Commons:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:02, 9 May 2007

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

English: This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that need an administrator's intervention. This task used to be reserved for the Village pump, but it has become too full.

Deutsch: Dies ist eine Seite auf der Benutzer und Administratoren, oder Administratoren untereinander kommunizieren können. Du kannst hier Vandalismus, schwierige Benutzer oder andere Sachen, die den Eingriff eines Administrators benötigen, anzeigen. Eigentlich sollte man das im Forum machen, aber dieses quillt über.

Español: Este es el sitio destinado a que los usuarios puedan comunicarse con los administradores, o viceversa. Puede notificar un vandalismo, reclamar atención sobre usuarios problemáticos, o cualquier otra cosa que requiera la intervención de un administrador. Esta tarea estaba inicialmente reservada a Village pump, pero actualmente es demasiada. Si no entiende el inglés, puede utilizar Commons:Café, en donde se puede encontrar administradores hispanohablantes.

Français : Cette page est destinée à permettre aux utilisateurs et aux administrateurs de communiquer entre eux. Vous pouvez utiliser cette page pour signaler des actes de vandalisme, des utilisateurs au comportement problématique, ou tout autre fait nécessitant l'intervention d'un administrateur. La page Village pump avait initialement cette fonction, mais elle est devenue trop encombrée par les autres types de messages. Si vous ne maîtrisez que le français, la page Commons:Bistro reste cependant utilisable et vous y trouverez des administrateurs francophones.

日本語: このページは、管理者同士、あるいは、利用者ユーザがJA:管理者,EN：administratorsと連絡を取るための場所です。問題のあるユーザを報告したり、荒らしユーザを通報したり、管理者の協力や仲介を必要とする事項などにご利用ください。This Task used to be reserved for the JA:井戸端, EN:Village pump, but it has become too full.

Polski: Jest to miejsce, gdzie użytkownicy mogą kontaktować się z administratorami lub administratorzy ze sobą nawzajem. Możesz zgłosić tu akt wandalizmu, problematycznego użytkownika albo cokolwiek, do czego potrzebna jest interwencji administratora. Wcześniej służył do tego Commons:Bar, jednak szybko stał się przepełniony.

Italiano: Questa è la pagina dove gli utenti possono comunicare con gli amministratori, o gli amministratori fra loro. Puoi segnalare qui vandalismi, utenti problematici, e qualsiasi altra cosa richieda l'intervento di un amministratore. In precedenza per questo veniva usata la pagina Village pump, ma era divenuta sovraccarica.

Português: Este é o local no qual os usuários podem se comunicar com os administradores, ou onde os administradores podem conversar uns com os outros. Aqui você pode relatr casos de vandalismo, usuários problemáticos ou tratar de qualquer outro assunto que requeira a atenção de um administrador. Esta tarefa era destinada à Esplanada, mas ela ficou sobrecarregada.

Suomi: Tällä sivulla voit keskustella ylläpitäjien kanssa. Voit esimerkiksi ilmoittaa meneillään olevasta vandalismista, ongelmakäyttäjistä tai mistä tahansa muusta joka tarvitsee ylläpitäjien huomiota. Ennen Village pump (suom. Kahvihuone) hoiti myös nämä tehtävät mutta se kasvoi ajan myötä epäkäytännöllisen suureksi.

Abusive sock

This is Yamla from Wikipedia-en. Two requests. First, Verdict, a long-term abusive sockpuppeteer on Wikipedia-en, seems to have started up on Wikimedia as well. In this case, as Flash Fusion (talk · contribs). Please see the Wikipedia-en community noticeboard for more information. I am requesting (not demanding) that this user be blocked on Wikimedia Commons and the contributions deleted.

Second, it looks like someone here created an account, Yamla (talk · contribs). I am guessing they did so to impersonate me. Any possibility that I could claim that account as my own? If you wish to verify I am who I say I am, please go to my userpage and send me an email. Thanks, kind folks. --Yamla-en 20:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've renamed the impersonator and renamed Yamla-en to Yamla. You now own your account here. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 20:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated. --Yamla 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user, Flash Fusion, has continued uploading images which he knows are copyright violations. For example, Image:Brock Lesnar Shelton Benjamin OVW.jpg and Image:3046305 l.jpg where the user deliberately falsely claims he is the author of the work. He has a long history of these abusive actions on Wikipedia-en and is unlikely to stop here even if blocked. He's created more than seventy abusive sockpuppets on Wikipedia-en. --Yamla 05:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted both of those. You can tag any others that you spot with {{Copyvio}}. Jkelly 06:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posting to say that two of his photos that he claims looks to come from two different people. Image:Brock Lesnar WWE Champion.jpg comes from this page by a Finnish fan while Image:Wwe05-brock.jpg comes from this page by a Canadian fan. Meanwhile, Image:Benoit35.jpg comes from the page http://www.obsessed(removethis)with(removethis)wrestling.com/gallery/benoit-c.html (sorry about that, an unrelated vandal has helped put that website on spamblock) with the same number at the end. I'm not sure how I can claim this as copyvio due to the lack of image rights on the pages, but I'm just here to say what this guy's like. --Oakster 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This banned vandal is back as DLGP (talk · contribs). Additionally, Flash fusion made this personal attack. --Yamla 15:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flash fusion warned about attacking others - block should be the next move if this offense occurs again. Uploads look suspicious too --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a steward or checkuser passes by, I want to request a checkuser for DLGP (talk · contribs) and Flash Fusion (talk · contribs). -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If needed I'll second that request (on Wikibooks I'd have done it already <g>) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably back as Hctp (talk · contribs) -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that Flash Fusion (talk · contribs) is DLGP (talk · contribs), Kid 360 (talk · contribs) and DGP (talk · contribs) as well as one other account that has no contributions. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, blocked the sockpuppets and warned the user. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that as well as Verdict (talk · contribs). Yann 09:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reset

The account with no contribs probably should be blocked too (otherwise I imagine it may be used?). A name please Bastique (or a block) thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think socks should only be blocked if they are abused. So no block for my part. If this sock however will be used for abusive means, I will also block the main account for some time. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the abusive outburst on the user talk page I have blocked Flash Fusion for a couple of weeks - I had warned them --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)--Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back again uploading copyvios as MGAME (talk · contribs) (for extra proof of his identity, see his comments on Yamla's talk page). --Oakster 13:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not very helpful but I have few issues with blocking this user. However I am unsure what I would be blocking them for - copyvio, relatively short block or puppet, quite different. Hopefully someone else will pass and have a better view but I will watch --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extended block to 1 month. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has declared that he has no intention of abiding by his community ban on Wikipedia-en and will continue setting up sockpuppet accounts both there and, presumably, here. --Yamla 20:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep us informed - there is more than one of us watching this --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockaway (talk · contribs). --Oakster 10:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reset

