Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 47

User:Silar

User:Silar reverts constantly the right category - File:0.2014 Franziskanerkloster Sanok.JPG in this file. This ilustration has an appropriate category: Category:Statue of Virgin Mary at Franciscan Church in Sanok (anniversary 1377-1977), but user Silar still reverts and changes to the over category Category:Franciscan Monastery in Sanok and that is not agreeable, because there is an exact category within. Please react to this. Lowdown (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you already talked to @Silar: directly? A lot of problems can be solved in direct conversation. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Silars is reverting without reason and removing Lowdown's msg from the talkpage (i can't read it because i don't speak this language). Silar beauvoir seems not the best, see users talkpage. I have restored Lowdown's version for now and protected the page. Users are expected to collaborate with others, and once it is known that there is a disagreement should discuss the issues on the relevant talk page rather than repeatedly undoing other users' contributions. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I support this. Should the reverts go on, a user block of Silar will be unavoidable. --A.Savin 20:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Baylee Romero (talk · contribs), sockpuppet of Eiji Mendoza (blocked)

See this DR (and also de contribution of the both accounts), that has been closed twice. Third DR opened by Baylee Romero, that opened a few other DRs with the same arguments as Eiji Mendoza. The both users have the same behaviour and they done only disruptive editions. --Amitie 10g (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

On it. Natuur12 (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done - blocked the account as an obvious duck, speedy klept the nonsense DR's. Natuur12 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Keep an eye or two in the affected pages and recent changes. --Amitie 10g (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Weird stuff...

Any chance an admin could check out SML Elemental (talk · contribs). Only 7 edits, but apparently he's a narcissistic "21st Century Philosopher" with commensurate advertising to boot. Not to mention that he authors his own pictures taken in space. Yeah, I know...damn cool if you ask me!! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Uploads nuked, user informed about scope. --Denniss (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted photos

On 3rd-4th September I uploaded some photos, which were taken by my friend Snežana Lazić and suddenly the photos were deleted from server. I get a permission from her to put photos here, but I don't know why photos were deleted so I want an explanation. I want to contribute to wikimedia and try to get everything right, on the first place I want to people see what is the nature around my home town, Pirot, and how beautiful my country is, Serbia. Thanks in any case. --LordMilan85 (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I deleted these images per this request from an image reviewer. All of these images, such as https://www.panoramio.com/photo/96122988, are listed as © All Rights Reserved by NENA 72. We need OTRS permission from the copyright holder, or for the licenses on Panoramio to be changed to free licenses before the images can be hosted here. INeverCry 16:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Vert

I have indefinitely blocked User:Vert for starting a crusade ([2], note that they were allowed to keep the same text at their talk page). Since the block is obviously doubtful (after all, the crusade is against me), I would ask an uninvolved administrator to review the block. If the decision is taken to lift the block (which is fine with me), I would ask the administrator lifting the block to explain the user what the talk pages of the files are for. Obviuosly, they have difficulties understanding this.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that an unblock request on the first block was declined by Tiptoety, a completely fair and uninvolved admin (with mention of IP socking for block evasion). Since the same behavior that led to the first block was quickly continued, I support the current block. I think this user needs to show convincingly via an unblock request that the behavior, which I would suggest constitutes harassment, won't continue, and that if it does after an unblock, he understands the indef block will be reinstated. INeverCry 16:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Last days = repeated trolling and harrassment with the same weird comment on ANU, Bureacrat noticeboard, a file talk, and their talk page. Given their block log, a new block for at least 3 months seems unavoidable. OK with me. --A.Savin 16:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please add {{Indefblockeduser}} to his userpage for clarity.    FDMS  4    18:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User Takabeg

User Takabeg has presistently kept the caption taken from a book published in 1995 as "original caption" for this photo which was taken by unknown photographer in 1937 for the Imperial Japanese Navy. I asked if the "original caption" in the file's summary is the actual original caption on the photo but he did not answer.[3] I used the description from the current version of the photo but he kept reverting my edits,[4][5] and I was also subject to personal attacks from him on the File discussion page. STSC (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Original caption here: [6] If this is Chinese or Japanese I can't say. Looks Greek to me. . @Whym and Shizhao: Could you please help out and compare the translations / caption so we can finally put this issue to rest? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This may not be the actual original caption on the original photo unless it's from the official Japanese source. Takabeg did give me a source from the National Diet Library which is more likely to have the original caption.[7] STSC (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

User:STSC persists in removing sourced existing caption and replace unsourced his/her own forged caption. Unfortunately his/her actions are recognized as vandalism. Takabeg (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to resolve this in a civil manner. The Nation Diet Library appears to have the actual original caption on the photo therefore it's caption should replace the wrong "original caption" in the file's summary. STSC (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no proof that the Diet Library is having the original source. What makes you think that this is the original? Because of all the watermarks? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 23:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

 Comment Before getting into the actual discussion, I would like to note how a quotation might have to depend on a fair use rationale, which may be restricted by our policy on Commons file pages at the moment, if the source is not PD and the caption is copyrightable. whym (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR - I would suggest either 1) trying to come up with a minimal and descriptive caption of what is depicted, or otherwise (=if we fail to agree with one) 2) including all captions we can find in published sources.

Below are the relevant facts I could see now. It appears that there are at least three captions to the photo found in sources.

1. 支那事変記念海軍写真帖刊行会 (China Incident Memorial Naval Photograph Publishing Society, I'll use "Society" hereafter)'s caption (1944): "防毒マスクを付けて活躍する陸戦隊員" or "Landing Force troops wearing gas masks in action" - it doesn't say whether the masks are against their own weapon or the enemy's weapon. It is also apparent from other portions of text in the page that the author believes the photograph depicts a scene of attacking into Shanghai.
2. Masao Hiratsuka's caption in ISBN 4881352652 (1995). p.38 - it essentially says the masks are against the Chinese army's weapon. (I don't include a quotation for the copyright concern mentioned above.)
3. Brent Jones's caption (2012?) - it indirectly suggests the masks are against Japanese soldiers' own weapon. He illustrates the picture with a piece of information that "Chemical weapons were utilized against the Chinese during the battle."

As for the Society's and Hiratsuka's, there is also a secondary source that argues these captions: 歴史教育はこれでよいのか, p. 71 (高橋史朗 Shiro Takahashi, 1997) ISBN 9784492221532. [8][9] The book seems to argue that different sources have added somewhat different interpretation of the photograph. (Note: these snippets have minor OCR errors, but they are correctable by using the context. However, I haven't checked this book in its entirety, which I would need to go to a remote library to access. I'll welcome corrections if my read is not adequate in the larger context in the book.)

From what I find above, it appears to me that the Society's caption is minimal and contains no controversial points, and is found in the oldest source known to us. Hiratsuka's was in a published source, but seems controversial according to Takahashi. Jones' doesn't look like one found in a published source (e.g., a published book from a respected publisher) and he only suggests indirectly what appears to be his belief. Can we have something based on the Society's caption, for example, "Japanese Naval Landing Force wearing gas masks in Shanghai" in the description? If not, I would suggest giving up finding only one caption, and including all captions we find in published sources in the spirit of m:Neutral point of view. When doing so, we also should make it explicit where each caption comes from. Note that I'm not suggesting the Society's version is "original." If there is (and it appears there actually is) a controversy on what is the "correct" interpretation of the photograph or on which is "original", that is fine, but please don't bring it here to Commons. whym (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

My rationale is because the photo was taken for Imperial Japanese Navy, so the collection from the Japanese National Diet Library would be likely to have the original caption. STSC (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't STSC's point above as a basis for justification. National Diet Library here acts more as an archiver than a collector with a specific theme; its Kindai Digital Library (近代デジタルライブラリ) collection aims at providing any modern copyright-free materials published in Japan. [10] Moreover, the library also stocks Hiratsuka's book. [11] (it's copyrighted thus cannot be included in the Kindai collection yet.) whym (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I would point out the file's summary does not have to have the original caption entry. I agree we just use a neutral description like "Japanese Naval Landing Force wearing gas masks in Battle of Shanghai" without adding any possible original caption. STSC (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. @Takabeg: OK? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Although some users want to use this image as Japanese gas attack with captions such as "Japanese soldiers during (Japanese) gas attack", it's very clear that this image doesn't depict a Japanese gas attack. Because this photograph was taken in the Chapei front, which includes some parts of Chapei (Zhabei) and Hongkew (Hongkou). There is neither reports nor claims on gas attacks by the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force. There is neither reports nor claims on gas attacks by the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force, there is neither reports nor claims about gas attacks in Chapei front. So we have to prevent such users from making bad use of this image. This image was misused in the article en:Chemical warfare, wrong information was added with wrong source (This website doesn't say that this picture depict Japanese gas attack) by User:STSC.) We must prevent bad attempt like this. I believe that we have to discuss this issue not here but at the talk page. And I think we have to ask opinions of other users, at least users (for example User:Phoenix7777, User:Benlisquare) who had been interested in this image. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to keep the discussion in one place (and although this doesn't appear a "user problem" too much to me), I'd advise to continue here as long as it's not taking too long (and I hope so), and I hope my suggestion above is acceptable to everyone who has participated so far. I believe once the consensus is reached, it can be noted at the talk page and would prevent edit wars. If the discussion continues too long, I agree with suspending here and continuing at the talk page. whym (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently these Japanese soldiers in the photo are in an attacking formation. The machine gun provides covering fire, and the Japanese riflemen are ready to dash forward along the passage. As a contrast, the photo below [12] illustrates a typical Japanese defending position, in which the Japanese soldiers blocked the street with a much more scattered formation than the disputed picture.

Chinese resources have recorded at least 23 Japanese gas attacks during the battle (中国抗日战争史学会.《侵华日军的毒气战》. 111页 ) May I ask Takabeg to list any gas attack by the Chinese army?--MtBell (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We have already known that China and Chinese claimed and claims Japanese gas attack in Shanghai. But we need identifying reliable sources. Did you read Peter Harmsen's Shanghai 1937: Stalingrad on the Yangtze ? He writes Whether the Japanese actually did use gas in Shanghai area was a matter of debete, and remains in the years after the battle. (pp. 178-179) In short, he says that Chinese side claimed/reported Japanese gas attack, Japanese side claimed/reported Chinese gas attack. In any case, we cannot find any claims/reports on gas attack by the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force (上陸) at the Chapei front. All of places that Chinese claims on Japanese gas attacks during the Battle of Shanghai are far from Chapei front. Takabeg (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Takabeg and MtBell: Let me remind. I would like to see if there is consensus on this: do you agree with having Japanese Navy Landing Force wearing gas masks in the Battle of Shanghai and nothing more in the description? We as file curators at Commons are talking about what to write as the description of a photograph hosted by Commons, a free media repository. If you have other things to ask or respond (about the subject, background, implications, etc), please do it elsewhere. whym (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Whym: I agree with your proposal which will quench the dispute in commons. Could you also save this thread to the file talk page? Some facts mentioned here may be useful in future discussions continued in some wikipedia projects. --MtBell (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Whym your proposal sounds reasonable　as a way to calming down users. But I cannot agree with your proposal. Because I oppose to not only propaganda but also censorship. I believe every caption can be written as long as sources focus on especially picture itself. Takabeg (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Takabeg: Please consider accepting the "way to calming down users". I wouldn't rule out the possibility of discussing at the talk page after having the short one as a tentative description. whym (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Takabeg's vandalism in Category:Nanjing Massacre

Takabeg has uncategorized dozens of photos from Category:Nanjing Massacre. Unsurprisingly, they are all about Japanese atrocities. Could any one stop him? Following is part of his work:

• Revision #132021203
• Revision #133132048
• Revision #134318144
• Revision #133131902
• Revision #133120667
• Revision #133120663
• Revision #133120659
• Revision #133120656
• Revision #133120645
• Revision #133120604
• Revision #133120641
• Revision #133212550

--MtBell (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you felt so. Why do you think vandalism my adjusting of categories ? For example, as you know, File:Japanese looting near a gate, Nanking massacre.JPG was not taken as photograph of the Nanking Massacre. I have Murase's photo album, so I know that captions and names of sources that you had made are wrong. And only a part of photographs of Murase are related with Nanking massacre. But all of Murase's work depict Nanking massacre for you. For example my edit is correct, yours is incorrect. my edit is correct, yours is incorrect. I think your action such as removing sources and captions are very harmful. I prefer reality to forgery. But I feel you prefer propaganda to reality. About this edit, Category:Photos in The Shame Album is subcategory of Nanking massacre. So needless. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to judge your behavior but to point out a simple fact: moving these photos to some meaningless categories such as "human corpse" or "decapitation in China" contribute no value to further utilization of these photos. No one can find and use them.

Please justify your edits one by one. For the first photo (File:Japanese looting near a gate, Nanking massacre.JPG), looting was part of the Japanese atrocities during Nanjing Massacre, according to the post war trials. Why did you exclude it from Nanjing Massacre?--MtBell (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe categories need to reflect undisputed information as they cannot be hedged. How about using a gallery page instead of a category? At a gallery page you can add a variety of nuances ("Both ABC and XYZ attribute this to ...", or "ABC interpret this as ... but XYZ made a counter argument saying this as ...", ...). Another idea might be to add it to Category:Disputed Nanking Massacre photographs. Either way, please respect COM:NOT and keep these minimal, just enough to briefly inform file users. whym (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Whym: A denialist will dispute on every photo you can find about Nanjing Massacre. (Actually they have published several books to do so, arguing ALL the photos were fabricated.) --MtBell (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Takabeg cited those denialists to argue that all relevant Commons images be removed from the category. Shouldn't it be discussed on individual talk pages, not all changes by one user unilaterally? whym (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Takabeg has been persistently removing photos relating to Nanjing Massacre from the category or even nominating them for deletion. He is doing this deliberately and systematically. See how he uncategorized this well explained photo without giving a reason. It's not the problem of any individual photo. It's HIS problem which we need to solve in the noticeboard. Thank you. --MtBell (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a similar pattern of behaviour as previously shown by Takabeg when they disagree with anything. They remove categories/information repeatedly and nominate images for deletion until they ger their way, even if it means manipulating other users to do so on their behalf. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, another suggestion for compromise: how about clarifying the definition of Category:Nanjing Massacre to include something like "This category include files that have been used to illustrate Nanjing Massacre". Would Takabeg agree to get these files back under this definition? Can we agree on that the category may include photographs that have been said to depict the Massacre by some authors, although disputed by some others? (we could include this kind of extended wording into the category description, if that is preferable.) Takabeg might have understood it as a category of photographs that has perfect consensus as those depicting the Massacre, but such strictness is not realistic for historical photographs like these, which are always bound to interpretations that may differ between historians. I hope that this clarification is uncontroversial, because it's pretty much what we (explicitly or implicitly) do for any other categories and files (especially historical ones). I hope that Takabeg is ok with adding these files into Category:Nanjing_Massacre under the clarified definition for now. whym (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

101.222.233.254 (talk · contribs)

Two random CfD — one misformed and empty, the other senseless — see contributions. -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Taxiarchos228 (talk · contribs)

Reverted my edit. Even I told him to discuss with me to solve the confict but he denied ( [13]). He discarded my vote when I have legal right. He DID break the voting rules also. It is really rude when we revert s.b edits without discussion. [14][15]. Alphama (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think that topic is already discussed and closed here. Jee 15:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Amazoniaexotics

This username is that of a business in the United Kingdom. Their sole purpose seems to be to advertise this business. In the Commons, they do this by uploading files whose name includes "by Paul Taylor of Mazonian Exotics U.K." as the last part of each filename. They then come over to en.wikipedia and put their pictures, however blurry, into articles on the Amazonian exotics which they retail, with the nice helpful advertising name. This seems to me to be pretty shamelessly obvious advertising, and I ask that the article names be shortened to remove their utility as free adverts for this COI editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Handy link: Amazoniaexotics (talk · contribs). -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• ? I don't see any of what you describe. The user has uploaded six images, all of which have file names such as File:Sida cordifolia flower.JPG which are straightforward and descriptive. There are no deleted images. One of the images has "courtesy of Paul Taylor, Amazonia Exotics" in the description. The others do not. Since we require the author to be identified, this does not seem to be spam.

