Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 43

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.

Changes blocked

{{editrequest}} I would like to follow up on this by making the edits but I can't. Ideas? Help?--Elvey (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

CAT:PER and translation issues

Cross-post from Commons:Translators' noticeboard

Hi. User:Nemo bis has made several edit requests that fall under the realm of translation admin territory and they should be looked at by someone with the appropriate rights and knowledge.

Killiondude (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio on several main pages

People have been uploading tons of policy-violating photographs of new Egyptian president Adli Mansour. File:Adly mansour.jpg is a copyvio from AFP [1] and needs quick deletion, because it's already being used on multiple pages on many wikis, including main page appearances on ru-wp and zh-wp. It's apparently currently cascade-protected, so I can't tag it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Turelio just reverted it back to an earlier upload version, but that other file appears suspect too [2]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted the copyvio-version. Seems most of this user's uploads are copyvios. --Túrelio (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Turelio, I've Special:Nuke their uploads. russavia (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

delete version

File:"Business card" of the Counter Terrorism Bureau, Dept. of Public Safety, New York State Courts (c. 2006).jpg Please delete the first version because of sensible data. Thank you. --Mattes (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Done --Didym (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

New user

The user Udine2812 is uploading many images most likely covered by copyright. --Enok (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

All of them are older than 20 years, so if they are simple photographs, they are indeed in the PD in Italy. rgds --h-stt !? 08:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy

Can someone do a speedy courtesy delete on File:Heleen Mees.jpg. I just got an email from the photographer. I removed it from all but the Dutch Wikipedia where the page is locked. The subject is high profile in the news now so we shouldn't keep her image any longer than we have to.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, the are 2 totally different image versions. To which version does this request apply? --Túrelio (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The newest one. I think the DR concluded that the older one is copyvio as well. Cynthia in the newer exif is the one that emailed me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

~~Done~~ for now. I emailed the Dutch photographer in English on the remaining image. Thanks Túrelio.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Just got an email from the second photographer and he would like his image deleted as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

User uploads

I just found File:AdHuikeshoven.jpg that was overwritten by the same user that uploaded a copyvio above. Admin may wish to look at the rest of his uploads. He hasn't been active on any project in a while and seems to be blocked at de:wp.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Per this it seems that User:Dedalus is the depicted person. Therefore and as the overwriting of File:AdHuikeshoven.jpg happened 4 years ago, I think we can leave it is. A quick scan through his uploads didn't yield any problems, except that File:Marente de Moor.jpg is missing a ticket# (I've notified OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Where are licence lists maintained?

Hello, I asked a question at the help desk a week ago but nobody could help me. El Grafo suggested I might try here:

Until some time ago I used Special:Upload in Esperanto to upload media files (I prefer this form to upload wizard because it has a preview mode). Then, suddenly, the licence menu on the upload page became empty, so it is now impossible to specify a license. In several other languages it still seems to work.

I suppose that something changed in the upload form, and that somebody would have to maintain a licence list in Esperanto. I would be willing to do that but I cannot find the right place. I started a search for some licence names and found that, for instance, the licenses are maintained in German (the German form works) under MediaWiki:Licenses/de. But MediaWiki:Licenses/eo was deleted in 2007, and the upload form stopped working (in Esperanto) only this year. So there has to be some other place.

Many thanks in advance, -- Aisano (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

All I found was that the links from Commons:Upload/eo do not use the default langcodeownwork pattern but something else as the "uselang"-hack. We could try to simply create the missing message in Esperanto, if you like. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, Rillke, vielen Dank! Hast mich hoffentlich auf die richtige Spur gebracht!

I had not known that the upload form is maintained in Commons:Upload/eo, and this file contains a valuable link to Commons:Redesigning_the_upload_form! It explains that the contents of the license menu is (at least for now) indeed maintained in MediaWiki:Licenses/eo. So maybe copying the list from Commons:Upload/eo (lines 11 through 18) would resolve the problem. I suppose this has to be done through translatewiki.net. When I have some spare time on my fingers I will give it a try.

-- Aisano (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please nuke

BLACKBOY135 (talk · contribs), rapid series of copyvio uploads. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

After I had identified 15 as copyvios, I've nuked the rest. --Túrelio (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Category talk:Deceased people by country - dissappeared

Guyz. Indeed I have not followed tight that public page in the past couple of months due to my ordinary watchlist simply not being exposed to me, but now it is appearing «red», out of no reason and I don't know how this is possible as the content is apparently not documented anywhere. The talkpage for Deceased People By Country was recently erected full of helpful notes for the introduced model in service of our dead-by-gender category branch (Dead women/men's elaborated flow), hence its disappearal is not exactly logical. And this occurs while the maintenance of the page is obviously needed for all editors that used to attend our Dead (wo)men cat rebuild and now seek to follow-up / comment on that guideline in the continuous making of the Dead people array. See e.g referring from here. A redirection to where ever that discussion is presently hosted could be helpful. For the least the content has to show up somewhere. Something about it over there looks very underhanded. Please be sure to restore the page. THanks, Orrlingtalk 16:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedydelete/Copyvio templates and notices/warnings/instruction

Speedydelete has a section with info about the last edit to the page it's placed on, this info is missing at copyvio (and possible other speedy del tags). On speedy del it's currently included from the english language template but this should be moved to the layout template without translation. Speedy del lacks a warning if a discussion page is present. Someone with knowledge should check the major speedy del templates to improve them with both last edit info and existing talk page warning. --Denniss (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Anything else left? -- Rillke^(q?) 21:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

same kind of user page

Please check User:Yuri mendes pontes yuyu and User:Yuri mendes pontes userpages, same type of spam--Motopark (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted and blocked. —Mono 17:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

And what's This

Guyz, please note: this messaged was received now from the same troll that possibly left previous harassments notes there and in other areas. Orrlingtalk 12:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Foroa blocked Orrlingwith an expiry time of 3 months (account creation blocked) (Edit warring after warnings)--Steinsplitter (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Renaming picture

File:Emilybronte2.jpg is actually Charlotte (not her sister Emily). I changed its category, but could someone change the picture's name accordingly? Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please use {{Rename}} or RenameLink. Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Done by someone already.PumpkinSky talk 11:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker

Is there any reason for the "Stop" template on Commons Delinker? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

placing {{stop}} , should stop delinker helper from removing commands, jira:COMMONSDELINKER-24. In short: The DelinkerHelper removed the requests but CommonsDelinker cannot process them. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed https://jira.toolserver.org/browse/COMMONSDELINKER-24 --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion for File:Doleschallia bisaltide bisaltide (Autumn Leaf) - male, January 2013, Singapore.jpg: URGENT!

Could an admin please help me to delete this file? The reason for urgency is stated on the deletion template, and it's really very urgent. Thanks. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 13:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, "I no longer want to have it on Commons" is not really a valid speedy-deletion rationale, especially as this image was uploaded 1 month ago and is in use on a number of projects[3]. In addition, I don't understand why it would need to be deleted from Commons to get it "become an FP in an hour's time from now." on :en. Couldn't it be uploaded under a slightly different filename to :en? --Túrelio (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Umm...I'm the creator of this work, and I don't want it to be on Commons. Personally, I like to copyright my photos, but I'm sacrificing my rights to help Wikipedia. And originallyy my purpose was to help en.wiki and a few other wikis, but who knows, it became a hit on so many wikis, and that's something that as the creator, I don't feel very comfortable with. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is very sad but it is not urgent, do you agree? Please note that you cannot revoke a creative commons license but we could delete out of courtesy. This, however requires that the file is unused. Please re-consider your decision after calming down. Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

We could delete out of courtesy. Yes, that's what I hope. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@Arctic Kangaroo, as Rillke has already explained, a precondition (though no guarantee) for courtesy-deletion is that the image is not in use. I still don't understand and you didn't explain why such a deletion would be urgent and why it is associated to FP on :en. --Túrelio (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried uploading it, but it wasn't possible. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

And BTW, under a slightly different name. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

So, the existence of this image on Commons does prevent the mere upload to :en, right? If that is true, then I can think of a bypass. --Túrelio (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, true. But hopefully I can upload it under the same name as before. It's just got promoted to FP status. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Under the assumption that the existence of this image on Commons prevents the upload to :en and in case you are willing to upload it under a slightly different (1 different character or number is enough) to :en, I would be prepared to temp-delete it for 60-100 second. This should be enough to allow you to upload to :en, without triggering delinking of the Commons's version. If you agree to these terms and are prepared for upload in ca. 2 minutes (14:57 UTC) from now, please state so. --Túrelio (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, will leave it first. Things will get messy if I were to change the name, even by 1 character. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just uploaded a local copy at en.wikipedia under the same name. De728631 (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it's an FP on en wiki, and I now see AK uploaded it here. Interesting.PumpkinSky talk 11:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It's also FP here on Commons ... :( --PierreSelim (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Actually it's the other way around: AK first uploaded it here where the image was eventually featured. Then he decided that he didn't to want to have it on Commons at all for the reasons stated above and in the deletion discussion, and so AK himself nominated it for deletion. The feature status at en wiki was granted only yesterday, and I should note that featured images at en wiki don't have to be hosted at Wikipedia, but the feature status over there may as well apply to Commons images. The local copy at en.wiki was a courtesy to AK and also a safety measure just in case the deletion discussion here turns to a 'delete'. De728631 (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop bullshiting. Go read my comments at the deletion discussion first before any more crap comes out. I don't mean to be like this, but well, you will see the reasons in that comment. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

To upload an image to commons which won't otherwise upload, use (a pair of scissors, or) software to cut a little off the side, or add a small border to change the size of the image, then upload it. Also, there is a 'ignore all warnings' box to click when re-uploading. I'm not certain if you can first upload anything to the destination filename and then overload :) the work you actually want there using the box, but manipulating the image a little works either way, as it changes the hash. Penyulap ☏ 18:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Bad uploads

AC2BR3L is causing a considerable problem with uploading images under his/her own name, when the images, in fact, come from a variety of sources.

The uploaded images that AC2BR3L takes personal credit for include:

An encyclopedic engraving
a "Fair Use" image taken from a article on English Wikipedia (as I am the original uploader, I was alerted to the problem with this image being uploaded to Commons)
several pictures by the renowned Venetian artist Canaletto.
Photographs which may be the work of the uploader, by several of which are very small and low res and I suspect have come from books or online pictures.

Someone needs to check every image uploaded by this person. I have left a terse message on AC2BR3L's talk page. I know there is a rule about biting newbies, but claiming to be the creator of a painting by Canaletto and making oneself the licensee goes a bit too far!

Amandajm (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please check edits of this picture

File:Google Hangouts.png, thanks.--Motopark (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've warned the user. INeverCry (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Still removes deletion request from pictures, need something else--Motopark (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Done blocked for a duration of 3 days--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

moving a page to MediaWiki namespace

Hello,

I've created a Hebrew translation of MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer (you can see the he.wiki version of the page here. Need help moving User:Neukoln/Sp-contributions-footer to MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer/he. Neukoln (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Done Thank you!--Steinsplitter (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Toolbox links

The 'PermissionOTRS' and 'OTRS received' links disappeared from my toolbox. Does anybody have a clue how to fix it? Jcb (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There are (currently) technical problems.--Steinsplitter (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

deleted files were re-uploaded

Hi, the files of this page were uploaded again. Is that okay? --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎ 14:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Toluca.jpg

Please revert the OTRS-confirmed File:Toluca.jpg to the original version as the file was overwritten by a (most likely copyrighted) image (please delete this version). Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Túrelio (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I added "(please delete this version)" to my 1st comment. Was this done too? (can´t check it by myself as database apparently needs some time to update the file...) The version of User:Alex mtz is most likely a copyvio so it would better to take it from the file history... Gunnex (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, after finding it on Skyscraper... posted in 2009, I've deleted that too. Seems the WMF servers again need days to renew the thumbs. --Túrelio (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Category talk:Wooden churches in Romania

Hi. Please consider taking a look on this. Thank you. // Gikü said done Monday, 15 July 2013 11:21 (UTC)

Uh, sorry, I've just realized it is the admin's noticeboard, which is the right place for such questions? // Gikü said done Monday, 15 July 2013 13:10 (UTC)

Copyviol images, vandalisms and menaces

User Mevesager uploaded some metro maps in copyviol, taken from the official sites of the transport company without any authorisation (see [4] and [5]). I proposed those files for deletion, but the user continues to remove the requests and attacks me for that ([6]) and tryes to intimidate me, with a menace to report my contributes to the police ([7]). Is that allowed?
P.S. He describes me as a troll and a vandal, would you please take a look at my contributes and uploads before judging?--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

(google tanslate) I have not violated any copyrights, licenses have been modified and corrected by User: Fastily, which has taken steps to protect images from ip, then Friedrichstrasse by registered user canceled the fixes Fastily and unleash edit, Friedrichstrasse is a known edit warring, banned by the Italian wiki. I just want to inform you that Friedrichstrasse is a well-known troll Italian (IP 93 ... is he), insults continually Naples, and harasses all the pages transport Naples and Campania, enrolls more times with different names by deception. I have not threatened anyone, I just warned that if he continues to insult my city in all forums and harass her on wikipedia, I'll report to the police post.--Mevesager (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's quite calumnious, but I don't care, as it comes from a vandalic and provocative user...--Friedrichstrasse ([[User talk: |talk]]) 17:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Mevesager, it:Wikipedia:Non minacciare azioni legali, please. Do not remove deletion requests. Please consider this a warning. Rillke has warned both parties not to edit war on their talk pages. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

(google tanslate) I want to clarify that the notice of legal action is not dictated from the edit-war or the licensing of images, but the insults in other forums, but here he pretends to be polite and courteous, I repeat the licenses has changed the your colleague Fastily and inserted in pubblic domain, simple graphical not subject to copyright 'and before him by ip and then by writing has canceled everything and started the war of changes, check : IP 93.145.135.187,Friedrichstrasse--Mevesager (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Twitter Bird and Mono

I've probably nominated the Twitter Bird for deletion a dozen times over because it is copyrighted. Mono uploaded the logo at an incredibly small resolution (nearly useless at that size) claiming that because it was small, it was now De Minimis. Naturally I nominated it once again, and it was agreed that just because the bird is small, it does not meet De Minimis as it is still just the bird and nothing else. Mono switched his licensing around several times trying to find something that would stick, but in the end it was deleted. Mono has now uploaded File:Tweet Button.png, essentially the same thing but with the addition of the word "tweet" and a grey bubble. I do not believe this is in the spirit of De Minimis based on the examples at that page, and have attempted to nominate this file for deletion discusion as well. However I am unable to because Mono has used his administrator powers to protect the file from editing, including DR. I believe this is a deliberate misuse of administrator powers to escape legitimate concern that the image can not be here.

I have sympathy for the need of various logos to be here, including incredibly noteworthy ones like Facebook or Twitter or Youtube, but this is not the way to do it. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It would appear Mono is acting with extraordinary poor judgement here. They uploaded what they had to have known would be a contentious file, and then immediately placed it in {{Main Page Template}}, which, being part of the main page, would automatically protect the file page from editing. (Also, Mono, why would you remove the categories from the image?) Beyond this, but why in the world are we now placing social media links on the main page? Even if this is considered okay, why is File:Twitter.svg, which Denniss inserted in place of the deleted file, an unacceptable solution when it plainly is un-copyrightable? There's a lot that has gone wrong in this situation. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The way I read it they are confusing copyright with trademark which seems rather common here. According to https://dev.twitter.com/opensource the logo seems CC-by-3.0.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the image from the Main Page to allow Fry1989 to DR it. I assure you the protection was not intentional; cascading is used on the Main Page for good reason. (The original bird-alone image was also placed in the same template and was DR'ed, so I didn't even think about the possible implications of placing it there). Anyway, the discussion about the copyright should go on at the DR.

However, the use of the Twitter.svg 't' logo is seriously flawed. As a company, Twitter has taken steps to unify its brand image around a single set of images. Much like the WMF, they provide detailed usage requirements for their trademarks. Misusing the word Twitter by placing it with an explicitly forbidden logo could potentially result in a trademark lawsuit at worst or a cease-and-desist order at best.

Notice the image examples located directly beneath the phrase "Use any other marks or logos to represent our brand." A 't' logo similar to the one Denniss added is there under that 'what not to do' section. Also there is a stylized Twitter bird, much like the ones we have in Category:Twitter bird logo. Basically, Twitter as a company would rather us use their copyrighted image than a freely licensed one that messes with their brand image. It also makes it harder for people to use and identify our 'tweet' function on the main page.

