Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 21

Controversial "restoration of rights" request

A user who had his sysop rights removed after resigning under a cloud under controversial circumstances, is requesting to have his admin rights restored, without going through the RFA process. Please see Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Restoration_of_rights. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

just for you info ...

On German WP they reconstructed the pillory, listing admins that deleted pictures ... see de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Sexualität#Liste der löschenden Admins. Regards axp_de^Hello! 20:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It is reasonable, given the poor advice and the encouraged knee-jerk reactions to the situation, for a more liberal Wiki to want to review the deletions. We probably should as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Also a list here Commons_talk:Sexual content#How many files are we talking about.3F.--Ankara (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's ok to list the files in question, it's not ok to list the persons who deleted!! axp_de^Hello! 07:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. If a customer wiki thinks that Commons is overstepping its bounds, it makes perfect sense for them to enumerate how many and who they think is at fault. That way they can review user deletion logs to see what needs to be put up for deletion review or re-uploaded locally, determine if making a chapter version of Commons to avoid such disruption in the future makes sense, note which admins may not be trustworthy, etc. It's more than "OK"; it should be encouraged. Admins who don't think that their actions should be subject to review shouldn't be admins. - BanyanTree 11:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is no "review", this is witch-hunt! As long you judge admins by only whether they are deleting and not what they are deleting, you show the wrong focus. You demonstrate that it's not about certain pictures of which several were undoubtly out of project scope (conc. legally issues). You just want to discriminate against those with a different opinion! axp_de^Hello! 12:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Just like one can review the rest of the contributions of a user with questionable uploads (that is what the gallery tab is useful for), one can look at deletions. Admins are not immune from scrutiny. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The heading "Just for your info" sums it up nicely - now we know, and there is nothing we can or (in my opinion) need to do about it, except keep it in mind in case a pattern of targetting these spesific admins (and not just their recent deletion logs) occurs. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We have the same lists right here on Commons, nothing wrong with it. TheDJ (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing users' behaviour when there are reasonable grounds to do so is fine, but it should be done with a clearly stated goal that is in the interest of the project to avoid tendencies of "naming and shaming" as well as the appearance thereof. It is also common courtesy to notify the subjects of such discussions. I sincerely hope that anyone who initiates or adds user names to such discussions adheres to this. It is also my opinion that Commons should be the primary venue for discussions related to actions taken on Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Restore File:Clifden 0419c.jpg description

Ho! Could you restore the description of this image? I can't see any reasonnable reason for which it would be permanently deleted. Thanx. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm¹¹⁶⁷¹ 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

While I wasn't involved in its alleged deletion, I'm in favor of deletion because due to this in-image caption you are very likely violating the personality rights of these children. Besides, you are instrumentalizing totally unrelated persons for a (your ?) cause, which would be bad even if these were your children. --Túrelio (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You are completly crazy/fool/designed to *****. None of these children can be identified (I made that sure while uploading original image). --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm¹¹⁶⁷¹ 20:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite see how this is in project scope. --Dschwen (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I can see that would be against restoring the page description of this image is that it que ça emmerde les biens-pensants adorateurs de celui dont je n'écrirait pas le nom. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm¹¹⁶⁷¹ 20:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is in scope, either. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the image and stand by the deletion. The image is clearly outside of scope and inappropriate for hosting on Wikimedia Commons. I have nothing else to say on the matter. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You just lost me as a contributor. Definetly. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm¹¹⁶⁷¹ 21:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We might solve the problem by changing the Commons scope to fit the image. Alternatively, we can fix the non-existing Commons definition of "educational"; there are different FOE (Freedom of Education) laws per country, age, gender and financial situation. --Foroa (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've heard the I'm leaving, bye guys, you've lost me as a contributor one too many times in the last few days. I don't buy it anymore. You'll be back (if you leave at all). And that will be fine as long as you contribute in a productive way. --Dschwen (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS permissions required for old cases?

As far as I know, the COM:OTRS process for Commons was established during 2006 (the email address for OTRS permissions was added to Commons:First steps on 15 March 2006, COM:OTRS was created on 11 September 2006 and {{No permission since}} on 12 October 2006). Before, the uploaders were simply asked to provide a short quote of the permission of the copyright owner of this image in case of a individual permission in the Permission field of the {{Information}} template. Old uploads where the uploader isn't the copyright holder without an attached link to an OTRS permission exist and such files get sometimes tagged with {{No permission since}}. I would like to know how we shall proceed with such cases.

In general I think that we shall keep images which were uploaded in perfect conformance to the then existing policy which relied on AGF. The problem is that multiple years have been passed since then and various difficulties might arise in getting a late OTRS permission. They may have left Commons, lost the associated correspondence such that they can no longer forward it, the permission was given orally, and/or the copyright holder has died meanwhile, making this even more challenging. But they had trusted that an image in perfect conformance to COM:L and COM:SCOPE will be preserved — even if we do not really guarantee this. If we make this allowance, I wonder where we set the timeline, i.e. since when is an OTRS permission strictly mandatory?

Yes, there exists an actual case: File:Asha Haji Elmi.JPG and File:Asha Haji Elmi 2.jpg, both uploaded on 20 August 2006. The associated discussion is to be found here. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

My take on this: OTRS confirmations are about verifiability. Before we had that process, we relied solely on AGF. There's no reason to change that. Keep pre-OTRS material without demanding retroactive OTRS confirmations until serious doubts about the stated license and/or permission arise. For material uploaded since the OTRS process was set up here, do demand OTRS confirmations where there are none, if the license or permission claim is doubtful, or the work was published elsewhere at the time of the upload, and delete otherwise. As long as there's no reason to doubt a license, there's no reason to make an OTRS release mandatory for old uploads (say, from 2007 or earlier). Of course, such images may be taken down anytime (as the result of a DR) if serious doubts about the license or permission arise and we don't have a clear release in OTRS. For more recent uploads (i.e., 2008 or later), do insist on OTRS releases and delete if none is forthcoming. By then, the process had been institutionalized, and we had become pretty good at insisting releases be filed with OTRS, so doubtful images from then on really should have an OTRS confirmation or not be here at all. Maybe use 2008/2009 instead of 2007/2008, if you prefer. Lupo 19:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Lupo. Otherwise we would have to mass delete images, where the uploader thought everything were fine when he uploaded the picture. Nevertheless OTRS-permissions would still be great for those images, to make sure they won't be deleted in the future, so how about making a template to put on user talk pages/or images stating smthg like "This image was uploaded prior to the establishment of the OTRS system. If you, the uploader, still have records of the permission, please forward this information to the OTRS". --DieBuche (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess my question is this: why OTRS rather than on-wiki in cases where it is possible to do it on-wiki? In the example case above (which is a little special since it is me and I'm on the Board, etc.) there's nothing that I could write to OTRS that I couldn't equally well write on-wiki. So my question is not so much about new-versus-old but about OTRS-versus-wiki.

I have a lot of friends who go to a lot of conferences and I could ask them to send me pictures of notable but not-very-famous and not-easy-to-access people. (Asha Haji Elmi is a good example - she's important but not easy to access for a photo... I was very fortunate and honored to have had a chance to meet her, and my friend Maggie's picture was much better than mine.)

Suppose I got a photo in a similar fashion in the future. I don't quite understand why me sending an email to OTRS with the exact same text that I would post on-wiki is helpful. But I suspect I am still misunderstanding something.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The big difference is that you are clearly identified on-wiki (your user name is Jimbo Wales, and we all know that you really are Jimbo Wales). But most people here use pseudonyms, and even it they were not, how do we know they're not simply impersonating someone else? With OTRS, we normally require that the email be sent from an "official" address, or in the case of images also available somewhere else on the web, from the same domain as that website. Besides, some of the information OTRS requires could be confidential and should not be made public on wiki. –Tryphon^☂ 08:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So just to clarify, I think that yes, in your case, sending permission to OTRS is not necessary (if there is no confidentiality issue) since, as you said, an email from you wouldn't contain any new information. But this is an exception that applies to you, and maybe a few other people. For new images though, it might be a good idea to use OTRS anyway, even if you just send a very short statement that you personally made sure the author agreed to the free license. Not everyone knows you, and it would be more consistent that way. –Tryphon^☂ 08:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Make the photographer send in the OTRS confirmation, or make him or her send you, together with the JPEG, a clear statement that the image is released under license so-and-so, and then forward that to OTRS. If you send in a statement to OTRS saying "I'm Jimbo, and X gave me this photo, and said the license was so-and-so", that's indeed not any better than an on-wiki statement, and I hope the OTRS team would get back to you asking for a release from the photographer. Detach the issue from your person. What if I or a newbie got an image in a similar fashion? What would we need as a reasonable proof that I or the newbie didn't just make it up? Right: a confirmation from the photographer, through e-mail, not on-wiki. On-wiki, anyone can pretend to be anyone; with e-mail, it's already much more difficult to pretend to be someone else. Lupo 08:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be the formally correct way. But as Jimbo is identified (and in case of .., he would be liable), I'm more with Tryphon's suggestion, in order to make think not more complicated than they need to. --Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course Jimbo is a special case. I'm not sure he's asking about his special case only, or whether he's questioning OTRS in general. Besides: what if the photographer who gave Jimbo the photo later changes his or her mind about the image being available here under a free license? Or later claims there was a misunderstanding, and wants the image removed? We may trust Jimbo, but does that mean we also should trust any photographers who give him images? Lupo 09:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Me thinks he was asking about his situation, after 2 of his uploads had been no-perm-tagged. Of course, such an informal way would only be thinkable with clearly identified users. Your other concern is fully justified, but would fall back on the uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Can folk keep an eye open for some "odd" files

Anyone running through uploads logs - could they keep an eye for apparently empty/failed files such as these here and here. These are spambot accounts which have been an issue for es wp for a while now and they appear to be targeting Commons too now. Some accounts were blocked yesterday but because they are bot ones it is unlikely they will actually stop. Let me know (or Drini). Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Herby: I know this is the Admin's notice board, but you'd get more eyes looking for these if ordinary mortals could see what to look for. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah point taken :) These are "apparently" empty files (I think maybe 2x2 bytes or similarly small) from new users (hopefully we have dealt with the previous ones). So actually you will see nothing and probably tag it as corrupt which is fine but I could do with knowing as it tends to be sock accounts on open proxies. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that this issue is not from yesterday but from several months now as far as I can see. At first they targeted eswp spamming fishing on the articles (some appeared on enwiki too if I recall correctly). Now they're uploading corrupted images to disrupt the articles and make his spam more visible. Let me know too if you find one of this so I can have a look. Best, — Dferg (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Help :) ?

Someone has dropped a speedy on something affecting POTD I think. Looking here I think that must be the issue but I can't find the offending page at present - any easy way to find it? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put a do-not-delete warning into the cat page. This mess happens every now and then with POTD. It's not the first time. --Túrelio (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio

File:RodParsley.jpg is clearly [1]. On en.Wikipedia the uploader has claimed to be the creator of this work. It's interesting that there it was added to an article by an IP which is clearly his. He's a very inexperienced user, so I'll go lightly with him right now. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Gone now - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And thank you. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Pls delete my image

Hi Admin, Please delete my picture "picaleo.jpg". I can't find a way to delete it. Thanks

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete wrong css page

Can anybody please delete User:Thgoiter/vektor.css? I misspelled it (correct now here: User:Thgoiter/vector.css). --тнояsтеn ⇔ 14:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Leyo 14:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you bzw. vielen Dank ;) --тнояsтеn ⇔ 14:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Implementation of rename right

As Kwj2772 requested the rename right at Bugzilla, would it be possible to implement it? It would need basically three steps:

1. Create two abuse filters which make sure that solely renamers can edit User:CommonsDelinker/commands and that they can only add {{Universal replace}}s.
2. Perform some edits to templates used on the page which will not change the design, but allow the abuse filter to exactly recognize what's been changed (added_lines has some flaws, as it sometimes includes some lines that actually were there already, so we need to use added_links, which will always do it right).
3. Once the right is live, reprotect the CommonsDelinker page to [edit:autoconfirmed;move:sysop]. The abuse filter will make sure that only renamers can add the right.

I requested the edits in CAT:PER already, so only the abuse filters would need to be done. The coding would be as follows:

• First filter:

(article_prefixedtext == 'User:CommonsDelinker/commands') &
!('sysop' in user_groups | 'rename' in user_groups)

• Second filter

!('sysop' in user_groups) &
(article_prefixedtext == 'User:CommonsDelinker/commands') &
(added_lines rlike '</?(fixed text|text|cat>') |
!(added_lines rlike '{{universal replace') |
(added_links rlike 'http://commons.wikimedia.org/commonsdelinker/(replace_image|orphan|bulletin|catuncat|move_cat)')

For the moment, they should probably be disabled, and enabled once the right is there. "rename" might need to be replaced with some other string, depending on how the developers call the right, but it can still be changed. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I get this error in return:

Unrecognised variable user_rights at character 73

Best regards,

Huib talk 16:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, there were some problems, e.g. wrong variables and JavaScript operators instead of abuse filter operators. I fixed it above. Also, I forgot to mention which level to uise on the abuse filters. It should be "Warn, Disallow", probably with a customized warning. --The Evil IP address (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't like this. It's one big hack and we're not going to unprotect User:CommonsDelinker/commands anyway. I rather implement a trigger in the delinker. Currently when a file gets deleted this triggers the delinker to unlink all files, in a similar way we could trigger the delinker to universally replace all usage when a move action is noticed in the log. Multichill (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Multichill in this point. The proposed change turns the abuse filter into a tool to implement special privileges. We need to keep things simple — otherwise this gets hard to maintain once some of the participants (implementor of the proposed abuse rules, operator of the bot) leave. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If this would be possible, I'd clearly prefer it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Genitalia

{that should get some attention :))

I see that Richiex is still contributing images for us. They are usually far better quality that the "drive by" ones and equally seem encyclopaedic but given the current climate I felt I should post something so that others can have their say. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that these images are of far better quality than a lot of crap I've seen in this area in the past week. I think that File:Testicular retraction.JPG is an excellent example how such images can be educational as the description provides an instructive context. In addition, the age of the model is given. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#MediaWiki:Bad image list

More input is needed on this undeletion request. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

File:YSPP.PNG

Looks like vandalism of User:Pepetchi. -- Ies (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

 taken care of. --Túrelio (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Rename broken (again)

{{rename}} (without parameter) doesn't work as expected/described (and Category:Media renaming requests needing target is empty). It has been fixed in December 2009 (Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 18#Template:Rename broken) but now it doesn't work. -- 78.55.159.241 06:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixing some templates

Hi,

While handling the edit protected request I found some templates that need to be adjusted, I hope somebody can do that for me.

• Template:PD-US-1978-89
• Template talk:PD-US-not renewed

Both templates have a translation now, could somebody make the translation happen with adding a lang template in the template?

Best regards, Huib talk 07:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

sajed.ir

Hi! We got almost 200 images from this „source“. Mostly GFDL, some with some Creative Commons licensing, from different authors, a lot with „author unknown“. Most likely a lot of press photographs. Most likely they collect images from various other sources. Some files were deleted in the past. Any comments on this? I’d like to open a request for deletion, could anyone help me to automate this a little bit? Otherwise laziness prevails. ;-) Have a nice weekend! --Polarlys (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the site (the footer) the following applies:باز نشر کلیه مطالب این سایت شامل مقالات، اخبار، صوت و تصویر و ... به طور کامل و یا چکیده بلامانع است.