It is possible that you saw the behavior you describe on WP:EN. The user has been blocked there. I am not an Admin there, so I cannot see the user's deleted files, if any.

There are two problems here, which you did not mention. The username "Amazoniaexotics" falls into our prohibition of organizational usernames. I have blocked the name and invited the user to open a new account. Finally, one of the files includes a recent UK penny to show size. Unfortunately, UK coins are copyrighted, so I have tagged the file with {{Delete}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, please check the files’ renaming history — you’ll see that Orangemike is not lying when he says that this user has been «including "by Paul Taylor of Mazonian Exotics U.K." as the last part of each filename». -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not accuse Orangemike of lying. I have very rarely, if ever, used that word on Commons, as I have no way of knowing whether an error was a simple mistake or intentional. Accusing someone of lying is serious -- if we believe that a user is actually lying to us, we might as well block him indefinitely, as we can no longer trust anything he does. In point of fact, I did not accuse Orangemike of anything, not even of being mistaken. I merely said that I did not see any of what he described, which as, it happens, is entirely true and correct.

You are, however, correct -- three of the six images originally had the file names as described. I happened to look at the first two in detail and not the other four. They have now been renamed. You have also removed the UK penny, so that problem is gone. Therefore, I see no reason for complaint here.

It is now moot, but I am not at all sure that the original file names were a problem. We allow professional photographers to include their names in file names, so I think that it is probably all right to allow others to include their professional affiliations as well. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Verax666

Remove warnings from own talk page and edit my user page and blanked my user talk page--Motopark (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done 1 week block w/ warning of an indef block if the behavior continues. INeverCry 03:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

{{oppose}} Sorry but this is the first time I ever heard from such policy!? As we can see on the talk page, this procedure is strong controversial. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 09:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok sorry I see now the accusation was ambiguous, because "remove warning from own talk page" is not a policy aviolation. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 09:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Олег73рус

Олег73рус has already been blocked once for persistent uploads of copyvios. However, looking at his uploads, I can see that the majority of them are still blatant copyvios. This Bedford Chevanne was what caught my eye, as I happened to be reading a Bedford brochure from 1981 which has this very image in it (I could post a picture if needed). Here are a few more, just from the first fifty uploads. Judging by the variety of cameras and programs involved in creating the photos (I can't find any camera used twice) the uploader actually hasn't created any of his supposed works. User has never responded to anything in the past, I suggest a permanent block unless they have something relevant to say. Also, I don't see any reason to keep a single image that Олег73рус has uploaded - they all stink of copyvio.

• File:Ural-5523.jpg
• File:Lada 110 1nd variation of tailights.jpg - clearly an element from a brochure
• File:Start soviet van SARB.png - unless Oleg had color film in the mid-60s, many years before he seems to have been born (I presume 1973)
• File:Mosvitch-2734.png - period photo
• File:ZiL-3270 Yunost.png - scan, spot colour printing very obvious
• File:ZIL-118 Yunost.png - same png info as above
• File:ErAZ-3218.png - same car as used in period ErAZ brochure, 0245AДM license plate
• File:ErAZ-3730.png - again... and on a pre-1982 Armenian license plate
• File:UAZ-451.png - on a pre-1982 Ulianovsk plate, obviously a manufacturer photo
• File:Bedford Chevanne.jpg from an April 1981 Bedford brochure, in front of the Luton "Luna Poly" commercial travel division
• File:Moskvitch-430.jpg - period photo containing "Downloaded from Autowp.ru" watermark. Attributed to Lurkmore
• File:КАЗ-608В.jpg - www.ati.com.ua watermark
• File:Kaz-606.jpg - period photo, gobs of watermarks
• File:KAZ-4540-f.jpg - from Lurkmore again

mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 15:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've started a mass RfD. --A.Savin 19:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 20:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Mti

Hi, since about a week Mti (talk · contribs) is creating lots of incomplete deletion requests. I'm busy to clean up his mess since sunday last week. Especialy he is missing to list his requests to the daily deletion page. On sunday I foun about 90 of them an listed them iniviualy to Commons:Deletion requests/2014/09/14. On Monday I found about 580 of them an decided to merge them together into one mass request - see Commons:Deletion requests/Japanese Symbols and Flags uploaded by User:Mti. Since then he continues to raise imcomplete deletion requests till today - sometimes only a few a day sometimes multilple hundrets of them. I allready tried to talk to him on his talkpage an on the mass DR page, but it looks like he don't speaks english, he is allways answering in japaneese, but not realy responing to my questions or my requests. Could an expierenced japaneese speaking user try to explain him how to properly raising deletion requests, especialy to link them to the daily log page. And could this user also ask him to stop raising those requests at all, until the mass request has been decided as kept or deleted. I am realy only busy since about a week to clean up his mess and any help would be appreciated. regards. --JuTa 15:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Karlfk

This new user runs a script tagging by a gadget files with {{Convert to SVG|sport map}} with no individual check of meaningfulness. Would any admin like to have a look. -- Maxxl² – talk 08:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I asked the user to stop editing like a bot and failing a RFB. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't use a bot. If there was an erronous edit please tell me or correct it. Karlfk (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello friends, so I'm the maintainer of the "gadget" (I think the description "script" would be sufficient). So let us be more objectively. This work is not a bot work (every edit is individual checked). But any suggestion to this work could be useful, so please describe more meaningful what is/could be wrong⁈ ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 12:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean there is a fundamental problem with sorting of the {{SVG}} tag. So I suggest to made this problem more public. The risk is very high that this will be lead to a meaningless over-categorization. As User:Sarang had also proposed to made this sort system (more like in the German WP) more useful.Template talk:Convert to SVG#Arguments for a 2nd parameter So this is not an user-problem. So it is much better to wear the problem somewhere else on⁈ ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 12:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not just "over categorisation", it's also inappropriate categorisation. Someone seems to have not thought through who uses these 'need vectorisation' categories. Recently there was a 'family tree' chart of some branch of homo sapiens or some-such. This ended up as being categorised as {{Svg biology}}. Whilst technically it is biology relevant, but as far as vectorisation goes it is more accurate to put it into the diagrams category as that is the sort of graphist required to convert it. Some graphist won't go near, say, anatomical or coat of arms stuff, and just concentrate on diagrams etc. Then there are some graphists who won't stray from biological topics. Obviously there are lots of in-between graphists too, but where do you think you'll find the likely sort of editor who is going to take the 'job'? So when doing these categorisations please bear in mind who's more likely to take the job rather than being totally pedantic about its categorisation. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've known the problem now concerning the "sport map" category. I changed the parameters of the script, but they were not actualized immediately. So when I opened the category page I've seen the buttons for the previous parameters. Meanwhile the script actualized the parameters but the page looked the same, so I didn't get what I saw and some files were mistakenly categorized to "Sport map images that should use vector graphics". Karlfk (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Then what'll be the solution? Should I use that script? And what should I observe? Karlfk (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said, this is the wrong place for this thematic, so please move someone (partial) this to Template talk:Convert to SVG or (create a new topic) somewhere else. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 00:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I opened a new topic to this: Template talk:Convert to SVG#Problem: Meaningfulness of (individual) categorization, so feel free to close this now. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 10:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File Deleted

File:Westland_Mk_41_Sea_King_Bundeswehr_89+55_Flyout_Kiel_Lackierung.jpg

Reason: Some Foo about Danish Currency Copyrightreasons. But this Image is about a german navy helicopter. Some Admin/Bot deletes too much. Do I have reload this image?? Dirk1981 (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Restored. No idea why this was deleted citing currency as reason. --Denniss (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Restored, that’s good — but it would be good to be able to track this kind of deletions and undeletions in the file history. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You find that in the Logbook linked on top of the file history page. --JuTa 21:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Good tip, thank you! -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Straco

User talk:Straco shows most of this user's uploads have been copied from various internet sources without proper credits or licensing. They were revealed by an anonymous ip on the discussion page to Straco's currently pending checkuser-case on dewiki. Shouldn't this warrant administrative action to prevent further uploads? --MBq (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As the user is not active for some week, so I think it's sufficient for the moment to leave it at a warning. --Krd 12:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, but I'd suggest a mass deletion of his uploads; and those of User:Cronista, User:Fan Museum, User:Quique Gonzáles, and User:Mode-Tante as well, for they were checkuser'd as his sock puppets [16]. I believe most of, if not all of thes files are copyvios, this guy stole them all from the internet and labeled "own work". --MBq (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I already deleted some stuff, and the remaining looks not too bad to me, so I leave it up to another admin to judge. --Krd 16:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Following the CU at de:WP and thinking on all the Copyvios on Commons the user should be blocked in all incarnations. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Blocked and tagged. See Category:Sockpuppets of Cronista. INeverCry 18:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Apple 1994-2014

Apple 1994-2014 (talk · contribs) uploads random pictures from the Internet, likely another sockpuppet of Григорий225. YLSS (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 08:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I also blocked Metroman2014 (talk · contribs) and Apple Man2014 (talk · contribs) as socks per CheckUser. Tiptoety ^talk 18:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Adnan Ali Durrani (talk · contribs)

User has uploaded a lot of images through the Wikimedia loves Monuments portal, and so far, all of the ones I checked were copyvios. I am starting to suspect all the others are too, can someone confirm/take action. Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Nuked and indeffed. --Denniss (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Mass removal of Manchester related categories.

Could a kind admin have a a look at the contribs of SubsonicViper (talk · contribs) who seems to be incorrectly removing Manchester categories from a whole shitload of Manchester related files over the last few days. Given that he appears to be from Salford (who are not the biggest fans of Manchester) there's a possiblity that there's a vandalism element to this. I've left a message on his talk page but I'm not expecting an answer any time soon. It's bedtime here so I'm not running after him reverting all his changes, especially as I don't have the tools to do it quickly. Cheers. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Fred the Oyster: Are you aware of COM:OVERCAT?    FDMS  4    23:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am, and when a main category isn't replaced with an appropriate sub category...? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I checked only one of this user’s edits, and it was definitely a case of overcategorization being fixed: Removed Category:Manchester from a file already tagged with things like Category:Manchester Cathedral, Category:History of Manchester, Category:Statues in Manchester, and Category:1960 in Manchester. Are this user’s other edits all like this? -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have also checked a random number of edits (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and it seems that SubsonicViper is indeed fixing overcategorization. Fred, could you point to specific examples where you feel categories are being removed without good reason? Green Giant (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Multiple uploads of copyright violations

I've just blocked User:Mateus Televisa on en-wiki due to confirmed socking (note he is also blocked on pt.wiki and es.wiki). He's added a number of image files to articles on en-wiki that are copyright violations in that they are claimed as own work, yet obviously are not. As opposed to listing each of the files for speedy deletion, could a commons admin please review the uploads to determine the appropriate action? Thank you, --Ponyo (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done: user warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! --Ponyo (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Chu86happychu

Hi, Chu86happychu (talk · contribs) has uploaded lot of files of various size without EXIF data. Several blatant copyvios. Needs further investigation. Please help. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

help please new at his

Hi, My apologies in advance. I was wanting to find out how I coul possibly ad a new page. Probably a bit dumb , but I have searched the pages for over an hour. Thank you, Ron Egerton -- 04:16, 3 October 2014 User:Roego

By "add a page" do you mean create a gallery, upload an image file, or write an article? If one of the first two, try Commons:Help desk. If the third, go to the relevant Wikipedia and ask there... AnonMoos (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Shanigreidy (talk · contribs)

hey, please delete my account on wikimedia. shanigreidy.

tnx.

Hi Shanigreidy

only today you have uploaded 2 images to Commons. Why should we delete your account? Besides, for legal reasons this isn't possible, AFAIK. --Túrelio (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Feel free to ask for unblock on your user page if you change your mind. Ankry (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure, he/she wanted to get blocked? --Túrelio (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to unblock if you think they do not. Uploads were requested to be deleted, however. Ankry (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous editor

I came across a pile of speedy deletes from an anonymous editor, see [17]. I cannot see in many cases why the image is being put to speedy, but I am out of time for today and need someone else to take a look. It appears that the anon is targeting a particular contributor's images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Revert Category move Category:Georg V of Hanover

I was notified that my move of Category:Georg V of Hannover to Category:Georg V of Hanover was not such a great idea. Sorry, for the mess, but I can't revert as Category:Georg V of Hannover exists as a redirect. I'm happy to clean up my mess but just need a little help to get the category move reverted. Thanks --Aeroid (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Green Giant (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

186.221.49.47

User 186.221.49.47 (talk · contribs)’s only contributions so far are offensive and boringly stupid. I think this is someone with a prior history with Béria venting their rudeness while logged off, so maybe some check-user action would be a good idea. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done - blocked him for two weeks. Natuur12 (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Likely massive copyvios by LubnaMR

Hi all. In spite of having many of his uploads under a deletion request (see here), he keeps on uploading likely copyvios (they clearly look like derivative scans from books or product leaflets that were most likely not originally designed or drawn by the uploader). He hasn't tried to argue (this and this are void). After tagging the most obvious ones as 'no source' or 'no permission', I analyzed his contributions and decided to open a massive deletion request. But after noticing that there was an ongoing deletion request and that LubnaMR refuses even to discuss about their upload or provide a valid source information, I decided to come here. Best regards --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 09:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

HI, I'm LubnaMR and I am the owner of all the original, old, pictures. ALL the images uploaded come from scans that I made previously. I hope you will understand and you will not delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LubnaMR (talk • contribs)

Scanning does not make you the copyright holder of the images to enable you a release under a free license. Unless they fall under some specific licenses due to origin or age they require a permission from the original copyright holder or they will be deleted. If you don't stop uploading them your account will be blocked. --Denniss (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Denniss sorry, I don't understand, I'm the owner of the ORIGINAL pictures. I'm new to Wikimedia/wikipedia. How I can grant permission? I just sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, hope it's correct. Sorry for my mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LubnaMR (talk • contribs)

Ownership of the pictures does not grant you copyrights to them. Copyrights belong to their creator(s) unless transferred to you in a written form. Ankry (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ankry Sorry there should be some misunderstanding. I'm the owner of the original pictures. I own everything (negatives, prints) of all the pictures. Many pictures were made by myself using a manual old film Voigtländer camera with skopar 50mm 2.8 lens. Some pictures were made by a photographer that is not alive any more, but I own the negatives and prints). The dépliants are MY original dépliants of the defunct factory that I scanned too. I agree with a free share because they are a little piece of the history of Italy. Hope it's enough for wikimedia commons rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by LubnaMR (talk • contribs)

I think there is indeed some serious misapprehension here. This file for example, is not a photograph. The original file is a drawing (or a heavily retouched picture, constituting a new work). The catalog where you got this from was from a company that was founded 1947. This specific catalog was published somewhere around 1976 (see Catalogo ricambi motocoltivatore Randi Junior 6000). Unless you are the designer of the picture, you are not its creator, and you can not upload this as "own work". Even if the designer would be dead by now, the copyright has not expired yet. You may be the owner of the copyright, if you inherited it from a deceased member of your family, for example. As you state you own the photo's and the negatives, but you do not mention designs, I think it's very unlikely that the copyright of this work is in your posession. If you would have been the designer, or his heir apparent, it would have been very strange for you to not mention that you also own the original drawings.

