Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Goembab.jpg

Hi, i strongly disagree with the rationale for keeping this image under PD-India. Unlike most countries, which determine the copyright from the death of the author, in India, for photographs, the copyright runs for sixty years from first publication. The image's source is not given at all, and the earliest verifiable instance of this image being used is in an Indian website on April 4, 2000. My argument is that unless there is evidence of the image's publication in India prior to 1951, or that the image was first published between 1951 and 2000 outside India, then the image should be deleted. User:Wknight94, however, has closed the discussion in favor of keep, under the rationale that insisting on proof of first publishing for every PD image would be a poor precedent. Why isn't evidence of the image's source relevant? Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 14:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Run the DR again, So more comments can come to board..Its not in PD as per the publishing date --...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, i won't do so for two reasons. One is that i'm afraid that nominating it again for deletion will be mistaken for a disruptive nomination. The other reason is that i have been previously involved in a heated conflict with the uploader on Wikipedia. We are on amicable terms now, and i don't want to get into a second conflict. The source is not given, and the earliest source i found is an Indian site and dates back to 2000. As such, it can't be verified to be in the public domain. ~~I request any concerned administrator to delete it.~~ Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 19:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the image from the goanews site, that was claimed in the original deletion discussion was the original publication at 400 percent size. Do this and you can clearly see a diagonal grid of dots. This is not the original publication of this image. It has been previously published, in a paper document, and that printed image was scanned in and republished here. Now we don't know it wasn't first published in 1952. We don't know it wasn't first published somewhere other than India. What we definitely do know is that this was not the first publication.
I don't see anything on the goanews site to support the assertion in the original deletion discussion that the goanews article was the image's first publication. Geo Swan (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! I never claimed that it was in fact the original publication, but the earliest verifiable source for the image. The source is not given. As i do not wish to enter into a second conflict with the user, i would appreciate it if someone would add the "no source" template to the image and notify the uploader. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 06:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD Image

File:Besecoper.jpg is in need of deletion and is so marked (hopefully correctly). More to the point, User:Walterbreuningfan is aware that this image, and others like it, are copyvios; see User talk:Walterbreuningfan. Furthermore, the description for the newly-uploaded file reads: This is my personal picture of Besse Cooper, if anyone deletes it from Wikipedia I willsue you, wikipedia encouages people to add to its articles and its very discouraging when people delete your donated content. On en.wiki, some would make a case for an immediate block as a legal threat, but...I'd probably not do that myself (yet). I can't see deleted contributions here as I can at en.wiki, but you'll find a bunch of CSD images in this user's deleted contribution history. I dislike being potentially bitey, but this user isn't listening. Frank (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Their threat is more like a joke to me, uploading obvious copyvios and claiming that they're the author, for now, I've blocked them for 1 month for repeated copyvio uploading. ■ MMXX ^talk 01:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed it's more like a joke; just saying it's a bright red line to some admins. Thanks for the quick action. Frank (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Updating nufc0708.png kit files & User ACAA

I am trying to update the colour of the files under nufc0708.png ([[1]] - [[2]] - [[3]] - [[4]]) for them represent a more accurate depiction.

However one user, ACAA is proving very problematic. Constantly editing back even though I have tried to contact him and explain why they need to be changed. All I have had from him in return are insults and then nothing. I detect there is something of a hidden agenda on his part with him not wanting anything to overwrite the original regardless of me just wanting to make things better. How can this be sorted? --MattM4> 17:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, step one is to stop upload warring. My God, how many times did you revert him before you decided to come here? That's completely unacceptable behavior on the part of both of you. I've protected the four files (including File:Kit right arm nufc0708a.png, which you didn't link) for a week. Now, we here on Commons are not in the business of adjudicating content disputes. I suggest you upload your changed-color versions at new filenames, then obtain a consensus regarding which version to use on the project where the files will be used. Not here. Powers (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, sadly this seems to always be the answer, "not really our problem". The user has pretty much confirmed to me that he is doing it out of petiness and not the actual merit and continues to refuse to engage in discussion other than name calling and the original files weren't even his. So we are basically to let him roam free? Fantastic. MattM4> 13:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I do Fiais that restore the file that Bruno-ban has created. And the horn constantly changing. Put it in a cage like a madman, a color-blind, autistic.

--ACAA (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to not have a problem "fixing" or "repairing" some one else's file. Why is this any different? I have gone through the trouble of trying to explain my reasoning and showing you ([[5]]), all I get in return are bully tactics and insults. MattM4> 14:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked ACAA for 3 days for insults and personal attacks against MattM4. He had no previous formal warning but, frankly, I don't believe that things like this, this or this (and there are certainly many more) require any warning to stop. I believe all limits have been passed here. If other admins disagree due to the lack of a formal warning, feel free to do what you feel is the best.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for intervening. The initial issue isn't even a problem any more. I have followed Powers's suggestion and uploaded my own. I admit my initial attitude wasn't the most constructive but this has happened before and it's furstrating. Any time any one else tries to upload or edit (even to improve) kit files there is a small group of members that stoop to personal attacks as if it were a matter of life or death. I fear it will happen again. MattM4> 17:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't read French, so I had no idea the insults you mentioned in passing were block-worthy. As far as I can tell, you were complaining about constant reversion, not about abusive behavior, and yeah, the truth is we don't get involved in that sort of thing. We admins are not here to adjudicate disputes; we put a stop to them if we have to, but we don't decide who's right. I'm sorry if that sounds like "it's not our problem", but we're all volunteers here, and have no special expertise in whatever content area is under dispute. All we can do is judge the behavior we see, not the merits of any particular argument. Powers (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The insults are just horrible, I'm sure any French speaker will confirm that. In fact they are so rabid they are even funny, like in South Park, or that classic Monty Python castle scene. You have a small sample above, "Put it in a cage like a madman, a color-blind, autistic.", but the French ones are much more nasty indeed.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 04:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Images query

I'd like another opinion on these contributions. It looks to me like someone is promoting their website. Equally I think that the photos would actually be copyright anyway - they are in use on en wp however that merely suggests that they may well be copyright by the company concerned. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that they look promotional but they could be useful if we get permission, however they might need permission both from photographer and toy maker (?) ■ MMXX ^talk 08:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MMXX - my concern too - I am sure we can get permission from the website - they are happy to advertise - however I doubt the toy maker would be happy but that is not an area I am expert in (derivs etc). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The manufacturer would definitely have to give permission. Although we think of them as toys, they are the same as sculptures from the point of view of UK copyright law. Also, should we enforce Commons:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames against User:Lostlegionminiatures -- seems a clear case? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems toys are made of metal and they should be old, it's not clear who is the manufacturer and it would be hard to verify any permission, about the username, although it is promotional, but I see no issue as long as their contents could be used freely, there are many similar cases in commons. ■ MMXX ^talk 12:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Watch list notice for a polling

Opinion from all user's are required for this, Or else it will be limited to known editors Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship), Individual talk-page posting will be a canvasing (Resisted on try), So a general notice is preferred. Its not a policy making but the decisions made over here will affect the community.--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 20:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Chile.puyehue.svg

I commited a new version of this image, without the little green boxes around some object names. But the last commited version still showed the green boxes. I commited again and then the last commited version shows the green boxes but the pre-last commited, that appeared with boxes now appears without boxes. Please, see the history of the file. --Createaccount 22:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a server side bug that is plaguing Commons for months, and it only got worst lately. It's useless to keep reverting the file, it will only update when it likes. If you need the image with urgency, it may be moved to a new filename, which usually fixes the bug.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not relevant in this case. Thanks and best regards, --Createaccount 16:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Draft of the United States Declaration of Independence mislabeled

Howdy. Here's some simple maintenance work that needs done. Three of the four files showing the four pages of the draft of the United States Declaration of Independence are mislabeled. (They are categorized, along with an extract of page one, in Category:Draft of the United States Declaration of Independence). Page 1 is correct. The file named page 2 is actually page 4. The file named page 3 is actually page 2. The file named page 4 is actually page 3. For confirmation, see the Library of Congress page. The text description on each file is actually a description of a completely different set of notes by Jefferson, and not the draft of the Declaration, but I'll fix that when we get the labels right. Thanks! Kevin Myers (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If by "label", you mean the file names, I suggest you use {{Rename}} on each, after reading the instructions at the template. Alternately, please give a bulleted list with

oldname >> newname

one by one, to be sure the person who does it understands what you want. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Contested closure of a deletion request (decision was to keep)

Is there an avenue to contest the closure of a deletion request (keep) by an admin? I see there is one for undeletion of a deleted image, but I am unable to find one to argue that an admin made a wrongful decision to keep.

The DR in question is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1983, MiNr 2830.jpg. I believe Yann is wrong and shows no understanding of the concept of underlying copyrights. His (following of Nobbi's reasoning) does not explain how the East German government that receives a license to use a copyrighted statue in its stamps (via renumeration) can amount to a public domain release by the object's copyright holders.[6] It might be a communist country, but the German Democratic Republic respected copyright, enshrining such assurances in its Article 22 and 49 of its Constitution.[7]

As far as I understand it, the German law releases the copyright of the German government. It has no jurisdiction over the underlying copyrights. This is especially the case when the DDR and the Soviet Union are signatories of the Universal Copyright Convention (and the DDR is also a signatory of the Berne Convention).

Just like the underlying copyright of a photograph of a copyrighted statue by the US federal government, the underlying copyright of the statue in this stamp would require permission from its copyright holder to make it suitable for Commons per Commons:Derivative works. Jappalang (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is quite weird. You seem to say that the GDR government does not have the right to publish its own stamps. I assume that it got the proper permission before publishing. BTW I just applied what the template {{PD-GDR stamps}} says. Like I told you, you need to open a discussion about this template if you disagree about its wordings. I don't know the specific of GDR law, but AFAICT, your argument holds no water to me. Yann (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My words are perfectly clear; I think you are misreading them. The GDR can print stamps; when they print copyrighted works, they ask the owners for permission to do so. The united German government cannot take that permission in 1983 as an assumption of release into the public domain when the country re-united in 1990. It is your and Nobbi's misinterpretation of the laws. Jappalang (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand where is the problem. If the GDR has a permission, and if the stamps are in the public domain (which is what the template says), then it obviously means that the image of the statue on the stamp is in the public domain. It can't be otherwise. It does not mean that the statue itself is in the public domain, and it does not mean that all images of this statue are in the public domain, that's sure. The copyright status of the stamp has no bearing of any other representation of this work of art, which may or may not have copyright. Yann (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your assertion proves you do not understand the concept of underlying copyright and derivative works. You might like to read http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c10D.html and http://chart.copyrightdata.com/ch10.html. I would also suggest reading up Commons:Deletion requests/Derivative works of Sesame Street puppets, which I had raised in the stamp DR but apparently you did not even bother to read, on why images, declared to be in the public domain, of copyrighted subjects can still not be valid for Commons purposes. Jappalang (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand very well the concept of underlying copyright and derivative works. I have been on Commons for far longer than you, so do not try to give me lessons. Thanks. And the case of Sesame Street puppets has nothing to do with this stamp. Yann (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think, Jappalang's assumption is as follows: The GDR government obtained permission to use this image on a stamp. This did not include permission to release this stamp into the PD (Maybe GDR law didn't require that? I don't know.). After Germany's unification, the German post office inherited the rights of the GDR post office. As all German stamps are released into the PD, the assumption of the template is, that all old GDR stamps are now also PD, because the German post office releases all its rights into the PD. It might, however, be possible, that the GDR post office created stamps, for which they did not have the rights to release them into the PD. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And indeed, if this were the case, this would be an interesting issue. However, as pointed out in detail in the DR, Yann's, NobbiP's and Jappalang's (and perhaps the template's) understanding of why German stamps are assumed to be PD in first place is wrong. Most importantly, German stamps cannot be assumed to be PD because they are published by Deutsche Post. This is just not how the argument goes. —Pill (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

@ChrisiPK: I understand Jappalang's assumption as you explain them, but that's a lot of if without any real information about this stamp.

Did the GDR release its stamps in the PD or not? If yes, we are OK. If not, the template needs to be changed, and all GDR stamps to be reviewed.
You write "This did not include permission to release this stamp into the PD." Do you have any information about that?
You write "It might, however, be possible, that the GDR post office created stamps, for which they did not have the rights to release them into the PD." To me, it looks like big wild assertions without any proof. Yann (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know and I haven't investigated this yet. AFAICS the template only asserts, that the stamps are now in the PD, because the "Deutsche Bundespost" inherited the rights of the GDR. There is no mention of whether the stamps were PD while the GDR still existed.
I don't, but if it is indeed the case, that GDR stamps were not PD at the time, then the burden of proof for the PD status lies with the person uploading the stamp.
If GDR stamps were not PD at the time, it is not unlikely, that they did not obtain the rights to release them into the PD. As above, per the precautionary principle, we would need proof to the contrary to keep the stamps (not the other way around).

Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You didn't find answers to my questions. So why asking the uploader to provide proofs, when you assertions are based on a big complot theory? Yann (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Chris for explaining better than I did my point. As for Yann, I am surprised that an administrator can routinely ignore the basic precautionary principle (an official policy) and push aside the burden of proof from the uploader, especially when he himself cannot provide the evidence to back up his theory that the GDR released stamps into the public domain after obtaining such permission from the copyright owner. Instead, he relies on speculation that re-unified German copyright law is the same as 1983 GDR copyright law... Pill, I am interested in your thoughts (according to you, the German stamp template is fundamentally wrong?). Can you further elaborate on it? Jappalang (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Jappalang, unfortunately I am not sure which template you are referring to; also sorry for treating the issue somewhat more generally in what follows (it's just that this is essential for understanding the issue here), I'll come to the "GDR" issue at the end.
As far as Template:PD-German stamps is concerned, it is, strictly speaking, not factually wrong. However, it is utterly misleading. The relevant part is "This stamp is in the public domain in Germany because it was released by the Deutsche Post AG on behalf of BMF and is an official work in Germany according to § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG." But what is important to know is that the stamp is not PD "because it was released by the Deutsche Post AG on behalf of BMF" — in fact, from a legal standpoint this first point is entirely irrelevant to the issue. The second reason given, however, is—again, strictly speaking—correct, but it is of course trivial (it's like saying: "this is an unprotected official work because it is an official work and hence unprotected"). So the template does not provide the real reason behind the assumption that German stamps are PD. So why are they (assumed to be)? The argumentation follows a German court decision from 1987 (LG München I, GRUR 1987, 436): "Die von dem Kl. entworfene Briefmarke hat den urheberrechtlichen Schutz, den sie zunächst als bloßer Entwurf besaß (§ 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 4, Abs. 2 UrhG), durch die Aufnahme im Amtsblatt des Bundesministers für das Post- und Fernmeldewesen gemäß § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG verloren [...] Das Amtsblatt des Bundesministers für das Post- und Fernmeldewesen ist ein amtliches Werk im Sinne des § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG." ("The stamp designed by the plaintiff lost its status as a protected work -- which it originally had while still simply a draft version (§ 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 4, Abs. 2 UrhG) -- when it was included in the Amtsblatt des Bundesministers für das Post- und Fernmeldewesen as a consequence of § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG. The Amtsblatt des Bundesministers für das Post- und Fernmeldewesen is an official work in the sense of § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG.")
Despite the fact that there is basically no legal commentary or article agreeing with this decision (and a good dozen disagreeing with it for what I think are very good reasons), this is the only justification for considering stamps official works unprotected through § 5 (1) UrhG (the same point is made for German coats of arms, by the way). Consequently, the question must be whether or not a particular stamp has been published in such an official gazette. As far as I am aware, this is the case for most (all?) official stamps published in Germany these days (I do not know this for sure, however). I am not aware how this was handled in the GDR, and also I do not know since when this has been the required procedure in West Germany.
However, in the templates (see Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Germany) it sounds like the reason for stamps being in the Public Domain is simply that they are published by Deutsche Post (for current stamps), Bundespost (for old stamps from West Germany) or Deutsche Post (DP; for old stamps from East Germany). But this is not correct (at least for the first two cases). Likewise, "Stamps of Deutsche Post AG are issued on behalf of the German government (Ministry of Finance) and thus 'official'." (Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Germany) is wrong as well. This is immediately clear to anybody who knows that Deutsche Post AG is a private company today, so, matter-of-factly, their works cannot simply be considered official works. (It would have been wrong prior to Post's privatization in 1995 as well for a number of reasons; and by the way, it would have made said court decision completely obsolete, too, so the court obviously did not assume this as well.) I wrote "at least for the first two cases" above because the GDR template (interestingly) claims that the legal successor of DP is the Federal Republic of Germany (see Template:PD-GDR stamps). That's basically true, but from what I know copyrights, as well as most other assets, have been transferred to a Sondervermögen Bundespost (this is supported by the German version of the very same template, Template:PD-GDR stamps/de as well as the equivalent on dewiki). That in turn means that the stamps cannot be treated differently from those issued by Bundespost directly. So it is only fair to assume that these stamps as well are not in the public domain per se, and again, we would have to play the "official gazette" card. To me it is pretty apparent that the creator(s) of the template did not consider this. For me, it is thus necessary to show that there has been something comparable to an official gazette where they had been published. And even then, we would have to think about whether or not we can simply declare them PD then (theoretically this should be so, but that's not the question right now anyway). —Pill (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Pill, for the clarification. Would it be correct to surmise that the template (and the idea behind it) over-simplified the situation and thus, wrong? Regardless, I see that no one has yet to show that stamps in the GDR (and its subjects) were in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Of course I do not know the idea behind it, but I guess everyone trying to understand what the template says would get a wrong idea of the issue. What is certainly wrong (or, to be more precise: absurd) is the description on Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Germany. —Pill (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Jcb

Dear community,

Maybe I'm not the right person to make this message but I will do anyways, I would like to discuss the behavior of our administrator Jcb. This discussion should be the base for the community to decide where to take it next. When I look at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems there are multiple discussions about the behavior of this administrator. And I do not see it change very quick.