«کلیهٔ مطالب تحت مجوز مستندات آزاد گنو (GFDL) منتشر می‌شوند» Badly translated by google: "Open publication of all content on this site includes articles, news, and audio and ... Fully or abstract is permitted. All subjects under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) is published" --DieBuche (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That is what they say. We had this in the past, think of marxists.org for example. They publish everything as public domain, but they just collect it from the web. In my humble opinion, this is the same case here. We deleted images from Osirak for example (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osirak nuclear reactor before operation opera.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plan of Osirak.jpg). The quality of their material differs extremely: From amateur shots to sophisticated press photography. Some images are scanned from somewhere (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Children_In_iraq-iran_war1.jpg, https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:Hosein-kharazi-003.jpg) and have logos printed on them (can't read them, sorry). Other images were uploaded under Creative Commons licenses, but why? Some appear to be television screenshots. AFAIK, official sites from Iran use restrictive licensing, but here we got an image from their airforce: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:Phantoms_are_fueling_from_Boeing_747.jpg. Source and author are often missing in other cases, but GFDL? I think there are too much open questions just to point at their website’s footer. --Polarlys (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting your edits, I just saw this topic afterwards. While I guess your right about multiple copyvios, I don't think we should massdelete them all. If any persian speaker could get more info about the site it may help determine whethter the site is just a news aggregator or actually produces it own content. Blatant vios (like the airforce image) should probably deleted speedily. --DieBuche (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please dont conclusion fast! I know some of the pictures of this website are copied. but this hasnt relate with me. All of the pictures that I upload, are first publish. I know laws of here. you cant find any copy of photos that I upload. if you can, H agree to delete all of them! but you must patient to delete pictures that I upload. this website is a Government website, not a Personal website. it is ordinary that this picture publish here for first time. you cant find any version of this picture in other website, can you?

I never dont upload pictures like this. because this picture has watermark Besides the name of this website. your reasons for delete most of the picture of this website is Scrimpy. please search in the internet and if you found orginaller! version of these pictures, then delete wrong pictures. not like this:File:Home_Front_of_Iran-Iraq_War_2.jpg that is in law of GFDL.

Meantime! THIS PICTURE published first time in this website. you cant find any version of this picture in website of Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. I researched and couldnt find it.Mohammmad-ka (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I myself promise that dont upload Dubious pictures like this. please dont punish(delete) Identic. Mohammmad-ka (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Mohammad, this is nothing personal. There are just open questions regarding the licensing of this site. Not to find an image somewhere else on the web has little meaning: Not everything from past decades is digitalized, content from databases is hidden and even Google does not know every website. --Polarlys (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• The biggest discussions to date on tbis site are [2] and [3] and [4]. All the deletion requests I've seen have resulted in delete, but there's been no consensus on whether this website is a bad source. From what I can tell, people in the west mostly view it with copyright suspicion and people from Persian and Arabic speaking areas mostly want to allow these pictures on Wikipedia. -Nard the Bard 16:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I said you that we can upload just pictures from iran territory, not other where. many of pictures that showd in this website, are first publish. you can research about this talk.Mohammmad-ka (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

the name of author of this picture is saeed sadeghi. why you ant to delete this pic? is this rurel? and this picture.Mohammmad-ka (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There are images from a lot of sources and authors on this website, also images without author, I am not sure if these images can be licensed freely. --Polarlys (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there something like US-Gov for Iranian Government pictures? this picture for example was taken by en:Kazem_Akhavan, a (now deceased) iranian diplomat--DieBuche (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no such exception. Look on the presidency’s website for example. So Mr Akhavan was kidnapped in 1982 but we got pictures from him? --Polarlys (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont know. but! Activity of this website is like us(commons). we collect diffrent pictures of diffrent authors and present by free license. YOU CANT FIND any version of pictures that I upload in other websites. SAJED.IR is an only official website for Iran-Iraq War in Iran that collect all pictures of this war and it leaders and commanders. this is just art of this site. this is like a bank of document. under GFDL. so what is problem? it is like us.

many of the autors are alive and definatly know their pictures showed in this website. some of them tell their name and other maybe complete during time. Please dont delete all of the pictures of this site for a few wrong pictures. many of pictures that you want delete have name of author. do you attension? do you know date of these pictures? at least 20 yeaRS ago. this government institute couldnt collect these pictures after 20 years for a good bank? so far you had a problem with ownership of pictures of this site that are irani orginally? I am sure thar nowdat orginal owner of these pictures is sajed.

please see this page about sajed. please see second line. this website belong to

"بنیاد حفظ آثار و نشر ارزش های دفاع مقدس"

this is very very professional institute in iran that is expert to collect multimedia document of 1979 revolution and iran-iraq war. and now! it present it documents under GFDL. Mohammmad-ka (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

They may be experts at collecting media, but if they think that they can "present" works under the GFDL apparently without obtaining explicit permission from the authors and, in some cases, without crediting the authors (which is a strict requirement of the GFDL), then they are certainly not experts on copyright licenses. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This idea not true. We can delete files that we are sure to have problem. like this. but many of them Reserved only to this website. experience show us that all of the pivctures about Iran-Iraq war & revolution 1979 are orginally from this website. like this picture. you havnt enough reason to delete many of the pictures. your request to delete many of the pictures that have name of author show me that you havnt enough care. you shouldnt delete pictures that have just watermark, that is:sajed.ir. you can legally delete pictures that have other watermarks exept sajed.irMohammmad-ka (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have it backwards. We don't have to be certain that there is a problem to delete a file. We have to be certain that there is not a problem to keep it. See Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Contrary to what you might think, that policy is based on care – namely caring about authors' rights and about Common being a source of truly free works. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Again you didnt reason to Demonstrate that the pictures of Iran-Iraq War and Leaders of Iran are copied from other refrence. I firmly say that all pictures of Iran-Iraq war are rurel. because this institute is only institute that collect degrees of the war & revolution. you can research about this institute:

بنیاد حفظ آثار و نشر ارزشهای دفاع مقدس

History show us that never pictures of the war & revolution from this website werent wrong.Mohammmad-ka (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inti-IllimaniLogo.png needs review

Closed as keep by the only keep voter. I disagreed and pointed out that it was custom typography and not reproducible with a font. 188.222.170.156 10:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Dont know who allowed Diego Grez to close deletion discussions. I reverted him. --Martin H. (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He was right though, clearly PD-text. I'm closing it again. –Tryphon^☂ 06:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Principal of Primus Public School.jpg

Deletion of defamatory images such as this should not sit around in a category, thus this post. Please delete and block uploader (I am blocking over at en, where image was used in an attack page). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, speedied. However, thats <2 hours ago, Commons is not that quick always (last time this was uploaded I deleted it imidatly). --Martin H. (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the image yes, but the article was not posted until recently; I speedied 6 minutes after posting. Note that the user is socking over at en, having posted the article twice using the uploader name here and later under the name Pps123. The sock does not appear to be registered here. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Move Flos over redirect

Please move the page Flos to Flowers, over the redirect. This page does not match the category it is in and is not a word in English (maybe not a word at all). -- Adrignola (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Support I never heard the term "flos" --DieBuche (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is Latin. --Leyo 10:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, i remember. Only knew the plural, flores--DieBuche (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Weird bug

File:1000 Minin.jpg was uploaded, but no image page created. Page was only created, when i tagged the file as npd. Nothing in the logs either. --DieBuche (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Known bug, see bugzilla:15430. Lupo 09:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, thanks for adding this image to the report--DieBuche (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Clean history

Could an admin please clean the upload history of File:Test.svg. It's been getting quite long--DieBuche (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, not really ... still single-digit count ;-) axp_de^Hello! 11:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See Special:Undelete/File:Test.svg. --Leyo 11:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--DieBuche (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 2 :) axp_de^Hello! 18:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation used on Wikipedia main page!

File:Hassan al-Turabi.jpg is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 1.0 Generic license according to the terms of use that are linked to on the image page. This image needs to be deleted immediately for having a license unsuitable for Commons and Wikipedia (it is currently displayed on the frontpage of the German Wikipedia). Hekerui (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly says non-commercial. Please remove the vandalism on the page when ur on it--DieBuche (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not even non-commercial, which applies only to their site's textual content. Here they give as the image source CNN! Lupo 23:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 taken care of --:bdk: 23:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Carpinus foliage.jpg

Could someone with admin access to en.wikipedia please add the missing information (author, date, file history) to this image please? --:bdk: 23:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- User:Docu at 00:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks --:bdk: 00:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Vian kadal (talk · contribs)

Could someone have a look at this user's contributions? All are sourced with some google search link (most of the time it's not even the same image), and tagged with {{OTRS pending}}; I find it extremely unlikely that any valid permission will come, considering that the origin of these files varies greatly and that they're not even properly sourced/attributed (I tagged a few with {{No source since}} before realizing how many files there was). –Tryphon^☂ 07:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Review contribs?

Here - in a sense could be promotional or maybe out of scope or maybe ok. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Filemover rights?

I see this is now an option - how are we deciding who that goes to - any discussions about it I've missed? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump#Let.27s_add_a_rename_user_right and COM:AN#Implementation_of_rename_right at the top of this page --Justass (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks - must have missed it --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A page like Commons:Movefile or Commons:Filemover is missing (compare e.g. Commons:Patrol). --Leyo 14:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I linked to Commons:File renaming, since the page contains almost all information filemovers need to know. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - definitely good.

It must be my day for not knowing stuff though - what is with the "show/hide" on contribs/logs now - interface update? Anyone played with it? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OK - for what it's worth it appears to be a mini form of oversight :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Info I had created a draft for the file move page at User:The Evil IP address/rename, which already received copy-editing by Killiondude. It should now be considered how to make the universal replaces available for filemovers only: Multichill proposed a trigger to be added to CommonsDelinker, which would be my personal preference, but if that doesn't work, I'd be happy if someone could enable the abuse filter idea from above. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment: Concerning the original question, it might be an idea to give the right to all former renamers. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That makes sense to me. Don't see it should be needed by that many people generally. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Works for me. I've added a section for filemover to the RFR page, by the way... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Help from a German speaking admin needed

Hi I need the help of a German speaking admin to very gently informUser:Torsten Bätge that a number of his images taken on Deutsche Bahn property are speedy deletable as DB does not allow commercial exploitation of images taken on its property, for example File:Bahnhof Goehrde 1485.jpg, the grounds for speedy delete seem to be valid as some of his images have been deleted on that rationale. I don't want to fill his talk page with speedy delete copyvio templates (about 15 of them) as the uploads seem to be in good faith and are in use at de.wikipedia, and I have no wish to be seemingly putting the boot in.KTo288 (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Silly me, just took a look at the history and they are user requests for deletion. *>KTo288<*

No reason for speedy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not so sure they should be speedy deleted either. It's debatable whether DB can enforce this restriction or not. In the example you give above, it could be that the picture is taken from public ground, which would mean it's covered by COM:FOP#Germany (even though the subject itself is property of DB). This should be addressed in a DR. –Tryphon^☂ 14:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Long discussion on COM:FORUM#LA_auf_deutsche_Bahnhoffotos. --Martin H. (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Does the red links mean the conclusion was to delete?KTo288 (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been any conclusion, the red images were deleted before the discussion was started--DieBuche (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are refering to the block of 5 red-linked images at the top of the Forum-discussion, these were not deleted before the discussion was started, but 5 days later (28. Apr. 2010), though not by me. --Túrelio (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason for deletion of this images. Liesel (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Archiving User talk:Jimbo Wales

I've disabled Miszabot, see current talk page for reasons, and started manually archiving. I need an admin to move User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 1. I can't do it because the page already exists (but is blank). I would also like to suggest that the needed templates for MiszaBot be copied over. Thanks. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have a better idea, I removed the old archives and placed it all on the talkpage again, started up the bot and used a template.. all will be okay after the bot comes by. Huib talk 20:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Without Template:Talkarchivenav to link to archived pages template:archive box will need to be done manually. I don't think there's an example on Commons where this bot is working the way it was intended to because of this problem, and previous attempts to install these templates were deleted. Why don't we just install the correct templates (including Template:Tmbox and Template:Pp-template)? Also, I changed the interval to 7 days for weekend users. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I told, the archives will be in the template on the talkpage, thats already taken care of and will happen automatic :) Huib talk 21:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't, that is why I disabled it an archived manually. This is a version of the talk page after Miszabot operation. No archive header. Template:Archive box could be used in automatic mode if the naming scheme is changed to standard integers and counter is used instead. There also needs to be a talk page header, so template:talk-nav could work instead of template:talkarchivenav. See here for a list of pages where Miszabot added the non-existing template automatically. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've straighten it out for now. Next month it will have to be updated. I think we need template:archives also because template:archive box only works automatically with numbered archive pages, not date formatted ones, and lacks search feature. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Let's start over. Jimbo made a request to have his user talk page archived in a way similar to his Wikipedia talk page. I've set it up in a way that should work for now, however more work is needed to get it running smoothly. Thanks! - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed all of your changes again.

I'm starting to see your edits as vandalism, Jimmy asked to archive his page after 4 days, you change it in 7 days, there is no policy about archiving here so Jimmy can archive his page after 4 days if he want.

I have set up the Commons archive bot, and let the archive bot do his job, please stop changing it in the English Wikipedia way, this is Commons not Wikipedia.

The Bot will make a archive when he comes by, after that the template will let the archive show up on the talkpage, this happen automatic and no manual interferes is needed, please stop removing my changes and just wait and see! Huib talk 04:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your last revert was dumb, so I rolled it back. Killiondude (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

@Killiondude and Abigor, it's kind of sad to see two established users wheel-warring over a talkpage-archival. Is it really impossible to reach agreement about that before any further edit on Jimbo's talkpage? --Túrelio (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any point to Abigor's rollback. It's making things less helpful to other users (removing links to archives, and navboxes that would be placed in the archive). I won't mess with it anymore, but I was sort of frustrated by Abigor's lack of intelligence there. Killiondude (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone is "lacking the intelligence" to understand what you're doing, try and explain it to them; otherwise you are bound to endlessly revert each other, both convinced that you're in the right. But you already knew that. –Tryphon^☂ 07:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC) This goes to Abigor too of course; there was a lack of communication on both sides here (as always in an edit war). –Tryphon^☂ 07:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

An admin on many, many projects should be able to examine a single diff that has like 3 lines of affected text. But you knew that. :-) Killiondude (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, so he must have had his reasons; that's why I'm saying: ask. Well anyway, seems like this small "war" is over now, let's move on. –Tryphon^☂ 07:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That so unhelpful. I do not appreciate being called a vandal, which is against this guideline. I missed the 3 day instruction, so what? That didn't even get changed back. Nothing at all got done on this except useless edit warring. I suggest that Abigor disengage and do find something else to do. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, he has disengaged; no more reverts/edits since this morning (UTC). What else do you want? –Tryphon^☂ 13:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Civility and a little respect. Is that too much to ask for? - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, yes :-( –Tryphon^☂ 18:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You want me to be civel? Please tell me that you are crazy or a idiot.. jimbo asked to have his pages archived every 3 a 4 days and again its 7 day's... Thats what I call vandalism. I told here that I took care of it and asked for a little bit patience untill the bot comes by, but that was to difficult for both of you guy's. Archiving will be a mess now and I hope you are happy. Huib talk 14:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Baxter Word.jpg

This image was uploaded by User:Baxterword in mid-2009. That account was active on two other wikis, English Wikipedia and Meta. The image was only used on the Meta userpage, for the purpose of making his profile appear plausible when he ran for Wikimedia Board of Trustees. He did not succeed, and he was blocked on Wikipedia as a sockpuppet of a vandal/troll. It is very unlikely that the image is of himself; it is unlikely that those who use supposedly personal images for sockpuppets would use one which actually depicts them. It is now useless, as the account Baxterword will never be used again unless he is that much of an imbecile that he thinks nobody will notice that this username is blocked on English Wikipedia as a sockpuppet. The image does not serve any purpose, and it is better to be deleted because of impersonation concerns. It is highly probable that Wiki brah's image for his sockpuppet is actually of someone else, and there is a possibility that it is someone who does not want their image on the internet. Because of these concerns, and its overall uselessness, there is no reason for this image's existence. 216.241.55.204 01:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Gone thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Other views appreciated

