Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 9

Fix the fix

A fix applied to Monobook.css has to be changed, as I have described here. Please take care of it. In case of questions, please bug me on my talk page, by email, etc. Huji 12:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

COM:DG

I'm in the process of doing a long-needed update of the German version of the deletion guidelines. Unfortunately I found the English version to be inconsistent. I've put two questions on the talk page, but thought I'd give a notice here as well, as not everyone will watch that page. --rimshot^talk 14:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thunder Horse.jpg

The author of the photo e-mailed OTRS stating that the picture was actually the property of BP, and needed to be removed. As he never had the right to license the image in the first place, I have removed the photo, but I am dropping a note here to explain the situation. Thank you. -- Avi 18:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:PD-Russia clean up

Looks like we'll have other tough clean up. I think we need to setup process of review (prepare list of files, review by several users/admins, etc) to minimize mistakes rate and avoid unnecessary conflicts. --EugeneZelenko 15:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up - MediaWiki:Titleprotectedwarning

Just a note that this mediawiki page has been created...feel free to make any edits that'll make it look better.

giggy _(:O) 08:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

New account creation (done)

Hi! I would like to have the same username on commons as I have e.g. on Polish wiki. It's free but it says me that is very similar to another username (who, in fact, has no editions as far as I see). So if you possibly could create me an account with username Voronwe, I would be very glad. My email: xxx . Thanks in advance!

Done. --32X 10:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection of my user page

Dear all, I would like to get my user page and my talk page protected from editing. User:Marbot and User talk:Marbot. Thank you in advance --Marbot 08:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Err - why? There has been no vandalism or anything? Equally protecting the talk page would be highly unusual given that IPs frequently have reasons to edit them. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot assure to take notice of messages on my talk page here. Therefore I have strongly advised to use my talk page on dewiki. If protected it would be more obvious that I do not discuss matters here at commons. Best regards --Marbot 09:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt anyone will do that. It would be very inconsiderate to force hard working Commons users to go to various other wikis to place messages. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Herby. Please enable e-mail notifications in your preferences instead. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Set you talk page code to #REDIRECT [[w:de:User talk:Marbot]] if you must, but yeah, the email setting is preferred. No protection. giggy _(:O) 10:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ok, I think giggy's suggestion is a good compromise. :-) Thanks anyway. --Marbot 11:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OTRS check

User:Pypaertv is uploading a number of screenshots from what appears to be a computer game featuring the characters from the TV series Lost under an {{Attribution}} license, citing Pypaertv as the author required to be attributed and referring to otrs:20051200210003144 for the permission. Could someone with OTRS access verify that Pypaertv is an authorised representative of the copyright holder to the Lost TV series and this computer game? (Also, where's the best place to ask for OTRS verifications in case of suspected copyvios?) —LX (talk, contribs) 21:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The email is about de:Lock On; nothing about LOST. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

More particularly, it is copied from {{Attribution-Ubisoft}} -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Bry. I've deleted the images. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

New User / Used username - User:Kore

I would like to create a commons account with the same name as in the german wikipedia de:User:kore, to continue contributing images, now in commons. This is not allowed because of the existing user User:Koré (no contributions of any kind), with the note to contact an administrator for this. --85.182.37.0 11:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please give an email address (I'm [email protected]) giggy _(:O) 11:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. giggy _(:O) 11:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User rename logging - Bugzilla request filed

Please take a look at bugzilla:13912, which maybe of interest to bureaucrats here. The change requested is a small one, but probably of interest anyway. Thanks, AP aka --Kelsington 11:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Ignorewarning

One should delete MediaWiki:Ignorewarning or at least make it a lot shorter. See Bugzilla:13928 for the reasoning. Huji 16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that is silly (and now deleted). – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was yucky...! giggy _(:O) 01:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As you might have already noticed, there is a chance that a more proper place for such warnings would be added inside MediaWiki. Huji 11:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New account - User .:Alex:.

I wish to create a new account, called ".:Alex:.", as I have an account with the same name on Wikipedia. It won't let me create it because it says it's is too similar to User:-Alex-, who does not have a user page and has no contributions from what I can see (email is given in hidden comment below, seen when editing page/section, to avoid EVERYBODY from seeing it) Email removed now that account is created. 86.31.249.35 08:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done EugeneZelenko 16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I just created the category Maps in Romanian, but in this page, it is displayed at the letter "M", not "R". Can somebody help me? --Olahus 14:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Olahus, You can change the letter under wich another category or file/article is sorted in a category if You add [[Category:...|something here]], compare [1] now, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 15:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Olahus 15:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Fz22

I've been noticed about upload war on Image:Polska 992 - 1025.png with this user, forcing his POV on map, which has been consulted with some historians on pl.wiki and represent current state of knowledge (as I was informed). I have skimmed through this user's contrib and I've noticed that he made significant changes to some maps, COA's (compare Image:Austria-Hungary-flag-1869-1918-naval-1786-1869-war.gif‎ and its SVG version). I'm not a historian so I won't argue who's right, but it's a bit fishy, so maybe someone with better knowledge will check it, or notify some experts. --Leafnode 12:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Alerted user to discussion. Was going to protect the image but you have already, nice work. Will reserve further judgement until Fz22 comments. giggy _(:O) 10:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem uploading image

Hello,

We have been trying to upload the image Seth Berkley Head (Med Res).jpg in an effort to add to the Seth Berkley Wikipedia entry, however we have been denied permission due to copyright questions. Our organization, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, has full ownership of this photograph and the copyright belongs to us as well. We would appreciate your assistance in helping us upload this photo.

Many thanks, --IAVI 15:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the flickr account owner is not the copyright holder? Or are you the flickr account owner? In the latter case, change the license on flickr to the same one you gave here. In the former case, send an Email to OTRS, stating that you are the copyright holder. Apart from copyright, there is a problem with the colors of the photograph, most likely this comes from the image being in the CMYK color space. Change it to RGB to have the image displayed properly here. --rimshot^talk 17:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Kaytrax

User:Kaytrax•Special:Contributions/Kaytrax is new to Commons according to his contribs. He blanked the file information from Image:Zeta Jones.jpg and substituted it with an improper spamlink to an image he uploaded. This has been reverted.

I'm concerned that the image he uploaded yesterday - Image:Catherine Zeta-Jones47.jpg - which he's licensed as {{Free screenshot}} may be a copyvio and spurious license, as it certainly appears to be a professionally posed studio shot. Please advise about what to do with this. I suspect we need to keep a close eye on this user too. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Licensing is not my thing but this - "© by Kaytrax" - does not fill me with hope! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that starting with the user's talk page might be the right place. I don't see anything there other than a Siebot welcome. Was there a reason you brought this here first that I'm not aware of? The user may not even be aware that there is an issue. We have templatised messages that you can use if you're not sure of the user's language. Adding a personal note is helpful and friendly. Lar: t/c 17:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I've brought both of the image issues to the user's attention. Lar: t/c 18:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mainly because I wasn't sure how to approach the matter. Thanks for the pointer. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User has not responded to Talk page query. I've tagged the image as copyvio accordingly. JGHowes ^talk - 17:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about coats of arm

If we look at Image:St Lucia coa.gif it is tagged with an odd license, I don't understand really what it means, is this a free image ? If one looks at the official government page they say It may not be used or reproduced in any form without the approval of the Government. If the commons releases it as PD (ie anyone can use reuse it) is that not violating the copyright held by the government of St Lucia ? I see the commons upholds laws on freedom of panorama for example, and the licensing policy says we should abide by the laws of the country of origin. I don't understand how this image can be free. Jackaranga 12:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is there is no reason given as to why it would not be copyrighted, it was created in 1967 apparently. Jackaranga 12:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate CoAs (closely followed by flags) - no licensing expert but I think you are right personally --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What tends to confuse people is that the distinction between blazoning (the textual description of the coat of arms, here beginning "Azure two sticks of cut bamboo") and each individual graphical representation thereof. The former is usually not copyrightable, while the latter usually is (exceptions exist both ways).

Here, the Vector-Images.com representation is not identical to the government-provided, presumably copyrighted, representation, but far too similar not to be considered a derivative work. Thus, I think it needs to be deleted, but the good news is that it should be replaceable with an independent artists' interpretation of the blazoning. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the explanation LX, I know much more than I did! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The page en:Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems tries to explain this. Lupo 06:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Heidi.travel

I suspect that this user is uploading fair use promotional material outside the scope and in violation of policy. BrokenSphere 17:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks & agreed. Logos deleted as "out of scope" and user given "out of scope" tag to look at. Worth watching probably - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sayyid Kazim

In the late 1800s there was a book published which contained an image which the author identified with the en:Báb. All the newer sources including Balyuzi, H.M. (1973) The Báb: The Herald of the Day of Days, Oxford, UK: George Ronald, pp. p. 16 ISBN 0853980489 which reproduces this image and states "Hájí Siyyid Kázim-i-Rashtí - This photograph was mistakenly identified as one of the Báb by Nicolas in his book "Seyyed Ali Mohammed dit le Báb"." state that the original book was wrong, and it is actually a picture of en:Sayyid Kazim. In Iran where Baha'is are persecuted, the image is used incorrectly, and now there are some Persian Wikipedia editors who are trying to change the name of the image to serve their purposes. The images in question on Commons are Image:Sayyid Kazim Rashti.jpg and Image:Seyed Ali Mohammed Bab.jpg. I was wondering if the image name can be protected. Regards -- Jeff3000 14:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sayyid Kazim Rashti.jpg now redirects to Image:Seyed Ali Mohammed Bab.jpg. Either name can be used. Rocket000 15:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But the correct person the image represents is Sayyid Kazim, and not the Bab. Notice they are quite different people. The Persian Wikipedia editors are using the name of the image to push their POV on the Persian Wikipedia, while the reliable sources state the person is Sayyid Kazim, and not Seyed Ali Mohammed Bab. Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

one book was publish 200 hunderd years ago so how can a person in 1973 tells that image was wrong and writer named wrongly.So as i told you in your talk page find another online reliabe source . And dear common admind please see the main source here. it was scanned from a the originall book and proves that he is bab.and some people intentionally are trying by cutting of some part of image prove their idea.regards--Mardetanha 15:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The author of the book in the 1800s never met the Bab, and could not have made a conclusion. The newer source, which is a more reliable source by all Wikipedia measures, specifically states that the old source was wrong. The author in question has access to actual images of the en:Báb as they are housed in the at the en:Bahá'í World Centre, and one is on display in the International Archives building, where the Bahá'ís view it as part of an organized pilgrimage. As you know online sources are not usually relaible. Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

but again i say accepting people who was alive in bob's time are wise than accepting people in 1973.--Mardetanha 15:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

in the all given link there is no image of bab that we can compare . --Mardetanha 15:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The author of the book in the 1800s never met the Bab, and thus he is no place to state who the picture is of. He could have just made the image up. Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

any proofs that he never met the bab?--Mardetanha 15:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He travelled to Iran after the Bab was executed. Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

any proof that he travelled to iran after the bab was excuted?--Mardetanha 15:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Any proof he didn't have a twin? I think this discussion should be continued on the appropriate talk page. Rocket000 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I guess there's a history here... This isn't Wikipedia, but even so, Wikipedia is based on verifiability and not truth. Both names have sources, hence both names are verified. Either one is fine if you want to play by en.wp's rules. We make no claims of factuality (actually the contrary). The image itself calls him by the name it is now that seems appropriate enough as far as the image name goes. What you tell people on Wikipedia is a different story. Good luck. Rocket000 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is not necessarily the image, but also admin actions here. The image was under Image:Sayyid Kazim Rashti.jpg for a month or so, and then User:Siebrand‎ changes the image with no regard for the facts. There are multiple sources that state the image in Nicolas' book is incorrectly identified. One of them is Balyuzi, H.M. (1973) The Báb: The Herald of the Day of Days, Oxford, UK: George Ronald, pp. p. 16 ISBN 0853980489 and another one is Effendi, Shoghi (1973) Directives from the Guardian, Hawaii Bahá'í Publishing Trust, pp. p. 7 Older sources in multiple cases are wrong, and are not as reliable as newer sources. Take the case of the en:Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition which "some of its out-of-date content makes its use as a source for modern scholarship problematic" and in many cases can't be used in in Wikipedia. So, while Commons does not have a verifiability policy, the accuracy of the images is important. Most of the verifiable information points to Siyyid Kazim being the better name, so why is the name under Ali Muhammad? I would state that it's because one Commons administrator unilaterly changed, away from the status quo due to one editor from the Persian Wikipedia who is using it to further his POV on that Wikipedia, which makes it thus important to have the correct name here in Commons. BTW, for Mardetanha, Nicolas was born after the the death of the Bab. He was born in 1864, see Sabir Afaqi, Jan; Teofil, Jasion (2004) Tahirih in history: Perspectives On Qurratu'l-'Ayn From East And West, Kalimat Press, pp. p. 280 ISBN 1890688355, while the Bab was killed in 1844. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. it was originally Image:Sayyid Kazim Rashti.jpg, maybe it should have been left that way. Rocket000 17:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As i told some people intentionally cut some part of image and then uploaded it cuase they know the image it self shows to him it belong.and i think at least for this image it is enught.and more again tell us to chek a book which we don't have access and up this point only one reliabe source must be accepted.Regards--Mardetanha 17:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

 Question Would it be possible to name it something both parties can agree to? Remember it's just an image name—there are things much more worthy of our time. Rocket000 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Name it anything but "Seyed Ali Mohammed Bab" or parts thereof. It doesn't have to be Sayyid Kazim. I don't want the Persian Wikipedia editors to argue that because the name of the image in Commons is that, that there is passive approval that the image in question is Seyed Ali Mohammad (the Bab). One option is ImageinNicolas.jpg, the author of the book the image originally comes from. Regards, -- Jeff3000 18:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

no problem jeff but please uplad full image with ImageinNicolas.jpg name !i mean exactly as source. and please inform me--Mardetanha 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no obligation about this image just one my people in fawiki remind about this image.commons is not my work scope!regards--Mardetanha 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As admin User:Siebrand has protected all the pages, another admin would have to change the name of the image to the one agreed above. I would also like to note that User:Siebrand has been completely unresponsive and unilaterally has taken a side with no regards to the facts or the discussion, especially noting that there is a dispute. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• In my veiwpoint file name ImageinNicolas.jpg may be delusive. because of this, I uploaded basic image (without editing any thing) that is facsimile of source book in clear name: Image:Báb Image in Nicolas.gif. best regards --Rohan 10:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

 Comment: note that, first of all, I edited (by Adobe Photoshop CS) and upload image in name Image:Bab.jpg and Image:Báb.jpg and other user uploaded it in bad name Image:Sayyid Kazim Rashti.jpg. now this image, unjustified, redirect to my image. I upload image of Kazim Rashti from my own image archive soon. NOTE: I not found Jeff claims in that book (in Google library [2]) --Rohan 11:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We chose that name because it didn't mention "Bab" or "Rashti" or whatever. No one challenges that it's from that book, but they argue over who he was. Why would you upload it again with a name you know will cause dispute? Rocket000 15:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded that because of Nicolas claims that image belongs to "Ali Mohammad Bab". So that neutral name is "Báb Image in Nicolas" --Rohan 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to assume good faith, but even after choosing a neutral name, the Persian editors are trying to skew the discussion. They choose to believe one source from the late 1800s, and fail to even acknowledge a newer source. The newer one is more reliable, and yet even after an agreement to choose a neutral name, they upload images in bad faith. And note the book in [3] was meant to show Mardetanha that Nicolas was born after the Bab died, not the factual information about the image, which is in the hardcover Balyuzi book which I have cited above. Regards -- Jeff3000 16:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your tone: "the Persian editors are trying to skew the discussion". You claim some quote about that image and reference where not exist and accuse this --Rohan 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You claims some qoute in top of this topc and refered to this book, and that qoute not exist there. so that there are no evidence to show that image not belog "Bab" --Rohan 18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read my statement. I said that I was using the the book on Google books as a source for Nicolas' birth. The Balyuzi book which is not on Google books states the image is of Sayyid Kazim. Regards, -- Jeff3000 19:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I read your claims in this editing at top of this topic. Be honest and patient --Rohan 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add another point to this discussion. The Persian editors in Question have uploaded another image which has a non-neutral name, Image:Báb's repentance.jpg. The Iranian government claims that this letter was written by the Bab and he repents his claims. Newer sources, such as,

• Amanat, Abbas (1989) Resurrection and Renewal: The Making of the Babi Movement in Iran, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. p. 390−393 ^[1]
• MacEoin, Denis (May 1997). "The Trial of the Bab: Shi'ite Orthodoxy Confronts its Mirror Image". Occasional Papers in Shaykhi, Babi and Baha'i Studies 1. Retrieved on 2008-05-07. ^[2]

state that the government created these letters. The sources state while various government sources indicate that the Báb recanted his claim, there is little non-governmental evidence of their validity. Some theorise that the assertions were made to embarrass the Báb and undermine his credibility with the public. There exists an unsigned and undated document that was supposedly written shortly after the Báb's trial in Tabriz where the Báb recants his claims to a divine station. But the language of this document is very different from the Báb's usual style; it could have been prepared by the authorities, but the Báb refused to sign it. I am asking that this image be renamed to a neutral name such as Image:ApparentRepentanceLetter.jpg. Regards, -- Jeff3000 16:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral name is: "Image:Báb's repentance in E.G. Browen's book.jpg" and your comments on that page is sufficient --Rohan 18:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a neutral name, because all the sources state that it is not the Bab's handwriting, and was made up by the Iranian authorities. Read the sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 19:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You can notice this in image page. but that image is Image:Báb's repentance in E.G. Browen's book. view of some one could not change image name, book name and it's author --Rohan 19:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dont forget: here is not WIKIPEDIA --Rohan 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that you specifically don't want to abide by what is the verifiable? Doesn't seem very honest to me. Regards, -- Jeff3000 19:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:V --Rohan 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:V. Go get the book, hardcover version. It's not online. Not every verifable book is online. Regards, -- Jeff3000 20:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Deference from online book and hardcover book? This is very wonderful claim! You make all online books unreliable! --Rohan 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The hardcover and the softcover have different ISBNs. They are different books; the softcover has no images at all; the hardcover is filled with images. It still meets veriability; go pick the book up. -- Jeff3000 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