Currently this administrator is involved in multiple editwars like:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ntv_2001.svg&diff=prev&oldid=55491135 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2х2_2007.GIF&diff=prev&oldid=55491170 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_7tv_3d.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=55491268
Here he doesn't like the out come of the DR request and keeps reverting: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ajax1.nl.jpg&action=history

But he also closes deletion requests when they are still under discussion and where there is no clear consensus like:

When this admin made a disission to keep a file and someone doesn't agree he just hits revert (or rollback)

When a other admin makes a dicission to keep a file and he doesn't agree he just reverts the admin instead of making a new DR

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ajax1.nl.jpg&action=history

Some licences he give to files are PD-TEXT but are discussable and should better be on its place in a COM:DR

When a user doesn't know its way arround Commons and ask a quistion on three places it doesn't get helped but get reverts without summary

To move on to his blocks:

The following user is stating to be editwarring, but is in a disagree with Jcb

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ntv_2001.svg&diff=prev&oldid=55491135 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2х2_2007.GIF&diff=prev&oldid=55491170 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Logo_7tv_3d.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=55491268

There was a message on his talkpage but Jcb decided not to respond anymore http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Хинт&diff=prev&oldid=55494405 and block 2 days later for 1 month.

11:09, 16 June 2011 Jcb (talk | contribs) blocked Хинт (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation disabled) ‎ (Edit warring after warnings)
18:02, 14 June 2011 Jcb (talk | contribs) blocked Хинт (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (disruptive behaviour)

Please not that there was never any warning given and Jcb was the only admin involved.

the user: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Silviatrofe has made 2 edits both edits came accross Jcb, there was no warning and again it resulted in a block

13:48, 22 May 2011 Jcb (talk | contribs) blocked Silviatrofe (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (repeated removal of deletion nominations)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bulka_UA is blocked for one week on 14 may, I fail to see any edits that looks like a editwar.

Language against other administrators:

And this is only from his last 750 edits.

I'm sorry to say, but how can we accept this from a administrator? We need to make sure people trust us and upload there picture to Commons, this behavior scares people away.In the case of a Deletion request, when somebody puts up a logo for deletion and there is any doubt it should run a normal DR not just remove... This can cost the foundation lots of money with legal cases, and that is not why we are here for. I would like opinions about how now futher. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 08:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention leaving clear copyright violations available on Commons, for example this and this, and someone else has been complaining about that too on his talk page. PPP (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This will lead to another long story, as happened before with Jcb, We might think something else from now... probably a removing the admin rights..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This "request" is that absurd and clearly driven by revenge motivation, that I don't consider this worth detailed responding. Individual issues can be raised at my user talk page if necessary, but for the few things from above I had a look at, there is really no reason for reconsideration. Jcb (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a problem from individual, Its a collective data from different users, You didn't give any clarification's for the stated links above. Abusing the users with admin power cannot be tolerated, and this is an example of that...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree that many of the given links are worrying. Edit warring with an editor because they had a good-faith disagreement on whether 2х2 2007.GIF meets the threshold of originality, and then blocking them yourself for edit warring seems particularly alarming. Jafeluv (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but that incident looks like a possible misuse of COM:ROLLBACK#When_to_use_rollback. And I'm very surprised at the length: 1 month (on 16 June), with the only prior block a 1-day block, by Jcb, made on 14 June. I also can't see any relevant warnings or block notices [8]. Is this not expected? Rd232 (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Just from personal experience, here is a set of Jcb's DR closures that were all re-opened and overturned:

Worse is Commons:Deletion requests/Category:2008 All-Star Game Statues on Parade where I clearly nominated all images in a category. After the DR backlog grew to 7 months, only one voted to keep, but Jcb closed the DR as keep ---- because the category was not empty! Huh? That was so absurd that I reopened the DR. But after yet another delete vote, Jcb re-closed the DR and called me a vandal. High Contrast offered yet another disagreement with Jcb but, as seen at User talk:Jcb/archive/1#DR close 2, he refused to yield. Admins are supposed to implement consensus, not override it. Wknight94 ^talk 11:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(The correct link is User talk:Jcb/archive/1#DR close 2.) Jafeluv (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 13:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the fact that the user is active but didn't place a real respondse its maybe the right way to go to a de-sysop? Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 16:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not so fast. He did finally reply at the other thread: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Very poor block by user:Jcb. Remember, even admins are unpaid volunteers who have a RL. --Túrelio (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I opened Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship) since he can start other topics on the notice board and can edit and respond but ignores this, this make me feel he doesn't take it serious. Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 10:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting stuff - Jcb (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to see, what kind of person is requesting a de-admin. I see that Abigor has a SUL-account, so the behaviour of Abigor on Meta does indeed effects his trust on the Commons project. It's not a very good idea to hide these of kind of information. BR Brimz (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Abigor certainly has his problems and to an extent I agree with his statement that it could have been better for the concerns to be raised by someone else. However, the identity of the messenger does not make his or other people's concerns about Jcb's conduct any less valid. Jafeluv (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the identity of the messenger does make sense, since the messenger really did annoy JCB en the (re)actions of JCB can be seen as provoked by Abigor. BR Brimz (talk) 10:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the evidence, it's definitely not just about Jcb's interactions with Abigor. Jafeluv (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its a good thing to start importing stuff from other wiki's when there is a de-sysop running, that is also against policy you know... Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 10:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, sockpuppetry is also against the policy. Since you own the same accounts here as on Meta, I have to regret that it is you who imported the problems to this project. BR Brimz (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Paulina James

Hi. An IP (201.255.125.169) put [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Paulina_James this message (in spanish) in the talk_page of Category:Paulina James:

"This page contain photographic images of an suposed actress when she was a minor (or pretending as such) clearly meaning sexual abuse of a minor. This is not only important but, I think, a legal matter than those pictures were deleted because of the explicit educational purpose of this site and the usage of it by minors. Not so worry but in a similar way I could indicate Category:Nyssa Nevers, Category:Topless porn actresses and category "porn actors" in general. Is not about an puritane objection but context (strictly educational) in wich this images are exposed and in caso of a minor, also her violated rights".

(translated by me, even my english is not good)

The same persone also made a "report of mistakes" in es:WP, wich bring me here. Even when I see not a clear problem in most cases, I prefer to bring this problem here, given the IP likely doesn't know procedures (why put a complain in es:WP?) and most likely not speake english. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Andrea: habría que identificar esas imágenes e iniciarles una consulta de borrado. Ezarateesteban 21:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Imagino que serán las más evidentes (las que está con el osito y algunas de las que sale con Ron Jeremy, como esta o esta), pero no puedo saberlo a ciencia cierta porque el usuario no dejó mas información que esa. Además propone borrar toda la Category:Nyssa Nevers, la Category:Topless porn actresses y la Category:Porn actors, supongo que porque aparecen mujeres sin brassier (de nuevo, porque no puedo corroborarlo ni dejó un mensaje más descriptivo). Un beso. --Andrea (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What is this all about? Several of the images in Category:Paulina James may be suggestive, but none could be called pornographic. And "a minor"? The earliest images are from 2006, when she was 20. Not a minor in the USA. --Rosenzweig δ 22:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, I see no problem, but as far as I see, the IP has his right to receive an answer. --Andrea (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that answer should be from somebody who can read and write Spanish, as the IP user doesn't seem to speak English. I'm not sure I understand everything that user originally wrote, and I certainly can't answer in Spanish. --Rosenzweig δ 23:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I answered to the ip here and he/she started DR's to the images Ezarateesteban 14:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

POSSIBLE CORRECTION OF INFO ON IMAGE AT http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mooncolony.jpg

The page lists the image as being created in 1995, however the artist's signature and date on the image itself is 1997 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.156.160 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be true. It is not, however, something that needs the attention of an Administrator. I suggest you do a little more research, perhaps on the source site, to be certain that it was in fact created in 1997 and not simply updated or modified in a minor way. When you are satisfied that the correct date is 1997, then change it yourself. That's what Wikipedia is all about -- users updating and correcting articles and information all by themselves. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

May DRs

I processed a lot of DRs from May (Commons:Deletion requests/2011/05), but 9 DRs remained open for various reason. Could somebody have a look at them? (Feel also free to process some of the quite a lot remaining June DRs). Jcb (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It's three now -- one could use an Admin who reads German and Polish. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I notified one. Jcb (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Arichter (talk · contribs)

This user is uploading several newspaper articles (written by various authors) that are obviously not free (mainly scans of La Libre Belgique). All for deletion I think. Binabik (d) 20:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the newspaper scans as copyvios and left her a note. She also uploaded an image, which I tagged Commons:Deletion requests/File:A. Richter.jpg -- she claims to be both the subject and the photographer. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Binabik (d) 21:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

BUZET

Hi ! Could you please rename File:Buzet Sérénade Manuscrit 1874 Musée des Lettres et Manuscrits.jpg to File:Bizet Sérénade Manuscrit 1874 Musée des Lettres et Manuscrits.jpg ? Thanks a lot. Tieum512 (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've created a new tag {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}} for works that are in the public domain in the US due to being first published before 1923, but not (or possibly not) in their source country. User:Commons fair use upload bot will move these to En and tag them appropriately, preserving file description page history, etc. Only administrators are allowed to place the tag. Unlike the {{Fair use delete}} tag, it will move the files even if they are not in use. Right now the bot is run manually on occasion, so let me know if you want me to run it more often, and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What happens if a file is in use elsewhere than on the English Wikipedia?Jafeluv (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I second that question! a×p_de ^Hello! 09:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a list of projects that accept local uploads of works that are public domain in the US. Not all of them do. However, if you know of any, I will add them to the list and it will work just fine. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The multilingual Wikisource accepts such content (see {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}). Also, if I understand correctly the English Wikisource only considers US copyright as well. Jafeluv (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I imported that template to en.wikisource too (it's not quite right due to missing classes in the .css file, but it'll do). Now it'll upload to all three of those. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Request by Abigor

Hi, anybody dealing with the repeated unblock request of Abigor should be aware of this edit, removing my comment and introducing a new lie. Jcb (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's his userpage, although removing another ones edit is bad style ... assume good faith that it's maybe an edit conflict?

Jcb, you said he's telling a new lie ... which one exactly? And is there a proven abuse of multiple accounts by him? a×p_de ^Hello! 16:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If you read the edit summary by Abigor, you will see it wasn't deleted by accident. About the sockpuppet abuse, please compare this to this and this and take into account that Abigor admitted to the foundation to be Delay. (And don't forget the open proxy edits at the de-admin request for Abigor). "Eva Krap was on nl.wiki not Commons and not relevant." - this is of course not true, as you will see if you follow the links above. Also "the new statement by the Meta checkuser doesn't say anymore that its very high change that its me" is clearly not a suitable interpretation of the linked diff. (The infinite block at Meta is also still there.) I hope this was sufficient information, I prefer not to spend any more energy on this user. Jcb (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If removing other users edits is bad then what about edits like [9] you made Jcb? There is more - it was just an example. --MGA73 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Learn Dutch, take into account the page history from the past hours and you're supposed to understand why I undid that edit. Jcb (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So you confirmed that removing other users edits are not always bad... But and as I said it was just an example. What Abigor removed was a comment where you called his girl "Crap" instead of "Krap". Unless it was a quote I would call it unacceptable to call her "Crap". --MGA73 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As already has been pointed out by someone, I called the case crap, not the girl. Jcb (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So we have a girl named "Eva Krap" and you call a case about her for "the Eva crap case" and you expect Abigor to know that you are not making fun of the name "Krap"? And you want us to think that if her name was "Eva Brown" you would also have called it "the Eva crap case"?

Obviously Abigor took it as an attack. Have you thought about leaving a note on his talkpage saying "Dear Abigor. I'm sorry that you read my note as an attack on your girl. It was not intented to be read that way. I meant to call the case a crap case."?

And knowing that Abigor took it as an attack can you understand that he removed the comment? And if he said something not nice can you understand that? --MGA73 (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is proof of abuse of multiple accounts! It's indeed a bunch of blatant, egregious lies from Abigor what is there. Among other things, he has:

Lied about Abigor being a sockpuppet of another Commons account during his own RfA, even when explicitly asked about that.
Abused the Delay account to upload a photo of a certain Eva Krap, which he later claimed (using the Abigor account) to have been a gross privacy violation, so much that it would justify breaking all rules. This Delay account was identified with Abigor by Abigor himself with the WMF. The same Delay account was used here in Commons to nominate a series of Abigor photographs to QI, posing as a third party. Among those nominations was as a copyvio, uploaded by the Delay account, with faked EXIF info and attributing the work done by a another person to Abigor himself. The claims by Abigor that Delay was a shared account and those actions were not made personally by him (which I personally find extremely dubtfull) are immaterial to this case. If he embarked in something as reckless and irresponsible as a shared account he must accept full responsibility for what happened. The fact that he identified what he now claims to be a shared account under the WMF using his own name shows perfectly how little this user can be trusted.
Abused open proxies to simulate support by third parties for an action he was doing in the request for the removal of his flag here in Commons.

This is only part of the list of lies and deceitful actions by Abigor here in Commons, it could go on, and on, and on. This user has intentionaly deceived this community over and over again, does not deserves the least shred of trust, and should effectively be expelled from this community for indefinite time, and permission to edit his talk page should be removed so that he stops causing further disruption with his repeated unblock requests based in his customary blatant lies. -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Also see this discussion: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Block_or_unblock_of_Abigor. Perhaps we should merge the discussions. --MGA73 (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shadow dome.jpg

This is precisely the sort of image that could land Wikimedia in a lot of trouble. I think this should have been speedied right away as it was on the Wikipedia. As it is it's just sitting there. --Simonxag (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What, drawn pornography images that can be interpreted as having children in them? Not illegal in the US. Given that no admin has gotten around to closing this in a few months, and there's reputable users having voted keep on it, it would be unreasonable to speedy it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a photo! - of what, is debatable, but it's precisely such fake images which can be placed here to cause trouble. Fox (News International) has already run a campaign around false kidiporn allegations. --Simonxag (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not even clear if this is a child at all. That must be your own imagination. Keep calm and see the facts as they are. Let FOX say what they want to. They will do it anyways, if true or not. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 10:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

userpage moved

see Special:Contributions/SarahA1134 edits.--Motopark (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Done, moved back.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 04:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sports team licensing questions

I feel kinda bad about bringing this up, but... How in the world are File:LA Dodgers.svg and File:NewYorkYankees JerseyLogo.svg (I don't know if there are others, off hand) able to be marked as PD? The LA logo is marked as lacking originality, but I know that the Dodgers have sued folks over infringement of their logo in the past. The Yankees logo is marked as having had it's copyright expire, but that's clearly untrue since they continue to use it and state that they've renewed the copyright every year for several years now. That these images are in the Public Domain is clearly inaccurate. It probably could be argued that the copyright that the teams hold over their logos is weak, but it's clear to me that they consider their logos to be their property. So... what should happen here? (In my opinion, I think that they ought to be deleted here (and recreated on Wikipedia with a FUR, but that's a whole different subject). Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The procedure would be to nominate the files for deletion (using the "Nominate for deletion" button in the sidebar on the file description page). However, you might first want to look at the threshold of originality casebook to see what kind of images authorities have considered ineligible for copyright protection in the past. Both of the files you mention seem valid PD-textlogo examples to me, although I'm open to being convinced otherwise :) Jafeluv (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what it would mean to "renew a copyright every year". Even under the old copyright laws, that makes no sense; under current copyright law there is no such thing as renewal.

