Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 2

User:BLueFiSH.as keeps deleting categories

I would like some input from other sysops and users about User:BLueFiSH.as. While quite dedicated in sorting out pictures of Berlin in articles, the user continuously puts up categories for deletion once he creates articles. This has repeadetly brought in the protest of other users, which is why I suspect the user keeps on blanking his talk page at this point. I have left a polite note asking the user to stop deleting categories, which was scoffed at please dont verschwende meine time and laber not hier [1], translated: "quit wasting my time and stop blabbering here". To me quite unacceptable language to anyone, the user often reverts to such a tone when displeased[2]. What surprises me even more is such behaviour from someone who is a sysop on the German Wikipedia, how is that possible? I don't know how they do things over there, but what I do know is that in the English-speaking Wikipedia this would not be acceptable. IMO categories do not replace articles and the other way around, I have given my reasoning on his talk page (which he leaves unanswered and deletes). I'm open for any input, cheers. Gryffindor 21:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as we have a dual sorting system here, emptying and deleting categories is counterproductive, and some of us, myself included, find that the while the static gallery pages are very good for presenting images with a brief caption, the dynamic categories present the better way to ensure that images can be found as easily as possible. Not responding to comments about this, or when responding doing so in a disrespectful way, is unacceptable behaviour. Cnyborg 23:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

i'm permanently cleaning up pictures concerning Berlin and in Berlin (almost) all images are in a gallery (which is in a category of course). Galleries are the main way images are sorted in Berlin. I will not talk about the advantages and disadvantages of this way. Mainly Jcornelius and me are sorting Berlin images, I can not see any other user who is doing this job and Jcornelius is away for some months. How the sentence "Please write me (in english or german) only on my user talk page in de.wikipedia" can be misinterpreted, i also don't know. THIS is unacceptable behaviour for me. I will not change my sorting work for Berlin, except for categories created by Gryffindor, then he has no reason to get pissed when someone is doing it in an other way than he do. ciao. --BLueFiSH 02:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC) (excuse my language skills, i seldom write english)

I agree 100% with Cnyborg. BLueFiSH you need to modify your language and you need to modify your behaviour. You do not have a monopoly on images concerning Berlin, and again while I know you do a lot of work and I commend you for this, you cannot pre-empt other users from contributing or hindering their work. Nobody is deleting your articles for categories, so please stop doing vice-versa. If users work with categories, please leave them alone and do not interfere with their work, create your articles within the category. And leaving messages on the talk page of the account you are using on the Commons is completely legitimate, what is strange is that you keep on deleting your talk page and don't respond, or use bad language, even though many other users have already pointed out to you to stop deleting categories. Gryffindor 07:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was asked by user Gryffindor to comment on this issue. I observed continuous deleting of categories by user Mac9 at my images of Italy. I discussed this with Mac9 in a polite way and even if we disagree here (Mac9 seems to share the opinion of BLueFiSH). And yes, it is right that BLueFiSH removed the category "Potsdamer Platz" from Image:SonyCenterAtNight.jpg which was added by Flominator previousely and while I admit that I was in favour of Flominators version I do not remember whether I insisted against this change (more than one year ago). Also on my image Image:BerlinFernsehturmBehindMonument.jpg BLueFiSH removed the category "Buildings_in_Berlin]" and my conclusion was that this user seems to have quite much spare time to remove the work others did in trying to find reasonable categories. I'd prefer at least one page pointing to one of my images and having the image in at least one category and that's why I'm a little bit angry if somebody removes the last category of one of my images without finding a better one. This was the case for the two users I mentioned above. (As a side note to the potantionally rude comment of BLueFiSH: My guess is that he does not like comments on his commons discussion page independetly from the contents of the comment. This might be because of a lack of English knowledge and if my assumption is right he should better mention this to let people understand.) Andreas Tille 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:SonyCenterAtNight.jpg is in Sony Center and BahnTower which are categorized under Category:Potsdamer Platz.

Image:BerlinFernsehturmBehindMonument.jpg is in Berliner Fernsehturm which is categorized under Category:Buildings in Berlin.

I can not see why the both categories are better in the pictures than in the galleries. Pictures have always to be sorted as fine as possible, nothing else i did. --BLueFiSH 08:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Same with User:ZorkNika: Image:Berlin Friedrichswerdersche Kirche 2005.jpg is in Friedrichswerdersche Kirche, therefore sth like this is really not necessary.

Hello together, that images are removed from categories is not the way wikipidia is agreed to work. Perhaps you should read the FAQ ? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/FAQ. Both (categories AND galleries) are usefull and both have their dis/advantages. Since in wikipedia it is agreed that we maintain both sorting systems I find it offending when a user destroys the work of others. ZorkNika 20:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the language used by him, it seems he thinks he is the "owner" or "master" of the berlin images, and he does not like at all someone else working on them. The comments from him were not rude, but rather not wishing to understand.... ZorkNika 20:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Or User:Túrelio with Image:BahnhofFriedrichstrasseBerlin.jpg which is in Bahnhof Berlin Friedrichstraße. Therefore it is not needed that is additionally in Category:Berlin and Category:Train stations. Some more examples? --BLueFiSH 09:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And no, i am not straight against categories, see for example Category:Memorials in Berlin, Category:Paintings of Berlin, Category:Skylines in Berlin, Category:Schools in Berlin, Category:Train stations in Berlin, Category:Water towers in Berlin, Category:Railway bridges in Berlin, Category:Footbridges in Berlin, Category:Bridges over Spree in Berlin, Category:Bridges over Landwehrkanal in Berlin or almost all under Category:Boroughs of Berlin... --BLueFiSH 10:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can see your reasons and I admit I like your work on Sony Center and BahnTower in principle. What you did is finding subcategories of these categories and technically inverted these to parapgraphs on this page. The question is: where is the borderline when to use different categories or when listing images in a gallery under a paragraph. The only argument for the listing as galleries instead of finding reasonable subcategories might be common sense but I'm afraid the sense is not common between the people working on this field. Andreas Tille 12:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's sad to see that Bluefish still is disturbing other people's work. We had some discussion on this topic, but it seems Bluefish is just too stubborn to accept other people's point of view. I just don't want to discuss anymore on this topic - it's a waste of time that can be used better. --Afrank99 19:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• It is sad to see, that so many people don´t understand how it should be done. BlueFish keeps his hood clean and this is ok. So stop whining and let him do the good work. 80.245.147.81 13:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Kimberly Ashton

This user is being discussed on the English Wikipedia AN. This is pertinent to Commons and I suggest that if en.wp takes any action we follow suit .--Nilfanion 07:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I deleted a bunch of questionable photos. Is there any problem with echoing enwp's block here? I say treat such cases with extreme prejudice. If we scare 14 year olds off from editing Wikipedia for a couple of years, well... I don't have a problem with that.

BTW, great work keeping us up to date, Nilfanion. It's very useful. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

(Agreed with the first para...) Ya thanks Nilfanion! maybe we need an en:wp ticker? :) ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked now. Heh, no problem guys perhaps I am the en:wp ticker ;)--Nilfanion 16:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Timur lenk - wrong licenses

This user keeps applying "GFDL-self" to reproductions. Please review his uploads and apply proper templates. A.J. 12:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• User responded to my memo. Please suggest proper licenses for old money. A.J. 16:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Rarelibra