These are your claims. Please scan that page and proof your worderful assertion --Rohan 20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You well know that I can't scan the pages in question and post them on Commons as they are not out of copyright, and would be against Commons' policies. Get the book, it's there. Regards, -- Jeff3000 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(repeat) No obligation to upload that here. Just proof (and show to me and others) your claims is exactly right. If this manner continuance, I can claim more wonderful assertions! --Rohan 21:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Rohan, for quite a while online books were considered less reliable sources than paper books, even in wikipedia and wikimedia discussions. It's not that far of a stretch, even though that's clearly not what Jeff's saying. Additionally, since these images have been used in disputes across the wikimedia set of properties, choosing a neutral name doesn't mean taking the literal name from a source in dispute, because that dispute won't be clear in the article to which the images are linked. Choosing a name that doesn't convey a point of view is preferable, clearly. So "AllegedRecantationOfTheBab.jpg" might be a decent name, since it's alleged but disputed. It is not taken as fact except in the one source, and several other sources contend it. Since there's no viable way to provide "NotRecentation.jpg" since you can't prove a negative, it's not an honest naming style. Similarly with the Siyyid Khazim/Bab picture. One source believes it to be the Bab, several other sources, including source by authors that have seen another picture of the Bab, dispute the identity. An image name creates an impression of information, and so it is important to be clear. So SiyyidKhazim_LabelledBabInNicholas.jpg is icky, but follows the sources themselves. --ChristianEdwardGruber 21:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And for Rohan's case here is the same photo from Balyuzi's book stating exactly as I had said before, that the image is misrepresented in Nicolas's book as being the Bab, and is Siyyid Kazim, instead. Now I don't care to have the image named Siyyid Kazim, but there are sources that claim that image is not of the Bab, a more neutral name is required. Regards -- Jeff3000 01:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• thanks for attention. I scan new unformated image of Bab from (خاطرات صبحي و تاريخ بابيگري و بهائي گري)

Muhtadi, Fadlullah; Seyyed Hadi Khosroshahi (spring 2007) Memories of SUBHI, and the history of Babism and Bahaism, Tehran: IRDC, pp. p.249 ISBN: 978-964-196-1. ISBN 978-964-196-1 

and uploaded here. I edit and upload that image, in addition to Seye kazim rashti's image soon --Rohan 05:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

new images: Image:Seyyed AliMohammad Báb.jpg and Image:Seyyed Kazim Rashti.jpg‎. regards --Rohan 06:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok guys. What would be some good names that both sides can agree to—names that won't cause anymore dispute? I'm not interested in who's right. I don't want to see more {{Cite book}}s, WP acronyms, or accusations of POV-pushing. The only source you need on Commons is the image's source. The description page is not there to inform readers about the subject, only the image itself. It's Wikipedia's job to tell readers about the subject, so this dispute shouldn't even be happening here. Now, no one likes non-nonsensical or cryptic names, but in cases like this sometimes it's better not to be as descriptive as you can. Our time can be better spent improving our projects instead of arguing. The images won't become any less useful with names like Image:Nicolas_pg1 or Image:Seyyed. (How can "ImageinNicolas.jpg" be delusive? You agree it's a image, right? And it's in that book?) Again, it's not about being right. Let's work together. Rocket000 15:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Some neutral names for Image:Báb Image in Nicolas.gif‎/Image:Báb's repentance.jpg can be Image:ImageinNicolas2.gif/Image:ImagefromBrowne.gif respectively. Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rocket000 - we need a resolution to this which accommodates all views as far as we can. Commons is a repository for media to be used elsewhere. We need that media to be well licensed & findable - please help us in our aims, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Having no opinions whatsoever on the subject itself (never even heard about the guy before), I think Jeff's suggestions sound good. I can't see how those would cause anymore trouble. If I'm wrong, please tell me why those wouldn't work. Rocket000 16:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I agree with Rocket000: "The only source you need on Commons is the image's source". This can to help us for naming imagas. so that Image:Báb Image in Nicolas.gif‎ is neutral name (this inform us, nicolas claimed this is Bab's image. Commons is'n where we dispute about is this right or not.), and for Image:Báb's repentance.jpg, Image:Báb's repentance in E.G. Browen's book.jpg is neutral name. But namse such as Image:ImagefromBrowne.gif is delusive. What image from E.G.Browne? and Image:ImageinNicolas2.gif like that. By attention to Rocket000 notes, other information about image from Nicolas, must not interfere naming images --Rohan 06:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Those images from those books are just plain wrong, as documented by newer and more reliable sources, so the names are delusive, and not helpful. Image:Báb Image in Nicolas.gif‎ does not relay that the image in question in stated to be wrong by all other sources, and Image:Báb's repentance in E.G. Browen's book.jpg does not relay that it the document was not the Bab's repentance, but was manufactured by the Iranian authorities. Neutral names are the ones I recommended, and which Rocket0000 said were perfectly acceptable, and correct. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Neutral names are the ones I recommended" :-) Are you an admin? or a neutral user? "to be wrong by all other sources" Which sources? one source! (that desputed). I note this again: "The only source you need on Commons is the image's source" and "Our time can be better spent improving our projects instead of arguing" • Rohan ^T 19:12, 10 May 2008

Apparant compromised account

Per Google Talk discussion with Gnangarra (talk · contribs) (yes, I checked that it really was him), I have indef blocked his account with email disabled. This is a heads up for other wikis should his account play up (and also for OTRS). giggy _(:O) 02:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked; SUL issue resolved. giggy _(:O) 02:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the quick block while working out what went wrong, it appears that SUL stopped functioning earlier today, blanking all passwords. SUL is now functioning again, but again blanked all passwords, oh what fun. Gnangarra 05:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User trying to revoke PD release... 5 to 10 months later.

Highshines (talk · contribs), between about September and December 2007, uploaded quite a lot of images from a book he was working on. Here, he says as much, and freely licences the image, for instance. He is now going through all these images, deleting the licencing, and replacing it with a claim they come from his book, and noone is allowed to use them without his permission.

He is also doing this in a fairly sneaky and underhanded way, blanking the page first, for instance, to hide all the licencing he gave it, and not mentioning that the book was his, so that his release into the public domain is a waiver of any rights he might have gained.

He is also doing this as Special:Contributions/64.59.144.21

I feel sorry for him, but he simply cannot go removing his permission 5 to 10 months after the upload, and cannot do so underhandedly. Adam Cuerden 20:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the photos look {{PD-old}} to me. He cannot talk about copyright of works that the copyright expired. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, they are, and before he decided to run around doing take-backs, he properly licenced them as such, as well as a number of other licences. Adam Cuerden 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well unless he's 120 years old he couldn't construe ownership of these images in the first place. There may still be a legitimate question whether some of the images taken at the very end of the empress's life might remain under copyright. She died in 1908, and if I read the licensing page correctly the duration of copyright is life 50 years. Durova 20:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the right to take back my contributions, don't I? I want all my uploads to be removed from wikimedia. They are all copyrighted, the copyright holder is the Forbidden City Publishing House. The book "Exquisite Figure-Pictures from the Palace Museum", (Chief editors: Liu Beisi, Xu Qixian) clearly states that "All rights reserved. Copyright 1994, by the Forbidden City Publishing House of the Palace Museum, Beijing", "This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, by any means or any form without permission". What I did were illegal reproductions, which is something I recently realized.

By the way, you are quite right, I'm sneaky and underhanded, so don't use my dirty sneaky images! Highshines 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin intervention requested

Could someone please delete these images as soon as possible Commons:Deletion_requests/Many_images_of_Gaynewyorker- they contain intimate photos which identify the subject by name and the uploader has requested they all be deleted. Gustav VH 16:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone did that – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all deleted now. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Resignation of adminship

• m:Steward requests/Permissions#White Cat@Commons

I am formally resigning my adminship until the community decides on the matter of license template protection. I will not bear the legal responsibilities.

-- Cat ^ちぃ？ 21:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Was nice knowing you. :\ Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not dead. :P -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 23:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Edit warring is going on here: Image:Báb's repentance in E.G. Browen's book.jpg so I protected the image for a week. THe warring is very obvious as it's been edited by the same two people dozens of times today. It seems related to the above thread: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Sayyid_Kazim. As I can not read the language in question and am not familiar with the subject of the debate. I seek assistance from others. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for protection (I requested you to do this). I hope, it can help to continue discussions wisely • Rohan ^T 21:53, 10 May 2008

Yes thanks for the protection, I do hope the protection does help in mediation. Regards, -- Jeff3000 21:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Persian Uploadtext

Hi. Please put MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/fa (persian translation) into MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fa (Updated). Best regards • Rohan ^T 14:30, 11 May 2008

and please add FA in Template:MediaWiki:Uploadtext/lang. thanks • Rohan ^T 14:32, 11 May 2008

 Done ... please check my work... and as Mike says above, {{Editprotected}} might be a good way to go too. Thank you for your translation! Lar: t/c 17:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

thats OK. Al well done. thanks for your attention • Rohan ^T 13:05, 15 May 2008

PD-Coa

Could an admin please nuke Template:PD-Coa (and associated category). It's deprecated and finally unused. Thanks /Lokal_Profil 15:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Done – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion backlog

This is just a friendly prod. The deletion backlog at Commons:Deletion_requests/Older_Discussions has open deletion requests going back 7 months, and it would be nice if some people would donate some time to working on it. Dragons flight 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I, at least, am trying to. Most of those discussions are at this point no consensus, and we ordinarily don't close requests with no consensus. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 22:40, 04 May 2008 (GMT)

No consensus = default to keep, right? giggy _(:O) 03:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The hard part is, when it comes to license issues, they're not really decided on consensus anyway (well, maybe consensus over what the law/license/policy in question really says). The reason the default is keep is because it's better to err on that side than to delete someone work that may have consensus to be kept. Plus 2nd time deletion requests are preferable to undeletion requests. Yet, the thing with copyright issues is it's better to err on the side of caution—better safe than sorry, that kind of thing. I'm tempted (again) to close some these really old DRs as "Kept. No consensus." merely because there's little hope they will be resolved. People can always renominate things, anyway. However, it would be nice to hear others' opinions on this matter first. Rocket000 12:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2007/10 is nearly done. 2 remain; 1 I had already voted in, the other I had no idea what to do with. giggy _(:O) 03:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I closed one. I have no idea what to do with the other one (Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_by_Arthur_Rackham) either! I'd lean toward keep based on the US publication but I am no expert. Maybe ask Mike Godwin for his opinion? Lar: t/c 01:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Godwin sounds like a good idea for the other; go for it. giggy _(:O) 10:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it now is closed. I'm fine with that outcome. (Keep unless someone complains, to avoid the work of moving to en:wp and then moving back in 21 months) Thanks MichaelMaggs !!! Lar: t/c 16:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't the old closed ones be auto-archiving? That's not happening. --MichaelMaggs 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Only requests with a standard header (== [[Image:Xyz.jpg]] ==) and related forms will be archived. Requests that concern for example multiple files should be archived manually. If there are some particular periods which are persistently not archived, be sure to message me. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Esperanto uploadtext

please put MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/eo (esperanto translation) into MediaWiki:Uploadtext/eo. Thx AL

Done. I'm a bit apprehensive about the next one since i'm not familiar with teh gadget. Bastique ^demandez 22:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And please update MediaWiki:Gadget-MyLangNotify.js with MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-MyLangNotify.js adding cs, eo and updating fr. unsatisfied requests since 7 February 2008 ! Thx again Arno Lagrange ✉ 22:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

you just have to put the simple lines among the other in the array so :

var mylangnotify_message = Array ;
mylangnotify_message['en'] = 'This image does not appear to have a description in your interface language. Please add one!' ;
mylangnotify_message['cs'] = 'Tento obrázek nemá popis v jazyce vašeho rozhraní. Prosím, přidejte jej...' ;
mylangnotify_message['de'] = 'Dieses Bild hat anscheinend noch keine Beschreibung in Deutsch! Füge eine mit {{de|Beschreibung}} hinzu!' ;
mylangnotify_message['eo'] = 'Al ĉi tiu bildo ŝajne mankas priskribo en Esperanto. Bonvolu aldoni {{eo|priskribon}}.  ' ;
mylangnotify_message['es'] = 'Esta imagen no tiene la descripción en español. ¡AÑÁDELA DE UNA VEZ!' ;
mylangnotify_message['fr'] = 'Cette image ne semble pas avoir de description en français... Ajoutez une {{fr|description}} !' ;
mylangnotify_message['nl'] = 'Deze afbeelding heeft nog geen beschrijving in de Nederlandse taal. Voeg die alstublieft toe!' ;

Arno Lagrange ✉ 00:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Did all the updates there. For future reference {{editprotected}} will get your requests noticed faster. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to do quickly, but I'm sorry to tell to you that pasting you lost some esperanto letters which are shown here and not in the js file. (Al ĉi tiu bildo ŝajne ... )Arno Lagrange ✉ 00:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I got it this time. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's OK now Thx again Arno Lagrange ✉ 23:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A question about Commons:Protected toolbar buttons

How does Commons:Protected toolbar buttons work - I understand it was cascade-protected to prevent cross-site vandalism?? Thanks, AP aka --Kelsington 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It includes all the images that are used on the edit toolbar (above the edit window), and is cascade protected, so that the image description pages can not be edited on Commons. giggy _(:O) 00:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. There just copies of the ones MediaWiki uses. The real ones safe in http://commons.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/ with this little guy. Rocket000 05:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

deletion of my user page

Hi, I couldn't find a template for user requests to delete thier user pages. Sorry for posting here if it's the wrong forum, but I'd be much obliged if an admin delete my user page for me--Cailil 11:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just put a {{delete|reason}} on the page. Be aware, that only user pages will be deleted, not the user talk pages. -- Cecil 11:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

.en namespace update

Can an admin from Commons place {{nowcommons}} on the en version of [[Image:Genetic Code Structure.JPG]] for me? I'm not allowed to edit on the other side, and this particular image has apparently become [4]. I also don't understand what is going on with the upper and lower case of JPG / jpg. The jpg is deleted (good) and the JPG was just upoaded again to remove so extraneous screen capture stuff. The JPG version is the file that needs the {{nowcommons}} comment on .en. Doug youvan 12:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: I'm looking at section directly below this one. The copyright on persona was done many decades ago by attorney George Waldstein for Bert Lahr - Tin Man - Wizard of Oz film when Lahr's voice tone was used in an early soap commercial. George was my general counsel at Kairos Scientific, and he passed a lot on to me. Other mentors include Natasha Roit, whom I used in an intellectual property lawsuit to obtain an historic judgment, now taught as case law. I've also employed Pasahow of double-click and PCR litigation fame. I'm now entirely into non-profit work, and banned on .en. Godwin's Law blew up, and I think the ban of Nukeh on .en is unfair. I don't plan to ever go back into those edit wars over there. I am happy to upload images and help out here in a mellower atmosphere. I can understand if other editors don't want to get involved with me or this mess. Doug youvan 15:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much. It is definitely mellower over here! Doug youvan 02:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments?

for this edit? Userblock of editor experied today.... abf /talk to me/ 13:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

1 abf /talk to me/ 13:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

First edit seems to just be a confused user, not so sure about the second one. No need to block or anything, just ask them what's up. giggy _(:O) 23:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to continuously cause problems (either intentionally or unintentionally). Looking at the Block Log he had plenty of chances to change his behavior. He does like to spam but also has made many useful edits and uploads. I would need to look into it more. Rocket000 08:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Should his talk page really be protected if he's not blocked? Rocket000 08:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Un prot now. The trouble is that - when blocked - this user was using an IP address to edit both the talk page & the user page (I've left the user page semi prot just in case.....). Sadly I do think this is a challenging user who does not adhere to project guidelines (en wb had a similar experience) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

gnah! (really slow tool! and does not show any accounts eg. the indef blocked one on dewikibecause of other names)) abf /talk to me/ 09:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hi! I uploaded this image on 16 April 2008, but later, on 5 May I uploaded a newer version of the file. Though, the new image looks like that. It looks 's hidous. What has to be done now ?! --Olahus 12:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, shit happens. Cache refresh didnt work. I tried to delete the old version, but it didnt help. Then delete and restore only the new one. Didnt help too. In the end I uploaded it again by myself and it worked (here). Do you see the new image too? →Spiritia 12:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Than delete completely the image and I will upload it again. --Olahus 12:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Your turn :-) →Spiritia 12:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I uploade the file again, but the problem persists. Please delete the file again and I will upload it with a different name. --Olahus 13:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I see it well. Did you try to refresh cache (F5 or Ctrl Shift R)? If yes, and the problem persists, upload under different name and tag the present one with Template:Duplicate. →Spiritia 13:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Shame on me! I forgot to refresh the cache. It works now. Thanks a lot! --Olahus 13:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Attention Please

I wish that all my image uploads can be removed from wikimedia.

They are all copyrighted, the copyright holder is the Forbidden City Publishing House. The book "Exquisite Figure-Pictures from the Palace Museum", (Chief editors: Liu Beisi, Xu Qixian) clearly states that "All rights reserved. Copyright 1994, by the Forbidden City Publishing House of the Palace Museum, Beijing", "This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, by any means or any form without permission". What I did were illegal reproductions, which is something I recently realized.

Very sorry for the incovenience. Highshines 17:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_trying_to_revoke_PD_release..._5_to_10_months_later.. What the user tries, is obviously Copyfraud. He uploaded pictures which he also published in his own book, pictures which are very old, like the linked one, which was made somewhere before 1908. In China all photographs enter the public domain fifty years after they were first published so the user obviously can't revoke a right he never had. -- Cecil 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. I didn't publish anything. "My own book" is not the book written by me, it's just a book owned by me. Although these photographs were taken before 1908, they were first published in 1994. Highshines 19:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, than it is not your book, but it does not change a thing. Those images are still public domain according to Chinese law und you can't revoke that law. And stop screaming, you are extremly unpolite. -- Cecil 19:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat this any more. The copyright does not belong to me. It belongs to the Forbidden City Publishing House (紫禁城出版社). They first published these old photographs in 1994, before then these were never published. You said that in China all photographs enter the public domain fifty years after they were first published, so they cannot be uploaded to wikimedia not after 2044. By the way, I'm not screaming, I'm just trying to grab the attention. Highshines 19:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So, if you say that they were never published before (which is highly doubtable since the photografer was a court photografer), then please provide the proove for it. It's enough to upload a scan of the page in the book where this is stated (both the images and that page will then be deleted). And bold, big font is screaming. -- Cecil 19:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you should provide an evidence that they have been published before 1958. Which is extremely unlikely. These court photographs were intended to be the private collections for the Empress Dowager, not something to be seen by the people. They are always preserved in the Palace Museum, and hidden from the public.