You did not read or you did not understand the copyright rules of this project but by now, it must have occured to you that something is wrong. I hope I explained to you what this is about, and you will be able to come up with some relevant answers. Wikiklaas (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I created a DR for these: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LubnaMR. These look like promo material by a company, and therefore a permission is needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikiklaas, "You may be the owner of the copyright, if you inherited it from a deceased member of your family, for example". Yes, it's the case, indeed. And I personally took, as previously said, a lot of that pictures, directly. I am too young for having took the older pictures (in the '40 for example, 70 years ago!). The catalog that you mentioned was published earlier, around 1970. And there are some copies around Italy and in Greece, Belgium and Portugal, so it's more like a public material (isn't it?), but I own, obviously, the original one. May be I haven't well understood the copyright rules of this project, ore made some mistakes in uploading them, but I notice an high level of suspicion, instead of trying to help me in correcting my eventually mistakes.

Yann sorry, but you listed pictures that are 70 years old. I think it's unlikely that it is a promo material by a (deceased) company...

Regardless of actual authorship (and you need to tell exactly which ones are those "made by a photographer that is not alive any more", as you possibly do not own his copyright), you need to provide accurate information about authorship. Although LubnaMR may be a good nick for commons, the real identity of the author must be provided in order to provide further assurance of authorship. Thanks --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 07:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC) PS: it might seem too aggressive, but we need to assure that any file that is claimed to be compliant to our copyright rules is really so

Discasto I will try to fix the problems you mentioned. And I will provide my real identity writing an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Is this right?

LubnaMR, you keep insisting that you are the owner of an original catalog. That is however beyond the point. Ownership of copyright is what this is all about, not ownership of some hardcopy. In most countries in the EU, copyright expires not before 70 years after the creator died. It is so his/here heirs can benefit from the copyrighted material. What material is in the public domain is very well defined. It's not a matter of guessing or thinking it should be right. So think about it: 70 years is a minimum. If the year the creator died is not known, it is even more.

In some of your uploads, as I stated before, the copyright is owned by the person who retouched the photograph or even by both the photographer and the artist who did the styling, so in order to be under a free license, they both have to be dead for a long time OR the person who inherited the copyright has to give proof of that AND donate the pictures to the public domain or license them under a free license. Public domain means that anyone can use or modify the pictures without even mentioning the creator or the former owner of the copyright. Think about this because once a work is donated to the public domain or made available under a free license, this action cannot be made undone. And certainly not because you suddenly realise that someone is, in your opinion, misusing your material. Of course it is much appreciated if you want to make some valuable material available under a free license. But before it is accepted, you will have to provide proof that you are in fact in a position to do so. That's what this is all about. Wikiklaas (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikiklaas For the following files I request the deletion. For all the other files, pictures that I took and sometimes retouched, I agree to donate them to the public domain.

• File:RandiR5Apps.JPG
• File:RandiTrattoreR4depliant.JPG
• File:RandiMotocoltivApps2.JPG
• File:RandiLogoT.JPG
• File:RandiDozzaBook.JPG
• File:RandiApp1.JPG
• File:Randi6000s.JPG
• File:RandiApp2.JPG
• File:RandiScatoleGuida.JPG
• File:RandiR8.JPG
• File:RandiR-6M.JPG
• File:RandiR2000.JPG
• File:RandiR4.JPG
• File:Randi6000j.JPG
• File:Randi650-2.jpg
• File:Randi3600.JPG
• File:Randi650-1.jpg
• File:Randi424.JPG

Hatem Moushir

Hatem Moushir is flooding the QIC-Project page. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed. --A.Savin 08:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Alleged copyright violations by Dysprosia (talk · contribs)

I have identified a number of images hosted on commons that are not accompanied by required free licence. Instead they are accompanied by a software licence created by the uploader. However, a software licence is inappropriate because the images are not software. It appears to me that the attached licence is a blatant attempt to host the images at commons while retaining copyright control.

The 'pseudo licence' used is

I have just realised that there are hundreds of such images and that I am going to be here all day. I presume that there is some sytem that permits all the affected images to be deleted in one go, but I am unaware of it. For anyone's benefit, the images are all listed here.

Crikey fellas, you're on the ball today. In the time that it has taken me to type the above, you have acted and deleted all the images that I have identified thus far. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, this needs a bit more of discussion. User:Dysprosia has created this license-tag User:Dysprosia/lic in 2006 and hasn't changed it since then. I'm not sure whether one can say it's a "licence created by the uploader". It's likely just a personalised BSD license. Though BSD is not listed on Commons:Licensing, that does not automatically mean it's not allowed. Though it may not be suitable for non-software works, that also doesn't mean it's not allowed. GFDL also is not ideal, but it is allowed on Commons, which was recently confirmed by the community. What's relevant is whether this BSD license does meet the conditions outlined in Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses. Before this has been decided, no further speedy-deletions, please. --Túrelio (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

After a bit of research, it seems the above shown licensed is just a personalised version of the official 3-clause or "Revised BSD License", "New BSD License", or "Modified BSD License". As I see it, this BSD license allows distribution and use of the original work and of its modification. Further research has shown that we have nearly 2000 media files with a BSD license, see Category:BSD Licenses. --Túrelio (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I take your point. However, the licences that you refer to are specifically for software (they say so). The IP in question is not remotely software in any shape of form, it is a photograph. A software licence is not applicable to a photograph, therefore the effect is that inappropriate licence might just as well not be there. There is thus no free licence for the re-use of the image that commons insists on as a prerequisite for hosting the image.

If the IP in question was a piece of executable software (either source or object code) then the licence might apply. On another legal note: the copyright in the image is held by the original photographer (unless assigned by contract). Unless the original photographer actually does have the name 'Dysprosia', then the copyright is not owned by anyone called 'Dysprosia' as claimed. This is a legal grey area under which Wikipedia and Commons have operated for some time. Images that are uploaded in the regular manner with the regular licence(s) are not identified as the copyright actually belonging to anyone with the uploader's account name (though the EXIF information sometimes does betray the actual copyright owner). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Having reviewed a random sample of the images with a BSD licence that you linked, it seems that all of the ones that I looked at have the BSD licence in addition to a free licence, thus meeting Commons' requirements for free licensing. Exactly what the uploader believes the additional BSD licence achieves is a mystery. The images to which I refer have no free licence. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I also reviewed a small random sample of 3 files in that category and 2 of them had only the BSD license. Overall, it has become clear to me that the BSD license had been accepted as a legitimate license in the early years of Commons, whether we like it or not. Actually, if Dysprosia instead of putting it onto his userpage, had used {{BSD|1=Dysprosia|year=}} the license display would have been identical. Therefore, the following files, which have speedy-deleted on an erroneous assumption, need to be restored.

• File:Port Louis.jpg
• File:XPT toilet.jpg
• File:XPT sleeper interior.jpg
• File:Countrylink XPT nose, Sydney.jpg
• File:Spencer Street Station platforms, Melbourne.jpg
• File:St Kilda Road through cascade, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne.jpg
• File:National Gallery of Victoria, Exterior view of entrance, Melbourne, Australia.jpg
• File:National Gallery of Victoria, Entrance sign.jpg
• File:Entrance, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne.jpg
• File:Harris Scarfe shopfront, Hobart.jpg
• File:National Museum, Canberra.JPG
• File:Captain Cook Memorial Jet, Canberra.JPG
• File:King's Hall, Old Parliament House, Canberra.JPG
• File:Parliamentary axis, Canberra.JPG
• File:Parliamentary axis (from Memorial), Canberra.jpg
• File:Spencer Street Station, Melbourne, during development.jpg
• File:Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology entrance.jpg
• File:Caratheodorys theorem example.svg
• File:Bendix washing machine. Melbourne Museum.jpg

--Túrelio (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, I take your point. However, courts of law rarely operate on what has been erroneously accepted as custom and practice. Would it not therefore be better to attach a free licence to all affected images (which was after all a condition of uploading). An appropriate note could be left at the uploader's talk page if they wish to ammend or challenge the licence. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As the BSD license was used only on the early years, it's likely that those whose used it then, are no longer with us. Without expressed consent of the licensor we cannot change or add a license. --Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I deleted these files. I don't think a BSD license is appropriate for pictures. In addition, all these files don't use the Information template, and therefore lack at least a source, a date, and an author. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"appropriate for pictures" - That's not the question. Would you also delete GFDL-license images for that?

"Information template lacking" - Most of the early uploads lack it, as there was none at that time. Will you delete them all? --Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Túrelio. Also, the wiki user that is attributed in the license should be considered the author. And unless there is a significant doubt that sb else is the real author, the license should be accepted. The license parts that are stricty applicable to software are just no-op in this case. It is a bad habit to consider that because of rules change, all previously issued licenses become invalid after eg. 10 years. Ankry (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You deleted them without a DR? A BSD license is not the best for pictures, but it's perfectly clear: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." If I wanted to be beyond question, I'd include the license in the EXIF and in human-readable form where the rest of the licenses were kept, which is not something we consider nonfree. Given their age, the lack of an information template is something to be dealt with, not an autodelete cause.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If I will undelete these, will you fix the description, adding source, date, and author? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Not the responsibility of a single user; but I fixed it for a few existing files. :) Jee 12:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, fine. Files restored, all copyvio tags removed. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Description templates added to all undeleted images. --Túrelio (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

For a general discussion about the validity of the BSD license, go to Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#BSD_license_still_a_valid_free_license?. --Túrelio (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg User:Prcc27 and User:Rreagan007

Hello, there is a user who is edit warring and has reverted an edit four times in the last last hour. This user has a history of causing fusses when they don't get their way on this page.

In July/August, they kept bringing up an old discussion about when to update the map (when a law is enacted vs. enforced). When they didn't get their way, they kept bringing up the issue and ended up driving at least one user away from the page ([20]) If you look at the file history, you will notice they tried to force their way through anyways (see 06:25, 7 August 2014).

User:Prcc27 may not like the edit I made and User:Rreagan007 supported, but that gives them no right whatsoever to edit war regardless who was right/wrong on policy. Please do something about this edit-warrior. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus for their bold edit so I reverted to the status quo per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. I didn't even realize I reverted that many times, but I was trying to get the map back to status quo. There were at least three other people who were against their edit and two of them were reverting the map as well. Prcc27 (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are not paying attention to what you are doing, then you shouldn't be reverting maps. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

One of those edits shouldn't even count as a revert since it occurred 1 minute after @Leftcry: already reverted the map... Prcc27 (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You still reverted it and intended to revert it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I could have been making a "dummy edit." But I'll admit, I intended to revert it. Prcc27 (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

But still, Me reverting Leftcry did nothing to the map; it didn't change a thing because my edit was exactly identical to Leftcry's. So to be fair, I only reverted the map three times (and you have to revert the map more than three times in order to break the three revert rule). By the way, does Wikipedia policy apply here... (just wondering)? Prcc27 (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I am being reported for edit warring above. But if I'm going to be reported for edit warring, then so should @Rreagan007: because they reverted me three times. Prcc27 (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• I reviewed the three revert rule and apparently you have to revert more than three times to break it. Prcc27 (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, their edit went against consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You are double-talking, first you are saying there was no consensus, so you were going back to the status quo, now you are suddenly claiming you had a consensus. Get your story straight. Also, unlike you, Rreagan007 stopped when they realized what was going on, you continued. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: The STATUSQUO map is the consensus map!!! There was already consensus for having states that legalized same-sex marriage as light blue. There was no consensus for having precedent states as light blue. In fact, there was opposition from other users and they kept reverting the consensus/STATUSQUO map. Prcc27 (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You both were edit warring. There is no three revert rule on Commons. It is a Wikipedia policy.

However, I do not think blocking anybody is a good way to resolve this conflict. I suggest trying to find a consensus through a dispute and provide a link to it while making a controversial change. If not, and if any further edit warring appears in this file, the file will be protected, edit-war changes reverted and any further change to this file will require admin assistance. Your choice. Ankry (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As Prcc27 did not stop controverssiaol uploads I banned them for a week. Ankry (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Ahonc

Earlier today I filed this mass DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Visem. The DR involves the uploads of a Ukrainian user and involves obvious violations of Ukraine FoP. Very soon after, Ukrainian admin Ahonc speedy closed the DR, saying that each image should be nominated seperately and that the death date of each author given. The majority of these are monuments or memorials that are post WW2, and author info is either impossible or very difficult to find. I've never seen such a requirement enforced or documented here. COM:PRP certainly doesn't require that, especially when the subjects of the DR are obviously modern with WW2 motifs and dates in the 1940s or more modern inscribed on them.