The Yankee's 'NY' log was designed by Tiffany & Co. in 1877 as a memorial for a fallen police officer and adopted by the New York Highlanders (later Yankees) in 1909. It is certainly public domain. That doesn't mean they don't have it as a registered trademark - I'm sure they do - but that has nothing to do with copyrights, except in the vague sense that both are intellectual property rights. - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright and trademakrs are different legal fields. We, as Wikimedia Commons, do only care for copyright and we totally ignore trademarks, as we do not offer any products of services under these marks, but only show them together with the very services and products they represent. And the logos you mentioned are ineligible for cpyright for their simplicity, thus we can use them. --h-stt !? 13:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Humm, interesting... yea, it looks like a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. I'm obviously conflating the two. The question then is, why aren't all of MLB's (and NFL, NHL, NBA, MLS, etc...) logos here?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's both. Almost all of those logos are under copyright and trademark protection. Only the few noted here that are either copyright expired or ineligible in the first place can be hosted at Commons. Resolute (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Mio96 (talk · contribs)

Hi, please take a look at upload log of Mio96 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions). These imageas are rather out of scope. Yarl ✉ 10:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably the best idea is to start mass deletion request. micki t 21:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Done --Martin H. (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Administrator - Darwin requested a deletion to a file but himself deleted it three minutes later. [10] Is it right here? An adm can request a deletion and delet it by himself?

On the other hand, the adm above also requested deletion to this file File:MissU.png and himself deleted it imediately. When I was notified, the file was already deleted. No explanation at all, no time to discuss the request, just "is not a personal work" in the deletion tag. {How he knows that? He decides alone?) May any adm explain what's happening on here? MachoCarioca (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

See here and here.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 06:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

See both complete topics here, please [11]. I'd like an answer from other adms thanks. MachoCarioca (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Adm Darwin is harrasing me in my discussion page about repeated copyvios uoploads. I would like to know from other adms which repeated copyvios uploads are them, please? That's sometihing wrong here. MachoCarioca (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

MachoCarioca, I can fully understand Darwinus. You not created the logo entirely yourself, why are you saying such things? --Martin H. (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, Martin, but how can you say "you not created the logo entirely yourself", please? This is a photoshop work and a simple one. "I didn't create that" because it is maybe good? In fact, is an average work, not special, do you have any idea what Photoshop can do? I could create something a lot better than this one. This one is just some letters and a simple drawn, to replace the official one (which is fair use)[12] in some MU articles.. MachoCarioca (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

For context, this is the logo this user is claiming to be the author of.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin, I have another question: is it allowed to an adm request a deletion and delet it himself? Is it allowed by rules? Is it a common behaviour here? Is it ethic? I can guarantee you this behaviour is not tolerated in any other project of Wikimedia. On Wiki-pt, an editor failed in his request to administrationship because as "eliminator" he requested a deletion and himself deleted it. an interesting point of this matter: Darwin critized him there for the act... MachoCarioca (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

PS The file deleted is a logo from nothing, has copyright or is a copyvio from none but me.

No cross-wiki trolling, please. Issues from wiki-pt are completely irrelevant here.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is ok and it is common practice on Commons. And the more you cry the worser it gets, its absolutely clear that it is not entirely your own work, but you nevertheless uploaded it with the upload option é inteiramente trabalho próprio not considering that interiamente includes third party rights as explicitely stated in Commons:Primeiros passos/Seleção de licença. You possibly made a drawing (or better: a tracing), but you are not the logo designer. You are probably not aware that with your saying above (and elsewhere, some forum shopping) you claim something that anyone knows is incorrect - except you who is probably not aware of the little word interiamente and therefore not knowing what he is saying. --Martin H. (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

p.s.: The best sollution will be if you simply upload the original logo under fair use (#1.4). --Martin H. (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User rights question

Almost all of my edits on Commons are to verify original upload info for files which have been transferred from Wikipedia to Commons per en:WP:CSD#F8.

User rights for my account were changed to rollbacker in April 2009 and autopatroller in March 2010 (log). Rollbacker isn't a problem (though I rarely use it) but I'm concerned about autopatroller because those flags on my edits may have the unintended result that fewer other editors will check files I've edited. I asked Killiondude about this a few days ago (diff) but there's been no response yet. Would it be better not to have autopatroller or is my concern unwarranted? Athaenara (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Athaenara. The autopatrol right simply means that you are trusted, and that your work will be eliminated from the 'unpatrolled' log. The amount of uploads and edits that we have to monitor is massive to a point where not all of them are checked. For this reason, it is a good thing that autopatrol right is given to as much trusted people as possible. It is more about vandalism and copyright violations, which you show no concern of. --ZooFari 01:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. Athaenara (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering all your experience you're hereby encouraged to apply for patroller status or even more :) a×p_de ^Hello! 08:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the difference between autopatroller and patroller. I do understand adminship on the English language Wikipedia, having been an admin there since November 2007 (log). Is there a shortage of admins on Commons? Athaenara (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No particular shortage of admins but always a shortage of those with the rights who actually do the work :( --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh - autopatroller - any edits from that user are marked as patrolled but no more than that. Patroller can mark anyone else's edits as patrolled (and their own are automatically patrolled). Hope that helps --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, got it, the only difference is the freedom to mark other users edits as patrolled. Adminship would take some convincing, y'all are welcome to try ;-) Athaenara (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Herby and ZooFari -- let's back up to the original question. Athaenara started this because she thinks it would be a good idea if another editor at least glanced at her work. She is concerned that without autopatroller status, another of us would probably look at her work, but with it her work may go completely unreviewed.

That's a legitimate concern, particularly with some of the more subtle issues that come up with WP:EN >> Commons transfers. I can think of several possibilities. One would be, as she suggests, to remove her AP tag. I think that's overkill. Unless one of you has a better idea, I think we should simply encourage her to ask for a second opinion -- either here, at the Pump, one one of our talk pages, or, very occasionally, perhaps hang a DR tag on any upload that particularly concerns her. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My main concern was with files which need category checks or have multiple licenses, some of which may be superfluous. The former are generally in a category (uncat or catcheck) that is regularly reviewed by others and the latter is rarely more than an aesthetic issue, so I accept the explanation that an autopatrolled tag on an edit simply indicates that it wasn't vandalism. Athaenara (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Feel free, though, to follow up on one of my suggestions in any case where you have any concerns. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Athaenara (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

New admin cleanup tag

I've modified {{Non-free frame}} to advise users to place {{Non-free frame revdel}} after removing the frame. The latter tag places images in Category:Images requiring revision deletion of non-free frames, a subcategory of Category:Images with non-free frames, itself under Category:Images for cleanup. This category may require occasional cleanup by an administrator. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Link to delinker log broken in some cases

Could a JS expert please have a look at MediaWiki talk:Common.js#Link to delinker log broken in some cases? Thank you. --Leyo 08:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Security update and fix for MediaWiki:AjaxMassDelete.js

Can someone please fulfill the request on MediaWiki talk:AjaxMassDelete.js as fast as possible. (just replace the content) I am sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 09:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Done good luck ;-) a×p_de ^Hello! 12:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Abu00 (Bighead08 sockpuppet)

Please block and check the contributions of Abu00 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is yet another Bighead08 sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked anyway thanks - not sure about the contribs particularly the Flickr one - washing? Will nuke if you say so. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Images deleted. Yes, the Flickr photograph is flickr washing (dead give away is the username). Bidgee (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bidgee :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

...and the fact that it's already listed on Commons:Questionable Flickr images. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 15:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

fr speaker would be useful please

Well someone who can write in fr anyway - these uploads look like they are photos from some publication or other and the licensing is not great (!!). I would also say that it all seems to be for the benefit of the user rather than anything else. I have removed some "templates" that were not templates and trimmed some of the publicity. I would post on there talk page but someone who is fluent will do a better job than me. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Trizek should have open a mass deletion, it's gonna be a little bite difficult to explain it to this user if we have to deal with numerous DR for the same reason.--Lilyu (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Old deletion request

I just found the deletion request in the first section of Category talk:Other speedy deletions. Could an admin act on it? Also, there have been several files in the category that have been sitting there for days. Thanks! Train2104 (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

User:CategorizationBot

...keeps adding redundant caregories to files, which are sufficient categorized by templete(s), e.g.: [13], [14], [15]. Posting on the user page was without success. --Carbenium (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The bot is supposed to check templates unless they're on an "ignore" list. (Not sure if that list is public - I can't find it.) User:CategorizationBot#How_does_the_automatic_categorization_work.3F. Rd232 (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You need user:Multichill - good luck. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh - & probably should be blocked if it is merely making work for people. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:CategorizationBot. Will commit and update code tonight. Don't be so block eager. Multichill (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all eager to block - if I was I would have done so. I am eager to save folk time. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing really wrong with the bot's edits. Topical categories shouldn't be added through templates. -- Docu at 08:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned up the Tango templates/categories. Multichill (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of Category:Images from FlightGlobal Archive

Before I start a DR, does anyone else find a clear permission for the CC licenses of all pictures in this category?--D.W. (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I see two problems -- the license statement speaks only of use on Wikipedia, not the much broader constituency of Commons, and it requires a hyperlink to the original page, which I (although not all of us) believe precludes use in print media.

With that said, I suspect some of them are PD because their photographers died before 1941 or, possibly were first published in the USA before 1923. That will require research -- without it I would delete all of them. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn´t find names of photographers in the source "flight"...just guessing? Maybe it would be better to start a mass DR. The photos that a clearly old enough could be marked as PD old there.--D.W. (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Special:DoubleRedirects

Could an admin fix the remaining double redirects? They can't be edited by normal users because they are .js pages. --Meno25 (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to keep, should we delete them instead? --Ben.MQ (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Username change question

I recently had my username changed from Snpollack to PAIRdoc (for purposes of privacy). I note, however, that the change did not propagate to the File History of a jpg I uploaded under my old username ( File:Sunshine 20110723.jpg). Is this a variable that doesn't normally update with username changes? If not, is it possible to change the username associated with this file's upload history to my new username? Thank you in advance for your assistance. —PAIRdoc ^(Talk) 19:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems as though this was resolved by the user. The "author" parameter was edited to point to the new username. – Adrignola talk 22:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

True, this "author" edit is reflected in the file summary section. However, if you look at the file history section further down, it still indicates the old username (Snpollack) as the uploader, which is a bit unwanted given the fact that the username change was requested for reasons of privacy. Thanks. —PAIRdoc ^(Talk) 22:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you right-click on the "full resolution" link, save the file, then click on the "upload a new version of this file" and reupload the image under your new username? I can then hide the username for the first upload and you'll still have the upload associated with your account. – Adrignola talk 02:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I did as you suggested and this action of uploading a new version of the (same) file actually "fixed" the old username attribute of the original file. It's all good now, I believe. Thanks! —PAIRdoc ^(Talk) 09:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect copyright assertion

Sorry but I am a noob here and I could not find a more appropriate place to post this notice.

An editor has uploaded a screen shot of a copyrighted television program and tagged it as his own work. If I am not mistaken, this image is not eligible for Creative Commons licensing. The image in question is File:Arpaio Lyrics.png. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I deleted it, as well as two other images uploaded by the same user. micki t 06:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with posting here if you're unsure. The quickest way to deal with this sort of thing is to edit the file description and add {{copyvio|Screenshot of non-free content}} to it (and follow the instructions of the template to notify the uploader). If you enable the Quick Delete gadget in your preferences, you'll get a toolbox link that makes it really easy. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Need some help with a page

Hello, I'm new in here, I'm having trouble with the page I created, for "Alexander Hausvater". Someone deleted the picture, although I have stated that it was taken by a photographer at my request and with Mr. Hausvater's approval. I have the photo from the photographer, Marius G. Mihalache. I'm not sure if I gave the right credits when I uploaded, because I didn't know how, I just didn't find the fields where I could mention how I got the picture. Can someone, please, undeleate it?

The 2nd problem is: is my article marked for deletion as well? And if so, what do I have to do? Everything I stated is documented, the references are from official pages written in English (Theatre websites), from interviews and from a prestigious book. What am I doing wrong?

Thank you for your time, Cristabilciu (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the file: Commons only accepts works that anyone can use in modified or unmodified form for commercial or noncommercial purposes. This means that in order to be accepted at Commons, a work must either be in the public domain or published under a free license. Only the legitimate copyright holder (the photographer in this case) can issue a valid license. Did you obtain the photographer's approval to publish the file under a free license? Did you follow the instructions on your user talk page to submit evidence of this approval? If you didn't, you need to do that. If you did, the file will be undeleted once the permission has been received and processed.

Regarding the article: articles are outside the project scope of Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons is a repository for media files -- mostly still images, but also sound and video. It is not a place for articles, except for brief explanatory notes. Articles belong in Wikipedia and, as you know, there is already an article in WP:EN on Alexander Hausvater.

I should add that there is no record of your having created any article here on Commons -- your only contributions to Commons are the note above and the now-deleted File:Alexander Hausvater.jpg. The article in WP:EN had a deletion tag on it for a while, but you removed it after you supplied appropriate references. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please delete a photo that i have upload

hy, please can you delet the picture that i uploaded, all of them please.--UAE-business (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, this user's only picture is the subject of this DR. Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Ed (Edgar181) 18:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Rearrange a few file names

Could the following four files please be renamed?

File:Huffman Mill Covered Bridge, southern portal.jpg — it's actually the northern portal
File:Huffman Mill Covered Bridge, northern portal.jpg — it's actually the southern portal
File:Huffman Mill Covered Bridge, interior looking northward.jpg — it's actually looking southward
File:Huffman Mill Covered Bridge, interior looking southward.jpg — it's actually looking northward

When you rename them, would you please simply swap the file names? For example, "interior looking northward.jpg" should be named "interior looking southward.jpg" and vice versa; that's why I can't simply move them myself. Sorry for causing the confusion; I wasn't paying attention when I originally named the files on my computer. Nyttend (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you OK with

"interior looking south.jpg"
"north portal.jpg", etc.?

(You can't swap A to B and B to A without using a third name on one side or the other. Changing the names slightly eliminates the problem.) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; I've moved them to the titles you suggest. However, it's quite possible to swap the names: move A to C without redirect, move B to A without redirect, and move C to B without redirect. Or, if Commons admins can't move without redirect, you could simply move and then delete the redirect. Nyttend (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your "C" is the "third name" that I noted above and didn't want to create. Admins can move with or without leaving redirects. Policy is to leave redirects if the file has been present for more than a few days, to allow for the possibility of off-Wiki links to the old name. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I just don't understand the problem with my suggestion — I made the above request just a few minutes after uploading them, so there wouldn't have been any problematic redirects. I've made similar requests before without taking any opposition from the admin who fulfilled the request. Nyttend (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies -- maybe I misunderstood your note above -- you said "I've moved them to the titles you suggest", so I made my comment and went away, assuming you had done the work yourself following my suggestion.

I certainly intended no opposition -- except to the creation of an unnecessary intermediate ("C") file in a A>C>B and B>A swap, which is why I suggested swapping to new names as in A>b and B>a.

If there's something you'd like me to do, please just let me know. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Request to remove my upload

I have uploaded my own picture to File:Queen Victoria outside the Queen Victoria Building in Sydney.jpg as a new version of this file. However I found that the file claims this file is still the work for previous author. I feel it may violate my copyright. Therefore, I have reverted this file, but when I try to upload my work as a new file, the system prevented me from uploading. I think my previous upload should be deleted and I will upload a new file that claims as my work. Could sysops help me to remove my upload on this file please? Thank you--Coekon (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Use other name for file, File:Queen Victoria outside the Queen Victoria Building in Sydney 2011.jpg for instance. --sfu (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please put a reque3st here -> Commons:History merging and splitting --Sreejith K (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Done as your advice. but another problem has arisen. I have upload the file as File:Queen Victoria outside the Queen Victoria Building in Sydney 2011.jpg .jpg. Double .jpg in my file name. How can I re-name it?--Coekon (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

already submitted to Commons:History merging and splitting--Coekon (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

File moved. Normaly you should use bad name template in case of icorrect file names.--sfu (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

NARA and ~123,000 images

Partial copy from COM:VP

Hi everyone, the NARA bot is starting to upload images; see Commons:National Archives and Records Administration and [16]. It won't get to 123,000 anytime soon, but help categorizing these images would helpful. Also the note on the main page could be updated to attract attention to this. Ed ^{[talk] [en:majestic titan]} 09:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Great work (see Category:Images from the National Archives and Records Administration). Maybe we should start a campain on the en:wiki to help to categorise those images and the 1,8 million images of Commons:Geograph Britain and Ireland. It is getting a real pleasure to work in those categories; one finds always new but related stuff. --Foroa (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an en:wikipedia site/article notice that links to a search in commons using the currently displayed page name ? --Foroa (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Other views?

I found these and was not really sure about the approach shown. There are a couple of images but mostly there are links to their own work elsewhere (and facebook). Any thoughts? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think she/he is potentially a great contributor - good photos from a developing country. Obviously on day 1 they have much to learn about Commons, but I think a few kind words and a little leeway is worth it here. --99of9 (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The linked sites have explicit copyrights. Don't we have a rule against linking to images that we can't host? I known that WP:EN does. Even without such a rule, I'm not sure about giving a new user space to link and advertise his or her off-Commons work. We do it for prolific contributors, but newbies? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I kinda agree with Jim and I kinda agree with 99of9 - hence the posting :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything horribly wrong here. Engage in discussion with the user and try to get a feel for the user's purpose here and how open the user is to conforming to our guidelines. Then proceed from there. Powers (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Taking this out for a moment. I think a real issue that is increasing (from the wandering around I do) is that folk look on Foundations sites as just another form of social networking. From my perspective that has never been the purpose of Foundation projects (deo gratis!) and i guess I am questioning our tolerance of using Commons as though it is just an extension of fb etc etc. I am not bothered if there is a decent trade off fro us but otherwise I tend to think they should be encouraged to exploit real social networking sites with their views/cv/pov/links whatever. (Feel free to indent or sub head or or) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I certainly don't want to run off people who might be good contributors just because they start on a wrong foot -- but I do think that linking off-Commons files is not something we want. It should be fixed with dialogue, not harsh words or action.