Throw this one in too Datghettoplaya (talk · contribs), uploaded an identically named image a little before the one Oakster listed above which was deleted as copyvio. I think CU would be good to confirm that it would be appropriate to block both (no current activity on either) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I am after CU on these above & 213.113.231.164 (talk · contribs) seems involved. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead, blocked the users who uploaded those wrestling images and extended flash fusions block to a year. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

213.113.231.0/24 is confirmed to be used by this user on Wikipedia-en. However, these addresses are (presumably) used by other legitimate editors as well. This vandal generally uses TOR proxies to hide his address, though. I can provide a list of specific addresses in that range that have been used recently if necessary; 213.113.231.164 is one of them. I filed an abuse report with this user's ISP on Friday. --Yamla 15:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User is back as The DGP (talk · contribs), once again uploading images which have been previously deleted. --Yamla 22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked (CU would be good to confirm) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back as Hctp (talk · contribs). Blocked and deleted. Happy easter everybody. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back as Hctp9 (talk · contribs). Blocked again. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back as Coolkid00 (talk · contribs) --Oakster 09:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reset

Blocked --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what is wrong with this. Could somebody checkuser this, to see whether there are more socks active? -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been addditional recent edits? There were some technical problems that may possibly make it difficult to go too far back. But I'm happy to help if necessary, just drop me an email with the specific things you want to check and a few diffs as to why if you think sensitivity is required, or just give the new accounts you suspect here. Perhaps we need to start a more formal page to request these things? I'd hate to go as far in formality as en:wp's elaborate scheme but I fear missing these if we are not careful. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results

User FIX (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) found, blocked.
User Jfl01 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) found, blocked.
User Jflo (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) found, blocked.
User Goofeh (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) found, but already blocked by Bryan.
User Coolkid00 (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) found, already blocked by Herbythyme

Their contribs were deleted. Please advise of any issues or errors.++Lar: t/c 14:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the logs [1], TCO1 (talk · contribs) seems to be one to keep an eye on. --Oakster 16:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er - I'm not having a good day but can you explain the connection? ~~The user has no contribs (even I tend to hesitate blocking with no evidence!) and the link points to one I dealt with earlier?~~ Told you I was not having a good day - blocked --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MGAME420 (talk · contribs). --Oakster 12:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked based on contrib record. Am late for work, can someone else clean up the uploads if I don't get to them right away? I'll do a CU later if there's really a need (not sure there is) ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Cleaned" - may be worth a check but/as they do seem persistent --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goofeh2 (talk · contribs). -- Oakster Talk 09:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reset

Done Blocked & deleted - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction - for some reason I get some sort of scripting error deleting Image:LesnarBubba7.gif, will try later unless anyone else gets to it --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for asking again, but there's Predisposed (talk · contribs) as well. Pretty sneaky. -- Oakster Talk 10:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done blocked & deleted. Persistent lot - if I were you I'd fill in a CU request to see if there is an underlying ip? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The slight problem is that over at the English Wikipedia the range of IP addresses from his ISP has been blocked and and despite that he's gone past them with open proxies. I'm not quite sure if he uses the same here or not. -- Oakster Talk 11:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unfree flickr images

What to do with flickr images which are unfree if i check they immediately after uplaod? I think they are candidates for speedy deleteion, right? Follow images uploaded by User:FlickrLickr today are not free:

--GeorgHH 17:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FlickrLickr shouldn't be uploading anything but CC-BY images. Something has gone wrong here. Jkelly 18:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of FlickrLickr images comes from a Flickr API request for CC-BY images. User:Eloquence can clarify, but the query has either been done once, long ago, or sometimes, but not during review or on upload. When a volunteer reviews the proposed images, the license status may already have been changed, and again when the batch of images is uploaded here. Our trust in the Flickr review process is based on a partly automated one-off verification of license status, and while FlickrLickr is equally a one-off process, the license verification is totally automated. It would perhaps be nice if the FlickrLickr script rechecked the license during FlickrLickr review and/or on upload, but unnecessary when we rely on the "once free, always free" principle. --Para 18:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange case. It's very odd that the images changed license the same day they were uploaded. It could be coincidence, but it might be a good idea to have see what Eloquence has to say, whether or not this could be a bug. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misread; the license is not verified on the day of upload, but at some earlier time, very likely long ago. While it's possible that the licenses changed on the day of upload, it probably really happened weeks or months ago. --Para 23:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Once free, always free" isn't quite accurate. As the CC FAQ says, you can't revoke the license that someone else received your image under, but you can change the license that you distribute it under. FlickrLickr should only upload images under the license that it itself receives the image under, which would be the license on the page at the time FlickrLickr downloads it, not the license that was there some time in the past.

BTW, I found another one - Image:Small-aricraft.jpg; it's not just the Wimbledon photos. --Davepape 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True true. Having helped with FlickrLickr review, it seems it's only downloading the images from Flickr when it's told to upload a batch here, even though the authors may not be distributing them with cc-by anymore. FlickrLickr only needs to be fixed to mirror all the result images then, though about 93% of them will go to waste. Or is that unethical, and should it instead recheck the license when a human reviewer finds an image useful? --Para 23:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Flickr-change-of-license exists specifically for Flickr images whose license has been changed by the uploader. See the FAQ on User:FlickrLickr.--Eloquence 21:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted before being used, I am the flicklickr of this set of pics (attributed 8+ months ago but reviewed only last days by lazyness :*). Greudin

Wikipedia FP vandalism

Image:Plunging bronco, Bar Diamond Bar range.jpg is the Picture of the Day on Wikipedia and it is being vandalized by User:HatesWM2. If it was on Wikipedia I'd block him, but I just have to keep reverting. Please do something!--HereToHelp (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A local copy has been uploaded to en:. I've deleted the vandal revisions here and protected the image. Jkelly 03:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please remember that at en.wikipedia, you do have the quicker option of temporarily downloading an image that is appearing on your main page, using en:Template:C-uploaded. Thanks. Zzyzx11 03:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cup and trophy

In the Commons:Deletion requests#March_31, ther is a lot of cups and trophies propose to deletion by Thugchildz (talk · contribs) with this argument : Same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cricket World Cup trophy.png; in violation of Commons:Derivative works. So could I delete all ? VIGNERON * ^discut. 07:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user that nominated them is "unhappy" because one of the pictures he took from a cup were deleted. So I would not trust his judgement. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what's the difference beetween the deleted cup(s) and the keeped ones ? VIGNERON * ^discut. 10:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vigneron, as I understand it, the image Thugchildz uploaded was from Flickr. It was confirmed via correspondence with the Flickr uploader that he or she picked the image off of the Internet and was indeed not the rights owner. It was thus a violation of the copyright of some unknown individual. I originally thought any image of a trophy would be an un-free derivative work, but User:Rtc and User:Lupo corrected me. Relevant discussion can be of course found at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cricket World Cup trophy.png but also at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 4#Urgent: Potential copyvio but I cannot tag the image because it is a protected page. It seems I created an unwarranted rush to delete all trophy images. Regards, --Iamunknown 03:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious Ferrol activity