I have some concerns over this gallery. This is a perfectly legit (?) en wp page (en:Messiah Foundation International). However it does seem very POV (I know that is not something that concerns us here) and the user would seem to be involved in promoting the foundation. Personally I am not sure about it all - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe worth looking at the en wp talk page too as well as the views expressed to a previous user with the same interests. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible votestacking

Greetings. I noticed that Mariecanne (talk · contribs), Doctormac (talk · contribs) and Orlandfish (talk · contribs) were all created within 10 minutes of another, and all instantly voted in the same two featured picture candidacies with similar rationales. This looks to me like inappropriate votestacking. Jafeluv (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well what do you know... - yep, "abusing multiple accounts" for sure and blocked as such. I'll have a quiet word with someone about that. The votes should be struck if anyone gets to it before I do. Thanks for the info - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request closure

Could someone please close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yoshi waiste up.jpg? There's only one vote (a keep) other than the nominator (me), and I want to withdraw it. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to vote delete on this, as I reckon it's a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Filemover needing attention

DieBuche (talk · contribs), who was granted the Filemover right a few days ago, has done massive renames that might not conform to the rename standards initially set for administrators. I assume good faith, but most file renames he has done is the removal of the appended pixel information, most which actually correspond to the size of the image (e.g. File:800px-HamadaMapCurrent.png -> File:HamadaMapCurrent.png). I understand that some of his moves are legitimate, but unless it's time to change the guidelines to "move whatever you want", actions like these should receive some attention. ZooFari 00:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like other administrators such as axpde (talk · contribs) are also doing the same [5]. Is it time to nuke those guidelines? Or are we moving too fast...? ZooFari 00:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Usually images with the prefix 000px are thumbnails which were incorrectly transfered by user from other wikis. For some time now these titles are blacklisted on upload, but still we have about 900 of these images (see this cat, a few weeks ago it was at 1400). I have recently started to go through those files & reuploading the original image, if still existent, or requesting undeletion at their original wiki for move to commons. Thus most pictures I renamed incorrectly looked like thumbnails, but were not anymore. Some images (like the HamadaMap) were uploaded on their source wiki under that name. Since these titles for images, which were correctly moved to commons only confuse, I changed them as well. Edit: Out of afore mentioned 1400 *px images, 55 were uploaded under that name in their previous wiki. A list of them is here: User:DieBuche/resized5--DieBuche (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion having the pixel size even if it's wrong wouldn't hurt or cause confusion. This is not a serious case anyways, but I also see moves like File:Caaveiro.JPG -> File:Monastery of Carboeiro.jpg. You aren't the only one, I continue to see this in the move log from other admins as well. After thinking about, this was probably not the best place to raise this concern and I apologize for pinpointing you. I think I'll start a thread at Commons talk:File renaming instead. ZooFari 01:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the only reason the file renaming rules are rather strict, is that it used to be a big hassle to do it; and thus it was only applied to the cases that needed it severly.--DieBuche (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of the rules, so if we aren't going to follow them then I don't see the point in having them. I think renames are limited because of attribution links from other sites or something like that. ZooFari 01:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As I was mentioned above: I deleted several file tagged for speedy deletion. All of those had names like "File:123px-Name.png" or even "File:123px-Name.svg.png" and were merely automatically downsized versions (by wikimedia renderer) of the original files. And I'm not moving those files, I delete them! axp_de^Hello! 07:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

While some of the renames are marginal to the criteria, it is not contradictory to the philosophy of the renaming policy at all. I think starting a fuss at the level is making people chase after shadows and we would all be better off spending time of reasonable matters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker needs a prod

Would someone who has access to engine room of CommonsDelinker, please restart that engine. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked Siebrand (talk · contribs) about SieBot which is also dead. Wknight94 ^talk 13:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Special:Export

Is there a way to export more than 5000 entries via Special:Export? I need about 70.000 & am too lazy to stich them all together--DieBuche (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried the database dumps http://dumps.wikimedia.org/ ? --Schlurcher (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Would have used those, but they all from 2010-04-28.. --DieBuche (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

toolserver problem?

Several scripts as "adminstats.php", "sulutil.php" or "CheckUsage.php" stop processing with an error message like "User 'xyz' has exceeded the 'max_user_connections' resource (current value: 15)"! Please fix it! axp_de^Hello! 07:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Happens every now and then, and normal Commons users can't do anything about it. To fix the real problem, we should reduce our reliance on the Toolserver and use always working things, like Special:GlobalUsage. But given the number of useful features that the Toolserver provides, this is difficult. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Multitudes of licenses which contradict each other.

For example File:Sitzverteilung Landtag Nordrhein-Westfalen 2010.svg. He tagges his files with 6 different licenses ({{GFDL|migration=redundant}} {{cc-by-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} {{cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} {{Cc-zero}} {{PD-self}} {{FAL}}), which are all rendered invalid, since he also releases his work into PD. Is that fine or should smt. be done?--DieBuche (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

CC-0 supersedes CC-x and CC-sa-x! And PD supersedes GFDL and FAL! Correct? axp_de^Hello! 19:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

PD supersedes everything. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Consequently, I would remove all license tags but {{PD-self}}. –Tryphon^☂ 15:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally a PD file was modified and the modifications released under CC (or other license). In those cases it is OK to have multiple "contradictory" licenses. I do not think this applies in case of the above file, but it is something we should be aware of. --Jarekt (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

One could validly delete the PD license in such a case; if it is kept, it needs to be made very clear that it doesn't apply to the image in question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

To some extent the cc license templates are made to allow multiple licenses even if it's not terribly useful. -- User:Docu at 17:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Another deletion request closure

While searching for "sock", I found Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pink sock.jpg. Could it be closed? Nobody ever voted to keep or delete, but the image was deleted a month after the request was filed. Nyttend (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done by Kameraad Pjotr. --Túrelio (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:98.148.49.233

98.148.49.233 (talk · contribs) is a long-term vandal here and on en.wiki[6]. The edits are racist and sexist. The ip is also used abusively by multiple users, as shown by the CU. There is not a single constructive edit from this IP. Request a long term block here on Commons as well to prevent further vandalism. -Nard the Bard 01:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a month for vandalism, account creation allowed. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with uploading pics

I have uploaded my very first contribution to wiki ,but am evidently having problems with the coding and getting the right stuff in.It keeps coming up saying I need to change the source and copyright stuff or it will be deleted.I have tried 3 or 4 times to put the right code in ,but can't get it right.File is USS Fortify Operation Endsweep,a picture of my ship I took in Viet Nam.It's mine.I have a lot more and would like to really help out on Wiki,but I need a little tech help,I guess.Can someone please look at it and tell me exactly what I have to put where. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietvet58 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the no-source template went a bit haywire after the editing. I removed the template as you have added source/author information. Things should be in order now. Kind regards, -- Deadstar (msg) 14:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Need Administrator for renaming files

I need an administrator who renames all the files (File:Sammelband Predikten 1.jpg until File:Sammelband Predikten 27.jpg) with a wrong name I uploaded yesterday. I already used the template for renaming. Ich brauche die Hilfe eines Administrators zur Umbenennung/Verschiebung aller Dateien (File:Sammelband Predikten 1.jpg bis File:Sammelband Predikten 27.jpg), die ich gestern mit einem falschen Namen hochgeladen habe. Die entsprechende Vorlage zur Umbenennung wurde bereits eingefügt. Gruß, --StMH (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Mache ich, du musst bitte das nächste Seite/vorherige Seite korrigieren und die Rename-Vorlage entfernen. Danke fürs markieren mit rename, damit geht das umbenennen schneller. --Martin H. (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Vielen Dank. Ersteres wurde korrigiert. Letzteres folgt nach und nach. Gruß, --StMH (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Habs schon  erledigt :) --Martin H. (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

German language Wikipedia admin wanted

Could I get an admin from the German language edition of Wikipedia to check how de:Datei:Madonna in Chelsea.JPG was licensed before it was transferred to Commons? File:Madonna en Chelsea.jpg here is tagged with an incomplete {{PD-user-da}} template and {{GFDL}}. The reference to the Danish Wikipedia edition seems incorrect, and the GFDL tagging contradicts the public domain tagging, since GFDL presupposes a copyrighted work. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It was correctly licensed with the german Attribution template. The original uploader was de:User:Adamsammler. --S^[1] 16:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That's in line with the same user's other uploads. I'll fix up the mess here. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Freimut Bahlo

I'm not sure where this issue should be placed so I’m adding it hear in hopes that it will get where in needs to. User:Freimut Bahlo seems to have a chronic problem of uploading copyrighted images and inappropriately tagging them as {{PD-self}}. He has had 20+ warnings that I can see on his talk page. Today I added about 11 more. Administrators need to take over handling this guy.

User indef blocked, nuked a load, can someone start trawling through the rest and deleting? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose anyone knows of a nice tool for mass deletion? Special:Nuke only goes back a month. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed some of the notices were blue links though. Are we sure they're all copyvio? Wknight94 ^talk 17:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Many are PD-no-notice or PD-ineligible. But uploader is totally uninterested in finding proper copyright tags, and I have tired of fixing these images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that some of the most recent ones are record labels which are {{PD-US-no notice}} -- some of them even have that tag. I'll take care of getting the tag on the record labels that don't have one, and cats, also. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a German speaker can try to work with him - get him to slow down at least. Failing that, a block is probably a good idea. Wknight94 ^talk 19:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Further to my note above, I have gone through all the record labels, put {{PD-US-no notice}} ::on about 60, hung {{Speedy}} on two very small ones, {{Copyvio}} on two that had notices, put a {{Delete}} on one that had a question and left two Argentine ones alone. The rest of the images appear to be a little out of my area... . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Nazi Germany

The URL for relevant Polish law cited by File:Flag of Nazi Germany (1933-1945).svg has changed. The new URL is http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/Download?id=WDU19970880553&type=3   — C M B J   22:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ecemaml and politically motivated deletions

An admin from Spain, User:Ecemaml is making arbitary and incorrect deletions associated with Francisco Franco and his governance. Ecemaml's personal political dispostion is Marxist/republican and I feel his deletions are based on this, rather than policy, he is not putting the images through the proper process for community discussion, but acting arbitarily. The image Image:General_Francisco_Franco.jpg is the latest spurious deletion. May I ask that this is undeleted by an admin and put through a proper deletion proposal. Also can we get some sort of warning for Ecemaml, re abuse of admin powers for politically motivated ends? Thanks. - Thomas Gun (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming he's correct about Spanish copyright law (and I have no reason to believe he isn't), I see nothing wrong with those deletions. --Carnildo (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Process question -- I have no knowledge of the facts here except the two comments above, so this relates to process only, not this situation. I intend no criticism of any of the people involved above.

I had thought that we used an informal general rule of "two sets of eyes before deletion" except in the very most obvious cases, such as an empty gallery or pure vandalism. I have seen that behavior repeatedly in admins -- putting a {{Speedy}} on something rather than simply deleting it. My question then, is in the case of an image, should an Admin ever simply delete it, even if obvious copyvio? Or, should the Admin tag it for someone else to delete? Where's the line?       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User:LightAj

Can somebody please have a look on the uploads by User:LightAj, please? He is uploading images from the internet and he claims to be the author but this is not true. Hank 13:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I glanced at half a dozen of them and off hand they do not give me any obvious reason to believe they are not "own work". That assumes that he is a member of, or has access to the Philippine armed forces, but that's perfectly possible. Can you give us more details -- or, even better put a {{Delete}} tag on one that you think is bad? You do that by:

1. clicking on "edit" on the file page.
2. adding {{delete | Your reason for thinking this file should be deleted }} at the top
3. adding an edit summary
4. clicking on "save"
5. following the three numbered instructions in the delete template.

If you have any trouble with this, leave a note here.       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection for Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2009

Hi. maybe this could get semiprotected? IP's don't seem to add anything useful. Amada44 (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

User:FaleBot

Am I wrong or is FaleBot working without permission? --High Contrast (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

He has per Commons:Bots/Requests/FaleBot thr right to upload it-images manually assisted (not automatic) without bot flag. The other tasks where not approved. And he as to check each upload himself. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Main Page error

The caption on today's picture of the day reads: "Chinese stamp commemorating the execution of Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship in 1950. Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong are shaking hands." Could someone add "the" before "Sino"? Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, was me ... ;-) axp_de^Hello! 13:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Do we have anything like en:wp's WP:ERRORS? I've looked, but I couldn't find anything. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have Talk:Main Page, I suppose. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

So I should just make a request there and use the editprotected template? I didn't know but that maybe there was a better place. Nyttend (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Enwiki has a lot of things that are likely unneeded here at Commons, primarily because we're a smaller project, and in this case, our main page is a lot less dynamic. So using Talk:Main Page is fine IMO. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving images

I'm not sure where to put this, but I wondered if an admin could help me out? I have recently acquired file moving rights, and have initally been sorting out some of the mistakes I have made when I uploaded some files last year. I wish to move File:Southern Vectis 305.JPG to File:Southern Vectis 305 HW54 BTZ.JPG, and File:Southern Vectis 305 2.JPG to File:Southern Vectis 305 HW54 BTZ 2.JPG. However, the two places I want to move them too are currently redirects to files (that I have just moved away from those names - uploading them there was the original mistake). Is it possible for someone to delete the links at File:Southern Vectis 305 HW54 BTZ.JPG and File:Southern Vectis 305 HW54 BTZ 2.JPG, so I can then move the images so all of the naming systems fall under the same style? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent thank you. I have now moved the files and all the original problems have been ironed out. I have messed up some other things in the past so I'll probably be back here at some point in the future! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

deactivate this damaged bot please

good day, this bot http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:HersfoldOTRSBot nominate for deletion many free files - [7] [8] [9] . please, deactive him, before delete much files... thanks. --45180X22X22 (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

For info and completeness - section re-instated and above user blocked as a puppet account... Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits of User User:84.75.164.16

Can somebody help in (partially) reverting the edits of this user? Most of his edits have removed the flickrreview-done-template, together with mostly removing redundant categories. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, removing redundant cats isn't a bad thing. As for the flickrreview template, well, Flickrreviewr will just review it again and presumably get the same result. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that removing the categories isn't a bad thing and therefore the edits cannot be just rolled back. I don't like getting "presumably" the same result, as we know that flickr licenses can change unexpectedly. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for minor edit to recently uploaded image

I recently uploaded the image shown. On examining the image data I noticed the location was out by a few meters.

• The location in the current file is

  Camera location	52° 21′ 40.4″ N, 0° 14′ 58.8″ E	View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap

  • The proper location (of the camera) is

    Camera location	52° 21′ 41.51″ N, 0° 14′ 58.86″ E	View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap

    Am I able to correct this myself? If so, please link me the relevant help information.

    I recognise that I can upload a new version of the image to correct the issue. However, this seems a rather laborious procedure for such a minor edit.

    

    
    In addition, I am struggling to understand the formatting tags available to ensure text and images are where I want them on the page. I have been editing Little Thetford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Thetford). As you see from the editable content, I have had to place blank lines in the file to ensure that sections align with the correct image. Is there a way to automate this?