Perhaps there is a better solution? (Most WMF wikis allow exemptions for this kind of content because it is necessary for certain narrow uses). Maybe we could load the bird remotely from a project with fair use. Or allow this kind of content for use only on Commons with a fair use rationale. I'm not sure...ideas for this are welcome.

To recap, the protection was unintentional and should be rectified and it can now be DR'ed. There was no intentional abuse of admin powers or extraordinarily bad judgement - just an oversight on my part. Thanks, —Mono 23:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a dick here really. I wish we could have everything on Commons. However when it's an obvious copyright, I will nominate images as I did with Mono's original upload. The twitter bird has been uploaded on Commons dozens and dozens of times, people want it here and there are serious advantages to having it, but the bird is a copyrighted logo and unless we can do a proper De Minimis, I don't see how we can have it.

Canoe1967, can you please explain how you feel your link has anything to do with the copyright/trademark status of the logo? Fry1989 ^eh? 01:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"The majority of open source software exclusively developed by Twitter is licensed under the liberal terms of the Apache License, Version 2.0. The documentation is generally available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. In the end, you are free to use, modify and distribute any documentation, source code or examples within our open source projects as long as you adhere to the licensing conditions present within the projects." From the above link with my bold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see it. It's talking about documentation and source coding, it doesn't say a thing about marketing or identity. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The software itself is open sourced and available under Apache License 2.0, and its documentation is CC-by-3.0. Nothing in there says anything about the branding. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:My Chemical Romance @ McCallum Park (5 2 2012) (6825192746).jpg

Please revert the Flickrreviewed File:My Chemical Romance @ McCallum Park (5 2 2012) (6825192746).jpg to the original version as the file was overwritten by a copyrighted image (please delete this version). Thanks. Gunnex (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

Done. --Túrelio (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Epiphany Eyewear Removal of Craig Barrett wearing early Epiphany Eyewear prototypes.jpg

Article page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphany_Eyewear This image was removed stating it was "laundering" which is NOT true. The author is Erick Miller, and Mr.Miller clearly states on his Flickr page (https://www.flickr.com/photos/erickmiller/9278374491/) he took the photo. The license proof is here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en. An Administrator is being asked to please verify the license here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/erickmiller/9278374491/. Thank you, 301man (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Scritto il 4 giugno 2012 da Matteo Hsia while https://www.flickr.com/photos/erickmiller/9278374491/in/datetaken/ was taken on 13 July 2013? This sounds contradictory. -- Rillke^(q?) 08:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Karapet Rubinyan Jan 2011.jpg and File:Karapet Rubinyan 00.jpg have OTRS permission ticket:2013061610000569

File:Karapet Rubinyan Jan 2011.jpg and File:Karapet Rubinyan 00.jpg from pages

Karapet Rubinyan,

User:Lastak

have OTRS permission ticket:2013061610000569:

Subject: Re: [Ticket#2013061610000569] I agree to publish that work under the free license

From: "Permissions - Wikimedia Commons" <[email protected]>

Date: Fri, June 21, 2013 06:37

To: "Karapet Rubinyan" <[email protected]>

Cc: "Vahram Mekhitarian" <[email protected]>

Dear Karapet Rubinyan,

Thank you for your email. Our response follows your message.

06/16/2013 02:22 - Karapet Rubinyan wrote:

> I hereby affirm that I, Karapet Rubinyan, am the creator and/or sole owner

> of the exclusive copyright of

> Karapet Rubinyan,

> User:Lastak

> agree to publish that work (text and images)

> under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0"

> (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned,

> with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

No grant was needed; your edits did not seem to be in copyright dispute.

Yours sincerely, Luke Faraone

I'm new user, misunderstanding policies permit, copy-pasted OTRS verification form from other my uploads files and filled the new OTRS permission Ticket#2013061610000569. I not seeing that there is a signature case administrator Jcb. In last, I understand this mismatch and informed about.

Please restore files and set OTRS permissions.

In other hand, Jcb's reaction and the subsequent proposed list of files to delete on my User_talk:Vahram_Mekhitarian in page, in my view point to his lack of objectivity. For the first time in a similar situation helped me to make a request correctly administrator EugeneZelenko. I can freely discus all problems in Russian. Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at our discus on Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. What reson, and what you think in this case? Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I told you at the OTRS notice-board that the OTRS ticket is not valid for those images, it simply doesn't mention them. Jcb (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia-logo-v2-fa.svg

Please replace/merge File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-fa-free.svg with File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-fa.svg. In later discussion with creator of logo (one of Persian Wikipedia users, not the uploader) it turned out he hadn't the free font "Nazli" and he used non-free font "B Nazanin" instead. They are quite same fonts so replacing with the complete free logo is a technical subject and really doesn't need community consensus. Also the new SVG more regards original design guidelines (open it with inkscape to see what I am talking about). Also please update File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-fa.png with new rendered SVG (I will do these if someone temporary unprotected these). P.S. I am an admin on Persian Wikipedia. Thanks. −ebraminio^talk 09:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Taken care of via IRC. odder (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. odder (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

please move

this discussion to his talk page User:Dukesnider44, thanks--Motopark (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Delinker doesn't work correct

Hi, there are a problem with Delinker, please see here --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎ 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It really hasn't work since May, so bugs are still being worked out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

currently he delet the fileslink --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎ 06:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Info https://jira.toolserver.org/browse/COMMONSDELINKER-25 --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

WORKSFORME The script seems to be okay. Maby ther was a isuisse wit the Toolserver performenc--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Steinsplitter (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Rotatebot

User:Rotatebot has been stopped for a week. This is run by User:Luxo, but he has been off-wiki for a while. I have left him messages and emails but no reponse. Is there anyone else who can assist to get it running again? --Esprqii (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The COMMONS:Graphic Lab could assist with urgent cases. For replacing the bot for just a week, or running the bot for a week, it's a question of whether it is polite or not to do so. When Luxo returns, you could ask about him finding a co-operator for his bot, which is not unheard of and a better idea all around. Penyulap ☏ 23:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Please add this spam-link to black-list

Please add this spam-link to black-list [8], uploader will add this link to all pictures what he has taken.--Motopark (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

great; this guy is also infringing my copyright (File:Fidschi 222 rw.jpg is used here) --Isderion (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Changing username

Please take care of my request as it has been there for quite a while. Receptie123 (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Administrators can't. This requires a Bureaucrat. -- Rillke^(q?) 07:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User adds spam links to pictures

Special:Contributions/Fijiisparadise adds spam links to pictures, please do something--Motopark (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Potd/2013-07-18

I think the the POTD on 18 July 2013 was File:Aglais urticae qtl1.jpg because File:Doleschallia bisaltide bisaltide (Autumn Leaf) - male, January 2013, Singapore.jpg was facing a DR on that week (I'm not sure as I'm away for a few days). But it seems somebody reverted the nomination back on 20 July. But I wonder how he can edit the history and showcase that picture on 18; which was passed two days ago. Further, do we have a policy on editing previous POTDs? (Now the texts on different language templates like Template:Potd/2013-07-18 (en) still showing information of Aglais urticae whereas the picture displayed is Doleschallia bisaltide.) J Kadavoor J e e 07:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've modified the page to have the image displayed on July 18th diff.--PierreSelim (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Pierre Selim. :) J Kadavoor J e e 08:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. PierreSelim (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio images

Pbznyyankeez (talk · contribs) seems to be uploading photos with logo, "Own work", probably copyvios... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Overcat problem

Can I please have an admin delete the following categories? They're part of a massive over-categorization and compartmentalization of the New Zealand road signs that I uploaded, by an IP sock of a banned user named Jermboy.

Fry1989 ^eh? 21:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Done the empty categories, two still have files which are under a deletion request. Bidgee (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

SVGTranslate 1.05

I am SVG translate tool user. Is it possible to change bn font there (in SVG translate)? (if yes, how?) --Aftab1995 (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Oversight nomination

Per our custom, I'd like to inform you that I have just nominated PierreSelim for oversighter; you can take part in the discussion & vote at Commons:Oversighters/Requests/PierreSelim. odder (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Spam protection filter blocking edits

File:Refraction.PNG needs replacement of "{{en|This" with "{{en|1=This"; however, spam protection filter is blocking all edits to the file since source of the image is a blocked site. The source link was added in 2005. What do we do in such cases? --Jarekt (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Who programmed the Spamfilter that even Admins can't overcome this? --Denniss (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not a regular Abuse Filter. following URL has triggered the Spam filter: schools.wikicities.com --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

But only if it's rendered as a (clickable) link. --Leyo 15:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, i think one of this filters are blocking the edit. Maybe the URL is listed on a blacklist. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the spam blacklist (in this case, the global blacklist at m:Spam blacklist), it is known that even admins can't ignore it and I would be happy if more users could weight-in bugzilla:34928; otherwise the developers assume that this behaviour is correct because they have the community's implied consensus. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please close Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed

Please can an admin close the above RfC. I'm not asking that they make a decision now, merely that I think it has run its course. I don't see that keeping it open further will elicit any more original thoughts and much of the recent comments have not particularly mellow (my own included). -- Colin (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh sure, no problem. I'll just close it as passed ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Dschwen, you added to heating up that discussion in the end. You now even have deleted parts of it which makes that whole section and your antagonist's comments weired. This is a no go. I think you better should let your fingers out of there and leave that site to a colleague. --Martina talk 21:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Dschwen, en:Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful. Martina, go take an eye-bath to remove the red mist from your eyes. Dschwen was joking. Colin (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I clearly underestimated the aggravation that this whole discussion caused. Yes, of course I was joking. Just trying to lighten up the mood a bit. --Dschwen (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Category for deletion

Can I please finally have an admin deal with this category? I've waited long enough but people only ever pay attention to file DRs, they never care about categories. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Done --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Move file

i made a mistake in file Transformer3d_col3.svg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transformer3d_col3.svg. I uploaded a new versión of the file thinking i was doing the right thing. Then i noticed the result was wrong. I should have to upload a new file with the name Transformer3d_col3_es.svg. The file is my traslation to spanish, for using in spanish article that i was working. I would like to delete the file new version and create a new file named Transformer3d_col3_es.svg, sorry. --KundaliniZero (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Done I moved the file to File:Transformer3d_col3_es.svg. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

ResolvedRillke^(q?) 01:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Could an admin please restore this revision of File:Tchaikovsky and The Five 2.PNG? The image is cascade protected because it is on the English Wikipedia's Main Page, and it was vandalized before the image was protected. HueSatLum (talk | contribs) 00:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Please help me if you can

Kindly see my talk page where each and every file uploaded by me has been deleted by some users. When I approached here on the village pump my edits were immediately deleted by some one. You can see this thread for ready reference. Please investigate my problem and resolve it if you can. Thanks Krantmlverma (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for anonymity from US Department of Defense

Hi, could I have some extra eyes on File talk:U.S. Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician, Task Group 56 130611-N-BJ254-133.jpg? If you check the source IP address for the request, it is verifiable as from a DoD address and so in response I have changed the author field to "anon", though this is still viewable in the EXIF data. As the license is PD, attribution is not a legally required component, so this boils down to a question of courtesy and whether a request from anyone within the DoD is sufficient to take minor action such as this (though we should recognize that this sets a precedent for more sweeping changes to uploads from DoD websites, potentially even deletion of the image rather than just attribution or corrections to metadata). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong, since I'm not a native speaker, but I think the request is about the name of the photo, not the author. I think a rename of the picture without the name of the soldier is possible. Pleclown (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point, I have moved the file. --Fæ (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed it from the exif. You may wish delete the file with the older exif as well as the re-direct.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, could an admin take a look at removing the previous version and the redirect? --Fæ (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. It seems a reasonable-enough request to me. If they make similar requests in future, we can deal with hem on a case-by-case basis, but I would suggest that removing a serviceman's name in a case like this shouldn't be a bid deal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still seeing the solders name in both the file history (ie, original upload) and in the talk page history, could these too be redacted? Liamdavies (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Done Pleclown (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

delete some files of an user

This user uploaded images from the internet without permission and licence, please delete them all.Special:Contributions/GavaMott--CennoxX (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Done by Fastily --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Landrat_Ulrich_Krebs.jpg

Hi, could you restore File:Landrat_Ulrich_Krebs.jpg, we have a permission in the OTRS (2013072610003591) for it. Thanks, --Emha (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please close this DR

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bjornwahlroos4.JPG, see who has made it and creators history.--Motopark (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Done DR closed, and user given a 1 week block for disruptive editing. INeverCry 17:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate images of children

Hi all,

I wanted to let you know about a change to the contact-us page for image problems. We've set up a special email address legal-reportswikimedia.org to report Inappropriate images of children to the WMF. That address is monitored by several members of the Legal and Community Advocacy staff and should ONLY be used to report inappropriate images of children. As always deletion (if you are able and feel comfortable doing so) is appreciated to get it off the site as soon as possible but we do not recommend downloading or archiving any potentially inappropriate content yourself. Doing so could place you in significant legal peril.

In order to ensure that everyone can find the email address if needed I've considered putting it in the edit notice for the Commons Village Pump and Admin noticeboard (here) . Does anyone have a concern with that? Jalexander (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem in putting it at Village Pump as well. I will let User:Rillke know, who is working (I think) on ways to make such images easier to report. Thanks also for making it clear that downloading/archiving such content could place editors in legal trouble; this is something that has been at the forefront of my thoughts on such issues. russavia (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(Non-admin) Are there plans to set up a reporting system for 'extreme pornography' as well? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Is extreme pornography illegal in the US? darkweasel94 14:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Depending on certain tests, yes. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The term has no legal meaning in the US.Geni (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably why he put it in quotes so that reasonable people would at least make an attempt at understanding his intent. However this might help more than a wiki-lawyer would: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a reasonable person who is aware that this is an issue that Sfan00 IMG has been campaigning on for a number of years based on the definition of the term in UK law.Geni (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

But it wasn't Sfan00 that mentioned the term that has no meaning in the US. Seems to me Sfan00 provided a factually correct answer without mentioning any UK laws and you used some kind of guilt by association to ignore a well meaning editor. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess if there are actual concerns about some non-child pornography, we'll better hear it from WMF lawyers than from some random editors. darkweasel94 19:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Guessing doesn't actually get you the correct answer very often. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt - the exact UK definition appears to be quoted in the following Wikipedia article - w:Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the definition seeming to cover 'obscene content' featuring bestiality, necrophilia, and so termed 'snuff movies'. I would strongly suggest that Commons bear the UK definition in mind when allowing images of sexuality to appear. The US as far as I know does not have a formalized definition, but it would in my view by reasonable to assume content covered by the UK definition would also be classed as 'obscenity' by whatever tests the US applies. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible privacy issue

Relating to Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/07#What is the right template? User:Robert Prummel uploaded File:Commandeurskruis van de Orde van de Heilige Michael Beieren.jpg with permission from copyright holder. However instead of sending the permission to OTRS the email discussion with the author is placed on the file description page, complete with email addresses. I believe the email discussion should be excised from the file description page for privacy reasons and sent via OTRS instead. MKFI (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed (hidden) the data from the description and forwarded them to OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Bad Transfers .