User:Rarelibra is a very difficult user on the English Wikipedia where he got into an edit and POV war over Trentino-South Tyrol and South Tyrol. User wants to push his point now by changing and editing the map of the region Image:Trentino-South Tyrol Provinces.png, I had to revert his changes numerous times again. Offered the user to create multiple language maps in order to solve the situation [3], so far he seems immune to good advice. I will be forced to protect the image if this goes on and even block the user for a while if he can't listen. Are there any thoughts to this? I would like to primarily hear the opinions of other sysops, not of User:Rarelibra on this forum. Gryffindor 15:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ADMINS PLEASE NOTE - look in the Administrator's noticeboard under "Attention" and you will see this ongoing need for help and intervention. The 'problem' on the English Wiki is done - although Gryffndor still refuses to adhere to consensus to move the "South Tyrol" page to the correct name of "Bolzano" (if anyone wants to assist there). As far as the images here on Commons, I have created over 306 images for English wiki, most of which I hope to load up into Commons (I only registered with Commons not too long ago). Commons does not have to abide by the "English only" rules and I am trying to update my image (map) with the correct naming conventions as per the Italian government. All over commons you see such usage, so I should not have to adhere to what this sysop is forcing on me (and he is threatening me on my English wiki talk page with comments of "I am a sysop *ahem*"). Please help with this abusive action of his reverting my image and he is also not following proper procedure of a request for deletion (with proper discussion) and, instead, he is simply removing the tag. Thank you. Rarelibra 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have offered up a true solution - the image uploaded as "Trentino-Alto Adige-Südtirol provinces.png" and I have put in a delete request for the other two images "Trentino-South Tyrol Provinces.png" and "Trentino-Alto Adige provinces.png". This should definitely suffice as it includes both the Italian name and alternate German name. Rarelibra 17:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple versions of the same map are allowed, as are modifications. You do not "own" any images here that you release. Individual users are encouraged to improve images such as maps, etc for the betterment of our projects. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Listen to what you are saying - I am improving this image, as the names are incorrect. And as stated before, I never said I "own" the image, however, wiki states that only original creators should post updates unless.... hinting to a tone of not 'ownership' but 'concern' with their creation/work. Rarelibra 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see this en:wp imbroglio not spread here (and if it must be here, not spread more than it needs to) if at all possible. I've offered at w:Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol to mediate (or conversely, promised to start blocking if civility does not improve, I guess it's a matter of perspective!). Why not see if things can be worked out there? There's no rush. Perhaps the image deletion proposals, rename proposals etc, are premature... but if we have to decide now, I'm coming around to Bastique's thinking, multiple images are not going to kill us in this case. Even if the image names and labels on them are different and that's about the only difference. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Lar - what about if I, as a user, decide to improve the quality and accuracy of the image? Can I be protected from reverts by Gryffndor? I want to keep the images in line with the theme of the other images. Rarelibra 23:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just standing for admin here and am still learning, so I may not be the best person to answer that but my understanding is that if you improve an image so that it's substantially identical, except better (sharper, better colors, better color balance, removing unwnanted photographic effects, larger resolution, other sorts of graphic improvements that make the image a technically better one) you should feel ok about uploading over the same image. But if you look at the Featured Picture candidates (COM:FPC) you'll see even then, improvement is a matter of opinion, so people keep multiple versions of the same images around. If the improvement has to do with the CONTENT, not the graphics, or if it's remotely controversial (like I judge these images to be, there is controversy around the names, the labels and so forth) you need consensus. Commons is not typically in the business of political determination, and technically, w:WP:NPOV doesn't exactly apply here. But, please remember, our mission is to be a media repository. Not a news source, not an encyclopedia... We for the most part shun controversy, especially political controversy. Best to bring a consensus about what names are wanted from elsewhere, and implement that. Or leave multiple versions around, and let projects use the different versions as they see fit. We have the space. I suspect that's not the answer you want, but it's my answer. Hope it helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think I can create an image that can appease - using the dual representation (like labeling the province as "Bolzano (Bozen)" and "Trentino (Trento)"), to avoid having multiple images, and remain in the 'spririt'. I would like, if possible, to do this under the proper titled image of "Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol(acc)". Is that reasonable? Rarelibra 23:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Many Commons editors at COM:FPC

I've been watching Commons:Featured picture candidates devolve over time, and now people are spiralling downward and becoming insulting. I don't blame one individual user, but it seems as if one user says something negative, it encourages others to join in the fray. See my remark on the latest entry into FPC: [4]

Nobody's getting paid for our work here, we're all volunteers. To have one's hard effort being insulted at FPC discourages active involvement on our projects for free and self-created images--what we want most. As this trend is rather distressing, I hope I can get support from other editors and admins to discourage it, and encourage creative criticism, not insults. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 18:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Bastique, but there's another side to that coin: The percentage of candidate pics that are arguably of low quality has, in my mind, increased all the time. People do not seem to take the time to even check out the images that already have been granted FP status, to get an idea of what is expected. But yeah, we could do without the derogatory comments. It's been a while since I was active on the FP candidates page so I'm not sure how things are now. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a push to asking people to go through COM:QIC before COM:FPC. They will get more useful guidance there (I hope) and it will lower frustration of oldbies at COM:FPC. And then it will be acting a la peer review or w:WP:GA (good articles) does before w:WP:FA (featured articles). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems a good idea. There has been some resistance on en to the notion that GA is a precursor or path to FA but maybe that could be socialised differently here. Support this idea. ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Since most of the FPC disputes are with self published images this is a good idea as COM:QIC has review/dispute process as well. Just remember that QI is at the moment for Commons:self published images only. Maybe before insisting on the QI route for images, more FPC are nominated from QI with the info indicating that its already been through QI. Gnangarra 12:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Greever and comic covers

Hi all. I have just blocked User:Greever because he has continued to upload copyrighted comic covers (Image:Aves de Rapina -02.jpg, Image:Outsiders -12.jpg, Image:Oráculo.jpg, Image:Batgirl Special -01.jpg, Image:Aves de Rapina -02.jpg) even after being warned. I think he might speak Portuguese, so he might not have understood what I said. I would like to know if others agree with my actions. Also, if anyone speaks Portuguese, I would appreciate someone leaving him a message. Thanks. ~MDD4696 20:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Misal (talk · contribs)

This user repeatedly uploads images with no licensing info. After requests to provide copyright info they kept uploading. Many of the images are watermarked www.wowTURKEY.com, and although they are nice pics, according to the site they are not freely licensed. Maybe they should be deleted, I {{Nld}}'d some but there are a few more. Maybe they are {{Copyvio}}s? Could an admin please review? DVD R W 23:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, they have been blocked now, and will probably need some guidance when they return. DVD R W 00:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Descendall (talk · contribs)

Scouting Barnstar

Initially, Descendall thought it would be funny to say that Image:Barnstar scouting suggestion 05.jpg looked like a condom on its talk page. In truth, the comment was not respectful, nor was it appropriate for the page. I thought to myself ... self, this person's trying to be funny, let's respond with good humor [5].

Instead what I got is an angry little tirade warning me about what I had done. The history of the exchange can be found [here]. I have asked Descendall to stop leaving me notes on my page and to confine their comments to Commons:Deletion requests/Image talk:Barnstar scouting suggestion 05.jpg. So far, not only has this request not been heeded, but now it seems like taunting is in order [6]

I tagged the comment page for deletion because I didn't think the comments were respectful or appropriate. Descendall wants to keep the talk page by saying, "Comments are in no way incivil. It would be impossible to phrase this in a more civil manner. Furthermore, pointing out a problem with using a particular image as a barnstar is entirely appropriate for this image." [7]

The comment was inappropriate (even if it was humorous in an off-color manner). I can't believe what a waste of time this has become because Descendall wants to protect their right to say what they want on a talk page, and wants to do it by bullying [8] and taunting.

I'd like to have the appropriatenes of the inital comment addressed and I would like my request to have my talk page left alone respected. --Evrik 10:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• My view... The initial remark was not inappropriate. It could have been phrased more politely but stating that something looks like a condom is an observation, not an insult. It probably should have been directed to the en:wp page where people work on awards rather than to the image itself. Your first reply [9] was inappropriate, in my view, as one should never change the words of another in their remarks. Remove them completely, if they are highly offensive, perhaps, but change wording to convey a different meaning? That typically is not done. The subsequent message from the user is, again, terse, but I agree with that user, you should not modify the comments of another, ever, even to try to be funny, and I urge you never to do it again. The exchange degenerated from there but I do not see where Descendall has bullied or acted inappropriately. Instead it appears he is pointing out things that you ought to consider carefully. d I may be missing some steps as I did not review all the histories carefully. I'm also confused as to why a speedy would be proposed (if so) for an image undergoing a normal deletion discussion already. Or is it the talk page? I see zero reason to delete the talk page, but again, don't think a speedy is appropriate for something undergoing deletion discussion. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 13:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Condom