    In the file page, on the top press Edit button, you will be able to change information just like in the article and replace location template to correct on --Justass (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

    (ec) Simply click the edit tab at the top of the page and correct the values in the {{Location}} template, as I did here. You definitely do not need to re-upload the file (it would not even change the text on the page). –Tryphon^☂ 13:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

    Regarding the syntax for adding files to Wikipedia pages, see en:Wikipedia:Images and en:Wikipedia:Extended image syntax (in particular, en:Wikipedia:Extended image syntax#Cancelling floating-around-image mode). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

     Done

    Many thanks. For the record, the reason I could not edit the image is because I was looking at the image page via wikipedia. When I examined the page using wikimedia commons, the edit tab was indeed there. I will read through the references. Thank you again for your help. Much appreciated.--Senra (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

    {{Kept}}

    I note that when {{Kept}} is filled in by DelReqHandler that it shows the date of the closure, thus for a file closed today it would be read:

      The nomination, of course, was earlier. Might it be better if the first line read:

    This file was nominated for deletion, but was kept on 31 May 2010.

    or

    This file was nominated for deletion, but was kept after a discussion which ended on 31 May 2010.

         Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

    Sigh. The script does go at great lengths to actually find the timestamp of the earliest revision of the nomination page. It did use the date on which the nomination occurred until some guy came along and broke it. We cannot really change the wording of the template, it would leave all old uses misleading. I'm going to revert that change in the script. Lupo 15:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

    And  Done. Users of DelreqHandler should reload their browser's cache. Lupo 15:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

    I should have said, by the way, as a newbie Admin, how much I appreciate this script. I worked without it for just one day to make sure I knew what I was doing, and I'm not sure I could do the job without it. What a blessing!

    And, of course, fixing the script is the correct course. I suggested the template change only because it would have been easy, not knowing that the script was supposed to do the right thing. Thanks again.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

    watermarked pictures

    user has uploaded some pictures where are some watermark or some other mark, what you think about this case--Motopark (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

    Looks like entirely useless stuff. Probably his own marks, but appears to be just personal photos. - Jmabel ! talk 21:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

    Commons:Deletion requests/Family history

    At this DR, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) persists in importing some issues he is having on enwiki with another user and harping on about them. To be sure that I am not acting unreasonably, can I ask that another administrator review the matter, issue any warnings appropriate, remove any extraneous text from the DR page, and take such other action as may be considered expeditious to preventing the dispute at enwiki spilling over? Stifle (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

    Funnily enough, he was blocked on enwiki for the most recent comment here, which block was overturned because it was on the wrong project. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

    I issued a "final warning" at Commons:Deletion requests/Family history#what's this debate about?. Whoever continues complaining should be blocked for some hours ... axp_de^Hello! 09:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

    That DR can be closed as kept. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

    I disagree. --High Contrast (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

    Don't close the DR without removing the galleries. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

    Possible bad name

    This name seems inappropriate User:Shittyfin --Sandahl (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

    strange name, only vandalism edits ... blocked as vandalism-only-account axp_de^Hello! 23:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

    Time to update File:Www.wikipedia.org screenshot.png

    It's time to update File:Www.wikipedia.org screenshot.png. There is a new globe design now. --Beao 14:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    You can upload it directly under File:Www.wikipedia.org screenshot from June 4, 2010.png -- User:Docu at 16:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    It looks like as if this image has always been updated so the question would be, why break with that tradition now? And if so, then one should probably tear all those different versions apart, upload them separately and put them into the cat. Category:Www.wikipedia.org frontpage during the course of time (or similar). Amada44 (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

    Picture to revert

    Hi there, Giorgio writing. Categorizing I have found that a new user uploaded a picture with the same name of an older one creating some troubles to the spanish wikipedia where this pic was in use. Is it possible to revert it? Here the file: [10]. Sincerely.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    O.k., I've reverted it. But, it is little wonder that this happened with such a generic filename. Please propose a less generic filename. --Túrelio (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    Hi Turelio, thank you very much for your help. I have found another one to revert, same user, same problem: [11]. To revert as well. I'll write in the user pager about your suggestion.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    Indeed, the same problem. Uploader might be a child ;-). In regard to the image File:Museo.jpg, you might also ask the uploader for a permission. --Túrelio (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    Dubious Contributions

    I had my attention drawn to a misguided new version of a diagram (now reverted). This lead me to have a quick look though the work of the uploader, KVDP. There is much that is unexceptionable, but a fair proportion of it seems to me to fall into the category of using commons as a personal web space for expressing his own green agenda and for uploading his own less than half-baked engineering ideas. There are numerous current deletion requests. Is there a way to instigate a wider review of this oeuvre? Globbet (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

    There is a large deletion request of this user's drawings at Commons:Deletion requests/Inaccurate railway locomotive diagrams. I will add this concern there.       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

    Thank you, Jim, but I don't think that is enough. Since I last looked KVDP has uploaded several diagrams of pumps, which, again, are full of errors, eg this. Globbet (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

    Well, I guess I don't think it pays to have more than one discussion going at a time. Once we resolve the issues at Commons:Deletion requests/Inaccurate railway locomotive diagrams, since the issues are very similar, then slowing him down in other places -- blocking if necessary -- will be easier.

    Can you, or anyone else reading here, point me at a good definition of the difference between a plunger pump and a piston pump? My Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers has failed at that. It's clear that KVDP doesn't understand that the simplest reciprocating pumps have a flap valve in the moving part. He's certainly right that the articles on pumps need help, it's just that he's not qualified to give it.

    And, since this the Administrators' Noticeboard, perhaps we can have an Admin put the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Inaccurate railway locomotive diagrams to an end. It's been going on for two weeks and there are no Keep votes except the uploader and a number of very experienced railway people on the Delete side.       Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

    Well, you seem to be an Admin now, Jim ... Globbet (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, but still feeling my way. I am reluctant to close a debate on which I have strong feelings and have already entered the debate.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

    Now that Commons:Deletion requests/Inaccurate railway locomotive diagrams (among others) has gone through, I reiterate my original question: is there a way to instigate a wider review of KVDP's contributions? Globbet (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    Suggest you, me, and others, open his toolserver gallery and start knocking off the ones where each of us is expert. I've bypassed a lot of questionable ones, but started on the marine subjects. I'll work through at least the rest of those in the next few days. It amazes me that some of the drawings are actually in use.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

    File:DSC06175.JPG delete?

    The uploader (User talk:Alexdlap) has requested that this file be deleted in 31 January 2010 (Commons:Deletion requests/File:DSC06175.JPG) because he wishes to maintain his anonymity. However, it was decided to keep the file while trying to maintain the user's anonymity. Now, anyone that views the File:DSC06175.JPG can plainly see [his name] in the comment column of the file history. The image is unused, uncategorized and not especially useful (a Christmas tree at night at an unidentified location) - I would argue that the best thing to do is to delete this file and finally put this user out of his misery, but I'm laying this one on you admins and more experienced users. Cheers --Santosga (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

    Edit. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

    Deleted it, after uploading a copy of it (File:ChristmasTree DSC06175.jpg) without any traces of the original realname. --Túrelio (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

    Repair needed

    Commons:Deletion requests/2010/05: A lot of days are missing, could anyone familiar with this stuff repair it please? Thank you, --Polarlys (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

    We hit an Mediawiki size limit (<-- WARNING: template omitted, post-expand include size too large -->). I guess the only solution is to split up the month in two halfths...--DieBuche (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

    calendar week maybe? --Martin H. (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

    I don't really understand how individual deletion requests are removed from the daily logs after they are closed. Is there a bot? I ask because it seems to me that one way to reduce the size of the month is to aggressively go into the daily logs and remove the closed requests. It would also make it easier to read the remaining requests. I could do that if it's OK and I wouldn't be treading on someone else's turf. If that leaves some missing, I think they will appear once we reduce the size by more closures.

    On the other hand, it would be fairly easy to split the month -- it's just a title and 31 ifexist: tests. I'd say 1-15 and 16-31. Dividing by two should solve the problem for a while.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

    Flag of Nazi Germany

    The URL for relevant Polish law cited by File:Flag of Nazi Germany (1933-1945).svg has changed. The new URL is http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/Download?id=WDU19970880553&type=3   — C M B J   22:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

    done--DieBuche (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

    Possibly copyright violation

    There are, in Portuguese Wikipedia, three articles using images uploaded to Commons that may be violating copyrights, since they contain registered logotypes of private companies (including the schuteons of soccer teams):

    • Uniforms of Cruzeiro
    • Uniforms of Botafogo
    • Uniforms of Corinthians

    Since there are many images with the possible same problem, I'd like to know the opinion of others about it, before proceed with the nominations. I recognize that some of these logos, composed only by letters and simple geometric forms, may not violate copyrights, but others clearly do. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

    The logos composed only by letters and simple geometric forms are {{PD-ineligible}}. I think en:de minimis may apply to some, e.g., File:Corinthians uniforme 1951.png. Those with Coca-Cola are {{PD-1923}}; see Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:CocaCola-001.jpg, for example. The licenses should be changed to {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-old}} (or its variants) as applicable. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks, Siegmund. I agree with the cases of {{PD-ineligible}} and {{PD-1923}} (in the case for Coca-Cola), but I really disagree with de minimis, since the scutheon may be clearly seen. Anyway, are there other de minimis cases in Commons? Cheers! --Tonyjeff (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    Freedom of panorama Sudan

    It has been recently discoverer that Sudan does not have freedom of panorama, See Commons_talk:Licensing#Freedom_of_panorama_Sudan. Because of this many many images containing buildings and art are now non-free these need to bee located, moved to local wikis s non-free with rational and deleted from commons.This task requires urgent administrator assistance(the more the better).--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

    Please don't double post [12]. I'll take care of them, don't seem to many. --DieBuche (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    Reasons for deletion

    I think we need to add into reasons for deletion services other then Flickr, like Panoramio, PicasaWeb, etc. Or we need to make unfree Flickr license reason generic and name of service should be added into Other/additional reason. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    something wrong with the copyvio/speedy-template?

    There seems to be something wrong with the copyvio/speedy-template today, as the filename of the nominated file does no longer appear in the message on the image page and thereby makes it complicated to put a correct message on the uploaders talke page. Look, for example, at File:Egon-Schiele-Anton-Josef-Trcka-1914.jpg. This happens both with IE as with Opera browser. --Túrelio (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    It was a change done earlier today by User:DieBuche. I noticed the broken filename problem as well and attempted to correct it, but my fix didn't work. I'm half-tempted to revert DieBuche's change specifically on the grounds you mention... Tabercil (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

    Revert now, I'm sure DieBuche won't mind if he's not aware of this issue. ZooFari 04:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

    Probably bad contribs

    This user's contribs seem likely to be copyvios: Special:Contributions/Joaobruno. Should be looked at. JesseW (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

    Copyright violations

    Would any administrator-types like to have a word with DrewD887 (talk · contribs)? He appears to uploading images found elsewhere on the web, regardless of copyright status. His two most recent uploads are images from Life magazine and Corbis. - Eureka Lott 01:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

    Added end copyvio and deleted previous copyvios. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

    Bad rename

    Can someone check the rename associated with [13] this edit on enwiki please? As far as I can tell, commons delinker corrected the file name, but the rename hasn't taken place. Sorry, I don't have time to investigate this further myself. Tivedshambo (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

    Weird. Shouldn't CD just ignore commands, where the new image doesn't exist?--DieBuche (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

    All usages have been checked/fixed--DieBuche (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

    Help Mae West please!

    Will somebody please move this image here to commons from en.WP so it can be used on other wikis? The permission argument here is convincing to me. The matter has also been discussed here. Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

    The permission argument is a copy&pasted standard text that is often used, that is maybe true for many images uploaded with that rational, but it is not save. The copy&pasted text does not address the specific image, no real evidence that this is pd - e.g. no publication is mentioned but just a deeplink to random website. We cant claim that image public domain without any evidence, that the "maybe" is indeed true for that image. --Martin H. (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

    The image is found linked from this page and the website does not claim its images are public domain either per this. The existing licence may well be correct but some vital data, date & author, is missing. Ww2censor (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

    As far as I know, it is rare for any company, website, person, or organization, including the U.S. government, to actually declare or "claim" that something is PD. The procedure is the reverse: unless something is proven or presumed to have a copyright, it is assumed to be PD. Such things as copyright notices, common law copyrights, and official copyright filings (verified through searching online or printed copyright notices), are used to prove or at least presume a copyright exists. So the fact that a website includes a photo without "claiming" it is PD, does not imply that it is not PD.

    In the case of the website that posted this, and other photos, what they do make clear from both their written descriptions and the photos themselves (each worth at least a "1,000 words") is that they are "publicity photos," and were not necessarily printed in magazines or books. The nature of the photos there, or those in many books, is evidence enough of their publicity purpose. Actors, in their professional careers, generally act or help publicize their films with stills. It's purposes are similar to a "movie" and a "movie poster." However, movie stills were intended to be given out to the general public, or media, as publicity. That's why there were literally millions of actor stills sent out to fans, many with pre-printed or original autographs. The absolute last thing a studio or actor would do want to restrict the free distribution of such photos. This is also related to what is most obvious from the photo, what it looks like. And there are many books and other websites that specialize in compiling and reselling copies of such memorabilia. The rationale given for this image meets any "reasonable" standard that it would be PD. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

    So is somebody going to help us with this or not? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

    I don't think so. In fact, I have serious doubts that this image is PD even in the U.S. There is absolutely no evidence that this image was in the public domain, and the author given ("Dr. Macro") is ludicrous. There is no evidence that this is a "movie still"; I rather think it's a studio portrait. The photographer was George Hurrell; check the IPTC data in the JPG and [14]. The image was taken "c. 1934" according to [15] (the IPTC says 1933) and—still according to [16]—"published later". George Hurrell at that time was already an experienced photographer, and he was independent. He left MGM in 1932 after a "a disagreement with MGM publicity head Howard Strickling"[17] and he had his own studio from 1932-1938 at 8706 Sunset Boulevard.[18] So the copyright was originally clearly Hurrell's; it's not even a "work for hire" for MGM. Until we have clear evidence that the image indeed was originally published without copyright symbol, {{PD-US-no notice}} is not applicable. Since somebody linked the duck test above: to me, this image quacks "I'm a copyvio!". You might perhaps use a scaled-down version as "fair use" at the English Wikipedia, but that's it. Lupo 13:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

    Agree that Hurrell photos would require a higher standard of proof of no copyright than typical studio portraits, so can't argue the point. Note that "Dr. Macro" was only given as the "source," not "author." The author was listed as "Studio portrait," not knowing the photographer's name from the source, and "studio still" is the general term for such posed shots, made by the studio for the purpose of publicizing the actor or film. But since Hurrell photos are notable, many having been republished in books, I'll concede that the PD is debateable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

    Anyone really talented and constructive who can find a better photo than what was the West article's main portrait before this one on enWP? There are thousands of good photos of her (check Google), surely somebody knows how to find one for free use on all WP projects? Just about every other entertainment star has one by now, and West's career spanned 70 years. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

     Done & great! SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    Oops, I see the nitpicking continues on the new image's talk page. Amazing to me how some editors will put a huge amount of time and effort into arguing not to use images, rather than spendong that time and effort trying to find at least one free image to use as a presentable portrait of a person of this stature. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

    Well, it appears to me that you don't care about copyright but just about having a picture of Mae West at the Commons. Would you not be interested in having some evidence that the "new image" File:Mae West LAT.jpg really was PD? If so, we could even use the full version that I mentioned at File talk:Mae West LAT.jpg. I'm investing time in trying to ascertain that image's real status, as opposed to blindly believing careless blanket statements that I've seen all too often to turn out to be wrong in the end. Lupo 12:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

    Imagine a Wikipedian writing something to an article with the <ref>''I heard it from someone and other people say it too, it true, obviously''</ref>. Thats comparable to what you call "nitpicking" here on Commons. Thanks Lupo for your work, this simply is complicated, it is not just 'finding' free images. Individual review case-by-case is always required. No matter the file has been uploaded already like in this case and the time consumption becomes visible or some file was 'found' for upload and the research is done correctly in the run-up. Ex-post the effort is the same - or must be the same, we regretably have not enough Lupos here and so the equation of efforts doesnt hold. --Martin H. (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