I worked with Commons:Welcome log/04/7/2007 and noticed several users (Ferroliño, MGPita, Javy Rodeiro, The WiZaRD, J. Luis Suarez, Druida Artabro, Pablo Cinza) who upload Ferrol-related images. All images uploaded as {{PD-self}} and lacks EXIF info. Description contains only Category:Ferrol. I think CheckUser will be very useful. --EugeneZelenko 15:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been looking into this. Thank you for the report, you've done a good job. My findings will be posted later. --Gmaxwell 19:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And User:Daniel Santos too. Descriptions are different, but EXIF still missing. --EugeneZelenko 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new "Clean the Commons!" project

Dear admins/sysops,
a list of images from the Commons that have no copyright tag is available in the "Clean the Commons!" project. It's a small project based on the Polish-language Wikipedia version. In few words: I've created the list using Duesentrieb's Untagged Images tool – now we have to check it section by section basing on this directives. Every pair of hands would be very helpful. Regards, /odder 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persian miniatures

Someone doesn’t like Persian miniatures. --Polarlys 22:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic lab

The Graphic Lab and the Graphic Village Pump aim to transform Commons from an uploaders' community to a true working graphist community, based on the four graphic skills and interests categories.
This project is in the beginning stages: please talk everywhere about it. Feel free to request image improvements and technical explanations. Active contributors are also really needed to lead the project too. All help is welcome to do this important turn !

Yug (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded and pasted for Yug by -- Editor at Large • talk 09:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need to put a link in the navigation box

This turn will also need to add the link "Graphic Village Pump" in the navigation box, just under the Wimedia Logo (top lef). The current Village pump will then be divide into 2 new willage pump :

Current Commons:Village pump : will become the "Legal forum and general issues"
Commons:Graphic Village Pump : will host all technical graphic talks, as may headline "Here we talk how to draw/make files (on various softs and free formats)"

I ask here the agreement of the community. Please state your agreement or opposition for this idea to add a link such "Graphic Village Pump" in the navigation box : more support we have, faster we will be able to do this. (and more efficient we will be) Yug (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Because of my final exam, I go to a wikibreak and will not answer easily. Factual & current leader, see Editor at Large • talk[reply]

Support - I think commons have all the tools in hand to do this move, add this link is need. Yug (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tom Denham

If someone could check out this user's contributions... looks fishy to me. Several photos, obviously professionally done of a model. Why would these be donated to the public domain? Also, the model is a minor and her name is given, which could be problematic... I would at least like to see some indication that the minor's guardians have signed off on that. One of the pictures has already been used for borderline trolling on the English Wikipedia. Herostratus 02:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the source-link of the images: you can see that the updater is 'belginusanl'. And surprisingly (sarcasm), thats User:Belginusanl, a user that's been blocked under various account on en.wp, for continiously uploading pictures of minors. --Tuvic 10:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which Herostratus probably knew... see [2] or also en:User talk:Jessica93. I don't know why this guy insists of uploading these images to any other photography site on the Internet (e.g. [3] (with a scan of a model release) or [4], or just Google for "belginusanl"). He's also known at the Dutch Wikipedia. (See nl:Overleg gebruiker:Lynn20 and nl:Overleg gebruiker:Belginusanl.) It appears to be always the same: he uploads his images of minors, gets told that we don't want them, and then starts sockpuppeting. Lupo 12:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why either, but I'm getting pretty tired of reverting this guy every 2 weeks. He's quite persistant. --Tuvic 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reset

Looking at the WP page I've indef blocked this user. I consider that they are attempting to evade the WP block by coming here. Someone with more knowledge should look at the pictures. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at this, what about Special:Contributions/Vipperman? At least there the identity of the girls is not revealed... yet where's the model release? Lupo 14:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, kill them both. Same as this one. --Gmaxwell 15:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not this guy again... -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denham's images are protected against recreation now and both these users are indef'd --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I unprotected one of the images and watchlisted it. Is handy to see when he has returned. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symode09

User:Symode09 seems to be a chronic copyvioer. [5] and [6]. Can someone verify the authenticity of his other uploads? 24.76.121.182 07:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's also linking to [7] in his signature, which seems inappropriate; note also the Wikinews trademark vio that seems to be present there. I don't know. 24.76.121.182 07:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now archved at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive81#User:Symode09. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch of Shuppiluliuma socks

All uploads are copyvios, please purge with fire. See earler report here: [8]

Thanks, --Future Perfect at Sunrise 22:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you might want to hold off deleting them for the moment, because I'm currently hoping to get in contact with the actual photographers / copyright holders and negotiate a proper release after all. Future Perfect at Sunrise 20:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could well be another one User:Mehmet Kerem Tuncay --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is. I have now finally been in contact with the real people behind all this and am confident the licensing is actually genuine. So please just let them be. There are two photographers involved here, one Asim K. and one Kerem Tuncay, who are close real-life friends; the user who did the uploads is actually Asim, speaking on behalf of his friend, but I have trustworthy confirmation that the other guy is also real and agrees with everything. The user is formally still banned on enwiki, for a variety of other reasons, but we are sort of informally tolerating him as long as he edits constructively; the images are okay and many of them are actually quite a valuable addition to the Istanbul articles. Future Perfect at Sunrise 14:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:213.199.192.60

block. --Rtc 12:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was already blocked by me, but he is unblocked now and makes his holy war once again....

I confess I am tempted (I've never been described as patient!). I sort of hope he will get bored and give up - I think I'll go place a note on his talk page. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which reads as follows (the answers provided as well):

Can I ask you to stop editing, marking things for deletion and trying to change licenses? Your actions are beginning to try the patience of a number of people on Commons myself included. Please go away and take some time to reflect on what you really want to do rather than continually changing things. If you do not I may well find myself forced to block your IP which I would prefer not to do. Please do not start editing my talk page either as I will merely remove your comments. Take some time - reflect and consider whether your actions really help your cause --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the Commons user I have all the rights to the things I am doing. You tried my patience as well. My talking with you is over. Bye! --213.199.192.60 12:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making these two deletion-requests pages are my FINAL DECISIONS.. I am looking forward to their final output (opinions of the Commons administrators and the final resolution of these two requests. Bye, Bye! --213.199.192.60 12:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placed and signed by: --213.199.192.60 14:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, these decisions of mine will not 'close my mouth' if I notice my word crucial.. The threatening and the actions of closing mouths is practiced only, and, thus, reserved both to the Commons and Wikipedia projects administrators. --213.199.192.60 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth

Before i beginn to clean up - Am i right that Google Earth images are not allowed on commons? E.g. Image:Immagine sat treppio.JPG says its in the public domain because it was created by NASA?! --GeorgHH 14:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Look at the image. It got (C) DigitalGlobe and (C) Google. As neither parts are releasing their images under a free license the images are not allowed.