• • I understand what you're trying to say. I don't necessarily disagree, but it seemed that initially accusing someone of not acting in good faith was a little harsh. In any case, I would like to point out that after User talk:Alphax closed the debate and deleted the page that User:Descendall went back and added the comment on again. --Evrik 13:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I talked to Alphax on IRC about this, strongly objecting to an early close, as well as to the outcome of delete. The deletion result has been changed, and the initial comment left was restored by Alphax. I strongly suggest you let this matter go. The initial comment about the image, in my view, is fine. At this point walking away would be the best thing to do, rather than seeking validation that you were wronged. ++Lar: t/c 13:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Lar, this isn't about me. It's about the actions of another user. So, let me get this clear ... Alphax , closed the debate and deleted the page ... Descendall posted it the comment again despite the way the decision went, and you're saying it's okay? --Evrik 14:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Descendall did not post the comment again; I restored the original comment by undeleting that revision. Walk away. You will only cause more trouble than it is worth. Alphax (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree with Alphax on all counts, the right result was arrived at. No need for the origial comment to be stricken either. Walk away. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• I struck my previous comments about the actions of Descendall - my mistake. I still think that the comment is not civil and should be stricken. --Evrik 15:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what I did wrong here. Evrik changed my comments on a talk page, which is uncivil. Then he deleted my statement on his talkpage, which is also uncivil. Then he deleted my comments on the talk page of the barnstar, which is uncivil. Then he actually deleted the deletion requests tag that I put on the image, which is blantantly against the rules. He said that my replacing a speedy delete tage with a request for deletion tag is "vandalism" despite the fact that the tag itself instructs me to do so should I object to speedy deletion. I was obviously correct in my objection, as not only did it not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but it didn't meet the criteria for deletion at all. Can someone explain to to me what rules I have broken here? I'm totally at a loss. --Descendall 22:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Also please note that if all parties aggree to just drop this whole thing, I'd be happy to walk away from it. I think this should just be forgotten. It all seems like a waste of time to me. --Descendall 22:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• IMHO, what you did wrong was tag the talk page with a comment that really had no place. My mistake was not taking it seriously enough to tag the comment right away - instead in the spirit of humor I played with the comment itself. At every step of the process you kept defending the comment ... in any case, I decided to let the whole thing go as well, but I would like to see the entire talk page deleted. --Evrik 16:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Crawer's uploads

Crawer (talk · contribs) constantly re-uploads a batch of pictures about his home city of Stara Zagora and puts them in the article on BG.WP. Still no verifyable sources are provided to track where the pictures come from, and I am not skilled enough to search The Net thoroughly.

There was deletion process initiated by me on all those pictures ( StateOpera, Стара Загора, Stara Zagora map, Стара Загора карта, Stara Zagora, Stara Zagora night, Стара Загора хали, Стара Загора Античен форум, Stara Zagora 50 years ago, Stara Zagora City ) but the user still insists to store the pictures here. He is also refusing to prove his copyright ownership and/or permission from the owner. Some first-glance observations for faked copyright tags:

• Currently the image "StateOpera.jpg" is pretending to the taken from www.operastzagora.com/galery.htm while it is not to be seen there;
• Similarly "Stara Zagora 50 years ago.jpg" was pretending Public Domain on first upload (which now can be seen only by an administrator), later switching to GFDL claims. The blanket license of Stara Zagora Chamber of Commerce is GFDL indeed but there is a disclaimer that on some pages third-party content might be shown and another license may apply (if necessary I can translate literally the whole disclaimer);
• he is even re-uploading the duplicates "Stara Zagora map.jpg" and "Стара Загора карта.jpg" ("карта" is the Bulgarian word for map) which are exactly the same byte by byte

$ sum "Стара Загора карта.jpg" Stara_Zagora_map.jpg
04351   122 Стара Загора карта.jpg
04351   122 Stara_Zagora_map.jpg
$ diff "Стара Загора карта.jpg" Stara_Zagora_map.jpg; echo $?
0

He was one of the two edit warriors which provoked a two-months lock on the article in the summer. His comments on the article's talk were more concerned with other editors and their descriptions as prejudiced city-haters than with the actual facts related to the city (but I personally can live with those remarks, NP, it is a way one can learn unknown things about oneself ;)). I'll drop a note on user's talk page to notify him about this complaint here and hopefully he will explain what is going on. -- Zlatko + ^(talk) 14:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Errabee

This user uploaded a series of images and released them to GFDL or other free licenses, the type that cannot be revoked. After disputing well established Commons policy here: [10], here: [11], and here: [12], this user decided that he didn't want to host his other images at Commons. He is attempting to have them deleted claming that he didn't have the copyright to begin with (The images are his cousins).

Please note that we are not responsible for this user's ignorance. Obviously, it's incumbent on him to back up this claim with more than an email from his cousin. Once an image has been released to GFDL it cannot be revoked. Even if the "cousin" story is true, his cousin provided him with the images to begin with, thereby releasing us of any liability. Some of these images have been on Commons for more than a year, and we cannot delete those images. It is our responsibility to retain these images as subsequent websites are probably utilizing them under the originally released license. We cannot remove these images even if we wanted to, and this user does not understand. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 14:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting All photos by Errabee is not a valid reason. I think we should keep them. Specially because he's pushing us to delete them with his cousin story. He either can license it or not. If -as he says- his cousin doesn't mind of having their images licensed under GFDL by Errabee, well... they are GFDL. Note that he has also tagged for deletion images of landscapes, so i doubt his cousin to be a tree. Trying to get us deleting the free image by revoking their license is dangerous as it would be a precedent. Keep all. Platonides 21:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We are not obliged to delete the pictures of Errabee's cousins nor we are obliged to keep them. Are they really important and irreplaceable? If not I would suggest deleting them out of common courtesy. If he is upset it is worth to talk to him. He is used to be a contributor to Russian-related articles on en=wiki, but I have not seen him around for a last couple of weeks. Alex Bakharev 07:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The images are very useful we should try to save them Alex Bakharev 07:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ricardoramirezj (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

This Spanish speaking user is uploading several pictures and adds "From my own camera" . Several recent uploads have been tagged by an IP user as copyright violations. I can not determine if the uploader got the images from the website, or if he was indeed the original creator. Spanish speaker needed.

Fred Chess 10:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This user left me a message in English at en:User_talk:Bastique#Help_with_Translation. I don't know if it means he knows enough to be able to be dealt with properly, but he at least knows a little. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Juiced_lemon (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

I'm so bored with this user. He makes no discussion about all subjects that himself considers as unacceptable and, instead of it, he seems to know the reversion, re-reversion, again and again as the unique way to show his disappointment. I've added useful categories for Northern Catalonia related articles and subcategories, and he reverts again all the changes by three times, altough I've invited him to talk. What's supposed I should do with this kind of user with very hostile behavior? Perhaps should I block him?. Here was a chance to trying an arbitration (User:NielsF/Arbitration) but it's stopped by now. Any suggestion?. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 17:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the header. Alphax (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Martorell, regardless of anything else, I think it is inappropriate for you to block this user because of the history of conflict. If you have a personal conflict with a user, and you think they should be blocked, I think you should ask a different administrator to look at it for you. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I asked Cynborg about to count on him if I think it's needed to use admin abilities on this user. In the other hand, I reverted some categories to the last previous version before the arbitration date. Why is the arbitration stopped?. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 13:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

(moved from "User:Juiced lemon" thread started below )

He's driving me crazy. I'm working really hard to organize the categories in Category:Brazil (specially Category:Municipalities of Brazil, Category:Flags of Brazil and Category:Coats of arms of Brazil) and he is reverting a lot of changes.

The major problem involves "Rio de Janeiro" state and city and "São Paulo" state and city. After he redirected "Rio de Janeiro" to "Rio de Janeiro (state)" and "São Paulo" to "São Paulo (state)" he started redirecting "Location maps of municipalities of Rio de Janeiro" to "Location maps of municipalities in Rio de Janeiro (state)" and a lot of other categories.

Note: The city was always in "Category:São Paulo city" and the brazilian states are like the american states. I belive that the categorization pattern observed in Category:New York and Category:New York City is the right one.

I really need help to stop him.