Here's the page in the book, you can look for it yourself.

Exquisite Figure-Pictures from the Palace Museum

Chief Editors: Liu Beisi, Xu Qixian

Responsible Editor: Zuo Yuanbo

English Translators: Wang Dianming, Yang Yihua

Japanese Translator: Qiu Mao

Designer: Zheng Zhibiao

Source of Photos: Library, Exhibition Department and Conservation Department of the Palace Museum, Reference Room of the First Historial Archives of China

Photo Reproduction: Lin Jing, Ma Xiaoxuan, Zhang Xiaowei, Qu Qiuhai, Liu Zhigang

Publisher: Forbidden City Publishing House of the Palace Museum, Beijing

Printed by: The Xin Hua No. 1 Printing House, Hebei Province

Distributed by: Xinhua Bookstore, Beijing

Format: 16 mo in large, 899 x 1194 cm 1/16

Edition: First edition and first printing, January, 1994

ISBN: 7-80047-162-4/K66

All rights reserved

Copyright 1994, by the Forbidden City Publishing House of the Palace Museum, Beijing

This book may not abe reproduced, in whole or in part, by any means or any form without permission.

Highshines 20:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the information that those pictures are from the Palace Museum in Beijing. It's exhibitions are open since 1924, which is 84 years (a little bit more than just 50). -- Cecil 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The exhibition does not include these photographs. They are always kept in the archive chambers even today. Highshines 20:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Proove? This museum has a lot of pictures of that woman. Why would the ones that you want to have deleted be hidden. As I said you can make it really easy. Just upload the page where the authors say that this images are published the first time of their existence. -- Cecil 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if all of her photos are always on exhibit (which is not true of course), people still have to PAY to enter the exhibition. They are not free images without copyright. Highshines 20:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

But they would have seen them => made available to the public => published. -- Cecil 20:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If you say that all of her photos are on display since 1924, then you are the one who needs to provide the evidence. Have you been there and seen all of those photos on display in 1924?

At least I have my evidence. Again I have provided the ISBN of the book above and everyone can look for it themselves.

"Exquisite Figure-Pictures from the Palace Museum"

Postscript by Liu Beisi (刘北汜), Page 326.

“

After the founding of the Palace Museum on October 10th, 1925, a great number of figure pictures and other photos in the former imperial palace were turned over to the Museum and have been preserved well to the present. Most of them were never opened to the public, excepting a small part which were published in the bimonthly "Forbidden City" (started publication in 1980)."

”

“

In order to offer reference materials for research to the scholars and experts in culture, history, art, architecture and other circles, the Forbidding City Publishing House, based on data in hand, published an album "Old Figure-Pictures Collected in the Palace Museum" in 1990, which includes 413 pieces of black-and-white and colour photos. Owing to the assistance and support of our colleagues, especially the advisers of this book, Pu Jie, Pu Ren, Shan Shiyuan, Zhu Jiajin, Wang Shuqing and Li Huibing, who made a careful identification of name, status and date of the figures in some pictures, the album could be published without a hitch. ...........''

”

Just in case you can't figure out what that means, it means that the earliest possible publication of those photographs is in year 1980. So all my uploads to wikimedia (reproduction of the book) should be deleted, and they shouldn't be uploaded to wikimedia until year 2030. I've apologized for the inconvenience many times, and I won't apologize any more. Highshines 21:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Under Chinese law, an image owned by a non-personal entity (e.g. a museum) must be published within 50 years after its creation or it loses the right to copyright protection. From your description, it seems likely that either these were published a long time ago (in which case copyright lasted 50 years from publication) or they were never published in which case copyright was forfeited. Either of those arguments supports them currently being public domain. Dragons flight 02:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? The book also states that the photographs published were just a small amount of selection compared to the total amount of photographs kept in the Museum. In that sense, the Palace Museum has lost its copyright to all those photographs it never published?

Even if that's the case, why does the Forbidden City Publish House have to make the following statements in its books:

• All rights reserved
• Copyright 1994, by the Forbidden City Publishing House of the Palace Museum, Beijing
• This book may not abe reproduced, in whole or in part, by any means or any form without permission.

Please provide some proof for the existence of such a law. What's its original wording in Chinese?

Highshines 03:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a standard disclaimer you'll find in almost all books. Reproducing/publishing an image that is out of copyright does not generate a new copyright for the publisher. --Denniss 03:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My Chinese is non-existent, but the Chinese Consulate General in San Francisco has an English rendering of Chinese copyright law [5]. Specifically, see Section 3, Article 21: "... any such work that has not been published within fifty years after the completion of its creation shall no longer be protected under this Law". Dragons flight 03:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is that the Forbidden City Pubilshing House has made a false copyright claim, which is highly unlikely. Highshines 03:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

unfortunately this is not unlikely at all. In fact it is common for museums all over the globe to overclaim copyright for their exhibits. --Dschwen 03:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean that museums all over the globe are copyfrauds??? That's unbelievable. Highshines 03:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is more that museums are lazy/understaffed and it is generally easier for them to make blanket copyright statements as if they apply to all their works even when some of their works are in the public domain. From the museums' perspective their is little harm in making overbroad claims, while their might be considerable harm if they make a mistake in the opposite direction and saying something is free when it isn't. Dragons flight 04:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

---

After giving this sufficient time to play out I have reached a decision: all of Highshines's nominations have been closed and all images kept, with a block warning for disruption to Highshines. Analysis follows:

• Highshines admits his behavior is improper: You are quite right. I'm sneaky and underhanded.[6] Immediately afterward he opens a duplicate thread on the same noticeboard to discuss the same issue.
• Highshines's other conduct has been dubious.
  • Uploads pornography over previous non-porn uploads.[7] (His claim that it was accidental looks dubious on its face, particularly so in light of his admission that he's sneaky and underhanded).[8]
  • A recent polite request meets an inappropriate response[9][10] and has to be repeated before finally getting an appropriate response.[11][12]
• There is no reasonable doubt that the material is public domain: Highshines's argument extends only to the museum's acquisition of the photographs 16 years after the subject's death. Regardless of the museum's curatorial practices, this is official portraiture of royalty in formal sittings and state events. Normal practice for such material is swift publication. The museum acquired this material only after its public relations value had dissipated.
• When a doubt arises about the copyright status of a group of photographs, the appropriate means of addressing the matter is to post to a noticeboard or query a knowledgeable volunteer. Highshines pursued a disruptive path instead and responded poorly to feedback.

So I'm not going to issue an actual block right now, and I strongly advise this editor to move forward in a candid and straightforward manner. We'll be glad to address your concerns when you raise them in an appropriate manner. Durova 07:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The above administrator (Durova) has made a premature and incorrect decision. Those photographs are stored in the Reference Room of the First Historical Archives of China. They do not belong to the Museum, so the so-called "law" does not apply. They are copyrighted and NOT in the public domain.

I demand that ALL my contributions to be removed from Wikimedia, including ALL the images I have uploaded. I am the uploader, so I have the right to ask them to be deleted, particularly so in the sense that my labour has not get any recognition but a block warning. I have NEVER sweared or used any uncivil word. An accident is not severe enough for a block. On the other hand, I was doing what I believed is the right thing to do, and then this SNEAKY PERSON: (Adam Cuerden) maliciously called me "sneaky" and "underhanded", without letting me know.

What you (Durova) are doing now is using someone's tremendous amounts of free contributions without gratitude, and then trying to block him/her for some trivial matter. That sort of behaviour is obviously defined as SELFISH, DIRTY, UGLY, SHAMELESS, and is certainly DESPICABLE. I have decided to take back ALL my contributions from Wikimedia, because there is no point contributing here. You (Durova) may block me ONLY IF you delete all my uploads. If Wikimedia possesses any sense of self-respect, then it should return all my contributions right now.

By the way, which "Wikimedia regulation" states that bold/big fonts cannot be used in discussions? Which "Wikimedian regulation" says: "If an editor tries to emphasize his/her words, him/her will be blocked"? Which "dictionary" defines bold/big fonts as shouting and yelling? Show us, otherwise your (Durova's) action right now is called THREATENING and BULLYING (just in case if you are not intelligent enough to realize it). I am absolutely astounded to discover a "administrator" here so incapable.

Lastly, I'm a girl, so stop referring to me as "HE"! Highshines 03:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

en:Netiquette, it's a general concept valid for the internet, not only Wikipedia. In every chatroom, forum, ... this is valid, and you were told several times that it is unpolite, but since you ignore it and also because of your harassing behaviour you are now blocked for some time. By the way, I don't know where Durova is from, but in my mother tongue the user is a masculine word, so even if I am talking about a female, in combination with 'the user' this person will always be a 'he', or would you prefer 'it'? -- Cecil 11:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Highshines has a point about the gender designation. I ought to have written "his or her". Regarding the rest, I stand by my analysis. There's nothing threatening or bullying about the finding, and in my opinion a block was already warranted at the point when I posted. I wanted to give the individual another chance. No hard feelings, and I hope Highshines has a productive and collegial return. Durova 11:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It was the last comment after you analysis that brought Lycaon to do the block. That one definitely was not ok. For the gender thing, if somebody uses a name that doesn't show any gender or is misleading (like mine) it's that persons problem. If he/she than wants to be addressed with the proper gender, then that person has to make a note about it on the user page. It's ridiculous to expect that the other people are clairvoyants. -- Cecil 13:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have protected Highshines's user talk due to abuse of user talk editing privileges during a block. Also (other admins, feel free to revert me if this was a mistake) I removed the editor's duplicate posting of this thread and un-bolded, un-bigged Highshines's recent posts. Durova 05:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to that so-called "Cecil": This is English Wikimedia. If you wanna talk about your "mother tongue", Go back to your "motherland". Also, your "dictionary", the so-called "en:Netiquette", clearly states that only ALL CAPS are considered as shouting and yelling. I have NEVER used ALL CAPS before someone threatened me with a block.

By the way, since you are not clairvoyant, the next time you are not sure whom you are talking to, USE he/she, him/her, his/hers! Guess what, it won't hurt you much to type in some more letters~ Highshines 22:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Rofl. By the way this is not English Wikimedia, this here is Commons, it's an international project and not an english one. -- Cecil 15:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

O really, great, some Chinese for ya: 不跟你一般见识。人称代词都不会用，这水平咱还真得“佩服”一下~ Highshines 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a new upload form

A proposal to change our upload form has been made at Commons:Village pump#New upload form. Please comment over there, I'd like to keep the discussion in one place, if possible. Lupo 08:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Magnus' File Upload Bot

Hi all. After some bug-reports on IRC I had to block Magnus' bot. It is using wrong templates, and there is no control of who used it, so its able to create as many nsd-stuff as it wants. I do not know if there was any discussion about such issues before, but in my oppinnion it is causing more harm than good stuff. I left a message on Magnus' talk-page. If you feel like unblocking him please do so. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 18:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Argh. The commonshelper-page seems not to work if the bot is blocked, see here, so I unblocked. I belive Ahonc will take care of it now. abf /talk to me/ 18:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The bot has been blocked again after discussion on blocks & protection page. The admin in acton was Bryan. See the block log for more information --Kanonkas_(talk) 14:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

New bureaucrat

Noticing Spacebirdy's RfA's very late closure, and the number of requests up for adminship, and bot requests, I'd like to encourage any admin who thinks they are suitable to run for bureaucrat, as I think at least one other is needed. Thanks, and good luck to anyone who does request! Majorly (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have anyone in mind? If not, I suggest you run again...you might have more luck this time. :) giggy _(:O) 01:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, which is why I posted here. I don't think I should run because a) I'm not that active here b) I don't think I'm well trusted enough and c) There are better people than me. Majorly (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to everyone; Durova has been nominated. giggy _(:O) 02:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As have I. More at Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes#Requests for Bureaucratship. giggy _(:O) 02:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I unsuccessfully did so some time ago. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 03:23, 17 May 2008 (GMT)

How is that relevant? --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfB and RfB? I guess to tell us in a way he's not going to be running? Rocket000 12:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How late is "very late"? It was opened at 09:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC) and closed at 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)... I'm not seeing that as all THAT late, especially since it got votes on the 17th. We tend to be mellow and there's no real rush... Lar: t/c 13:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Templates Coat hoelzel and Coat gaertner

Was wondering if someone could nuke Template:Coat hoelzel. It was to be deleted in accordance with Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Coat hoelzel. It is currently unused so should be ok to delete. Same thing goes for Template:Coat gaertner. /Lokal_Profil 18:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As a sidequestion does anyone know if {{PD-AustrianGov}} covers coat of arms of Austrian municipalities as well as that of states? /Lokal_Profil 18:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Also deleted Template:Coat Austrian Municipality (per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Coat Austrian Municipality). Not sure about the sidequestion. Rocket000 02:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I'll ask about the austrian municipal CoAs on the licensing page instead. There are another 7 templates of a similar nature which (together with their images) will have to be deleted if {{PD-AustrianGov}} does not covers coat of arms of Austrian municipalities. If it does then I'll replace them by {{PD-AustrianGov}} and subst./Lokal_Profil 03:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

massive deletions

This evening I have deleted all images of User:Newresid as they all appeared to be Copyright violations. Examples of drawings he uploaded are this and this. Note also that even if the user actually created the images, it is still derivative work as the user used copyrighted material like logos and made also clear he only wishes the images to be used noncommercially (see here). I left a statement on the user's talk page. I hope I acted correctly. --my name 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks, I'll keep an eye on this one too. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect a category?

My wikifu is hella rusty and out of date. Is there a way to redirect a category if I depopulate it? I'm looking at Category:Seattle which has hardly any content, and I'm thinking it should go to Category:Seattle, Washington. I'll do it if someone can just point me at how to go about it. rootology (T) 07:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You could use {{Category redirect}}. --EugeneZelenko 15:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! rootology (T) 21:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Cross-wiki copyfraudster 201.224.142.1 (again)

Here's a reminder to keep a look out for Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 8#Cross-wiki copyfraudster 201.224.142.1. They're still going strong, particularly on the English Wikipedia. (I'd really appreciate a long, healthy block there if any en admins are listening.) —LX (talk, contribs) 12:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Got blocked by LX for 1 year. --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be me. Indeed I did; I came across more disruptive edits here. There are still images which need investigation, and there's investigation and blocking needed on other wikis as well. Particularly, the user has a habit of removing problem tags or fair use tags from images, fraudulently replacing them with arbitrary authorship information and free licensing tags, and then tagging them to be moved to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

New account - User:G.A.S

I wish to create a new account, called "G.A.S", as I have an account with the same name on Wikipedia. It won't let me create it because it says it's is too similar to User:Gas, who does not have a user page and has no contributions. I will provide my email per "email user" to the administrator's English Wikipedia account. Thank you in advance. 41.240.174.33 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! G.A.S 18:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Pull a video off of Flickr?

Anyone know how to get this: https://flickr.com/photos/joelogon/2405349967/ onto here? Or do we not accept SWF? rootology (T) 21:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed we don't; Commons only accepts free file formats, so it would have to be transcoded to something like ogg theora. In this case, though, there's also the issue that this recording probably infringes on the copyright of the musicians. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'll leave that one then. rootology (T) 06:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Ok/de

Does anyone know why this MediaWiki message says "Suchen" (i.e., "search") instead of "OK"??? There is MediaWiki:Search/de if "Suche" is really meant. (Also asked at Commons:Forum.) Lupo 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

betawiki:MediaWiki:Ok/de dort ist es so eingetragen, ich weisz leider nicht, wo diese Nachricht verwendet wird, eventuell ist das falsch uebersetzt und sollte ausgebösert werden. In anderen Sprachen wird jedenfalls auch eine Uebersetzung von "Ok" verwendet, nicht von "suchen"... LG. --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 01:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the purpose of this message? When is it used? --my name 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find any usage of this message in MediaWiki core code. It looks like an old, now unused message. I will double check with extensions and than remove. Raymond ^Disc. 03:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nooooooo! Leave it in! I need it for localization of HotCat's "OK" button on the new upload form! Delete it only if "OK" is "OK" is all languages, otherwise just fix it to read "OK" also in German in the de-php file. (I've now corrected it here on-wiki.) What should "OK" be in Chinese, Japanese, Arabic? Lupo 05:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Ok/zh (确定), MediaWiki:Ok/ja (OK), MediaWiki:Ok/ar (موافق)... so do not remove this message, just fix the German setting, please. Lupo 07:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that in 2003 that message was the text on the search button. I don't know if the message was used for anything else then or later. If that was the only use of that message it makes sense that it says "search". If the message is not used by the software it should not be in the language files, but you can edit the MediaWiki messages locally on Commons if you need it here. /90.229.135.159 11:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but then we have to re-do that work (check all possible subpages and set all those that are not "OK" manually). That's just make-work for no purpose. And "OK" is also such a common "word" that it may well be useful within the MediaWiki software itself again in the future. Lupo 11:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't panic :-) I will leave it for the moment. But I cannot guarantee for the future, maybe another developer could stumble over it and remove it without warning. This happens from time to time, especially for old, generic messagesnames. They are a pain in the ass because nobody knows in which context they are used and how to translate. For new functions we introduce more specific message names. Raymond ^Disc. 17:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Catalan MediaWiki

Please, add MediaWiki:Contact-url/ca as requested at MediaWiki talk:Contact-url/ca. --Vriullop 13:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fet Gracies Vriullop :) Rastrojo _(D•ES) 13:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Gracias. Me olvidé que también hace falta MediaWiki:Contact/ca con Contacte. --Vriullop 16:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fet també Nos vemos Vriullop :) Rastrojo _(D•ES) 17:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I updated an image, but Commons keeps showing the old version

I don't understand why. The correct image is listed below. The location of the problem is at Image:Miller Motorsports Park.png. [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Pittenger (talk • contribs)

The one you put up looks just like the one you linked? [14] rootology (T) 06:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the old version: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d2/20080520051229!Miller_Motorsports_Park.png. What I see is to the right. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried refreshing your cache? Finn Rindahl 22:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, my blog now shows the current image, but keeps reverting back to the old version. Sometimes I see the new one, but I typically get the old one. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So you're seeing it when you load the commons image like a hotlink? What if you just pull up the direct URL from here, clear your cache, and force a control F5 refresh? rootology (T) 05:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, please do not hotlink to content on Commons from non-Wikimedia projects. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories to disambiguate?