    I apologize sincerely for using the word nitpicking and for not being clear about my desires here. Any image that is not PD should be removed quickly, in my opinion. Thank you for putting all this work into trying to save this one! I misread and thought it looked like there was only interest in deleting it, none at all in saving it. What I find so frustrating is the lenthty discussions, even when the best intentions are clear, as they actually are here. Wish there was some easier way of finding good portraits of major personalities of this kind - whose careers took place 50-60-years ago or more - and of securing their PD status. Thank you again! SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

    Possible copyright problem with uploaded images

    I think that there is a problem with the images that User:Mr.pickles2010 has uploaded (see here. They all look like publicity shots which the uploaded is claiming ownership of. It's likely that he owns copies of the images (and some are signed), but I don;t think that gives the owner of the physical copy the right to reproduce or to place them under the GFDL. Thanks for looking at this! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

    Dubious images

    Mr.pickles2010 (talk · contribs) This user has uploaded a number of images lately. Some of them look like scans of 8x10s that they've received from the various celebrities in the pictures. They're signed by the celeb. I'm not that familiar with how Commons works, so I thought I'd post here. Dismas (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

    Images deleted and editor was warned. Bidgee (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

    He uploaded five more, of which at least four seem to be publicity shots. BTW, what's the appropriate speedy deletion tag for a suspected copyrighted image here in Commons? Thanks! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

    If it's a suspected copyvio, I would hang a {{Delete}} on it and have a discussion. If you are sure it's a copyvio, then use {{Copyvio}}. In both cases, make sure you go through the full routine -- {{Delete}} has three steps, while {{Copyvio}} requires you to post a notice on the uploader's talk page. In both cases, templates for the steps are provided.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

    Egyptian Wikipedia

    • Is it allowed to make a derived version of that picture to be used for Egyptian Wikipedia logo? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

      Don't all wikipedias use the same logo? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Most of them, but Egyptian Wikipedia isn't one of them now. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

    Is it arz:? The Logo of a wiki is in default settings arz:File:Wiki.png (afaik). Most wikipedias have their logo uploaded localy. Of course you can use File:Wikipedia-logo.png for a derivative, see all the other language versions in Wikipedia (but remember, most of this are mirrors and not the currently used version of that Wikipedia projects). Remember to add, besides the license for your personal work, the {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} license tag, the Wikilogo is not free content, its unrestricted use is allowed on Wikimedia projects but not outside the projects. --Martin H. (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

    File:Лого-АРМЗ.png (done)

    Undelete this file and revert delinker's work, please Rubin16 (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC) {{PermissionOTRS|2010033110039261}}

    Undeleted, but no idea how to revert CD, after nearly 2 months. --Túrelio (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

    Delinker log – done. --32X (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

    Favicon

    Why is the favicon, which is declared by <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/favicon.ico" /> this line, an empty file? Is that on purpose? Otherwise I can provide with a proper favicon of the commons logo--DieBuche (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

    Huh? http://commons.wikimedia.org/favicon.ico doesn't seem empty to me (and neither does https://secure.wikimedia.org/favicon.ico, for that matter). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

    Fun! More browser issues! It indeed shows up in Firefox. Safari & Chrome get nothing though. The favicon which shows in FF, could need some transparency though--DieBuche (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

    According to w:Favicon one can declare multiple favicons like that

    <link rel="icon" type="image/vnd.microsoft.icon" href="http://example.com/image.ico">

    <link rel="icon" type="image/png" href="http://example.com/image.png"> & all modern browsers use the png, while IE falls back to the ico. This would allow for a clean transparency in most browsers--DieBuche (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

    The icon looks fine for me on Chrome. But you are right about the transparency. Commons and Wikipedia aren't transparent, while e.g. Meta is transparent. You can ask for changes by filing a request on bugzilla:. --Slomox (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

    done here--DieBuche (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

    Revision delete for File:Rapid delete.png

    Several revisions of File:Rapid delete.png are copyvios of [19]. Can someone please delete them? Also in the future how do I best handle such copyvios?--Svgalbertian (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

    I don't think we currently have a template specifically for requesting deletion of old file revisions, but you could've probably just tagged the file with {{Copyvio}} and noted in the reason parameter that only the two reverted versions should be deleted. Anyway, I've deleted them for you now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

    I worry they would delete the entire file, but it would probably work. If such a template exists it would be ideal.--Svgalbertian (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

    Panoramio mysteries

    Anybody an idea how to find the "normal" Panoramio image page corresponding to a "static" URL, such as http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/16668999.jpg ? --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

    Change it to https://www.panoramio.com/photo/16668999 (if that's what you meant).—LX (talk, contribs) 10:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

    Yes. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

    *Category:Scouts certificates‎

    Hello, I went to Commons:Rename a category, it doesn't say the actual procedure I need to do this. What must I do? Thank you! --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

    I think it does. Read this section carefully. There it says: Tag these with a {{Category redirect}} and Tag these with a {{Move}}. Click on the links to find out more. Amada44 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

    Neither of the above apply. I'm sure someone will eventually help me, though. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

    Ouch. I am sorry for not helping you. Can you explain what exactly you want to do? This Category:Scouts_certificates is a redirect to here: Category:Scouting_certificates using the category redirect. Amada44 (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    User:Eemma81

    Eemma81 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) This user has been adding images, most of which are obvious copyright violations. I've warned the user and tagged most of the images. However, they still continue to add more. I've already blocked this user (and socks) on the English Wikipedia for continuing to add the copyrighted images to an article. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    Sorted most of the copyvios and dropped another warning on the user page. They should be blocked if it continues. Thanks for raising it. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    Logo File:Aladi.jpg

    What are your opinion about this logo File:Aladi.jpg, are the licence OK--Motopark (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    First of all, the quality is crappy (upsampled pixel image which should be svg to begin with). Secondly, IMO the small south-america-shaped object does not meet the threshold of originality. So it should be PD-textlogo. --Dschwen (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    I disagree with Dschwen that this is PD-textlogo, which illustrates the fact that the best thing to do if you have this kind of question is to put a {{Delete}} tag on it and let us all discuss it at Commons:Deletion requests. It is perfectly OK to say in the reason section of the tag that you aren't sure, but would just like another opinion. I have done that and copied the comments above.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

    Misuse of Template:cc-by-3.0-IndiaFM

    The template uses an OTRS permission that clears some things but clearly states that all images need a second additional OTRS permission. Lots of users see a ticket, don't read the rest and upload all kinds of images from the website. Yet they are sorted into "OTRS-confirmed". What about all the images that don't have the second required permission? I was about to nominate some but you get crazy checking all the bad uploads, application of deletion templates and notifications for all the cases - along with explanations how people can ask for releasing the images in case they are legit. Couldn't this be handled better? Hekerui (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

    I think Stifle was right on the mark when I raised an instance of this problem at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard (see Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Uploads by Arjun024, permanent link): the template should be deleted and all instances should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I think the correct procedure would be:

    • Nominate the template for deletion.
    • Replace all instances of the template (121 by my count) with {{OTRS pending}}. A bot should be able to help with this.
    • Future uploads from this source should use normal licensing and OTRS pending/confirmed tags. There is no need for a special template for sites whose files require case-by-case verification.

    I don't think there's a need to notify everyone who used the template for their uploads. If they followed the directions and their claims are truthful, there should be a record in OTRS, in which case the file will be kept. If one fails to read the directions or if one lies during the upload process, one's uploads are subject to deletion without further notice. We make that quite clear during the upload process. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

    Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Brittany Suza (brittsuza) from Flickr

    This DR was opened on the 7th and has had several delete votes with no keep votes. Numerous editors suspect this girl to be underage. This needs to be closed promptly, deleted, oversighted, the sent to legal staff so it can be reported to NCMEC. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

    Attrition. Stillwaterising has nominated these files so often now. Was it you that contacted Flickr? There is no reason to believe that the model was a minor. Without the Flickr pages, it is difficult to say anything about the copyright concerns. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

    illegal use of coyrighted image (File:Kirkpridebow.jpg)

    An image of the wreck of the Kirk Pride at 800' down the Cayman Wall, which I created and own has appeared without my consent on:

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kirkpridebow.jpg

    It is not now, nor has it ever been in the public domain. If you look closely you can see my copyright notice, still intact on the lower right of the image.

    All I ask is that you please change the photo credit from public domain to read: Not public domain/copyrighted ©1988 CourtneyPlatt.com

    If you cannot do that, please delete it from Wikimedia here and on the other Wikimedia site mentioned as well.

    Finally, please notify me when one or the other action has been taken. I have saved a copy of both this and the offending page.

    Thank you, Courtney Platt

              www.courtneyplatt.com
              [email protected]  (email)
    

    Hi Mr. Platt,

    thanks for notifying us and sorry that we didn't detect that earlier. Obviously your copyright note was hidden too well ;-). As you "offered" an alternative to plain deletion, could you agree to release the image in the current 500 × 341 Pixel resolution under a "free" Creative-Commons license (such as CC-BY-SA 3.0), that would require any user to credit/attribute you as the author? To be sure, this would still allow (free) use for commercial purposes. --Túrelio (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

    Renaming

    Hi! If anyone has a little free time, please rename this image: File:Shuzou ferris wheel at night.jpg. Thanks. - RepliCarter (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

     Done. --Túrelio (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

    Thank you! - RepliCarter (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

    Wrong spelling in Mediawiki message MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot/fr

    Please replace "d'unecatégorie" by "d'une catégorie" in message MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot/fr. Thanks! Zetud (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

     Done --Leyo 16:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

    Copyright violation?

    Hello. I am not an expert for copyright violations, so please could someone check the files in:

    • Category:Prekmurian language

    All the files have the permission “I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.”

    I heavily doubt that a current student (User:Doncsecz) is the copyright holder of a 1923 published work, but maybe I'm wrong.

    This user is spamming across some 40 (!) wikipedias, including here at commons, with always the same scheme. He creates several articles with dubious sources and places dozens of links into other articles. The aim is, to exalt a local dialect to an international recognized language. Brgds, --R.Schuster (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    addendum: Seems there are already some proved copyvios of this user, see User talk:Doncsecz. --R.Schuster (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    Dear Wikimedia Commons! I please the commons, that by-pass to the R.Schuster's bounder number. My sources and my University in Szombathely also support this name prekmurian language. If needful, i recite few hundred books, essay, films and others, which attest, the prekmurian is a regional language the Slovene in Prekmurje and Hungary, not simply dialect. R.Schuster inexpert, not ken the Slovene dialects and Slovene language. This regional variant have low tradition, Marc. L. Greenberg the lecturer of the Kansas University in 1990's was wrote few essay about the prekmurian and his dissertation was the prekmurian dialect and literature.

    This is Greenberg's works:

    • Marc L. Greenberg: Ágosti Pável's Prekmurje Slovene grammar. Slavistična revija 37/1-3 (1989), 353-364.
    • Marc L. Greenberg: Circumflex advancement in Prekmurje and beyond / O pomiku praslovanskega cirkumfleksa v slovenščini in kajkavščini, s posebnim ozirom na razvoj v prekmurščini in sosednjih narečjih. Slovene studies 14/1 (1992), 69-91.
    • Marc L. Greenberg: Glasoslovni opis treh prekmurskih govorov in komentar k zgodovinskemu glasoslovju in oblikoglasju prekmurskega narečja. Slavistična revija 41/4 (1993), 465-487.
    • Marc L. Greenberg: Archaisms and innovations in the dialect of Središče: (Southeastern Prlekija, Slovenia). Indiana Slavic studies 7 (1994), 90-102.
    • Marc L. Greenberg: Prekmurje grammar as a source of Slavic comparative material. Slovenski jezik 7 (2009), 28-44.
    • Marc L. Greenberg: Slovar beltinskega prekmurskega govora. Slavistična revija 36 (1988). 452–456. [Review essay of Franc Novak, Slovar beltinskega prekmurskega govora [A Dictionary of the Prekmurje Dialect of Beltinci].

    R.Schuster was start rampage campaign in few wikipedia, query the sources, as every one is in Hungarian or Slovene language. R.Schuster disapprove, that in German ar not sources. The quest of the prekmurian on the part of the foreign states at present years begun (see: Marc L. Greenberg), but few linguist except, that the prekmurian not simply dialect, but for R.Schuster (1([[[User:Doncsecz|Doncsecz]] (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    R.Schuster's narrow opinion, that the prekmurian simply, dinkey slovene dialect the opinion of the Yugoslaw communistic linguists, those who by 40 Years depreciate the prekmurian. Ágoston Pável was the famous linguist, historian and writer the Prekmurian Slovenes, and declare:
    When researching the cultural impact of Hungarians on Slovenes, we have to draw a distinct line between two Slovene territories: the one within the borders (usually Prekmurian) and the one beyond them (this was usually called Austrian Slovene before World War I). The former had been living together with Hungarians within the borders of a culturally united state for a thousand years, thus it goes without saying that living within the same state bound them closely together in all aspects. The people, ruled by Hungarian feudal lords, followed the orders and customs of their lords in everything… Isolation and the lack of possibilities to evolve independently helped to preserve lots of ancient features in the language, traditions and way of life of this small group of people, on the other hand, it also prevented or slowed down the development of circumstances necessary for independent growth.

    Today the Slovene linguist admit, that the Prekmurian and Resian have high separateness and reasonable the prekmurian literature. Few writer wrote in prekmurian today, and Franci Just and others save the documents, which point out, that through the Anti-Communism of the prekmurian writers was play down the communists the prekmurian literature after the World War II. Doncsecz (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    You totally miss the topic, we talk here about Copyright violation. --R.Schuster (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    This is the call againts your mystification and seried rampages, as you be incapable of accept, that your affirmations is mustys! Doncsecz (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

     Comment I agree with User:R.Schuster that most of User:Doncsecz uploads are incorrectly licensed as {{PD-self}}, however I do not think most are Copyright violation. Most of User:Doncsecz uploads are title pages from books from 1800s and should be licensed as {{PD-old}}. --Jarekt (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
    @R.Schuster, the broken communication may also be a result of language (in-)capabilities. As Doncsecz claims hu-4, you might ask Grin (talk · contribs) for help. --Túrelio (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    My files is mostly old books, but the Murska Sobota Library was assign the uploads. The name Prekmurian language reflect the status in Slovenia, where is prekmurščina (ščina=language). Doncsecz (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    Grin is my direct collegue. The slovene and hungarian wiki me support. Doncsecz (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    This recommendation was not about supporting (or not) your cause, but improving communication. --Túrelio (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    Hello Túrelio. Thanks, BTDT. --R.Schuster (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    R.Schuster have not knowledge in the theme of the prekmurian as:

    1. Ken not the prekmurian and declare: this is low, dinkey dialect
    2. Cas doubt on few notable questings, which except the prekmurian in the Slovene dialects.
    3. Some of this researcher is was deal with the prekmurian 50-60 year, for ex. Vilko Novak, slavist, searcher and recognized person
    4. If R.Schuster is inexpert, needless chip on the prekmurian theme Doncsecz
    5. R.Schuster fanatical crusader, wantonly state these: have not authentic source. But this source from Vilko Novak is objective, recognized source. Doncsecz (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    Here R.Schuster feign, that this lexicons not mention the prekmurian. This is pathological! The foreign quest of the prekmurian was even depart, and presently notice every Lexicon in this World? Doncsecz (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

    Please, calm down. Neither the word "spamming" nor "fanatic crusader" helps communication. Doncsecz writes about a real language which is often disputed (in my opinion, based on the slight research about the latest disputes, the claim that it's just a dialect isn't correct), and since it seems to be part of his heritage he usually fails to be able to dispute it calmly, and the other involved editors usually go along with the arrogant style and all start behaving uncivilised. This is unnecessary.