Raphael Lorenzeto^msg 15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Halogen oxides

Juiced_lemon has reverted Category:Halogen oxides four times in the last 24 hours. I'm not sure if Commons has an official three-revert rule, but this is excessive. Itub 13:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

we do not, to my knowledge, have a formal rule about this. Seems excessive reversion, yes... But let's try again to engage the user in discussion? The user HAS discussed things with folk, let's exhaust all options first? ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Make that five times now. Itub 16:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I left him a warning. A short block for both reverters may be in order if the reversion doesn't stop. I may not be the person to do it, because I already expressed an opinion about the category (but am otherwise uninvolved so maybe I can give them out...) comments? ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I just want to point out that you have not actually expressed an opinion about Category:Halogen oxides, but only about Category:Nonmetal compounds. The revert war in Category:Halogen oxides is about a trivial fact; three different editors (myself included) have provided good sources, such as books, saying that halogens are nonmetals, while Juiced lemon insists in using only a slightly ambiguous wikipedia article as a source to state the contrary. I've reverted twice, but Juiced lemon has reverted five times. I think that's more than enough. I will agree not to revert again until the matter is settled, but I urge the admins to consider precedent: this is not the first time that Juiced lemon has behaved this way, as seen from the sections above. Itub 16:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I request whomever touches this category again until consensus has been established on Commons talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Categories to be blocked. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Nauka and Bulgarian rulers

Nauka (talk · contribs) has uploaded and continues to upload images of Bulgarian rulers taken from this site. Since the contents of Bulgaria.com are not free and that particular pictures are taken from a book, these uploads are a copyright violation. --Daggerstab 13:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

They appear to have been marked as copyrights, and will be summarily deleted. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 14:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Tesla

Users keeps uploading pictures of the Artics Monkeys without any copyright information. Seems blatant copyvio to me anyway. User has been warned several times on his talk page by several users, but keeps uploading. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

O, the woe of a templated warning. :/

If this user persists in uploading these images after this time, without seeking help to understand licensing, please block them for ~1 week. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW this user probably speaks Spanish. If someone could translate my warning, that would be great. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Romram

Romram used to upload images from Flickr, haven't written the details of the Flickr uploader, and even altered each licence to {{Cc-by-2.5}} or {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}. I've checked on Flickr, and found out that some of the images were originally licensed as CC-ND or CC-NC. When I've checked Romam's contributions in Commons and in the French Wikipedia, I found out that he/she isn't active in commons since 11:17, September 8, 2006 and he/she is active at the French Wikipedia. Since I don't speark French, and Romram's level of English is basic, I guess I'll need some help here.
Best regards, Yuval Y • Chat • 05:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Zizkoo

Zizkoo (talk · contribs) was banned on October, 23th for three days, because of repeated upload of copyrighted content, yet he persists in doing so. As I write, he's just uploaded three Britney Spears album covers... Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

MesserWoland blocked for 2 weeks, but in English. I unblocked and reblocked for 2 weeks using a Spanish edit summary—continuas violaciones de copyright bajo advertencia (continuous violations of copyright despite warnings). Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 15:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Aloismaierl

Regarding Aloismaierl (talk · contribs) ... I could use another set of eyes here: User_talk:Aloismaierl. (see also User_talk:Matt314#Warst_Du_fr.C3.BCher_bei_der_Stasi.3F_Oder_bei_der_Gestapo.3F and Image:Kill-vehicle-attacks-nuclear-warhead-in-space_2-1200x900.jpg ...) I have tried to communicate with this user but I'm not sure I'm getting through. Am I approaching this the right way? I really don't think Matt meant any insult in asking for sources, it's what we do when we need to make sure we're covered. ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Matt314 and you have done everything by the book, correctly, etc. Furthermore, the user has now provided his sources. I don't understand his rant, but I wouldn't concern myself too much about it. Let him vent and we can move on. Later on we might want to mention that he could probably tone down the text. It makes him seem like a jerk. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 17:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The image is a copyvio (as the Raytheon image is copyrighted). However, I fear explaining to this user is going to cause bloodshed. I have noticed that non-English speakers sometimes perceive the English nsd message as insulting from time to time; maybe we should make the alternate language links more prominent somehow? As for both your actions and Matt's, I agree with Bastique.--Nilfanion 17:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wegen seines Verhaltens hier auf commons habe ich Aloismaierl auf seiner deDisk angesprochen. Die Drohung mit juristischen Schritten ist nach den Regeln der deWP (Ziff. 12 S. 2) ein Grund für eine sofortige unbefristete Sperre. --Steschke 20:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Babelfish++ translation: Because of the behavior on commons I discussed Aloismaierl at his deDisk. Under the rules of de:wp (number 12 sentence 2) the threat of legal action is a reason for an immediate unlimited ban. From Lar: Also note as can be seen here the user has been so banned on de:wp. I am not sure I was aware that actions on one wiki could lead to banning on another. I'm now coming around to thinking (based on a warning I just gave) that if the user doesn't straighten around, at least a temporary block may be in order. Hope that helps ++Lar: t/c 22:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found this funny: Image:Kill-vehicle-attacks-nuclear-warhead-in-space_3-1200x900.jpg but I bet it's a copyvio somewhere along the line. It's also evidence of either a user with a good sense of humor (but no respect for how things are here) or a massive troll. Probably blockable in either case (with regret in the first case) ++Lar: t/c 12:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Plain NONSENSE. The only thing that has "Schöpfungshöhe" (which means: a level of creativity of its own) is the photo composition itself. - 84.146.202.27 14:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC - This is AM talking, and in NO WAY jerking)

Die Drohung mit juristischen Schritten ist nach den Regeln der deWP (Ziff. 12 S. 2) ein Grund für eine sofortige unbefristete Sperre. --Steschke 20:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC) - Antwort folgt, Steschke - mit tödlicher Sicherheit. - (This is AM talking)

User:Fcvidotto

Fcvidotto (talk · contribs) keeps uploading pictures without any license tag or source indication. I have tried to warn him to no avail, maybe because of the linguistic barrier—apparently he speaks Portuguese. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• I will speak with him --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 09:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Villamelano

Villamelano (talk · contribs) routinely uploads pictures of Spanish sportsmen tagged as GFDL (which I very much doubt is the case) without any source information. He was warned once in English and once in Spanish but keeps going on. Could a Spanish-speaking admin speak with him? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Inkweeweeus

Inkweeweeus (talk · contribs) keeps uploading DVD covers, apparently. Alphax (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Rklawton

I think this user is at best, veering over the line of what is acceptable, collegial behaviour here, with edits like this [13] and this [14] and at worst, actively trolling us. I've warned the user to reconsider the tone used. If things do not improve, I will take stronger measures. ++Lar: t/c 05:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Salvatorecoco

Quite a few copyvios, many images without source and repeated uploads when copyvios are deleted. I've taken care of a lot of them, and warned him, but a lot of the images are tagges as own work but display a lot of different styles. In one case he even described the image as a postcard and tagged it as PD-self. Could someone else go through some of his contributions, as I'm getting to the point where I just want to delete the lot of them and it's doing no good at all to my high blood pressure. Cnyborg 00:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

He has now removed the no source tag on several images, and changed the licenses. There is no indication of copyright status on the website he's names as the source. The only reason I'm not blocking him is that he might have some good contributions too. Could a Spanish-speaking admin please approach him and try to get an explanation from him? Cnyborg 00:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mikomaid changing Flickr tags

Mikomaid (talk · contribs) has been going around "fixing" Flickrreview tags, which is bad for two reasons:

1. They're claiming to be an admin here, which they're not
2. They're claiming that some very unfree images are free, which they're not

I've blocked them for 3 days but will need some help to clean up the mess. Alphax (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fang Aili

Yesterday I recived the permission from Marin Soljačić and it can be seen at [15], but Fang Aili put {{no source since/en|month=November|day=17|year=2006}} on Image:Marin_Soljacic.jpg. Could you please remove this tag? --Roberta F. 12:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot read hungarian, but I what I can see from the page is that he only has given permission for use on wikipedia. Is this correct? -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

At first, my language is Croatian. Please look at [16], where I placed my correspondence with Marin Soljačić, or you can establish the truth of my assertion writing to Mr. Soljačić on marin@alum.mit.edu.
Als erstes, meine Schprache ist Kroatisch. Bitte schaue Dir dies an [17], wo ich meine Korrespondenz mit Marin Soljačić plaziert habe und wo Du die Wahrheit meiner Angaben überprüfen kannst, oder Du schreibst direkt an Herrn Soljačić (marin@alum.mit.edu). --Roberta F. 13:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this one. Firstly, an image source, http://www.mit.edu/~soljacic/, is given on the image page, but that leads to a page with a different image. That in itself is reason to tag the image with no source. Secondly, while I can't understand the correspondence, I can see that there is no reference to the GFDL license, and no link to a page where the Commons licensing policy is explained. Has mr. Soljačić been informed that the image can be used anywhere, by anyone, for any purpose, and that it can be freely modified? There is a link to the Croation main page, but the main page (in any language) is not specific enough that we can assume informed consent to GFDL-licensing. Commons:Email templates should be used when asking permission, since that text is specific enough about the consequences. Cnyborg 17:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And in case it's not stated elsewhere, the email needs to go to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org - also, this isn't really a user problem; I suggest moving this section to some other bit of the noticeboard. Alphax (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

user:...malluco... again (Spanish or Portugese)

I made a post about ...malluco... (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user a while ago. Spanish speaker. Still uploads contributions tagged as "PD-Self". Perhaps some are selfcreated but others are, we believe, not so at all. For example Image:Br-101101.jpg.