Such images should therefore be considered violations of copyrights. --|EPO| 14:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use NASA's WorldWind! pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like images created with WorldWind are covered by Template:PD-USGov-NASA. See also: w:NASA World Wind and NASA World Wind homepage. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

Could you please block user:155.232.128.10, who is stalking me (diff) from Wikispecies, where I recently blocked him/her (block log). Thanks Lycaon 12:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Attention#block_request --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to abandon {{Copyvio}}

The category for speedy deletion candidates is not working very well. The big problem is that many images require the deleting admin to speak a foreign language, or that the image comes from a website that the uploader might be the manager of, or that they are coat of arms, the copyright status of which depends on the country the arms are from. This leaves many images just hanging in the category, with admins looking at them and going by them, as they cannot determine if they are truly copyright violations. Currently they are over 100 files listed in Category:Copyright violation.

I would like to abandon the {{Copyvio}} template as it is too often used incorrectly. Pages can be listed as obvious copyvios, but if the reviewing admin doesn't speak the necessary language, he can't well delete it.

I think it would be better to list even "obvious" copyright violations at Commons:Deletion requests. If an admin determines that they are really obvious, he can speedy delete them at sight and close the deletion request.

Another benefit of this is that all admins then only need to monitor one page, for example admins with special knowledge of copyrights, or admins that speak Spanish/Portugese.

I think that the {{Logo}} and {{Badname}} templates should still remain though.

What do you others think of this suggestion? Do you have any other suggestions on how to tackle the Copyvio-problem? Or do you perhaps think that the current system is functioning well?

Fred Chess 18:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current system is ok. But when a file is longer marked as copyvio and nobody is able to delete it, the file should listed on Commons:Deletion requests. --GeorgHH 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Mostly the system works well, and when I check there are often no files at all to deal with, except those that I can't tackle because of a language barrier or a lack of knowledge of some local law. Those 'hard' files aren't a problem with the system, though - they will always be hard (more admins wth good language skills would be useful). The copyvio approach isn't always used correctly, agreed, but at least it's pretty easy, and forcing users to post at Commons:Deletion requests would I expect result in many more errors, especially by new users. The problem to my mind is the residue of 'hard' files that never get looked at and, as GeorgHH has proposed, I think those should be moved across to Commons:Deletion requests. Would it be possible for one of our coding experts to write a bot that takes any files still awaiting speedy deletion after say seven days and opens a deletion request for them? --MichaelMaggs 19:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome "a bot [functionality] that takes any files still awaiting speedy deletion after say seven days and opens a deletion request for them". Such a bot functionality (that is, a capability of an existing or new bot) would bring those files to the attention of more people. Of course, use of {{Abstain}} with verbiage like "due to a language barrier - I do not understand the X Language" or "due to lack of knowledge of local law Y" would help to focus the attentions of the few that do "understand the X Language" or do "know local law Y". — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I agree that the copyvio template has its merit. I think the suggestion bot solution would be useful. / Fred Chess 18:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All we need now is someone to volunteer to do it. GMaxwell? Bryan? Anyone? --MichaelMaggs 16:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a good idea, but I would not list the images in the normal deletion request procedure. I think a page similar to that of the superseeded images is better, since I don't expect that many comments on copyvios. I will hapilly create such a bot, however after I have finished Flickr stuff I am busy with and have done something about the archival of COM:UDEL. If nobody picks it up the next month, I'll see what I can do. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have this template and i suggest it should placed a link to it on Help:Contents and Commons:Help desk and the administrators add Category:Wikimedians looking for help to their watchlist. Or do you think we have enough help places on commons, and can remove this template? --GeorgHH 17:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears not to be used anyway. Michelet-密是力 17:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is see reason for my question. It was created 4. April 2007 and i am not sure we will use this template. --GeorgHH 18:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it some time to be used, then, or? Michelet-密是力 18:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could add a tie-in so that when someone puts helpme it sends a message out to the IRC channel like on en.wiki? MECU≈talk 19:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Helpme}} has said "IRC channel is notified that editor added it on Helpme." since it was created at 15:08 on 4 April 2007 (UTC), but as that creation was a copy from en:w, there is no guarantee that the bot that does the notification for en:w also does it for Commons, or that a similar bot does the same job. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add it to Template:Welcome? MECU≈talk 23:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAHHHHHHHHH. How about we choose whether or not we want to import ideas wholesale from Wikipedia???? Just because it was created (as someone's first edit here, no less) doesn't mean we have to use it. We could make it a link which redirects to the Help desk. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it to the Help desk. The lack of enthusiasm evidenced here suggests that it would not elicit a prompt response. Wsiegmund 04:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really see the point of it personally. Between Village pump, Help desk and these admin boards there are plenty of places that folk can ask for help (equally a talk page). Being tolerant of folk (to start with at least!) seems to cover most things - just my 0.02 --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary here; the help desk and other places on Wikipedia people ask for help are overcroweded, over-edited, and subject to frequent vandalism, but here we don't have those problems and people are likely to get a semi-immediate response. Plus, having the question in a "public" place rather than on a talk page allows the community to help and give their two cents rather than just whoever happens to catch the person when they show up in the category. -- Editor at Large • talk 09:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your opinions! I have redirected it to the Commons:Help desk now. --GeorgHH 16:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage for CheckUser requests?