As for social networking -- maybe we should adopt a policy that limits Users to one word on their user page for every edit they make and ten for every photograph they contribute.(Offered only half in jest). Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ten? Come on, don't you think a picture is worth at least a thousand words? Powers (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Repair of moving mistake

Hello! A fellow filemover was probably a little bit too zealous when he moved this file to its current location File:RO B Transfiguration Church Cutitul de Argint.jpg. I couldn't undo this move, but I guess that an admin can. Please leave a redirect without diacritics in place when processing this request, as the rationale "ease of use" is IMHO not bad. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Yann (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Vue_du_Stade_Vélodrome_depuis_la_Tour_France_3.jpg

the file was deleted according to missing Freedom of Panorama in france (deletion request). on de it is possible to keep such files with {{Schutzlandprinzip}}. could someone restore it for transfer, or directly upload it to de? is there a page for such requests? --Akkakk (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

While you're at it, it would be good to upload it also to fr.wikipedia and en.wikipedia (and other projects where it is needed). -- Asclepias (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

i don't know the fr- an en-rules, non-free-media-rationale whatever. --Akkakk (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved the file to de:Datei:Vue du Stade Vélodrome depuis la Tour France 3.jpg. Anyone is welcome to take it from there and upload it to other wikipedias (where allowed).

Unfortunately, there is no 1 to 1 replacement for {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} on de.wikipedia. --Leyo 12:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

same problem: File:StadiumToulouse1b.JPG--Akkakk (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

American embassy's images

Are US embassies part of the US federal government?. The American embassy in India has a flickr stream licensed as CC BY ND 2.0. But if the embassy is part of the federal govt, doesnt the work come under PD-US GOV ?. Can someone clarify on this?--Sodabottle (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Several arms of the government, notably the White House, put ND or other restrictions on their images. This is probably not legal or effective, because the overriding law is that creations of Federal government employees in the course of their jobs are PD unless they are themselves derivative of copyrighted works.

With that said, remember that Federal sites (which includes embassies, of course) can post images that they did not create, so be careful to see that the image is attributed to a Federal employee doing his or her job. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Francodelansburg

I would appreciate one or more of my colleagues looking at the exchange at the bottom here User talk:Francodelansburg and at User_talk:Jameslwoodward#Home_town, which I read as an implied personal threat. The user has uploaded 45 files, all of which were either copies taken directly from Flags of the World or one of its mirrors, or were duplicates of existing Commons files with new names. I blocked him for three days to give time to clean up the existing mess and prevent him from doing more until there was time for consideration. Given the threats, I would be inclined toward a longer block, but I am not an objective observer. Thank you. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes - not keen on that approach. I'm inclined to indef and will do so later if others don't disagree. The whole approach bothers me not just the implied threat - ignoring warnings etc etc. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Later became sooner reviewing the cross wiki issues. Indef as I don't see the likelihood of positive contributions all in all. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Tres1416 (talk · contribs)

This user has been uploading signicantly lower resolution images over the originals (from 16MP to 0.2MP). Predicatably, the photos are own work, and they are direct uploads to Commons (File:Señal del GR-14 en el puente de San Lorenzo.jpg). To make matters more complex here, the user uploaded the downsamples over the high rest version on Commmons and also to Flickr, which have then been uploaded to Commons via Flickr upload bot - and tagged the orignal as a dupe: Which could hide fact that the high res version was ever released.

Upload dates of the images vary from 1 week ago to 1 month ago. Not sure what to do, but probably worth a Spanish-speaking admin having a talk.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Remove redundant right

I know it's not so important, but could someone remove the patroller right of Effeietsanders (talk · contribs)? He won't need this anymore as he's an admin now. Trijnstel (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

He can do it himself. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. Didn't think of that. I will ask him privately. Trijnstel (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Commons protected edit requests

Category:Commons protected edit requests has a number of requests... but the two I'm interested in are in Category:Commons protected edit requests (technical). Those two are not that technical (I think), and if necessary I can help clarify any implementation questions. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Blender.svg

Does it realy makes sense to put the Template:protected to an non-existent Image? I just was confused by the blue link to it.Isn't it better to just protect the page against new creating giving a reasonable block comment? Cheers. --JuTa (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I implemented your proposal. The only problem seems to be, that upload protection cannot be set to "sysop". I am unsure, whether create protection is sufficient to stop people from uploading images to this file name. Would anyone with a non-priviledged account like to try? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Restored to previous version. Upload protection of non-existing files is currently broken, bugzilla:27700. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik

File:Anders Behring Breivik in diving suit with gun (self portrait).jpg and File:Anders Behring Breivik (Facebook portrait in suit).jpg were replaced by caricatures by User:Polozooza today. See fr.w article history to see the problems it caused. I let you decide on the consequences. Sebjarod (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's already reverted and restored. Won't happen again, I pizza-promise. :P Polozooza (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Patrolling Category:Media needing categories

If some administrators look for job to do, it'll be great to patrol recent subcategories of Category:Media needing categories. On my experience there quite a loot of unused personal images, files originated from other services (like Facebook), non free-logos and other. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

too true - what an amazing mess.... SatuSuro (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep. For convenience, here's a direct link to recent subcategories of Category:Media needing categories. Rd232 (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really an admin-specific job, is it? Powers (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No. I think the logic of the original poster was focussed on things that need deleting - but anyone can tag things with {{Speedydelete}}. Rd232 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It is an admin-specific proposal. Let's say the category contains 100 files, 10 are clean, 10 are debatable and 80 rest is sure kill. Do you expect me or any other single editor to do all the WP:BEFORE, all the ritual dance around talk pages, or to flood FFD with scores of requests ? No, "we" (we the dirty peasants) just pass by and leave the killing to their lordships. NVO (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Once it's tagged for deletion/missing permission/missing source/speedy/tineye hits, it could just disappear from there.

Too bad cat-a-lot doesn't work with images in these categories. One could use it do just some basic sorting, e.g. People/Landscape/Vehicles/Buildings/Graphics .. -- Docu at 08:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

From http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php?category=Media_needing_categories_as_of_23_July_2011&use_globalusage=1

it seems that 464 of 772 images in Category:Media needing categories as of 23 July 2011 are actually used somewhere.

Maybe we could tweak categorization bot to try to make better use of that. Possibly, it could just do with additional runs on the images 2 days/7 days/1 month/1 year after the initial upload. -- Docu at 08:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

From this, it seems that it already does that. -- Docu at 08:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Several points:

Yes, when my bots are done you end up with a lot of images which are probably not suitable for Commons. It would be nice if more admins go over this.
The deletion categories were not hidden, this caused the bot to think these are topic categories. This problem was fixed (made the deletion categories hidden just like all other tracking categories)
Category:Media needing categories as of 23 July 2011 is still in Category:Media needing categories to be checked by a bot. That means my bot still has to work on them to try to get them categorized. We'll see tomorrow what the catch is.
Unfortunately CommonSense is not able to provide me categories for all in use images. See this list. That's about 40.000 images (or one third of all uncategorized files) that could probably be categorized based on the usage on one of the projects. I wrote down the idea how to do that at User:Multichill/Categorization bot. I won't be implementing this anytime soon, so if anyone feels like having a shot at it.....

Multichill (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Citation bot on en.wikipedia can scan specific pages manually, it's a nice feature. It'd be nice to have it if the uploads of a specific user needs a scan by the User:CategorizationBot. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Fark sockpuppet of the day

Please block Alf5353 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is yet another Fark sockpuppet, and delete their uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Done by admin. User:A.Savin.

--Dferg (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

two socks :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And today's sock is Name33432 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log). —LX (talk, contribs) 14:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Their uploads have been deleted, but you might want to block too... —LX (talk, contribs) 17:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked too by Martin H. --Dferg (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding a lame edit war/3RR due to ownership issues

Please see File:Olivia Wilde in 2010 Independent Spirit Awards (cropped).jpg. I'm asking for advice here because I'm not aware of the 3RR practices on the Commons and I don't want to step on any toes. Basically, my question is whether there is a solid policy basis behind keeping demonstrably worse cleanups of the same source image when it has wide global project usage. I'm not looking forward to going to each wiki and renaming each instance, but I'll oblige if there's some sense behind it. Even then, I'm not sure whether my changes on other wikis will be instantly reverted by the same editor, thus spilling the edit conflict lameness to other wiki provinces. ˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Your version is the worse one - she looks the right colour in the current one, ie pink not yellow. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, mine is the pink one, not the yellow one, please try to purge and then check out the individual uploads in the history. Actually, they're both my versions, Tm's version is the first one[17], and it took quite a number of reverts and a discussion to get him to realize that it was broken. I uploaded over my own correction, because it was not of a higher standard. I don't want to have to pull teeth any time I add a new version of an image because the original uploader has ownership issues. I wouldn't be surprised if I have spent more time discussing this photograph and reverting it than actually editing it. ˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And, for whatever it's worth, Tm has now reverted 4 times in the course of a few hours. I feel a little ashamed at playing the revert game, but I do mind, the Dude minds. ˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that both of your versions are better than the initial version, which was completely overexposed. However, I think the 1,650×1,967 pixel version is better than the 1,636×1,902 pixel version, because the latter looks excessively saturated and orange. Is there a reason why you can't just upload it under a different file name? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Mainly because I'd like to be able to update the same intended version of the same source image without having to create a new image every time. This is why we have revisions to being with and it's in accordance with COM:OVERWRITE ("As a general rule, use the link "Upload a new version of this file" only for relatively minor improvements – color correction, removal of a watermark, rotation of buildings that are not upright, adding of higher resolution versions, and similar things where the essential composition is not altered."). Also, I'd have to go and adjust all of the outside links to the new image, which only adds another layer of useless work. It's not that I'm against having different versions, but there has to be a sane standard and I don't think that the original uploader's actions are reasonable. The reverts have been reactionary and without much thought.

Because this has become such a pain in the ass I am inclined to start over, spend some time and completely redo the photo and upload it as a new, separate version. But the issue remains, this is edit warring at its most puerile and it is far from the first time that an editor has come in conflict when attempting a good faith improvement on Tm's uploads. Previous disputes have even led to a block because of the same actions under similar circumstances. Foolish as it is I will still try, out of principle, to take some time to create a new version of the image, explain the improvements over the previous version to the original uploader and change the current version of the image -- because it can and should be better. ˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Everyone has their own opinion as to what they think is a "good" photograph. The petty edit warring has made a mess of the history, which needs to be deleted. Simple way of avoiding edit warring is to just upload it as a new file name and get a consensus on the Wiki's where the photograph is being used. Both of you are lucky not to be blocked for edit warring but the photograph is now protected for a week. Bidgee (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, how am I lucky? I've not violated any policies here. And the photos were uploaded to other wikis without any building of consensus. Would you like to volunteer to help build consensus on over a dozen wikis in over a dozen languages? And this is not a matter of opinion, the very first upload was very obviously broken, please take a closer look at the situation before administering the generic admonishments. ˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Bilbys assessment is valid I see at least one of your replacements comments (i'm sorry, but your version looks like shit. if this image is going to be used in articles, it must be of a higher standard) was really unhelpful to the situation and contributed to the edit warring on the image, if I'd seen it at the time I would have warned you about personal attacks and suggested you disengage. Surely it would have been logical after a revert to just create a new file name and be done with it, attribute it back to the source file rather then edit war for 6 months. Gnan garra 01:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@Anetode: You could have been blocked, yes we may not have COM:3RR unlike English Wikipedia but edit warring is still blockable (See the Commons' blocking policy). Its not up to me to build a consensus for a version you like the most, that is up to you. Yes, clearly the first photograph was overexposed but the uploader fixed it, now its a dispute on "tones", a petty one at that which could have been solved by uploading as a new file name. Bidgee (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Löschen von Dateiversionen

Kann mir jemand helfen, wie ich Dateiversionen wieder löschen kann? File:Olga of Greece VI.jpg um 14:19 und 14:25 habe ich Versionen erzeugt, die gelöscht werden sollten. Nur die version von 14.22 Uhr wollte ich einstellen. --Adelfrank (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Erstere ist weg. Wenn die Version von 16:22 Uhr bleiben soll, dann solltest du zunächst einmal auf diese zurücksetzen. Derzeit ist nämlich die von 16:25 Uhr aktuell. --Túrelio (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

O.k. Das zusätzliche Duplikat von 16:27 ist nun auch weg. --Túrelio (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Vielen Dank und schönen Tag noch. --Adelfrank (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

Since a form of compromise has been agreed-upon on , I would request that File:Axis occupation of Yugoslavia 1941-43.png and File:Axis occupation of Yugoslavia 1943-44.png be unprotected so that the new agreed-upon modifications can be entered. Regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Will someone just bloody unblock the damn files so we can end the dispute.. please? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Could we have a reference to the compromise, please? All I see at the talk pages for the images are warnings from my colleagues about further changes. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The dispute was over the label of the Serbia territory, that was settled (see the second and third post of this thread ("Title is acceptable.."). The original uploader still, for some reason, intensely resents my having posted a modified version of his map with different colours (I recommend you read the last three posts of that thread as an example of the incredible intransigence displayed by that user), and there is some discussion about which map should be posted on enWiki, but the political label issue has been settled and an edit-war on Commons is not going to happen. Now if only we could implement the compromise label.. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

See also her and her. Geagea (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So, do I understand correctly that you have agreed that the names will be changed as follows

with a redirect left in both cases per policy? Is that correct? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What? No! xP The file names are correct and not a matter of dispute, we've agreed to change the label of the Serbian territory from "Government of National Salvation" to "Serbia (under German Military Administration)". And that's what I'd like to implement. The guy still hates me and my map of course, doesn't like my colours, but does not dispute the accuracy of its contents. He wants his version of the map to be included, and not mine, but he does not consider my map an "affront to the fatherland" or whatever because of that label. In short, we've agreed to the contents of the map. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Look guys, we've agreed on this days ago. Its done, and its now taking longer to access the files than it did to solve the dispute. And the protection was completely unwarranted in the first place, after only two (2) reverts over a period of 22 days. Now please, can I please update the files before I go on holiday? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Everyone on vacation or something? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for now. That discussion looks active on Wikipedia still. I'd suggest you upload your file to a new file name, per the relevant Commons guidline. Its up to Wikipedia to decide what version to use, but Commons will host the all of them. If this new label has consensus on WP, then the articles will be edited to use that file instead of the existing one.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Omg.. it most certainly is an active discussion. We're discussing which map to use, flags, infoboxes, insignia, successor states, etc. - NOT the accuracy of the maps (which was the cause of the 2-revert "revert-war"). Obviously its a long discussion and noone here wants to read through it. So I'm obviously going to have to copy-paste the actual posts here - and still probably wait a week until someone does this. And for the record, I'm agitated because I'm going on vacation soon and would like to post this sometime this month. So please, forgive me if my tone seems rash and agitated, and try not to draw any unwarranted conclusions from that.