Please, if you speak Spanish talk to the user!

Look at all his uploads! If they are copyright violations, we must act soon to get them out of here.

I have blocked the user for now, until we have come to a conclusion on his contributions.

Fred Chess 22:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

malluco seems to be active on the Portuguese Wikipedia, so if someone could approach him in that language we might get trough to him (I know only a few words in Portuguese, and while they the sort of words that might be tempting to use in a situation like this, they're not very constructive). I've looked through most of his contributions, and can't find any PD-self images that I trust. Image:389px-CanalRideau28Ottawa29.jpg is a PD-self image, but it's not his, it's just a scaled-down version of Image:Canal Rideau (Ottawa).jpg (I've tagged it as a duplicate and changed to the original image on ptwiki rather than just deleting it, as it might then stay here for a couple of days to that others can compare them). Image:380px-Microregion-campinas.jpg, is a a scaled-down version of en:Image:Microregion-campinas.jpg, which is available under GFDL; so several images would be OK if they had been correctly tagged, but the sum of it is that this is a user who doesn't understand or doesn't care about licenses. Image:But.jpg, with a prominent copyright notice on it, is a very clear example of false tagging; a search on the photographer's name led me straight to his website where I found this. I'll work my way through some more of his contributions now. Cnyborg 00:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has been warned at Portuguese Wikipedia be me. Lugusto • ҉ 16:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

user:Arthur Nunes (Portugese?)

Arthur_Nunes (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user , probably all copyright violations. Blocked him until we've check his contribs out. Delete all contributions?

Fred Chess 23:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think they should all be deleted. To take one example of his PD-self images:

• Image:Sabia1.jpg was deleted 2006-11-17 (it was uploaded 2006-11-04 by User:Criscosta)
• The same image was uploaded by Arthur Nunes 2006-11-18 18:49 UTC, tagged as GFDL but with no source or author name.
• It was tagged with no source at 2006-11-18 19:11 UTC.
• The same image was uploaded by Arthur Nunes 2006-11-18 21:44 UTC, but now as Image:Sabia4.jpg, which was tagged as PD-self.

This is typical of some users; as soon as problem images are tagged, they're uploaded with another license. I don't believe for a second that his PD-self licenses are correct. Cnyborg 00:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has been warned at Portuguese Wikipedia be me. Please note: he is a newbie, his first edtion has made at 17 November. Lugusto • ҉ 16:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Nyko83 - spanish administrator help needed (done)

Nyko83 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user Many images by this user are tagged as PD-Self, but i dont believe it. Need help to verify the statements in the image description. --GeorgHH 22:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Urartu.jpeg

Source: Trabajo Propio (own work)

Author: Libro de Historia (book of history)

Just another newbie to copyrights. Possible he was scanned the image from a book. Lugusto • ҉ 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Images are tagged now as missing source. Thanks for help! --GeorgHH 19:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Captain Scarlet

Hello,

I don't have a particular problem with this user, but I think he doesn't really get the copyright issues right. I have filed this deletion request for an image which was taken in the 1960s, however this user (whose real name is Gregory Deryckère, as mentioned on the pics he scanned) is only 25, see here. I suspect he just assumes public domain for the pics and puts author & date for the scans he makes. On fr.wikipedia, he has already been warned for copyvios regarding images.

Could an admin please help checking his files ? Thanks, le Korrigan →bla 23:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please check on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sheffield Tramway - Wicker 1960s - 28-10-06.jpg whether I'm being really stupid, or if a photo of the 1960s can't be taken just one month ago. There's something I don't get right here :-/ le Korrigan →bla 16:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Felix Portier

Hi, user Felix Portier is posting images like Image:Hockeyroos vs Chile.jpg claiming that they are free use public domain and licensing them as cc-by-sa-2.5. Most of the images are from the International Hockey Federation. After initial contact, Felix Portier ignored my posts on his talk page. reverted all the templates posted on the images. So I phoned the Hockey Federation ( Mr. Mayer +41 21 641 0606, Thanks to my Flat rate VOIP ). It turned out that, as stated on the web site, these images are copyrighted.The other photos posted by him are from http://www.basketball.net.au/fs_home_ba.asp. I also called them, got an answer machine, but still the website states © 1996-2006 Interfuse Media Group Pty Ltd. All Rights Reserved. Can an admin take over please. --Tarawneh 07:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish users

Ale_flashero (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, never source, license

Oliverdp2003 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, never source, license (Blocked 3 days until contribs have been checked out)

Fred Chess 22:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Shame On You

Does anyone else feel that Shame On You (talk · contribs) is being deliberately confrontational and is disrupting commons to make a point? Alphax (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at his contributions, I'm can't see any confrontational behaviour; it's most image uploads. A rant on one image talk page, but that seems mostly to be a case of "thinking out loud". Is there anything specific you're thinking of? Cnyborg 11:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

what is your problem Alphax? don't you like my pictures maybe? my nickname? do you know me? "confrontational"? you must be joking i asked politely a member if he can rename his mislabelled picture and he was ok. everything ran smoothly. "disrupting commons to make a point"? to make a point about what? what are you talking about Alphax? are you ok? Shame On You 03:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

it is Alphax who is attacking me, i did nothing wrong. Shame On You 02:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing images

I have uploaded some photos which I inserted in the article «Cinema de Portugal», on the Portuguese language Wikipedia. All these images have been deleted by one or mores users. All these images are frames of Portuguese movies and all of them are commonly used, without any copy-right restriction, by the press and authors referring to the history of the Portuguese cinema. In all cases, these images were furnished by the film authors or producers in order to be used freely by anyone interested in referring the existence of these films. All of them have been inserted in articles or books published by film archives or film history writers without any mention of author rights. When uploaded, these facts have been referred.

One of these images, which concerns a film dated from 1896, was also eliminated, although it must be considered as belonging to public domain, according to the international laws. Another one, which I received from the widow’s author to be published in this article (who keeps all author rights for her husband) was eliminated as well.

I am in the meantime working on several Wikipedia articles and intend to insert photos in them, some of which have been made and published by the «Museu Nacional de Etnologia» (article: ”Franklin Vilas Boas”). They have made a special selection of their photos to be inserted in this article.

The criteria of Commons and the decision of several users who delete images with no visible and justified reason seem to be too strict and clearly reduce the interest and quality of Wikipedia’s articles.

Please, inform me about the best way to overcome this problem. I am also an author. I am quite aware about the need of defending author’s rights, but it seems to me that these kind of problems affect authors’ interests instead of defending them.