Maybe it's just me but I am seeing an upswing in, and perhaps there might be a need for a subpage to collect, CheckUser requests. Right now they are getting scattered across /Vandalism, /Attention, user talk pages, etc... if people feel that it would be worth trying out, I'd create the subpage, change the navbar menu, and set up the bot archiving tags... again, I don't think we want the formalism that w:WP:RFCU has but some structure might be helpful. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 16:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up a page is probably a good idea, since we seem to get plenty of requests, but it should be somewhere totally separate (like COM:CHU is), since it's only relevant to CUs and not most admins. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

editconflict Good idea, makes it also more likely for a request to be noticed. (Note that there is no such thing as an archiving bot for the AN, I have been doing it most of the time...) -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a problem is that effectively the requests often turn up on one of the other pages so someone will still have to put a note on the new page whatever happens (not that it is not a good idea tho) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a messaging problem, we already have some directive notes in the navbar template... this would need more of the same I guess, but yes, some redirection may happen and it would be an issue. That's separate from where the page should live. (On reflection I can see putting it in a separate page like CHU, rather than a subpage of here, it is not a big deal to me on that). ++Lar: t/c 17:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with the separate page btw - given recurrent bad behavior it would be far easier to find previous postings --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requests_for_checkuser (below, until one or both of these get archived), a variant of this suggestion was implemented by someone more helpful and diligent than me. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

marking Wikipedia featured articles

A question: in the wikipedias is a tool, that mark featured articles in other wikipedias with an icon left side the other languages box. Why is this not available on commons? An example: Haematopus ostralegus on commons and en:Eurasian Oystercatcher on en.wiki. On en.wiki you see the yellow star left from Deutsch, but not on commons. --GeorgHH 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

orphan talk pages

Hello, with an agony's tool I create a page with some orphane talk pages, could be a good things? --dario vet (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful! Thankyou. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned to Duesentrieb, who suggested that a bot could go around and move the text on the talk page to the deletion subpage (if it exists, otherwise create a new one) and then they could be deleted. The problem with talk pages of deleted images is that generally the info relates to the deletion in one way or another; this info should be made available somewhere in case it is needed and having to bother an admin to look at the deleted page is a pain. The list is currently close to 2000 and quite a few have already been deleted; some discussion on this matter (do we have a policy on deletion of orphaned image talk pages?) might be advised before deletion is completed. -- Editor at Large • talk 03:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, it will be far more efficient to delete everything, and discuss the matter again if needed, which should'nt be that often. Anyway, can't the discussion pages be restored? Michelet-密是力 04:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Editor at Large, what do you write it's ok "do we have a policy on deletion of orphaned image talk pages?" but we can archive the orphan talk pages, for example we could change the information with a worning template, or we could use a bot to delete al the page, all IMHO --dario vet (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Guide to adminship

I have started working on this page (it's in my userspace for now). I haven't written anything about deletion yet, which is probably the most relevant and important component of adminship on Commons. Please edit it as you see fit or make suggestions, I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff I've overlooked. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to rename a page?

Commons doesn't have (easy to find) equvialent of en CfD/CfR. Category:Categories that should be renamed has no main page; is the only hit for 'rename' on Category:Commons maintenance, and Commons:Deletion requests doesn't recognize the word 'rename'. Please make some redirects and such so people familiar with en wiki can propose a categories for renaming: currently, I give up.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikimedia Commons is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikimedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. ;) Yonatan ^talk 00:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is we mostly call it "move" a category instead of "rename". Anyway this will help you: User:Orgullobot/commands/documentation#Rename_a_category. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories requested for renaming can be found under Category:Requested moves; to add a category you can use the {{Move}} template with the following syntax; {{move|<destination page>|<reason>|<date>}}. This is usually for categories where renaming is not immediately obvious; obvious ones can be moved by Orgullobot. -- Editor at Large • talk 14:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx. I strongly suggesting adding the above text to a few places, and creating a redirects with 'rename' or 'move's in names.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayk

I would appreciate if anyone could help resolve the problems that I have with User:Hayk. He persistently tries to delete this image: Image:Bey from Karabakh.jpg. He was chasing it at Russian wiki, and after I moved it here he tries to have it deleted from here as well. This image is used in a number of articles about Nagorno-Karabakh region in various language Wikipedias, and in my understanding it is just an attempt to cleanse Wikipedia of certain info. This image is a reproduction of painting by 19th century Russian artist, and thus it is PD in the US and other countries, as the author dies more than 100 years ago. PD-art tag clearly says:

This image is a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art and thus not copyrightable in itself in the U.S. as per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.; the same is also true in many other countries, including Germany. The original two-dimensional work shown in this image is free content because: This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years. Therefore, this reproduction is also subject to the same terms as the original work.

I would appreciate an admin intervention to stop the edit warring and attempts for deleting the image by Hayk. --Grandmaster 05:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is: no source. Where does this image come from? Have you taken the photograph yourself, or is a file copied on the net (and where?) Michelet-密是力 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are this information required? In that case we should delete many other {{PD-Art}} images. --EugeneZelenko 14:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check all the files in the Category:Grigory Gagarin and tell me which one has properly identified the source and demonstrated that the uploader has a right to use it in Wikipedia. Thanks. --Grandmaster 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes per COM:L#License Information. Also (possibly) per ongoing discussion at Template talk:PD-old. --Iamunknown 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that in using PD-Art you are impliedly saying that the original painting is PD-Old, and so far you have given no basis for that assertion. You need to state, at the very least, who the painter was and when he died. If you don't know, you need to state your evidence for believing the artist must have died long enough ago for it to be PD. For example, what was the date of publication of the book from which you scanned it (assuming that's how you got the image). If the book was itself very old, you may be ok. But more detail is needed. --MichaelMaggs 17:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The info about the artist was there. File was linked to the articles about Grigory Gagarin both in English and Russian wikipedias. And I can provide info about the book it was scanned from, it was published in 1840. I just note that no other file with paintings of this artist provides such info. Check this, for example: Image:Vagharshapatpillaged.jpg It should be deleted for the same reason as my image was deleted. --Grandmaster 04:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, IMHO the information about the artist seems OK (you could have added the year of death, but the link gives that). This settles indeed the discussion as far as artistic property is concerned (=PD-old). The problem raised here is that of file origin (the .jpg thing), which may cause other kind of legal problems, linked to real property of the painting, incorporeal property of the file, and/or sui generis laws on database copying. ♦ You pointed out that most of the files in that category had not the information here required. Indeed, but this was probably an error: IMHO, it should have been required. The concern about these other rights emerged after most of them were uploaded, and this information has not been required on WP at that time. ♦ Now, since you uploaded the file, providing the information should not be that difficult, what is the problem? Michelet-密是力 05:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy that the image was deleted so fast. I'm not watching the files I upload here on a regular basis, so I became aware of the problems with User:Hayk a bit late. Plus, I see a problem with the way this person tries to delete images related to Azerbaijani people, but is not so picky when it comes to images related to Armenian people. Out of all images by Gagarin he picked this particular one, and I don't think it was just a coincidence. I don't think that this is a proper place for such biased approach. I just want things like that never happen again. Thanks for your comments. --Grandmaster 05:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TINC ;o) Michelet-密是力 07:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the image Bey_from_Karabakh.jpg was removed from commons user Grandmaster uploaded it again, mentioning its source as "Scenes de paysages moeurs et costumes de Caucase. Paris, Lemercier, 1840" (then he changed the year to 1845). However, at least two other internet sources claim that the book was published in 1847. Hence the question: if the member, who uploaded the picture cannot provide his source, how does he know that image caption/description?