In reviewing some recent trnasfers from English Wikipedia , I noted the following on which the transfer doesn't seem to have been complete. As this images were deleted on the source wiki, It requires administrator assistance to recover the missing details.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Shakespeare Fan. I have checked inside the deleted files and added missing information, where available. Many of these files do not have source information, and one (File:Glastonbury Festival 2013 Arctic Monkeys.jpg) I believe is a copyright violation. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

When moving files from Wikipedia, the source field is empty, where in the past it said "transferred from Wikipedia". Any reason for this? FunkMonk (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's probably because the transferring uploader is meant to fill in the original source. Also Wikipedia files have a source and "transferred from Wikipedia" is simply not sufficient to trace the true origin of a file. De728631 (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I have recently discovered that a few of the images i posted on wikipedia are being displayed on another webpage www.indiarailinfo.com. Could that constitute copyright violation as i released them for use on wikipedia not anywhere else. Superfast1111 (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ii might help if you would specify to which images you are refering. Anyway, "i released them for use on wikipedia not anywhere else" is hardly possible with the free licenses used on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I am okay with the free licenses & understand that any image released can be used anywhere but needs to be linked back to wikipedia. One of the images is Blog Entry# 816158-0. I am working on others. But the question is 'Is there likely to be a copyright violation' due to this? Otherwise i dont need to bother. I do not want a good website to have inadvertent issue's due to copyright content. Superfast1111 (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to give specifics to get a more exact answer. However if you have licensed photos with a license requiring attribution but none was provided by the reuser, that is a violation of your copyright. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

And in any case, if you are okay with how the other website uses your photos, just don't sue them - copyright is a civil issue, not a criminal one. darkweasel94 21:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that depends on the country and on the severity of the infringement. --Túrelio (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In which country can copyright infringers be criminally charged even if the copyright holder hasn't contacted any law enforcement authorities? darkweasel94 17:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The reuse of a work licensed as CC-BY require attribution of the author (that is you NOT wikipedia/commons), any URL that you may have specified, and a URL to the CC license. Otherwise the reuse is contrary to the license and a copyright violation. It is then up to you whether you want to do anything about it. John lilburne (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The_FAB_Food_Fight_1.jpg, The_FAB_Awards_Logo.jpg, The_FAB_Awards_Trophy.jpg

I would like to reinstate the above mentioned deleted images, as I am the full copyright owner of the images mentioned in the subject line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FABAwards (talk • contribs)

See COM:OTRS. darkweasel94 15:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

de-flag

Hello, During my studies at Commons, I came across a large number of inactive bot accounts. I hereby suggest removing their bot-flag like we do it with the sysop or OTRS-flag. See Commons:Bots/Requests/de-flag, Regards--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

File rename

Can I please have an admin undo my rename of File:Zeichen 220-20 (rechts).svg back to it's original name File:Zeichen 220-20.svg so I can get this bad faith user off my ass?

I renamed the sign at the time because we only had the one pointing right, and I had to upload one that points left. I was not aware that the German system had a different sign number for the one pointing left, or else I wouldn't have done the rename. It was a simple mistake, and I've explained this to the user multiple times, but they don't care about mistakes or understanding why I did it, they only care about pushing me around and accusing me of deliberately messing around with things to annoy people. This is not the first time I've had a run-in with this user, they assume bad faith from the very front not just with myself but others, accusing everyone of just screwing around. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989, is there any reason you aren't being COM:MELLOW with the editor? "Oh shut up about your irritation! I don't give a damn about how you feel when you speak to me this way." Is this appropriate repertoire to be engaging in with an editor whom is, by all accounts from what I can see, simply explaining to you the impact your edits are having on nl.wp and de.wp? Seriously, chill the f*** out when editors come to you with such things; the bad faith in this instance is purely on your back; no-one elses. But yes, we will rename the file in order to prevent further drama. russavia (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Done I've reversed the move. INeverCry 18:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh shut up about your irritation! I don't give a damn about how you feel when you speak to me this way. -- Very kind reply that certainly serves conflict resolution. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm rude. Why? Because this user automatically accuses people of bad faith and disruption, even after they are given an explanation. I told him why I did it, that it was a mistake, and he still accuses me of doing it on purpose to mess around. Why should I be polite to those who are not polite to me? People make mistakes, and I made one in renaming the file, but I did the rename with the best of intentions (something this user cares noting about) based on the knowledge that was available to me. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You guys have absolutely no understanding of the irritation I have been subjected to by this user. I've had many run-ins with him as have others, and I have observed an absolute lack of good faith for anyone but himself. It doesn't matter if you make a mistake and admit it, it doesn't matter if you're sorry, it doesn't matter if you had the best intentions at heart, it doesn't matter if you even have a source (yes, this user has edit warred against other users sources to control his uploads). All that matters is "you did it, and you did it on purpose because you think you know everything and you like to screw around and annoy others". Fry1989 ^eh? 19:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you often have run-ins? I just had in mind your dispute with Leyo and have seen lot before… this could be related to the constructive manner you are trying to solve issues. Or maybe it's related to SVG editing… -- Rillke^(q?) 16:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of unused version of file

I don't know what is the procedure with cases like this, but because it puzzles me a bit occupying server space with totally useless versions, here it goes: I have uploaded File:Location map Santiago de Compostela (historic center).svg, but then I noticed that I needed a slightly larger area, so uploaded another version. So my question or request is: shouldn't the first version be erased? Thank's. --Stegop (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK even if it's deleted, no server space is freed, because all deletion is reversible. You'd need somebody with direct server access, but I doubt they're going to do that. ;) darkweasel94 09:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I know that, but being an IT professional, I am used to distinguish between being available to "everyone" and being available only to some and rarely used. The first option requires that the contents resides in a high performance system easily accessible, while for the second it can be used a kind of secondary system, where lower performance and slightly more complicated access are not an issue. But if the sysadmins aren't worried, me neither. I just felt that I should accuse myself of doing something that I constantly say my users to not doing: using server space to useless things. 8-) --Stegop (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The WMF tells us the opposite, unfortunately. Quantity over quality everywhere. Don't worry about your one revision. Things like File:Test.svg could be cleaned up from time to time. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. darkweasel94 17:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested file history split.

I made an enquiry at the Village Pump a few weeks ago regarding pictures that had been overwritten about 5 years ago. The consensus of the discussion seems to have been that a history split was in order. The archived discussion is here, I was wondering if an admin could undertake these changes. The images in question are File:Char de Dépannage DNG-DCL 14 juillet 2006.jpg and File:Leclerc-IMG 1763.jpg, it was thought that the old version should be spun out, with the current version retaining the current name. Thanks in advanced, Liamdavies (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

History splitting works with deleting the file only. If I delete the file it disappears for a short time from the article and I run in danger that CommonsDelinker or another faster running local bot removes them from articles. Is it really worth that? (BTW, COM:SPLIT is the page for requests like this) -- Rillke^(q?) 15:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

ماجد الزهراني (talk · contribs)

Hi. Please have a look at user uploaded images. He is using mobile web app so I think he could not see my notice. −ebraminio^talk 17:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if this continues we have to block to force them looking what's wrong (please request their block at COM:AN/B in this case). High Contrast left a warning on their talk page. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

How about pictures with bar codes

User Special:ListFiles/CerrajeríaMM has uploaded pictures with barcodes, I'm not sure what information are inside barcode ?--Motopark (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The QR CODE contains http://cerrajeriamm.com. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by CerrajeríaMM -- Rillke^(q?) 15:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hilarious edit warring at File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg

There's an unbelievably idiotic edit warring going on at File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg. None of the people involved did even try to communicate by other ways than edit summaries so far if I've not overlooked something (and those are not helpful at all (e.g. "established edit" when there's no sign this edit was established). --Patrick87 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's best to

temporarily protect the file
revert to the version as of 19:53, 9 July 2013 (the version I uploaded by chance before this edit war and the reason I got aware of the problem)
remove all versions since then to keep the history clean
ask the involved parties to get this sorted out on the files talk page.

Regards, --Patrick87 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Done Protected for 2 weeks, reverted. Not sure if we should delete interim versions, though. --A.Savin 20:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

- Update as one of the users involved, I would like to point out, the discussion page for this article is in the English Wikipedia. Discussions on the matter exist, but they are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg. Basically, what happened is Fry1989 did not have consensus to change the map, but then did it anyways... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg and User:Fry1989--Steinsplitter (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

After reading the discussion on en.wp it seems to me, that Fry has the better arguments. This is a bit of a bikeshed thing, so expecting a "consensus" may be wishing for too much. Fry's main argument is making the color scheme consistent with other similar maps. And a color blind user chimed in, mentioning that the change increases the readability of the map. The discussion seemed to quickly evolve into a matter of principle. --Dschwen (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
en:Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. Doesn't that say enough? :) darkweasel94 22:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I change the title of the section to something less neutral, please improve it if you can.

May I suggest that the solution to this is incredibly simple, there are two apparent factions to this dispute, one lot want colors that are easily differentiated by people who have some degree of colorblindness. The other faction would like some kind of uniformity to the maps that we have. This is fantastic and I support it, we should make the map easy to read for our colorblind users AND have uniformity across the maps that we have.

I have often wanted some advice on the topic, I've made many maps and been at a complete loss to decide on the hues to use. It's fantastic that we have both the experts who are (sorry to say it) thankfully colorblind to a degree and so they can tell us first hand how effective our efforts really are. Plus, we have a brilliant dedicated and driven artist (who didn't pay me to say that) who may well help propagate the proposed changes across the project. This is frikking brilliant, why didn't I think of it ?

Oh yeah, I did :D Oh that reminds me, the discussion is on en.wiki which is not the same place as the files. Also, because my brilliance is like looking at the sun, it was determined a year ago to the day that it's best I don't use my blinding commonsense on that project (I'm still blocked there). We do need a venue for the discussion to take place, may I suggest the talkpage of a category which encompasses all of these files ? I need help there, Fry, you seem to know where these files reside, possibly you can suggest a talkpage ?

I expect that after years of arguing (I don't know the exact timeframe) I expect that you lot will speak to each other through clenched teeth for a while yet, so if you like I can help and you can discuss things straight to me if you don't want to talk to "them" or "him".

Is this any good ?

wait, I just noticed when I clicked preview (I had overlooked it originally) just who started this section. I'm not entirely sure I care to bother assisting. {long sigh} well, I may as well give it a try, otherwise all this typing will have gone to waste. Penyulap ☏ 23:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I can see making the map easy to read for our colorblind users AND have uniformity across the maps that we have is one faction, and the other faction is... I like blue better. It really does not surprise me, that this rather absurd discussion attracts you like the proverbial fly is attracted by... well, let's stop here before we have too much fun. --Dschwen (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In fairness, initially it was argued that Fry1989's change was bad for colorblind users. It wasn't until today that a colorblind person said that Fry's change is actually better for colorblind users. - Tinmanic

Also, let us not forgot, Fry was explicitly told not to do this, what do they do, they come back two weeks after the discussion ends and do it anything... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I was told not to do it by you. You're not an admin, you have no authority to command me on what to do and not do, as your statement suggests. You commanding me on what to do is as hollow as your argument against changing the map. Fry1989 ^eh? 07:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For fucks sake nobody said that the new blue was bad for the colourblind. It was a concern raised in the first reply to my proposal by Rreagan007, who said "please be careful, this could affect the colourblind". I responded to him right away saying that colourblind legibility has not been a concern on the other maps colours, and infact the other maps have notices on them saying they're already approved for colourblind legibility. That should be end of story on that issue. So the only arguments I got was "I don't like it". That's not a substantive argument against it, it's personal aesthetics. I waited, and waited, until I could wait no longer. And then finally I unilaterally adjusted the map. That stood for 8 days until Thegreyanomaly came along and undid it because he doesn't like it. Nobody complained, nobody cared, nobody had a real reason against it. Why are we allowing these people to railroad the benefits of standardization and conformity because they don't like one shade of blue as opposed to another? Fry1989 ^eh? 01:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, could Thegreyanomaly be any more transparent in his attempt to canvass against me and get me sanctioned somehow? He's started this on at least 3 pages now, and gone on to multiple user pages as well. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In any case, if anyone here actually wants to help end this dispute once and for all, they can !vote at the RfC. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Wikispecies-logo.png

Please update File:Wikispecies-logo.png per File:Wikispecies-logo.svg. Beside any design differences, the original PNG has some sharpness on curves which is annoying for a high reoslution PNG logo [which still in use] while PNG output from SVG version is okay. Thanks −ebraminio^talk 23:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The SVG and the PNG are not identical? PS: I've request the fix here. -- Perhelion (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

IMO, they are not [9] [10]. I'm asking update of PNG version not SVG. −ebraminio^talk 13:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Artospale

This new user uploaded File:Olympic flag.svg.png. As we have this image in SVG, I nominated the image for deletion. The uploader subsequently renominated their image another 3 times, each with a jibberish answer. I do not believe the user is familiar with the DR process, but I'm gonna need an admin to clean up this mess since the file now has 4 concurrent DRs on it. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

clean up done, copyright violations deleted ( user warned).--Steinsplitter (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem with deletion notifications

I think there's a substantial problem with the automated deletion notification mechanism used here. It seems to notify only the creator of the latest version. This is problematic if the reason for the deletion nomination is licensing, and that's usually the case. It's the original uploader who needs to be notified in such cases, not some Commons gnome who last tinkered with the file. For example this notification was sent but the original uploader and copyright owner had to be notified by me manually. (I think this is part of the problem that gave Commons a bad rep on enwiki--complaints about images being updated and/or deleted without any notification to the uploader, leading to a lot of local uploads and a template prohibiting the file from ever being deleted there regardless of its presence on Commons.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, ca someone explain to me why first/original version of the file is not showing up here? Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It was deleted. darkweasel94 20:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the original was deleted for some reason, it should have just been hidden instead so the original uploader would have received the notice automatically. --Denniss (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

please replace (translation)

for this please replace

Please visit Commons:Upload help if you need to ask questions about uploading files.

with

درصورتی که برای بارگذاری پرونده موردنظرتان با مشکل مواجه شدید، در قهوه‌خانه درخواست کمک دهید.

I searched in wiki but i couldn't find the right page for replacing!Yamaha5 (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Done diff, Thank you!--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please delete an image I uploaded.

I uploaded a photo of a friend of mine: IgalPatEl.jpg, he asked me to remove it and said he will post anew one himself. link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IgalPatEl.jpg Amirber (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, this image was uploaded >1 year ago under a non-revocable free license and is in use on 1 project and externally. IMO, it's a nice shot and doesn't present the depicted in a bad way. All that taken together would make the chance of a courtesy deletion not too likely, though not zero. The chance might be somewhat improved if you would first upload to the new one/version. --Túrelio (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

missing legal competence by age?

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It seems that user Arctic Kangaroo in regard to his claims in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Doleschallia bisaltide bisaltide (Autumn Leaf) - male, January 2013, Singapore.jpg got Jimbo's attention [11], who wrote that Arctic Kangaroo is "apparently well under the age of legal competence for this sort of thing anyway. So there's a good case to be made that the license has not actually been granted, period, despite whatever checkbox he may have clicked. For me, this seals it, and I've asked Wikimedia Legal to comment ...".[12]
In case WMF-legal jumps in and confirms Jimbo's position, we need to think about the consequences.

1) should we leave the actual deletion to the WMF (office action)?
2) should Arctic Kangaroo be blocked from Commons, as he may repeat such claim of not being aware of the consequences of CC licensing?
3) would this have to be considered as a precedence?
4) should we then also delete his (few) other uploads?

etc. etc. --Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Option #2 until they reached the legal age. If they can revoke their license at any time, this is also an issue for our re-users and there is no point in hosting the files at all at Commons. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Rillke, I share this opinion, based only on the drama that Arctic Kangaroo is clearly creating; they are Singaporean, and minors can't enter into contracts until 18[13]. This will have wider implications in that we could then have to block ALL underage editors from ALL projects. But in this case, the issue is clear -- Arctic Kangaroo clearly needs to be globally locked by the WMF, not just blocked on Commons. I fail to see why they should be allowed to continue to contribute to a Wikipedia project, when the "leader" of that very project has deemed them unable to licence their contributions -- photos or text is irrelevant. russavia (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In this case I agree to russavia. A global block would be appropriate. Regarding a "policy" for such cases I would be careful. As far as I can see, we should take American law and the law of the home country into account. But as this is an issue that is not only relevant for Commons, but every WMF-wiki, I would leave it to the WMF and its lawyers to develop a global policy for such cases. --Isderion (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion should be an office action. We as administrators should decline such a DR, for two reasons:

We should be able to just follow policies, in which the license is irrevokable. This is essential to the project. If a license would be no longer irrevokable, the project would be at huge risk.
If WMF decides to delete these files, they will probably request identification, to check the claim of this user about his/her age. Local administrators should not be involved in an identification procedure.