Is this sort of usage at Category:Channels allowed or it should it be done differently? rootology (T) 06:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguating categories seems to be a pretty common practice. See the current usage of {{Disambig}} in the Category namespace. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OTRS help/question

Hi all, I'm unsure as to what to do with Image:Architectureinhelsinki.jpg. As noted at w:Talk:Architecture in Helsinki#Images, it's likely the uploader is associated with the band, but there's no real proof other than their name and edit habits. I don't think is "enough" proof that they own copyrights to the image - what would the process in terms of asking for permission here be? giggy _(:O) 09:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My usual suggestion in situations like this would be along the lines of emailing [email protected], on the band's website, and asking for confirmation that they have agreed to release the image under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license and that any agreement with the photographer they have permits this. This can then be forwarded to OTRS. Adambro 09:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That works. Even better in my view is to contact them, but forward them the boilerplate to use, and ask that they forward it to OTRS themselves, with a note that you should be notified by the volunteer of the ticket number. I've done that several times now, works really well, it saves everyone steps. Lar: t/c 10:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If possible, could someone else (preferably someone with OTRS access to make the process smoother) do this for me? I'm slightly paranoid about putting my real name etc. online. I'm happy to help in terms of providing whatever information is needed to help with the OTRS queries, if someone would be willing to do this....thanks heaps! :) giggy _(:O) 23:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I can take over. Is there already an e-mail sent? If not, I can send one through the OTRS system. --my name 10:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, nothing has been sent yet (I'm not sure what the correct email address is...). giggy _(:O) 13:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail to the owner; let's see what happens. --my name 18:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

More than one week later, I did not receive a answer yet (#2008051410024862). --my name 23:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

:( That sucks. Shall we wait a bit longer? giggy _(:O) 00:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean we can wait forever, that's not the question; if the author of the image answers, it will be seen in the permissions-commons-queue. However, I will only specificly search for the ticket the next week or so. --my name 01:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, if there's nothing in that time I'll have to nominate it for deletion. Bummer. Thanks for your help anyway! giggy _(:O) 01:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wishcraft: spam or not spam

Please review current version and also deleted one. --EugeneZelenko 14:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Spam to me. Deleted again & the user warned. The picture I am pretty sure is outside scope too - will be gone next. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

original picture differs from common picture

see Image:Diane DiPiazza.jpg and original picture from english wikipedia, they are not same. What we shall do in those kind of situation--Motopark 16:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I notified the uploader and marked the image as missing essential source information. Regards, →Christian.И 16:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if a en.wikipedia admin would look into Special:Undelete of that image in the first place [15]. I highly doubt Lijealso (talk · contribs) would make up a source for an image. However, the low resolution puts me off, to tell you the truth. Patrícia ^msg 16:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the deleted image on WP has been confirmed as identical to this one, problem solved. →Christian.И 17:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Fabelfroh 2008

Second request for input. I announced this DR on the pump awhile ago but it didn't really bring in enough input. This nomination deals with the possible deletion of many high-quality images (including many FPs and QIs). It's challenging issue because the licenses say they are allowed (CC-BY-SA-3.0), but the copyright holder/uploader insists there are additional commercial restrictions. The legal documents themselves say these "requirements" can be disregarded, but to what extent? If you been around Commons for while, you know most our users do not fully understand what they are agreeing to. The question is: does it matter? Or are most our licenses meaningless? Rocket000 13:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Have we had someone try to explain to the uploader that he's trying to revoke the unrevokeable? giggy _(:O) 00:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Gone. Most of them anyway... it's a shame these licences don't mean anything anymore. Rocket000 01:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Rocket, I know you disagree with the deletion. That's fine. You're allowed to. But please, if you disagree with the close, request undeletion—if you don't want to, then comments like "licences don't mean anything anymore" don't really help. Dragons flight's comment in the DR makes for good related reading on how they mean something, but so does our ethical/moral/whatever obligation. It's unfortunate, but we can't always have our own way. PS I read the debate again after it was closed and found that (IMO) the delete side had it. Despite my voting keep early on. For what it's worth. giggy _(:O) 02:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said I disagree with it. And by saying "these licences don't mean anything anymore" I wasn't trying to "help" anything. What needs helping? You may not think it's a shame, but I'm sure others do. License are pretty important around here, but their legal power has always been questionable. This closure demonstrates how much they mean whether you agree with the deletion or not. I'm sorry for sharing my thoughts... Not what I expected from you, Giggy. Rocket000 03:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear... I didn't mean to say that you shouldn't have shared your thoughts. Sorry if that came out wrong. My point was that while it's fine to think this is a shame (I do too; it's always a shame to see quality images go), comments such as the one I quoted seem (to me) like an attack to those who, with good intentions, argued for deletion of the images. My point was that, from my interpretation of your comments, a bit less snarkiness could have gone a long way. If I've misinterpreted your comments, I apologise. giggy _(:O) 03:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's me that's apologizing. I guess I was in a bad mood yesterday or something. I just felt a little like I was "a regular being templated"—if you know what I mean. If I thought the deletion was in error, I know that a undeletion request is the way to go. It's completely understandable why you misinterpreted my comments. I would have too. My comment here wasn't targeted at the !deleters, or the closer or Fabelfroh or this specific case at all—it was a general statement on the way things are, looking to share some self-pity. Yes, useless complaining about something we can't change (but at least I kept it short! :)

Anyway, let just clarify my view on this, not that I'm looking for further discussion anymore. ;) Honestly, I don't know what should have been [needed to be] done and it seems a good part of the community didn't either, BUT I believe in erring on the side of caution when we're dealing with issues like this so I actually support the deletion. I admit, my comment on the DR could have done without the !keep. It was to emphasize a point that didn't need to be made like that. From my vote: "Should we really keep them... that's up to the community. Like I said I don't think many will feel comfortable keeping them..." This was the personal view being expressed. Cheers, Rocket000 17:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User name change

Is it possible to have my user name changed to User:Arsenikk from the current User:Aresenikk. The reason for this request is that that is my user name on the English Wikipedia, Norwegian Wikipedia, Swedish Wikipedia and the German Wikipedia. My current name on Commons was just a spelling mistake when I created it. Thanks. Aresenikk 01:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please redirect yourself to COM:CHU. Thanks, O (谈 • висчвын) 02:02, 24 May 2008 (GMT)

For the record I did this, all resolved. giggy _(:O) 02:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Swedish translation of Template:Please link images

Could anybody help to create Template:Please link images/sv? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko 15:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

 Klart! —LX (talk, contribs) 17:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for help! Could you please also take a look on Template:Please name images/sv, Template:Please tag images/sv, Template:Please describe images/sv, Template:Image permission/sv? --EugeneZelenko 15:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User uploading likely copyright material

Could someone delete all the uploads by this user and block the account? Thanks Gustav VH 23:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked (3 days) and everything deleted. Suggested OTRS. giggy _(:O) 02:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Full protection of every license template and anything that's used more than 50 times

I'm having a little problem with White Cat. She seems to have this idea that there should be preemptive full protection of every license template and anything that's used more than 50 times. Now that's practically all our templates. She also protects templates that are heavily used on other projects and simply share a name with a template on Commons (for example this redirect with zero links/transclusions was fully protected twice by White Cat simply because the template of the same name is heavily used on fr.wp. Not only that, but the redirect was to a (semi-protected) deprecated template where no new redirects should be going to. I just don't get the rationale behind this. Help would be appreciated. Rocket000 12:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess to being extremely uneasy about any licence template being unprotected, there's no reason for anybody to ever edit a licence template, and the consequences of a licence template being altered (and this includes a redirect which could be changed to read something legally problematic) must be very seriously considered. Vandalism at Wikipedia is a minor inconvenience which rarely presents legal problems, but vandalism here, especially on a licence template has all manner of legal implications. In the case of the redirect to the public domain template, it's not such a major concern if it's altered or a different licence template was to be placed there, say a GFDL template, because the material is in the public domain already and requiring attribution or a copy of the GFDL licence to be provided isn't exactly problematic, but if someone was to change a GFDL or CC-BY/CC-BY-SA template to a public domain template, end users could easily be fooled into thinking they aren't required to attribute the author or re-distribute their work under a similar free licence, which is problematic for us, the creator and the end user and could have a number of legal implications for the Foundation in particular as we could theoretically be sued by both the creator and the end user, and the creator and end user in general who are both at a risk of a lawsuit.

There's also the credibility issue here, if people change the licence templates here at random, users might be less likely to contribute if they believe their work will not be redistributed under the terms of the licence they select because we will not take steps to protect the site from vandalism and malicious editing, and ultimately, Commons gets a reputation for not respecting intellectual property. Nick 12:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not even have to be done in bad faith. A disclaimer was added to the GFDL template on English wikipedia by a well meaning person. This had unintended legal implications. In order to use an image tagged with {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} you would need to not only provide the GFDL license (per GFDL) itself but also would have to provide the en.wikipedia's General disclaimer (again per GFDL: "The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which states that this License applies to the Document. These Warranty Disclaimers are considered to be included by reference in this License ..." and reusers are obliged to "Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers" ). w:Wikipedia:GFDL standardization has more on that. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 12:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok so we should start locking down the entire template namespace? We should protect all image description pages too since they contain licenses. We should also protect any other pages where those images are used, so people can't link the image to a page with a different license or where some anon can put "this license is PD" in the caption and cause all kinds of legal trouble. Might as well. The whole wiki "anyone can edit" thing is kinda dead anyway. The silence of others encourage me to give up. Protect away. I'm done. Rocket000 12:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

All templates used on image description pages should be protected. For commons thats practicaly every template, yes. Only the templates used during upload are legally binding so adding a caption after the template is uploaded doesn't have legal implications since the copyright holder (owner of the work) did not agreed to it. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 12:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Placing the incorrect licence on a page is a problem, I'm not going to deny that, but an enduser can look at the history of the page to see who added the licence, was it the uploader or was it someone else, and I would encourage any enduser to do exactly that, indeed, I would like to see this recommendation added to the permission section of the Image Description template, but with templates, a good conscientious user will not see any problems with the history of the image and will be more likely to assume the licence terms that they see on the page - and we have no way to ask an enduser to check the history to see if the licence is likely to be valid, how many endusers will be likely to check the page source, check the template for tampering and deal with the situation. I understand the frustration over the "wiki anyone can edit" deal, but it's not entirely appropriate for this site - we deal heavily with intellectual property and letting anybody and everybody edit anything and everything isn't sensible. We're doing great work in providing a free content repository that anybody can add to, I kind of think that's probably good enough. Nick 13:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Protecting many templates in this manner is not ok with me. Preemptive protection should be done only for heavily-used project-critical templates. 50 uses is nowhere near that unless it's used on the Main Page, and even then we will have people pining to be "the last wiki to cascade-protect the main page" (or whatever). It is actually not a legal problem, as it is every re-user's responsibility to verify licensing and to comply with it. Sure we should do our best to ensure it's correct, but not at the expense of what makes wikis work - you can edit this page. Granted, most of our license templates are heavily-used project-critical templates; so protect them, sure. But indiscriminate protection like this is not the same thing. I should point out that some of White Cat's protections are fine by me, but here's an example that is patently absurd, IMO:

22:19, May 9, 2008 White Cat (Talk | contribs | block) protected "Template:Span" ‎ (Heavy use template [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

This template is not used. Thanks, but no thanks. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Span}} is used on either MediaWiki:Common.css or MediaWiki:Common.js. I was told to copy it so that the hide/show thing worked. The template could be indirectly used since the hide/show thing is still lacking a chunk of code to work. I think the relevant line is "var Button = document.createElement( "span" );" on MediaWiki:Common.js. Rather than risking a potential way for malicious code to make it's way to the css/js files in a way I couldn't think, I protected the template. "Heavy use" here is every page on the wiki even if it doesn't show on "whatlinkshere".

When disagreeing with an admin action it is customary to talk to the admin making the action first. When I am involved talking to me is the last thing people think of doing. All people do is give me warnings.

-- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's referring to the HTML tag, not a template. Otherwise I think it would at least be semi protected on en.wp. Rocket000 04:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This could have been discussed beforehand before the protection could have been removed. Good or bad admin decisions should not be reversed without a discussion. It is irresponsible to expect every admin decision to have accompanying discussion. We had none of that. No one for a split second thought I could have a rationale and logical reason to protect something, instead people got in long lines to reverse my decisions. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 09:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would take issue with the fact that "bad" admins decisions should be discussed not reversed although we could have a long discussion about what is actually bad.

If you consider people get in long lines to reverse my decisions can I ask you to consider whether there is something to learn from this. It is a collaborative project. If people do not agree with me I need to consider and respect that. Your talk page looks like a battlefield at present. Maybe you could take some time to consider whether a number of users are all wrong or that maybe you are not correct in everything yourself. This is no criticism - we all fail to see clearly at times - I have certainly been in that position myself in the past. Take some time - reflect - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Cat, I think you need to consider that if a lot of people want to reverse something, perhaps it was a bad idea. We all come up with bad ideas from time to time, so having a bad idea doesn't make you a bad person. And reversing a bad idea doesn't mean people are out to get you. Please remember to be mellow, everything will work out better that way. Lar: t/c 11:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Your talk page looks like a battlefield at present." <- Maybe that is part of the problem rather than the symptom. I never claimed to be right all the time. All I used to claim is I cannot be wrong all the time. At present I make no claims whatsoever. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I should state for the record I don't have a problem with some of the protections. There are many that she protected and I unprotected because of low use (some weren't used at all), but now their use has increased (thanks to {{Featured picture mul}}) so I don't mind protection for them (although I don't think it's needed). Heavy use/server strain is an issue and I think some preemptive protection's necessary. But only where it's really needed. Rocket000 15:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Chipping in - can we please bear in mind that much good work is done by IPs on Commons - particularly in terms of translations & the like. I understand some of the rationale for protection however it would be at a cost of the potential for valuable contributions. Yes I know there is always "edit protected" requests but that really does not encourage IPs. Prior to SUL I edited non en wikis as an IP from time to time & I'd like to think what I did helped despite being "merely an IP". --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Herby. "So fix it" and "everybody can edit" are key values of a wiki. We have never had serious problems with edits on templates and preemptive protection sounds like paranoia to me. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to license templates, we barely allow admins to change them on their own. That is how critical they are to our project. So yes, let's protect anything that is meant to be stable. That will not take away the fact that we collect and spread media that can be used freely. Samulili 15:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The "oh someone can vandalize a template and we'll get sued" is moot, sorry. Risking suffing beans up the nose, anyone can vandalize an image and put a fake license there. This is a wiki and we are be open to editing, including code fixing on templates. Heavy use templates are protected not to prevent vandalism, but to prevent trivial edits that put a lot of load on servers. Please do not protect templates that are not being used in more than a few hundred places, and above all, don't wheel war. If there is no consensus on protecting all license templates, then they are not to be protected. Patrícia ^msg 20:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, the solution isn't protection, it's watchlisting. Go watchlist all the templates we're concerned over, and the vandalism will be gone much quicker. Per Herby et. al., protection this preemptive shouldn't be taking place. Willing to take the legal responsibilities, giggy _(:O) 00:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a sense in which the licensing isn't worth the paper it is not printed on in practice. We know that there is a whole pile of either unlicensed or dodgy licensed material around - we deal with it everyday. I remain to be convinced that these protection measures will do anything all that positive - indeed personally I feel the time spent here would be better used getting the work that needs doing done. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think there is merit in protecting license templates, because they are so widely used and because they shouldn't be fiddled with. I'm actually more concerned with small changes that change legal meanings than I am with blatant vandalism. If a license can't be changed or revoked once granted, that means the TEXT of the license that was used should be invariant after it was applied. So I favour protection, believe it or not, but I realise I may be in the minority. Lar: t/c 11:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As the images are required to be under a free license, some with attribution. There is little long term damage vandalism can do, these templates are more like guides pointing to the actual laws that protect them. If an image was to end up the subject of a court matter, it would straight forward to show that any changes werent official(legal) but vandalism. Just compare it to a sign that says entry $5 its been sprayed over to say entry $50, its get fixed quickly(day or two) and even while it isnt they still charge $5 for entry. Gnangarra 12:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I can think or half a dozen or so beanz reasons like most experienced editors, that dont need to be explained in detail that would warrant protection none them to do with the license Gnangarra 12:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There are at least two classes of license tags. The first are things like {{GFDL}} where the license is a grant being offered by the uploader. In those cases it is certainly problematic to change the meaning of the tag after the fact, since the uploader may not have agreed to the change. The second case are tags like {{PD-USGov-NASA}} where the declaration is meant to reflect copyright exemptions already existing in law. In those cases, one can make changes to more accurately reflect the underlying law without a risk of creating conflicts with the uploaders' intent. While, both types are potentially susceptible to vandalism, I can recall a number of examples where the accuracy of the second type of license tag has been improved via editing over time. Therefore, in the absence of an actual problem or very widespread use, I would not support preemptive protection of the second kind of license tag. Dragons flight 14:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --MichaelMaggs 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Templates like {{PD-USGov-NASA}} is a duplication of someone else's (NASA's) license. You can claim copyright of an altered PD work by NASA - such as the paining of a space shuttle. Unlike licenses like GFDL the derivatives of PD works do not have to be PD. Because of this strings attached to a {{PD-USGov-NASA}} can be legally binding especially if it is cleverly done. I cannot see any reason why we should take such a slim chance. A bad faith effort will find the right legal loophole. Even if such an attempt fails it would waste our time and perhaps money (legal costs). You should also think of this in international terms. An exact likeliness of PD work may be free in the US but it may not necessarily be free in country X. The upload license would mater in such a case.

When a user is uploading an image there is a drop down bar that you can select. After you select it, the license of your choice it is displayed below the drop down box. Imagine an inflammatory image displaying there instead of the PD logo. It isn't hard to fool the RC feed to make such a change without getting noticed. This is little different from getting the site notice vandalized. Even if you do notice it in a timely manner (there is no guarantee you will), the damage is done.