I also question the neutrality and objectivity of a Ukrainian admin speedy-closing a DR that concerns Ukrainian FoP vios. I've reverted his closure, as otherwise he's speedy keeping numerous obvious copyvios, which is against deletion policy. I don't want to fight or argue with him, and I think the opinions of other admins are needed. INeverCry 01:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of similar mass DRs which was speedy closed (not by me) and then renominated with separate requests.--Anatoliy (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Not with the self-created reasoning that all author death dates should be given (many of them could be alive), and not by an admin who may very well have a personal/nationalist interest in doing so. INeverCry 01:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, if you know Ukrainian laws better then me, please explain, from who should be permission if the author of monument is, for example, 'Moscow artistic factory' or 'Kiev sculpture factory' (according official monument lists)?--Anatoliy (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed this discussion as when I was writing my comment I had an edit conflict due to what seemed to be an edit war. I do not know what was the idea behind such nomination, but nominating 152 images from at least 4 different countries with some 50 or so objects pictured is definitely not a good way to go. I usually try to review Ukrainian FoP nominations and often happen to find irrelevant objects (the most exotic was a prehistoric sculpture dating back to 1st millenuium BC), but this nomination was definitely not made in order to get a meaningful discussion. After randomly checking a few photos and finding images from Russia, Moldova and Macedonia I had to give up as this was simply unmanageable. I would kindly ask any other administrator to confirm Ahonc's decision and require splitting this nomination into smaller ones, perhaps one per object, as I can't imagine any constructive discussion on such a horrible mess. Thanks — NickK (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

UPD: please do anything with this. At the moment files have no deletion templates (they were removed by Ahonc when he speedily closed the nomination), but the DR is still open, which is definitely not OK — NickK (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NickK here. At least one nomination should be limited to one country, and one type of subject. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I second NickK and Yann. DRs like Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Visem are not practical in the interest to research these cases thoroughly. There are multiple closures (including those by me) where we ask to split this. The death of the author does not need to be given. But it is obvious that in an FOP case not multiple countries should be mixed in one DR, and it is usually best to file each monument, sculpture etc. separately if you do not know that they come from the same artist. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

DR closed basing on the suggestions above. Please renominate its appropriate parts. Ankry (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

undo delete categories

Please if possible undo delete those categories , thanks

• Hurghada Coast
• Hurghada Boats Hatem Moushir (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Sindbad submarines

Hatem Moushir (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What about this? --A.Savin 15:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• what about Hurghada Coast and Sindbad submarines , they are now not empty , please if don't mind you return them Hatem Moushir (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done but next time just recreate them. Natuur12 (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Natuur12 You should actually know that such category names are wrong. --A.Savin 15:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on cats but please mention stuff like this s that things like this don't happen. You gave as deletionreason empty, they are not empty anymore so how do you expect people to understand what is wrong when you don't tell them what is wrong? Natuur12 (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Because I already commented it straight above (15:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)). But that explanation I gave on my talk page was completely ignored, both by "Hatem Moushir" (not surprising) and by you (surprising, since you're admin & experienced, or am I wrong?) --A.Savin 16:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I see, sorry, I missed something. Natuur12 (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Schnellstens

Please a second pair of eyes. User uploaded a lot of low quality porn images without an imaginable educational use. The images all have crude language titles. He don't react warnings and don't stop uploading these kind of images. A block for some days should be the best way to stop him. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked and uploads deleted already by A.Savin. --Túrelio (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Jesse Cook biography photograph needs to be replaced.

I'm an employee of CPR Entertainment, which manages guitarist Jesse Cook. We have a more professional image of him that we would like to use as the bio pic his Wikipedia page. How can we go about doing this properly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Cook

Thank you so much for your help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kje.social (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 October 2014‎ (UTC)

Please upload new better pictures. It is better to send also OTRS-permission. After that you can use the photos in wikipedias. But do not delete photos from galleries in Commons, I reverted that edit. Taivo (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Answered at Commons:Help desk#Photo replacement (permanent link), which is a more appropriate venue. Please do not crosspost. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

SVG replacement, spam template, uncivil behavior

This section concerns Gustavo Girardelli. It allows me to describe some issues, report the revert actions I did and warnings let to the user.

Overwrite of existing files.

Gustavo Girardelli created new SVG schemas and overwrote existing ones by these ones. These changes weren't consensual: color changes, adding Spanish text to blank schema (or to schema with very few words), change of orientation, etc. Oh and the SVG are usually the triple of the weight of previous ones.

Cobra bubbles overwrote some, used on wikis, and were reverted by Gustavo. I asked Platonides, as he speaks Spanish and Gustavo Giradelli doesn't speak English, to notify user and explain him the situation.

We can now consider he now has been invited to upload them as new files, but seems to grudge about that. The compliance of this request in the future should be observed.

After having been notified of the best practices for derivative works, he didn't spontaneously uploaded them as separate file. Instead, he lost time to create a template only to tell Cobra bubbles he's childish (see below). I so reverted myself everyone of the files he overwrote to protect the Commons files.

Civility.

I've also warned the user to stay civil and to avoid personal attacks after he created this template to let this message to Cobra bubbles.

Spam template.

Gustavo Girardelli is proud of his work. So proud he created three templates, one with GIF animated to include everyone of the work he did. And he added this template to every file. So everyone of the file he has created or overwritten contained a gallery of the other similar files.

The templates are:

• {{User:Gustavo Girardelli/credit}}
• {{User:Gustavo Girardelli/Otros}}
• {{User:Gustavo Girardelli/Fotos}}

These templates also added the unappropriated following message to each file: «¡Atención! Este no es un artículo enciclopédico, sino un espacio de trabajo personal. No lo edite.». Rough translation: “!!! Warning !!! This isn't an article of the encyclopedia, but a personal work space. Don't edit.”.

I removed these templates of the files. Cobra bubbles let him a sufficient explanation of the issue, alas currently in English.

Block.

Despite an established disruptive behavior, I haven't found useful to block the user. He has been warned of the situation, received explanation on every topic (except the templates in Spanish, warnings were in English only) and we can see if he's intelligent enough to take in account the warnings.

--Dereckson (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I asked him not to overwrite them again. We shall see what he does. He seems to (purposefully?) be misunderstanding the requests not to replace the images with his own.

I should note that he had asked me about what to do with a user that blanked one of his user subpages (he failed to mention that it was used on file pages). Cobra bubbles initially acted without explaining his actions but after leaving him a comment, he has been trying to conversate with Gustavo Girardelli. I fail to understand the way Gustavo answers sometimes, though.

User:Gustavo Girardelli/Taller is completely childish, I also added a comment in Spanish at the warning about it.

Platonides (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is this diff. Cobra bubbles seems to have choose this quick solution to remove what he considers a spam (and I concur) in the articles. He didn't considered or noticed the templates were also used in Gustavo Girardelli user space.

En fait, je ne voulais pas blanchir une de ses sous-page mais enlever le message des fichiers. Je n'avais pas compris que le modèle était directement lié à la sous-page (In fact, I don't wanted to blanked one of his subpages, I only want to remove the message from the files... I didn't remark that it was a template linked to his subpage)...cobra bubbles (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Even with VisualFileChange gadget (who doesn't read links from special pages results), it's not a quick and easy operation to remove a template from every media transcluding it, so I would have considered absolutely fine the quick blanking by Cobra bubbles if he would have documented the rationale in the summary edit of the blanking. --Dereckson (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Denniss deleted the User:Gustavo Girardelli/Taller page with the rationale Out of project scope: personal attack. I noticed taller means draft / studio in Spanish, and remembered the page were used to test templates modifications. So I restored it with the rationale This page is in project scope, as it's a draft/studio space, so I restored it and reverted to the revision before the personal attack., and then reverted the last version with the delete comment as edit summary: Undo revision 136916622 by Gustavo Girardelli (talk) : out of scope - personal attack. --Dereckson (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Spam template. Again.

In two now uploads, [21] and [22], he added again the so-called gif animated / automated translation / spam template {{User:Gustavo Girardelli/credit}}.

Could an administrator speaking Spanish explain to him why this template isn't appropriate? --Dereckson (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Girardelli

Overwrite of existing files. Just a few examples.
File:ABS-8731.0-BuildingApprovalsAustralia-ValueNonresidentialBuildingApprovedBySectorOriginal SouthAustralia-TotalValueBuildingJobs-SouthAustralia-TotalSectors-EducationBuildings-A570307L.svg
File:A-Star3.svg
File:SVG Recognized color keyword names.svg
File:Cube svg int.svg
I did not create these templates

• {{Vector version available|XXXXXXXXXXXXX.svg}}
• {{tlr|Obsolete|Image:XXXXXXXXXXXXX.svg}}
• {{tlr|ShouldBeSVG|Map}}

I never insulted anyone, it was just smiles.

Español: cobra bubbles, tu actitud es infantil, debes madurar! English: cobra bubbles, your attitude is childish , you must mature! Français : cobra bubbles, votre attitude est puérile, vous devez mûrir!

if I offended, I apologize!.
I edited the template by request Platonides Editions
Nobody asked me to remove the templates never. Only they bleached... ...aggressively.
Bleaching of my user page Giragus 1° 2°
Propose deletion of File:Estatua de Mafalda (de Quino).jpg Even with rights.
{{CC-AR-GCBA}}
Erase it.
Now they just want to punish. Well give me punishment.
Greetings Girardelli G.Escucho 05:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't give punishment.

We search a solution satisfying everyone.

The best solution when there are several versions of a file is to provide these several versions, so everybody picks what's is suitable. So reupload everyone of your files, you can use for that the Special:Log link I gave you in your talk page (or noted on the Platonides talk page I don't remember).

The FoP issue has nothing to do with the issue. It's a part of our regular process to ensure each of our files is properly licensed. It's a matter of Libertad de panorama, explained on Commons:Freedom of panorama#Argentina.

The Giragus incident were to protect your own interests, against identity theft. Imagine someone in the future claims to be you and edit your page. You now know we watch these things to avoid that.

Do don't take things personally and remember what your goal here were at first: upload new schemas of automobile circuits. This activity is most than very welcome, as long as you upload these files as your own, instead to overwrite existing files. --Dereckson (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Want to revoke your contribution? Now possible, ask Fastily

See here. Several files were "courtesy" deleted for no apparent reason. Files that were in scope and that had been at Wikimedia Commons for over three months. This behaviour can cause severe problems for reusers. What if the uploader gives the files to Getty Images after the "courtesy" deletion? Then reusers run the risk to get high bills from Getty Images and it will be difficult for them to show that the files had been released into a free license. Jcb (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As you wish -FASTILY 23:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hidden non-relevant, sexist conversation. (Hidden by Josve05a (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC))

:Tsk, tsk, JCB, tsk, tsk. Time of the month? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Negative sir, I'm a male :-P - Jcb (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Women get PMS, men suffer from it! ;) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC) @Fred the Oyster: Please stop this. You are not in a boy-bathroom. Yann (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC) If you don't look at mine, I won't look at yours. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• I blocked User:EurovisionNim. Disruptive editing (See all the warning on users talkpage) and personal attacks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

File:BMW5SERIES2012.jpg was also deleted by uploader's request but for no apparent reason: it is not low quality, it is in scope and has no privacy issues (no license plates visible). Therefore I believe it should be restored. ℳ₪Zaplotnik^contribs 10:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've checked all their uploads, and they are low quality. So, it would be good for Commons to indef "EurovisionNm", as anything else is counterproductive troll-feeding. --A.Savin 10:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I changed the block settings to three months and e-mail access revoked (sending unwanted e-mails). If you (or someone else) want to indef. him, feel free. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The implicit accusation that Fastily (talk · contribs) would use a request for a courtesy deletion as a mere excuse to justify yet another deletion can be easily disproved by listing examples of such DRs rejected by Fastily on grounds of unrevocableness, either as a keep-voter or as the closing admin. That would greatly reduce the animosity of this thread and allow use all to focus harmoniously on our common tasks and goals. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

DragosAlexandrescu

Hi, I blocked for 3 days DragosAlexandrescu (talk · contribs), RomaniaUnified (talk · contribs) and Nicolaeradulescu (talk · contribs) for reuploading 3 times the same copyvios with 4 different accounts. A CU might be needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Other accounts are Nicolaeradulescu (talk · contribs) and Temphv2014 (talk · contribs). See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lupu1.JPG. Feel free to give a longer block. Yann (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Indef. blocked all accounts --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyfraud cover-up / CC License trouble - The licenses are CC-licensed; the logos aren't.

Anyone willing to touch this? It's been at AN before.

This involves a copyright violation - copyvio per http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#May_I_use_the_Creative_Commons_logo_and_buttons.3F the CC logos themselves are not CC-licensed. IMO, we MUST use a special template for CC license icons just like the one we have for Copyright by Wikimedia]. Intentionally misleading our users about legal issues is utterly unacceptable. And that's what the current File:Cc-by-sa.svg page does - it LIES - it tells users the content is CC-licensed. It's not, and admin, User:Denniss (thereby notified) is covering up that fact and using admin powers to prevent regular users from addressing it directly. Another admin, Cirt, suggested I bring this up in a broader forum, so here goes.--Elvey (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Administrator closed deletion discussion of their own upload, keeping it.

Administrator closed deletion discussion of their own upload, keeping it. - User:Fastily did a close:Keep of a file User:FastilyClone uploaded.--Elvey (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

For your information, the uploader is not FastilyClone or Fastily, but Dumond.stephane. Fastily only transfered it to the appropriate location. Jcb (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gendbuntu_12.04_screenshot.png&action=history sure looks like he's the uploader to commons. --Elvey (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Heh, funny, you removed my info tag from this post; to Andy Dingley's post above, porting my point. I don't appreciate you deleting my comments.--Elvey (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: First of all, you nominated this file without reaseaching!

There were several discussions about the Mozilla logos and its allowed ussage, and several years ago, Mozilla were changed the licensing of the logos. Currently, the Mozilla logos are licensed under the MPL-GPL-LGPL Tri-license from Firefox 3.5, and under the Mozilla Public License 2 from Firefox 23 and later (after 2012); the logos are still copyrighted, but them are currently free, again, according to the MPL2 and the MPL-GPL-LGPL Tri-license.

Also, there are several files corresponding of the Mozilla logos. Most of them were nominated for deletion early, because the more restrictive licensing (before Mozilla were changed it). But after a large discussion (In the Mozilla Foundation, the WMF, and also the Debian Project in the case of Iceweasel) and changing of the licensing of the logos (once again, under the MPL), most of these file has been kept/undeleted, and the newer uploads and later versions of the logo are currently allowed in Commons.

And also, neither user were removed your comments! See the History closer. The last edition of Fastily was in August 9, and you opened this second DR the October 9 (two monts after), and my only edition consisted in a comment why the file should be kept (with very strong reasons), without hiding any of the your arguments reasoning the deletion.

Please learn more about the licenses, and specially, the Mozilla logos licensing. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I have learned quite a bit about Mozilla, Tux, and CC logo licenses over time - as I've noted most recently here. (And this is BAD! and WHAT THE HELL??? Having a hard time understanding much of what you've said; there seem to be some grammar issues. When I said "I don't appreciate you deleting my comments." I meant it. Are you trying to tell me that Jcb didn't delete my comments? The edit history shows he did, and thinks he was justified in doing so. Perhaps it is, but at least over on en, I believe it would be inappropriate. --Elvey (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The huge problem here is you are mixing discussions of different files and other such, and you are not clear with what you are talking about. Also, you assumed bad faith several times by addressing offensive messages to the administrators, and also in this thread (the main reason the admins revert your editions, that you request explanations later).