If it turn out the WMF deletes the files, a global block at least until his eighteenth birth day should be applied. Jcb (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

After a little research on meta: Global blocks of accounts are not possible at the moment (see bugzilla entry). However there is the possibility to global ban (or lock) that user. The requirements there are quite high and I don't know if the stewards would be flexible enough to ban that user as it's kind of a new situation. Until a global consensus is reached, I would support a local block. --Isderion (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The WMF is able to globally lock an account, and given that legal has now been brought into the fray, I would expect them to comment on the matter over at Meta, and if they support Jimmy's POV, then I would expect them to globally lock the editors account, and all other accounts of underage editors. We can NOT be placed in a position where an underage editor is able to edit on our projects only for those edits (text edits and photo contributions) to be deleted because they are not able to agree to a licence. Not only will we be required to delete the images, but will also be required to delete all text contributions, and subsequent revisions. A monumental waste of our time and resources. And their en.wp edit history is going to create even more work. russavia (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This is certainly something that has huge potential to change Wikimedia. If no one who is not of legal age has legal competence to free license their work, that would of necessity include text as well as images. Which I presume would mean that only people of legal age could be allowed to edit anything on Wikimedia. Which I presume would have to lead to some sort of identity confirmation of logged in users, and the end editing not logged users.-- Infrogmation (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If it takes that course, I think this problem will be more relevant for uploading own single works (i.e., drawings, photo and alike) than for editing and for text contributions (typical Wikipedia stuff), as the latter will often be below TOO. This may finally end in a sort of lower age-limit (and age-control) for Commons' uploaders. --Túrelio (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

In this case, I am somewhat concerned due to the this section at WP:ANI according to which Arctic Kangaroo asked about how to avoid a possible reuse of his uploaded pics and got bad advice in return. He obviously knew nothing about free licenses and their consequences. --AFBorchert (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Me too. I haven't seen Arctic Kangaroo doing anything on Commons that would justify blocking them here (although they do seem very confused about licensing). The problems have arisen from their actions on enwiki (and perhaps other wikis) following the bad advice they received there, and from our routine processes transferring suitably licensed content from enwiki to Commons.

In the short term, I think constructive and competent engagement on enwiki would be more likely to help than blocking Arctic Kangaroo here. I'm glad to see something along those lines is already being discussed at w:User talk:Arctic Kangaroo#A proposal.

The wider issues around editing and uploading by minors affect all WMF projects, so hopefully these will be discussed in a central place in due course. --Avenue (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem not to have understood (or I may not have made it clear enough) the rationale behind the considered ban of Arctic. This is not any kind of punishment for a violation of policy. If Jimbo and WMF-legal think he is legally incompetent to release his works, then he cannot be allowed to contribute any longer to Commons (and to Wikipedia), as at any later point of time he may again claim that he wasn't aware what he was doing. --Túrelio (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm probably the one who wasn't clear enough. IMO all this talk about banning Arctic Kangaroo is premature and unhelpful speculation. We should be mellow, let WMF-legal and any global discussions come to their conclusions, then decide what to do, rather than focussing too much now on the child whose actions have precipitated the debate (which I think risks exacerbating the situation). --Avenue (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

1 and imho Arctic Kangaroo needs to be globally locked by the WMF. The User is imho unable to licence their contributions. If Arctic Kangaroo can revoke the license at any time, this is an obvious issue for our re-users, Regards--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This issue has potentially far-reaching consequences. I support waiting for WMF and legal to respond before making any blocking or removal of content decisions. IANAL, but I do not see any reason why we would block AK and no other minor, so it is worth holding off to see what legal concludes. It might be advisable to politely request that AK voluntarily desist form uploading additional images until this is sorted out.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Doleschallia bisaltide bisaltide (Autumn Leaf) - male, January 2013, Singapore.jpg had to be protected today because of continued edit-warring by Arctic Kangaroo. I don't think any polite request of any kind is going to meet with success, though I don't see him uploading anything else anytime soon either. I would support a block if it's needed to prevent further disruptive editing. INeverCry 17:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Arctic Kangaroo given the continued disruption, and whilst these issues are ongoing and discussion continued. I will leave a note for them on their talk page advising them of this, and my reasoning for doing so. russavia (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What we could do is ask his parents or guardian to submit permissions to OTRS. That should be legally binding to all of his edits and uploads. If no permission is forthcoming then WMF should decide whether to remove all of his edits and uploads. I don't think one needs to be of legal age to assign a license to images nor edit Wikipedia. To sign a contract or apply for a loan then legal age is needed. If WMF does decide that we all need to age verify then that would violate the pillar that states "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute." I doubt any court in the world would side with parents or guardians that may claim that their child lost out by releasing works under a free license. It would be a very slippery slope if we decided that OTRS and/or age verification are needed for all project users. It would escalate into disallowing IP edits, Flickr uploads, using blogs as sources, etc. If we need to age verify then all of our sources would as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
For the first four or five days of the deletion discussion Arctic Kangaroo was given differing advice as to whether he should out himself as a minor. Some participants encouraged him to out himself, as he could use that as an end-run around the rights he gave away, and achieve his short term goal of getting the image deleted. Other participants warned him that establishing he was a minor, and claiming legal incompetence would endanger the 20,000 plus edits he had made at en.wiki.
Personally, I have no problem trusting contributors who are technically below the age of legal competence -- provided they consistently act competently, civilly and responsibly. My advice to any competent contributor, who has succeeded in acting competently, civilly and responsibly enough that no concerns have been raised, would be to keep their age a private matter, at least until they got to the birthday where they were an adult. I presume Florida law is the pertinent law here.
Other people have pointed out what an enormous problem taking Mr Wales's opinion to its logical conclusion would be. It is such an important issue I am going to repeat that we have no reliable idea of anyone's real age here.
When Mr Wales stated he was sure AK was a minor was it his intention that the rest of us would accept his determination as a substitute for the normal procedure of confirming his real age through OTRS? If so, I suggest we find a tactful way to tell Mr Wales we wish he won't usurp OTRS's role in the future. Mr Wales has a terrible record of being vulnerable to being tricked. The most embarrassing instance was the Essjay controversy. If I am not mistaken, on 2007-03-07, Mr Wales said he had only realized Ryan Jordan/Essjay was abusing subterfuge hours before he asked for his resignation. Yet Essjay had been one of the most senior WMF functionaries for some time, and Mr Wales had hired him to work for Wikia, some months earlier. If Mr Wales did not detect subterfuge from someone he knew personally, what confidence should we have that he can reliably determine AK's age over email.
Further, if the OTRS team refutes or confirms AK's assertions he is a minor, they will log every communication with AK, his parents or legal guardians, on the AK ticket. If scans of birth certificates are received, they will be described. If a determination is made, we can count on the OTRS team member documenting why the determination was made. Other OTRS team members can review the ticket. Presumably the OTRS tickets are professionally backed up, and can be restored if a servers is lost. However a private determination by Mr Wales is not available for review by OTRS team members, if new events on the file occur. Geo Swan (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI: I have provided WMF-legal a link to this thread and asked them to post their opinion on this issue also here. --Túrelio (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record: on WP:ANI there was also a lengthy discussion about this user that resulted in 3-month topic-ban[14]. --Túrelio (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that is relevant to us here; I think we should simply stay focussed on the issue of legal competency of our editors to licence their contributions; once we hear from legal that is. russavia (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there any intention of letting the commons community know what has apparently been decided here ? Or is it a matter of commons is for under 18's publicly until someone doesn't like them, and then there is the secret 'over 18's only' rule which comes into effect ? Penyulap ☏ 09:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_28#Underage_uploaders. In response to my initial question there, after discussion by others, Geoff Brigham, General Counsel to WMF, said:

"You guys ask good questions. WMF does not have liability on this issue for the reasons stated above and because we are only a hosting company. On the contract issue, the answer depends a lot on the jurisdiction at issue, but, as a general rule, a minor may make a contract in the same manner as an adult. However, a minor usually may disaffirm a contract during minority or within a reasonable time afterwards. Sometimes, courts may not allow disaffirmance in certain circumstances. We do not want to limit our site to adults. To date, I'm unaware of any problems that we have had with this issue, so this is more a theoretical - as opposed to a practical - concern right now. Although I can only advise WMF, I would not change our present practices. Cheers. Geoffbrigham (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)"

Unless problems have arisen over this issue in the last two years, I think we can assume that WMF projects will continue to accept the work of minors despite the small risk of a problem. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Doleschallia bisaltide bisaltide (Autumn Leaf) - male, January 2013, Singapore.jpg

My recommendation of courtesy delete of this image, which I mentioned at the beginning of the DR would be the civilised way to deal with this issue. Blocking is entirely inappropriate. I find it absurd that once again, an editor has been thrown out for an absurd reason, while their contributions have been kept. On some planet in a galaxy far far away there is a commons which has a click to enter if you are over 18 years of age. I haven't seen it here as yet, all I can see is en ever-growing mess you lot have generated. There is no logic that will satisfy or justify your course of action. You can't have a right to the pictures without letting the editor use the project. You can't use ANY pictures from under 18's if you claim you can't use AC's work or allow them to edit. You can't accept pictures from flickr from under 18's because the young contributors there are no more able to enter into legal contracts then they are here. But of course, you can block for no reason and no result save it be to bring the project into disrepute. I am so glad that you people are adminning here, god help us if you were working in a court that had the death penalty 'Let's kill em all and let god sort it out' would be written in latin above the door. Shoot first, block first, this is not a peaceful environment, it is a hostile disorganised mess.

Unblock the editor, courtesy delete the images according to their wishes, and discuss this nonsense at the village pump before you go off half cocked to block anyone you seem to think is a youngster. There are many here, and there is no difference between the licence on an image and the licence on a text edit. It is usually SA3. So either block an enourmous swathe of editors, delete all their pictures, revert all their edits, or don't block any until you have some idea of what you're doing and why. Penyulap ☏ 13:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Pen, they will throw you too out, whenever they think they have no more benefits from you. This is the fate of every cow here; including me. J Kadavoor J e e 16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Udder nonsense ! Some people think my jokes are a bit cheesy sometimes, but you could wait until the cows come home for udders to tell you what their beef with me actually is. Penyulap ☏ 16:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, one of the reasons that some us find you a little difficult is that you don't bother to read our comments -- as I pointed out above, WMF General Counsel has already opined that while there is a potential legal problem with underage editors, he sees no practical problem with them --" We do not want to limit our site to adults." Unless he has changed his mind in the last two years, no one is going to "block an enormous swathe of editors, delete all their pictures, revert all their edits" as you suggest. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

But it is also stated that " a minor usually may disaffirm a contract during minority...". It appears to me that AK has effectively disaffirmed the contract by making the noise here. He has made it quite clear that the license did not work as they thought it would. As I see it the following disruption is made out of frustration that we do not seem to understand that AK is disaffirming the contract. I agree w Pen that we should delete the photo as a courtesy even if it is useful, and in use. I also think AK should be unblocked. The disruption is only done in frustration of a lack of understanding of the agreement AK has agreed to as an underage. That we delete it is not really related to the irrovacibity of the license. It is just less easy to reuse. The file can always be undeleted. --Slaunger (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, well I think that we may be reading different halves of the conversation then. Me I'm reading the half of the conversation with things like 'In this case I agree to russavia. A global block would be appropriate."

That's if much reading is required at all, actions speak louder than words, we've got the image here, the editor not here, what else is there to know?

also, one of the main things that might get up people's noses is that if there is something wrong, I'll bloody well make some noise and get it fixed. Other people are more like 'ohhh ohhh give it to me obama, yes, yes, give it to me' or 'ooh cameron you're so good, yeah, give me more'. Different cultures. I get the impression at the moment that our Egyptian friends are as happy with their leadership as the Americans are with theirs, but again, different cultures... Penyulap ☏ 17:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree with Slaunger here; regarding the deletion of file. AK formally changed his mind on 27 July 2013; which is valid per Geoffbrigham. And denniss’ attempt to revert it is totally illegal. Now Commons is risking in the act of encouraging piracy; as anybody can now reuse that file even outside WMF projects.

Regarding the block: I can accept it; if it is only procedural and only till getting a formal legal reply. But I advise Russavia to edit the notice accordingly. I can’t see any disruption from AK; he edited only his own files so far, in my knowledge.

Overall: Many comments and actions happened during handling this case are not advisable. The repeated attempt to stop AK from postponing the POTD is a good example for it. Finally one admin even tried to use H. G. Wells’ The Time Machine to travel to the past and attempted to fix things happened two days ago. They even neglected the fact that Rillke had already given permission to postpone the POTD.

Glad to see how Geo Swan saved his Flickr and Yahoo! Accounts by wisely deleting works of AK from his photo stream.

J Kadavoor J e e 03:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break

In case WMF-legal doesn't respond to this case and eventually to the underlying principles (I'm still hoping), I think we need to delete the disputed image (and all his other uploads) and ban Arctic Kangaroo from Commons (until he provides evidence to have reached legal competence by his local legislation), as his recent comments on Jimbo's talkpage make it obvious to everybody that he has still no idea about licensing and its consequences.[15],[16],[17],[18] --Túrelio (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment legal has already spoken about this issue and claims that there is no issue with allowing minors to edit. --Gue rillero 18:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

- All of those diffs are indications that he is disaffirming the license, and as a minor that is OK. I do not see any reason to ban him on Commons or keep him blocked once his photo is deleted. He states himself here that

"Anyway, I have already mentioned to Jimbo in the email to just delete the images, revoked the licenses, so I can have a peace of mind to understand those licenses, before I decide whether or not to upload those images to Wikipedia again. If I upload them again, I guarantee that I cannot revoke those licenses again. Anyway Jimmy, could you delete those images ASAP and revoke the licenses ASAP? Thanks."

That is a clear indication of an intent not to upload media files again before he understands the licenses. And all his edits here have been attempts to effectuate the disaffirmation that he so clearly expresses - in frustration over the lack of action in community to courtesy delete the image now that he has realised that uploading to Commons had side effects (possibility to use on other Wikimedia projects and any other place). And most of this drama could have been avoided by showing empathy, patience and kindness, and not the iron fist, which he has been subjected to. Sigh. --Slaunger (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sad, that you guys seem still not to get it. The proposal to delete all his uploads to Commons and to ban AK (until ...) is not at all punitive. Admins and many other users active in meta-work on Commons try their utmost to make Commons a reliable media-repository. Reliable in the sense that re-users can rely on that the media hosted on Commons are really under a free license -- quite contrary to Flickr and others. If we give in (which I support now) to AK's wish that he was not competent when releasing the image in question under a free license, he can play this game at any later point for all his other uploads. It is not acceptable that we expose our re-user to such a risk. No way. --Túrelio (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree all his uploads shall be deleted as he has opened deletion requests on all of them and asked for them to be courtesy deleted because he did not understand the nature of the license. Besides struggling to disaffirm these uploads, all he has done on Commons is to vote (sensibly) on a few COM:FPCs and vote for POTY. No need to ban. --Slaunger (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If you read the link Guerillero gave (thanks for that!), you'll see that no, he can't actually disaffirm the license. See also en:WP:ANI#User:Arctic Kangaroo (yet again) for what he has actually said in relation to CC licenses. darkweasel94 19:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we reading the same thing? Quote: "Contracts used to transfer licenses are controlled by state law, which arguably gives minors the right to disaffirm (i.e. cancel) in many situations - but only within certain limits. For example, generally a minor can neither reap the benefits of a contract and subsequently avoid its burdens[2] nor solely disaffirm the “irksome portions” of a contract." AK has requested deletion, which is a complete dissafirmation. So he is not trying to avoid any "irksome portions". He can certainly do that. --Slaunger (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Here I agree with Túrelio (I think; this is my first case), on deletion of AK’s works and ban Arctic Kangaroo from Commons (until he provides evidence to have reached legal competence by his local legislation). I think it is not a problem to AK too considering his early comment: “Anyway, I'm never uploading anything to Commons again. You have my word on that”.

I asuume Guerillero reference is a mistake; that page is only about consent of a minor in photos of minors; not photos by minors. Further it says “the claimed absence of ongoing consent as a "good rationale" to remove the photograph.” J Kadavoor J e e 19:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. While it does talk about consent a lot (I have no idea why), the wording "Licenses granted by minors are as valid as those granted by adults." with a reference to a US Copyright Act makes it clear that this is, indeed, about copyright. darkweasel94 19:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It is about subject release from the minors who are depicted in a photo. J Kadavoor J e e 20:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note the page warning "Reporting an inappropriate image of a child?" that popups now while trying to edit this discussion too. J Kadavoor J e e 20:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I read that page differently, note e.g. Both minors and adults are protected by the same copyright laws and they can issue equal licenses. darkweasel94 20:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As I can see, there are two problems with the copyright status of the user's images:

m:Wikilegal/Removal of photos of minors suggests that minors can terminate a licence such as CC-BY-SA under certain conditions so that the licence no longer is valid in some or all parts of the United States. Apparently, this depends on state legislation, so the legal situation might not be the same in all states. It seems that the user has attempted to terminate the licences in the United States, so it isn't clear if Commons is allowed to continue using the images under CC-BY-SA or not.
Per policy, Commons images must also be free in the source country. I have no idea what the laws of the source country say about such things.