Yours sincerely,

User: Cogitus or Cogito itit@portugalmail.pt

Regardless whether something is common used or not, if it is not PD according to law, you can't use it here. Just because 'everybody' breaks law, doesn't mean that we also should. Furthermore, if you ask somebodies permission, permission for wikipedia use only is not enough. Permissions should be forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Also see Commons:Copyright tags. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And also Commons:Email templates. I've checked and your email has been received, and is waiting to be processed. Alphax (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Gian77 (talk · contribs) (Italian)

Gian77 (talk · contribs) seems to upload pictures under the {{GFDL}} without any source information. Might be a good idea to take a close watch on him. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

He also removed no source tags. Judging by his file names, Italian is his first language; could an Italian-speaking admin please approach him? Cnyborg 15:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely a problem user. While it is likely that some of the images are self-made, I found that Image:20065522 779e0b85b9 b.jpg had a link to this Flickr image. It's tagged as GFDL here, and All rights reserved on Flickr (I'm deleting the image now). Looking through Korom's images on Flickr, I've found several of Gian 77's uploads, and they are all tagged All rights reserved. He has also uploaded company logos as GFDL, a satelite photo as GFDL-self etc.; most likely all of his images are copyvios. I'll try to identify more of the Flickr images and delete the obvious copyvios. Cnyborg 16:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Gian77 re-uploaded many of the deleted images, now tagged as PD-self. I've blocked him for a week, so that the mess can be cleaned up without him adding more work. I'll look around for sources from some of the remaining (most of which as tagged with no source or disputed). If someone else could also take a look at his gallery, that would be great. I've so far come across one photo that was under cc-by-2.0 (tagged as GFDL here), and added the necessary information, but most will have to be deleted, I think. There are a couple of satelite images which might be OK, but he tags them as self-made, without source.Cnyborg 14:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think all his contributions should be listed for deletion. Normal deletion, not speedy. / Fred Chess 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've identified a few more from a Google image search on Udine now. I'll go through them, deleting the ones that are clearly copyvios, and then nominate the rest later today. It's probably possible to get rid of half of them this way. Cnyborg 16:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Trojan (talk • contribs • count) (Dutch)

User Trojan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • upload log) has persistently vandalised and blanked the front page. this is typical. Blocked for a month. Not sure if that's the right amount. Comments welcomed. ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A month seems good to me; if he continues after that I'd say an infinite ban is needed. Cnyborg 22:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

On the IRC I thought infinite was not enough, but after checking his Contributions , It seems that he is not all evil. --Tarawneh 01:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See his talk page, he has said he was trying to communicate. I pointed out that was not the best way and offered to shorten the block if he would commit to not vandalising again. There is a Block Review template on the page already, as the blocking admin I did not review it, leaving that to others. Comments? ++Lar: t/c 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He says he didn't know who the administrators are, so he vandalized the main page to show that it needed protection. However, on 22 November, three days before the raid on the main page, he emptied three image pages and one help page ([18], [19], [20], [21]). Was that meant as a signal that all image pages and help pages must be protected? Also, while we don't know how much experience he has with wikis, it's not that hard to find the discussion pages where he could have asked about protection. All in all, I don't think it's a very good explanation of his actions. Cnyborg 23:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:HQCentral

User:HQCentral is a sock puppet of Primetime, a well known plagiarist across many projects, including en.Wikipedia, en.Wiktionary, and es.Wikipedia. HQCentral has uploaded a number of images to Wikimedia Commons, and some of them appear to have been misrepresented. In particular, he has claimed to have taken (and donated) a whole set of photos from Palau. But they were appropriated from other websites. For example, Image:Palau Supreme Court.jpg and Image:Palau Public Library.jpg from [22]. Image:Marina at Koror, Palau.jpg was ripped off from Encyclopedia Britannica [23]. Etc. Primetime was banned on Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales personally. Could an admin review these images with a very critical eye and delete those that aren't obviously public domain? None of his claims can be trusted. -Will Beback 06:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Franz Xaver is deleting categories too, and rather rudely

Insert non-formatted text here What is this about having two options, lists and galleries, and this user prefers one, so he's undoing all my work putting stuff in the other? And I gotta love this "What's about your common sense?"[24] What about his common courtesy? I want it in both. His basic argument is "If every image in one of the gallery pages in Category:Malvaceae should be categorized also directly in this category, we would have more than 400 images only ordered by file name."

So it's about numbers? Any category that can have over 400 can't exist? Well, there are over 400 species of Malvaceae, and a lot of other things that form natural categories.

Wikimedia Commons is simply user hostile. Especially new user. I would simply like all of my photos deleted and my account, so I forget about this. It's no wonder there are no pictures and no one can find them, everyone has to mind meld with Franz Xaver if they want a Malvaceae, another user if they want a map, another user if they want something else. Did anyone ever think that if there are two methods, pushy users who prefer one shouldn't be allowed to rudely force it on Newbies who are too stupid to realize that there is only one way to categorize a Malvaceae, while a different way applies to a Cactaceae, and, oh, my a tottally different thing is preferred by the guardian of all things geological, I'll bet.

Wikimedia Commons? This isn't a commons, because apparently Franz Xaver owns Curtis Clark's uploaded picture and can dictate how it is categorized.

KP Botany 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Moumou82 and User:Elcèd77 (French-speaking)

Could a French-speaking admin please take a look at Image:TP 10 ans du 7-nov.jpg and explain things to the two users mentioned. The image is a scan of a Tunisian stamp, and the no source tag has now been removed twice without any explanation of why this can be licensed as cc-by-sa or GFDL. If the Tunisian government/postal service releases stamps into the public domain, some form of PD license needs to be used, but it's fairly certain that they don't use GFDL or CC, and that the users don't understand the difference between creating an image and scanning someone else's work. Cnyborg 18:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Elcèd77 has now added that it's a scan from his personal collection. I can read that much French, but we really need someone to explain in French that scanning something doesn't give you the rights to the image. Cnyborg 11:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not admin, but I can try explain the problem to the uploader. However I don't understand, this upload can be considered as a copyvio and take the way to speedy delation no? Oxam Hartog 21:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. It's probably a copyvio, but with no information on Tunisian copyright law here, I didn't have enough information to tag it as one. Tagging it with no source means it can be deleted after a week unless an explanation for the license is added, so that's a good solution in these cases. I read, as best I could, what you've written on the user talk page, and from what I understand it's definitely a copyvio and should be tagged as such, but since my French is quite poor I'm not sure enough to delete it. Cnyborg 00:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:SunStar Net

This account is an impostor of mine on enwiki, please rename it so I can have this account renamed to SunStar Net to match my account on wikipedia and wikibooks. Thanks, --SunStone 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please take this to Commons:Changing username. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Ricky212

Ricky212 (talk · contribs) has uploaded a number of images under various dubious licenses; suggest we take a look at each of them and block if required. Alphax (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

One problem is that this user uploaded a few Flickr images before they were eventually released to a CC-BY licence, see the comments on the flickr page compared to the history log of Image:Andrew Flintoff bowling.jpg. For the other images, Ricky212 has cited "own work" and {{Attribution}}. And with Image:MCG Stadium.jpg, he also uploaded it on Flickr with his own account there. Zzyzx11 23:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think someone should probably warn him about this. Alphax (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sefringle

Sefingle (talk · contribs) has uploaded many Christmas-related images from all over the world, claiming either PD-self, copyrighted free use or various PD licenses. Several have been deleted as clear copyvios, including some tagged as PD-self. He has also uploaded images from Mecca with similar problems. If someone could check his contributions and see if they can identify more copyvios, that would be helpful. He has been warned, but seems to ignore it. Cnyborg 04:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories and Galleries (revisited)

Probably nothing new, but since I have reverted removal of category information on several images three times now, I thought I should report this here. Obviously I am of the opinion that both categories (on whichever low level) and galleries (on whichever subject) should and must co-exist. Category information is in my opinion of paramount importance because it is an image property, where membership (basically usage) on a page in a gallery cannot be tracked. If a user does not agree with a categorisation because it is at too high a level in the category tree, removeing it from the category tree altogether is not a proper solution. Recategorising (and possibly creating new and more granular categories) is.