Changes to copyright license tags should be made with very good reasons. The integrity of the copyright license must be preserved. How often are license templates updated? PD-old PD-self GFDL Cc-by-1.0

Wouldn't it be better to have a fail-safe discussion mechanism to these templates? For example non-admins can propose the change on the talk page of the individual license templates. After all that is why such pages exist.

-- Cat ^ちぃ？ 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Also Commons:Project scope#Wikimedia Commons is a project concentrated on content, nothing else -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 11:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for a compromise: just as the Creative Commons website features a non-normative description of each license intended to be accessible to laymen, it would be nice if we could separate the license templates into normative and non-normative sections, where the former is editable and the latter is not. This could be done by creating a template A that includes two other templates B and C, with A and B protected, but C not protected. A note in template A would specifically indicate that the text of template C is non-normative explanation and has no legal bearing. Hence, edits to it would not be able to inflict legal damage, but could still clarify the license. Dcoetzee 04:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean like the ability to alter the style of the license but not the text? I do not believe it can be done. Even if the licenses themselves are placed on static pages, the templates would still be editable. I cannot swallow why we cannot handle license templates like how we handle protected templates. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 11:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I fully support the protection of the license templates. Correct licenses are important for this project. In January some user at de.wikipedia changed at one day licenses at next to all of her images. It took me more than half a week to fix them. Maybe some of you remember the tubgirl-image at every page of the English Wikipedia for some minutes last year—we shouldn't wait for the vandals to come and get active there were it hurts most. Even fully protected templates are still improvable by requesting an administrator's edit. --32X 17:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance tasks, which are most valuable for non-admins

Out of the various stuff listed here, which are most helpful, if I find myself with 15 minutes to spare? rootology (T) 03:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure there is a single answer - do whatever you feel like. Reverting vandalism, verifying uploads, patrolling new pages are all worthwhile tasks. I would say that new page patrolling is often forgotten (since our main content isn't pages, but images), so that would be a nice thing to do. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My vote's for categorizing images. Patrolling images doesn't work too well and only admins can mark pages as patrolled anyway, but of course going though Special:NewImages would be a great help. I guarantee you'll find some (obvious) copyvios every time. Rocket000 13:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Rocket, but I would add Commons:Welcome log as a good place to contribute. Finn Rindahl 14:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/License plates 2

The above titled mass nom has been open over a month. It's started to attract drive-by IP edits, and I was wondering if someone would take a look at closing this out. Thanks. Dragons flight 07:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting. giggy _(:O) 09:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just spotted this and was commenting when I got an edit conflict as these were deleted. Anyway, I support the deletion and my comment was going to be "Taking a photograph of a substantial portion of work which, unless there is evidence to the contrary, is copyrighted, means that the photographer cannot claim to be the copyright holder of the work and as such cannot release it under a license of their choosing. There is no automatic to be attributed as a copyright holder of a photograph just because you took it. Where that photograph is simply a copy of the copyrighted material the copyright belongs to the original creator of the work." Adambro 09:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

{{speedydelete|per [[Commons:Deletion requests/License plates 2]]}} should suffice if anyone finds any others. All gone, I believe. :) giggy _(:O) 09:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, it would have been nice if we could have gotten this done 2 days before (not after) Cool Cat lost his second admin account over protesting the failure to close this. Patstuart (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, someone please tackle Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Ably Weathered. Patstuart (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Pietro

I'm no more able to login with this username and the user page has been removed.

I use the same username for the English and Italian wikipedia: could you please post a new password for this username in Wikimedia Commons to the email address given for those accounts?

Only the account holder can change the password for a given username. If you set up email you can request a new password yourself. If you did not, there is no way to recover it, but you can request that the account be usurped and a new Pietro be created... The current account has no undeleted contributions and only one deleted contrib, and no blocks, so it should be uncontroversial. Please see (and carefully read) COM:CHU, the username change request page. Lar: t/c 13:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pietro.Commons 14:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Need admin control for Maps

Hi, I've created a series of maps that I upload to Wikipedia. After several requests, I've been transfering them to Wikimedia so other projects can use them. I'm also doing various updates to the images, along with listing their source references, linking them to related maps, etc.

To make a long story short, what do I need to do to get admin privileges over the map image files and pages, on Wikipedia and Wikimedia? I don't necessarily want to be an actual administrator; I just need to be able to rename, move, edit file history, delete the obsolete files, etc. What do I have to do in order to get that? I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thomas Lessman 19:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need adminship to rename images (not possible, currently - see about getting on the list for {{rename}}), and even admins can't muck about with the file history either. For deleting obsolete files, just request deletion in the normal way. If you actually do need the tools and the community trusts you, feel free to request adminship. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Mike, I appreciate the info! Thomas Lessman 13:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

mw:Extension:NewUserMessage

Prior discussion here.

I'd like to get some consensus on installing this extension for Commons so we can get a bug report open. Comments please. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Support this idea once we have decided on a standard welcome and it's in enough languages. We have a pretty standard welcome now. One question, what would this do to the process we have now where a bot adds users to lists of users that should have their contribs reviewed after a while and given some guidance? (which process is backlogged I think) ... Lar: t/c 17:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it's possible to customize it in a way that you will get the template in the language you're signing in to? Well, even if it's possible to just do it in English, I support activating this extension too - better than nothing! Patrícia ^msg 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I like the sound of this...I would suggest we use a shortened, modified version of {{Welcome}} as the default message (eg. basic info on what Commons is, link to welcome page, and basic info on how to upload (and link to COM:L).  Support. giggy _(:O) 03:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support & thanks Mike --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support One question to be answered: (1) An "editing user" can be configured. Which user would that be? I suggest the bureaucrats create a user with a pretty name and an impossible password they forget immediately. Two possible issues to be resolved: (2) There currently is no edit summary for the welcome message; this can be added by customising the code (unwanted) or by improving the code so that the edit summary is configurable from a page in the MediaWiki: namespace. I do not think this is a show stopper, but just making you aware of it. (3) A last thing is that a user should be redirected to his talk page instead of the standard welcome page (because the template has been added to his talk page and that is the information we want the user to see). I am not certain if this is part of th extension, or if that needs some more configuring... Siebrand 07:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  The issue with the edit summary has been resolved in the current code. It is configurable in the LocalSettings.php file. Siebrand 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Support, but translated versions are also necessary (yes, I can do the German version ;-)). --my name 10:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Translations will be delivered the same way they are in current templates: with a language bar with available languages. Siebrand 22:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support But will be good idea to extract language code from user preferences to use appropriate welcome template translation. --EugeneZelenko 15:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, but there is no reliable way to do this at the moment. Also, on user creation, there is no used language preference known... Now that I'm thinking of this. Will this work for newly created SUL attached accounts!? Siebrand 22:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

    See bugzilla:14124. This is "easy to fix" says ialex. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

    • See also bugzilla:2085. --EugeneZelenko 14:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for the late statement, while I think it might be handy for some reasons, I must say I would personally not like this much because every user would get 1 contribution then and in Special:Log/newusers You could not distinguish the users without any contributions anymore. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  Untrue. A user can be configured that makes the edit. Siebrand 19:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  Example: betawiki:Special:Log/newusers -> the link to "contributions" is not red for anyone because they have always one edit [16], can this be configured, if so, it might be handy, thanks and best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 19:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  On Betawiki we have not configured it yet. That does not mean it is not possible. I implemented the feature; it works. If you do not believe it, set up your own testwiki and prove it to yourself. Siebrand 23:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  Oh, well, it was about time I configured it. See it in action in all its glory on Betawiki from now on... Siebrand 23:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks Siebrand, that is cool, of course I do believe what You say :) never said I doubted it, if it sounded like it, that was not my intention, please forgive me. Of course I would like to fully support this feature here too, although as said, there already was consensus, thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 01:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, thanks for that Siebrand, I just took a look and it's pretty sweet. giggy _(:O) 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  Find Betawiki's config below. Siebrand 21:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

include("$IP/extensions/NewUserMessage/NewUserMessage.php"); #mileage may differ
  $wgNewUserMessageEditor = 'WelcomeMessageBot'; # user that makes the edit
  $wgNewUserSupressRC = true; # do not add the welcome message edit to RecentChanges
  $wgNewUserMinorEdit = false; # do not make this a minor edit. The user will get ''the orange bar''

So... Can we decide on a user to welcome, an edit summary, and which message to place for new users, so that we can get this monster activated? Siebrand 22:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome message; {{Welcome}}? An edit summary could simply be "Welcoming new user." Anyone could set up the account; from my understanding it doesn't really do anything—just the welcome message is given in the account's name. giggy _(:O) 00:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I created User:Wikimedia Commons Welcome and made a tweak on {{Welcome}}. I have been so bold to create bugzilla:14311. Siebrand 14:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Shouldn't take more than a few days for the request to be filled, hopefully. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am looking very much forward to retiring one of my bots :) Siebrand 14:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to pass the hat for a gold watch (gold oilcan?)... :) that bot has earned a retirement and then some. Lar: t/c 17:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

New upload form live

Our new upload form is live now. Three points:

1. The form can be configured in your Special:Mypage/monobook.js (or modern.js, or standard.js, or ...). Direct people who complain about not being able anymore to just copy/paste a pre-filled {{Information}} template to MediaWiki:UploadForm.js/Documentation#User configurations. There are instructions there on how to configure the form to use the old layout.
2. It may take up to 30 days until all Commons users use the new form because of client-side caching of Javascript files. Users who complain that they don't see any change should be told to force a reload (shift-reload on FF, ctrl-reload on IE).
3. If anything goes seriously wrong, undo this edit and explain why you did do so.

Lupo 07:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: there are two categories collecting all images uploaded through the new form, Category:Files uploaded through the full upload form and Category:Files uploaded through the basic upload form. If the original upload contains neither {{ImageUpload|full}} nor {{ImageUpload|basic}}, the file was not uploaded through the new upload form, and any problems therefore are not the doing of MediaWiki:UploadForm.js. Lupo 08:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Крутой Комп

• This is a angry vandal in Russian Wiki. He comed to Commons. Please blocked his for the time = infinity. He like destroyed my user pages. Канопус Киля 20:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As said on the vandalism board, he is indefinitely blocked. --O (谈 • висчвын) 20:52, 28 May 2008 (GMT)
    • Thank you very much. Канопус Киля 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Image_talk:Sadko.jpg

Can an administrator address my comment on Image_talk:Sadko.jpg. Thanks. :) Calgacus 07:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not protected - feel free to edit it. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the request was to include the message written by user on the talk page in the protected image description...  Done Finn Rindahl 09:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, deletion requests again

Come on guys, I've gone through and closed pretty much every deletion request before christmas last year. I figure a few more people helping out and we could work through the backlog in a week or two. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't they tell you the role of the new admins is to let all the others relax? I'll try and help out with a few. giggy _(:O) 10:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I figured that by doing those it would be helping people relax - deleting stuff is very theraputic. Pictures of Paris Hilton are especially good in that regard. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And I deleted over than 600 unknown images today and yesterday. New admins are useful :) --Ahonc (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lexista (talk · contribs)

I have given User:Lexista a final warning. Please delete all this user's uploads (notice block record, cf. Image:Ariel Graziani.jpg with [17]). Patstuart (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Image:Ariel Graziani.jpg's still a copyvio but that site says it cc-by-3.0, so I guess we can change the license. Rocket000 18:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:MiniEurope

Due to the lack of freedom of panorama in Belgium, every image in this category is a copyvio and should be deleted. There are over 400. Help... please? (DR) -mattbuck (Talk) 18:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Ahonc (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Thanks! -mattbuck (Talk) 23:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Misstake in translations of Upload form

It looks as though MediaWiki:UploadFormAdditionalInfoLabel and MediaWiki:UploadFormUnknownLanguageLabel (the english text) has misstakenly been replaced by japanese (or korean). A speedy revert would be usedull. Left a message on the users talkpage but since this affects every uploader I'm requested a revert here as well. /Lokal_Profil 11:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted one, the other was self reverted by the guy who first made the change. giggy _(:O) 11:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And sorry for the hickup in the entry, wireless is messing about. /Lokal_Profil 11:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Category with wrong name

Category:St. Remigius Wurmling has been named wrong. It must be Wurmlingen instead of Wurmling. Furthermore is to say that the category is about the chapel of Wurmlingen. So the category should be named: St. Remigius Chapel (Wurmlingen). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaiusGermanicus (talk • contribs) 17:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}} Rocket000 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User uploading copyrighted material despite warning

Further to the conversation above (#User_uploading_likely_copyright_material), the user Special:Contributions/RogerRanger has now uploaded the old images as well as new ones to his own Flickr account, falsely tagged them with a free license and uploaded them to commons. Gustav VH 15:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• This needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency due to the pornographic nature of these images, see - Commons:Deletion requests/RogerRanger Images. I personally think that they should all be speedied as the user is clearly lieing about the source of the images. Gustav VH 21:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't take issue that the guy is lying and the images are copyvios, however that the images are pornographic is no reason to move faster or slower. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The user has been blocked indefinitely. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, he has an account on the English Wikipedia w:Special:Contributions/RogerRanger if someone wants to block that also. Gustav VH 22:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use image problem

I would appreciate some input here Commons:Deletion requests/Howard Frank Archives images. These images were uploaded by a photo archive that only granted rights for "fair use in editorial and non comnmercial contexts". This goes against the requirement for commons images to be free to use without fear of being sued or having to pay royalties so unfortunately I think these images must be deleted. We can get free images of most if not all these people from film trailers or US government archives. Gustav VH 22:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since closed and deleted by mattbuck. giggy _(:O) 00:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal: Javien551

See my talk page, and please delete Image:Lolz.JPG.

Deleted, blocked etc - thanks for the heads up --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Need some images renamed

I noticed that many images in the bicubic interpolation section were wrong. The bilinear interpolation and the bicubic interpolations are false. biliner should be linear, not this weird spline that matlab uses. I have uploaded a new set of images that correctly display the different modes and would like to have them renamed such as to replace the old ones. The following needs to be replaced:

Image:Nearest.png = Image:Nearest2DInterpolExample.png

Image:LinearInterpolation.png = Image:BilinearInterpolExample.png

Image:Bicubic.png = Image:BicubicInterpolationExample.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ti chris (talk • contribs)

Note Ti chris is a brand new user. The uploads on the left are his first edits on commons. Not being a math/graphics expert, I defer this issue to someone who is. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that the bilinear image is wrong. The color gradients (I don't know if that is the correct English word) seems to be linear in the x and y directions, as they should be. But the curves that has the same color do not need to be straight lines just because bilinear interpolation is used. So the bilinear image looks correct for me, and I see no reason to doubt that the bicubic is also correct. But if you think your new images are better illustrations, you can edit the articles at English Wikipedia to replace the images. /Ö 15:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be correct. I just realized that the reason why theses images are confusing is becaues Matlab (application used to generate the images) works in HSV format (or a similar color space). This means that in order to go from blue to red, you have to go through green. The math is correct, however what it means is that at t = 0, we have a color of red and for t = 1, we have a color of blue. The part that makes no sense for image processing is that when t = 0.5, we have green. A regular image processor will be such thta it goes from red to blue without adding any green tinge (try it in photoshop). So in short, it's a correct linear interpolation in HSV color format, but I would say that having this in standard RGB format makes a whole lot more sense for most users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ti chris (talk • contribs)

Special:DeletedContributions/Newpop123

Dear all, I deleted all uploads by this user, as some images seemed to come from [18] the others looked like copyvios too, besides it was out of scope, thanks, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 21:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All seems good here, Birdy. giggy _(:O) 02:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia generates incorrect thumbs for SVG images with text on paths

I uploaded Image:Bugatti Circuit.svg (shown at right). The main thing that I hadn't done before was to put text onto paths. Yet, when I see that image after uploading, its displayed incorrect. In the PNG thumbnail version, all of the text on paths is displayed incorrectly. When I view the actual SVG file with Firefox 2.0.0.14, I get some text correctly positioned, but not all. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Only problem I see is a black box near the top left. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Convert the text to paths. Save as "Plain SVG". Rocket000

Delete a revision please

Could someone please delete the first version of Image:Cambodia admin level1.svg I uploaded ? (14:22, 3 June 2008) I made an error and when opened in Firefox it causes the browser to crash, I don't want other people to click it by accident. Jackaranga 14:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Ribi

Ribi has quite passionate at Category talk:Peter Klashorst in pleading his case for deletion of the images. Of course Ribi is entitled to this, but I think that this comment is way over the line and some intervention is required. Ribi has been previously warned about hostile behavior. Kelly 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to do so, but I have blocked Ribi for 48 hours. They've been warned previously several times about being civil, and have chosen to ignore them. I hope some cooling off will help. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That comment was a lot worse. I consider it as a threat and a diffamation against me. This threat against Klashorst is not bad either. And what about that or that? I don't understand why he hasn't been blocked before. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Because we were assuming bundles of good faith. That's also why they're only blocked for 48h. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the socking as User:Say-no-to-racism warrants an extension of the block. Kelly 23:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Extended to two one weeks; sock account has since been blocked indefinitely. --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:51, 05 June 2008 (GMT)

Image:VirtualDub 1.7.8.png

This image seems to be licensed under GPL as well as it is copyrighted (see the screenshot itself). Any suggestions what license takes priority in this case ? Regards, →Christian.И 17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the image, we can always contact the developers of the software. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

About the upload form translation

I don't know who designed the form from "Thank you, ..." to "==New translation by==", but it makes me uncomfortable when translating.

• Firstly, I have to type the MediaWiki namespace message or copy/paste again and again (while copy/paste from preview above will create spaces before the line).
• Secondly, if I want to add wikilink to the message I have to go above, hover my mouse over the original and then copy and edit in edit box. It takes me so much time to do it.