As far as I have understood, some people have attempted to replace COM:OTRS with w:Ipse dixit for verifying whether the user indeed is a minor. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The above Wikilegal link is a confusing mess. Geoff Brigham, General Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation has posted on Jimbo's page here. This seems to settle the legal issue: AK can't retract his licence because of terms of use contract he has with WMF. On the human issue, I agree with Geoff that we should make a goodwill, non-precident-setting, choice to delete his images. He's a child who made a big mistake. Colin (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Having read Geoff's post, I agree with Colin. The free licenses for AK's uploads are very likely still valid, so we have no obligation to delete them. But we can choose to do so, out of goodwill to a confused child, and I think we should. --Avenue (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So Stefan4 you're saying Wikilegal is saying "it isn't clear if Commons is allowed". Gee that's not something I ever saw coming, oh wait, it is. From the start when I recommended "Courtesy delete". I see the blind leading the blind on this for a hell of a long time to come, dragging what would have been a good reputation of the project around by ensuring that everyone who has a reason to ask about their images has reason to be motivated to talk about this problem elsewhere. The ACTUAL plain English legal position shall be something along the lines of their written contributions have to be deleted, because they have the same license problem as their uploads. WMF doesn't have the guts to reorganize the project to cope with that. It never will. So rather than extinguish the flames every place they break out with a nice cooling spray of 'Courtesy delete", people will pour petrol all over the fire with "f you, licenses 5 year old children give us, are irreversible regardless of what the courts and lawyers try to tell us, so go tell yo' momma". PCP out the window in the storm of people with a need to cause contention with uploaders. Yes, I see this as an entirely defensible legal position, ...Not. But typical wiki never the less.

File:Doleschallia bisaltide bisaltide (Autumn Leaf) - male, January 2013, Singapore.jpg

by the warped methodology which incorrectly assumes that AK or any other child can make a legal contract, maybe it can be suggested that kids of celebrities sneak about and take pictures of their parents for the WMF to sell as it sells PDF's of wikipedia. They'll get more money than just selling pictures like this butterfly, which is STILL here. Penyulap ☏ 06:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you a lawyer that you are so sure about the details of contract law? An actual lawyer has already said the opposite. darkweasel94 06:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes a layman with good commonsense can beat a good lawyer with no sense. I’m not talking about Geoff; who already expressed his personal opinion: "My personal opinion - which the community may accept or reject - is that our communities need to show forgiveness and allow second chances in appropriate circumstances. Jimmy is absolutely right that the community can make exceptions to delete content for various reasons. Indeed, showing empathy and understanding is what makes us a community. In deciding to delete an image from a project, the community could take into account a number of factors, including the age of a contributor. And WMF would obviously not interfere with that decision." I’m talking about those who pretended themselves as better lawyers than our General Counsel. J Kadavoor J e e 07:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you want this comment darkweasel94, but I'm thinking that sticking it within the center of my own comment, so that it looks like you are taking credit for my commonsense remarks is not the best place. Penyulap ☏ 08:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Should we? I am not sure if, when somebody "protests" by vandalizing their file and announcing continued disruption, we need to do them a favor by courtesy deleting a file that's very widely in use. Had his behavior been different, my opinion might be different too, but in this case I think it would send the message "to have your files deleted from Commons, just cause enough disruption and we'll do it" when the message that should be sent is "if you behave appropriately, we might decide to be nice and do you a favor even when we don't have to". darkweasel94 06:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

now it's up to us

With his position statement Geoff has done a good job for the WMF (especially keeping Pandora's box of juvenile editors closed), but has played the ball back to us. Being WMF’s legal counsel he couldn't really give legal advice on the individual case per the legal code of ethics, which isn’t his fault, but is proper professional behaviour. So, it’s again with us.
Whatever has been said about the legal accountability of minors in general, I think there is little doubt that Arctic Kangaroo’s recent statements on Jimbo’s talkpage (linked above) and at WP:ANI[19] have made it obvious for everybody that Arctic Kangaroo does still not grasp CC licensing and its consequences. As this is the case even after the extensive discussions on Commons and :en, how could we assume it was different when he uploaded his photos to Commons earlier this year?
Therefore, I repeat my above proposal:

all uploads of Arctic Kangaroo to Commons are deleted, as we cannot expose re-users to the legal risk of images which are under a reservation of license-revocation or a license never been valid. (currently his uploads have little external use; the few legitimate re-users should be notified by us about the deletion from Commons)
Arctic Kangaroo is blocked from editing on/uploading to Commons until he has provided either to OTRS or to WMF-legal strong evidence to have reached legal understanding and legal competence according the terms of his local legislation (Singapor) and of U.S. legislation (the second chance, per Geoff's comment). As he has stated not to upload anymore to Commons[20], this shouldn’t be a problem for him anyway.

--Túrelio (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Support J Kadavoor J e e 09:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose yet another dumb-ass idea that causes even more problems than it proposes to solve. What is next, delete all contributions by all under X-years in the country of origin ? What about the textual contributions with the exact same license. ?

What should have been done from the start, and should be done now, and should still be done when this mess drags on and on and frikkin on, is to delete only the contributions that AK asks to be deleted. Naturally, commonsense doesn't exist here. Blocking policy needs to be updated of course to 'block all under X years of age', unless as usual, you can't express a meaningful reason and go for an incorrect and inappropriate reason in their block-log like 'disruptive' or something. Penyulap ☏ 09:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Could you please clarify where did you see legitimate external re-usages of AK's uploads? I've just browsed thru his upload list (fortunately, there are *just* 7 pics) and using Google Image search I found just two re-usages, namely [21] and [22], both are violating the CC license. --A.Savin 10:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- See File talk:Pacific Gull, June 2012, Kangaroo Island, Australia.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Enough drama here, I'm going to close it now, delete the seven uploads and leave AK blocked for the time being. The licensing rules here on Commons aren't self purpose, we should follow common sense as well. And in this special case I see it as common sense that, on one hand, as Túrelio already stated, we should take some (perhaps minor, but that's not the point) risk for re-users of AK's images into account; on the other hand, it's simply not worthy so long discussing - AK is apparently a child, not only in "biological" sense but also in a mental one - that is, he shows an obviously childish behaviour, so we just should be wise enough to recognize it and make an exception here, even if it hurts. And we should leave AK blocked for now to avoid the risk that one day he will return and continue this kind of disruptiveness. We should, however, not forget that there are several other "underage" contributors to Commons, who are - despite of their allegedly young age - intelligent enough to non-disruptively contribute to Commons and to be very well aware of the essence of Free licenses. For my part, I know a couple of users from the table on Category:Featured pictures by creator (just to name an example...), who were 14-15 years old some years ago, where they already contributed images to Commons. Having that said, for me it is never ever an option to consider any general access limitations for minor users. Commons should be open to everyone, but, as stated above, we users of Commons should sometimes grant priority to the common sense instead of the written rules. --A.Savin 11:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

For the next of such case we might remember w:Wikipedia:Competence is required. --Túrelio (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

For our closing admins?!!! J Kadavoor J e e 05:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the imminent threat that this editor poses which justifies bannination by blocking admin, his uploads have been deleted, so the problem has been solved. If he doesn't' have any uploads, and is unlikely to upload any more or have any more accepted then he won't have any files he'd like to delete/relicense/whatever. They did an enormous amount of useful work outside of their file uploads, (not being deleted afaik) so is this considered to be an office action, or is a banning discussion on commons indicated. Penyulap ☏ 06:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think he was blocked for being disruptive as well as precautionary (age decision by WMF). I agree that his input should still have value and a politely worded unblock request may be accepted. Other opinions are probably 'a childish brat is a childish brat and we shouldn't warrant future issues by un-blocking'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Link to Facebook account

Have a look at File:Tachyglossus aculeatus side on.jpg. The photo's author has placed a template on the page asking people to subscribe to his Facebook profile. This seems a bit inappropriate, but I'm not sure if it's actually contravening any policy. Any thoughts? Bazonka (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This template has already been subject of a rather short discussion[23] earlier this year. Per current COM:USER policy, it seems to be allowed, though I feel also rather uncomfortable with links to Facebook. --Túrelio (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure? I hated it the moment I saw it. Image description pages are not a personal advertising space! I'd totally vote to forbid this template outside one's own userspace! --Patrick87 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to open a rfC to change the current policy. Requesting only this single template for deletion would not be supported by current policy and would likely be counterproductive as the respective user is a contributor of top photographies. However, even with the current policy in place, I would support an amendment requesting that such template have to be placed below (or in) the description template. --Túrelio (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems as if you were right regarding the current content of COM:USER – it's not really written for a case like this and therefore neither really permits nor forbids this use case explicitly. However COM:USER is not a policy! It's a guideline and we should definitely consider updating it to keep "advertising" exclusive to specific parts of e.g. the {{information}} template. I don't know if an RFC is really possible for this (not that I'd start one personally)? --Patrick87 (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Denying links in custom license templates may violate the CC section about methods of attribution. If they want their website, their dog's website, and the website of their inbred sister-cousin attributed then can we deny them that right when we host their images here? The RfC will be a long drama fest and probably come to the conclusion that spam is technically a form of required attribution. https://creativecommons.org.au/content/attributingccmaterials.pdf is the essay that the CC site recommends.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The template which triggered this thread is not a license template. --Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ooops! I see it now. I was looking at the author field. The author could convert the template to a license one that includes a link to his Facebook. I would think that RfC is needed to see if any policies are being violated or need changing. The creator does seem to add valuable images for the projects so we may wish to explain that a license template may be more acceptable to editors than the one there now. I don't think we should jump down his throat over it as we may lose his input as we have with others that have had unobtrusive website links removed from their user pages without any consensus nor discussion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The matter he provided in the Author field is perfectly OK for me as a pseudonym per https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4c. JKadavoor Jee 04:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- This thread was never about the author entry, but about "asking people to subscribe to his Facebook profile". --Túrelio (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The facebook template is pretty subtle and fits with the "Some "advertising" for the user's work is allowed, such as a link to an external website (portfolio/gallery)". I wouldn't be keen on huge adverts or wildly promotional wording, but this seems quite respectable. In my opinion JJ is without equal on Commons/Wikipedia in terms of his contribution of wildlife photography. Colin (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- But its dominant location ahead of the image description is inappropriate IMO. In addition, this would need to be enforced for everybody, not only in the case at hand. --Túrelio (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  - Many comments and suggestions including https://creativecommons.org.au/content/attributingccmaterials.pdf suggests "attribution next to the photograph"; not negligibly mingled with the file description. Further it suggests "The creator of the work may also require other parties to be included in the attribution, such as co-creators, sponsors or publishers." It seems Facebook is his primary publisher; not Commons. J Kadavoor J e e 13:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind first looking at File:Tachyglossus aculeatus side on.jpg before adding further off-topic comments? The advertising message (the first box below the image, containing a Facebook icon), which initiated this thread, has nothing to do with attribution. Nobody needs to credit it, as it is neither contained in the author-field nor in the license-template. If the user wanted to get this credited, he would have placed it as attribution. CC terms have nothing to do with this. It is simply an advertisement for his website on Facebook. I can accept that and it seems to be o.k. per the above linked guideline. What is disturbing IMO, is that this advertisement is placed ahead of all other information. --Túrelio (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I already noticed it; as his intention to make it as brief as possible. If you wish, he can make it big enough to cover all attribution, copyright, license terms, etc. as here or here. Do you want it? Or you only want to remove "asking people to subscribe to his Facebook profile". See, anyone interested will visit his page and subscribe without that "request". But we can't de-link his page here. J Kadavoor J e e 14:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What we could do is create a policy that nothing should go between the image and the infobox except things like deletion templates. Then we wouldn't worry about chasing contributors away.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

D'accord.

BTW, as one can easily read from all my above comments, I had no intention to "chasing contributors away", quite the contrary. Despite of the sad fact that over at :en, somebody slandered this discussion even as harassment[24]. --Túrelio (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, see below. --Dschwen (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That is cute. Harassment? I don't think anyone has mentioned it to this uploader yet but I think we did lose another one after someone removed a website link from his user page. This issue should go through RfC/policy change before we act on anymore cases with a vague policy as it is now. When I beg for images in emails I do mention that their website can be included on the file page. I think some wouldn't donate images if that were not the case.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, if that was intended to be a reply to my comment, then I don't understand it at all. --Dschwen (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, he was obviously answering to my comment. --Túrelio (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the harassment mention at the en:wp talk page. I don't think we are harassing this uploader. We are just discussing policy in regards to his link.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not particularly fussed if the placement of the template moves. It was just easy to add it there with AWB. I don't really want to go with a custom user template as that messes with commonist too much - it is more work for me. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

What if we extend COM:USER to state that "advertising" should be exclusive to the "author" and "description" fields of the {{information}} template or as an addition to the attribution part of license template where appropriate? --Patrick87 (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think any such proposal may lose some good contributors. Spam is a small price to pay for good images. If editors don't like it then they don't need to look at it. It isn't like a pop-up or spam email that has to be dealt with by clicking to remove. If we restrict placement then we may have to restrict size as well. File:165 - Fitz Roy - Janvier 2010 - Downsample.jpg has a large template that isn't spam. Uploaders that are forced to include their spam in the information box would argue that they should be able to make templates just as large. It would turn into a huge drama fest that I don't think we need another of. --Canoe1967 (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

At least your example would fit my intended usage limitations of "advertising". It's clear the additions are notes by the author instead of looking like "official" statements as a template above the file description might imply. I'd personally not require to limit the size (as long as authors do not overdo it, but I did not come across too large advertising yet). --Patrick87 (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Over doing it is a matter of opinion though. Without a size fixed in policy then we would have a double standard. I don't like all the WMF spam that takes up space but I don't want to create policy that creates an option to hide it. Uploader spam is just as harmless and demanding they move it will just be a big drama fest that will cause some to leave the projects. We should be adding contributors not chasing them away.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that is neither necessary nor a good idea. It should be a clear policy however that the material presented on the file description page is ordered by relevance to the reader. I.e. on top come potential warning templates (LargeImage), then comes the infobox (and infobox add-ons such as Location), then come quality tags (and awards, such as FP,QI,VI), and then comes whatever the author deems necessary. --Dschwen (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd be totally fine with this phrasing, actually I like it much more than mine! It has the exact same effect without even mentioning the words "advertising" or "user", therefore nobody should feel "harassed" at all. At the same time it will make file description pages much clearer which is even better. --Patrick87 (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see this becoming a long and drawn out RfC. We have policy now at Commons:PSP#Non-allowable_user_page.2Fgallery.2Fcategory_content. "...excessive linking to external domains...." and "...discreet links to relevant web pages..." We should be able to handle the blatant ones with this policy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that is about promoting one’s business or something like that. Eg: I uploaded a photo of my company’s product and add links to mycompany.com. It is not applicable (IMO) to a photo with a link to myphotographybusiness.com J Kadavoor J e e 15:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not? I would have absolutely no problem if for example Volkswagen would upload freely licensed high quality pictures of their cars. If those will end up being used in the articles will be an editorial edition on Wikipedia, but that should not cloud the fact that they are potentially useful. --Dschwen (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File history merge?