    Without much research (I'll try to read all the skirmish later) I'm sure the sources of Doncsecz are valid and should be accepted, especially because I'm sure he mentioned the SIL process, which could finally end all these problems. I don't know the sources of R.Schuster supporting the statement that the language in question is not a language but a dialect, but I guess linguistics isn't really able to make a black-or-white distinction.

    But I'll try to read all the stuff you wrote, but please try to reach some consesus. Schuster, it possibly won't hurt anyone if you'd accept it as a language when it's 50% is and 50% isn't [if you believe these figues aren't so please point me to supporting sources], and this would make your fellow editor Doncsecz happy; and Doncsecz it would be extremely good to try to be calm. Thanks. --grin ✎ 06:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

    preliminary request	előzetes kérés
    Doncsecz, please reach a consensus on the talk page of the language on the Hungarian Wikipedia, because that's a language you prefer. If you can convince the editors of your points there I can accept them here and anywhere. So far, as far as I see, some of your points were questioned, you were hinted about your POV and requested to fix it and back it up. If you cannot convince them there, and you can't use English enough to convice editors on other Wikipedias, I cannot help you, since I'm not a linguist. Thanks.	Doncsecz, kérlek érd el azt, hogy egyetértés legyen a vend nyelv vitalapján, mert magyarul jobban értesz, mint angolul. Ha ott meg tudod győzni a szerkesztőket érveiddel akkor tudom azokat itt, vagy bárhol máshol is elfogad(tat)ni. Eddig, amennyire látom az érveidet megkérdőjelezték, és jelezték azt is, hogy az általad képviselt nézőpont nem semleges, és kérték a javítását. Ha őket nem tudod ott meggyőzni, máshol pedig nem elég jó az angolod a vitákhoz, akkor nem fogok tudni neked segíteni, mert nem vagyok nyelvész.
    Schuster, please help me to see your sources backing up the claim that the language in question isn't a language, or that the SIL process Doncsecz hints wouldn't go on. Or any backing on questioning its language status. Thanks.	Schuster, légyszíves segíts nekem a forrásaiddal, hogy a kérdéses nyelv nem nyelv, vagy hogy a Doncsecz által sugallt SIL eljárás nem fog lezajlani. Vagy bármit ami alátámasztja a nyelvszerűség kérdését. Kösz.
    --grin ✎ 07:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

    ---

    Grin, csak azért nem semleges ez nézőpont, mert mások annak nyilvánították: azért egyoldalú, mert Schuster véleménye az, hogy nincs külföldi forrás, de nem hiszem, hogy nem tudja átlátni az egészet, csak a maga elgondolásai szerint él! Doncsecz (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

    Értem, de akkor is a tartalmi kérdésekben győzd meg azokat, akik magyarul vitáznak. Ha őket sem tudod meggyőzni, akkor másokat sem fogsz. Nem Schustert kell meggyőznöd, hanem lehetőleg objektíven, külső szemlélő számára is levezethető érveket felmutatni. Nem nekem. --grin ✎ 16:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

    ---

    Hello grin. Thank you for your statement. The content controverse is not the matter of this topic, the claim is a possible copyright-violation or at least wrong licensing. We only talk about the media here, the content-debatte is off-topic. But in short: “The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.” en:WP:PROVEIT. Best regards, --R.Schuster (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

    @R.Schuster, please do not use boldface letters if not necessary. Grin is admin, he knows about that. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

    I just made the possible copyright-violation bold, to make sure we don't miss the topic. The rest was just a plain copy&paste from en:WP:PROVEIT, I didn't alter anything. Anyhow, sorry if someone feels offended because of this! (And of course I'm aware that grin is admin) Brgds, --R.Schuster (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

    @R.Schuster: Indeed, I have noticed that the original report was about a license problem, which could have been politely resolved by kindly pointing out that Doncsecz have used the wrong PD template, as it seems to be the case. (Many editors are unfamiliar with the legal niceties behind the various PD and free licenses.) As far as I see (by randomly checking some files) the license was already corrected, or if it wasn't it simply could, I'm sure Doncsecz can accept anyone's help in that.

    However I fail not to notice that the discussion quite involved other topics, or rather it have changed into them. I'm happy if there isn't any problem about the question whether it's a language or not, and whether his sources are real or not, since the original copyright problem seems to be just an unintentional misuse of the PD templates, and could be easily fixed. (More specifically pd-own changed to pd-old.) If there were real copyvios (eg. non-free media with free license), they should be pointed out a bit more specifically, and handled so. And if there are dubious or unverifiable licenses, they should be listed to be examined, but I'd still prefer a bit more helpful and polite way rather than start out calling it "copyvio". --grin ✎ 16:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

    Well, if PD-old should apply, then we still need a prove that the authors of 1923 or even 1934 published articles are dead since 70 years, don't we? Or an OTRS-release from the Murska Sobota Library, if they should be the copyright-holder. Anyhow, claiming someone else' work as the own is a copyvio, this have hothing to do with politeness. And there is no excuse because of language difficulties, because the PD-templates supports several langauges, including hungarian. And it is not the first copyvio of this user, see User talk:Doncsecz. --R.Schuster (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

    The Library of Sobota support the upload of this file, but by 1945. In 1950 and 1951 was proceed issue of some prekmurian books, but the upload of this already not free licence. In my talk, where is the warnig, i was already discuss with users, that this files by 1945 free licences. Doncsecz (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    Írd le magyarul, hogy mit akartál mondani, mert én sem értem. --grin ✎ 13:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

     Comment about dialect vs. language. I think the language/dialect in question meets all the technical criteria of a language except "en:A language is a dialect with an army and navy". --Jarekt (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

    I kindly asked Doncsecz to request the proper permission. There are some images, however, which contain enough "creativity" to justify authorship. Not many, though. --grin ✎ 13:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    Violation copyright

    Hi,

    All the recent uploadings by Studio Harcourt (see) are clearly in copyright violation since these artistical pictures by a very famous professional studio in France are not in the PD-old. They must be speedy-deleted ASAP. Furthermore I deeply doubted that this user name is correct and respects identity rules. Thanks in advance.--LPLT (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

     Not done. It appears this account does belong to a representative of Studio Harcourt. Okki sucessfully made contact with them and confirmed their intention to release these files under a free license. It should be confirmed on OTRS shortly. You may view the photographs on Category:Studio Harcourt Paris.

    I may add, this is really amazing: a professional photograph studio decided on their own to come here and share their work with us. It is really great news for Wikimedia Commons.

    Jean-Fred (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    Please block Bilanx

    Bilanx (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user has been blocked twice before. The latest two-month block expired in January. Since then, they've managed to make zero useful contributions while uploading seven more copyright violations. Enough chances already. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

     Done by Krinkle. --Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    Newbie question

    Is there a way to delete 50+ images other than one at a time? I intend to close Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Vero83alvarez, but would like to avoid doing them one at a time.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    There are two ways: The first methode only working for one month after upload, its Special:Nuke, so this is not usefull here. The second is the Gadget DelReqHandler in Special:Preferences, see MediaWiki talk:DelReqHandler.js, I used it in Firefox and Internet Explorer. This Gadget adds small links looking like "File:Ytororo 0226.jpg [del] [keep]" to file links on deletion request subpages, klicking on the [del] button will open and complete(!! be carefull with clicking around in deletion request pages) the deletion in a new window/tab of your browser, klicking on the [keep] button will remove the {{Delete}} from the image and tag the file as {{Kept}} on the image talkpage. All opened windows close after the action is succesfull. That allows quick deletion. In this particular case I however suggest to take a closer look, for me the files taken with a Canon PowerShot A400 and a DSC-W50 are likely own work, compare the dates of creation and upload in File:PetroSan1 0224.jpg or File:Vaqueria.jpg. The rest is for deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    I've used AWB to help in mass deletions. You still have to sit there and click "OK" and enter a deletion summary, but it's less clicks and navigation than individual deletion. -Andrew c (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks to you both. I already use DelReqHandler -- but it doesn't behave as quite as Martin H. describes, so I've asked Lupo about it. As for AWB -- does AWB do deletion (I don't see a button)? In this case there's a list in the DR, so DelReqHandler would be faster, but I can certainly see a use for handing AWB a carefully created list and having it go at it.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    A newbie thought

    Should we have a tutorial page for new administrators? Wikipedia:New admin school is very extensive, but I'm thinking more along the lines of a brief introduction to the tools -- just an annotated list, starting with:

    • DelReqHandler - essential tool for rapidly closing Deletion Requests (Preferences > Gadgets)
    • ?

         Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    I'm sure there is a page somewhere but can't put my hands on it for now.

    One problem is that admin buttons are the same across wikis - the "job" kinda isn't. en wp admins often know too little about copyright for example. Most of us have picked it up as we go along (I'd been here a while before I discovered DelReqHandler (& it works nicely on upload logs - nuke is good if contribs are recent). I tend to post somewhere on these boards when I'm not sure but commons sense usually works reasonably well for approach to the project. More specific info may well be good for tools - dig around in the gadgets in preferences (& if you find something interesting let me know:)). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    User experience testing today

    Hi there. As part of the Multimedia usability project, whose goal is to improve the upload workflow and make it easier, we're having a UX testing session today. That means we'll watch real users interact with the site. They're going to use the accounts Multimedia 1 (talk · contribs) to Multimedia 6 (talk · contribs). We're keeping a close eye on them and their edits. Don't worry about copyright / author information etc., I'm going to do the cleanup once we're done. Thanks a lot for your cooperation. Guillaume Paumier (guillom)15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    Removal of no-source tags from questionably or poorly sourced files

    Only recently I became aware that Nyttend (talk · contribs) yesterday and today removed from about 50 files (by different uploaders, not his own images!) the no-source tag, mostly with the rationale that the uploaders had claimed "own" as source at upload. At least for the few files I checked afterwards, there was no new or additional evidence that IMHO would justify the removal of this problem tag. When I explained[20] to him why "allegedly own"-sourced uploads are sometimes no-source-tagged by me and others with good reason, he didn't give in, but replied "... I also know that the policy says an {{Own}} claim is sufficient. ..." (emphasize by me).
    Opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    I think such actions should be reverted. {{Own}} is not warranty against errors or misuse. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    I agree with Eugene's statement. --High Contrast (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    We should change the policy. While I believe in assuming good faith, it's clear that many new editors use {{Own}} in many cases where it isn't accurate -- many, probably most, of these are innocent misunderstandings, but that doesn't make them any less a problem. Then, of course, there are those who knowingly misuse it, also problems.

    And, yes, the removals should be reverted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    Reword the policy if you want, but the tag says "This media file is missing essential source information. The author and source of the file must be given...Unless the source is given, the file can be speedily deleted..." The tag does not say "The author and source of the file must be given and proven"; it only requires that a source be stated. I'm well aware that people misuse {{Own}}, but it's quite improper to tag a file for deletion as having no source if one is given. I was told some time back that we have no IAR policy here; it's not as if the images were tagged with a "this source is doubtful" template. You could always employ COM:DR if you believe that these should be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    If you believe that these images are problems, why don't you create a page such as Commons:Possibly unfree files, to be patterned after en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files? Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    Just make a deletion request if you do not agree with removal of the tag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    I agree with both Nyttend and Turelio. Nytend is right, we need a new tag, along the lines of "Possibly incorrectly labeled own work", with an explanation that you don't use "own" on most derivative works, etc. Turelio is right that we need a method one step shy of a DR to encourage users to put a correct tag on their uploads. Not only is a DR intimidating, but it's a multi-step process that saps our time -- better to put on the suggested tag and avoid some of the DRs.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    @Pieter, very helpful comment ;-(. One user removes 50 no-source tags and thereby forces other users to file 50 DRs. As even filing that will take a lot of time, in between trusting re-users may take such an image (now without a problem tag) for outside-use and, if the initial suspicion was correct, boom, DMCA or worse. Thereafter, they will likely be thankful to Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    Can someone point me to the policy that says any {{Own}} is good enough to prevent {{Nsd}}? I can't find a specific Commons page about it. If the wording in the template is the only policy statement in existence, then one might wish to consider the statement piece by piece. Unfortunately, that involves subtle things like the difference between "a" and "the". But, piece by piece:

    1. "This media file is missing essential source information." — A fake {{Own}} does not provide essential source information; they provides a fake placeholder so people won't go looking for essentials instead.
    2. "The author and source of the file must be given, so that others can verify the copyright status." — A fake {{Own}} does not actually give the source; indeed, it impedes verifying the file by hiding the source behind the uploader himself.
    3. "Unless the source is given, the file can be speedily deleted" — Unless the uploader really is "the source", it hasn't been given yet.

    I suspect that the template is only meant to be descriptive, rather than policy, however; perhaps the policy/guideline is somewhere on Commons that I can't find it quickly. Perhaps it has never been addressed explicitly by policy/guideline yet, but I hope it has. If it happens that there is no explicit guideline, and this discussion is introducing it for the first time, then it may be useful to consider the usefulness of a similarly-worded speedy deletion criteria on English Wikipedia: en:WP:CSD#G12 allows speedy on "copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license", but does not allow speedy for "equivocal cases (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission...)"; in other words, if there is a possibility that the editor is correct, then it is not speedy, but if the editor's claim appears to be totally frivolous, then it gets speedy. (I am not saying this is the current guideline for Commons; I am only saying it is a useful thing to consider if we are discussing this question for the first time on Commons.) --Closeapple (talk)

    @Nyttend, you may be right about the template, it's not very descriptive, but removing {{Nsd}} tag without proper investigation is not acceptable. many of those images are derivative works, for example those maps, it's not clear if uploader is author of background map or not. I can't believe that you removed fifty tags at once without reviewing images!

    Nyttend said "but it's quite improper to tag a file for deletion as having no source if one is given. [...] You could always employ COM:DR if you believe that these should be deleted."

    We tag a file as "no source" when we are sure that given source is not true, {{Own}} template doesn't mean anything, anyone can upload any non-free material and then claim that it's their own work, we should carefully review all the information, also please take a look at Category:Media without a source, it will take ages if we have to open a DR for all of those files!
    Please revert all of your edits, review images one by one, contact the uploaders and investigate each image carefully, then you can remove the tags if you still believe uploader's claim was true.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  18:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    I am often working in Category:Media without a source, and I hate it when files are tagged with "no source" when there is a source or a claim of own work. The tagger almost leaves never gives an indication of his reasons. Sometimes I can guess (small image size), but still: a reason should be given. If there is no reason, I feel free to remove the tag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    Please do not remove {{Nsd}} tags without proper investigation. file size is not the only clue that leads us to doubt the authorship of uploader, please try to contact both uploader and the user who tagged the file and investigate about image, if 'nsd' tags and backlog of their category bother you, please just leave them for other volunteers.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  20:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    What bothers me is that some admins may clean out the older categories without much scrutiny. It is the responsibility of the taggers to make their reasons for tagging comprehensible, to the uploader and to people checking these categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    •  Comment I would also prefer that {{Nsd}} is only used when no source is given at all. If someone claims {{Own}} and you do not trust that to be true I think that a DR is better because then you can give arguments why we can not trust that. I know that DR's might be backlogged but if good arguments are given I think it is possible to close DR's after 7 days. --MGA73 (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    I second (or is it third now?) the suggestion that there should be a "{{Source disputed since}}" tag, similar to {{No source since}} but a) correctly explaining to newbies what the problem is, and b) taking a mandatory reason parameter so that admins reviewing the files can have some idea why they were tagged. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    Toss my vote onto the pile for a "source disputed tag". Tabercil (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    Wouldn't it be easier to just add an argument to {{Nsd}} so people who use the tag can include a reason? I don't see the point of having two tags with almost the same purpose. If the real complaint is a lack of a reason, then add a "reason" parameter. Wknight94 ^talk 14:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

    That could work too, although I'm not convinced that it'd be any easier. (All the translations of {{No source since}} would have to be modified, and scripts to add the tag would need to be updated to prompt for a reason.) Also, it seems to me that we'd be making one tag serve two purposes: there is IMO a genuine qualitative difference between "you forgot to fill in the source field" and "you filled in the source field, but we don't believe you because...". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

    •  Comment If we should do it via a template and not a DR I support a new template. I do not think that we should have images in the same category because history shows us that sometimes an admin just delete all images with {{Nsd}} without checking. Images in nsd should be speedy deleted but images with a disputed source should perhaps not be. So admins should be very carefull there. Example: We also have {{Disputed}} for disputed licenses. We do not speedy those. So why should images with a disputed source be treated differently? --MGA73 (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

    Upload proxy

    Please see COM:VP#Upload proxy. It's time that the server-side upload code makes some basic sanity checks and simply refuses any uploads that don't have at the very least a license. Lupo 07:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

    Sumdasoavinam

    Please block Sumdasoavinam (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, which is a sockpuppet of Shrikrishna 3 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/User problems 13#Sndpsingh23 for case history.