This thread is about specifically (as you started) File:Gendbuntu_12.04_screenshot.png, kept three times because you didn't aported strong reasons for deletion. The Mozilla Firefox logo (3.5 to 22) is covered under the MPL-GPL-LGPL Tri-license, so, all works released under the Tri-license are allowed in Commons. The problem here (that you should be started this discussion) is with the file:Tux-G2.svg, with restrictive license (non-commercial only). But, the derived Tux-G2 (edited with a such uniform of the Gendermerie) as an icon in the Unity sidebar may be considered de minimis in this screenshot, because is not the main subject of this free capture (and also, this derived Tux-G2 appears to be part of the distro). I've opened a thread in the Village Pump to discuss the porblem with this file (Tux-G2). --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: See also this and this Deletion requests. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I notice that the issue of the OP - Administrator closed deletion discussion of their own upload, keeping it - hasn't been addressed.--Elvey (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Is it appropriate for an admin to, after nominating a file for deletion, but having the discussion not go his or her way, delete a file him or herself, ignoring the discussion points? I think not. (The admin in question refused to discuss the issue, though I brought it up using exactly those words, claiming that the question was hostile!) Before naming names, I'd like to know if it's appropriate or not. --Elvey (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Only with a link to the case we are able to review the case. Jcb (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the discussion points. If, for example, the reason for nomination was possible copyright violation, and the discussion points were all about how important the image is then, yes, that would be entirely appropriate. So you are going to have to give a concrete example before anyone can weigh in meaningfully. - Jmabel ! talk 00:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, but good example - helps prove my point. About 4 users commented, all disagreed with the nominee. Even if their points were weak, it's not appropriate, IMNSO. Judge and executioner should not be the same person. Period. --Elvey (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please provide the link of the DR. --Dereckson (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What part of "Before naming names, I'd like to know if it's appropriate or not." do you not understand?--Elvey (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Is obvious that you don't know the current licensing of the Mozilla logos. If you think my arguments why the file should be kept is weak (MPL-GPL-LGPL Tri-license), please research deeper abouth them. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: The DR that Elvey refers is the above thread. Opening a second thread inmediatelly after the above is a loss of time. And also, the current licensing of the Mozilla (MPL-GPL-LGPL Tri-license and MPL) logos allows to publish them in Commons, so stop assuming bad faith! --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  That's not true. That's not true either. I'm not. Stop assuming I'm assuming bad faith! You're assuming bad faith by claiming to know that this is about the same thing as the thread it's been merged into. It's obviously not. See what I just bolded, above. I do see that the Mozilla logos are free; I wasn't aware of that; administrators have made similar mistaken assumptions. example of one that still needs fixing --Elvey (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• And there is some other backgrounds too. :) Jee 13:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, the user nominated this file with very weak reasons (copyrighted != non-free, see the MPL and specially the GPL), but he alleged another DRs as stupid in his User page. That likely means the user expect to follow the Commons policies in his way bypassing the community concensus (specially for templates created by him without community concensus and a huge ignorance of the copyright laws), and I think he is not assuming good faith with his whole actions in Commons. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Threads merged. --Dereckson (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

---

•  Comment: DR resolved as speedily kept by Yann. Administrators, please consider to close this thread. Keep a few eyes on the file and the DR if the user opens again the same DR. The Mozilla Firexox and Thunderbird logos in the screenshots are covered under the MPL-GPL-LGPL Tri-license; any other DR may be considered disruptive. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I was actually asking about a completely different deletion discussion -- about a different file -- deleted by a different administrator, Dereckson . --Elvey (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In this case, you SHOULD specified the file/page with diffs and all neccesary to start a discussions. We are not diviners! --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In any case, the merge with the thread above was inappropriate and should be undone. Any objections? And on what basis do you see fit to ignore my comment: "Before naming names, I'd like to know if it's appropriate or not."? --Elvey (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, you should started the new thread with the apropiate information and evidence (is your responsibility), we are not diviners. Administrators should not waste their time in threads that lacks of basic information (there a hundred of issues that Admins must deal every time), and specially in two threads that appears to be the same. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Clocks by night edit warring

Hans Haase (talk · contribs) is edit warring to keep photos in Category:Clocks by night that do not show anything that would indicate that these photos are taken at night.Bec tube clock.jpg&curid=13060783&diff=137427229&oldid=137424491[23][24][25][26][27][28] Partly he seems to believe that his personal speculation about EXIF data and the time shown by the clock (yes, really), or even how many people are visible on the photo[29] is sufficient to categorize an image, which is obviously not how we do categorizations. Could an admin please look into this, as I don't want to edit war further? He has not responded to my attempt at discussion on User_talk:Darkweasel94#Editwar. darkweasel94 09:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warrior reported himself. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 09:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Darkweasel94 (talk · contribs) photos in Category:Clocks by night. Severalt times edit warring without discussion and ignoring edit comments. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 09:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Seid ihr beide schon erwachsen oder sind wir hier im Kindergarten? Oder mit anderen Worten: es kann doch wirklich nicht wahr sein, dass ihr euch über solch eine Frage in die Haare kriegt. --Túrelio (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• 
  EXIF 01:47, 24. Apr. 2007 fits uploaders information, electric light only
• 
  EXIF 22:30, 18. Nov. 2013 in tolerance of adjusted camera clock setting and photo shows street lights outside and typical number of people on the platforms for this time
• 
  Clock displays "PM". Light of CCFL leftside the clock radio only.
• 
  Clock shows "0:01", proofs it is in 24-h-mode. Picture is dark. A Clock und 12-h-mode with AM/PM display "12:…" only. In never display "0:…". Btw. the picture has been modified by the author.
• 
  untypicla number of people on the platforms for daytime, may be I am wrong in tihs picture, but check the Schedule of the Vienna Tube
• 
  untypicla number of people on the platforms for daytime, may be I am wrong in tihs picture, but check the Schedule of the Vienna Tube
• 
  Light of CCFL visible, only. EXIF of the Camera is within tolerance of former adjusted time and daylight saving.

7 Pictures, one schedule to check for evidence, I am not the warrior. Btw. I created the Category. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 10:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Users are expected to collaborate with others, and once it is known that there is a disagreement should discuss the issues on the relevant talk page rather than repeatedly undoing other users' contributions. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hans Haase you and Darkweasel94 (at the very least, preferably other users too) need to agree on criteria that will be used for that category. It's a new category, there's no clear guidelines for what constitutes a clock by night, agree on that first rather than continuing to edit war. Nick (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all, I wil give the category a specification on it's page. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 10:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed two of my images added to this category. I reverted these edits as one was outside during the day (albeit not a very bright photo) and the other was inside showing a clock on a black screen. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, this should really be Clocks at night. Clocks by night would be a metacategory which would contain categories which show clocks on particular nights, eg "Clocks on the night of 20 October 2014". -mattbuck (Talk) 11:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. If somebody think it is an idea to automatically move the category to Clocks at night or Clocks by nighttime, you may do so. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 12:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This is really ridiculous. I guess I should go and categorize other indoors photos into subcategories of Category:Night, because it might be dark outside, because EXIF, because few people, or because the clock shows some specific time. But I won't do that because that would violate COM:POINT. I will note here that Hans Haase continues to edit war even while this discussion is ongoing: [30], [31], [32], [33] (this one is the most ridiculous, this isn't even a photo, so no night can possibly be visible), [34], [35] I'm disengaging from this for now. darkweasel94 13:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted some and warned Hans Haase. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly the warring parties will be interested in this suggestion of mine. YLSS (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

can't be that difficult to get an basic understandig of these diagrams pending on the coords for each photo.

@Yann, the problem was solved and user:Darkweasel94 said "I'm disengaging from this for now."and I decleared how to use the category, I created yesterday and added the picturtes with permission. You did not read, you only reverted the edits by following the revert of Darkweasel94 in a blind way. In the gallery above I gave reasons, why the pictures have been added to the category. Don't continue edit warring as another user. @YLSS, no, the 24h is not the answer in this issue. The created category should categorize between daylight and night time. As in winter time in the northern sphere the nights are longer, the photos have been added into this category where they belong to. See categories on COMMONS, there is much more possible. If you don't like, create and use other categories, but do not hurt existing ones and even add your categories into others whenever they fit, but never interrupt the project in personal issues. I declared every edit. Recent reverts have no reason exept following a personal oppinion. It is okay to review edits, but it is clear now: By tomorrow you will make, this category contaning 206 pictures and no one less or have a valid evidence for each picture to keep it removed. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 22:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hans Haase: , I have noticed adding some of photos I uploaded to this category and decided to comment on it. Please not that the fact there are few people on the platform does not mean anything: you wrote there are too few people at File:UbahnWienU3.JPG, but you can see same number of people if you look for this station at Panoramio or Structurae, thus this photo could be taken at any time. Such approach is useless: there is no difference between a photo of clock at night and a photo of the same clock in the afternoon provided the clock in question never sees daylight. This criterion has no encyclopaedic value, as if one looks for clocks at night he or she will most likely want to see the clock with night clearly visible and not just where one can suppose (and not prove) it was at night — NickK (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem I see is that it's always night somewhere on the planet, so unless you're planning on getting very complicated time zone sub-categories this category is less than useful. This is a perfect example of over-categorisation and simply a waste of time (unless one is very OCD I suppose), resources and brain power. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

+1. Hans, in many cases (including the ones I reverted), your categorization doesn't make sense. You cannot just assume it is night based on some convoluted deductions. Categories should be based on facts only. Any way, if there is opposition, do not add categories. Discuss first until you reach a consensus. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I found a current schedule of the Vienna Underground.[36] In the rushhours the schdule is maximum 5 mins or less, else it's 5 and more mins. Operating beginns between 4:30 and 5:15 and ends between 0:00 and 0:30. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 22:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

File renaming

Hi. According to Commons:File renaming there is 7 accepted reasons to rename and some cases where renaming is not accepted. If you look on the move log some files are moved even if they file move do not match one of the accepted reasons.

So what do we do about that? Nothing? Talk to the user? And what if the user do not care? Do we ignore it? Do we remove the filemover right? --MGA73 (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Example? --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I just picked a few random renames that I do not think meet the excisting rename reasons even if the new names look better:

1. 18:29, 20 October 2014 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs | block) moved page File:Katedrala 2.JPG to File:Crkva imena Marijinog, Novi Sad (2014).jpg (there are hundreds of Katedrala (cathedrals) in the world; old name is not meaningful) (revert)
2. 13:57, 20 October 2014 Bohème (talk | contribs | block) moved page File:China garden SPb.JPG to File:Saint Petersburg Chinese Garden 02b pond.jpg (meaningless file name) (revert)
3. 11:56, 20 October 2014 Krassotkin (talk | contribs | block) moved page File:D-P034 Nicht falten oder zusammenschieben ty.svg to File:DIN 4844-2 D-P034 Nicht falten oder zusammenschieben.svg (File renaming criterion #6: Harmonize file names of a set of images (so that only one part of all names differs) to ease their usage in templates (e.g. diagram symbols, scans of pages of a book, maps, etc.).) (revert)
4. 10:18, 20 October 2014 Steinsplitter (talk | contribs | block) moved page File:, trap - Heusden - 20112140 - RCE.jpg to File:Trap - Heusden - 20112140 - RCE.jpg (File renaming criterion #6: Harmonize file names of a set of images (so that only one part of all names differs) to ease their usage in templates (e.g. diagram symbols, scans of pages of a book, maps, etc.).) (revert)

No 1 and 2 claims that the old name is meaningless but meaningless is something like File:22785u9ob807b3c4f4.jpg and File:DSC_1342.jpg. No 2 and 4 says it is to ease their usage in templates but they do not seem to be used in a template as far as I can tell.

They are just examples.

Perhaps the strict policy to rename as little as possible is no longer needed but so far there were not concensus to make it less strict. If there are no good reasons not to rename it is better to change the policy instead of taking up a discussion with users that move too many files. --MGA73 (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with my filemove? The ", " at the begin of the filename is not needed. Ridiculous... --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(Offtopic) This protection is wrong. Files used in the interface should be protected [upload=sysop] [move=sysop] --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Currently, Steinsplitter and me operate most of the Delinker requests. (I guess some of these files were actually approved by me). I tend to interpret criterion #1 (meaningless name) more broadly than MGA73 does it, and generally I do not see much harm in moving these files. (I personally only move really meaningless names such as IMG2876554a.jpg). However, if there is consensus here that this criterion should be applied more strictly I will apply it more strictly. Concerning #6, I guess it does not require that the images are already in use in a template in at least one project. However, if the consensus is they should be already in use, I will only approve these which are already in use (which actually would make things difficult for Delinker operators, but not critically).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Sorry did not notive the ",". But the stated reason is wrong then.

Anyway you do not need to stalk my edits to look for a reason to "give pay back" just because I used one of your edits in an example. But now you mention the wiki-logo I can inform you that the logo is not yet in use in the interface at no wiki. That is why I only gave it semi protection. --MGA73 (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at your log is not stalking imho. I don't see the need for this protection. I generally ignore such things because nobody is perfect and because we are humans and humans making error. I see no need to make drama because a rename reason isn't 100 perfect (talking about my move). Commons has a big backlog, it isn't possible to progress thousands of requests 100% perfect. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not misunderstand me. I do not expect that anyone is 100 % perfect.

I do not mind that other users check my edit. I just do not think it is helpful if it is done as "pay back". The only reason I protected the nn-logo and the no-logo is that the local files on these wikis are moved to Commons in a few days hopefully and I hope that the two wikis will decide to use the logo on Commons in a few weeks. I think it would be nice if the logos are not vandalized by ip-users while the discussion goes on locally.

If a user finds out that renames are not done perhaps then the user will stop suggesting renames and that would reduce the backlog. So I think it is a good idea to find out if we rename too much or not.

And cheer up. Do not be upset just because a fool like me steps on your toes. --MGA73 (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Ymblanter A file does not have to be in use in a template to meet #6 but I think that there should be a template somewhere where the set of files could be used.