“

User:DIREKTOR: Yes yes lets forget about the scanned map for the moment, are you all right with "Serbia (under German military administration)" as the label per the sources provided by Fainites? (19:45, 2 August 2011)

User:PRODUCER: Title is acceptable, but not best one. I say that we should use my original map with name "Serbia (German occupation)". It is clear that your map is plagiate created from my work and why we should use this plagiate when we have original version which is of much better quality?... (09:23, 3 August 2011)

”

And then the discussion goes on about my whether I'm a "good person" and whether File:Fascist occupation of yugoslavia.png should be used instead of File:Axis occupation of Yugoslavia 1941-43.png. And what I want to do is fix the map so that one label within it, which was edit-warred over, can be renamed into the version that is (more) acceptable to both of us. (I've also got a host of error fixes I want to implement) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

To repeat: If you want the file up quickly just upload it to a different location (File:Axis occupation of Yugoslavia 1941-43 (new label).png is an example). That way, other WP editors can use it if they want. It will take longer than a few hours that for the page to be unprotected. Things can be sorted out later (such as if it should be placed over the other version or not). Commons has no interest in POV, but wants to facilitate WP's discussions.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ugh.. there are two files an they're both up on several articles. I'm not trying to save the file, I've got it on my computer, and there is no need for any discussion facilitation since we've got an agreement on an acceptable version of that file. The discussion you're seeing is the opposing user lobbying to have his version of the file up on Wiki articles (because of the different colours), but the POV label issue that caused the conflict there is resolved. All I'm trying to do here is access the files so I can upload the appropriately labelled versions and place them in the article - resolving one aspect of the dispute for good. I don't want to have to go about replacing the maps with a redundant new map that will get deleted later.. what's the problem? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons Delinker question

Is there any way to automatically replace a file across several wikipedia versions if that file has already been removed by Commons Delinker? The task at hand is to replace the deleted File:1140E-7.JPG, which was used several dozen times across several projects if I remember correctly, with File:1140E.jpg. Unfortunately, access to the Commons Delinker log seems to be broken ([18]), so I can't even tell from where it was removed. --Rosenzweig τ 16:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Libyan dinar copyvio template is removed - please speedy delete

Previously I had added a copyvio template to File:Libyan dinar one a.JPG on the basis that the image is the property of the Libyan government, not Victor Korniyenko (the uploader) as was claimed. Subsequently User:Tom (an administrator) removed the copyvio template and replaced it with a "no license" template. User:Avanu then changed the licence to "PD-USNWR" before changing it to "PD-self" (there is no evidence that a staff photographers at U.S. News & World Report or User:Avanu created the image and this seems exceedingly improbable), complaining that why can't people/bots who declare copyright problems give more help to people using Commons? It is like a needle in a haystack to figure out what is wanted, yet people have no problem speedily deleting things. User:Jcb (another administrator) then removed the "no license" template. Can anyone speedily delete the image? Greenshed (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Strange dulpicate page

User:Ðonny does not exist but User:Đonny. Could someone please have a look at it. -- RE rillke questions? 07:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Odd -- I've deleted the first one you listed and left the second one. But it's just me or the titles are identical? --Dferg (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

encodeURI("User:Ðonny vs User:Đonny"); -> "User:Ðonny vs User:Đonny" -- RE rillke questions? 10:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Aha, I see. Thanks. A C3/C4 issue :-) --Dferg (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice to have WP -- RE rillke questions? 11:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

new user

Pls check uploads from User:Dgolitsis. He is new in the wiki and doesn't understand how GNU works (i dont understand either but at least i dont upload pictures i found in the web, claiming that i am the creator, to put them in my wiki articles).--87.203.67.34 22:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Done--Trixt (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Automatically prevent redirects to other Wiki-projects on userpages by filter

Is this possible?

For example with /^\s*\#\s*REDIRECT\s*\[\[:?w?:?(\D\D:[^:] :[^:] )\]\]/

for article_namespace = 2 or article_namespace = 3

Our scripts currently create new pages if they try to notify the user. Futhermore the redirects show up in Special:BrokenRedirects

Solution: Inform the user that he can use {{Softredirect|:en:User:username}} -- RE rillke questions? 11:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should disallow the edits. Maybe just a warning they have to click through to still do it. By the way, can those warnings be translated and served based on language settings in the abuse filter? Killiondude (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

?"language settings in the abuse filter"? -- RE rillke questions? 16:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you answered my question in a post that seems to have disappeared in the meantime. I forgot that those warnings are loaded from MediaWiki pages, I was thinking they were written into abuse filter rules directly. I don't think they should be disallowed because it's not something heinous.
I used to frequently clear the broken redirects list due to issues like this and it didn't take much time. Killiondude (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok but displaying a warning to the user would be a nice solution. BTW I removed the second posting because I tw is much more complex than I thought.

BTW, if you look at RillkeBot (talk · contribs), you can see that there were a lot of broken redirects. But we have a solution for this, now so warning on talk-pages is enough. (Keep in mind that our scripts create nonsense-pages if the redirect has a target in another wiki and it can be very hard to find them and delete them.) -- RE rillke questions? 10:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

File:C64d.JPG

Hi, Is it possible to delete this file. Il have not uploaded the good file. Even if this file is in the public domain (published on officiel journal), in fact this file has not to be on Commons. Il'll upload a .svg drawing. Thanks.Roulex 45 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User:BotMultichillT

Please temporarily block/stop the bot. (also User:GeographBot though I think it's inactive) Reason : It is 'spamming' many categories with junk, rendering any good work done by human operators irrelevent. The bot are very innacurate in their geographic placements, and wrong more than 50% of the time. (Topic categorisation is better but still error prone.) see User_talk:Multichill#Geograph_bot_and_multichillbot_problems and Commons:Batch_uploading/Geograph#Problem_with_geographic_categories for background.

Here is a typical edit [19] - the issue is that the bot is populating proper categories to such an extent that it's 'junking' them. The geographic algorhythm used appears to be a kludge and doesn't correspond to real boundaries. The issue is categories such as Category:High Peak which now has over 1000 members - the majority of which are totally irrelevent. There are literally hundreds of other categories the bot is spamming eg Category:Hambleton, Category:Harrogate (in fact these should be parent categories of other categories the bot is adding to).

Here's an example of how it is going wrong (this happens more than 50% of the time) http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:A_makeshift_bridge_-_geograph.org.uk_-_551448.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=57663490&oldid=49307476 - it places the page in the Category:Baslow and probably not Category:Wetlands of England when it probably should have been Category:Blaslow and Bubnell (this is different), and Category:Moorlands in England or lower - it's not an image of Balsow village and not wetlands.

Whatever else the bot does the request is that any geographical tagging be stopped until the bot works properly. I would also be requesting that the bot operator undo the mass additions to high level categories such as Category:Harrogate. (I've suggested elsewhere that the bot could place images in maintence categories) Thanks.Imgaril (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

When you say its spamming High Peak with irrelevant files: Are those files mostly of locations in High Peak district or other parts of the country? If they are of places in High Peak district, are those files also being added to appropriate location categories within High Peak (notwithstanding localisation errors)?

By comparison, that problem is occuring in the Essex categories such as Category:Thurrock, but is not occuring in Devon district categories: Category:South Hams has a few bot-added images, which the bot failed to localise more closely. My guess at the key differenceis that the Devon district categories include the relevant location categories. Category:Totnes is a subcategory of Category:South Hams, reflecting the real relationship between the two - this cannot be said for Category:Glossop and Category:High Peak. The bot may be picking up on this, and not "spamming" the district category as it has already placed it somewhere else. Adding the same relationships to Derbyshire may also eliminate that specific problem. This should also be done in any case, to reflect the relationship between the district and places within it.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes - it goes wrong when the commons category tree doesn't match it's expectations. For example see the "example1" below. It doesn't recognise "district" or high level categories unless other categories it matches are subcategories of those categories in the commons category tree.

(I think the reason only some categories are added is that the bot is only adding files to a limited list of places - basically if you can see this map [20] at the given scale level you are seeing the places the bot uses - I can confirm that the bot 'spams' the places "Anlaby" "Anlaby Common" and "Dunswell" - Category:Dunswell is a case in point - it contains images from the bank of the humber several miles away - no way can these edits be described as helpful subjectively - if you look at the online map in your Devon examples I would guess that you will only see placenames for the places that are getting a lot of bot categorisation.)

In terms of the High Peak question - the files are around the high peak area, not usually from other parts of the country (though the bot also has been shown to make disambiguation errors elsewhere) - however though the locations are around the general area the additions are not necessarily in the correct borough. Here's an example example1 added to "Harrogate" and "Appletreewick" - Appletreewick is a nearby village but the the image is of Simons's Seat, on Barden Fell, in the civil parish of Barden. Appletreewick is not a suitable category, not would any future subcategories be likely to be suitable. It's within ~30 miles of Category:Harrogate, but the correct district is actually Category:Craven (ie Category:District of Craven). So all those categories were wrong and will have to be deleted. The bot is adding files to district categories and lower level town and civil parish categories too at the same time. Clearly it shouldn't be doing this.

Also it doesn't use the correct category - eg it uses Category:Harrogate when it should be using Category:Borough_of_Harrogate - the result is that the "town" category is a real mess. I really think the bot should be made to reverse a lot of what they have done. (in particular when the files haven't been human edited after).

(edit conflict) NB As I understand it proper boundary data is available from the OS Open data project - this would allow 99.99% accurare categorisation down to the civil parish level. Imgaril (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

{added a bit more after edit conflict)

Not really disputing the errors here, or commenting on them, until I've had a chance to really analyse. My point is if the village/parish categories are correctly categorised into the district categories, you won't get the bot dumping files into both a district and a village/parish category, it will just put them into the parish cat. That might still be the wrong parish, but at least it won't flood the districts. And that should be done regardless of this, as the relationship between CP and district ought to be reflected in the category tree.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right - I don't know exactly what it is programmed to do . but I've never seen it place an image into categories that are linked 'parent>child' in the existing category tree.

My gut feeling here is to completely seperate the two elements of the categorisation into two bots: Localisation and Subject. The first is something the bots are currently struggling with, the second they are pretty good with: They normally get the right <subject> in <county>, and if they don't its the result of poor tagging on Geograph or a bad category tree here ("moorlands" are "wetlands", so "bog" goes to "wetland" if it can't find "moorland"...)--Nilfanion (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any big problem with the stuff like "roads" "houses" etc - however it adds its location mistakes to those categories - ie when it gets the wrong county it adds stuff like "category:houses in wrong county"...Imgaril (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The bot continues to make gross errors at a rate of over 5000 a day. most recent edit - could someone please press the stop button. Imgaril (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of the errors are due to bad or redundant structures. For example [21] is not surprising as there are many overlapping Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Charlestowns. It has been reported in Commons:Categories needing disambiguation that there is a need for disambiguation on those categories, but some people revert disambiguations, rather than trying to correct the structures. Anyway, it seems better to have some of the categories as redundant ones or even partly wrong than having the images sleep for years in "uncategorised" categories. My experience is that when you see more than thousand images in a category, such as Category:Harrogate or Category:Hambleton, then there is something structurally wrong, but nothing that cannot be solved by using {{Intersect categories}}. --Foroa (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not really correct - it has issues when the category structure is incomplete - that is true. But it consistently places images in totally wrong categories. eg Category:Dunswell - this is not an extreme example - due to the bot 12 out of the 31 images are totally wrong by any measure. This category was correct a few months ago. It does the same in every category it uses. I just gave an example about of it placing an image in two county categories [most recent edit] - how can that possibly be explained. When it finds botttom level categories it places images consistently in wrong categories.Imgaril (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protect this page!

Hi, can someone semi-protect the Swedish version of Main Page (Huvudsida) to prevent vandalism? // WikiPhoenix ^(Talk) 17:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

But there were no edits since 23 May 2011. --Túrelio (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The page was vandalized that date. I thought it would be suitable to have the page protected since it is a main page in another language. // WikiPhoenix ^(Talk) 21:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

For info

I am removing patroller and rollback rights for this user based in part on this but also on the en wp block of the user plus there behaviour elsewhere. I've not blocked them - others may or may not feel that appropriate but I would ask anyone who doesn't agree to talk to a project CU before doing anything - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:BotMultichillT (section 2)

User:BotMultichillT

Please stop the bot so it's malfunctioning can be addressed - I've given numerous examples above at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:BotMultichillT but that seems to have descended into some sort of meta-discussion - example see Category:Dunswell - as a result of the bots activity the category now contains 12 images wrongly place out of 31. The algorthym the bot is using needs to be improved, and the bot needs to be stopped. Imgaril (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The bot does more good than harm and it tags images as needing the categories checked anyway. Better some wrong than none. And we can see the thread just up the page here without you duplicating it. If you have desires for improvement to the functionality, you can leave suggestions at User talk:Multichill. – Adrignola talk 03:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already made numerous suggestions about the bot on that talk page, including suggestions for improvement, but no response.

Clearly you must have more experience than me of the bots operations, good luck with cleaning up the rest of the 1million images then if you are so happy with it. I am assuming that you have any real experience of it at all. Of course you must since you speak so authoritively about it.Imgaril (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You should have stopped after the first sentence, but then you decided to cop an attitude. Don't expect any further concern for the situation on my part as a result. – Adrignola talk 03:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You must be a really cool administrator.212.50.170.52 14:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

@Imgaril; Strange that you accuse BotMultichillT of miss categorising when you've done the same very thing. Yes we are all not prefect but BotMultichillT categorising isn't vandalism and I suggest keep this at one section on the noticeboard and that you stop using the term "vandalising" and "vandalism" when it clearly isn't. Bidgee (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that - I hope that's the only mistake I made - which would be within that category - 1 error in 300 - whereas if it had been BotMultichill then it would have been at least 120 errors, with multiple wrong categories added.

I just don't understand why all of you don't want to help me, and are ignoring a clear problem. There's even a perfect solution if the bot is modified to use the 100% accurate data from OS open data.

? 16:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No its not the only error and you left the 70 photographs which were categorised as "Watering troughs in the United Kingdom" were also categorised in the parent category ("Watering troughs"), and the other day categorised other Australian photographs into a UK category. Bidgee (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well don't try to make an issue out of it - because it OK to make errors like that. Just like multichillbot. So get used to it.Imgaril (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well you are taking to make an issue of it since you're wanting BotMultichillT to be blocked for miscategorisation, yet you have done a similar thing. Bidgee (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Karwelis

Need someone to look at the copyright status of these images please. They appear to be scans of original photographs, and the uploader is claiming them as own work. FYI the subject of the images, Donald Karwelis, is dead.--ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - it is not "own work" (with one possible exception). I have informed the uploader that we must have licensing via COM:OTRS to protect the copyright holder and deleted the images, Thanks for the info. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Uploading different images by different authors as "new versions" of existing files

Hi,

I noticed that someone had replaced my image File:LR44_Button_Cell_Battery.jpg with a similar, but totally re-shot from scratch and unrelated image. The replacement image was of good quality and the rationale was sensible, but I wasn't comfortable with someone uploading a clearly new, re-shot image as mine when it wasn't (particularly as my credit remained).

I moved the new image, updated most references to point to it, then reverted the original filename to my image.

I've occasionally replaced my own images with entirely new versions in the past (which might not strictly be within the rules) and I've uploaded *modified* versions of existing images (e.g. File:OmoaBeach.jpg

I notice the user has also done the same thing to File:AAAAVarta.jpg.

I might be wrong, but as far as I know this isn't the way things are meant to work on Commons. I'm sure the user is acting in good faith, and I just wanted to check what policy is when it comes to stuff like this. Any help appreciated. Thank you, Ubcule (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that these should be uploaded as separate images. - Jmabel ! talk 05:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Ubcule (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

File Version Deletion

Could some admin please delete file versions of this picture. I mean those versions with text within. Thanks in advance, --Heinz-Josef Lücking (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. In the future, please refrain from modifying images in this manner, regardless of how strongly you believe in a message's importance. Wikimedia Commons and the other Wikimedia projects exist as academic resources, not forums in which to pay tribute. Thank you. —David Levy 06:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Tour de l'Horloge - Sigonce.JPG

Could someone check the edits to the above. Thanks. -- Docu at 11:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat complicated by the fact that the new uploader is almost certainly this user as well. There are now watermarked with "all rights reserved" on a number of images (& I'm guessing the uploads from Vanille0413 should actually have that watermark on). There is no real indication that the user is the photographer but I guess it is likely. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Contact anyway - an fr speaker is now required on the user's talk page. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem?

This one may be a bit more urgent than general because the image is currently hosted on the front page of English Wikipedia. :)

File:Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.jpg seems problematic under Commons:Screenshots#Software. I'm going to bring up the copyright concerns at English Wikipedia as well, but wanted to point it to you. I don't see anything in the file description to indicate that the OS is released under compatible license. I have not tagged this as derivative or a copyright problem, but was hoping that you guys could help look into it. Meanwhile, I'm going to go see about getting it looked at at En Wikipedia. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm here to request an uninvolved administrator's advice on this matter.

I uploaded this image yesterday (as a replacement for a non-free image that had remained long beyond the point at which a fair use claim was reasonably invoked).

As I noted on the image's talk page, my understanding is that the screen's content is not considered the photograph's primary subject. (The image is intended to illustrate the device, not the specific software.) I distinctly recall similar images being kept for this reason.