Is it possible for file histories to be merged? There are two files on Commons which come from the exact same photograph, both differing in quality: File:Japanese Naval Landing Force, waiting for attack order with wearing a gas mask.jpg and File:Shanghai Naval Landing Force defending their position, 1937.jpg. The latter was uploaded by User:Blueshirts on 24 June 2006, and the file history shows that it has been reuploaded/replaced three times (in September 2009 and in March 2010). The former was uploaded by User:Takabeg on 22 July 2013, and has better image quality. Rather than having two files (file redundancy), would it be a better idea to have a file history merge? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 04:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, this is possible. Please request at COM:HMS on what exactly needs to be done. Thanks. Reh man 04:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Last name

Could you please remove my last name from the history mentioned on 1, 2 and 3? Regards, Ronn (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Done --Dschwen (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Just was little curious and noticed the name is still contained in the edit summary of the original upload. Should be removed, too, I guess. --Patrick87 (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've hidden the original edit summaries for all 3 files. INeverCry 02:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it is however still mentioned in the 'File history' on these pages. Ronn (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's right. Please reupload over the old files and I will delete the old revisions. --Dschwen (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Done that. Thanks in advance. Ronn (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Uhm yeah, ok, done. I just realized that the re-upload was not necessary (I just hid the edit summary on the file description as well, sorry). --Dschwen (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

One had to re-upload. You cannot hide the upload summary of the current version. The (show/hide) is not a link. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It worked. Thanks, Dschwen. Ronn (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The (show/hide) doesn't work because I oversighted the diffs. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 19:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure? Then something must be broken with my admin account. And I can still see the old upload summary, depite it is oversighted? -- Rillke^(q?) 20:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The (show/hide) button will always be disabled if there is only one upload. Tiptoety ^talk 20:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's imprecise. The (show/hide) text is not linked on the current/top version. Thanks for oversighting this now. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Wlm-ad id-text

Broken redirect → delete. --Ricordi samoa 01:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Done deleted. Thanks for reporting. – Kwj2772 (msg) 01:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please restore

Please restore User talk:Воксиморон, thanks --Motopark (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That page is not deleted and never was. darkweasel94 16:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done Deletion log --> No matching items in log.-Steinsplitter (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this was what Motopark asked for: Restoring the page to the state before the user started blanking-out warning tags without responding. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, now it gone right, sorry used wrong term.--Motopark (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Category spelled incorrectly

Hi, Category:Vineyards of Constancia should be spelled Category:Vineyards of Constantia. Can somebody please help me fix it? HelenOnline (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You can use the {{Move}} template for this type of request. I've now placed it on the category page, and if nobody objects, the category will be moved to a new name by an administrator. De728631 (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Helen Online 14:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User uploading obviously copyrighted images with false license claims

Can someone take a look at the contributions of Nandamah (talk · contribs)

The images uploaded are publicity shots and TV screen captures - and the user is falsely claiming in the licensing that they own the rights to the images. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Done Uploads deleted, user warned. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Same picture deleted before as copyvio, now taken from Flicker

see picture File:Images users.jpg. Same picture has been uploaded before as user:Reanima2 and deleted as copyvio. Thanks.--Motopark (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Done Image deleted, and 2 socks of Reanima2 blocked: El Blanco Facil and BlackBOT III. I'd already blocked another sock earlier: Tu Real Socio. INeverCry 05:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Private album pictures

Special:Contributions/George_clodvill has uploaded plenty of pictures that looks like to be some private album pictures--Motopark (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Done Obvious copyvios deleted, leftovers tagged with DR --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Bærum kulturhus.jpg

I'm confused by this page. As far as I can tell, there's no extant image, either for the file itself or for its old name. Could someone check for a deleted file somewhere? I expect that either the image got deleted/lost or that someone created (and moved!) a file description page without ever uploading a file in the first place, but without ViewDeleted, I can't be sure either way. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be there now. Dankarl (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

An hour after I left the first message, Billinghurst deleted it: File page with no file uploaded. Someone has since uploaded an image there, so all is seemingly good. Nyttend (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Shivamsetu's contributions

User:Shivamsetu have uploaded a number of images on commons over time as his "own work". But I am afraid that most of these are copyright violations. I first nominated one for deletion and then found that several of his uploaded images have been deleted as copyright violations earlier. I investigated further and randomly checked 5-6 more images. Each of the image I checked, have been copied from somewhere. Can an admin check and delete his uploaded files en mass.--Vigyani (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The image that you nominated for deletion does not appear to fit the problem you raised -- at 3,939 × 2,690 pixels, the Commons image is far larger than the version you found on the web. I checked several other files from this user (including a properly attributed OpenStreetMap) and did not find any of them with Google. While it is certainly possible that there are problems here, a mass delete does not appear to be appropriate. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The link I put in nomination was one of many links appearing online. I have provided a new weblink with higher resolution and possible source of his other files too.--Vigyani (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The "new weblink with higher resolution" cannot be the source of the file here -- it is far too small. As I said above, there may be problems here, but so far you have not given us any good evidence of any. If you find a file that appears elsewhere on the Web with the same or higher resolution (after allowing for possible upsampling) and an earlier date, then by all means put a {{Delete}} tag on it. But no more mass deletion requests, please. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nuisance message

I get the following message popup in the upper right on most, maybe all, Commons page loads:

"Error: resource://jid0-y5ggnh0rl8fiwow06mlbtjxc3ui-at-jetpack/api-utils/lib/cuddlefish.js -> resource://jid0-y5ggnh0rl8fiwow06mlbtjxc3ui-at-jetpack/api-utils/lib/sandbox.js -> resource://jid0-y5ggnh0rl8fiwow06mlbtjxc3ui-at-jetpack/api-utils/data/worker.js at line 126: TypeError: chromeAPI.timers is undefined"

It disappears after a few seconds. It happens running Firefox v22, but not IE8. I'm running the vector skin. Although I can certainly work around it, it does slow things down when that part of the screen is needed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a failing Firefox add-on, not an issue with MediaWiki. Try to figure out what add-on is causing this problem, searching for the ID "jid0-y5ggnh0rl8fiwow06mlbtjxc3ui" in your Firefox profile should help to identify it. --Patrick87 (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I simply deleted that file and the problem disappeared. Of course, I may have created another problem, but at least now I can turn to the correct place if I need help. Thanks again. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Are next kind of pictures deleted after some time

Are next kind of pictures deleted after some time if OTRS-permission failed, example File:Denarau island.jpg or shall we ask permission--Motopark (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

access to deleted images

Just FYI: User:Delicious carbuncle has proposed to Jimbo to restrict or track admin's access to deleted images of identifiable nudes uploaded without consent of the depicted [25]. --Túrelio (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle's idea for restricting/oversight suppressing these images sounds like a good one. Allowing access to these and their titles etc, could lead to problems, so they should be suppressed to avoid any risk to the people pictured. INeverCry 19:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not propose that admin accesses to deleted images be tracked and do not support that idea. That suggestion came from User:Dcoetzee. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If any deleted images are that problematic, then oversight them. I am strongly opposed to tracking anyone's mere access to anything (as opposed to editing it) on the WMF projects. Once those data are collected, all kinds of US agencies (and others) will find a way to absorb them along with everything else they're already absorbing, with mostly unknown consequences. Current events (NSA etc.) show that American institutions simply cannot be trusted with this. And the WMF is an American institution. --Rosenzweig τ 21:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Support for broader definition of oversight-required files and no tracking. The WMF itself may not be a problem, so far, but they face the same problem as any other US-based institution. Besides, once data are collected, they are prone to become leaked (and abused). --Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

To see what sorts of problems US-based institutions face, see http://lavabit.com/ -- http://rt.com/usa/lavabit-email-snowden-statement-247/. I, too, would be opposed to any sort of tracking at the level that is being suggested. russavia (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, pretty strong for a public statement:

I would strongly recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States — credited to Ladar Levison by the BBC[26].
jedem dringend abraten, seine privaten Daten einem Unternehmen anzuvertrauen, dass direkte Beziehungen zu den Vereinigten Staaten habe. — as reported by German newspaper Die Welt[27].

--Túrelio (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment. I think we need to separate tracking and restricting as two policy proposals.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, considering the current state of affairs, a proposal for tracking would be a waste of time, as I am rather sure that most admins would rather refrain from any further handling of such images or even retire completely than accept tracking. The potential for malign abuse of such data is simply too high. --Túrelio (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I would have chosen another workflow from the beginning on: Prompt for a reason and require POST to view deleted material (and log it, of course) - but only once per file for each user. I agree with all above that oversight suppressing is mandatory for such uploads and I thought this is already done. -- Rillke^(q?) 08:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Btw, why is this on the admin board and not a policy board? I would think it should be a community policy not an admin decision.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Delicious Carbuncle has actually suggested oversighting all courtesy deletions, not just those involving identifiability or privacy issues. I don't see why that this should always be needed - e.g. for butterfly pics, to take a recent example - although in some cases it certainly would be. Maybe the courtesy deletions guideline currently being developed should say that deleting admins should request oversight/suppression where appropriate. I agree that Rillke's workflow for viewing deleted content would be better than the current situation. --Avenue (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The original thread on Jimbos talkpage has now been archived [28]. --Túrelio (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Translation Admin II

Just for you information, there is a request for comment now because the validity of COM:VP discussions with only a few voters seems to be questioned. -- Rillke^(q?) 07:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons Delinker bug?

In regards to this change at en.wiki: [29] which is removing a picture of actor Troy Baker that appears to have been at File:Troybakerdefault.jpg (which, appears to have been this image [30]) by the diff message, but it actually removed File:Troy baker taiyoucon 2011 cropped.jpg, which is completely different and from a TinEye search, still only appears to come from a properly licensed Flickr album (both original and cropped). It's easily fixed on en.wiki, but is this a possible bug in the Delinker? --Masem (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me? The diff you linked to shows CommonsDelinker removing Troybakerdefault.jpg. I see that an IP then inserted the other image you mentioned with an "undo" edit summary, for whatever reason. I don't see anything done wrong by CommonsDelinker. darkweasel94 16:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that when the IP reverted CommonsDelinker they changed the image target. If you look at the page before and after it's clear that the deleted image was removed and a new image inserted. Liamdavies (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Pleas report bugs on jira. Thank you. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. no administrator assistance required--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Requests_relating_to_renamed_files

Could someone please get CommonsDelinker started on these? I somehow managed to move without setting up the automatic replace. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

DoneDone It usually takes 6–72 hours until your request is processed.--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing legal competence by age - 2?

Oh joy... I just copied some nice photos from ms.wiki to Commons with my bot when I noticed this discussion. One of the last comments was that the problem has been solved now that the uploaded files were deleted.

Well how can the problem be solved as long as WMF still hosts images by that user?

We should have a clear policy on minor editors. Are they welcome or not?

If minor editors are welcome there could of course be exceptions just like not all adult editors are welcome (if they are disruptive or in other ways not good for the project).

If minor users are generally welcome but one user does not understand the CC-license then all edits made by that user is a problem - also on Wikipedia.

I can delete the files:

but it does not solve the problem. It only move the problem somewhere else. --MGA73 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the general opinion was that Arctic Kangaroo was an idiot and/or troll who didn't understand CC licensing and so was banned from en.wp on grounds of not being competent to release images; but that in general minors are ok to contribute. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

If there are actual legal issues, I would say we should leave them to the WMF. darkweasel94 17:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks that you deleted them by yourself. This user is indef'd on :en[31] and on Commons. Nothing of what he uploads somewhere else should be transferred to Commons. The condition for his return is to provide solid evidence that he is legally competent to release anything under a free license. --Túrelio (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that Arctic Kangaroo has reuploaded them to MS:WP and MGA73 was going to transfer them to Commons when he realised the previous discussion. They should probably all be deleted over there, and this probably won't bode well for Arctic Kangaroo's RfA at MS:WP. I think as a community we have dealt with this poorly (and I will take my share of the responsibility for that) but Arctic Kangaroo really haven't helped themselves in the matter. Liamdavies (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

He's been blocked on age alone, there was never any serious disruption alleged, and certainly nothing that warrants continued blocking after what's been said on his talkpage. Name-calling is not a substitute for diffs or competent handling of the matter.

His unblock request reasoning :

Request reason: "I promise not to cause any disruption anymore, unless someone tries to be immoral and whatever. I am requesting for unblock, so that if anytime there's something I want to contribute, then I can. I also hope to get Commons out of the mess it is in now. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 05:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)"

pretty straightforward, there is no imminent threat to the project that requires the continuation of the block. And there is nothing that justifies name-calling, ever. Penyulap ☏ 21:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

From what I could discern, the competence issue caused the conduct issue, but I do not consider competence in blocking cases. I declined the unblock request because I do not find one week to be sufficient time for a user blocked on behaviour to really think about what they did and how they will change. And minors are definitely allowed to contribute; they won't be treated any differently from non-minors. If Arctic Kangaroo was an adult and had something like this happen, minus the age-related controversy that could have been avoided, the result would have been broadly similar. --O (谈 • висчвын) 21:32, 13 August 2013 (GMT)

I am confused. Didn't we delete his files out of courtesy because he didn't understand free licenses at the time? Now after it was explained he has gone and licensed them yet again under the same licenses. https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khas:Senarai_imej/Arctic_Kangaroo is his upload log. He may be mad at commons but hoarding his images on another project is going against the licensing law. Should we just upload them all again to here? They are good images.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Good images indeed, but this is exactly why I give at least a month before considering unblocking. Bad habits do not disappear overnight. And yes they should be deleted now; when he finally gets over this mess we can start to discuss what to do with the images (the freely licensed ones, which should be here). --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:03, 14 August 2013 (GMT)

are you forgetting that commons admins do not rule the universe ? I think that if one admin wants to figure they can block here for some unpopular reason, then other projects don't need to fall into line. Arctic Kangaroo is welcome on that wiki and his images are welcome too. Other wiki's don't necessarily take the policy of deliberately pissing people off. If someone wants their own image deleted, a courtesy delete is a proper way to keep the productive editor and contributor.

This is a lovely demonstration of what lays ahead for most of commons/en wiki contributors who are made to feel unwelcome, they'll go on being productive and enjoying themselves elsewhere, while haters just hate. Penyulap ☏ 02:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, after they were moved to Commons (and subsequently deleted) they requested them deleted at the local project, as they didn't know that they couldn't stop them being transferred to Commons. AK clearly has a very poor comprehension of how CC licenses work, and no matter how much we try to explain them, they don't understand it. This is just another example of that failure to understand. The images should be deleted from MS:WP for two reasons, the first is the licensing issue which has come up here, and the second is because AK has requested they all be speedied. Can an admin there be contacted to have this done?

Also Penyulap, have you seen the mess that AK caused at EN:WP, that can hardly be considered productive, they are still having to wade through all the bad AfC choices he made and contact editors to get them to come back. It's unknown how many, but he certainly drove many potential editors away from EN:WP due to his lack of comprehension, that was the primary reason he was indefed. Liamdavies (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I can delete them on ms-wiki but I decided to wait 1 day because I was not sure if uploader requested deletion because he wanted them removed from all WMF projects or because he thought they were now accepted on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Liamdavies His block on commons is what were talking about. He doesn't get blocked on commons for what he did or didn't do at AfC, I can't comment as I haven't looked into it because it is completely and utterly irrelevant. There is no AfC on commons and so there is no potential for any similar whatever.

The cause of the problems here, imo, comes down to a lack of understanding and social skills. Not on the part of Arctic Kangaroo, who can only be expected to do what a kid will do, and he was given very poor advice from what I've heard, but on the part of the admins handling the case badly. A courtesy delete would have solved the problem, rather than splashing vinegar in his face and setting his hair on fire. They ask for one or two images to be deleted, which is just a matter of clicking a button and noticing that the whole world hasn't actually come to an end. Rather we have the epitome of the monkey catching trap. The white-knuckle grip on one picture of a butterfly has seen the contributor treated in a way that most people wouldn't tolerate, and it may mean the image, which ended up deleted in the end just the same, may be the last we get. Where is the advantage in this strategy ? It's the worst possible strategy. It was clear and obvious from the beginning, when I recommend a courtesy delete, and where has it gone ? Instead of losing one image with one click, they're ALL gone. Bonus ! Wow that was a great outcome. One courtesy delete Vs all deleted. Then you have the great PR value, for that contributor being given the big fuck off. The entry in their blocklog, all his friends seeing it and just {facepalm}ing, plus, it's still not over because his text contributions are licensed in precisely the same way as the pictures are. So you've got this whole 'well that's just dumb' thing going on. There is nothing at all, anywhere, that says kids can't contribute, lots of them do, so rather than just shrug and say 'well we don't know, why don't we ask about first' they just go and block him, delete some of his contributions and leave all the text based ones, making a shitload of mess, a truckload of unanswered questions, a tonne of bad PR, friends and peers upset, and no end in sight.