Perhaps it was the wong place to bring it up because it seems that focus may be who is mentioned in the examples instead of should we do something about file moves or not. --MGA73 (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@MGA73: Honestly, I can't understand why you report this here. I don't see any issue with the renaming above... Regards, Yann (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I know that not all agree om when to rename or not. And if most users think like you then we should just change Commons:File renaming and problem is solved. But if someone move files agains consensus we should decide if we do something about it or not. --MGA73 (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone could just close Commons:Requests for comment/File renaming criterion 2 … @Rillke: Progress with "enforcing" the first RFC?    FDMS  4    19:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice if we close this RFC before we discuss this further. No need to spend more time checking old edits if policy is changed. --MGA73 (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Personally I couldn't give a toss what COM:FR (or timewasting RFC) says, it's simply a guideline, official or otherwise.. My own personal guideline is, if the name is improved, is clearer, is more accurate by the time I've finished then I'm good to go regardless of what any other criteria says I can or can't do. If folks don't like it then they need to remove my filemover bit. Just my 2c. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with Fred - it's simple: users can, and should should apply common sense to situations where common sense is required. I see no reason to squander volunteer time nitpicking file moves especially given that there is no obvious benefit in doing so 😮 -FASTILY 01:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • A big +1. Josve05a (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the point in having filemoving criteria (not suggestions or ideas, but criteria) when they are being interpreted as "everyone can do whatever he/she likes until he/she is no longer technically able to do so"? Although judging by the above comments it seems that idea has become less popular, I still believe that community consensus (or "timewasting RFC", as Fred the Oyster calls it) is worth more than personal opinion when it comes to contributing to an open project.    FDMS  4    02:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think those of us who think COM:FR is a good guideline just need to accept that files will be renamed whether or not they actually meet that guideline (or even whether or not they meet something explicitly listed there as not being an acceptable reason – removing a comma at the beginning of the filename is definitely a case of "looks a bit better"). With no guarantee that even the language will be preserved, with no guarantee that actually useful information like the Flickr ID or the filename on the uploader's computer will be preserved, and with an added bonus if the new name makes files of one series no longer stand together alphabetically in categories. That's now the state of file renaming on Commons – no one enforces these guidelines, no one will move File:Yellow Trabant 601 at a street in Vienna, Austria.jpg back to File:2012 Wien 0228 (8102865895).jpg, or File:Biberhaufenweg 3.jpg back to File:Biberhaufenweg (dewiki).jpg, nor remove the responsible filemovers' bits, so we'll just have to live with people enforcing strange Wikipedia-like naming conventions for files on Commons (where filenames are supposed to be unique identifiers for files, but not much more). darkweasel94 07:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Disputed territorial maps

• File:Flag map of Ukraine from 2014.png
• File:Flag map of Russia from 2014.png
• File:Flag-map of Ukraine.svg
• File:Flag-map of the Russian Federation.svg

There is a dispute between myself and Elmor over several maps which display disputed territories, specifically Crimea as a consequence of the recent events between Russia and Ukraine. Back in august, I added this template too these maps simply stating that they display disputed territorial situations which make them unsuitable for use on Wikipedia articles where NPOV rules would apply. Repeatedly, Elmor has removed these templates under the statement "let projects decide it themselves". Furthermore, in our brief discussion on my talk page, Elmor has accused me of attempting to intimidate users away from using these files, and possibly of intentional hypocrisy because other non-neutral maps don't have similar templates.

Quite frankly I do not understand Elmor's defiance of a simple truth that these maps are unsuitable for NPOV-governed articles, or their hesitation of having these templates on the maps. There is nothing stopping their use, and in fact they are used including places where they probably shouldn't if NPOV was being rightfully observed. The point of the template is simply to give extra warning and is completely harmless. It appears to me more of a case of pride and file ownership than any real reason to object to the warning. However since Elmor absolutely refuses to allow these warnings to be on "their" files, I seek wider opinion. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hello! Here are a few points to clarify my position. 1) I do understand completely that files on Commons have no owner. 2) I think that is it not to Fry1989 (or any other users) to judge whether these map are unsuitable for Wikipedia or another projects, but for these projects’ respective communities, as long as the legitimacy of their presence at Commons themselves is not questioned (as it is not). 3) These maps reflect an important aspect of the situation – the de-facto one. De-facto, as we know, Crimea is controlled by Russia. Elmor (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not passing judgment on my own, it is very obvious these maps violate NPOV. You're accusing me of trying to intimidate users away from using these files, which if I was trying to do I must be very bad at because they are in use. The templates are harmless, your opposition I can not understand. I have added similar templates before in the past, most noticeably to File:Flag map of Armenia, new.svg which deliberately shows a situation that is neither the physical or legally recognised de facto situation. These maps dipicting Crimea as part of Russia I see no difference in. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't like this template. And it's not itself a NPOV template, as it uses a POV state borders are defined by international recognition. --Dereckson (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

And would you elaborate on why you dislike it? Or provide an alternative template to use? It very simply and harmlessly states that the map in question displays a disputed situation and therefore is unsuitable for NPOV-governed articles. That's all it does, it stops nobody from using it, it simply provides extra warning about the map's status. I even tried to write the warning in the most neutral way possible, stating no opinion on which side is right but simply that the map is disputed and unsuitable. There are thousands of maps on Commons and most are uncontroversial, but some display disputed situations and they should be properly labelled as such. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

By definition any map of any disputed territory, regardless of who is holding the reins, is inaccurate. It can't be anything else but until the dispute is settled and becomes stable. A template that points this out can be nothing but helpful. It doesn't matter if you have a Ukrainian viewpoint or a Russian one, the map is still inaccurate until there are signatures on the bottom of a document, and even then it will still be inaccurate until the dust settles and the intricacies of border definition are finally ironed out (or at least reasonably close to being ironed out). In any case what harm does this template do? And saying that it "scares" people off is at best hyperbole, at worst pure bullshit. And once again we have yet one more storm in a teacup. And a point from a Devil's advocate, ALL maps on Commons are inaccurate. After all this is a media repository, not a cartographer's wet dream. I suggest the pair of you get over it and go and do something useful as this discussion most certainly isn't helpful to anyone, anywhere. I somehow suspect that the residents of Crimea give less than a shit about what the maps on Commons say. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I won't move on, not until I am given a proper reason for why these maps should not be clearly labelled as disputed. Any of the reasons so far provided do not meet the most basic of why the maps being labelled so would be harmful. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This kind of maps are exactly the reason that the template is for. It's meant to avoid users in other projects to use the map incorrectly. The template is the minimum to avoid the confusion.

I'll say more than that. In part of the maps it is simply wrong to put the flag all over the map because the dispute entity is sometimes different entity and should have different flag. for example File:Flag map of Armenia, new.svg that was mentioned before. Even Armenia does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh so that flag map is wrong and misleading.

I even see that somebody, mistakenly or deliberately, replace the flag maps of template in the ru.wikipedia to File:Flag-map of the Russian Federation.svg. we can see that the template is much necessary. Geagea (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Fry1989 -- It was decided long ago that where there's a real dispute going on in the real world, Commons will not take sides, but will allow images expressing the various contesting viewpoints to be uploaded here, and leave it up to the individual language Wikipedias to decide which images to use. Obviously personal non-notable hoaxing or hatemongering should be quickly nuked, but otherwise Commons doesn't have an NPOV policy as such (just as Commons doesn't have a "no original research" policy as such), and it's really not our role to decide such issues for the various language Wikipedias... AnonMoos (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that Fry isn't deciding anything for anyone, but merely pointing out that the maps are inaccurate, which is indeed the case. The final decisions are made by whomever chooses which map for whichever wikipedia. The more information they have to work with must surely be beneficial? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

AnonMoos did you even bother to read anything I've said here or the actual wording I chose when I applied the template???? What part of "I deliberately tried to make the statement as neutral as possible" do you not understand? I shall repeat for your ignorant consideration: All the template says is that the map displays a situation that is currently disputed and that makes it unsuitable for NPOV articles. It states no opinion on which is correct nor does it forbid anyone from using the map. It is a notice, nothing more. If you're going to comment, at least know what you're talking about, instead of accusing me of trying to get these maps deleted or banned from use or whatever else you think I'm trying to accomplish because you didn't even bother to pay attention. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As the situation where Crimea is part of Ukraine is disputed by the Russian authorities, shouldn't the template also be placed on all maps that display the situation of Crimea being part of Ukraine? Or are those maps okay for use in NPOV articles? - FakirNL (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As Crimea is currently recognised as part of Ukraine by every country excluding Russia, that is the accepted legal status quo, which is why I have not added it to the maps showing the reverse. I would not stop other users from adding it themselves but I see no need. That does not change the question raised here, which is "Should maps that are deliberately in violation of NPOV be so marked so that users are aware they are unsuitable for articles governed by NPOV rules?". Fry1989 ^eh? 17:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your statement is incorrect, since it seems that at least Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, and Venezuela recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea. I'm really not personally pro-Putin, but I greatly prefer keeping hands off in such cases, since doing otherwise is a recipe for perpetual edit-warring on images connected with flashpoints from Western Sahara to Kosovo, on down through the list... AnonMoos (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to made a flag map of USA without Alaska. And also want to made flag map of Russia with Alaska (historically it was Rusian teritory). All this without the temple. Is it O.K. ?? -- 05:15, 21 October 2014 67.81.189.54

That would appear to contradict the "real dispute going on in the real world" proviso, since Russia handed Alaska over to the U.S. 150 years ago in a non-coerced treaty signed by the Tsar. However, we have equally ridiculous irredentist flag-map images on Commons, such as File:Flag-map of Balkan Federation (Belgrade capital city).svg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. Afghanistan, Cuba, and all other countries you have mentioned not counted. You still see, in all wikis, that crime considerd as a part of Ukraine. Only major countries. Non of the major countries recognised it and therefore no flag map is needed in whe wiki articles. They should be deleted.

AnonMoos, the reason such ridiculous maps as Russia claiming Alaska or a United Korea don't have the template added is because everyone knows they're fake! These maps about Crimea deal with a current territorial dispute that goes beyond paper or fantasy. Now you really don't seem to want to be honest about this issue, because you bring up false equivalents and accuse me of things I haven't tried to do, so maybe you should just shut up, or tell me why these maps should not have this warning on them with a real objection stating why it is harmful or wrong and not some bullshit comparison like "oh well this map doesn't so it's not fair". Fry1989 ^eh? 18:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for a resolution. Should maps that clearly and deliberately violate NPOV rules be so labelled as a reminder for users on projects that the file may not be suitable for use on articles where NPOV is the rule?. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} is not a regular task for commons user. It have to come after discussion in the files talk page of other place. Geagea (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Christ Church Cathedral Vancouver

I came across this page for Christ Church Cathedral Vancouver, which contains a picture of a church just up the street from it (St. Andrew's Wesley United Church). I don't really know how wikimedia commons works, but I do know that this is the image google seems to pull in searching for the church. Any thoughts on how to fix this?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Christ_Church_Cathedral_(Vancouver).JPG&oldid=64461653#metadata

I've renamed the file to File:St. Andrews Wesley Church (Vancouver).jpg, I don't know how long it will take Google to update their bit (we don't control that, they just cherry pick data from us, based on things like filenames). You may need to let Google know in a few days if it doesn't update automatically. Nick (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

File rename refusal

I have a constant problem with Admins refusing files to be renamed. Keeping calm about this issue unfortunatly failed already. The latest example is File:Polistes nimpha killing an Apis mellifera-20140819-3.jpg. There is obviously no doubt that the current file name is misleading since the Insect in the picture are in fact a Cerceris rybyensis killing a halictid bee of Lasioglossum genus. There is no Polistes nimpha nor Apis mellifera. Also there is policy of the commons that misleading file names should be changed (3. Correct misleading names into accurate ones [37]). Still there are many Admins here (I had to endure the ignorance of three of them by now) who insist in repeatedly reverting the rename request in files like these. I think reverting rename requests like this violates the codex Administrators should follow according to Commons:Administrators Administrators are expected to understand the goals of this project, and be prepared to work constructively with others towards those ends. Administrators should also understand and follow Commons' policies, and where appropriate respect community consensus.

Is there any procedure how I could stop this kind of project retardation? Regards --Aiwok (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what can be done in future, if anything, but I've moved&renamed it for you. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm; I would have rename it to "File:Cerceris rybyensis killing an halictid bee (Lasioglossum sp.) on a pot marigold (Calendula officinalis) in London.jpg" to satisfy all. :) BTW, it seems the file has "no permission" from "original author" (Emőke Dénes)? Jee 02:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment, some users (admins and filem overs alike) seem to be a little too strict when it comes to renaming files. I remember before I got my file mover right, I proposed a file be renamed and it qualified under 3 different policies for renaming. One user denied my request several times, and even opposed my request some time later to become a file mover in revenge when the file was renamed by someone else who agreed with me and over-ruled them. I finally got my file mover right 4 months later in a second request, but seriously some people are just a-holes. Don't give up just because some won't listen to you when you're right. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the request because controversial moves should be discussed first on the relevant talkpage to avoid drama, i don't know who is right. Instead of discussing this on VP or on the relevant talkpage the user is making drama here and on enwiki (1. Aiwok has used a very rude language on my and Marcus's talkpage, please note that we are all human volunteers here spending free time for commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

At last a proper Name! Thanks for that and of course sorry for the drama, but I found just no other way to resolve the issue. I tried use discussion pages and failed miserably then I tried mediation page which turned out to be focused on en:wiki only (still couldn't find out if there is any mediation for commons available) and this user problems notice board which fortunately worked well. The file page discussions seem to be rarely read so didn't start any efforts there (Please let me know if it still needs to be used in cases like this). Also I can tell you reverting users work will make most of them angry, especially if it happens without any proper explanation. It really drives me mad (most likely a little bit too much) if I see the efforts to improve the project being reverted without excuse. So if you decline a move or revert an edit then please give an explanation and even more important if someone protest against the revert consider the given arguments. It was the worst thing for me to see all my explanations and arguments simply being set to nought without any counter-argument. That was the point when the urge to punch somebody was really high.. So if you admin guys want to keep the drama low use your power wisely and of course take the users serious. They are also human beings spending their time to improve the project. Regards --Aiwok (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Britannique-Bretagne

User has altered File:Coat of arms of Finland.svg several times and has been reverted by myself and Denniss. Please revert and temporarily protect the file. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like the accounts was only created to overwrite files (see CA, zero edits because reuploads doesn't count as edit.). A lot of overwritten files. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Smells like a sock of Drawian/WPK if one compares the upload behaviour and the affinity to Finnish COAs/shields. --Denniss (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree so I blocked him indef. This account has "I am abusing multiple accounts" written all over it. Natuur12 (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I suspected it was a WPK sock but I didn't have solid evidence like I did for some of the others I've sniffed out. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Files by user Arsney

User:Arsney has uploaded a number of high quality files of top members of Nissan management, and high quality renders of upcoming Nissan models. What surprises me the most is that other editors are willing to use these clear copyvios in articles. Might there some way to make users responsible for introducing such blatant copyvios into the various project pages? That way these kinds of things might get reported instead of spread around.

• File:Новый японский автомобиль Datsun.jpg
• File:Datsun Russia Dealers ext.jpg - render
• File:Datsun Russia Dealers int.jpg - render
• File:DAT-Go.jpg - DON'T DELETE! Source is listed
• File:Винсент Кобе.jpg - cropped and desaturated Nissan photo; this makes it hard to find
• File:Жером Сего.jpg - as previous
• File:Карлос Гон.jpg - and again, see here

I do not have the time nor energy necessary to become an admin, but I would love to be able to block this kind of nonsense when I encounter it. Is there such a mid-level responsibility available? mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No response here but I see everything has been deleted. Thanks! mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of Григорий225?

Namely Grigori94 (talk · contribs). File:Обновленная станция Текстильщики.jpg is certainly a copyvio, some other of his uploads (screenshots at the least) likely as well. YLSS (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Vitalpost

• Vitalpost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Possible m:Role account, keeps uploading images with no permission of living subjects, despite multiple warnings on user talk page, from multiple admins. -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Two deleted edits, I don't think this is worthy of admin action currently. Though I think I've seen those pictures before somewhere? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The uploads appear to have the single purpose of supporting the article on Geir Bjørklund, see en.wp contribution history. Approaching them on their en.wp talk page might be more fruitful as though they appear to have a single purpose, they have been active on this since 2011. --Fæ (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mattbuck and Fæ: We've tried that already over there, no response from the account. Account just keeps up same behavior pattern. -- Cirt (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

user bm-corp : massive copyvio uploads

FYI: lot of files got from the Net. --Animaloid (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Mass deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Fastily's close within less than a day

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. recommendations to parties included in #Proposal to close

---

The thread that this discussion refers to is now at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 47#Long term pattern of image overwrites of others by Fry1989. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned about Fastily's abrupt closure above, which is less than 22 hours since it was opened. I am completing a report for the evidence of revert warring throughout 2014 by Fry1989. Considering Fastily's involvement as an admin that has twice unblocked Fry1989 this year and (from memory) having previously abruptly closed and collapsed from view discussions about Fry1989's disruptive behaviour, I do not believe it is appropriate for Fastily to be repeatedly acting in a way that leaves these issues unresolved both for the community and for Fry1989 whether they can be sufficiently demonstrated or not.