Involved users:

• Siebrand (talk · contribs) (reverted to original version with categories 3 times)
• Bukvoed (talk · contribs) (initially spot category removal by this user)
• Denniss (talk · contribs) (reverted to Bukvoed's version twice)

I have created a link to this report on the user talk pages of the involved users. Kind regards, Siebrand 12:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If we don't create a policy about this subject, we can expect many more problems about this. I suggest a policy "Images can be both in galleries and categories, one does not contradict the other." -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support this policy. In general I favour more information rather than less. The image needs to be in the proper categories, regardless of what galleries it may be in. Reversion is wasteful, let's discuss and formulate policy on this we can point to. Best way to drive to resolution? ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact we have such a policy on Commons:Categories#Categories_or_galleries.3F: Do not remove categories just because an image is in a categorized gallery. Hmmm... -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhm... just wanted to say that generally I'm not against categorizing individual images, I just consider clogging high level categories harmful rather than helpful. But if there is a strong opposition to removal of category information in this situation too... well, so be it. Bukvoed 16:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Clogged" categories might be the best way to browse images. / Fred Chess 18:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• This has also been a problem with User:Jutta234 and Category:Saint Peter. --Evrik 16:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Low (talk · contribs)

User keeps uploading logos. User has been warned by User:Fred Chess, but keeps uploading. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Log seems to show the user has stopped. All images in log are deleted. Is there still ongoing activity? ++Lar: t/c 00:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but there were intervals between his postings. So it might be that he starts again within two days. We'll see, i'll keep a watch on him. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Kkrystian

I'm not sure how to deal with this. User:Kkrystian uploaded several pictures (see upload log) which were tagged for deletion due to copyvio. I tagged the images with deletion notices which were removed by Kkrystian. I believe that he did not have the right to remove deletion notices without his first discussing his rationale on the talk pages of concerned images, and have informed him as such on his talk page. As he did not initiate or participate in a discussion about the images, I undid his removals so that the deletion tags stay. Comments, please? Ekantik 04:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If you tag something as {{Delete}}, don't forget to make a correct subpage on COM:DEL. If the cases are obvious, taag them with {{Copyvio}}. And indeed, deletion tags should not be removed. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Cjmucsd

Cjmucsd (talk · contribs) has uploaded several versions of the Divine Mercy icon, first claiming them to be PD-self, then PD-old (which they are not), and now claiming them to be copyrighted free use (there is no way he could have contacted the heirs of the three different artists in just a few hours and go permissions from them). I'm tagging them for the third time; could someone else also please take a look at this, and at the user's other uploads (Image:1TopekaCB805.jpg doesn't look right). I think his uploads need to be deleted, but he just keeps reverting. I'm warning him that he'll be blocked if he does that again, but someone else taking a look would be good. Cnyborg 22:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, a regular deletion debate might be most useful. It could be possible that the artists waived their rights to the "CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS OF MERCIFUL JESUS". In any case, they appear to have a source. / Fred Chess 00:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That might be necessary; I'm hoping to get some clarification now. Even if the artists have waived their rights, we still need to know if the congregation actually allows any use and modification, which seems doubtful (generally, when the rights to such images are held by a religious order or congregation, they are released for free use provided that they are not used in sacrilegious ways, or free use when promoting the cult). The current license might be correct, in which case a permission of some sort should be produced. Cnyborg 02:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A permission has now been forwarded to OTRS; unfortunately it only states "The Marians of the Immaculate Conception grant use of the images of Divine Mercy.", which is not enough – they need to state that the rights have been transferred to the congregation, and grant the right to free use and modification. I've asked the uploader to use the email template. Cnyborg 22:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

user:Cidoferraz (Portugese)

User continues to upload unlicensed, unsourced flags, even after multiple warnings. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for three days. It would be nice if a Portugese speaking admin (the user is from Brazil) could inform the user about image description, and also inform us whether Brazilian coat of arms are public domain (as they are in for example Germany). / Fred Chess 16:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, are in public domain. See {{PD-BrazilGov}}. Lugusto • ҉ 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay; I have unblocked him. However -- please inform him he must tag his images! / Fred Chess 11:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

He has started again. Please block until somebody have explained him copyrights. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, blocked again. I also noted he uploaded some images that were not coat of arms. / Fred Chess 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I leave a comment in his user page.
Ludi 20:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I received an email from him:

from Cidoferraz <cidoferraz@xxx.yy> hide details Jan 7 (16 hours ago) to Bryan <Bryan.TongMinh@xxx.yy> date Jan 7, 2007 7:01 PM subject E-mail: Wikimedia Commons mailed-by wikimedia.org Gostaria de citar as fontes das imagens colocadas por mim. Cidoferraz

-- Bryan (talk to me) 10:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Quoting the original message:
I would like to tell [which are] the sources of the images posted by me.

Ludi 16:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I also keep getting emails from this guy (in Portugese...!) .

Is there any Portugese speaker willing to communicate with him? An admin maybe? You can get his email address.

Fred Chess 00:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The user Lugusto (see the beginning of this topic) is an admin and speaks Portuguese. You could leave a note in his talk page. Ludi 21:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred Chess had him unblocked after e-mail conversation, however the user has continued to upload images without licensing information, so I have reinstated his indefinite block. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone should talk to him in his own language. The purpose of this noticeboard to get help from other administrators. My job is done here. If Cidoferraz is blocked because he doesn't understand the rules, then so be it. / Fred Chess 12:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Too many unsourced images from User:Kresnik01 (Chinese)

Kresnik01 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) has uploaded a LOT of images, claimimg them all to be GFDL, from the same chinese language bbs. The BBS does not have any clear statement I could find (but I do not speak chinese... perhaps a chinese speaking admin could look?) to support the GFDL assertion. Therefore I have blocked this user for 1 day and asked on their talk page that they committ to work to correct this problem before uploading more images. This is based on notice in IRC about this from Guillom (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) who has tagged a lot of these images (at some considerable effort on his part) but I acted on my own initiative. Please review this block and comment. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I requested assistance from admin Shizhao (talk · contribs) / Fred Chess 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have notice Kresnik01. images does not have any GFDL find in BBS --Shizhao 14:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I placed a babelfish translation of what you said below your comment. I missed the part you caught about not having model releases ('character permissions')... I'm starting to think we delete the whole lot of these fairly soon if the user doesn't respond, as they will qualify as speedyable. ++Lar: t/c 21:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Template icon

Hi guys.
I had to copy the template {{icon}} from the original source in order to set the right copyright note to the Scribus' logo. Ludi 16:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC) {{Icon}}

But fair use is not allowed on Commons.

Fred Chess 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected the template to copyvio..--Nilfanion 18:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So What I'm going to do? Remove every copyrighted icon in the whole Wiki (or just pretend that this never happened and lie to you)? That's allowed in the Wikipedia in english. Otherwise I'll have to use the icon through an external location.
Ludi 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I can nowhere find on the Scribus webpage [25] that the logo is under some different copyright than the program itself. So I think it is GPL. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll check that with the developers. Thank you
Ludi 21:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No answer. Using GPL.
Ludi 16:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Benhyse11 (talk · contribs)

User has uploads that are very unlikely to be self made, although he claims that. I have left a message on his talk page, but so far no reaction. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Found Image:Van.jpg on http://www.synchronationals2006.org/m_rinks.php (notice: All original content is Copyright 2005 by sk8stuff and the Detroit Metro Council.)

Suggest a deletion of all his uploads.

Fred Chess 21:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Will start now. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have kept Image:Fords grave.jpg and Image:Grskyline114.jpg as they are not obvious copyvios. Any admin who thinks it is, is free to deleted it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Juiced lemon (talk · contribs)

I've had negative interactions withe this user in the past. At what point do insults cross the line?--Evrik 05:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering the staggering amount of times he's come up here and at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes and Commons:Village pump, I'd say never. Apparently he can do whatever he wants without fear of discipline. ¦ Reisio 20:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• [[Sigh]] --Evrik 18:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In any civilized web community where the administrators had any real power, he would have been kicked out long ago... --Itub 10:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I also have negative interaction with JL. He's always removing useful categories related to Catalonia because of ideological reasons (IMHO), and I've blocked him because he narrowed again my patience. He's very stubbornness, and posted a protest here. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

user:...malluco...

Does anyone object to deleting all contributions of ...malluco... (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user?

Fred Chess 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No objections. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill'em all. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Graham Wellington

At Swedish Wikipedia, directly accusing another contributor of being a fascist would be cause for immediate temporary blocking of the perpetrator. I've explained to Mr Wellington that such practices will not stand, and I'd ask that an administrator keep an eye on the matter for now. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a formal policy about civility, but that won't stop us from taking action when things are getting out of hand. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The user continues to argue that anyone disagreeing with him is an anti-American bigot and a moral gestapo fascist Taliban.[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] —LX (talk, contribs) 02:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have left him a warning to remind him of civility and warned him that he may be blocked for exhausting the community's patience. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jclm ms (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

Jclm ms has been previously blocked for reuploading images that were deleted for being in CAT:U without adding the correct licensing information. He has now started uploads with some unverifiable {{PD-old}} claims. Would some Spanish user want to look after this? -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

user:WTCA

• WTCA (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

The user is uploading thumbnails of other images (e.g. 560px-[image name].jpg), as is tagging them incorrectly. For example, look at Image:512px-Junichiro Koizumi G8 summit cropped.jpg(corrected by me). I think it is all with good intentions, but our patience can't be expected to be infinite. Just recently, he uploaded Image:750px-Pbalson 20060527 IMG 3615 commons 2.jpg.

