload copyvio image in Bengali wikipedia we blocked him for week.

Please see his log [49] [50] [51] Jayanta Nath (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted both images and left a warning. Please let us know if this continues. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 10:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible underage nudity

File:Masturbation 2.png and File:Masturbation ejac.png, both uploaded 4 days ago, should be deleted immediately without having to go through the DR process. Person in the photos looks awfully young. Also only contributions by Joshster80 (talk · contribs). - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 10:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah ✓ sorted. To me that is speedy - incidentally there were other contribs, much the same material from last year. I've placed a "scope" warning but I was considering a block... --Herby talk thyme 11:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests re backlog of "unresolved" deletion requests

Request: could ANY admin add {{Adminbacklog:10}} Template:Adminbacklog to the top of "Deletion requests" please? And or work on the backlog?--Elvey (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping!
Have you got one in particular? Wknight94 talk 20:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This one I guess, judging by the red link at the bottom of the page. –Tryphon☂ 21:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ownership issues

And admin should have a look at File:San Diego Gaslamp Quarter entrance.jpg and notice the notice template being used that says To use this image, you must use this template, no other use is valid..

I have nommed the template on en.WP that is being directed to via this Commons template, for deletion. But this and this should be removed from any images on Commons and then deleted from Commons. The template being directed to on en.WP is being used to give author credits and a link to the direct Flickr page of the included image in actual en.WP articles, which such info is already found on the image page itself and doesn't go in articles or in thumbs. A word to Cooljuno411 (talk · contribs) as well about this kind of owneship templates. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 22:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, these, created by the same user, should probably be deleted as well: Template:VVMAP/Information/info and Template:VVMAP/Information and Category:VVMAP. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 22:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thats an image caption issue related to en.wp and w:en:H:IOUF. Its up to en.wp and the local policy to deal with this, if a user tries to enforce a change in the way, how images are captioned. The english wikipedia is only one reuser of Commons files, other Wikipedias dont have such an template and reusers can not be forced to use a specific style for reuses. If the Uploader/Owner wants to accent attribution he should specify attribution in the Creative Commons license ({{cc-by-sa-2.0|attribution}} works fine) or he should create a acceptable user template. Examples in Category:Templates for specific users. Will remove the template and its usage. --Martin H. (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've taken up the issue with the en.WP templates over there on en.WP where that applies. Additionally, Template:VVMAP/Information/info should be deleted from Commons because it is being used as an unapproved description box at File:San Diego Trolley departing 12th & Imperial Transit Center.ogv and File:Green line San Diego Trolley arriving at Gillespie Field.ogv and because it's transcluded in Template:VVMAP/Information which should also be deleted from Commons. Also, the related Category:VVMAP should be deleted from Commons. All of this is part of w:Wikipedia:WikiProject VVMAP which is an en.WP project created by the same user. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 12:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no policy regarding "unapproved description boxes", but it was completely redundant and unnecessary so I deleted it anyway. Rocket000 (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Lamistat

Due to an odd undeletion request I became aware of the uploads by Lamistat. They are all poorly described, quite diverse, and uncategorized. One of the images is linked to the site lamistat.com which is apparently a philharmonic orchestra, located in Quart de Poblet. (More infos including some notes about the orchestra are to be found at es-wp.) Overall, the images uploaded by this user do not seem to be the uploader's own works, at least not all of them. This file looks like a scan of an old photograph to me (perhaps one of the former maestros). Some of these images are also to be found at Picasaweb. For example, File:A.JPG is apparently the same image as this. Interestingly the image at picasaweb has EXIF data and a higher resolution than our copy. Unfortunately, I do not have the time right now to look through all the uploads and to see how we shall proceed in this case. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

rename

During uploading of File:Ngas_gain.svg file, the content appears wrong, even after a number of attempts. As the creator of the file, which is of no use, request deletion of it. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esem0 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 9. Mai 2009 (UTC)

I request that a newly uploaded file File:Ngain_gas.png (by me) be renamed to Ngas_gain.png. There is only one link to ESEM wikipedia article and I can change it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esem0 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 9. Mai 2009 (UTC)

We can't rename files. You'll have to upload it again under the name you want and request that the file you want renamed just be deleted. Also, please sign your comments using 4 tildes: ~~~~ - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 08:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Degress

Some screenshots from copyrighted software were deleted, but new ones are uploaded, Microsoft Word and Safari from Mac OS X this time. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Degress rgds, --77.106.141.154 13:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of by Mattbuck -- Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


Uploads by new User:STP92

All seem to be copyright violations. feydey (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 3 days. All images deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Carmen ©Catherine Ashmore.jpg — copyright?

I'm not sure I'm at the right place for this question; if not, please tell me where to raise this.

The image File:Carmen ©Catherine Ashmore.jpg seems prima facie copyrighted. Can someone investigate? Michael Bednarek (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The CC-BY-SA license could still be correct; all CC-licensed works are copyrighted, the copyright holder has merely released them under a free license. In a post to Commons:Café last year, the uploader, Cgeguibar (talk · contribs), seem to be asserting that the copyright to the images belongs to the organization they represent. It would be nice to have an OTRS ticket confirming this, though. Perhaps someone who speaks Spanish ought to ask them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Loxosceles rufenscens...not...

Just wondering if and admin can rename this [52] to something related to ground spider or gnaphosidae. It is clearly not L. rufescens.

Thanks, Subverted (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Privacy issue on File:Italian localisation.png

ResolvedFirst version removed.--Kwj2772 (msg) 06:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The original version contains the uploader's private information (email address). Should it be removed? --68.160.193.60 06:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done--Kwj2772 (msg) 06:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Parappa664 (talk · contribs)

Despite the tag apparently not blocked and still editing. feydey (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

User has been blocked indef.--Túrelio (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
An oversight on my part... not sure how it happened.  — Mike.lifeguard 21:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion requests. Help needed

In spite of a big cleanup operation over the last couple of weeks by three or four of us, there are still around 500 outstanding deletion requests that need to be closed. This creates a really bad impression of Commons throughout the wiki community, and we are trying hard to claw our way back to a position where we can deal with the work as it comes in. Please help. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

DRs is not our worst backlog, it's only the most visible one. There are currently 6958 files tagged as "unknown status" and 45709 without any source... --Eusebius (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary personal photos

Please see Special:Contributions/Marcellomigliosi, the content on the relevant article on it.wikipedia has not been found to be encyclopedic and was speedied six times. --M7 (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted all the duplicates (although I expect them to return - a lot of new people have trouble figuring out how to set image size on individual wikis so they re-upload a smaller one). But I don't typically see notability on other wikis determine if we speedy delete here. You might want to try COM:DEL instead. Wknight94 talk 11:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Attention/Archive_6&oldid=264578950"