You should let us access to source code easily to translate (of course read-only, I just need to copy/paste). I have translated some messages, but in this form, it's too long to do manually like that, so I don't want to translate anymore. I think it would happen to anyone but me. I don't have any idea to improve it, but I post here in hope that you guys can have it. Vinhtantran 00:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please speak to User:Lupo regarding this - if you can suggest a better method for translating these messages, it may well be implemented. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 12:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you can suggest some better way, I'll try to implement it. The preview does give the links to the English messages, right-clicking these links, selecting "open in new tab/window", and then choosing "view" should give you access to the sources used. I know it's a bit awkward, but I have no idea how to make it even easier. But if it's just because of the wikilinks, you might also do something like "dashgfhdgfh dfaghfhjadfg[19] sdfgdfhag". I think I and anyone else is smart enough to turn that into a message reading "dashgfhdgfh dfaghfhjadfg sdfgdfhag"... Lupo 07:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Renaming account

Could you please move my account user:Baran Ivo to SUL user:Ivob? I'm preparing the single user login for my account at the slovak wikipedia. Thnx. --Baran Ivo 20:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I think this Commons:Changing username is the page You are looking for, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Note, has since been done. giggy _(:O) 10:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Steffi Graf.jpg

Could someone please take a look at this pic. Te flickr page says all rights reserved. The image is tagged as reviewed, but the page has never been edited by anyone except for the uploader. Cheers. BanRay 21:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. And supposedly reviewed @ 11:13, 1 June 2008 - even though there are no edits at that time - and thats not when it was uploaded. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly has not been properly reviewed, and indeed fails. I have deleted it. --MichaelMaggs 21:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Freystschl.jpg

Can someone look at this image? It is unclear why it has PD-Polishsymbol license. If there a better forum to ask this kind of questions? --Jarekt 17:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, nominated for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

New Upload form: Problem with tiny "Source" section

The "Original source (Where does this file come from?)" section of the new upload form seems uncomfortably & inappropriately tiny and inflexible. For example, I might wish to upload an image published in the 19th or start of the 20th century (an old book, magazine, etc being the original source), which also has an intermediate source (eg, Library of Congress or another website, or my own scan). The form does not allow any hard returns to list multiple lines to give accurate full source information. -- Infrogmation 01:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw that now. You should have an arrow icon to the right of the source and author fields. Click it to turn the fields into multi-line inputs. The size of these fields can also be configured, see the documentation. Lupo 07:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

On that note, could we have a plain old "box" by any chance? For example, in case someone is just uploading a bunch of similarly named/licensed files? I might find myself uploading multiple images, for example, 5 at a shot, that are all functionally the same for descriptions, that I copy/paste through... sort of advanced or power user option? rootology (T) 04:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a toggle for the basic form in my preferences (Gadgets tab). – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 12:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you... could there be a mention on the upload form alerting people to that? rootology (T) 14:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was already. If not, I'll do that now. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Upload failure problem

Had to try six or seven times in two different browsers before I could upload successfully. Got a "line 100" failure. Best guess I have is that the new form accepts nonexistent categories (if you want to create a new one) and then chokes up. Durova 02:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

On Image:Lincoln and Johnson original.jpg? Hmmm... the form (and HotCat) do accept non-existing categories, and they don't do anything special with them. BTW, it appears you inadvertently put the description into the source. Or maybe that also is a result of this problem... And since Baker lived 1837 - 1914, I guess the cartoon would be even {{PD-Old}}. I tried my best to reproduce this using that page's texts as inputs on the full form, to no avail. I also checked line 100 in a number of JavaScript files without seeing any problems. What browsers were you using? I tried it on IE6 and FF2. If this ever happens again, please try to provide the exact input you used for the fields, and state which browser and skin you were using. Lupo 07:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried it on my uploads today as well, and didn't see an error. Could you upload one of the pics that failed differently and tell us step by step what to put in each field, and on what browser? rootology (T) 01:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:RudolfVrba1997.jpg

Could an OTRS volunteer check the ticket on the above image? The en Wikipedia uploader used the GFDL license, but the terms quoted in the description sound more like a public domain release to me. Kelly 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Also Image:RudolfVrbawithArnostRosin.jpg and Image:RudolfVrba1960-1.jpg. Kelly 23:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the only thing that is stated to be in the public domain are the school photos of mr. Vrba. For the rest, no details on which free license should be used are given, just a "release under a free license" statement as the description says. Given the circumstance, SlimVirgin chose one of the free licenses, namely GFDL. Since GFDL is not a restricting license (I think "no restrictions" has more to do with "no restrictions on use" rather than "no conditions"), I think the images are OK with that - Badseed ^talk 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for checking. I just wanted to offer the least restriction as possible (knowing what a hassle GFDL is for print media). Thanks again. Kelly 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Zeus21 image uploads

The-Real-ZEUS was blocked in April from the English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry and on-going copyright violations (block notice; upload log). His admitted sockpuppet ZEUS-21 was also blocked, but the corresponding Commons account Zeus21 (talk · contribs) was not blocked and some of the account's images haven't been deleted.

This user has an extensive history of copyvio image uploads on the English Wikipedia. He also has a probable enwiki throwaway sock Panossantorini that tried to re-upload his deleted copyvio images by uploading them to Flickr with bogus free licenses.

Given his track record of dishonesty and copyright violations, I'm not sure we can assume good faith regarding any free license claims he has made, and I feel his remaining Commons image uploads should be deleted. I'm requesting input from admins to look into this issue. --Muchness 09:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My userpage

It is possible that an administrator can delete my userpage? Thanks. — PsY.cHo^!, 13:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --my name 14:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent SVG change?

I noticed a single one of my svg images no longer renders (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:EGG_Future_in_Past.svg). It comes out totally blank. I had worked with this image after uploading it before, and have built documents incorporating it so .. I'm quite sure the image rendered just fine in the past. So I'm suspecting it is a backend change?

Also, I rengenerated the image in SVG 1.1 basic (always form AI CS2) and, using that limited set of SVG, it still didn't render. I can't say why all my other images render, and not this one. :S If I knew, I could avoid this issue with future posts.

What advice can you give me? Thanks in advance. Robbiemuffin 01:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I just rolled back all the way through basic 1.0 svg ... and still no luck so I've reverted it. I also tried uploading another image in its place. At this point I think there is an administrative issue — with the name of that image, not a simple rendering library issue. There are dozens of less complicated SVGs, including another I have up that is exactly like this one, just with a couple of extra objects.

Robbiemuffin 02:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The image works fine for me now. It might have been a temporary glitch. Does it still not work for you? --rimshot^talk 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Blatant copyvio uploads by User:Reezy

Reezy has been repeatedly uploading copyvio images, and sourcing them to a Flickr profile (presumably own) that only has copyvio images. The user has a history of copyvio uploads on English Wikipedia. Based on user history, it doesn't seem that this user has any interest in uploading free images or respecting Wiki policies. --Ytoyoda 04:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, all uploads deleted. giggy _(:O) 04:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

SUL request

Could my username here be changed to Jcwf so that I can consolidate under that name for SUL NlJcwf 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been closed for renames for too long. Please place your order at COM:CHU. --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:56, 10 June 2008 (GMT)

Derivative drawings copied from photographs (and the women who love them)

Simonfieldhouse (talk · contribs) uploaded a number of line drawings that were adapted from copyrighted photographs (copying the pose, expression, composition, etc., of the subject), and so as derivative works, cannot be freely licensed. I've explained that to the user here and on Wikipedia, where he has expressed understanding and has removed the images.[20] I've tagged them all on Commons for deletion as derivatives, with links to all the photographs that they copied. However, Proclius (talk · contribs) (curiously, with no previous edits), tried to swap out all the sourced deletion tags with generic notices. Proclius then responded to my explanations with trolling personal attacks. I'm not an admin on Commons, so if someone could please keep an eye on the situation and properly see it through... Postdlf 04:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Upload form: quick help

Could a Dutch speaker please translate the last bullet from MediaWiki:UploadFormQuickHelp and add it to MediaWiki:UploadFormQuickHelp/nl? It helps experienced users find the old form. Thank you! Lupo 07:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Uğurcuk (talk · contribs)

Can somebody who knows Turkish please tell Uğurcuk (talk · contribs) that here on Commons we do not start pages that should be in the Commons namespace with "Wp/itr/". Check out this user's contributions. Thanks. Zzyzx11 02:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hokay. I left a note on his talk page (in english). I would auto translate it ... but google doesn't _do_ Turkish. If someone else speaks Turkish or knows software that does - shout. Additionally I deleted all of the "encyclopedic" pages (looks like he copied the Turkish version of Wikipedia:About. I moved the rest of the pages to his User namespace. I did leave the one template there alone. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

White Cat speaks Turkish. Monobi (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Gmaxwell has been restored to adminship

Based on a private request, and that Gmaxwell (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) gave up the bit voluntarily, and not "under controversial circumstances", I took the initiative to restore his bit. Gmaxwell has indicated he intends to resume helping with CU requests and I think it's pretty clear that a CU without the admin bit is somewhat hampered in effectiveness. Lar: t/c 17:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agreed, just try to be more active now Gmaxwell :) --Kanonkas_(talk) 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

AWB Approval

Could someone please either approve or deny me for using AWB at Commons:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? I put myself on the list 4 days ago and am still waiting. BlastOButter42 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you had to wait so long, you're now approved. giggy _(:O) 01:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not any more, since you have less than 200 edits. Sorry, O (谈 • висчвын) 01:25, 09 June 2008 (GMT)

If you read what I'd written on the page, you'd see that I have more than 5000 edits on the English Wikipedia and am approved to use AWB there. That's not good enough? BlastOButter42 01:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, that is not good enough. Wikimedia Commons is not an extension of the English Wikipedia. --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:59, 09 June 2008 (GMT)

I suppose this isn't the place to discuss this, but the point of having an approval process is to determine whether a person will be able to use the tool wisely, not to show that they've passed some arbitrary edit-count mark, right? I mean, you could have 200 edits and not have any idea of the proper way to use the tool, or you could (like me) have the experience and knowledge to use the it correctly and responsibly but less than 200 edits. I think it's pretty clear that I would be able to do that.BlastOButter42 02:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I approved on the basis of the user's edits to the English Wikipedia using the tool, as well as the fairly straightforward and simple task requested. BlastOButter42, if you want me to run that using a bot, leave me a talk page note. giggy _(:O) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can also do this task using pywikipedia, if needed. --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:24, 09 June 2008 (GMT)

Or, I could do it myself, by hand, as I just did. (Which, by the way, got me about 20 more edits...see how arbitrary having an edit requirement is? We never do that on en.wp.) BlastOButter42 02:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh? We never have edit count requirements on en wiki? Besides the many informal edit counts (such as at requests for adminship), there are indeed formal edit requirements, such as for voting (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007). And of course, AutoWikiBrowser has an edit requirement on en wiki too. Superm401 - Talk 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he meant, "we never edit by hand anymore" on enwp? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 22:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Open proxy

Please indef 67.159.0.0/18 it is an open proxy owned by FDC Servers.net, LLC. Thanks Mww113 (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. In practice we rarely range block IPs here. Equally we tend to base blocks on the behaviour of the IP (or user) rather than on what might happen. Examining that range there is relatively little editing from it in the past year (though some of that is minor vandalism). While we are aware of the policy (I have blocked a few proxies myself) many people editing through open proxies (because they have little or no choice) edit very constructively. The information is appreciated & I certainly will watch. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons Geonotice

The short version is that I'd like to have Geonotice's brought to common. Our very own Gmaxwell runs them for en.wp. With Commons being such a diverse group as it is, I think it would be nice to have the ability to have Notice's targeted to specific groups. For example you could get a more targeted discussion for template changes that effect a specific country, or translation efforts. And of course, we could have targeted announcements of Wikimedian meetups. Commons should have all the cools toys too. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 22:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fraudulent contributor

Hi. I'm being impersonated by User:JoshPonytailGordon; this is the banned interwik vandal User:REDYVA, and his contributions should be reversed. It would be worthwhile to block his IP as well; checkusers can read the discussion about him on the mailing list. --Jpgordon (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorted - blocked, reverted, deleted, CU'd etc etc (also User:GuideAdministrator). Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Mass deletion of images

All hail Lord Byron Bryan! Bugzilla:8527 is fixed in rev:35793 (not yet live; we are at 35767 now live) - this will let us mass-delete a user's recent images using Special:Nuke (which makes it not useless :D ) – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to work for images, only pages. Fail. ;( Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 03:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the fix appears to not be a fix; false alarm. But at lease it is close to coming :) – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just can't count, apparently. We are at r35849, this change is at r35793 but the Nuke extension is only at r34529. Apparently core software and extensions are synced separately. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 11:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I want this tool. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There's something in my monobook that does something similar... you need DelReqHandler, but it's really good. (I think you have it too, Mike... Lupo made it if that makes things any clearer.) giggy _(:O) 10:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to be secretive: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 8#Special:Nuke up up and away!. (Use includeScript instead of includePage now.) Lupo 11:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not spotted that one - thanks Lupo, neat --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a script, and that one is nice too. And one can use pywikipediabot. But this is in the software, which makes things much easier. But still we wait... – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 12:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, now this works :D – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't add license

I'm not sure what license to add to an image I uploaded: Image:Nuclear Brochure.svg. It's from the NY Times site. It's a brochure A.Q. Khan made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88957a (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 Jun 2008 (UTC)

If you're not sure, you probably shouldn't upload it. I don't know who "A.Q. Khan" is but from the sound of it, it doesn't sound very free coming from the NY Times site. See Commons:Licensing. Keep in mind there's no fair use allowed on Commons. If it's under a free license it will say so, otherwise permission will be needed. Rocket000 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very likely not free, I think. BTW, A.Q. Kahn is an infamous nuclear proliferator - very interesting story there if you care about such things. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Images from book djvu files: tips

When using into wikisource djvu files containing drawings/pictures, the process needs to link both to images of single pages, and to "images of images" contained into the book. Usually they are uploaded into Commons individually.

I'm going to explore an alternative: uploading the extracted images as a single, boundled djvu file. Much simpler to upload, and saving commons memory space too I presume (less pages, less indexes). I'll work with recent Image:Equitation.djvu file.

If you allow that this could be a good idea: what's the best location/name for such a self-made, derived djvu file?

• first alternative: Image:Equitation_images.djvu
• second alternative, into a subdirectory of source file: Image:Equitation.djvu/Images.djvu
• other tricks?

I'm going to test the first alternative.--Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 07:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Majorly re-sysopped

Based on a private request, and having given up adminship voluntarily, I have re-sysopped Majorly. He was originally sysopped after Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Majorly. Comments welcome.

giggy _(:O) 11:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no issues with this, we resysop on request for noncontroversial voluntary resignations. My only comment would be "welcome back!"... Lar: t/c 12:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no issues here; volunatirly desysopped, no controversy resysopping. --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool :) - Alison ^❤ 21:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Username?

Is the page User:Username supposed to be non-blank?

For several months until very recently, it carried a link by some user on the French Wikipedia to his userpage there. I've changed it to what I feel is a more apt link :), but perhaps as a dummy page it's meant to be "a perfect and absolute blank", so perhaps one of you could look into this. -- Korax1214 (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I redirected it to User:Example and copied en:User:Example to that page. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 04:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OTRS request

Could a volunteer please confirm the ticket on Image:Suzie-plakson-375x500.jpg? Sorry, there have been a lot of problem with images of this person and I saw the ticket was added by the uploader and not an OTRS volunteer. Kelly (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OTRS Verified --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Kelly (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Roche II - Revenge of the Rock

Image:WIN31SOD.JPG

I just came across this picture, and I think it is a clear successor to roche.gif as a potential featured picture. What do you guys reckon? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pah! Hardly anywhere as cool. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny as it is, this isn't really an admin noticeboard issue... giggy _(:O) 04:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's moderately awesome, but why the admin noticeboard? lol Rocket000 (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not Picasso

hi,

Why havn't you deleted Image:Magallanes.Ost.png?. Every thing about the image-story is said. Believe me, I am not Picasso and the image is now useless. --[[User:Createaccount|Antipatico]] (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

IPs changing licensing information

Occasionally I see anons changing image information such as the author and license. Like this guy. Now assuming good faith, they are the author/copyright holder and they have a right to do that, but I don't think we can AGF in this situation (It's not like it's hard to log in). So should I be reverting these instances? For example, this doesn't seem right to me. GFDL? LadyofHats always uses PD-self (which was left on there). I'm reverting that one anyway since there's no copyright to enforce the license. Rocket000 (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous users should not be changing authorship and licensing information. I tend to revert such edits much the same way I revert unsourced information done by anons on Wikipedia. If people who do not have an account here want to point out that their images have been uploaded here by others with incorrect source information, they can contact OTRS or post on one of the noticeboards for further instructions. If they are the uploader, they can log in first. Remember: assuming good faith does not mean you assume people are correctly informed. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I always revert IPs changing licensing info. I assume there GFDL issues too maybe. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Viewdeleted on other projects

For almost as long as commons has been around we've had problems with images moved from other Wikis then deleted on their home Wikis. The commons image descriptions end up referring to information on pages which are now deleted. This also creates frustration for users trying to verify the validity of copyright claims for these images since part of the image history is hidden. We've dealt with this in a number of ways such as becoming Admins on other projects, nagging stewards for temporary adminship, or asking for help from friends on a case by case basis. All of these are unreasonably burdensome and discourage checkup work which we should be doing. With the global rights support that came with SUL this limitation doesn't have to exist before. We could simply create a commons-admin global right which grants viewdeleted on all projects.