If I'm mistaken, please delete the image straight away (or ask me to, and I'll gladly comply). But if this is so, numerous other images hosted at Commons (and used to illustrate similar products across various Wikimedia projects) are equally problematic. —David Levy 17:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The potentially problematic portion of the image has been removed (to simulate a blank screen). Can an administrator please close the deletion request? Thanks! —David Levy 06:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Closed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Zach. —David Levy 07:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please delete plenty of copyvios

No. The images from the Ulmer Museum are indeed from the facebook.com site (the museum's own page on facebook, that is). That doesn't make them unfree, since these paintings are correctly licensed {{PD-art}}. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dupuis_pierre

This user uploaded numerous files, many of which are strange (unused) own diagrams of geometric shapes somewhat (esoterically?) connected with the Ark of the Covenant etc. that are not well described and IMHO out of scope. The user's other files seem to be thumbnails and other images just taken from the web. --FA2010 (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A bunch of images that need checking and probably deleting

Yeah, not my idea of fun either! But I handled OTRS ticket:2011081310009959, which led me to Gonza777 (enwiki; Commons), who has uploaded dozens of copyrighted images to the English Wikipedia claiming they're his own work. It looks like there have been similar problems over here, and the majority of their uploads have been deleted. It's probably worth checking the two that remain. Unfortunately, several of the enwiki images were transferred to Commons so:

Will need to be checked and probably deleted. Having deleted all their upload to enwiki, I can say it's fairly obvious just by looking at the images that they're not the uploader's own work—the resolution and lack of metadata are strong circumstantial evidence. I would suggest deleting all those images and blocking the user indefinitely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you, although I have no admin powers. Maybe you could contact one of the editors who originally blocked him, such as en:User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise? Maybe they could assist. Mr.choppers (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but this just needs a Commons admin to nuke the images. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted the clear copyright violations, others are best to be taken to a Deletion Request. Bidgee (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The others have been tagged for alck of permission, so I'll leave it at that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

revoking Licences by User:Taxiarchos228

moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#revoking Licences by User:Taxiarchos228. --JuTa (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations

User:Clerkwheel has uploaded many images of commercial bamboo products that can be found on commercial web sites (e.g. http://hehezs.en.alibaba.com/productlist.html). These images are being used to populate pages with low key promotion of the products (e.g. show displays Bamboo#Trade show displays). I suspect the user is not the owner of the rights as is claimed. Jojalozzo (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, nuked all, thank you. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Aspersive accusation of User:Túrelio

Túrelio (talk · contribs) accuses me here that I supposed threat against an admin which is not true. I already clarified that that the statement I made Wenn Du bis in 24 Stunden deine Aktion nicht rückgängig machst werde ich rechtliche Schritte prüfen lassen., in english: If you don't retract your action within 24 hours I will proof legal measures. is not against any person but an announcement that I will let proof the legal meaning.

Túrelio behaviour is dubious because:

first: he is a native German speaker and it is very surprising that he misunderstood a clear statement (or wanted to)
second: he was involved in this topic weeks ago as he asked me User_talk:Taxiarchos228/Archive2011#Lizenz-.C3.84nderung.3F, his action today smells very strongly like revenge
last but not least: the behaviour of admin ChrisiPK (talk · contribs) is a missuse of his admin rights because he blocked a picture file in which he was involved in an editwar. Túrelios announcement above smells also as a smoke grenade to cover the missuse of ChrisiPK.

Therefore I demand Túrelio to offtake his predication against me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be best for all involved parties to take a Preußische Nacht (sleep over it). --Leyo 19:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Your English here is not making your case; it's grammatically wrong, and what meaning I can drag from it doesn't support your case. What do you mean by "will let proof the legal meaning", besides suing someone?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My reply:

ad 1) I stand by my initial assessment of your words against ChrisiPK. Your own translation into english is clear enough. Most importantly, the person against whom you directed your comment, ChrisiPK, obviously understood it quite well as a legal threat against him[23],[24] and thereafter felt compelled to act against his own conviction.

ad 2) Hmm, my involvement was that I had asked Taxiarchos228 on June 29 why he had changed CC to FAL for his images. Though I got an unfriendly "because-I-want"-type answer, I didn't follow up, as I had more pressing things to do. (Actually I hadn't read his last, again unfriendly reply until today, as I hadn't visited his talkpage after my last reply.) No, I did not post this for revenge (thanks for the accusation). My well-known motivation for this in general can be read here (linked since years on my userpage) . Besides, a discussion about the licence-change issue had been opened JuTa already 2 days ago on COM:AN/U.

ad 3) By this, you do not really want to suggest that Commons-internal behaviour of an admin, such as the disputed-by-you edit-protection, could be a legal subject, targeted by your lawyer? But, as you now (none of it in your original threat[25]) think that an admin has "misused his admin rights", you (publicly) consider(ed) legal measures, against him or anybody? Confusing. Then, your smoke-ball suggestion: I consider such actions as yours far more damaging than a complaint/thread about (alleged) admin-rights misuse. (The more active an admin is, the more likely there will be actions which are perceived as misuse by one of the involved or really are a misuse.)

I didn't demand your head. But, if we allow intimidatory tactics against our sysops such as legal threats to impose one's will, then good-bye Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Having been vaguely following this debate across various discussions, I feel the same worry about Taxiarchos/Wladyslaw's somewhat veiled legal threats as does Túrelio. If one all of a sudden regrets the decision to give away an image: Tough noogies. Attempting to revoke a license is equivalent to demanding the return of a gift. You gave it away, let it be. Legal threats (be they mere hints) run counter to the entire idea of free licensing, and therefore undermine what Commons is all about. I would like to see Wladyslaw respond to these things rather than splitting hairs about Deutsch. Not that my opinion is very important, but I would appreciate a reply from Wladyslaw as to why he thinks that taking back something he already gave away is acceptable or even possible. Mr.choppers (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

AWB requests

Could somebody, please, pay attention to Commons talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? The backlog of the requests for using AWB is almost two months. Thanks in advance. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. – Adrignola talk 03:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Upload Wizard Flickr problem

It appear the UploadWizard is attaching a FlickreviewR tag to several apparently properly licenced images at upload time even when the source is not from Flickr. I've seen several such images appear in the Category:Unsourced Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR, such as File:Strickling 750x900.jpg and File:Elizabeth M. Harman.jpg that I have fixed but other improper non-Flickr images are also being tagged, such as File:NORDAKADEMIE Audimax.jpg and File:MAIN-PRESS-PIC-2011.jpg that I have tagged appropriately. Check the file history and you will see.

I first noticed this a few weeks ago and asked this editor about it here but he found it happeneing to him with recent uploads and posted about it on my en talk page but I have been unable to explain the reason for this tagging. Ww2censor (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This bug? I'm surprised the flickr review bot hasn't yet strangled the upload wizard for all the useless workload. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This would be fixed by integrating the mw.FlickrChecker.js functionality into UploadWizard, so that Flickr licenses are handled automatically. Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I came to complain about the same problem. I'm not alone, I see. It doesn't happen every time, but the other day the Wizard attached the flicker review tag 6 out of 7 times. I now know to remove them immediately, but many others will not. Help! Bobdatty (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad Flickr authors

So for CommonsDelinker we can see that the commands are piling up at User:CommonsDelinker/commands and that no removals or replacements have been made since August 4, leaving red links and less obvious usage of files following a rename. But did you also know that FlickreviewR is also no longer applying User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors (see "chicagofabulous" and "americanistadechiapas" on this talk page). So we are now more vulnerable to Flickr washing and I've seen at least three instances where this could have stopped a bad image from getting approved. I doubt anyone would have the time to go through the human-readable list at Commons:Questionable Flickr images and check against Flickr files. We're quite dependent on the Flickr review bot, but unless someone programs a new one with the same functionality, without the source that used to be available on the Toolserver, and with the ability to parse User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors properly, we're out of luck on that route. I have had no luck prompting an update to be made by the original author. So would there be any objections to taking the URLs for the bad Flickr users and adding them to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist to prevent the files from being uploaded with the bad URLs in the first place? – Adrignola talk 01:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it, though it would be better if we could just get the damn bots fixed/replaced. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad news. I added one author to the blacklist and verified that I was unable to create a page with the blacklisted URL. Then I tried to upload one of the files from that Flickr user, using the same URL I couldn't save before as the source. And it worked: File:Molino Goicoechea.jpg (see deleted history, where I created the file's page with the blacklisted URL). So the Upload Wizard is bypassing the spam blacklist. It also appears that the standard upload form is as well: File:Molino Goicoechea 2.jpg. So forget about that avenue. There is no recourse. – Adrignola talk 19:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If an Flickr image was transferred to Commons by FlickrLickr in the past, do/can we consider it to be correctly licensed at the time of upload? File:Royal Albert Hall.jpg was uploaded to Commons in 2007, but now it was found to be ND-restricted on Flickr. Of course, the Flickr user may have changed to license between 2007 und 2011. But User:FlickrLickr does not put a record onto the image page. --Túrelio (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We can. Flickr-change-of-license. @Adrignola: Im frequently reviewing some of the worst flickrusers, with "chicagofabulous" and "americanistadechiapas" you already mentioned the worst of the worst, thats people building commercial websites using other peoples content without credit and with free licenses (americanistadechiapas changed this now, but in former times they not credited anyone and they even faked the EXIF information to their own needs). --Martin H. (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above topic, but related to the bad-authors list: Is there some threshold (no of copyvios etc) we use to list flickr accounts on the list? And what's the process for getting flickr accounts to the list? cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You can ask for accounts to be added at Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images. Usually they're added or at least requested when there's a clear pattern of ignoring Flickr's terms of use and licensing, such as using Flickr to host various files found on the Internet while using a CC license by default. – Adrignola talk 18:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Image stolen from TV show

This pic was stolen from a TV show in Brazil. That family appeared on TV and somebody took a picture of them and downlowded their pic here. They have no permission. Xuxo (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It was stolen from this TV show Xuxo (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The guy's other flickr uploads look ok though. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request

I just uploaded an image, I don't know why but it seemed not ok as the one on my pc (why?!). Then I uploaded this one which fortunately seemed ok! :) so I assume the first one isn't needed any more. --YusuF 21:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. – Adrignola talk 22:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request

I uploaded this a little while ago, and I have decided I didn't want to upload it as a sudden afterthought. I originally uploaded it only for the use of myself and another user, not wikipedia as a whole. I'm not completely confident in the map. I didn't cite all sources properly for the map. Could you guys please delete it?--Yalens (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Done -mattbuck (Talk) 10:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Invincible file

Hey all, recently File:1_Wattle_Grove_land_for_sale_in_cell_9.jpg was deleted following a deletion request, but the file content is still there. I tried to delete it, but got "Error deleting file: Error". Is this a bug? Will it fix itself? This is a copyvio. Thanks. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

After clicking on Purge, the link became red. So, it seems to be

Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Galea

Hi. Please can someone check the contrib of this user? Saibo asked me to explain the user (in spanish) he needs an OTRS or add licences as you can see in his TP. I also send him a couple mails. He never answered, but under my last message he add a gallery, so is not possible to say he didn´t see it. They look copyvios to me, but I have no way to probe it. Galea doesn´t edit since july 19. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Title blacklist

Just a note that MediaWiki:Titleblacklist still isn't working. Admin12 registered today despite the presence of .*\b(admin|sysop|moderator|arbitrator|checkuser|oversight)\b.* <newaccountonly> in the blacklist. – Adrignola talk 17:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That regex does not match that string. Emufarmers (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much regex. I asked around and Kingpin13 told me that .*\b(admin|sysop|moderator|arbitrator|checkuser|oversight)(\b|\d).* might be better since it would block users with numbers after any of those terms. But \b is a boundary, so if I am understanding correctly, then it's not protecting anything (Right now) other than users registering those exact usernames. Killiondude (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"\b" matches a "word boundary": a transition between a "word character" and a "non-word character". Traditionally, regular expressions consider both letters and numbers to be "word characters", so "Admin12" does not match the original regex.

Thanks. I've updated it to reflect this. – Adrignola talk 00:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Deepen03

User:Deepen03 uploaded several images of WTC 1, from different angles. All of them are of fairly low resolution, one has meta data (File:OneWTCJuly2011.jpg) and one even has an AP copyright notice (File:Wtcprogress8.3.jpg). I suggest nuking the uploads of the user, but would like some more input before I go ahead. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Done One of the uploads turned out to have a free source at Flickr, the others are deleted as copyvios. Lymantria (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What about File:4WTCAug2010.jpg? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I forgot to mention that I didn't find a straight source from which this one could be stolen. It has low resolution though. You might consider a DR. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Immunoblot.png

Hi there. The author of this image contacted me by e-mail, annoyed that his image had been replaced by what he thinks is a poorer-quality version of something different, that is also by a different author. Could somebody revert his back to its original state? Thanks TimVickers (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. – Adrignola talk 14:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

user rename request

hello, I need to rename the user Jetset (myself) and connect it to my global account Josef Pavlik. thank you --Jetset (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Changing username. --Túrelio (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Natuzzi mandus

If one more admin does a mass deletion of this user's uploads after I've tagged all of them except for the most recent ones with OTRS confirmed, I'm going to lose it. – Adrignola talk 14:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Then take care of this user's uploads. --High Contrast (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, though I didn't delete any, I cv-tagged a few, which hadn't any hint of OTRS. Sorry. I'll put a note about OTRS-pending on the users talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

High Contrast, I have been. I don't care if you delete a copyright violation without an OTRS tag. But you and another see several copyright violations without the tags, don't bother to check the earlier uploads, then use the mass delete tool and blow away all the files that I already tagged. Then I get another email in to OTRS asking why the files were deleted after I told them all was good. And you tell me to take care of it. Well, I have, I've cleaned up the mess. – Adrignola talk 17:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that won't happen again under your excellent assistance. Regards Adrignola, High Contrast (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

FIle deletion

This file has been uploaded by mistake. Can anyone please delete it?-Ravichandar84 (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. In the future you can use {{Speedy|reason here}} and an admin will get to it. :) Killiondude (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

legal threat against an admin

The above mentioned Taxiarchos228 (talk · contribs) (=Wladyslaw) has made a a direct legal threat against admin User:ChrisiPK after ChrisiPK had restored the original licensing of File:Toronto - ON - ROM3.jpg, that had been changed by Taxiarchos228 himself[26] nearly 2 years after upload from GFDL-user-de ( wm-relicense CC-BY-SA 3.0) to FAL (license replacement, not addition). ChrisiPK had also temporarily edit-protected the image after there had been excessive edit-warring about the licensing. The a-posteriori license changing of own-images by Taxiarchos228 has been discussed here: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#revoking Licences by User:Taxiarchos228. Following this legal threat ChrisiPK has unprotected the image.
Independent of an authoritative or final decision of the underlying question whether users can change the licensing of their image long after upload, this behaviour a serious violation of the No legal threats policy as the threat was made to impose Taxiarchos228's opinion. --Túrelio (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) Giving or chancing license of images is the exclusive right of the copyright holder and not to waive by any rules.

(2) ChrisiPK has violate in an extremely way against (1). Not only that he did not argued and ignored my answer after his application, participate in this editwar but he forced his position and tried to demonstrate this by locking the file. For this missuse ChrisiPK should be taken his admin status.

(3) The allegation that I have threated ChrisiPK is not correct. I said (in german): Wenn Du bis in 24 Stunden deine Aktion nicht rückgängig machst werde ich rechtliche Schritte prüfen lassen., in english: If you don't retract your action within 24 hours I will proof legal measures. I did not said that the legal measures would be against ChrisiPK and proofing legal measures is a ordinary behavior if you have judicial friction.

--Wladyslaw (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding (2): I already apologized here for not responding to your answer on your talk page. I simply didn't see it, sorry, my bad. However, I still stand by my decision to protect the image. I am just not enforcing it right now.

Regarding (3): Threatening to take legal action on my talk page can hardly be interpreted as taking legal action against somebody who is not me. If you feel the WMF is violating your rights, you should have contacted them instead of me. Obviously you felt I was the violator (which you clearly stated in (1) and (2) again), so you came to my talk page to threaten me with legal action. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Although no legal threats policy that Túrelio cites above is on WP:EN and not Commons, we have used it in the past and it appears to be appropriate here. It is not important to determine whether the threat was against an Admin or against Commons itself, either is unacceptable. User:Taxiarchos228 should be blocked from editing on Commons (except his talk page) until he either withdraws the threat or it is resolved in the courts. I will do that if there is no objection after a reasonable period.