I have explained the problem to him on his talk page. If he doesn't change his ways, a block might be necessary at some time -- as a last resort of course...

Fred Chess 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone review, please? / Fred Chess 10:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is crap, I would suggest a temp block if he does not want to change. I'll also soon delete these images before they get in use on other Wikipedias. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Yellow up ?

Writing about an other user I see that you are depressed on a high-traffic page as Commons:Village pump as did Yellow up (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user [32] about User:Yonatanh would clearly violate the "no personal attack" policy on most wikipedias. As I couldn't find any behaviour-related policy on Commons, I'm not sure whether it would by o.k. to delete such an edit immediately. -- Túrelio 21:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit late now to be deleted, but it can be condemned IMO, it's pretty out of line. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Left the user a warning. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Files uploaded that are nsd-ed on nl.wp

Hi, it appears that LimoWreck (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user and Rasbak (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user have uploaded four (4) and three (3) files respectively that have been marked "no source" on the Dutch Wikipedia. For the first 4 files the own work statements have been forged. The first user mentioned has reverted my nsds, which I have in turn replaced with another round of nsd. I'd like to request someone else to look into this, as I fear this will almost certainly end up into an edit war with the first user mentioned.

References:

• Image:E 19 - Meer.jpg / nl:Afbeelding:E 19 - Meer.jpg
• Image:A 4 - Virton.jpg / nl:Afbeelding:A 4 - Virton.jpg
• Image:E 40 - Hauset.jpg / nl:Afbeelding:E 40 - Hauset.jpg
• Image:A 10 - R 4 Ringweg Gent.jpg / nl:Afbeelding:A 10 - R 4 Ringweg Gent.jpg
• Image:V2-wiki-1.jpg / nl:Afbeelding:V2-wiki-1.jpg
• Image:V2rampedelancement.jpg / nl:Afbeelding:V2rampedelancement.jpg
• Image:V2-Air-Force-Eastern-Test-Range-1950-2.jpg / nl:Afbeelding:V2-Air-Force-Eastern-Test-Range-1950-2.jpg

I have no idea if this happens more often, or also from other Wikimedia wikis. It appears for certain to be a reminder to double check source information if someone claims that content originates from another wiki. Because of files often being deleted because of NowCommons this process should be completed as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention. Siebrand 08:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just delete them, if you're sure of the background on the issue. They can be undeleted if it turns out they are okay. Jkelly 08:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

More than a year ago, I have been working together with the original author, nl:User:Kevinv, on articles on Belgium Highways on the Dutch wikipedia. Around that time, Kevinv has added some pictures of some roads, and as you can see, the pics were taken from inside the car (window reflection, amateur pics). (Also nl:User:Michiel1972 made some around that time). Kevinv hasn't been active for a year on wikipedia anymore... (he was however a very constructive and respected user back in 2005). Tagging licenses wasn't implemented that rigorously at the time on the NL-wikipedia, hence the lacking license tags on de NL wiki. At the moment, one can only believe Kevinv about the images; a user who's been working around the subject back in 2005, and i do NOT appreciate a non-constructive user (Siebrand) who's recently gone through a desysop on the NL-wiki exactly for this behaviour haunting these images from inactive user from the earlier days. GFDL requires mentioning the author (or authors) of the work, and the GFDL license, both which are present. GFDL does not require traceability, meaning one has to believe authors for their word... If the pictures are not entirely his (which may be well possible), that's actually the original uploader's responsibility i'm afraid, as there isn't a single picture on wikipedia (and/or commons) of which we're guaranteed that it is originally created by the indicated "source" or "author"... I really have no problem at all to get this images deleted, but only if someone has the real source (which should be possible to find...); in that case, these may be removed, or maybe an original author could be contacted to come to an agreement... --LimoWreck 18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You can drag in all your cats and dogs for all I care, fact is that the files are unsourced. Siebrand 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

An even remarkable fact is: they're simply not, and have clear a source. By the way, the above reply is another illustration of the "I'm stubborn and don't listen to any explanation, attidue", reason for the desysop procedure a short while ago. BOTH license + author is present ==> GFDL conditions are perfectly satisfied, and no justification for removal whatsoever. The moment you show me the original source (if there are any, but it is very well possible), they can be deleted immediately. --LimoWreck 23:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You have falsified the own work statement; what was never given. The images were uploaded without any description. This leads both on nl.wp and on the commons to deletion. Siebrand 06:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that "source" can not be a username but in these cases it should be the URL of the original image. Samulili 10:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Zillaman (talk · contribs)

The user Zillaman uploaded copyvio pictures already deleted. Recently he's done it again. Please, take a look at his uploads; he states that he's the photographer, but I don't really think so. Dantadd✉ 14:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Mdd4696 has blocked him for a month and most of his uploads have been deleted. Lcarsdata 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Cantus

I originally uploaded Image:Jodie Foster (1989).jpg in September; User:Cantus overwrote it with a different picture in October. When I asked why he did it, he didn't respond. I reverted, but yesterday he reverted back, and changed the Flickr URL to point to the image he uploaded. Can somebody ask him to knock it off? —Chowbok 04:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the image and reverted to your last version. I do think that Cantus's version is more encyclopediac, but to revert war over this is stupid-- nothing prevents him from uploading the other image with a new file name. / Fred Chess 16:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought the picture I was reverting to was the original and someone had changed it. I believe the image I was reverting to was uploaded under a different name, but I can't remember what name it was. Sorry for the trouble. —Cantus 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's ok now. I've unprotected the image because it doesn't appear to be necessary anymore.

Micharb

Micharb (talk · contribs)

User continues to upload totally unlicensed and unsourced images, even after several warnings (see [33]). --Überraschungsbilder 13:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. See talk. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Puerto12

Puerto12 (talk · contribs)

User continues to upload totally unlicensed and unsourced images, even after several warnings (see [34]). --Überraschungsbilder 13:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked and most uploads deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems with other users

Hello, I am currently categorising and checking copyright claims on pictures dealing with Italy (my country) and Italian history. Because of the work I am doing, I have to deal with several uploader at once, since, obviously, contributions may be very sparse.

Well, I am experiencing a problem with users who, when requested to give info about the photographer and/or publication date of anonymous pictures they uploaded, simply delete my template with request for info without even replying to my notification. With some of them I had to stand long sessions of explanations about copyright laws. The problem is I CANNOT deal with all of them, they are too many: in some cases I had to carry on for one month disputing and explaining. There is too many of them: I can help with a few, but not with all of them.

What can I do, dear Agony aunts? Thank you in advance. Yours: Lonely Soul :-) --G.dallorto 17:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Szoltys (talk · contribs)

Please, I think that a Polish-speaking admin should talk with this user and check his uploads. I lot of them seem to be screenshots and other have source watermark. He told his is the author, but I'm not quite sure and I think a Polish speaker could handle this question better. Thanks. Dantadd✉ 14:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

L.CADEAU (talk · contribs)

Could anybody check the contributions of L.CADEAU? I've tagged some pictures but he has informed a source, but I think there's something wrong. Well, if anybody can help. Dantadd✉ 19:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe his claims. Different names appear in the author and permission field. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I disbelieve them as well. I left him a message and asked him for an explanation. You never know. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The user answered--it goes to show, you never can tell. Concerning the pictures of paintings by G. Salesse, he claims the pictures were shot by him with the authorization of the artist, who is a personal friend. Of course, I did explain what a free license entails. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Kccc (talk · contribs)

Has been uploading a number of suspect images from http://databaz.org/xtrm-art/?page_id=28%7C (e.g. Image:Rayou.jpg). Could a French-speaker check that site, just to see if there's any mention of licensing? (I doubt that databaz.org itself owns the copyright to them, but maybe they focus on "open source" art or something.) --Davepape 02:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Hab3045

User:Hab3045 is advertising on their userpage. The logo they uploaded Image:Hab3045.jpg is their logo and has "all rights reserved" on it (on their webpage). I have put the image up for deletion, not sure what happens to the user page. Deadstar 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody objects that I have deleted the user page. If somebody does, feel free to undelete it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)