At first I tried to find out the source myself, but I couldn't. As for the Grandmaster first he tried to remove {{Nsd}} template in ru.wiki without enough reasons, then he uploaded the image onto Commons, where he again rolled back {{Nsd}} template.

Also I contacted the owner of the book "Scenes de paysages moeurs et costumes de Caucase. Paris, Lemercier, 1847", who confirmed that there is no such illustration in the given book.

Allegations that I "chase" Azerbaijan-related images are groundless. I have added the {{Nsd}} and {{Nld}} templates to many more Armenian images, which were later removed from ru.wiki --Hayk 18:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Juan de Vojníkov

Well, could you tell me, when this account was created. It is highly not probable, that someone logged under same name. I try to do this today, but unsuccefull. Maybe I did it in the past an forgot my password. Thats why. w:en:user:Juan de Vojníkov

See [9] October 7, 2006. I hope it's not you because then you uploaded a penis picture the next day. MECU≈talk 18:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I remeber that. I was elected an admin on cs and in short time my user name was attacted here and on en.--193.84.33.171 14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an attack account that you can probably supersede if you register and ask on COM:CHU. Yonatan ^talk 18:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it is a way how to get that account?--193.84.33.171 14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a bureaucrat on COM:CHU. Yonatan ^talk 14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License term, free enough?

Would "Copywrited free use provided that our name appears with the logo and its use is not detrimental to our organization." be free enough for us? Specifically, I'm asking about the usage "not detrimental to our organization". MECU≈talk 18:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with no. There are already laws which govern the field of libel and slander. That should not be part of a license. If it is trying to prohibit legal (freedom of speech) but unpleasant (for the copyright holder) use of the images it cannot be considered free. --Dschwen 18:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't like the "detrimental to..." part. Yonatan ^talk 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for checkuser

We haven't had a page for this which caused requests to be scattered all over the place so I created COM:RFCU which is a de-bureaucrified version of en:WP:RFCU. Please fix it up so it's good or if you think it isn't a good idea let me know. Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 18:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I was gonna get to this, honest (See above where I ask about doing it). You beat me to it. Well done. Perhaps we should move recent completed ones there. Also it's probably worth linking to from various places. Thanks for the page! ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I took a look. I was thinking just one page but you've imported the entire mechanism for making standardised format requests en masse, including the supporting templates and everything. Wow!!!! Much more comprehensive than what I had in mind. I did a little tweaking to remove mention of clerks and of code letters (leaving original stuff commmented out when it made sense to do so...) at the following pages:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox just a nit, Commons:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample (remove clerks and code letters), Commons:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Header/Instructions (remove clerks and code letters), Commons:Requests for checkuser/Header (revise to remove code letters and clerks)... please take a peek and LMK if you spot anything off. Perhaps we should try putting one of the older requests into this format as a test? ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a better idea to continue on the talk page? -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Developers

Is there anyone on the commons who is a developer? Where would I find them? —talk to symode09's 08:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Gmaxwell (talk · contributions · Move log · Statistics · logs · block log) is one of the most prominent Commons users that has the developer bit, and I believe there are others. The best place to find devs is probably on the IRC channels #wikimedia-commons or #mediawiki... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

another channel would be #wikimedia-tech. Cbrown1023 talk 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old large versions of SVG

The following list shows all SVG-images, where old versions have one or both sides with a defined length of more than 32767 pixels. Because this images create errors in the browser by clicking them on the imagedescriptionpage, (direct view), it will be helpfull to delete those old versions (only the old versions, please). Can a administrator do so ? Augiasstallputzer 07:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with keeping the older versions? They may break a browser, but someone may find it useful. MECU≈talk 14:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What browser(s) do they break, in what ways? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In use in the Projects, there is no optical difference between the versions. If someone wants to print, he need to download and to scale with absolute measures in the svg-Tag (inches or metric), equal what is in the uploaded versions. Therefore, there cannot be any advantage to keep the versions with hazardous syntax. Augiasstallputzer 20:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please list at Commons:Deletion requests. Please do not debate this further here. / Fred Chess 11:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry, I now realize what the problem is. Well, it should be non-controversial to delete the older revisions then? / Fred Chess 18:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cascading protection for images

Bearing bad news - this may well not be working m:Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#WM:SALT_issue_.26_uploaded_graphic explains what happened on Meta with a bug report filed apparently. Probably not worth removing the pages from protection so that when the bug is fixed they will be protected but it probably doesn't work at present --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it certainly was working when it was implemented. I tried uploading to a page salted in this manner before with a non-sysop account and got the "protected page" warning. However, seems to not be working now...--Nilfanion 12:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And frustratingly leaves an "ordinary" user unable to mark it for deletion - worst of both worlds!! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this application was broken by whatever change(s) caused this bug (the report of which was prematurely closed by a developer who misunderstood its nature and hasn't responded to my messages). —David Levy 00:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

another bug report was already filed ([10]) but nothing has occurred as of yet with it. Cbrown1023 talk 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just chatted with Voice of All (the developer that I'd been attempting to contact) via IRC and cited that bug report. He said that he's been looking into the problem, but when he tried to duplicate it during our conversation, he found that it evidently was resolved in the latest version of MediaWiki. (He doesn't know how, and he thinks that he may have accidentally fixed it while working on something else.) —David Levy 02:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to check if my photos were deleted?

Is it possible to see a list of user's deleted contributions? I was looking through my gallery and I a large number of photos I think I have uploaded in one specific period (November last year) are not there... If admin's access is requited, can I ask for a list of my deleted uploads to be delivered to my talk page? Thank you.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted contributions are not viewable, however deleted uploads still appear in Special:Log/upload. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor: oh, I see, upload log will also show the uploaded and deleted ones, too?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeps, in red. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey about Commons on Swedish Wikipedia

A survey on Swedish Wikipedia about Commons showed:

The support of Swedish is considered sufficient, but many users still use English in their settings.
How to tag images for deletion is considered complicated; with Deletion Request being too instruction packed
It is perceived that Commons has increasing copyright paranoia, for example deleting images without notification
The mix of categories and galleries is considered confusing, but it isn't a crucial issue.

(full answers - in Swedish - copied to User:Fred Chess/survey)

Fred Chess 08:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, Fred!

How many users were surveyed? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool idea. Could we get the questions translated in English, so we could ask the same questions on en.wiki? MECU≈talk 14:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you appreciate it.

There weren't that many people participating. I just posted at the Village Pump, asking for opinions... six people gave there their opinions. The village pump is quite frequested, so I guess the others just agreed with those who responded. The last person who responded actually only said "I agree with Grillo".