    Also delete File:Ajay Devgn.jpg and the latest revision only of File:Ajay-Devgan-LondonDreams01.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

    I have reverted File:Ajay-Devgan-LondonDreams01.jpg to before the recent overwriting as all the image data referred to the original, well licenced, image not the new one. Perhaps an admin will remove the improper upload from the history. Ww2censor (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

     Gone --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

    Eh? File:Ajay Devgn.jpg is not deleted and the sock account is not blocked... —LX (talk, contribs) 21:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

    OK - deleted that one and blocked the other account. I think that is it but post/let me know if not. Apologies. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

    That should be it for now. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 16:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

    Files with same name

    I just moved File:Bias.jpg to File:Bias of Priene (coin).jpg, see Commons:Village_pump#2_separate_files_with_same_name

    It turns out that we had:

    • File:Bias.jpg (a coin)
    • File:Bias.JPG (Avenida Bias, Belo Horizonte, Brazil)
    • File:Bias.gif (illustrating "on the bias" in fabric

    and

    • WP:EN File:Bias.jpg (a book)

    and perhaps more. It seems to me that the upload software should

    1. prohibit more than one file with the same base name (the same name ignoring the extension) unless they were identical images in different formats and
    2. prohibit a file name that is the same on Commons and any of the projects.

    (1) is obviously within our control to do. (2) will be harder, and probably not as immediate a need.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

    (1) would probably be more easily done if the user was given a warning that made it very easy to choose a new name and somewhat less easy to continue with the same name unless they checked a box saying "This is an improved version of the file shown here." with a thumbnail of the other file with a different extension. Or maybe just prohibit all duplicate base names unless they are longer than about 20 characters, because filenames shorter than that are usually inappropriately generic anyway and the new name should be more specific in the first place. --Closeapple (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

    Some clean-up needed...

    Hi. We had a problem with File:Geometrie TD 03 2.jpg. The image size seemed to be 0x0 pixels and did not showed up in fr:Vélo couché à traction directe. I just loaded the file on my system, edited it with GIMP, saved it. I then uploaded it with another name (File:Geometrie TD 03 2bis.jpg with 'unkonwn licence', no categorie,...) as I was unsure of the result. It would be nice to put it as a new version of the original file. Thank you. -- Xofc (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

     Done. I didn't use your version, though, but instead ran the original through jpegtran. Also did the same for File:Fwd recumbent.jpg. Thanks for reporting this. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

    Thank you! -- Xofc (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

    Slow speedy

    Can someone please act on the speedy request at File:Katsura, Matsuyama and Greenleaf.Jpg? My own upload with a speedy request languishing for about 2 days. The image is included in an article that is a candidate for featured article, but the image issue needs to be settled to move the FAC forward, and there's does not appear to be any possibility this image won't be deleted through the deletion discussion also seen there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

    File:Australian Actress Rose Byrne.jpeg copyvio

    Apologies if this is the wrong place, I'm not active "behind the scenes" on this project. I'm an en.Wiki admin and the file linked above just popped up on my watchlist. It's tagged as PD but I'd say it's almost certainly a copyright violation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

    Done. Blurpeace 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

    El javo

    Please block El javo (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, who has a year-long history of uploading copyright violations, attempting to game the system and continued Flickrwashing from their Flickr account, el javo2009, which has been listed at COM:QFI since January. The behaviour continues in spite of numerous warnings and a previous block.

    (While I'm here, a reminder that #Sumdasoavinam has still not been fully dealt with.) —LX (talk, contribs) 10:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

    Two week block now. I would suggest the next one should be indef without question (I have no issues with someone changing mine). Plenty else to do here anyway. Gone back to the other one LX - apologies I thought it was finished. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

    Image removal

    Hi!

    Permission to use this image [21] has not been given. Please can someone be so kind and remove it. Thanks.

    By the way: For some other images, I have received permission to use them on wikipedia. When I later learned about the "Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License" and sent another mail, asking for specific permission to use the image under this license; but no reply was received. Thus my question: Is the positive answer to the first request (using the image, if there is a link back to the source) sufficient. Thanks. John Rocher (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    1)  Done by Bidgee.

    2) if the first permission was only "for Wikipedia"; that is not enough for Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    Bow900

    Hi, could an admin advise what best to do with Bow900 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user? The user uploaded copyright violations of Julian Lloys Webber's website in 2009, all of which were deleted with notification in April 2010, but has again uploaded copyright violations from the artist website this month (including an upload over an existing free image). Hekerui (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    I've deleted the one they uploaded which over wrote the previous good one (thanks for the revert) and I've dropped an "end copyvios" message on the user page. They should be blocked next time they ignore copyright. Thanks for the help - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    Luzzu

    see pls quickly here, the photo that has been replaced is known a bit... Thanks, -jkb- (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    P.S. My photo is on many projects, btw. -jkb- (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    Shit, is there no admin at all today on commons??? -jkb- (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    This photo is on the main page on cswiki, btw. -jkb- (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    In fack I cannot believe that this heavy vandal attack, started 12:12 UTC, still has not been overruled by an admin. It is sad. -jkb- (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

     Done blocked user, removed history, reverted to original image. abf «Cabale!» 13:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    Seen. Thanks. But you must do something for the future. The vandal picture has been some 45 minutes on the main page on cswiki. -jkb- (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    
    Btw, together with File:Cameo Shapur Valerianus Bab360 CdM Paris.jpg as well. -jkb- (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    Cleaned the other one as well. What is your idea we could do? abf «Cabale!» 13:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    //with edit confl// It would be a greater action, but pictures, that are on main pages in different projects (well: some hundreds every day, I know) whould be protected, probably here on commons or it somebody should write a script so that they could be protected from each wiki (i.e. when I protect the file on de.wiki, the protection would work globally, something like that). -jkb- (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    For info - operating out of two open proxies (both blocked now) and I think a sleeper account too. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    In terms of what to do - high profile images can be protected. I used to check the deletion log to see which admins where around if there were such issues and drop them a note. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    For info as well: as far as I could see the user created the account some time ago, the action has been planned, and I would think he has some more accounts here still... -jkb- (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    Yes - info has gone to the CU list and the account referred to here is now globally locked. IPs are blocked here and on Meta - others may wish to do the same on their wikis. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    I added the hash of the image itself to the abuse filter. Anyone else who tries to upload it will get a fun surprise. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    Useful, thanks - I guess I need to keep an eye on that from time to time - accounts tend to be on open proxies etc. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    Deleting from Category:OTRS pending

    What is the latest on deleting from Category:OTRS pending? There are over 4 months of files in there now (not including the timestamp-missing ones). HersfoldOTRSBot (talk · contribs) hasn't edited in almost 3 months. I vote we start cleaning that up. Wknight94 ^talk 12:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    Poke Hersfold and he'll kick off another bot run. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    I know we've discussed it before but I don't remember the conclusion ---- did we say they could be deleted X number of days after people were notified? Or X number of days after they were tagged pending? Or something else? To me, the February and March and April pending files can all be deleted immediately. I think people are gaming the system by tagging obvious copyvios as OTRS Pending so the files survive four months instead of a couple weeks. Wknight94 ^talk 14:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    There's also an issue with Category:OTRS received. Some tickets have never received responses and should be deleted, I think. ZooFari 17:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    OTRS has a pretty significant backlog for Commons right now. There are many tickets over a month old that have not been looked at yet. Kaldari (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

    So the backlog extends into May. But how many of those are for files tagged in February and March? My bet would be very few. Files tagged in February and March should be deleted in my opinion. Wknight94 ^talk 02:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

    Since we have the OTRS experts here, is it normal that File:Villa Lysis (Tiburzi).jpg still hasn't cleared OTRS? I've forwarded the permission e-mail in April. Should I send it again or what went wrong? Morn the Gorn (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

    I responded to your question on the OTRS noticeboard. —Pill (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

    Grammatical error to be fixed

    An user found a grammatical error on this page: on the first right pink box, where there's a hand in a red octagone, there is wrote "queste non sono permesse, dunque non caricale!". It should be "queste non sono permesse, dunque non caricarle!" Anyone could fix it? Thank you! --Vale maio (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

    •  Done - fixed, thanks for saying. Kameraad Pjotr 07:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

    User:Abdul Rauf 2010

    All contributions new user Abdul Rauf 2010 - copyvio from the site http://hclokomotiv.ru/. Please delete all images.--Berillium (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

    Neonazimudkip

    Would someone please put a stop to Neonazimudkip (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, block their account (inappropriate username, account intended purely for disruption, take your pick) and nuke their uploads? Thanks. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

    done (especially with that name..)--DieBuche (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

    Svastika come bandiera della Germania

    Buon giorno, in quanto riportato sul sito OTTO REHAGEL mi stupisco moltissimo di vedere alla voce: Paese Germania la bandiera dei NAZISTI! Mi sa di poco gusto, anche perchè la svastika in Germania indica la Nazionalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei (un partito) e non può essere usata nei giorni di oggi per classificare un paese. Fossi io il Signor Rehagel, mi sentirei discriminato. Vi prego di farVi in pensiero in riguardo.

    Cordiali Saluti,

    Marilyn Catrin Hoehn LUCCA

    Could somebody translate into english and or german? --Túrelio (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

    Only with google translation I understand, that somewhere Otto Rehhagel is shown with a flag of nazigermany. Language is Italian, so it:Otto Rehhagel - and yes, Rehhagels location of births is shown as germany in 1938... You cant select your location of birth, so yes, that flag is stupid and unencyclopedic there, but its an it.wp problem not a problem that requires administrator attention on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

    Help

    Can someone rename File:Bill Bailey, Won't You Please Come Home?.ogg to File:Bill Bailey, Won't You Please Come Home? clip.ogg? I don't want editors that click on it to think that it is the whole performance. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

    I think it's fine how it is. ZooFari 23:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

    Maybe you're right. I'm still learning. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

    You might find Commons:File renaming helpful. ZooFari 23:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

    User Xiaoa - images for deletion

    See edits Xiaoa and global block request - all images have no license aqnd are probably spam. -jkb- (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks - agreed & sorted :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

    Translation tool

    Please take a look at Commons:Village_pump#Translation_tool and give any feedback if possible. Δ 17:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

    Pinguço

    Could someone please nuke the uploads of Pinguço (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user and stop their attempts to recreate all the copyright violations that were just deleted? Thanks. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

    Nuked. Next upload block. --Martin H. (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

    And there we go again. Time to do your thing. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    Blocked for two weeks --DieBuche (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    File:DOWLAIS STEEL 1893.jpg

    Hello, for the collection of roll marks I used to take the roll mark for filename. So I did over a dozen times but my file showing the name above is not allowed. Why?? I can't change the roll mark - it's iron! -Arnoldius (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    Oh I see - I forgot Rail - sorry- Arnoldius (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

    Transcluded template in signature

    I informed the user that signatures should not be transcluded on his talk page, but there was no reaction. Is there any opposition to the deletion of User:Liangent/Signature and User:Liangent/SubstSignature? --Leyo 13:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    BTW: There are a few other users transcluding a subpage in their signature (imperfect search). --Leyo 13:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    I've delinked (substituted) all signatures. Signatures should be stoned, and this one is two simple links that can easily be embedded as your preferred signature in "preferences". I don't oppose deletion and should be discontinued for all users. ZooFari 14:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    Nope, that's not good at all. Such signaturs should be delinked and nuked. The uploader should be notified. abf «Cabale!» 14:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

     Oppose Don't enforce a rule that does not exist. Kameraad Pjotr 14:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    Many rules from en-WP are applied to Commons, too. In this case, the rule exists also in de-WP and probably several other Wikipedias. So far, Commons:Signature does not exist, but could be imported. --Leyo 15:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    I don't understand how en-wp rules can be applied directly without any discussion/consensus. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    IMHO in this case, it is just obvious. What about expanding COM:TALK#Markup? --Leyo 15:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    OK, let's not enforce a rule that doesn't exist. Let's make a rule and then enforce it.

    On the one hand, we should absolutely not import the whole WP:EN rule on signatures -- it has an explicit discouragement of the complex signatures that many of us use (see ZooFari's RFA where the subject came up). The rule cited above, on WP:EN, has some good points, however, particularly the one about transclusions upsetting bots. So, I agree that there is no reason to transclude a sig. As some of our colleagues demonstrate, it is possible to be very creative within the limits of the sigs possible under My Preferences.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    I agree that we should just import the relevant (and non-disputed) parts. --Leyo 15:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    I've proposed that piece of information from en:wiki here (proposal for Commons:Signatures). ZooFari 16:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    Khusraf

    Please block Khusraf (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user and nuke the copyvios. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

     Done by Martin H. Thanks. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    Please help review Commons:Sexual content

    As many of you are aware, Commons has been developing a proposed policy regarding sexual content at Commons:Sexual content. It is now stable and ready for review by third parties - if you haven't read it yet, please look it over and provide any feedback on the talk page. We want to move forward on adoption soon. I'm also going to request feedback from the English Wikipedia, and I'd appreciate it if you can all help spread the news to your own local wikis, since this affects everyone. Thank you! Dcoetzee (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

    
    

    Please rename

    File:Ssp.jpg has bad name, in UK wikipedia are cover picture with same name, please rename to some other name--Motopark (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

     Done Moved to File:Scottish Socialist Party rally.jpg, nonsense categories removed, suitable categories missing, reusage of file name blocked as non-descriptive ... axp_de^Hello! 08:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    Request for arbitration in conflict with Martin H.

    I request an arbitration of a conflict I have with Martin H. There are multiple images which I have uploaded and which have been deleted, some of them arbitrarily, others without even giving time to make corrections or to make objections. I could understand it happening once or twice, but it starts getting personal and I do not think personal dislikes should be a reason for revenge and deleting wikipedian's contributions.

    There are other means of solving problems besides abusive conduct.Afil (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    I only instructed you at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Timoc.jpg to act progressive and simply add correct, complete and full sources instead of endless talking on various platforms with incomplete, half-truth or suddenly changing information. Going in defense on that basis cant be succesfull as people will only loose trust in you. I not delete something nor did I enforce deletion and I not have done anything "abusive". I dont have a problem with you, so I wonder about yours. --Martin H. (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    A summary of what is going on here would be useful. At a quick glance, it looks like Afil has been uploading maps and stating them to be entirely his own work, in some cases based on certain PD data, but others believe that he is using some unacknowledged sources. Is that a correct understanding? - Jmabel ! talk 02:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    Imo yes. Maps was tagged for {{subst:nsd}}, later converted to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Timoc.jpg. Also a lengthy discussion on COM:UNDEL#Mitocu River Basin.jpg took place - the delreq is linked there, so I found it. The deletion discussion was already long enough and I only read horrible long, uninteresting and not really helpful comments, so I added my comment to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Timoc.jpg to express, that Afil may simply act instead of talking, that was my very last interaction in this (not existing) "dispute". Maybe he is simply misinterpreting the deletion of his maps as my deletions? --Martin H. (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    Here Afil said something else yet again: As project manager I am the copyright holder of the maps according to prevailing copyright legislation. Releasing the maps you have tagged is fully within my legal rights as copyright holder. Somehow I really doubt that. Normaly the employer is copyright holder and Afil hasn't come up with any proof although I asked for it. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 06:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    I have slogged through the several discussions cited above. Although I would prefer to see words like "confusing", "misrepresenting" or "misleading" rather than "lying", I think the participants, other than Afil, are to be commended for their measured patience, particularly Martin H. who, in two short paragraphs at the end of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Timoc.jpg, summarized the problem better than I could. I see no reason to change the deletion decisions on the basis of the facts presented.