I can complete my report and leave it pending updates and a future complaint by someone else about Fry1989 reverting their work, however this would seem to leave an unpleasant discussion hanging unnecessarily. --Fæ (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

One thing does seem to be clear is that no-one other than you gives a shit. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Complaints should be given a fair hearing. The discussion concerning Fry was unlikely to have led to action against Fry, but it may have led to discussion and perhaps consensus to expand the guidelines concerning image reverts/overwriting. Nick (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but such discussions do not belong to AN/U. In this case I completely agree with Fastily. Admin's should be able to do their real jobs instead of being bothered by personal conflicts between two users. Jcb (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Jcb, just because one party repeatedly claims there is a two party argument, does not make it true. Were it true, you might expect to see some interaction between myself and Fry1989 in advance of the above thread, there has been none. As for Fastily's close, their point of view as expressed by "Your ridiculous grudge match with Fry turned personal vendetta has no place on ANU" and their confusion that I am somehow connected with "WMF projects" (I have never been), might throw some doubt on their level of independence to be the final decision maker when it comes to admin actions taken here.[38] --Fæ (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Bravo, keep on beating that dead horse. You're doing a spectacular job making a fool out of yourself and undermining whatever credibility you have left. -FASTILY 23:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Didn't Pete Townsend use a similar excuse for when he was caught? "I was only doing it for the good of the children". It seems you, Fae, have discovered an until now, undiscovered, way of legitimising stalking. Kudos to your inventiveness. "I'm doing it for the good of the project", now where have I heard that sort of thing before?--Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Fastily, I had my credibility removed by the WMF in 2012, so it's not something I have to lose. You are the long term admin in this discussion. Perhaps rather than making personal attacks and giving Fred an opportunity to call me a stalker (Fred, really, considering your history?) and post a comparison to paedophile allegations, you should reflect on whether admins ought to act with an appropriate level of independence here on Commons. You are not. --Fæ (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly I have no history of stalking, none, nada, zilch, I don't give enough of a shit about anyone to stalk them. Secondly I made no comparison with paedophilia, I chose my words carefully so as not to so that I could concentrate on the excuse given, not the crime accused of. Though it really doesn't surprise me that you would go there as I remember your methods of discussion from a while back, ie play the "oh poor me, that cruel man has impugned my sexuality", says he that chooses a username that means "fairy". But nothing could be further from the truth. You are in fact stalking a person you quite obviously don't like and this is the way you go about making trouble for him. If anyone is being disruptive, it's you. But that's something you are very good at, but disguising it as being good for the project. No it isn't and no you aren't when you are in this sort of mentality. Is this the run-up for another attempt at adminship, because it isn't the behaviour of a normal user who just wants to get on and get things done. As for your WMF/credibility statement, well that presupposes that you had any to begin with. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Fae I don't understand what you want from me. When I first came to Wikimedia, I didn't understand a lot of the rules and I deserved several of my blocks. But I've learned and am still learning. Along with that, I've uploaded countless images, I've made friends even if you are not one, I've resolved many a dispute through discussion, I've sniffed out socks, I've been given trusted tools, I've done all sorts of things. I get in scrapes here and there but certainly not any recent ones, and still you want me put in a cage. That was the point of your AN was it not, to have some form of restriction placed on me? As I said on my talk page I am loosing steam, and this stunt you're pulling right now sure isn't helping. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no immediate reason for this discussion; so agree with Jcb that AN/U is not the right place for this discussion. I've no problem to allow it here as far as it is a friendly discussion with a generic scope (like to make a healthy guideline for overwrite). But I see only mud throwing and name calling; so suggest a speedy close. Jee 03:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first time that Fastily's making an early close of discussion, especially discussion that fry involved with. It is a part of encouragement that Fastily gives to bad behavior. Even if there no bad behavior as claimed, the early closing of discussion make the impression that there is some thing to hide.

I have shown clear case where Fastily removed early versions of file and removed the original uploader of file which becomes Fry as the the original uploader. But nobody cared. I stand after every word in that case. But nobody cared. I stand after every word in that case. later on, after another thread in COM:AN Fastily restored the original uploader. Geagea (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

And so the moral of the story is: if you ask politely, I'll be happy to oblige :) -FASTILY 07:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll be happy if you indicate what part of my word was not polite. Unpleasant yes but not un polite. I also think that if you answering to accusations it only means that they are correct. But if you wish to give us explantinos now it is ok with me.

So I appreciate if you answer, in a polite manner of course:

• 1. Why did you removed the original uploader in this file. Why at all did you removed old versions from the file? Why to hide the older edit waring in this file?

• 2. The file was highly in use. The version that the other wiki projects choose was the dark blue, why the last protected version if the file is the light blue (Fry's version)?

• 3. When you blocked User:Shyoon1, why you disabled the email, and editing his own talk page? You prevent him to apology on his word in the hit of a moment.

• 4. Why do you early closing the threads about Fry? There is any reason that User:Fæ not allowed to raise threads about Fry? Geagea (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Re #2, that was the final version as that was the colour decided on by the consensus. You did read the talk page of the flag? The great long discussion where the final colour was decided on by several people? But then it's obvious you don't let facts get in the way of a good vent.

As for #3 What business is it of yours?

Why do I get the impression that the folks with grudges are now starting to come out of the woodwork?--Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Gia has an obvious conflict of interest: it's no secret she's out to get me, and has been trying (albeit fruitlessly) for quite some time now. Believe it or not, I still don't know why she wants my head, but I'd be willing to bet cash that it has to do with the fact she dislikes Fry and resents me for intervening when she attempts to childishly harass him. So here's a public disclaimer: if I observe user(s) picking on another user for shits and giggles, then they can damned certain I'll be there shortly to kick their arses ;) Now if defending individual editors from baseless harassment/witch-hunt groupthink isn't an admin's job, then I certainly don't know what is. -FASTILY 03:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No, kicking arses is not the role of an administrator. You have lost perspective in this case and should have stepped back and let an independent administrator examine the long term pattern of revert warring being presented in the evidence, rather than suppressing basic evidence. I raised the original case here based on what I saw in reports this week, not because of "shits and giggles".

Please let evidence speak for itself, administrator action should not be directed by hearsay, neither should it be accompanied by tangential childish personal attacks. Emotive and non-neutral behaviour from those holding the mop can only lead to the community losing confidence in governance of the administration of this project. --Fæ (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh boo hoo, did I hurt your feelings? ;) That was sarcasm buddy, and in no way meant to be taken at face value. -FASTILY 18:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I am posting a comment in this thread is because I was pinged from the thread above that was closed too soon. I am far from spending my time by chasing after you Fastily. There was only one case where I raise a thread that you was involved in. The thread about File:Presidential Standard of the Republic of Korea.svg opened by User:Natuur12 and you was notified about it her. But you made no comment there and the thread filled with much background noise. You did not answer to any of the questions there and you suggested to answer now in a polite manner. So I did. But seems that you don't like the questions. It is not meter if you feel that I (male not a female) out to get you. The answers required, otherwise all my accusations are correct. At least in the case of The flag of Korea you abuse your admin tools and encouraged Fry to his behavior. Only admins can see the so-called "housekeeping" that made in this file, by I gave a list to all your "housekeeping" edits her. Geagea (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this is not the first time (by a long way) that user:Fry1989 has been the subject of discussions related to his behaviour, particularly regarding overwriting uploads. For example Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive_48#File:Republic of China National Emblem.svg, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 43#User:Fry1989, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 43#File:Flag of the Minister of Defence of Chile.svg, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 43#SiBr4 and File:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 44#Fry1989, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 45#User:Fry1989, File talk:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg, and others. It does not appear that user:Fæ was involved with any those discussions, and so user:Fastly's close does seem to be based on factual inaccuracies. The speed of the closure, particularly given Fastily's previous involvement with Fry1989, is indeed troubling - whether Fæ's allegations are correct or not, and if they are whether they are actionable, is something that the community must have the opportunity to discuss. If Fry1989 has done nothing wrong then discussion will show that rather than leaving him under a cloud as this closure has done. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh, how many times do I have to repeat myself!? @All: Read before you comment please! :) Fry doesn’t get any special treatment from me, I actually frequently close threads where there is counterproductive behavior such as flaming, trolling, witch-hunting, and/or harassment directed towards an individual. Regardless, I seriously don’t get why some people have such a fetish for going keyboard warrior on Fry; the bottom line is that we’re all volunteers collaborating to collect and curate images, so I suggest y’all get to work on that instead of wasting valuable editing time pointing fingers and playing tattle-tail with people you don’t like -_- -FASTILY 18:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fastily: , I don't have any issues with you and most certainly am not out to get you, but can you please answer the questions posed by Geagea above as if they were asked by me to you. Thanks, russavia (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry @Fastily: I am only really interested in #3. russavia (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It is beter that evryting be on top and no off top. Geagea (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As offered in the suppressed thread, I have updated User:Fæ/Fry1989 revert analysis. This shows more than 25 relevant examples to consider in 2014. As Fastily has descended to sarcasm and personal attacks, but is the administrator who appears to be most keen to control the mop with regard to Fry1989, I see no personal benefit in following this up for discussion to reach any positive resolution. --Fæ (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, your "personal benefit" is pretty obvious, i.e. dropping Fry in the shit because he's someone you don't like. And as it does seem like you, like most of us here, tend towards obsessiveness your current obsession is plain to see. Normal (rational?) people do not go to so much trouble just for a minor irritation on Common's butt. Which brings me to my second point... User:Fæ/Fry1989 revert analysis... <shudder> creepy! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Russavia, why should Fastily need to answer direct questions but Fae not? I asked Fae several times to provide recent examples of my actions they disagree with and to allow me to respond to them. They did not, instead they have put all this effort into collecting a history of my edits that may or may not be negative bit which can not be measured as either negative or not because they are removed from reality and placed in a sanitary list for a deliberate purpose. Fae has had it against me for a long time, but won't answer direct requests by me for elaboration. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

---

BTW, actually looking at Fae's User:Fæ/Fry1989 revert analysis, let me explain a few of these which again are taken out of context to make it look like I was edit warring negatively when I wasn't.

• File:MUTCD M1-7.svg I uploaded that file originally myself, and NO I'm not claiming I own it, but what I'm saying it I wasn't edit warring with myself. What happened was that several users wanted the file deleted as a duplicate of File:Forest Route 13.svg. Firstly, they are not exact duplicates. Secondly, my file is a road sign blank for "M-17" which is the United States' official government name for these forest signs, and it's part of a set of road sign blanks on my private page User:Fry1989/Gallery/Road Signs/United States. To prevent the file's deletion as a duplicate, I simply removed the route number. Imzadi1979 and Mitchazenia kept reverting me and putting the route number back on the file to be POINTY and get it deleted as a duplicate. Who were the real trouble makers here? Who were being POINTY here Fae? I think everyone can see.
• File:Civil Air Ensign of Fiji.svg I kept reverting this file because 5b6v, Suzuki Auto and JSYR (who I am convinced are socks of each other) kept altering the file and making it's file size bigger, but not actually making any improvements. The file is part of a set of Fijian flags which all use the same base code and colours. Therefore I was preventing vandalism.
• File:Ensign of the South African Air Force 1940-1951.svg Again as I explained in the above original AN that Fae started, I constructed the file using this source which shows the canton using the same 2:3 ratio as the national flag of the time, and not an elongated 1:2 that Suzuki Auto and B4567V kept altering without sources of their own.
• File:Diamond warning sign (orange).svg and File:Switzerland EU.svg I also explained quite well in the original AN while File:Coat of arms of Finland.svg is explained below in an AN I started.

As you can see pretty much half of Fae's collection of "revert wars" were actually positive, but you wouldn't know that just looking at the numbers, you actually need to ask me about them which Fae never did and has yet to acknowledge my answers either. So seriously Fae, try not to be so transparent in your witch hunt against me. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering the detached nature of Fae's collection of my "revert wars" as pointed out above, and that it is known Fae has disliked me for quite some time and this is a furtherance of their dislike of me, I hereby request that both User:Fæ/sandbox and User:Fæ/Fry1989 revert analysis be deleted. I see this as the exact same type of "shitlist" harassment as User:Maxxl2/notes (the DR of which may be seen here). Both are designed to make me look bad, both share a level of deliberate dishonesty based on distrust, and both serve no benefit. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Evidence over the past 10 months of revert warring is highly relevant for administrators to consider and track, particularly considering the significant number of times related complaints about Fry or by Fry come to this noticeboard, as noted here by Thryduulf with a sample of links from the archive, making it likely for us to see this issue return. The evidence is neutral, it is just a trimmed list based on records pulled from commonswiki using SQL, where Fry1986 has made at least 3 image reverts of others. This behaviour is highly unusual for any Commons editor, even highly active administrators (who would normally avoid such multiple reverts by protecting a file or entering into discussion to reach a consensus).

As Fry1989 puts it above "pretty much half of Fae's collection of "revert wars" were actually positive", meaning that the analysis is balanced rather than a manipulated "shit-list" with pretty much half of the 25 image histories shown to be of concern.