MECU: I basically just asked for their opinions, but did suggest these questions:

A question about the support of the Swedish language (not relevant for English Wikipedia)
If they perceive they have difficulties in understanding how to tag their images correctly
If they perceive to have difficulties in other areas, such as categorizing their images
A question on Swedish help pages (not relevant for English Wikipedia)
If they wanted more help texts or information about anything on Commons.

Fred Chess 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just wrote something relating to surveying... pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing

If I would like to use a picture from this site in a presentation, how would I cite it in a bibliography?

You need to comply with the license terms on the specific image. Is there an image or two that you specifically are looking at? We can help you better with specific image information. MECU≈talk 19:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Images.jpg protection

Image:Images.jpg has been deleted 19 times In the past 10 months. Can we protect this somehow so it doesn't keep getting used and abused? (I'm a noob admin, so I don't know how.) MECU≈talk 19:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have uploaded the message Please use a more precise name for your image. and protected the file. --GeorgHH 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same to Image:Logo.jpg. At least, I think I protected it. MECU≈talk 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been here for a while. My opinion is:

It's not a big deal, but it seems reasonable to protect it.

Fred Chess 22:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming copyright.

Image:PaulBoateng20050515 CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg claims copyright, both in the image title and on the page, yet also claims GNU FDL and CC-BY-SA. Can these actually all co-exist? --82.45.253.226 12:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Every image is copyrighted. The license just states how the copyright holder has given permission for us and others to use it. The copyright holder should be given on all images. MECU≈talk 12:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete upload information

Since a few days the number of new uploaded files without any information is extreme increased. Examples of last five hours:

Image:Marcos Kraide.jpg - new user User:Kraide
Image:Tamer Nafar.jpg - new user User:Longjohnsilver
Image:HIVT.jpg - new user User:Ae0089 - four files
Image:800px-Elements of a tampon with applicator.jpg - new user User:Majorgaby - four files
Image:Fotoecsbinterno.jpg - new user User:Maryaguillon - three files
Image:IVStas Wejscie.jpg - new user User:Mrozu sc - four files
Image:TUCPamplona18.GIF - User:Daviddemiguel
Image:Point-OndashiStyle.jpg - User:Greenland4

All files have the {{Information}} but not filled in the informations.

What can we do to decrease the numbers of such useless files before they are uploaded? Most of this inaccurate files are uploaded by new users, can it be that the upload form is to difficult, need new users more or other instructions? --GeorgHH 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The empty information template is a new feature, see MediaWiki talk:Common.js. It could be possible to check onSubmit whether the description box still has its default value, and then automatically add {{Nld}}. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detailing a P-47

Hi I am in the process of building a 1/5 scale p-47, I need the size of the formation lites lense dia, and the bezel dia, The drawings that I have are reprints and do not show them.

Any help would be appetitated.

Please E-mail me @ [email protected]

Bob t

Andrew Campbell's own works do not belong here

The user Artforum seems to be putting up a little gallery of his own art. Whether or not he's released these under the GPL, these images are not "potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project (e.g. art by unknown artist)." Indeed, Andrew B. Campbell entirely matches the exempli gratia: he's not notable at all. Without notability, his artwork does not belong on the wikimedia commons.

As indicated on his talk page, Campbell's been warned about sloppy uploading before. Even though I've been the only one to specifically nominate his work for deletion because of lack of usability/notability, I think he's been persistent enough in uploading his work (at least twenty of them) that he should get at least a temporary ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.236.95 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-made"

I dropped by today to up-load an image, and found that I happened to be just in time to save an earlier image (Image:Another corner.JPG) from deletion. It had had a {{No license}} tag added, and two identical notices left at my Talk page by Loco085 (talk · contribs) (they don't show up as I have a redirect [that doesn't work] — the edit was this one). His Talk page seems to be filled with messages from people whio have also had self-made images deleted or threatened with deletion. Is there something that we're all missing – some extra notice that should have been added to our up-loads – or is Loco085 misapplying a policy, or what? I've not had this problem with other images that I've up-loaded here. Advice/help/ illumination received with thanks. --Mel Etitis 21:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that I'd let people know that I'm bending over ready for six strokes of the cane; I'd somehow left off the license. I don't know how — I've not done it before.

(While I'm waiting for the first stroke to descend, could I ask if there's a way (that works) to redirect a Talk page here to a Talk page at the English Wikipedia? --Mel Etitis 21:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The syntax "#REDIRECT [[w:User talk:Mel Etitis]]" is valid, but it appears cross-project redirects are not allowed, sorry. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we're all human (although some of us pretend not to be for various reasons), and we can all make mistakes. 30 lashes with a wet noodle should suffice. :) — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin inactivity policy

Given the comments around I have started a proposal page here to amend our current policy. I have offered two options and tried to keep it as simple as possible. Please feel free to go and rework it as much as you like! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our discussion appears to be stuck ATM. A suggestion which I believe incorporates the wishes of the administrators as well as not being too forceful or rushed, is that

We let the current activity requirements stay.
But we add to them: that after an admin has not used any admin tools for 150 days (ca 5 months), he will be asked if he still needs the admin tools. He will then lose the adminship if he does not respond within a certain time (suggested timeframe 2-4 weeks), or responds that he does not need the tools. If he responds that he wants to keep the tools, he will be allowed to keep them.

The idea is, of course, that a user should realize that if he is being asked politely, it would be improper of him to answer that he needs the tools when he in fact doesn't use them, and doesn't see himself use them in the future.

How many admins would be affected? Last time I checked, there there 26 admins who had not used any admin tools within 150 days. I saved a dump at User:Fred Chess/a on May 5.

Fred Chess 22:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations on the main page of en.wiki

I am concerned about the copyright status of the following pics that appear in an article that is on the main page today.

All these pics(there are more) have no information about the source of the pics except the assertions of the uploaders themselves. For example, one pic is taken from some calendar and there is no evidence(link, email... nothing) that the people who made the calendar have released it on public domain. And yet, the uploader simply asserts that he has got permission from them. If he has got permission, I believe he would have to forward it to the concerned authorities on wikipedia to endorse. And in such cases, a copy of the email would have to be made available(if i am right). Nothing of that sort is seen here.

The situation is the same with the other pics too. Just blanket assertions and nothing else. For example - "This pic was taken in 1892 by Mr. X" - no evidence to show that it indeed is a reproduction of the 1892 foto clicked by Mr.X(if there indeed was such a photo). No link, no reference to some book from where it might have been scanned.. NOTHING.