As the cited discussion makes clear, with a good summary from Clindberg, the license originally put on the image is irrevocable and cannot be changed except, in certain cases, as permitted by the license itself. The copyright owner can add additional licenses so that the user can pick among them. The owner can also put the image into the public domain. But in no case can he or she replace an existing irrevocable license, particularly if the new license is more restrictive as the FAL arguably is. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As I have many copyright infringement on my pictures I collaborate since several years with a advocate which is specialized for copyright. I have asked him before I make this chances and he told me what I have said in (1). He also said to me that many rules in the GNU-FDL and other license are judicial not durable. If this should be wrong I have to proof it. This has nothing to do with admonish someone but I will have legal certainty. It was not my intention to affright ChrisiPK but I feeled pissed of his behavior. I accept his excuse. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you shown to your lawyer the full legal text of CC licenses [27]? It states: "Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work)". When you released your images, you agreed to this term as well. SV1XV (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, he knows that and as I already said GNU-FDL and other license are judicial not durable. Having rules/ conditions does not mean that they fits to laws all time. But this is not the topic here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And FAL differs in "judical durability"? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said this and your question is rather irrelevant to this topic. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Rechtliche Schritte prüfen lassen" ist kein Angriff. Ich habe genau diese rechtlichen Schritte bereits 2009 bei WMDE beantragt, Kolossos und Histo ebenfalls. Wir brauchen endlich mal Klarheit. Da von offizieller Seite nihts unternommen wird, gehe ich davon aus, daß eine Klärung der rechtlichen Fragen von dort unerwünscht ist. Bisher habe ich deshalb auch noch nichts unternommen. Aber scheinbar muß es doch sein. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Ralf, dass ich widersprechen muss, aber ein Satz, der so "Wenn Du bis in 24 Stunden deine Aktion nicht rückgängig machst ..." beginnt, ist klar persönlich addressiert. Wenn Taxiarchos228 seinen Widerspruch auf einem COM:AN-Board thematisiert hätte, wäre es völlig o.k. gewesen. Aber durch rechtliche Drohungen Druck auf einen admin auszuüben, der seinen "Job" macht, geht garnicht. --Túrelio (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dir muss ich aber nicht erklären, was Personalpronomen sind und wann etwas persönlich gemeint war, oder? Der Satz ist in klarem und unmissverständlichem Deutsch verfasst. Da steht nichts von rechtlichen Schritten gegen irgendeine Person. Deine durchsichtige Nebelkerze habe ich weiter unten thematisiert. Du wolltest es ja so haben. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Das Theater geht doch schon seit Jahren. Und es sind immer Accounts/Personen involviert, je nachdem, wer wieder aktiv wird. Es geht dabei aber überhaupt nicht um Personen oder Accounts sondern um eine prinzipielle Klärung der Fragen, was keineswegs rechtlich klar oder unumstritten ist. Es ist ziemlich sinnlos, jetzt hier persönlich zu werden, so meine Meinung. Man kann es auch so sehen, daß Chisi kraft seiner Adminfunktion seine Meinung durchsetzen wollte. Das ist in einem Streit, in den er selbst involviert ist, nicht in Ordnung. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ich habe Taxiarchos verwarnt, die Lizenz nicht erneut zu entfernen. Dem ist er nicht nachgekommen, woraufhin ich u.a. nach Lektüre der zugehörigen Diskussion auf AN/U die Datei gesperrt habe. Ich habe hierbei nicht meine Meinung durchgedrückt, sondern den Konsens, der seit Jahren in diesem Projekt besteht. Den Fehler in meinem Vorgehen kann ich nicht erkennen. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who issues a legal threat - or even the threat of a legal threat - should be blocked from editing until the matter has been resolved. I for one recommend a block of the user. No one should be subjected to legal threats here, and if they are, then the communication should take place through lawyers, not through Commons. Further to this, if you're the victim of copyright violations, WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD BE ANY LESS LIKELY TO VIOLATE FAL THAN GFDL/CC-BY-SA? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I'm certainly not one to shrink from blocking where it is merited, only Mattbuck, has supported it in the three days since I made the suggestion above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

ChrisiPK was justified in protecting the file due to edit-warring, although the uploader does have the right to opt-out of the CC-relicensing change. Even allowing for a certain imprecision in translation, it is evident that a threat of legal action was made by Wladyslaw. As such, I agree with Jameslwoodward's comment that the threat of legal action cannot be condoned on WMF projects, and unless and until the threat is withdrawn, I concur that a user block is warranted. JGHowes ^talk - 20:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it utterly astonishing that you are prepared to sit back and wait for a week so far while an admin is now fettered by a threat of legal action. On English Wikipedia, User:Taxiarchos228 would have been indefinitely blocked immediately, pending a withdrawal of legal threat or a conclusion of a legal case. Does nobody take their responsibilities to defend Commons admins from this sort of treatment seriously? --RexxS (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur, and so have blocked Taxicharos indefinitely until such time as any legal issues have been solved. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You must be crazy to fall for this misunderstanding. He said (in German, the English translation must be a language mistake (prüfen = to check, beweisen = to poof)), that he would consult a lawyer to let him check if the license migration was legal after German law. He means the first license migration from GFDL to CC-BY-SA, to which the author (he has more rights after German law then in the US) never agreed with. The migration itself is probably illegal after German law, as long the author does not agree. This fact has already driven out many German contributers and made them angry.

Back to intial topic: He never threatened ChrisiPK. He said that he would consult a lawyer if the actions from the WMF are legal after German law. A question that any anybody can ask. There is no legal thread as long he makes no legal claims against the WMF or it's users. There is a huge gap between both options. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 11:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

He said,

"Wenn Du bis in 24 Stunden deine Aktion nicht rückgängig machst werde ich rechtliche Schritte prüfen lassen."

If you up in 24 hours do not undo your action I will have consider legal action.

translator: Google

The translation appears to be a clear threat of legal action. Because ChrisiPK gave in to his demands, he said later that he did not mean to threaten ChrisiPK, but as far as I know he has not retracted the threat against WMF.

I did not block him, and would not have acted without more consensus, because Commons does not have a Wikipedia:No legal threats policy and, as a practical matter, the threat is meaningless. It would cost him thousands of dollars in legal fees just to get a lawsuit filed against WMF in a US Federal court, in order win monetary damages, he would have to prove that our policy actually lost him money, so that all could hope to win would be an order that we do it his way. If he lost, WMF could move that the suit be adjudged "frivolous", in which case he would have to pay WMFs costs. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The bigger and still unsolved problem is the legal situation. Any German re-user that uses such an image under CC-BY-SA, that was migrated, runs on very thin glass. The WMF should not have any problem (as usual), but the any German re-user might have. He isn't protected by US-law. Thats what Taxiarchos want's to check with his lawyer. He already stated inside this discussion: "I did not ~~said~~ say that the legal measures would be against ChrisiPK and ~~proofing~~ checking legal ~~measures~~ issues is a ordinary behavior if you have judicial friction." (Changed by me according to his Mail [28]) We have a simple language issue in this case. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 11:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"If you don't reverse your action within 24 hours, I'll consider legal action", seems enough of a threat to have caused ChrisiPK to unprotect the image. If my translation is inaccurate, then Taxiarchos might want to explain how his need to check the licensing position should somehow be dependant on whether an admin has unprotected the file in the last 24 hours or not. If this is a simple language issue, then Taxiarchos ought to have no problem in clarifying it by clearly and unambiguously stating that he had no intention of making any legal threat to ChrisiPK and retracting any statement that might give that impression (such as "Wenn Du bis in 24 Stunden deine Aktion ..."). Perhaps it's time Commons had a Wikipedia:No legal threats policy? --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sich kundig zu machen und rechtlichen Rat einzuholen ist ein Sperrgrund? Unglaublich. Es steht jedem Benutzer frei, sich rechtlichen Rat zu holen. Das tut auch die Foundation und das OTRS etc. Ich möchte daher vorschlagen, nun im Interesse der Gleichbehandlung, alle Board-Members, Mitarbeiter der Foundation, OTRS-Agenten etc. mit zu sperren. Wem kann es schaden sich zu informieren oder seinen Anwalt zu befragen, sich Wissen anzueignen und dann qualifiziert an Diskussionen teilzuhaben? Ich bin erstaunt. --ST ○ 18:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

@Sven, lies dir bitte mal den O-Ton durch, den Taxiarchos228 auf ChrisiPKs Disku hinterlassen hat, also nicht auf irgendeinem Forum; vielleicht kommst du dann zu einer anderen Einschätzung. --Túrelio (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

;-) Ja, den hatte/habe ich gelesen. Nicht gerade kuschellig. Die Reaktion von ChrisiPK hätte aber auch cleverer sein können, etwa eine Nachfrage, wie er das denn meint. Damit hätte man Wlady dann entweder eindeutig festnageln können oder er hätte die Gelegenheit genutzt, seine Aussage zu erklären/relativieren. AGF und der Hitze des Gefechts geschuldet, kann man so eine Formulierung schon verstehen, ohne sie für Richtig zu halten. Eine unbefristete Sperre dafür auszusprechen, ist m. E. völlig überzogen. Die Formulierung ist eindeutig offen: "Ich lasse juristische Schritte prüfen" heißt erst mal gar nichts. Faktisch - und das weiß auch Wlady, kann er in commons nichts mit juristischen Mitteln durchsetzen, ebenso wenig gegen einen Administrator persönlich. Und "...prüfen lassen" ist kein "ich hetze meinen Anwalt auf dich!" - wirklich nicht, was durchaus eine Sperre rechtfertigen könnte. Unabhängig vom konkreten Fall hätte ich aber auch gerne mal eine juristische Einschätzung zu dieser Frage gesehen. Beste Grüße --ST ○ 21:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Wenn irgendwelche Benutzer lieber ein Abmahnschreiben wollen weil sie rechtswidrig Lizenzen ändern, die Ihnen nicht gehören dann können sie es gerne haben." Wladyslaw in [29]. Ist "Abmahnschreiben" etwa "sich zu informieren oder seinen Anwalt zu befragen"? Ich finde nein. Und selbst wenn es hier keine solche explizite Policy gibt, so gibt es doch sowas projektzuträgliches Handeln und das Gegenteil davon, oder? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 21:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note about license

I don't know whether the original upload at :w:de: was under GFDL-license, but at least it was obviously never intended to be CC-(re)licensed by the author. Thus the big license change was a against the explicit will of the author, so at least he should be allowed to revoke the CC-license.

Maybe there are some differences between {{GFDL}} and {{FAL}} (which we should discuss maybe) but the main question stays: Is the author allowed to substitute one free license by another? a×p_de ^Hello! 15:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion runs at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#revoking Licences by User:Taxiarchos228. --Túrelio (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The explicit will of the author told us that "Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation." and did include "or any later version". If you give a license, surely it should be one that you intend.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Special:MyUploads

Per discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Special:MyUploads it seems agreed to add a link to Special:MyUploads in the top right. This needs an admin to implement it.

Put the contents of User:Rd232/myuploads.js somewhere in MediaWiki:Common.js
Move User:Rd232/Gadget-NoMyUploadsLink.css to MediaWiki:Gadget-NoMyUploadsLink.css
Move User:Rd232/Gadget-NoMyUploadsLink to MediaWiki:Gadget-NoMyUploadsLink
Add to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, under Interface, NoMyUploadsLink|NoMyUploadsLink.css

Since these are sitewide changes, let's give it a day or two to make sure no-one has any big problems to point out. Rd232 (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please wait or fix the technical issues. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 08:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Done. thanks. Rd232 (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? While I think it's a great idea, this seems to have been discussed only on a subpage of the English version of the Village Pump. Don't we need to ensure that Users who read the other 40 versions of the Pump, and those who don't read the Pump, also concur? There are those who work on small screens who might not to give screen space to another button -- on screens 800 wide it will push the toolbar onto two rows. It seems to me that before making a site-wide change like this, we need a notice in the header, such as we have had for policy changes. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well the VPR subpage discussion was announced at COM:VP, as well as being listed at COM:CENT. But sure, do a sitenotice (MediaWiki:Sitenotice-translation I think), pointing at Commons:VPR#Special:MyUploads. Oh, and the Gadget is to enable people to turn off the new link in their preferences, whether it's because they have small screens or just don't like change. PS 40 version of the Village Pump? Well yes but bear in mind that a majority of those are basically inactive, with no non-bot messages for 1 or 2 years. Rd232 (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

- In the meantime and until toolserver is fixed, would someone implement the suggestion at Commons:Village_pump#My_gallery_has_not_functioned_for_weeks (removing the broken gallery link and adding [[Special:ListFiles/<username>]] instead? -- Docu at 11:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC) (edited)

Fixed it in the tab on a user's page and removed it from the footer in a user's contributions page. – Adrignola talk 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's crossed my mind that maybe the Toolserver Gallery link should be present at MediaWiki:Listfiles-summary (shown at the top of Special:ListFiles). That way it's accessible (and allows for some description of how it differs from ListFiles, in a relevant context), whilst users get initially pointed at ListFiles, which apart from being more reliable doesn't load down the toolserver. For many users ListFiles is enough, and sending them to the Gallery is confusing and wasteful of resources. (And hopefully one day Bugzilla: 30522 will be addressed, and make the Gallery tool redundant.) Rd232 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Remember MediaWiki:Listfiles-summary is not used only on commons or wikimedia project. Therefore it seems impossible to me to add a link from this message. -- RE rillke questions? 17:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. It may not make sense to add it into MediaWiki's default text for MediaWiki:Listfiles-summary, via Translatewiki. But Commons' local copy of MediaWiki:Listfiles-summary (plus the /de, /fr etc language subpages) can certainly be customised to add the link. It just needs a Commons admin to go do it. (And/or people submitting {{Edit protected}} requests.) Rd232 (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, do you think you could adapt your AjaxMassDelete script to provide an AjaxListFilesFilter script, with some of the filtering options asked for in Bugzilla: 30522? Links for those options could then be provided in MediaWiki:Listfiles-summary as well (Commons' local copy, that is). That would be an excellent interim solution (bug will probably take 6-12 months minimum to be actioned). Rd232 (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, sitenotice requested at MediaWiki_talk:Sitenotice#MyUploads. Please

Assist with localized versions of the notice, at MediaWiki_talk:Sitenotice-translation#MyUploads.
Participate at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Special:MyUploads_Part_2.

Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

mass copyvios by User:Shakko

Hi, research by some German wikipedians (in German) revealed that a quite a number of images from the Kremlin Armory uploaded by User:Shakko were not taken at the museum, but are in fact reproductions from a book. If you open the files in certain file viewers they show preview images inside the files which are uncropped and show the whole book pages. The user is quite prolific and appears to have good standing in the community. On the other hand he lied deliberately about how and when he took the photos and tried to defend himself actively including such silly claims as that the Armory had only one floor and how he could take ten perfectly lighted pictures within four minutes (according to EXIM), despite the objects are spread over the whole museum and two floors according to the museums guide book. How to deal with this issue? On de-WP I would have blocked the account indefinetely without any further ado, but here on Commons the culture seems to be a bit more friendly or maybe even permissive. What do you sugges, and is there someone among us admins who speaks decent Russian and would like to work some things out with Shakko? rgds --h-stt !? 14:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You made a good hundred of edits to her page and did not notice that she is, well, not "he"? Never mind. I notified her of this case for you. NVO (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

@H-stt, wie kann man sich diese versteckten Minibilder in xnview anzeigen lassen? --Túrelio (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

alternativ auch http://regex.info/exif.cgi, den button ganz rechts oben in die Lesezeichen ziehen oder bookmarken und dann auf z.B. eins der wohl verbleibenden Bilder gehen und auf das Lesezeichen klicken. --Martin H. (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I speak Russian and know Shakko well. These uploads were made two years ago, when the user was not familiar with the licensing policy yet. I will resolve the issue (including deleting the copyvios), there is no need for blocks of any kind. --Blacklake (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- If no-one objects, I will delete the photos nominated today speedily. --Blacklake (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  - However, Shakko made this statement about those copyvios just a few days ago. Trycatch (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    - Yes, but we discussed the issue today, the files in question are indeed to be deleted. --Blacklake (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I am very sorry about that one my misunderstanding with that one photo-set in 2008. As I can remember it was my only sin of that kind, almost forgotten in my own memory. It is shame to write it. Since than I've uploaded about 9.200 files, 3.000 of them are made by myself in museums and churches of Russia and are unique, others are European paintings and Russian icons. I hope that positive contribution will characterize me. --Shakko (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Look. I don't care about the user policy of Commons and I do appreciate your work here. But just to make some things clear: This is not (only) about you uploading these copyvios back in 2009 (cause of a ‚misunderstanding‘). I asked you about it one week ago, at first you tried to ignore me, then you lied about it (which means you remembered very well), and after I advised you to think your story through and take some action afterwards, you did not react. Two days later I requested the deletion of Kremlin Armoury 060.jpg and had to convince others that it was a copyvio, still no reaction from you. Then I got aware of the embedded thumbnails and requested the deletion of the whole series. Your only reaction was to call me a man with nothing to do (or something like that). But now after this issue came to the attention of the admin's board, one admin considered to block you and it was decided to delete this pics, you finally come forward, while there's almost nothing left to come forward with. Oh well. --Oberlaender (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Protected edit needed

See File talk:X mark.svg. Kelly (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Also dropped the edit protection to autoconfirmed; upload protection at sysop is all that's really required. – Adrignola talk 01:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik pictures

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anders Behring Breivik in diving suit with gun (self portrait).jpg

That discussion has been open for two weeks now; can someone close it? Cheers, Chzz ► 10:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Chzz ► 01:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

2 week - or 2 month - deletion requests are not unusual on Commons, because discussions proceed more slowly. This one appears to still be actively under discussion, with only recently deletion arguments emerging, and so I wouldn't close it right now. It's not a simple case, considering the ambiguity of the amateur license statement. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Related, File:Behring-Breivik-Anders.jpg. These files keep being uploaded; if we're decided they're not acceptable - per this et. al - can we move to just delete them ASAP, please? Enwiki seems to be supporting a direct block [30]. Can we do same here? Chzz ► 09:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Folks, I think you need to banninate Sannmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), it's pretty plain what he's here for and he does not seem to give a toss about the fact that he's violating Commons licensing policy. Guy 20:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. --Túrelio (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by me. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussions are not structured. On the one hand there is the question of authorship (are these really self-portraits), on the other hand there is a discussion about the license. I do not see much of a problem with "free to be distributed in any way or form" (compare {{WTFPL}}), and the wording "European" in some sentence is not so different from this, yet {{PD-USGov}} is ok on Commons. These issues should be separated. I made an undeletion request for the photo that is most certainly on work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that these images are not encyclopaedic, they are self-promotional images with obvious retouching. They might become encyclopaedic with time, if they form a significant part of the commentary on the incident, as have some of the posed pictures of dictators, for example, but right now they are propaganda and nothing else. As to the assertion that the release is unambiguous, do you really think he would be happy with derivative works that add Hitler moustaches or in other ways lampoon him? I do not think the release is a fully informed one. When I explain the license terms to people on OTRS they will very often step back form releasing images. Public domain really is a license to do as you will, and I do not think this person actually meant that (or indeed was of sound mind when he wrote it). Guy 21:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