If we get in the habit of suppressing discussion and suppressing data, then what remains would be governing the project through patronage and off-wiki cabals. --Fæ (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Like you said, it's relevant to admins, the ironic part is that they aren't interested, only you are, a nobody in hierarchical terms. And yes it is a shitlist, it's creepy, it's stalkerish, it's unnecessary. Fry has already been punished for the events deemed punishable, and it's no good blaming Fastily for covering his ass. Fastily isn't the only admin here, and he isn't the only admin that's aware of Fry existence. So what do you want, Fry to be punished twice for 'crimes' committed? You aren't the only person who is aware of Fry's attitude, so why are you the only one who is going so well over the top that it's laughable. Because you are an obsessive who has it in for someone who irritates you. This is unprofessional, and a perfect example of why you are a nobody like the rest of us proles. Attitudes like yours, have no place here and are more likely to drive editors away than Fry's shenanigans ever would. You would have earned a fortune with the Stasi. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a real problem with AN when I come here with basic evidence of years long pattern of revert warring up to the current time to discuss and in response (with no actual evidence being supplied) I get personal attacks by being defamed as a stalker, accused of harassment, being on an obsessive campaign (recall, I have had no interaction with Fry1989 on this before flagging the hard evidence here) and compared with allegations of peodophilia and the Stasi. As I previously stated, because of Fastily's action, I no longer believe this will go anywhere at this time. I would like the report logged so the next time contributors complain to administrators about Fry1989's revert warring they can be treated with reasonable compassion and expect to have something done about it rather than being mercilessly trolled as anyone can see I have been here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh poor hard-done-by Fae, the real victim in all this. Going for the sympathy vote now? You reap what you sow. And if you'll note, all those "accusations" are comments based on your behaviour, not on you the person. With the exception of paedophilia, that accusation was never made. Strange how you mind made it go there though (and bring it up again to get the sympathy vote). --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Any mature person can see the comment Didn't Pete Townsend use a similar excuse for when he was caught? "I was only doing it for the good of the children". exactly for the paedophile related allegation it was intended to draw attention to. It's trolling, unfortunately it is neither clever nor achieves anything positive here. It is disruption and intended to ensure that nobody gets to actually discuss the revert warring issue that I raised for examination whether this clears Fry's reputation or not. --Fæ (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Any person trying to distract when things aren't going your way you mean. For the record, my comment was never about paedophilia. You made it about paedophilia, not I. My comment was based on Fae's justification of stalking Fry and then using "it's good for the project" as a rationale. Townsend's quote was high profile enough to allow others to understand. Fae, however, in his usual manner decided to use the aspect of that case that best serves his needs for his plaintive cries of 'I'm the victim here, poor me' (note the single quote, not a double quote). Given the amount of text above a fail to see how, in any way, shape or form I have prevented discussion. Just another example of Fae's hyperbole when things don't go the way he expected. And my Townsend comment wasn't meant to be "clever", it was meant to be relevant, which it was. And I agree, it most certainly wasn't positive for you, hence its use. It wasn't meant to be positive for you, which is why you didn't like it and decided to attempt your usual distraction methodology. And no, it isn't disruption, it's, in my view, an accurate representation of your behaviour, which, again in my view, is far more disruptive than Fry's. Your history demonstrates that you enjoy being at the centre of drama (apparently even if it reflects badly on you). If you can achieve both drama and the persecution of an individual at the same time then all the better. Incidentally, one doesn't need to have direct conversation or contact with someone to be irritated by them. Just because you haven't had many/any direct contretemps with Fry does not mean you can't possibly have no irritation or dislike. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Independent of Fæ's actions, and of other people's comments about him and his actions, this is just one of many examples of people with genuine concerns about the behaviour of Commons' administrators (and a few select others) being wilfully ignored, shouted down or harassed so as to avoid members of the admin corps facing scrutiny. I'm increasingly of the opinion that Commons needs independent, impartial oversight of users (including administrators), with the power to sanction those misbehaving and those falsely accusing others of misbehaving. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Maxx12's notes were designed to support that user's belief that I am an image thief, taking other users' images and claiming them as my own works. This is a claim that was easily proven false and was based on an immediate assumption of bad faith and a near-fanatical belief that it was true. Likewise, Fae's chart is designed to simply show my edits detached for their reality to make it look like I was doing all these edit wars, when if you actually examine them then at least half were positive actions. Fae likewise also has a near-fanatical belief that I'm a problem for Commons based on whatever negative interaction we may or may not have had. Fae's sub-pages should be deleted as well. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You know Fae, perhaps you wouldn't be accused of terms you take objection too if it weren't for a few different factors. First of all, we have extremely limited contact, which makes this creepy. You may not think so but I find it creepy and I'm uncomfortable with you collecting my edits. Secondly, I have not had any recent problems, which makes this seem unwarranted and more of an attempt to bring up old fights like they are fresh again. Lastly you have several times now refused my requests to talk with me about my edits you disagree with so we can have a dialogue about them, and even though you take at face value above my statement that at least half of your collection of my edits were positive ones, you do so only to further your claim that you are being neutral. Think it over. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Due to an apparent bias I propose that Fastily will step aside from now on (as an admin) when it comes to Fry. The same would be applicable to Fæ if he was an admin. I have the feeling that such a measure would facilitate to find a long-term solution. --Leyo 11:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose Fastily has done nothing wrong and has blocked me in the past showing capability of being neutral, Fae on the other hand has had it out for me for years so much so that they need to rely on dishonest charts. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Though a total of 11 different Commons administrators have had reason to block Fry1989 in the last 3 years, I can find no record of Fastily blocking Fry1989 (log). As for the database extract I have created for analysis of revert actions, verifiable records are by definition neutral, regardless of how much bad faith one tries to apply to them. --Fæ (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Given your history of irresponsibility I wouldn't be too keen to throw stones if I were you. Or is bringing that up a touchy subject? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Fastily blocked me on Wikipedia. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

He unblocked you twice by overruling another admin only hours later. I was referring primarily to hasty and unjustified closures of threads here on AN/U. --Leyo 19:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

He still blocked me! I don't care what your reference was about, Fastily has been on both sides when it comes to me. And overruling other admins is not that uncommon. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

He also increased the length of that block too. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We are on Commons, not en.wikipedia. --Leyo 20:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the same applies to your comments, therefore negating them. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean, sorry. --Leyo 20:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh how very convenient for you; "It happened on another project, that means we have to pretend like it doesn't exist!" That practice relates to punishing people for their actions elsewhere or bringing disputes from elsewhere to here. The fact Fastily blocked me exists and you can't just wish it away as much as you are trying now. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support I am not interested to review this case thoroughly. But it is always good for an admin to stay away per en:Wikipedia:INVOLVED if there is a slightest chance that he can be considered as a person with conflict of interests. I repeat, I didn't see clear evidence; but believe an admin should be free from even slightest doubts. Jee 02:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering you are unwilling to thoroughly review this case, you're hardly in a position to know whether such a conflict of interest does exist or is being manufactured. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Fry's dedicated opposition alone is a strong indication for the lack of neutrality of Fastily. --Leyo 05:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Says a person they are self-admittedly unwilling to even look and see for themselves whether or not there is a neutrality problem, but my calling them out on that proves them somehow right? Please. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

oh please. We would have over half of Commons Admins unable to function if we used your analogy. Though you clearly have your own agenda, maybe you should throw down the stick. Bidgee (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a strange interpretation. Yes, there were discussions on this problem before. Nothing happened. And now, we have the same pattern of controversial closure again.

I would like to ask Fastily to step back voluntarily from administrative actions in favor or against Fry for a few months at least. We certainly have several less involved admins who may decide. --Leyo 06:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think you're the only one who needs to "step back voluntarily" from this discussion, as there is no doubt in my mind that your 'coincidental' appearance here is in fact no coincidence. If you want to play grudge match, fine, let's play, but don't be going around dragging down innocent users as collateral damage. That's just sick. -FASTILY 07:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose I'm not see any bias from Fastily. I'm only seeing a witch-hunt. Bidgee (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose because Fry does not in fact get any special treatment from me and because Leyo has been out to get me for nearly a year now. -FASTILY 06:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment really you lot. You all need to grow up. Fae and Fry keep apart, don't darken each others doors, put up with the other's imperfections, and reflect on your own. When there is a bitch fight, both of you need to look the other way, rather than stir each other up. Fastily may do well to leave some of the decisions (unless emergencies) relating to these users to other admins for a while to demonstrate some neutrality, there are enough other admins to deal with their requests. For those who think that someone is against them, maybe look at how you are seen to be acting and whether you have given consideration to other opinion that just your own. This is meant to be a community, where admins interpret community consensus, not our own. And yes, we will have people who dislike us, and what we do, make enough decisions around here, and it happens. To everyone, get off this page and achieve something useful today, and have fun doing it, and finish with a sense of achievement at the end of it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • +1. You REALLY need to step back and reflect on your behaviour. You lot look like children out of a cartoonish story. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 Support I am not sure that I be involved in this thread if I wasn't pinged to the previous thread that closed too soon. But when I come to AN/U the thread was early closed and this one opened. It was full with of derogatory language. The early closer remind me other early closure of discussion by Fastily that lead to bad consequences. So I thought it be important to made a comment.

The next step was by Fastily when he suggested to give answers to his actions if I just ask politely - if you ask politely, I'll be happy to oblige :) . So I ask him politely but got no answer. Beside the fact that Fastily is a man without dignity, he have, like any other admin, to provide explanations to his acts.

I am pretty sure that Fastily favor Fry just from looking the event around the file:Presidential Standard of the Republic of Korea. Geagea (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Again it was already explained to you above that I and several other users all agreed to that flag's most recent edition, there's nothing controversial about it. Just like the other files you listed above, nothing could be farther from the truth of what you claim of me forcing things and Fastily abusing their tools to assist me. Do you pay attention to any facts or do you just fling filth against the wall like a zoo gorilla and try and see what lies stick? Fry1989 ^eh? 00:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

And I'm pretty sure, Geagea, that you are now trying to push buttons in the hope of getting a negative reaction from editors you know have a short fuse. What a hypocrite you are. You lecture about immoderate language and insults and then come up with the "a man without dignity" comment. At least we now know that Fastily's comments on what you think of him are now validated. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

More files for admins only

List of files from brief checking. Fastily removed previous versions of files that Fry is involved. Only admin can see that.

• File:Flag of the Bangladesh Army.svg - also original uploader removal infavor of Fry
• File:Naval Jack of Ireland.svg
• File:Flag of Leinster.svg - also original uploader removal
• File:Standard of the Emperor of Russia (1858).svg
• File:Northern Territory COA.png
• File:FLHP drapeau.png
• File:Flag of Austria-Hungary (1869-1918).svg - also original uploader removal

As I mentioned before Fastily is admin that abuse his admin tools and encouraged Fry and others to bad behavior. Even in this case her he use of derogatory language and encourage others to do so. Geagea (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah right, 7 files out of 23 million. A major problem then? Duh! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Geagea, not to be rude but just shut up. You're being even more transparent than Fae is right now.

• File:Flag of the Bangladesh Army.svg had it's previous history deleted because the old revisions were copyrighted.
• File:Flag of Leinster.svg I have no idea why the previous history is gone, it wasn't my doing.
• File:Northern Territory COA.png The current rendition is the original upload by Эрманарих, but for some unexplained reason they later overwrote the file with File:COA Northern Territory.png, so the history was cleaned up back to it's original as it should be.
• File:FLHP drapeau.png Obvious unsourced editing by the Namkhanh02 sockpupppet master.
• File:Flag of Austria-Hungary (1869-1918).svg This file has already been explained here.

Stop being such a numpty. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

+1 -FASTILY 19:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh and File:Standard of the Emperor of Russia (1858).svg, nothing was done to that file by either myself or Fastily. It's still in it's original uploaded state by TRAJAN 117 and nobody else has touched it except one other user and a few IPs. Seriously Geagea, find something better to do. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

English in not my home language. So I don't know what "numpty" means. Google translate have no offers in Hebrew. Only in English: a stupid or ineffectual person. To me it look like an insult. I won't judge you in the heat of a moment but I just say that this is exactly the behavior of yours that admins should restrict not to encourage. Even thow you are trying to improve flags, signs etc. for a long time you have tendency to speak and act rudely. one of the consequences is edit waring. You must to control that.

Regarding to the files. I agree with you about the first file but disagree with you with the others. Admin shouldn't hide edit waring information from the files history. He must provide explanation why the original uploader was removed in some cases. Geagea (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I called you a numpty because you listed several files and accused me of edit warring on them and Fastily abusing their tools to protect me, but none of that happened! Admins RevDel files all the time, Fastily is not the only one who does it, so I do not understand why you are so angry about Fastily doing so. And what about the files you claimed Fastily and I abused but which we haven't even touched such as File:Standard of the Emperor of Russia (1858).svg? Or File:Flag of the Bangladesh Army.svg which was cleaned up solely because it's previous renditions were copyrighted and copyrighted material can't be here? You don't care about the truth, you don't even look for the truth, you just see me or Fastily editing a file and automatically assume and accuse us of working together and abusing these files, and when it's proven that you are mistaken you just brush over it. You assume bad faith in the both of us from the start and are almost always wrong about it. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to close

There has been some intemperate expression of feeling, and people who "shoot the messenger", and some who jump to blame. None of which is mature, nor helpful. If people are not here to assist with a solution, then maybe they can practice silence.

I propose that the case has been put forward, and that it can be summarised as

• Some people perceive a conflict of interest through previous association between Fastily and Fry, while others do not, or at least not in the actions cited.
• I believe that administrators should note that there can be concern when discussions are closed within a day, whether there is a perception of an association or not, though especially if there is that perception.
• That bunfights are unseemly, and don't seem to solve anything, especially when it gets personal.

I don't propose any special resolution, though ask that some of the suggestions made are worthwhile considering, and that a level of independence in decision-making is valuable. I do remind all the people here that you all consider this community and the work that it does as important, so as either side of a battle will not be 100% right or 100% wrong, so try to find some levels of compromise, and understand that you will have more in common, than in difference, so please try to argue the minutiæ politely and respectfully.

If there is anything solution-focused that needs to be spoken, please do so. If you just want to join the bunfight then please consider that silence may be more appropriate than adding to the fracas.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What kind of assurance is there of this not happening again? This was completely unwarranted, Fae brought this up out of their own feeling and this isn't the first time they and Leyo have jumped on the bandwagon against me. Geagea is the newest member of their group the jump against me and Fastily whenever I'm brought up here, throwing around all sorts of accusations which when scrutinied either turn out to be falsehoods based on ignorance and confusion or outright lies. Fae opened this pandora's box and was so angry that it was closed they opened it up again but still refuses to directly speak with me about any of their concerned edits which surely shows just how unwilling they are to back these accusations up when actually examined under a brighter light. I won't directly oppose this closure, but I think those who make these accusations deserve to be called out on their wrongs and not just let it go and move on. I'm tired of being an unwarranted target for lies and accusations by Fae and Leyo and Geagea. I have spent more time in the last few days thinking of retiring than I ever thought possible, and the only reason I won't is because that would give them what they want most. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There are no assurances. We will have good days and bad days; days when we get it right and get it wrong. Just personal commitments that we can each make to work cooperatively in a community; focus on the goals, keep yourself nice.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(EC) I have read your subjective view. I disagree in major parts. Not making any more comments at this point may serve the project more. --Leyo 21:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Fry1989, you need to be two to fight. Actions of others may not be appropriate, but your answers are not much better. Globally, I agree with Billinghurst. I think that Fae should refrain from getting involved with Fry, and Fastily should refrain from doing any admin actions about Fry, as that might look not impartial. There are enough admins to act if necessary. In short, if you guys cannot get along each other, you should play in your own sandpit. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

NO you're not putting this on me Yann. Fae started this and absolutely refuses requests to show any recent examples of troublesome behaviour by me. This entire thing is based upon a historical collection of my edits going back at least a year, and prejudiced all the way back to when I first started here, and despite it's incredibly self-serving purpose Fae does admit that at least half of the "trouble" on their list were actually positive. I'm not the only one who knows that Leyo has their own interest here far beyond just me, and Geagea seems content to just throw things against a wall and see what sticks. You don't need two to fight, you just need one with a grudge. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing this out in line with my above proposal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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