Reminds me of military strategy planning where they weigh up the forces and assets that are required to take over a target country. So many tens of thousands of infantry, so many artillery pieces, so many aircraft. If this was a country, and these strategists were in charge, I could confidently say we could take over using a fax machine and two girl guides. You're a mess. Please stop digging sometime soon.

sincerely, Penyulap ☏ 07:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, AK was indefed here for disruption and because all his images were deleted due to his lack of comprehension of CC licensing (I believe age was also a factor). He wanted all his images deleted from the start, and wanted nothing to do with Commons, so I doubt we lost a contributor there (AK had posted a retired sign on their page before the DR). I mentioned EN:WP because you brought it up, commons/en wiki contributors who are made to feel unwelcome, they'll go on being productive and enjoying themselves elsewhere so I rebutted that AK isn't really a productive contributor, and has in fact caused much trouble and burnt many many more editors. I was speaking directly to what you had said, don't have a go at me for it. Liamdavies (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologies for the misunderstanding, I was talking about any link between behavior on en.wiki and a block on commons. As far as I recall, it was a single image here on commons that was up for deletion. AK had friends here, and seems quite flexible and agreeable, so simply treating them as something other than shit would have been the go. If people had of simply left it to someone like JKadavoor Jee to deal with it, there wouldn't be this mess. Blocking is not the solution, it has caused the mess. It's age old wisdom that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Starting negotiations with the worst possible thing you can do to an editor is not going to endear them to you or the project. Penyulap ☏ 08:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In this edit AK pretty clearly states that they don't get CC and want all images deleted. At the time I thought the lack of CC knowledge/understanding was just a lie to get AK's way - I no longer feel that way. I think AK has shown time and time again that AK does not understand CC licensing and therefore is not fit to contribute. This latest MS:WP -> COM image transfer shows it again, he brought up the don't transfer to commons template and was told it wasn't binding and meaning less. Unfortunately AK isn't fit to contribute, we cannot have editors that don't understand CC licenses, simple as that. Liamdavies (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I have known AK for months now and we consider each other friends. AK is not deleterious to Wikipedia: he needs someone who can help this editor grasp on to the license policy. Up until this recent AfC and photo kerfuffle, he was doing great. We need to find a way to unblock him. Right now, we all have the toxication of the blocking system in us. Albeit the original block was adequate, we need to get him unblocked. WMF has stated on numerous occasions about this. Now, what we need is to unblock him. AeroAddict (Contact Me)(Main account) 23:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I cannot speak for other admins, but I at least will not consider unblocking until at least one month after the most recent block got applied. This is to ensure things cool down and nothing more. --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:34, 15 August 2013 (GMT)

It's ashame, but I've got to concur with you. I am currently in contact with him trying to find a mentor. I am not an adequate candidate for mentoring, albeit I know plenty who are. But there is IMHO no set time frame for all of this, but I'm working on it. Thanks. AeroAddict (Contact Me)(Main account) 01:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but AK was actually very harmful to ENWP, look here and here to see the full reasoning for his indef, and here for the work required to clean up after them - this is a mammoth task, and editors undoubtedly won't return due to AKs poor AfC reviews. Regarding his return, I have no in principle objection to that as long as he clearly and unequivocally understands that CC licenses are free, not revocable, and for the life of the copyright. Unless he understands and makes a firm undertaking to commit to those principles he shouldn't be allowed back. The recent image commons transfer problem that started this thread leads me to believe he does not understand yet. Liamdavies (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Liamdavies I unfortunately agree. It really is essential for him to understand this, albeit I am yet to receive a response, so I concur that indefinite is appropriate, albeit it should not be infinite. Thanks. AeroAddict (Contact Me)(Main account) 21:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Info: AK asked if his files on MS could stay for a shot time while he thinks this over. If the other admins on MS do not mind then I would just let them stay for a few days. But AK needs to decide soon. Having files on one project and asking for them to be deleted on another project does not make sense. --MGA73 (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, it just shows how little AK understands the CC license, and is the ultimate reason that all his photos were deleted here. MGA73 would you mind reminding AK that if they stay on MS there is no way to stop them being transferred to Commons? And tell them that will likely eventually happen? I think that it's important that AK understands that the CC license can not restrict usage, so long as the attribution and re-licensing conditions are meet. I would rather not approach AK, as I don't think he likes me from my input to the original DR. Liamdavies (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Doubts about an image based on a logo

This is the image and it's based on this cover. I'm not sure if it's possible to uset that in Wikipedia. (See File usage on other wikis) Thanks in advance. --Fixertool (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

All it consists of is text on two overlapping background colours. As such it is appropriately tagged as public domain. This project, Commons, hosts media files; deciding how to use what's available is not in our purview. --O (谈 • висчвын) 04:31, 15 August 2013 (GMT)

Need review of obvious copyvio images

Can an administrator review images from Toymaster1 (talk · contribs) ... they are all tagged as "I took a photo" and as not previously published. However, all are easilly found elsewhere on the internet - some are publicity shots, some are on news sites, at least one is a website graphic. I was going to tag each individually, but given the scale I decided that someone with more knowledge of how commons works than I might be able to explain things to the user. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

All deleted and account blocked by Materialscientist. --Túrelio (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Bang Bang Movie Poster.jpg

The image File:Bang Bang Movie Poster.jpg doesn't display for me. Clicking through to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Bang_Bang_Movie_Poster.jpg I get a 404 error. Anyone else have the same problem? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed Dankarl (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the file was not working so it was deleted but something went wrong. So I tried to restore and delete and now it looks like any other deleted file. I thought of restoring but it does not look free to me. If anyone thinks otherwise they are welcome to restore. --MGA73 (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Out of scope text in talk page

See history of User talk:Vaibhavupadhyay--Motopark (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Done I've blocked the account as a self-promotional SPA. I also sent the 4 uploads to DR. INeverCry 17:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Out of scope text in talk page (Reprise:Spamspamspam... minus Vikings)

This problem is getting more frequent. Kleuske (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. When detecting such pages, you could just empty them by yourself. --Túrelio (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Just blank them and stick a template on it? Ok. Will do. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Same kind of text in both user pages

User:Dont siltnce more and User:Not silence more will have same kind of text in user page ?--Motopark (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Besides of them being likely SPs, the text itself it a bit worrying. Should we proceed per en:Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm and notify the WMF? --Túrelio (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just done that - better to do it once too often than once too rarely. darkweasel94 18:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Right. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

i am good thinker and good hopy journalist.

i wish my own site on wikimedia.untill now i try to creat the site but i can not i want your support thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.95.144 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 1 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Adding time stamp for archive -FASTILY 07:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Shahid.jpg

Could someone delete the latest version of this file? I don't know what the document says or why Bahrami70 uploaded it on top of a pre-existing image or if their authorship claims are true, but I'm guessing Hafizshahidrazaqadri wouldn't want his user page image overwritten. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Done ■ MMXX ^talk 19:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Senor Mido

User uploads copyvios and removes copyvionotes from talk page, see history.--Motopark (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

All uploads except userpage pic nuked; user blocked for one week. If doubt exists to the copyright status of his userpage pic, feel free to file a deletion request. --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:11, 24 August 2013 (GMT)

Copyvio reports

Sigh. It seems after my latest class ended, despite having been warned and lectures about copyvios at least twice, one of my former students Khyji0723 (talk · contribs) keeps on adding bad content. All of his uploads should be deleted, I think, and at this point a block may be in order - through to honest I doubt s/he will ever return. Sorry for the trouble, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries,

Done -FASTILY 07:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Arbcom nl logo.png

This file is not valid anymore, because it uses the old logo. On http://oi44.tinypic.com/2eb91n9.jpg there's a new version made by me (I don't know why it's on the site as JPG, it was a PNG). Wolf Lambert (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Admin assistance is not needed. If necessary, please upload a new file yourself with new file name. – Kwj2772 (msg) 19:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Look at a users uploads

Can an administrator take a look at the uploads of User:Wikigabriel11 and see what needs to be done with them? The uploads contains images from http://www.bussmicke.se (File:Danderyds Sjukhus t-bana 018.jpg), from http://www.busspojken.com, from http://rune-feldt.se, from http://www.tramways.com, from different panoramio users (File:Linje 3 Strömlös.jpg by Bo Randstedt, File:Godhemsgatan view from a tram.jpg by Biketommy), from https://www.sparvagssallskapet.se/forum/viewtopic.php?p=283685, from http://www.phbuss.se (File:Busline 17 Hjalmar Brantingsplatsen.jpg), and maybe other sources. Other uploads are low quality photos from a Samsung phone: (File:C20, Skanstull.jpg, File:Radmansgatan T-bana, northbound platform looking south.jpg, File:Vasagatan 003.jpg). /Ö 18:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for deleting old versions of a file

Could an admin please delete the old versions of File:Tpuzzle.svg and File:T-puzzle,_three_common_variants.svg? I had trouble with svg files and the older versions are failed experiments. Thanks in advance!--Voorlandt (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleting is not saving any space. So there is not really a point to it. --Dschwen (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't really thinking about saving space. The older files have a lot of extra data in them, and I would very grateful if they can be removed. Thanks in advance--Voorlandt (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Done Someone has done this now. Thank you so much! Regards, --Voorlandt (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

question re: image taken from blog

Can someone familiar with the requirements on images help on this? The image at File:Melvin Wine 2013-08-23 23-33.jpg is obviously taken from http://berrydna.blogspot.com/2009/04/dna-and-sfi.html . That site is a blog which doesn't show a copyright, so I'm not sure if there's an issue or not. The image here though is tagged as "own work"; which I think would need evidence via the ticket system that it was supplied by the person who posted the blog. Is this correct? I'll leave it to more experienced hands to review. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems at least suspicious, please nominate it for deletion. darkweasel94 00:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

After looking closer, the same user also uploaded File:The Julian Assange Show 2013-08-24 15-07.jpg as their "own work", which is a clip from a copyrighted work. This also draws into question the other image they uploaded at File:Garner Ted Armstrong 2013-08-23 23-39.jpg, which was also uploaded as "own work" - but from appearance alone I would guess the image to be several decades old given that per en-wiki: Garner Ted Armstrong, the gentleman in question was born in 1930. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Geógrafo23 overwriting graphics in violation to COM:OVERWRITE

Geógrafo23 is constantly overwriting File:Check mark.svg with a low-quality SVG, violating our overwrite policy (similar issue also with File:☒.svg). There is no sign of insight on his side, despite already three users having reverted him trying to explain why overwriting is not an option here. I tried to explain the issue in detail on his talk page, but he did not respond and instead reverted the file again.

I don't know if this already qualifies for a block, but I realized that there are no useful contributions by this user so far and he seems to have been blocked for vandalism before.

In any case the image should probably be reverted and temporarily protected to prevent Geógrafo23 from overwriting it again. --Patrick87 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've protected the 2 files. Not sure about a block, as a Spanish-speaking editor/admin could talk to him about this first. If a block is needed though, no objections from me. INeverCry 00:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Labour movement in tne Netherlands

Hello,

Can someone rename Category:Labour movement in tne Netherlands into Category:Labour movement in the Netherlands. Pillarisation was made by mistake, this one can be deleted. BoH (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Bidgee (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! BoH (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Near West Side.jpg

Please delete the 2013-08-25 revision of this file, uploaded by serial copyright violator ChicagoUser2283. ChicagoUser2283 overwrote an Open Streetview map uploaded by TonyTheTiger with a copyright violation grabbed from http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2011/11/26/chicago-forever/. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Done by Hedwig in Washington. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 11:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Category deletion

Can I please have an admin delete Category:PNG coats of arms by country as well as all it's sub-cats? They're part of a massive over-categorization by an IP between July 18-26th. I'd do a discussion nomination for the cats but nobody ever pays attention to those (last one I made took over a year and nobody even noticed it). Fry1989 ^eh? 21:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Done -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 22:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a general note - CFD really does have a huge backlog, as Fry1989 correctly points out, so I guess admins really should generally pay more attention to it. darkweasel94 22:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

And there's another set of categories this person created that is messy as well, but I have to undo hundreds of those edits first as well. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Part 2

Here's the other set of categories the anon made. Please delete Category:Superseded coats of arms by country and all it's subs. Thank you. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Bidgee (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Delete/bn

What is the problem with this template. This template is not protected & I'm trying to editing but it said "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: ....... ". (I can edit Template:Delete/en also but why not bn?) --Aftab1995 (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What is "the following reason"? It works for me. darkweasel94 00:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"This page has been protected from editing because it is included in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option turned on:" --Aftab1995 (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We would have to know what "the following pages" are and you may try the following: Purging the cache (although I don't for sure know whether this would help). -- Rillke^(q?) 00:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Persistent copyvios

User talk:Rijans007 was previously notified in May about copyright violations. I have just found that all of their recent (August 26) uploads are derivative works of copyrighted online photos. Given their consistent behavior, I suspect all of their previous uploads in May are copyvios that should be deleted -- and the user warned/prevented from uploading further files. CactusWriter (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Done -- User:Hedwig in Washington has warned the user. I have now reviewed the remaining images and most are them were uploaded from Flickr and have proper CC licensing. This appears to be resolved. Thanks. CactusWriter (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Undoing overwrite.

Hi, can an admin please restore these three files to their previous state, someone has overwritten them and added tags.

Thank you in advanced. Liamdavies (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Liamdavies (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

some homepage pictures

Please check Special:Contributions/Vip_gajf uploads, there are printed text over the pictures, and unknown person, what we do with those pictures. --Motopark (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Found this DR; looks like the user is a sockpuppet who uploaded and re-uploaded that file. I would nominate them for deletion since they look out of scope. --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:45, 29 August 2013 (GMT)

Repeatedly filed deletion requests

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No admin action required at this time. Discussion can be continued at DR. INeverCry 17:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope I can get some assistance with Commons deletion request policy. On 21 August, Titodutta opened a deletion request for a text logo I had uploaded. At that DR, Titodutta claimed that the image was, firstly, copyrightable because of its "design" despite being simple colored text, and was nonfree in India because other (non-copyright) restrictions exist on it, as is true for most logos subject to trademark restrictions. These arguments were rejected and the image kept. [32] Within less than twelve hours of the keep result, Titodutta has filed yet another DR, making the same argument as before. [33] I note the deletion policy states "If you disagree with an admin's decision to delete a file, or not to delete it, you should first set out your reasons on the admin's talk page and ask for reconsideration." TD has not done that, or even asked the closing admin for clarification on why the image was kept prior to filing another DR with the same argument. Is there any prohibition against just repeatedly filing DRs? I can copy the same argument in again, but I have the feeling that without any kind of action, round 3 will start soon enough. Seraphimblade (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Repeatedly" implies lots of times; this is only the second time, and the nominator is explicitly addressing some of the arguments from the first DR. If it were the third or fourth request, I might think it was disruptive, but I see no harm in a second. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

For now, I'll assume good faith and consider this as a misunderstanding. In addition to what HJ Mitchell has said, there are a bunch of restrictions on using political symbols. Notifications of "Election Commission of India" (the topmost body in India) are deceptive? I don't know what to reply to this. Please spend thirty seconds and read the second paragraph (a—c) of page 1 of this which states the symbols are reserved only for the political parties. See this where model code of conduct of ECI states, political symbols can not be used on specific days like election day and in election coupons, election booths. Can we set such restrictions in Commons? There are a bunch of more restrictions at Symbol Handbook. I can't decode the URL, so, I am giving you the search result page, hope you'll not mind. See the first search result. There are more documents at ECI website. Frankly, I may nominate it for the third time unless someone clearly replies to these concerns. Deletion discussions' arguments should be judged on merit. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I read through the whole text(s) and can't find anything that relates to logos. My understanding is: the meaning of symbol in the texts is the symbol given/chosen by the party (e.g.:Elephant, Ladder, Mango, ...) and not the parties logos. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 15:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we can close this here, no harm done, no violation of anything. Discussion moved back to DR. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 16:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for the clarification on the procedures here. Please go ahead with closing this. Seraphimblade (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Flickr upload not working anymore ?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T55522

I can't make the flickr upload from the UploadWizard, it always finished by opening an explorer windows of my desktop. Can it be related to HTTPS ? --PierreSelim (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have the same problem--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't work anymore for me as well. Additionally, Flickr2Commons doesn't work too (the necessary log-on to TUSC doesn't work), and the Flickr upload bot sends me to a standard http Commons page to create the file description (instead of https, which I use), so uploading images from Flickr is a bit difficult right now. --Rosenzweig τ 07:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there about to be an entirely predicable meltdown? I just checked the standard user preferences and I can't find any way of opting out of https - I had thought this would be available before any switch-over to https? I have no intention of wasting my time retrospectively re-jigging past code for Faebot when an opt-out should be available as a simple work-around. --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've used https for a while now and didn't have any problems like that before. --Rosenzweig τ 08:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

1--Steinsplitter (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You can insert the URL on the very beginning of the textbox (where the cursor is not a hand); I fear that I am responsible for this bug :-( -- Rillke^(q?) 08:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And now, the URL insert textbox should work as expected again. I am very sorry. If this issue is not gone, please purge your browser's cache. -- Rillke^(q?) 09:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for you reactivity, it works again for me \o/ \o/ \o/ --PierreSelim (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You can switch https individually off. Preferences > user profile > basic information > de-x "Always use a secure connection when logged in" . --Túrelio (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Couldn't see it for looking thanks. --Fæ (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I was also looking for this. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a problem related to this one: I cannot log in to my TUSC account. No problem messages come up or any other warning. The log in process seems just to last for an infinite time. Server issues? --High Contrast (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Catscan2 returns unhelpful server errors for me right now, it looks like a general WMF server problem. It would be interesting to have a running trend of reliability for tools on WMF servers to refer to, and compare with the service we used to get a year ago. I would hope it is much better compared to the old Toolserver set up, but I don't have the statistics to back that up. --Fæ (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that a lot of heavy tools are gone, toolserver works quite snappy. -- Rillke^(q?) 13:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I just pushed Kaldari's change to make the API URL protocol-relative. Could someone verify that the problem has been fixed? --Ori.livneh (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 05:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Huge backlog at Category:License review needed

Of around 1100 files, needing review. I'm doing some, but it is very disheartening when the number grows as fast as I can deal with them alone. Many hands make light work, let's see some more volunteers there please! - MPF (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

And at COM:DR.