So now any release on free license of their photo by a politician or artist is suspected not to be "fully informed" or "not of sound mind"?? What are you telling people on OTRS? Are you discouraging them? If you are telling them that anybody is free to draw Hitler moustaches on their portrait, you are wrong. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. Keep in mind that our licensing policy is only concerned with the freedom to modify and use in any context with respect to copyright. Whether you can draw a Hitler moustache (Godwin!) on someone's photo is determined more by personality rights laws and free speech laws. If personality rights laws prohibit it, it's forbidden regardless of the license. If free speech laws enable it, it's usually allowed regardless of the license (at least in contexts where fair use applies). That point aside, though, I do think there is more reason to question Behring Breivik's soundness of mind than that of most politicians and artists. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons is not just for encyclopedic images, and self-portraits are often the most educational pictures about a person. I think many of us would be unhappy with certain uses of the images we uploaded to Commons, and yet we get the presumption we really meant what we wrote.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And in this case, rationally speaking, Breivik has no control over these images, is in no position to bring suit against misusers, and uses that lampoon him are likely to be given special protection (as "fair use" or "we don't like you Breivik, and don't feel like giving you the protection of the law, so there") by courts. Rationally, he's lost nothing by putting those pictures into the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"2 week - or 2 month - deletion requests are not unusual on Commons" - ~OK, I am being patient. It's been one month now. I'll wait a few more weeks. Thx. Chzz ► 03:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It has now been a month. About 10 other Breivik images with an identical "license" have been deleted in that time. That the Breivik dossier "license" is incompatible with COM:L has been well and truly established. Any future Breivik images using the same license should be speedy deleted per that precedent. ShipFan (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly copyrighted Commons image on en Wikipedia main page

File:EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg, currently displayed on the en Main Page, should be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. I'd do it myself but the image is edit-protected. Kelly (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You must be joking. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Not-PD-US-URAA template says "it was still copyrighted in its source country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 in most cases ...)". This might in fact be true, provided we assume that it is copyrightable at all and has a 70-years-from-publication protection. --Túrelio (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my point. If was published anonymously in Germany in 1938, it would have fallen out of copyright in 2008, after the 1996 URAA date. I don't have any intention of nominating it for deletion, just wanted to ensure it had the right license tags. Kelly (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't you realize that the Nazi copyrights were seized as enemy property? They are no longer the private property of anyone. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, that only applies to Heinrich Hoffman images, and those are only PD in the US, not in Germany - where they are still under copyright. Kelly (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, at least in case of named photographers, such as the well-know Hoffmann, we usually do not accept this imperialistic behaviour ;-). Honest question, do we make a difference between Nazi government works and Nazi photographers/artist in regard to this US government claim? --Túrelio (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the US seized the lot. It did not single out Hoffman. But Hoffman and his heirs have tried to claim royalties. Their claims have been rebuffed by the US courts, up to a decision by the Supreme Court in 2004 involving watercolors by Hitler. Commons is the only place where anybody could care about copyright of Nazi posters. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Pieter made me laugh at that last bit. I have to say, I would have to agree with him. :-) Killiondude (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, being a matter to laugh or not, fact is that Hoffmann's works are still copyrighted in Germany and consequently are not allowed on Commons. My above question remains still unanswered. --Túrelio (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

When a country ceases to exist, I think their copyright laws, along with the fallen government, also ceases to exist. —stay (sic)! 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, from what I can determine, the current German government is heir to the copyrights held by the former government. Kelly (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

See w:en:Succession of states. See also w:en:Germany. --Carnildo (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I never thought a simple housekeeping license template would be so controversial. I'll do it myself later tonight after the image is no longer on the English Wikipedia Main Page. Kelly (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You do not seem to read. This image is PD in the US as seized Nazi property. I removed your absurd template. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Absurd? Kelly (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Lemme guess, the poster is PD in the US and EU, but not in Germany. But since Germany is a member state of the EU, do the EU laws supersede the German laws? —stay (sic)! 02:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"supersede" - rather surely not. Besides, I doubt it's PD in the EU. I've never heard of a "seized Nazi property" rationale refering to EU countries; I think that's US-only. --Túrelio (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, there was the Enemy Property Act, which extinguished German copyrights. But that is not the point: this image has a {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} tag. Kelly's URAA tag is silly because all nazi stuff is PD in the US. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

O.k., using that term, I found this older DR with some links to legal sources; the "Enemy Property Act" seems to have only limited coverage. Anyway, the new tag seems plausible. --Túrelio (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no issue that I can see. It's PD-old-70 in Germany and PD as a Nazi work in the US, and that's all that we require (provided both these are accurate). Dcoetzee (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Schule.jpg to File:Runge-Gymnasium Oranienburg 2006.jpg

Hello. Can somebody move Move File:Schule.jpg to File:Runge-Gymnasium Oranienburg 2006.jpg? --Der Buckesfelder (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. As the CommonsDelinker is dead, it may take a while til the use-links are corrected. --Túrelio (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Black Veil Brides at Warped Tour 2011-08-09 01.jpg

Someone altered the image and I reverted to the original version, but the altered version is still displaying at en.wiki in a really screwed-up manner [31]. How do I get it to display the current version of the file? (Note: I tried making null edits to both the file and the article, but neither resolved the problem.) Do the old versions of the file have to be deleted, and if so would someone be willing to do that for me? --IllaZilla (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Bump. Can anyone help me with this? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Though I don't understand it, deleting the montage-version and purging seems to have solved it. --Túrelio (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests

Could someone please take care of the edit requests at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice-translation? There are also other requests in Category:Commons protected edit requests, some of which have been waiting a while. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. You'll have to look into Template talk:Archive box on your own. – Adrignola talk 19:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! (And I'd given up on archivebox, but neglected to remove the request template, so I've done that now.) Rd232 (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Rosie O'Donnell.jpg

Can it be deleted? Photoshop job with that Khalid Shaikh's image. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Trijnstel (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thx, for future reference, is there a tag for attack images? I've only been able to find the user warning. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably, there is no speedy-deletion tag for attack images, but only a message-to-uploader tag for attack images. --Túrelio (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

User:S.O.M.S.J.

User creates again same user page and also put same text to the talk page. Please delete--Motopark (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted by User:Mmxx --Ben.MQ (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted again for the 3rd times, and user blocked. Yann (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Characteristik triangle

I uploaded a file called char.png, that is now overwritten by another. My picture meant an explanation of Blaise Pascals charakteristic triangle, this one now is totally different. Where can I find my picture, becaus it is shown in a discussion and now wrong certainly.

Cheers Roomsixhu (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Are your sure about that, I didn't find anything in your public logs. Currently there is File:Char.png. --Túrelio (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was a long time visible correctly in the german discussion site. I probably uploaded it at first to the german wikipedia. I can draw it another time, but for some other files this might be alarming. -- Roomsixhu (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I even looked into the version history (including possibly deleted versions) of that file and found nothing. So may be, it's all at :de. --Túrelio (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not there. -- Roomsixhu (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It might have been deleted. You should ask an :de admin to look into it. However, if you have uploaded it to :de, it should be in your :de logs. --Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

According to your log, you never uploaded a file of that name to Wikimedia Commons. (Which is just as well, because it would have been a nondescriptive name.) You uploaded a file of that name on the German language Wikipedia in 2005 and it was deleted there in 2010 by a sysop who considered that it was unencyclopedic. See the file's log. You may want to discuss the question with the de.wikipedia sysop who deleted the file. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, for your research. It was similar to this http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/gutenb/colerus/leibniz/bilder/page151.gif. I should draw it a second time. -- Roomsixhu (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I found it:

Please unblacklist photo

Trying to upload https://www.flickr.com/photos/laquatique/2175711110/ as "Fishing Boat Ocean Maid at Ketchikan 2008" using the Flickr Upload Bot but it appears to be blacklisted. Error message begins: Permission error You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: The page title or edit you have tried to create cannot be created or edited by you at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, used to prevent vandalism.

Any help appreciated.Dankarl (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded as File:Ketchikan, Salmon Landing, 2008.jpg after trying another unsuccessful title. If someone fixed something in the interim please drop me a note at the workarounds for this issue seem completely random to me.Dankarl (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Autodelete not working

Is anyone else having difficulty with autodelete? It is accepting a mass-delete reason but isn't adding delete links to the page. It was working last time I tried (which was a couple weeks ago probably). I am using Firefox 6.0.1. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 04:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There has apparently been a system wide change that has affected a variety of functions -- see MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-DelReqHandler.js#New_Problem? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about MediaWiki:Gadget-autodel.js: yes, this script did not work anymore because of the experimental enabling of protocol-relative URL support. I've made a change that should fix that. If you reload your browser's cache, it should work again. Lupo 16:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Wknight94 ^talk 01:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Der Link wurde ohne vorherige Communtiy-Umfrage auf den Upload-Wizard gesetzt. Ich fordere umgehend eine Erklärung.

The link was changed at least for de-users without gathering consensus to do so. I expect an explanation.

~~Furthermore the option to opt-out (Special:Preferences#preftab-8) does not work anymore at least for de.~~fixed-thanks RE rillke questions? 20:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC) -- RE rillke questions? 08:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

1 --Historiograf (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Behoben (sorry, habe erst jetzt die Diskussion mitbekommen). Unglaublich ... Siehe auch Commons:Forum#Hochladeassi. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 14:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for removing Special:UploadCampaign/wlm-ch

Dear sysops,

Would you please be so kind to remove Special:UploadCampaign/wlm-ch ? I'm not even allowed to see it (restricted to Admin), but this page shouldn't exist : The Swiss version of the Wiki Loves Monuments contest doesn't use "campaign" and we don't want users to be wrongly redirected to this page.

Thanks in advance, Manoillon (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"Campaign" is simply the name of that special page for configuring a version of the UploadWizard. It seems to permit only CC-BY-SA-3.0 for own work uploads and adds Template:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011. It's being used by the Wiki Loves Monuments program right now and your request would cause difficulties. You're going to have to provide some credentials for your "we don't want users" and/or provide convincing evidence to support the disabling of this specific configuration. This is only one of many currently set up at Special:UploadCampaigns. These are special links that can be provided to users coming from a specific source. And unlike the wlm-de-he one, the wlm-ch one doesn't even show a splash screen that could even show "campaign" anywhere on it. – Adrignola talk 14:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this great help. Manoillon (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is noted. – Adrignola talk 03:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Massive copyright infringement

Hello, I'm an admin from it.wiki. I'd like to flag you that User:Sofolilla uploaded on Commons a massive amount of images violating the copyright. All images were copied from this site which spots at the footer of each page a clear © mark, additionally each photo is also credited to his/her author. User Sofolilla uploaded all the pictures as "being in public domain" (not true) and also self-attributed them as "own work", while in the individual credits from the original source the pictures are credited to several (many) different authors, both men and women. The user linked these images to articles on it.wiki but having done that in copyright infringement, (s)he has been blocked one week on the local wiki. The user apparently registered her/himself today, but the contents of the user page on it.wiki shows cleary (s)he's not a newbie, the first operation being introducing some quite advanced coding in the page. I've already marked for speedy deletion all the images loaded by Sofolilla here on Commons, I flag this for your convenience, should you consider some further actions are needed on your side on Commons. Have a good work. --L736E (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this uploads, thats a large batch of unfree files indeed, rapidly uploaded and quickly included in several individual articles of it:Categoria:Comuni_della_provincia_di_Verona and it:Categoria:Comuni della provincia di Vicenza by a user who registered September 1 in it.wp and commons. Cant help myself, but I assume bad faith here, this user is not new (not on Commons and not on it.wp) and this terrible action was planned. --Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge history if possible

Hello. On Italian WP there is a file named it:File:Provincia di rovigo estense 03.png and I found that here on Commons there is a file with the same name File:Provincia di rovigo estense 03.png and a bit modified content. I modified the file on it.WP before finding the file on Commons. So I decided to merge the two and I created a new version of this file on Commons. I think that now it would be correct to merge the histories of the two files, if possible. Is it? --Achillu (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Administratorrights for User:Raindrift

I noticed the following in the user rights log:

(show/hide) 23:45, 17 August 2011 NeilK (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Raindrift from (none) to administrator ‎ (as a developer needs to run tests, delete files, etc.)

Afaik a developer doesn't need local admin rights. He/she could ask for developer and/or staff rights and has therefore access on all wikis. What do you think?

Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but then again, I think it's even better to have a developer dedicated to Commons, no? -- Docu at 21:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Devs occasionally do use local wiki admin rights for their work. See here for one example. I don't think it's a big deal. Killiondude (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This user is too inactive IMHO (globally just 40 edits) to have such rights. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

absolutely. plus, it's really incredible how a developer can do his job without having uploaded at least one featured image. —Pill (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this sarcasm? – Adrignola talk 13:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is. —Pill (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool: http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Code/MediaWiki&author=raindrift -- Docu at 22:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Staff rights should have been assigned at Meta. Local admins are seen as having been elected by the community. At the very least there should have been a public notice as to why this was necessary and how long it's necessary. I'd support a 'crat going to Meta and asking for this to be rectified (remove admin, add staff). – Adrignola talk 13:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't WMF have several test/labs wikis? If they are not enough, I think normal RfA will be good idea. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A normal RfA with an editcount of 40. lol. -- RE rillke questions? 16:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As steward all I can tell is that when the Foundation ask us to set or remove staff or sysadmin rights we set them but that not all employees from the Foundation or developers have them. Stewards won't be removing staff-granted flags without a request from the Wikimedia Staff to do so.

Staff and sysadmin rights allows the users to access directly or inderectly to CU/OS stuff for example, thus only a handful of Foundation-approved users are granted those rights.

Franckly, I don't know what all this fuss is about. If a developer needs sysop access in a wiki for a particular reason I don't see anything objetable. NeilK is an employee from the Foundation and promoted an user as an staff action. The promoted user is a developer working in stuff for commons that probably only needs access to the sysop toolkit and as such staff/sysadmin rights would be innapropiate. If later they needs further access then I guess he can ask the Foundation for more rights. My 2 cents. Very best, --Dferg (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's take a look at User:NeilK: Unless otherwise stated, any edit to Wikimedia wikis by me is an act of a regular member of the community and administrator, not a legal or official action of the Wikimedia Foundation. So don't call this a staff action. – Adrignola talk 14:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously a staff action since he's used his global staff flag to grant those rights. Again, what's the problem? See Neilk below. --Dferg (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's a staff action! I said I was adding him because of his need to do staff-type things. For instance, we occasionally need to test uploads to Commons. We try not to have to mess with the real Commons, but sometimes it's necessary. And we'd rather not pollute the system with all our test files, so one day (in the middle of doing some necessary tests) I quickly gave him enough rights to delete test images. I may not have done this the right way, and I appreciate you raising the issue, although a message to me would probably have sufficed. In any case I've set the ball rolling to get staff rights for Raindrift. -- NeilK (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

NeilK if the user you promoted only has need to access the sysop interface it'd be innapropiate for me to add him in a group that can access privacy stuff like CU/OS tools. Not that I don't trust him but people with access to those tools should be kept at minimum, moreover if they're not needed. --Dferg (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about the security policy -- the fewer the better. But it seems that the standard procedure is: staff gets Staff group as needed, and the Administrator group is controlled by the community. For now I think the right thing is to make Raindrift a member of Staff. But since the WMF is growing quite a bit lately, we should look into defining a group that's less powerful. I'm sending an email out right now about this. Hopefully some good can come of this kerfuffle. NeilK (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for answer and actions of making Raindrift a staff member, NeilK, and my apologies that I didn't inform you in person. I just noticed it in the log and was curious to the opinion of others. Btw, In the maintime I added the temp adminship of Raindrift to the list of admins. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion for future cases is to check first with both users than to raise issues here unless it's an urgency, which it is not. Less drama please :-) You're a sysop at meta and, you know, those kind of promotions happens very often there. --Dferg (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it was not wrong to bring it here. It's just that one should have notified the concerning user. It is worth to know what's going on and why we have one sysop more than we elected. -- RE rillke questions? 18:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

How is the process of granting Raindrift Staff userrights going on? odder (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI only: Jeroen De Dauw got temporary adminship, because of the campaign "Wiki Loves Monuments", see here. Trijnstel (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)