All pics however, have been released on free licenses. I have been demanding proper source information be put up in the last few days but I have been continually reverted by a user whose reverts, handwaving and stonewalling border on vandalism. I have once again tagged it asking for sources and unless something is forthcoming, I shall remove the offending pics from the page. Wikipedia is no place for copyright violations. Chances are that, I may have been reverted yet again even as I finish writing this message here. Sarvagnya 01:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduced from en:WP:

This user has been targeting en:Tamil people and en:History of Tamil Nadu articles and has been tagging the articles as well as images in my opinion maliciously. This disruptive behaviour has been reported [11]. The images in question have been through a [Commons:Deletion requests/User reverting copyvio tags previous round of examination] and have been found to have appropriate licenses.

Sarvagna has also been maliciously tagging images even with appropriate licenses such as en:Image:Thanjavur temple.jpg, en:Image:Nallur.jpg and en:Image:EttayapuramPalaceRemains.jpg. His intent is plain and clear for all to see. Disruption. Venu62 01:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduced from en:WP:

Hot air and handwaving again. Conspiracy theories too. Of the above three he's mentioned, only the last two were errors of judgement and I corrected myself once it was pointed out. And as is abundantly clear to anyone who can read English, I'm not even complaining about those two. I'd like to see some source information on the ones that I've mentioned above or I reserve my right to remove copyvio. Sarvagnya 01:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/User reverting copyvio tags -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an experienced hand to look at an issue for me

I posted this request to User:Lar, he advised posting it here. Please note that I don't frequent Commons, so I'll leave the issue with you:

Images which are straightforward recreations of a copyrighted logo must surely be subject to the copyright of the image they copy, right? If I drew a faithful reproduction of the McDonalds logo, just copied it in my own hand without any extra artistry, that would be a copyvio I'm sure.

These images are tagged variously as PD, GFDL etc but they are handmade copies of flags. My contention is that the original copyrights should appply per my McDonalds argument; in some cases they'll be PD but in many cases they'll actually be copyright and shouldn't be on Commons at all.

Please do whatever you see fit with these:

There's also a few similar images in my contribs. I hope I dealt with them correctly but please feel free to check. --Kingboyk 18:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags and similar state symbols are usually ineligible for copyright. There are many flags already on commons (see Category:SVG_flags, and most of them are PD and tagged with {{insignia}}). I would think that the same applies for this situation. Alton 02:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. These aren't real states, however, they're micronations, made-up entities. I'm not sure if that effects the situation; it probably does.

In the meantime, should I retag them {{insignia}}? --Kingboyk 12:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AutoWikiBrowser

It would be good if some admins could put Commons talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage on their watchlists and deal with the requests there. /Lokal _Profil 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Password Strength?

Any thought been give here at the commons to the admin password cracking that was occurring on en.wiki, [12]? Obviously there is a much smaller number of admins here, so it should be much easier to secure, but what starts on one of the wikipedia sites tends to spread here in time. I guess the situation in the admin land isn't as much of a problem now with the undelete function, but I imagine they could still cause plenty of problems. Even outside the admin sphere vandals could cause problems if gaining control of a standard account. SFC9394 22:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote and personal attack

User:Juiced lemon "struck out" my vote in a deletion page [13] and subsequently left a warning on my talk page telling me to not vote on this page. I am, needless to say, for "keep" while he is for "delete". He also accused me of being a "sockpuppet." (This deletion was proposed as the first edits by an anonymous IP[14], but that does no bother him.) He then left a warning on my user page telling me not to vote and said that if I did so he would seek my blocking.[15]. Now, admittedly I am new to WikiCommons but I have been editing Wikipedia for two years. [16]. On Wikipedia, deletion votes of new or anonymous editors are allowed but given appropriate weight, and actions such as Juiced Lemon's are frowned upon. Am I mistaken? And if I cannot vote on this, does that not mean that this image should not be deleted because its deletion was proposed as the first edits of an anonymous IP?--Mantanmoreland 17:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To create an account to vote

Hello,

Tell me if I am wrong, but I think it is not allowed to create an account in order to vote in Commons. So, as I noticed that Mantanmoreland created his account on May, 8 to vote in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Palestine Mandate 1920.gif (page created on May, 6), I had striked his vote.

Now, this user has removed the strike tags, and warned me on my page. By a curious coincidence, Doright (the user who created Image:Palestine Mandate 1920.gif) warned me two minutes later.

So, I ask an administrator for checking the votes in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Palestine Mandate 1920.gif. --Juiced lemon 17:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See entry immediately above. Admittedly I am new to Commons. On Wikipedia, where I have several thousand edits, new editors and IPs can vote on deletions, and what you did would be considered vandalism. Also, you omit mentioning that this deletion vote was actually commenced as the first votes of an anonymous editor! If indeed my vote is invalid, then this entire page is invalid. But again, I do not know if different rules apply here, which is why I commenced the AN/I above.

Also it is not true that I "created this account to vote." I have every intention of continuing to participate here. My extensive participation in the other project speaks for itself. --Mantanmoreland 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions are not votes, they are discussions held to find out either if an image can be kept on Commons or if it violates law or licensing policy, or if an image should be deleted because of its quality, usability, factual errors etc. It really doesn't matter how many contributions a user has, or how long the account has been registered; what does matter is having an opinion on the image in question and the ability to express that opinion. To do that, a user doesn't necessarily have to know much about Commons. An image can get a hundred keep comments, but still end up getting deleted because one user explains why it's illegal to keep it. The discussion mentioned here is a difficult one, because it concerns a very sensitive matter, but it's still not a matter of counting yes and no votes. Cnyborg 18:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 17:28, 9 May 2007 view source Mantanmoreland~commonswiki (talk \| contribs) 35 edits →‎Create a account to vote ← Older edit		Revision as of 18:02, 9 May 2007 view source Cnyborg (talk \| contribs) 5,978 edits →‎To create an account to vote Newer edit →
Line 647:		Line 647:

	:Also it is not true that I "created this account to vote." I have every intention of continuing to participate here. My extensive participation in the other project speaks for itself. --[[User:Mantanmoreland\|Mantanmoreland]] 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)		:Also it is not true that I "created this account to vote." I have every intention of continuing to participate here. My extensive participation in the other project speaks for itself. --[[User:Mantanmoreland\|Mantanmoreland]] 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

			::Deletion discussions are not votes, they are discussions held to find out either if an image can be kept on Commons or if it violates law or licensing policy, or if an image should be deleted because of its quality, usability, factual errors etc. It really doesn't matter how many contributions a user has, or how long the account has been registered; what does matter is having an opinion on the image in question and the ability to express that opinion. To do that, a user doesn't necessarily have to know much about Commons. An image can get a hundred ''keep'' comments, but still end up getting deleted because one user explains why it's illegal to keep it. The discussion mentioned here is a difficult one, because it concerns a very sensitive matter, but it's still not a matter of counting yes and no votes. [[User:Cnyborg\|Cnyborg]] 18:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)