INeverCry 00:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Undeletable file

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T55553

Tried deleting File:Tero Saarinen Company - BORROWED LIGHT (photo Lauren Philippe).jpg per copyvio CSD but got this error:

Error deleting file: The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/c/c3/Tero_Saarinen_Company_-_BORROWED_LIGHT_(photo_Lauren_Philippe).jpg" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends

It's been quite a while since I last saw an error like this. I'm sure someone knows what to do with it. INeverCry 17:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha, yeah, I think I tried to delete this before you. Got the same error. Mentioned it on IRC wikitech channel, no reply. A google search shows many occurrences of this error. The first file revision is corrupt now as well, try reverting to it. --Dschwen (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So far I've seen this a few times on copyvios and with a file that couldn't be renamed about a year ago. This is an ongoing bug. What if this happens with a seriously problematic image? It would be a problem if an admin isn't able to delete an inappropriate image or an attack image that's reported to them. I wonder if an oversighter could suppress a file affected by this bug? INeverCry 18:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The same happened to me with File:이브아르.jpg. Do we need to open a bug report o similar? If yes, where and how? --Ju Ta 19:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53553 --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Now I was able to delete File:이브아르.jpg. regards --Ju Ta 11:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

many copyvios by user

Hey, User:Lopwe uploaded many copyvios. Can someone delete these images at Special:ListFiles/Lopwe? I've noticed the user already.--CennoxX (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nuked and blocked. Thanks for the advice. --Alan ^(talk) 22:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Please undelete File:CNS Wappen.jpeg, OTRS permission received

Hi, please undelete File:CNS Wappen.jpeg as we received an OTRS permission in Ticket:2013081010007711. After the file was restored please give me a short hint on my talk page that I can add the permission tag. Thanks a lot and good night, Yellowcard (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Alan ^(talk) 22:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Yellowcard (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Request to undelete pic

Dear Administrators!

Please undelete File:Marczinka Csaba 2013.JPG. OTRS received permission to use, ticket number 2013083010007675.

Thanks. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Stolen free image

File:Saint Mary`s Church coity bridgend.jpg has been uploaded with the author claiming it's theirs, when in fact it isn't. Usually this would be deleted as a copyvio, but the actual image is freely licensed and can be found here. I don't know the right action to take for this, but deleting it would be counterproductive as it's used on the English Wikipedia and it's just wrong to leave it as looking like it's from the fake author. Azusa (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There's also a higher resolution available on geograph.co.uk, so after resolved that could be worth uploading. My account isn't capable of uploading new versions apparently. Azusa (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a freely licensed image but that does not mean it is not under copyright. Putting it up misattributed would still be infringement. Dankarl (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected the description and the attribution, moved it to a filename reflecting the geograph.org.uk origin and have also uploaded the larger version. That should settle it, I think. --Rosenzweig τ 16:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Uploads by Wikigabriel

Can an administrator take a look at the uploads of User:Wikigabriel11 and see what needs to be done with them? The uploads contains images from http://www.bussmicke.se (File:Danderyds Sjukhus t-bana 018.jpg), from http://www.busspojken.com, from http://rune-feldt.se, from http://www.tramways.com, from different panoramio users (File:Linje 3 Strömlös.jpg by Bo Randstedt, File:Godhemsgatan view from a tram.jpg by Biketommy), from https://www.sparvagssallskapet.se/forum/viewtopic.php?p=283685, from http://www.phbuss.se (File:Busline 17 Hjalmar Brantingsplatsen.jpg), and maybe other sources. Other uploads are low quality photos from a Samsung phone: (File:C20, Skanstull.jpg, File:Radmansgatan T-bana, northbound platform looking south.jpg, File:Vasagatan 003.jpg). /Ö 18:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This was archived without any comments, so I try posting it again. I could continue searching for sources for more images and tag them as copyvios. But I thought it would be faster to have some admin look at them and see if something can be done with the entire set of images. /Ö 14:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wikigabriel11. INeverCry 18:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. /Ö 07:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Cross-project Check User

If a user has different accounts on Commons and en.Wikipedia, and is using these accounts for dishonest reasons such as changing filenames and data to make photos on Wikipedia articles xhe edits to appear as if xhe is the creator of the image, what is the CheckUser (or other) process, if any? Kudpung (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You might ask our checkusers about that: Commons:Checkusers. --Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Mass deletion please

Special:Contributions/Acharya_Shashi_Pandey_Jyotirvidh plenty of posters, please delete.--Motopark (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Done --A.Savin 18:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

HTTPS for logged in users on Wednesday August 21st

“

As we outlined in our blog post on the future of HTTPS at the Wikimedia Foundation[0], the plan is to enable HTTPS by default for logged in users on August 21st, this Wednesday. We are still on target for that rollout date.

As this can have severe consequences for users where HTTPS is blocked by governments/network operators in addition to users who connect to Wikimedia sites via high latency connections, we've set up a page on MetaWiki describing what is going on and what it means for users and what they can do to report problems.

Please help watch out for any unintended consequences on August 21st and report any negative issues to us as soon as you can. Bugzilla:, IRC (#wikimedia-operations), or the (forthcoming) OTRS email are all fine.

”

—Greg Grossmeier, wikitech-ambassadors-l

Adding timestamp for archive -FASTILY 02:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Page to be protected

Please consider a protection for this subpage, vandalized several times in the last few months. Thank you, — TintoMeches, 15:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Done Of course, yes. Sorry for this --A.Savin 15:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, don't worry about that. :-) — TintoMeches, 20:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Pmfayyad.JPG

Please delete the 2013-05-27 version, which was uploaded by Mr.dwekat on top of a completely different photo by Decap. According to the metadata, it is a non-free photo by Chip East/Reuters (and therefore a copyright violation). Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 16:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

File content of revision in question "deleted". -- Rillke^(q?) 16:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeat copyright offender User:Chanderforyou

Chanderforyou had been previously blocked for 1 week for copyright vios. There recent uploads all appear to be repeat violations claiming to be the creator of things like Television show logos [34], images with watermarks copyrights [35] , images which appear to be studio promo shots [36]. I recommend a full review of their contributions. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

self promotional pictures

user Special:Contributions/Editor209 has been uploaded plenty of pictures that seems to be self promoting and part of them can be founded from here--Motopark (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I see you have put a number of these up on deletion requests due to poor sourcing/release information. If the model gets this right (assuming they are the uploader), then the only issue will be judging if these are in scope. These would be better without watermarks, but that is something to advise the uploader about. A model uploading photos of themselves does not appear to be a justification for admin action of itself. --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hide revision

Can the first version of this file (17:53, 26 May 2011) be hidden? The copyright status is unclear, and I have replaced it with a self-constructed file that is certainly properly licensed. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What is this file ? --Dschwen (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of FSSP.svg This one? Why is the copyright status is unclear? -- Rillke^(q?) 22:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I forgot to link to it. My apologies, it's rather late. It is indeed the file Rillke links to. The file was taken from the website of FSSP, as have several other people done for the escutcheon only (File:Blason Fraternité Saint-Pierre.svg & File:Fssp herb.jpg). Nowhere was the file released in the public domain, or under a free license. The website only states: © 2001-2013 - Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for being honest :-) -- Rillke^(q?) 07:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Contributions by Jonh Sevilio

This user (User:Jonh Sevilio) has been indefinitely blocked in ru-Wiki for vandalism. He/she uploaded a number of files to Commons, which are either copyright violations or vandalism (or both). Could you please delete his/her contributions ASAP and block his ability to upload new stuff? Thanks, - Adavyd (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleted and blocked (for two weeks) let's see if that is enough. --Dschwen (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)\

Speedy Deletion for Security reasons

This category has a sum of 10 images which were taken by me during the students protest in Tamil Nadu, India. The protests were mainly against the ruling government. I didn't know the seriousness of uploading these in commons during that day. But, now it has become a security issue that the state government is tracking each and every student who were participated in the protests. So, I request the 10 images to be deleted in an *URGENT* manner. I've given the reason in the category too. -- SuryaPrakash ^Talk... 06:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Files are now deleted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 06:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Files are broken after moving

Hi, after moving there are some Files broken. File:Station 59 Dittershöhe bei Dittersdorf (Glashütte).jpg and File:Jerusa Santos - 2013 IPC Athletics World Championships-2.jpg. Can you restore? And can you fix the problem? Its not right when the file is broken after moving. --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎ 18:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I remember I had this problem a while ago. Can bugzilla:40927 be related to this? --Didym (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

And problems to move fiels: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53770 --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The file list "knows" about that upload but following the file link gives:

“

404 Not Found

The resource could not be found.

File not found: /v1/AUTH_43651b15-ed7a-40b6-b745-47666abf8dfe/wikipedia-commons-local-public.0f/0/0f/Terezinha_Guilhermina_-_2013_IPC_Athletics_World_Championships-2.jpg

”

Other files uploaded in this timeframe are not affected. -- Rillke^(q?) 19:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

deletion-bug back?

I fear the ugly deletion-bug may be back. I tried about 10 times to delete File:Usedom St. Marienkirche 2013-08 Turm.JPG, but reproducibly received the error message

"Error deleting file: The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/6/60/Usedom_St._Marienkirche_2013-08_Turm.JPG" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends"

(or in German: "Fehler bei Datei-Löschung: Die Datei „mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/6/60/Usedom_St._Marienkirche_2013-08_Turm.JPG“ befindet sich, innerhalb des internen Speicher-Backends, in einem inkonsistenten Zustand."). --Túrelio (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Same problem for me. I think this deletion bug is worse than the last one! Bidgee (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53838 --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Replacing of the tag of Quality images

Ragerraze (talk · contribs) is changing the Quality image's tag from {{Quality image}} to {{Assessments}}. The intention is unclear. There is a possibility of vandalism, please confirm. More than 300 files have been replaced already. --Mugu-shisai (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this was discussed here: Commons:Bots/Requests/SamoaBot 4. darkweasel94 15:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not know about the discussion. Thank you very much. --Mugu-shisai (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

inappropriate username

I think the account-name of this new user LionelMessi2010 (talk · contribs) is inappropriate as it pretends to be en:Lionel Messi. --Túrelio (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Done I've soft-blocked the account. INeverCry 03:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

unfree version of image

Could you please delete the latest image version of File:Olyphant Zea Carter Goggins.jpg? That version was taken from an unfree image at okmagazine. take also a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olyphant Zea Carter Goggins.jpg.--CennoxX (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that this version isn't copyvio. Would be neat to summrize (close) the RFD page. --grin ✎ 16:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not about the first version of the picture, which came from the flickr image, and was first expected, to be a copyvio. This is about the second version, uploaded by stemoc. This was uploaded from the okmagazine page, which isn't cc-by.--CennoxX (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think both should be deleted if anything, the image direct from flickr was under a free licence but was infact photoshopped which removed the exif data, as mention in the DR, there are more pics from the set, All Copyright Protected and all have a watermark..we have to assume that the one uploaded directly from flickr to wikimedia was not meant to be on a "free licence" as the name of the author suggests (photo graffiti), she likes to "play" with the images...I uploaded one from OK Magazine because its the SAME picture and both are hers, If she released one of her pic as free licence then what does it mean for the other?, they are the same pic, except one has been "degraded" due to it being photo edited whereas the original one with its full data/color and EXIF intact..I only replaced a poor quality image with the original one...--Stemoc (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The Flickr user put the image under a free license on request, so there is no reason to think this image "was not meant to be on a free licence". (again take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olyphant Zea Carter Goggins.jpg). The thing is she released the poor quality image under a free license, not the better one.--CennoxX (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Keith, Moray

Could someone reduce the protection on this to semi, please, as I am currently working on it. The reason for its full protection, Scotire (talk · contribs), is currently blocked for 6 months. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Done I've unprotected it. I'll keep it watched, and if there's any IP or new acct issues, I can do the needed checks, blocks, etc. INeverCry 15:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

'Puzzling' uploads

I'm looking at this list of file uploads, which also feature on benchmade.com. This seems spammy to me (having been prompted to look following the 'too-professional' image appearing on a Wikinews article. That the site these feature on has a fairly noticeable copyright message suggests the uploader (if indeed the image creator) doesn't have much of a clue about copyright.

It's an odd one, given the images were uploaded in 2009; so, up to the Commons admins how you'd like to handle this. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Found a photo that has nearly twice the dimensions of the Commons upload. Someone may review the text logos. (Whether they qualify as {{PD-textlogo}}, c.f. COM:TOO). -- Rillke^(q?) 13:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jermboy categories

Please delete Category:Diagrams of regulatory lane use road signs of New Zealand and Category:Diagrams of regulatory restrictions road signs of New Zealand, both overcats created by Jermboy. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Done Note: Empty categories. --Alan ^(talk) 19:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we add to black list some hits

ResolvedRillke^(q?) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

see history of page User talk:Jasmine jane, is it possible to add some info to black list that this kind of spam is not possible.--Motopark (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Other sites also had this kind of spam, according to a Google search result. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

mass deletion

Special:Contributions/Indoorartstudio upload picturesd with phone numbers and email-address.--Motopark (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleted as clearly advertising/marketing. --Túrelio (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Abusive deletion request

Could this deletion request be closed, please ? No valid reason is given other than "Catalina Denis wants this picture deleted" (even if the IP could prove that it represents Catalina Denis, this still wouldn't be a reason.....) TIA JJ Georges (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

DRs are usually continued for seven days, except in rare situations. In cases where a user has agreed with deletion in good faith, admins need more then "no valid reason was given" to speedily close it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

To put another way, admins do close abusive DRs, but generally only when they're clearly abusive, like an attack on one editor by another or a repeated DR on the same file. We have deleted images at the request of the pictured before, so this isn't clearly abusive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If the request was indeed by the actress herself I would consider a courtesy deletion of this image if a suitable replacement were provided. The file in question is not a particularly good photo. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Though it will likely be rejected, I would not necessarily consider it an abusive request. --Túrelio (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Whilst not abusive, it is clearly a waste of community time. Commons:Deletion requests/File:P1080449 - Elena LENINA.jpg is an analogous situation. Whilst we generally keep DRs open for 7 days, this could be closed off now inline with French consent requirements and the Elena Lenina discussion. russavia (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, "abusive" was a gallicism : unmotivated would be a better word in english. Granted, the photo is not the best in the world, but it is in no way derogatory and we have no free replacement. Even if we had one, the picture would still be not harmful to the subject's reputation. JJ Georges (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We have around 150 DRs every day. Similar requests from celebrities -- often coming from IP users -- are common. We certainly have several of them every week. I see no reason at all to give this one any special treatment, including wasting more time on it here. If we close it early as a keep, then the nom can legitimately complain that we have acted arbitrarily. If we close it as a delete, we have made a mistake. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)