Meta currently has a nearly final proposal for a 'globalsysop' right which confers all admin powers globally (though you aren't supposed to use them, except.. err.), it's been surprisingly uncontroversial. But that proposal has a number of additional requirements (50e/month to meta for example) and privileges (blocking users, for example) which aren't really applicable for our use, so I'm considering making a proposal on meta to simply grant viewdeleted on all public wikis to all commons admins. Would other people here be willing to support such a proposal? --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support - To meta with this! --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 22:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Depending on how it deals with un-upsurped acounts sure.Genisock2 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Could you clarify? ~Kylu (u|t) 22:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • As long as it only worked for SUL accounts. I wouldn't see a problem. Obviously if someone has my name on another wiki - they shouldn't get power. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 22:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Basicaly what happens when there is an account on a wiki that either isn't me or the system thinks isn't me?Genisock2 (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if your SUL hasn't been activated, it (ideally) won't work for you. giggy _(:O) 07:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You need a unified account to have global permissions, and they will apply to all your unified accounts. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 12:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support - I love anything which makes me more powerful generally, but this would be very useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support But for images only, if that's possible. Otherwise, oppose, there's many reasons things are deleted which don't need lots of people potentially able to look. Commons admins should only need to see deleted images. Majorly ^talk 22:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• • PS where is this being advertised, if anywhere? It's rather an important change, and will affect every single project, so it's a decision that should not be made lightly with lack of participation and knowledge of what's happening. Majorly ^talk 23:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, ideally for images only (per Majorly) if possible. It's being advertised on the admin noticeboard since it affects, well, admins. giggy _(:O) 23:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That's great for commons admins but what about the rest of the commons community, and the whole of the WMF which this will affect? Do they get any say in the matter? Will they be told? Majorly ^talk 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "so I'm considering making a proposal on meta to simply grant viewdeleted on all public wikis to all commons admins. Would other people here be willing to support such a proposal?" I just want to be able to say something like "Lots of commons admins want this" to make it clear to people who haven't experienced the difficulty first hand that there is a real need. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
      • What he said. giggy _(:O) 00:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - Kind of a no-brainer... commons admins arguably have more maintenance-type admin work to do across the other projects than meta admins in any case. I'd say being able to view deleted contribs would be useful for similar reasons though, since it's often helpful when trying to make a judgement about uploads that are in the "gray areas" if we can check for a history of deleted uploads, etc. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - while images-only would be nice, that is something to do in the future; grant viewdeleted for everything now. When/if we can restrict it to images only, then let's do so. But don't hold back for this reason. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Strongest possible support! We need this! (Images only would be preferred). Rocket000 (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Although I agree that an "images only" restriction would be preferable. --jonny-mt ^{en me!} 01:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• I love this idea. (if it's restricted to images only... that probably requires a bugzilla) It's an innovative use of the new global rights stuff. I don't want to throw cold water on it but I do want to point out that there is considerable internal discussion among stewards about how the mechanics of creating new groups would work, where the decision process on who gets the rights, etc. would be held and so forth. The traditional role of stewards was to never decide anything, only implement consensus. Except where it has been necessary to act. So I guess what I am saying is that even if this idea gets overwhelmingly positive support, it may take a while to get done, because of the larger ramifications. Lar: t/c 02:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support images only I think. It would certainly be both valuable & sensible. However bear in mind that Commons does not get the best press on other projects quite often (another reason for images only) so not one I will hold my breath for. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Commons' sysops need it. P.S. Some admins often need also to edit protected pages (for example when need to remove or replace deleted image from article where it used).--Ahonc (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support for images only. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support clearly a very useful idea. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Sure thing, just what I needed. --Kanonkas_(talk) 19:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support showing text and images. It might be useful to see where an image might of been linked previously. Monobi (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support — per all above, seems to make our work much easier. →Christian.И 02:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support very useful --Szczepan talk  12:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Image only is a great step forward. Lycaon (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Would be great to save images from deletion. I will see if i can publish my source finding tool soon. Multichill (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support really important function and a good idea. -- Ra'ike T C 11:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Hey! Someone had already created a draft for this on Meta. Anyone that is interested should help contribute to that policy draft. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 17:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed a spelling mistake. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a few questions on the meta proposal talk page. Just an FYI in case people are not watching it. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there are enough comments in favour of this now; it's pretty obvious that most people watching this page support this. To keep any future discussion productive, let's focus on concerns and counter-arguments or mitigating measures related to those, and let's keep that discussion on Meta. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with LX here, it might be well to hang on a bit in formally promoting this on Meta though until the discussion on global sysop-rights is sorted out. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just published the first version of my source finding tool so you can actually find out where a picture came from. More at Commons:Village_pump#Got source?. Multichill (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose - several commons admins have been explicitly rejected by other projects (well, one project anyway). Giving commons admins access to a portion of the admin tools on a project that has decided not to trust them with the tools is a bad idea. This is a great idea, but there needs to be a way for an individual wiki to opt out of a particular user having access to deleted revisions there. Specifically, speaking from an enwiki hat, anyone who is blocked or has failed an RFA should not have access to deleted revisions or any other tools beyond what a normal user has. --UserB (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe there is a big difference between having "all the tools" and the ability to see deleted images. If we can see the images, we might be able to save them from deletion - which affects all projects. We're not asking for the ability to undelete, or even see deleted pages. Just images - so we can do our jobs and maybe actually HELP all the Wiki's we support. As for failed RFA - so what? Am I more trusted on en.wp because I've never run for RFA - than someone who ran for and failed because they only got 74%? You are basically saying that a user can't be trusted if they've EVER failed an RFA ever... ANYWHERE. There are users on every project than have RFA'd more than once (hell, I saw one the other day that was up for #8) -- Should Commons also start desysoping and rejecting anyone on Commons that has failed an RFA on these other projects? --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 04:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Being an admin somewhere is a pretty strong guarantee that they're not some crazy vandal that would... what harm can simply viewing deleted images and their history cause? There was always talk on en.wp about all users seeing deleted material. What's the most common response to that? Is it we don't trust you? No, it's that it defeats the whole purpose of deletion in the first place (of course, it would make a lot more work for oversighters so there's a small trust issue there). I don't even consider it a tool. I mean, you can't do anything, preform any action. So this is an honest question, what would be the major concern about an allowing an extra 243 at least somewhat trusted users to view a deleted image and it's history—the same exact stuff they could see if they were there before it got deleted? (Also, the same stuff that is usually required by GFDL-licensed material but user forget the file history requirement.) Rocket000 (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Additionally, if a Commons admin really were to find a way to abuse this and it is brought to our attention, I think it's pretty safe to say that we would listen to the concerns of other projects and expect administrators to respect any such reasonable concerns in order to remain a trusted user here. And even in the unlikely event that we could not reach an agreement, I suppose you'd still have the autonomy to block the user locally. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Good point, LX. They could block any Commons admins they don't feel comfortable accessing their deleted images. It would kinda be like a opt-out but per user. Rocket000 (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, the offending admin could probably self-unblock locally as well. The better solution would be to just make a policy that our admins do not use the tools on any project where they have not been specifically authorized to do so (via RFA or whatever the local method is), and make it a "desysoppable offense" to cross that line. Some of the smaller projects might even want to give block permission to all commons admins if they are short-staffed or badly beset by problems, but probably not very many of them. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 11:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
          • We are talking about viewdeleted only - that wouldn't allow any Commons admin to unblock themselves unless they already had sysop, which would make the whole discussion moot. Also, there is no log for viewing deleted revisions, so there would be no way to enforce your suggestion. As for giving commons admins the block right, you may be interested in m:GS. We're talking about giving Commons admins one right - viewdeleted. Finally, making Commons admins go through RFA on each wiki where they want to use this right totally defeats the purpose. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 12:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
            • A per-user per-wiki opt out isn't the same as having to go through RFA. There's at least one commons admin that I can think of that has an en wiki block log as long as my arm and probably came close to being banned at one point. There are more than a few users who have been banned from enwiki, for one reason or another, but are valued contributors elsewhere. Should they ever become admins here, granting them access to deleted revisions on enwiki and thus potentially material that has been hidden from public view for privacy reasons is abhorrent and could lead to them being able to further engage in harassment. This really is a deal killer if you are going to introduce the potential for a banned user or a very much untrusted user to have access to our deleted revisions. --UserB (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
              • I assume blocked users would not have access to such privileges. Furthermore, content deleted for privacy reasons should probably be subject to oversight anyway. And again, if they do abuse a privilege bestowed upon them through Commons adminship, bring it up here. I'm guessing they wouldn't last long. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Blocked users naturally can't viewdeleted, so yes, it wouldn't be an issue with blocked users. If there are image pages which contain information which really couldn't be leaked to someone trusted on commons but not enwp, then you are really in bad shape on enwp: You have hundreds now of inactive admin accounts who could been hacked before captchas slowed cracking and could be used exclusively now for viewing deleted things. It's clear that the various WP criticism sites have regular access to deleted material, private IRC channels, etc. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: This has been put to "The Vote" on Metapub. Meta:Metapub#Global deleted image review --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Arabic translation

Could you update the Arabic translation here, please? --Meno25 (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Busy right now, but if noone beats me to it (hint anyone??) I'll try doing that as well in an hour or so. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

first part done, but it would be good if Meno25 or another arabic speaking user could check these before I go on. I'm not sure I got the ":" in the right place for instance. Right-to-left editing is not something I do everyday... Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Lupo has proposed a way to deal with rtl here, please respond there. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• • What other RTL languages are there? Farsi? And could the mechanism used for Hebrew be generalized to (a) other RTL languages (minus the translations done by the Javascript at MediaWiki:Monobook.js/he) and (b) other skins? (That would need skin-specific RTL CSS files, and a Common.js that knew which CSS to include based on the skin and the wgUserLanguage settings.) Lupo 10:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Derivatives of baseball scoreboards

After I deleted an image of a jumbotron at Progressive Field showing a copyrighted, non-free design containing the Cleveland Indians logotype, the uploader correctly pointed out that some other stuff exists at Category:Baseball scoreboards. Some of those may only include signs that are {{PD-ineligible}}, and in others, inclusion of copyrighted elements may be de minimis, but the majority probably need to go. There might be even more in the parent category Sports scoreboards. Could I get some volunteer reviewers? I think the situation is pretty clear-cut in most cases, but it's a lot of images to speedy delete, so I'd like a few others to take a look at this. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Bow tie images

Do we need confirmed permission for these images Bowtie#Unidentified? Gustav VH (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• The author has submitted a large number of similar photos that aren't even categorized [21]. Gustav VH (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Gl translations

I have translated some MediaWiki messages. Would you update it, please?

• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormLabels/UploadFormTranslations: Sections which are called "Translations for language code gl, by User:Toliño".
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormQuickHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormHelpOpenButton/gl‎
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormPreviewLicenseButton/gl
• MediaWiki talk:Gadget-OldUploadForm/gl

Thanks a lot! --Toliño (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll get on with it. Thanks, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done and thanks again for making those translations! Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Can you update MediaWiki:Uploadtext/gl with MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/gl an MediaWiki:Uploadtext/glownwork with MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/glownwork. Besides that I whish to add in Template:MediaWiki:Uploadtext/lang the gl code. Thanks a lot again! --Toliño (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the list of talks where you can find the translations/updates/corrections:

• MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/gl
• MediaWiki talk:Uploadfooter/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormHelpCloseButton/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormAddDescButton/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormSourceButton/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormAuthorButton/gl‎
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormPreviewButton/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormDescriptionHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormUploadFileHelp/gl‎
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormDestFileHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormSourceHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormSourceGraphicsHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormSourceAudiovisualHelp/gl‎
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormSourceDocHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormAuthorHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormAuthorGraphicsHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormAuthorAudiovisualHelp/gl‎
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormDateHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormDateGraphicsHelp/gl‎
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormDateAudiovisualHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormDescLabel/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormCategoriesLabel/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormPermissionLabel/gl

I haven´t finished yet. Thanks! --Toliño (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagged like this has been added. Thanks, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, you forgot this one: MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/gl, you have to fix the link to the gl version. I think you are going to go crazy with me. I´m going to continue with translations. Thanks a lot! --Toliño (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

   Done Lupo 10:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have translated the help messages that remain:

• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormDescHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormOtherVersionsHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormPermissionHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormAdditionalInfoHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormLicenseHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormWatchthisHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormIgnoreWarningHelp/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormCategoriesHelp/gl

• Now I should have to finish with the translations of the upload forms that are in Commons:Upload/gl. Maybe I begin with them at night or perhaps tomorrow. Thanks again!! --Toliño (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

...and  Done Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

More updates:

• MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormSourceLabel/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormSourceAuthorLicenseError/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormFlickrURLError/gl
• MediaWiki talk:UploadFormSourceHelp/gl

• MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/glownwork

And you have to create the gl version of the form to upload from Flickr, from another Wikimedia project and from de government:

• MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/glfromflickr
• MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/glfromwikimedia
• MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext/glfromgov

I saw you were creating message called "See also", the Galician version is like this (and must be here):

Véxase tamén:

• Thanks for update my language! --Toliño (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done I think... @Toliño, if there more are changes/ new translations please leave a message at my talkpage, I missed this posting (the ones I fixed earlier was on my watchlist) and it doesn't seem too many other admins respond to these mediawiki:message questions. Thanks for providing these translations and happy editing! Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

PD-India

Can anyone update the {{PD-India}}-template as per this edit? —Gabbe (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done—Giggy 02:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

January 2008 has one DR left

If anybody could take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/2008/01#Image:Basedow-vor-nach-RIT.jpg and vote/close it, it would be the last DR from that month. —Giggy 07:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done →Christian.И 08:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Accidentally requested deletion

Hi, I accidentally requested deletion of Image:Spikesfront.jpg. I removed the tags and tried to undo my mess but I don't think I caught all of it. Can an admin clean it up. Thanks! 71.112.238.158 09:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

All should be fixed up now. —Giggy 09:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate, although NOT an exact duplicate

Recently many files has been universally replaced and then speedy deleted using the reason "Duplicate, although NOT an exact duplicate". If that should be a valid reason for deletion this needs to be discussed and the deletion guidelines updated. Currently the guidelines say that speedy deletions should only be done for exact duplicates or scaled-down versions. As far as I can see the parts of the guidelines realting to duplicates or redundant files has not been changed significantly in 2008 or 2007 (. One reason to not delete not exact duplicates is that it is not the task of Commons to decide which version of a file is better, and to force Wikimedia projects to use specific versions of files. Another reason is that reusers of Commons files often link to the description pages here as source information and deletion breaks such links. I think a much better soultion to redundant/lesser quality files is to mark them as such and link to the better files. That will encourage use of the better files without forcing use of specific version or breaking links.

So, does the guidelines need to be changed, or should you admins just start following them? /Ö 21:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If the images are not bit-for-bit identical (ie identical hashes) then it will say "although NOT an exact duplicate" -- this is somewhat misleading as the fact that it is not bit-for-bit identical doesn't mean it is not identical to human eyes. As well, this does not cover scaled-down versions. In both cases, the hashs do not match, but I would say deletion is fine (and have done so myself).  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If the images is a scaled-down version, that should be mentioned in the delete comment. But that not the kind of duplicates I am talking about. Many of the non-exact duplicates are very different from the images they are supposed to be duplicates of. Here are some examples of images that has been replaced:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
  Universally replaced
• 
  Who decides that this is better?
• 
  Was actually deleted
• 
• 
  not deleted or replace yet
• 

I am sure that many such "duplicates" has been speedy deleted. Such speedy deletion is just a new process for Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded, which was closed for good reasons. And this is almost worse, since all information is now in the deleted history of the deleted image or almost immediately removed from User:CommonsDelinker/commands. On COM:DEL/S the images were at least listed for some time before and after deletion. /Ö 08:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not going to met any opposition here. It seems to me that someone's not checking the images too carefully before passing the commands to Delinker. They were tagged by IPs who probably think one copy of a painting is all we should have. "improved version of the png file. Duplicate should be removed"—Clearly doesn't understand the definition of duplicate. Rocket000 (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how do we prevent that from happening so often? Better instructions? Technical measures? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I bolded and added some text in the duplicate categories and templates. Maybe a note about non-exact duplicates can be added to User:CommonsDelinker/commands. /Ö 15:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is only the IP:s or inexperienced users tagging non-duplicates. They are not really expected to know much Commons policy, and a incorrect duplicate tag can easily be removed by any user who notice it. The admins ordering replacements and deleting the files are expected to know and follow policy. The replacements and deletions are also more difficult to revert if they are wrong. Therefor the admins who do this has to be more careful. /Ö 15:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Duplicated image uploads

This image Image:Hombre templo.JPG has been uploaded as Image:Fmedht.JPG and Image:Htfm00.JPG by 2 different new users. I suspect a copyvio because of it's small resolution size (381 × 605 pixels ) but haven't been able to find it yet. I don't know how to tag duplicates.-Paloma Walker (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged the newer ones as dupes. --Túrelio (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge Account Assistance

I would like to merge my accounts, however I have a different username on Wikicommons than on Wikipedia (El Greco). Now, I have tried to register El Greco here, however someone has already registered El greco (with a lowercase g) and the system won't let me. Anyway to help me get El Greco here? El Spartan (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You should be able merge accounts without having a username here, unless it's a bug. If it's a bug, you can get renamed to El Greco at Commons:Changing username, or if you don't mind having a few edits on this account, you can reply to my e-mail I just sent you so I can create an account for you. :) (If you do not wish to create an account, ignore my e-mail, please.) Maxim_(talk) 23:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you be creating/recreating the account I desire (El Greco) or an entirely different one? I tried that merge account function on Wikipedia and it says that you can merge accounts if the email and the passowrd are the same, but this account won't show up which is why I brought the request here. (Note: I corrected the wording in my first post as it seems I didn't proofread it). El Spartan (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Signle-User Login create a global account; you have different usernames, so Spartan will not be connected to Greco. Maxim_(talk) 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

New upload form

As I have no idea where else to post this, I've come here to gripe about the new special upload form. Don't get me wrong: I like the new form. However, what I don't like is that when I'm trying to reupload the same image, it is required for me to fill out the license and author field when these fields won't even show up on the new upload anyway. This is a problem for two reasons: 1) it's a pain, and 2) it might confuse new users who try to reupload a new file with a new license. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The form shouldn't require you to enter the information again when you are uploading on top of an old file. Do you get an error message if you don't? If you press the Upload a new version of this file link on the image page the source field shouldn't even appear. /Lokal_Profil 01:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The new form does not require any input if the destination filename is the same as an already existing file if it can detect that.

• It can't detect overwrites if Ajax is disabled.
• An early version of the upload script had an error and could not detect overwrites for filenames containing parentheses. That has been corrected long ago.

Try a forced reload (go to the new upload form an do a shift-reload (Firefox) or a ctrl-reload (IE)). If that doesn't cure the problem, give me the details (which filename?) on my talk page. Lupo 06:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot a third case:

• If the destination filename is set through the autocompletion dropdown in Firefox 2, no overwrite detection occurs. This is due to a bug in Firefox 2 and also occurred in the old form. The bug is fixed in FF 3. If this happens, manually delete and re-add the last character of the destination filename. That will make Firefox 2 run the overwrite detection. This only happens in Firefox 2.

Lupo 07:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Dear admins, I need to get in touch with a commons admin IMMEDIATELY as a result of a stalking incident resulting from the use of one of my photos. This is quite serious, and I want an admin/office to contact me asap for removing a photo I have released previously to commons. Please leave a note in my talk page or in my en user talk. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done It looks like this was handled on enwiki.[22] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. But I have emailed Jimbo as well as OTRS volunteers to handle this. If I don't get a reply, I'll get back here with details. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Images from bad flickr users

I've noticed that many of the flickr accounts listed at Commons:Questionable_Flickr_images still have uploads on commons. These generally arise from flickr user accounts used to store images from many sources with false copyright status. Generally if we find a flickr account full of obvious copyvios we should not trust the copyright status on any image sourced from that account.

I'm going and deleting ones which are unused but there are some cases where the images are in use. In the slim chance that an error was made in the original classification I'd like to get a second opinion. These should be reviewed by considering both the user's photostream as well as the individual images. Thanks. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• [23]
• [24]
• [25]

Have FlickreviewR and all upload bots been fixed yet so that they reject images from accounts listed on that page? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I've pinged Bryan. giggy _(:O) 09:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work on Commons:Questionable Flickr images. If I've succeeded with what I intended to do, it's easier to read for both humans and bots, and hopefully it's easier to add new entries in a consistent manner. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

As a reminder to admins, please try and stay on top of this category. If you use something like User:Giggy/CatWatch (based on Commons:Administrators' Category watch; see User:BryanBot/CategoryWatch for more information) please consider adding that category to your patroller. Unblock requests have only recently started to appear since I added a note about it to the blocked text.

Thanks. —Giggy 10:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll help keep an eye on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about catwatch. However, your page is deficient - it needs an image of a cat watching something. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Breadandsocks uploading numerous copyvios to promote company on en.wiki

Please see the Wikipedia ANI for more information, but in sum this user has gone crazy in the past hour uploading numeous copyvios or incorrecly licensed images from flickr to promote their business on Wikipedia. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuked. If it goes on prod us again & I'll (or someone) will block the account. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response, will do! Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons is special

Of course I have always known it however I now see that God is with us. Possibly rather more importantly I also see that he has a reputation. Personally it doesn't worry me but...? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This name might be offensive to many users of several different faiths. Perhaps it should be blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, after enjoying Herby's note, I had the same thought about that user name. --Túrelio (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He jumped quite lately on the wiki train, did not a lot of work and is blocked for infinity on a couple of wiki's. Even for a god, infinity is a long time. So to prevent a username to be used, create a SUL account with that name and forget the password. Life can be simple (sometimes). --Foroa (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I SULed it. Even managed to merge some of them by inadvertently using the same password! (for my initial, non-scrambled password). So for future reference: I am now God. (As if there has ever been any doubt...) --Gmaxwell (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And you are now blocked. :) —Giggy 08:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk about your ultimate "role account"! Lar: t/c 03:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Author missing/de

Hello everyone,

please lock Template:Author missing/de. It is an Template that was vandalized. Thank you, ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 19:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected it, don't see a need for anything more. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

that's enough! Thanks. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 20:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kaltenbrunner.jpg, again and again

I can't check this myself so I post it here. Is Image:Kaltenbrunner.jpg the same image as was deleted by this discussion? If so, I guess it should be deleted again. Garion96 (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember a colored version, but apart from that it seems to be the same photo. --Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Fourth time that has been deleted (& uploaded three times by Zarbon). Deleted & user warned. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've SALTed it for a year.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 12:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You should never underestimate this guy (Zarbon).

• Image:Ernstkaltenbrunner1.jpg
• Image:Ernstkaltenbrunner2.jpg

A block seems to be unavoidable. If you see the talk page of Zarbon, how many explainations he got about these Nazi official photos, AGF seems no longer possible. --Túrelio (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur, blocking for a week and deleting anything dodgy. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a stack more potential copyvios here if someone wants to look. —Giggy 13:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, someone else go do it for me :p -mattbuck (Talk) 13:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, we can SALT such things via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, but given the behaviour a block is in order. And I will sort through past uploads now. Don't have time atm, but I'll do it later unless someone beats me to it.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Did not realised the history of this image. Glad it's taken care of. Yes, same of the contributions looks fishy. Image:Yagyumunenori.jpg for instance. Garion96 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Languages of Europe no legend.png

There's an edit war going on at Image:Languages of Europe no legend.png. Riwnodennyk (talk · contribs) and Kuban kazak (talk · contribs) keep reverting each other, apparently about a nationalist issue (languages spoken in Ukraine). I protected the picture for 3 days to allow some cooling down. Anybody got any ideas about this issue? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, I'd say that protecting for longer might be a good idea as I doubt (being familiar with one of the parties) that three days will resolve much. —Giggy 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh that thing is always going to be a problem. For example scots galic and welsh are not really majority languages anywhere.Geni (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded rfd

With "olkmnbvcxzaq2500987654321`jnmnmnnnnnojojhkgfthdhfgddbfhydrgtydfygsthbvjnhknkjnjnkm lkh" as deletion reason IP 83.7.37.148 has requested the deletion of an as of yet uncontested Image:Oebb298205.jpg that was uploaded in 2004 (not by me) and is used on 12 pages within Wikimedia projects.[26] Should such a totally dubious request be reverted directly or has it to be contested in the regular way, aka rfd discussion? --Túrelio (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Closed - that was not a real DR, so what is there to discuss?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 12:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I usually just close them, but reverting works too. Rocket000 (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Need help finishing incomplete deletion

I'd like to create this page, since this this image seems to be a copyright violation: Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Vagina-anatomy2.jpg. That page indicates that it is "locked", and that I should ask here for an administrator to create the page so that I can put the relevant information there.

Thanks, Nandesuka (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as copyvio. /Lokal_Profil 00:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Global deleted image review

General heads up; the poll at m:Metapub#Global deleted image review (permalink) just closed as successful. Please keep an eye on m:Talk:Global deleted image review#time's up (or wherever that discussion moves to) for the next steps in this process. —Giggy 06:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Erase the file

Please erase the file Chiaroscuro.svg. He is unsuitable.--Kandi (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

user making racist comments, vandalizing, and using sockpuppets

user: Executioner often tries to delete or change images I upload. A few days ago he did it with his IP so that he doesn't get into trouble for it. I know that this is his his IP range because it is this IP that he uses when placing the images he uploads on Commons onto articles in EnWiki. Here is the diff where he tries to delete an image that I uploaded. Executioner often puts "cleanup" in his edit summaries, here he puts cleanup in the edit summary but does not do a cleanup at all. Instead he puts a deletion tag on the image. He has tried deleting images I upload many times. Also, just a few days ago he also made racist remarks about Persian-Iranian women basically calling them ugly on his talk page, see here. He clearly shows he is racist toward Iranian women so it makes sense that he would try to delete their images from Commons. Due to this evidence I am sure this IP is him vandalizing the image of the Iranian woman I uploaded. Editing with an IP is ok, but using your IP to get away with racism inspired vandalism is sockpuppetry. Le Behnam (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, I (of all administrators) got a duplicate of this on my user talk page. My proposal is to block both users for three months. Any objections? Involved parties need not comment. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd object, but I do wonder if such harsh measures are called for. BTW, I went through all upload by Le Behnam and I couldn't find any occasions of Executioner vandalizing images. As for IP's, I don't have CU rights. Samulili (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The users seem unwilling to stay away from one another in spite of numerous requests, and it's difficult to mediate in a conflict that's centred around something as pseudoscientific and fruitless as racialism and scientific racism. I'm personally not willing to spend more time trying to convince the users to end the disruption, but I'm open to other suggestions. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one classifying people with race or ethnicity. It is Excecutioner who is classifying people as Pashtuns and on a few occasions I've provided evidence that a few people were not Pashtuns and I removed the category. I don't see anything wrong with that. On one occasion I was asked by an admin to stop and I did stop, even though the evidence was in my favor. Le Behnam (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right, but I am certain that is his IP. Can an admin with CU rights please check? Thanks. Le Behnam (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:LX, why are you threatening of blocking me for 3 months? What did I do? I wrote to you nicely on my talk page that I want to be left alone, which means I am not interested in bothering anyone. After this, you decide to come here and make threats of blocking me for 3 months but refusing to explain the reasons. It is not my problem that another user reports me with false and bogus charges. Can you just do me a big favor and that is to avoid listening to what other users may say about me? Instead look for my wrong actions and point them out, or let another administrator who has a sense of understanding to decide what to do in this case. From what he has been writing to me and about me, I find that User:LX is very hostile to me because I have not done a single bad thing here and he/she wants to block me for 3 months. I find User:LX symphatic to Le Behnam. I am not here to start trouble with anyone but others are starting trouble with me. I have the right to revert obvious vandalism by any user here and should not be threatened or intimidated by administrators. Please try to treat me with respect here, without judging me by my race, skin color, nationality, ethnic background or other. I say all this because I made it clear to everyone what I am on my user page and someone is seeking to get me blocked for no good reasons. User:LX also wrote at the top, in his first message "Involved parties need not comment.", what kind of rule is that? If that's a rule then the first message by Le Behnam be removed because Le Behnam is the involved party. If his message is kept then I have the natural right to defend my self in any and every situation where there is false and bogus accusations against me.--Executioner (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: The last time User:Le Behnam contacted me was on June 25, 2008 [27] and since then I have not had any other messages from him/her so why is User:LX stating that "The user[s] seem unwilling to stay away from one another in spite of numerous requests"? I just want to say again to stop making false accusations against me, and if you want to block someone then that would be User:Le Behnam for failing to follow administrator Rocket000's final warning. [28], [29], [30]--Executioner (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That is strange to me is that you are suggesting blocking me for 3 months. Why would you do that? Because I placed this on your talk page? I placed it on your talk page because it was being ignored here. Also because you seemed familiar with Excecutioner. I don't see why anyone should be blocked for trying to get attention of an admin. And by the way, as we can see it worked, after I reached you this issue began to be discusses. Thanks for looking into this. Le Behnam (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Rocket000's warning to me was on that image, and I followed his warning and did not touch that image again even though the evidence was in my favour

You created that ethno-nationalistic page for Pashtuns, all the admins can see that. I removed Ahmad Zahir from there because there are major disputes and uncertainties over his ethnicity, not only here, but also on the EnWiki (link) and elsewhere, even among scholars. I am telling you that it is best to keep out his ethnicity since we don't know and he never declared his own ethnicity, but you insist on classifying him by ethnicity. Le Behnam (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(indent)I'm with LX, block both. Maybe 1 month would be enough, but I'm not objecting to 3. The comments made by involved parties here strenghtens my conviction that blocking is the only way out now. Finn Rindahl (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. Done, three months, which I think is probably overly optimistic, but if anyone thinks one months is better, go for it. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe there will be an outbreak of peace for a while. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

images by Michael Jay Williams (talk · contribs)

When I stumbled over image Image:Bilby.jpg I was surprised to read under Source "Own work - "This is my own photograph and can only be used for work on Wikipedia, if you want to use it elsewhere please ask through Wikipedia, remember always give credit. Thanks." [emphasis by me] for an image licensed by the uploader (and claimed author) under CC-By-SA-2.5 and GFDL. This restriction and the request to ask through Wikipedia IMHO is neither compatible with the license of that image nor with our policy. Furthermore, the uploader's request could hardly be complied with as he has no user page here and no link to a Wikipedia user page. At least on :en there is no User:Michael Jay Williams and I assume this one is not him. I was even more horrified to see that all (6) contributions of this user carry this license-incompatible request. It would be sad to loose this images. Any ideas? --Túrelio (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In between I've found that in once upon a time there was a User:Michael Jay Williams [31] an :en who requested a username change to en:User:The Pharmacist in 2006, but didn't edit there for more than a year. --Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That image is incompatible with COM:REUSE, and as the guy is pretty much inactive everywhere, I'll delete it. :-( I'll try and find some free replacement images via Flickr. —Giggy 02:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"can only be used for work on Wikipedia" is all you needed to see to delete it. I should mention it also had {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}. See Giggy, it wasn't just one case. Licenses don't mean anything anymore. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Quiet you! OK, all deleted. In all cases bar one, I found a free replacement and replaced it myself universally. Couldn't find a replacement for Image:Quenda.jpg anywhere (flickr included) unfortunately. —Giggy 03:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

www.davidrumsey.com

The above website has many old maps that have been scanned by the site owners, which are freely accessible. However they are licensing them under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license, which means they can't be used on the commons. However all the ones I have seen so far qualify for PD-Old or PD-Art. So I don't understand if it is OK to upload them here as PD for example ? Many users have already taken maps from this website, just search for "David Rumsey". Can we get into trouble for licensing these images under a free license, when the source clearly says non-commercial use only ? Jackaranga (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Rumsey seems to acknowledge that the material is in the public domain: "all pre-1923 material ... is clearly in the public domain (this is the case with almost my entire collection, fortunately)" but then states that "the vast majority of users respect our copyright and work with us to license the images."[32] I don't know if that's supposed to be a cop to section 105 copyright fraud, if he believes it's up to the user to judge whether or not the blanket copyright statement applies, or if he believes that they actually do hold the copyright for some reason. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean what is now Title 17 Chapter 5 § 506(C):

Fraudulent Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

Hm. That would form the basis of an interesting response to people who demand we label clearly PD works as copyright to them, "Sorry, but it would be a violation of §506 to make that claim when we know otherwise". :)

Cheers --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

On the removal of categories

The most recent discussion over at Commons:Village_pump#non-TOL_v._TOL.3B_categories_vs._galleries has inspired me somewhat. I believe we've tolerated the disruptive complete removal of categories for far too long now. So from this point forward I'm going to begin issuing warnings, followed by blocks, for users who persist in this disruptive behavior. I encourage other administrators to adopt a similar position. Hopefully I won't have to issue any blocks, but if I do, I hope and expect that I'll have the support of others here. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Good on ya mate. This has been going on for way too long. Hesperian 05:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been going on? And we put up with it? I certainly wouldn't have if I had seen this!  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 12:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, agree with the above. —Giggy 12:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes Mike, there was previously a "TOL" policy page that instructed people to do it, and for a long time TOL editors simply outnumbered anyone else who cared. :) In any case, their reason for doing it has merit, but that can be accomplished some other way. Seems clear enough to me that the winds have shifted enough on this issue. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything in its right place, and the right place is a category. Galleries are too much fuss to maintain. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to create and maintain galleries should be absolutely welcome to do so. However galleries are a secondary access/catalog mechanism, not a substitute for good categorization. Our primary mechanism for cataloging and aiding in finding is the consistent use of categories. I support Gmaxwell's efforts in this regard. Do we need some additional templates created, translated, and added to Commons:Message templates or do we think that those are enough? I am thinking that we need another one in the Process section with the title "Please do not remove images from categories" or similar. Note also that Bryan's category watching bot may be of some assistance... not sure exactly how but maybe? Lar: t/c 03:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

galleries are useful for provideing selected highlights or where the cat contains nothing but subcats.Geni (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, Geni. I LOVE galleries, they are teh awesome. I'm just saying that they are (now by defacto policy) not to be used as a primary classification scheme and presence in a gallery is not justification for removal of a category used for cataloging. Every image should be in at least one (or more) topical category. Removing images from categories without moving them to other topical categories should be considered a blockable offense. Hopefully it won't come to that but still. Lar: t/c 13:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree on both counts: the galleries are a good way to present files in a descriptive manner, but categories are by far the stronger tool for keeping things together and easily found. Full support on my end, Greg. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ho Hum - Images being de-cat'ed. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If "at least one category" has finally become policy then Commons:First steps/Sorting needs to be updated for all languages. /Lokal_Profil 19:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I took a cut at the en version (it had some other awkwardness in that section that I also tried to fix). Let's get that right and then get it translated... See you on the talk there? Lar: t/c 22:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: There is a lot of bio-material, which is now organized with species galleries only all linking to a higher level genus category. Material organized in good faith and without any conflict with other editors following long-standing instructions on COM:TOL. See for example: Category:Saxifraga. As I understand the (in my opinion premature) conclusion on this discussion, a non-tolerance policy to galleries only will now be reinforced. That means all the good faith work and organization, which has been made without controversy is now incorrect. (I am not speaking of brute force removing of existing cats, I agree this should not be accepted, and I have never done that.) What do you "always categorize" users envision should happen to these currently well organized genera cats? Should species categories be generated for all the species? Who is going to do that? I am not. Quite frankly, I feel alienated by this decision. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please prove that there is a particular paragraph of the Commons policy that declares that any image always, in any circumstance and without any exception must be categorised and prove that this paragraph is pointed out at any appropriate help page and upload form so that for any user clearly and without any doubt is visible how to act. As long as you can't prove that you should procede very carefully. -- Ies (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is premature to change Commons:First steps/Sorting. It gives the impression that this change is being imposed without the support of a significant portion of the community. It's only been 4 days since Bossi's brought this up on Village Pump. The matter is being discussed at Commons_talk:Categories_vs_Galleries. It's been debated for years. Why the rush to resolve it this week? Give people a chance to comment, please. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Walter Siegmund. I think that it is important to realise that today, we have a backlog in categorisation of many hundreds of thousands of images. Per day we seem to receive between 300 and 1000 uploads of uncategorised images. All this is well above our handling capacity so that we need to think on improving/simplifiying the categorisation/organisation process. One of the improvements is simpler and more consistent categorisation rules, partly subject and cause of this discussion here. --Foroa (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(reset tabs because my old eyes have trouble with that many colons) I think the issue here is the removal of categories, which Commons:Categories#Categories_in_Wikimedia_Commons does address. It's fine to make galleries, or to stay clear of the categorization system altogether, but one shouldn't remove them once they're there. Relpacing wider categories with a more specific one is certainly good, but simply removing the subject-matter category altogether is unhelpful. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it's meant to be a guideline on galleries, but the first couple sections on Commons:Galleries also deal with this. I wrote it thinking that the category part was already policy (at least that it's widely accepted that every image should be categorized). I haven't looked at Commons:Categories for awhile but it really needs to be redone. I think the outdated policy parts should simply be removed and the rest moved to the Help: namespace (or have we abandoned that namespace?), then start fresh with "the rules". Right now it's giving the wrong advice. Rocket000 (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We should keep an eye on the users listed at Commons:Categories vs Galleries#Any media may be removed from category, if in appropriate gallery. I still see categories being removed from pictures leaving them uncategorized. Multichill (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oy. I had a peek, not so much removing categories as removing templates requesting categories [33]. Leaving a note on Commons_talk:Categories vs Galleries about it now. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)