    If Afil, who states that he has spent nine months on drawing these maps, would like to open an undelete request with a list (a list, not a narrative), map by map, of all the sources consulted and the extent to which they were used, we might reconsider. However, if I have correctly mentally pieced together his/her narrative of their creation, I doubt that such a request will be successful. There are a variety of misunderstandings of copyright law in the narrative, topped off with the comment about his being a supervisor and holding copyright.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    I apologize to Martin H. He is right, it is not him who deleted the files. I misunderstood this, as the files were deleted immediately after his comments.

    The issues which are discussed cover too many topics at once, and this confuses the discussion.

    1. I agree with Martin H.'s last comments that sources should be indicated. I was in the process of doing this after his comment, but when I wanted to do this, the files had disappeared. If I am asked to do something, I must be given a mininum time to comply. Anyway, this part of the discussion should be closed, as there is no disagreement. Sources have to be indicated.

    2. The requests for undeletion does not work. I don't know who deleted the file Timiriova on which I had a disagreement with Martin H. But the undeletion request is pending since April 18 though there have been no objections. This is worrying, not because of the image in itself, but because problems cannot be solved.

    3. The problem of copyright issues regarding maps is not adequately solved in Wikicommons and leaves the door open to misinterpretations. This issue should not be discussed related to any particular image, but as a general problem. Therefore, in order to separate it from the problems of any image, I have posted a general discussion in the village pump. The problems raiseed are not so much related to my contributions, but to the policy. Copyright laws have specific implications for maps. Once all the required information is compiled and a consensus is reached on what the legal provisions regarding copyright of maps are, then specific problems of any image can be discussed. I hope that such discussions will be joined by as many Wikipedians as possible and that they will lead to a conclusion.

    I only hope that we can have a constructive dialogue before punitive actions such as file deletions are taken. Afil (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    @Afil, deleting a file is not a punitive action. Besides, a deleted file can rather easily be restored, if needed. --Túrelio (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    What I am objecting to the fact that all my contributions are tagged for deletion. Maybe it is not a punitive action but it is getting extremely personal. The tagging is made by Peter Kuiper. I am attempting to generate a discussion on the matter but the result is simply that my files are deleted. When I comply to one of the conditions, then another reason is invented. All the reasons are artificial. But nobody takes any action. Afil (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    The purpose of tagging a file for deletion is to raise a discussion about whether it complies with policy and is a free work. Don't take it personally - instead, participate in the discussion. No one wishes to delete files that are useful - but we do have to comply with the law even when those requirements are unnecessarily complex or stringent. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Afil is reuploading deleted files. For example, File:Timoc.jpg and File:Timok.png were deleted. Now he reuploads File:Timoc.png, he removes speedy tags, etcetera. These are obvious copyright violations. Afil's behaviour is disruptive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Request for mass reversal of IP-user edits

    User:68.116.113.157 has been busy adding various categories to individual images that are already present in overcats of these images. Is it possible to mass reverse its edits, as they are really messing up the categorisation? --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

    Maybe you should attempt to be more specific when trying to explain them which categories to add where, e.g. adding Category:Counts of Oldenburg to Category:Christian VI of Denmark seems ok. Categories on Category:Frederick August I, Duke of Oldenburg seem fine too. -- User:Docu at 09:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

    Indeed. But the problem is that the user then adds the same categories to individual images that already has these categories through the overcat. My message to the user was written before I noticed the scope of things. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

    I think you should attempt to discuss it with them first and possibly suggest category descriptions to the more general categories. Once it's sorted out, it would be fairly easy, e.g. to remove Category:House of Oldenburg in Oldenburg from all portraits included directly in the category (just a sample, not necessarily what needs to be done). Filtering out parent categories might work too, but as the various categories aren't all mutually exclusive, this would need some thought. -- User:Docu at 09:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

    Editprotected

    Please put this translated message to MediaWiki:Editnotice-10/hu:

    {{#ifeq:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|lang|{{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{#switch:{{PAGENAME}}|Welcome/lang=|#default=
     <table style="width:100%; border:1px solid #aaa; background:#efe;" id="editnotice-lle"><tr>
     <td>[[File:Symbol comment vote.svg|21px|link=]]</td>
     <td>'''Megjegyzés:''' 
     Egyszerűen frissítheted a fordítási linkeket úgy, hogy a lap teljes tartalmát kicseréled erre: <code>{{[[Template:Lle|subst:lle]]}}</code></td>
     </tr></table>
     }}}}}}
    

    Thanks – BáthoryPéter (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

     Done Thanks for translating! axp_de^Hello! 12:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    file name change needed: the content of my photograph is not anti-Christian

    File:Anti-Christian_sign_in_Federal_Plaza_Chicago.jpg

    "you can't rename an image file yourself once it's been uploaded (you need assistance from an admin)"

    So I write to you:

    My photo was uploaded by someone (new here, not sure how to ID the uploader) and the file was misnamed. My photo does not show anti-Christians. It shows people standing to an attack on our civil rights. The aggressor bigots happened to have hijacked Christianity.

    Anti-Bigot, Anti-Fascist, Anti-hate, are all acceptable substitutes to "Anti-Christian." Please change.

    The anti-gay bigots don't own Christianity.

    Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicago.drew (talk • contribs) 03:41, 29. Jun. 2010 (UTC)

     Oppose. @Chicago.drew, yeah, and File:2008 Anti-gay protestors in San Francisco.jpg isn't anti-gay, isn't it. Get a life. --Túrelio (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

    You can disagree but don't have to be rude. Don't WP:BITE- Stillwaterising (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

     Oppose All I read is "Christian Fascists". Sorry, if that's not anti-Christian, what else? axp_de^Hello! 07:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

    Well technically, calling such a sign "anti-Christian" is an overstatement. If I say "corrupt cops are worthless pigs", would you call this statement "anti-cops", or "anti-corruption"? If anything, "anti-fascist" is as accurate as "anti-Christian" (the exact description being "anti-Christian fascists"). –Tryphon^☂ 07:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

    Real fascists are definitely no Christians. The term "Christian fascist" is in fact a contradictio in adjecto and is used to insult Christians as fascists.

    Just in case, I do not share positions which limit the beliefs of others. The freedom of an individual only ends whereever the freedom of another individual is touched! axp_de^Hello! 08:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

    File renaming (Starr 990521-0843)

    

    File:Starr 990521-0843 Casuarina equisetifolia.jpg

    As there wasn't much of Casuarina equisetifolia to see, I had it renamed to File:Starr 990521-0843 'Welcome To Midway Atoll, National Wildlife Refuge' sign.jpg. I wasn't sure if the quote and the comma should be in there though. It seemed ok to renaming admin. Maybe some have suggestions for a better file name. -- User:Docu at 10:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

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

    Berechtigungsfehler

    

    Fort Mokotow, Warsaw, 19th century fortification

    “Der gewählte Dateiname („File:FORTMOK10 DSC1360.JPG“) ist gesperrt da er zu unspezifisch oder bedeutungslos ist.” To refuse this name (for the 10 th foto from FORT MOKotow I uploaded) is really ridiculous and a waste of my time. --Wistula (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    If you remove the meaningless "DSC1360" part, it should probably work better. But why not write out "Fort Mokotov" in full and with normal capitalization? That will make it easier to find and understand. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    I changed to small letters. But still the refusal remains a mistake in software (as it was an absolutely unique name) and therefor should be changed ! Thx --Wistula (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC) PS: clear description and categorization = imo really unnecessary to explain foto topic in the name (a third time) again, rgds --Wistula (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    Detecting strings like DSC[0-9]+ in filenames is not a mistake, but a deliberate feature. Such strings add no information to filenames, so they shouldn't be in there. Keep in mind that your uploads may be added to other categories with a different context, such as some subcategory of Category:Windows in this case. In those categories and in search results, descriptive filenames will help in identifying the subject of files without having to click on each to read its description. Special:Prefixindex/File:Dsc shows what used to happen before we had this feature. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    File names should be as descriptive as possible, the DSC-part however is completely meaningless! I moved the file to a descent name. axp_de^Hello! 12:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

    If the uploader decides to include the image number, their choice should be respected. There is no rule against including such information in the filename and removing that isn't an acceptable reason per Commons:File renaming. -- User:Docu at 08:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    It must be possible to include numbers without any informative value for the commons to find them on the own system. My upload here counts about 6.000 pictures, how should I find a picture if I want to change something or give information to someone who wants to use it without my internal number? Docu is absolutely right. --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    I do not think anybody object to names like "Fort Mokotow - 1360.jpg". Only "DSC1360" part is undesirable. --Jarekt (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Actually, there's no problem with "DSC1360" either, as long as that's not the whole filename. The original issue was that we had a blacklist rule forbidding filenames in ALL CAPS; see MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#File:IMO_9433755_CENTAURUS.JPG. I've modified the rule for now so that it'll only match file names with at least 30 letters in them; if it still keeps triggering on seemingly legitimate file names, we may want to remove it entirely. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks. --Wistula (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

    Oshki

    User:Sardur has started a POV pushing edit war in Oshki category. He is trying to put there a marginal effort, which, as I can see, is simply POV pushing. He refuses to hear arguments, and is fighting against 16 sources - along which are Encyclopaedia Americana and Big Soviet. In my opinion, it is clear POV pushing of marginal view.--Gaeser (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    I already addressed this on the talk page, while Gaeser didn't answer to my arguments. On top, see this. And I of course didn't start an edit war, as the history of the category shows it: the category that Gaeser wants to see removed was there since October 2009. Sardur (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    WP:WEIGHT. Stop this POV pushing. --Gaeser (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    ---

    Crosspost, continue here. ZooFari 15:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    ---

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

    
    

    Büşra Alman

    Please block Büşra Alman (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for repeatedly uploading copyright violations with fraudulent authorship and licensing claims, repeated blanking of problem tags, repeated fraudulent use of Flickr review tags, and abusing multiple accounts (alternating between editing under their own user name and "anonymously" as 88.244.85.68 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user; probable sockpuppets include ßßusra (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user and Xutku (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user). —LX (talk, contribs) 16:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

     Warned. I'll keep an eye one these three accounts. ZooFari 16:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    Well, that's lenient. Do we usually let abusive sockpuppet accounts go with a simple warning? Xutku and ßßusra have been blocked on Turkish Wikipedia for socking (see tr:Vikipedi:Denetçi_isteği/Dava/Xutku). That was several days ago. The user has read the previous warnings (since they've blanked them), and they clearly know what they're doing. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    I can be lenient, yes. No activity from the sock for over a week and the recent abusive behavior was from the IP and "main" account, which I will block if further destructive contributions are made. ZooFari 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    Likely copyvio for you

    I'm an enwiki admin. I just deleted the Wikipedia article in which File:Csblack.jpg was used. I'd put money on it being a copyvio, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    I tagged it with {{No permission since}}. When did you stop having articles on TV shows at WP? (en:If You Do Dare)? -- User:Docu at 07:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks. Since their "articles" were just adverts for the TV show. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    It seems that someone else started editing it and added {{Hangon}}. Anyways, if we get permission, we will be sure it's "theirs" ;) -- User:Docu at 09:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    File:Valentina Tereshkova

    This file was deleted: File:Soviet Union-1963-Stamp-0.10. Valentina Tereshkova-2.jpg. I think there is a mistake: it is Soviet Union stamp and this discussion was about German stamps only. Please restore the file. Distorted (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    Image restored but please post undeletion requests at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests‎. Bidgee (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    Thank you, I will. Distorted (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    Copyright violation: derivates of GFDL/CC-BY-SA re-uploaded as own work/PD...

    I once created a set of small cycling jersey icons. One of those is File:Jersey yellow.svg (). I uploaded these in 2006 as dual license GFDL/CC-BY-SA. I noticed that User:Maillotero uploaded a lot of files, among which File:MaillotUSA.PNG (). Those were all uploaded as own work/PD. However, they look like a derivate of the gfdl/cc-by-sa images, in which case uploading them as PD is a "copyvio" (be it copyright violation or copyleft violation). I could have them all marked for (speedy) deletion, but they are useful images (though should be recreated in SVG, something I currently don't have the time for) and are used at quite a lot of wiki pages, and deletion is not something I want to push for. What is the best course of action here? IIVQ (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    Interpret the PD-self as a PD-licence for the modifications of Maillotero and change the licence to GFDL/CC-BY-SA? Kameraad Pjotr 10:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    No, You can not claim any copyright on this very basic shape. It won't pass the Threshold of originality. So its fine for Maillotero to pubish them as PD. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 11:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    Amada44: op top of the Treshold of originality pages is written (my bolding) English: Images judged ineligible for copyright protection by a court or similar authority. See also threshold of originality. IIVQ (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    Yes. I understand your concern but I don't think, that your image is not creative enough that you can claim copyright on it. Its just to simple and therefor it can be PD. But you can ask Maillotero if she/he is willing to add a info to the files crediting you. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 19:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

    Threshold of originality is a tricky thing. The yellow shirt almost certainly does not meet it - the striped one I suspect very well may. In any case there's no harm in crediting your sources (in fact anyone can edit the page to do this). Dcoetzee (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, Maillotero only used the shape of the yellow t-shirt to make the striped one which the user then published as PD. Amada44  ^{talk to me} 09:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    Doubts

    The users Cake6 and Bylbyl have in their galleries, images without a link to the source, this is right? Se an administrator might delete these screenshot images the user insists on using, File:Korakuen-Stadium-1.jpg and File:Korakuen-Stadium-2.jpg, see also the history of these images Korakuen-Stadium-2.jpg Korakuen-Stadium-1.jpg. Truu (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Stop edit warring, make a regular DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    @Truu: according to Google Translate, Cake6 is claiming a relative took those pictures. What is s/he supposed to link to? If you disagree with allowing a relative as a source, try COM:DR, not a speedy no-source tag. As for Bylbyl, I agree - several of those images look problematic, and listing the sports club as a source is a problem too. Wknight94 ^talk 10:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Move to close old deletion request

    The following was the conversation from User talk:Infrogmation#Move to close Stillwaterising's deletion requests.

    Hello there, would you please close the Stillwaterising's inactive deletion requests? The AN/U he reported against me has been closed and archived with no action taken, and the last comment made on the discussions was on May 22nd, which is more than the required seven days. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taric Alani Cum shot.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taric Alani Innocence.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taric Alani Chaise ass.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taric Alani Barn light.jpg Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC) I've closed the last of those 4, as consensus seems clear and I hadn't expressed my opinion on it earlier. I usually tend to refrain from being the closing admin in deletion discussions I've already voted on. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you very much. I'll ask Adam Cuerden if he can help us with the rest. In the mean time, would you please finish the Flickr review for File:Bingo with Miss Foozie in 2009 by TheeErin cropped.png? The automated bot FlickreviewR couldn't do it, since it is an extracted image. Thanks again! Taric25 (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Adam Cuerden did not respond, so I asked User:Ilmari Karonen. Taric25 (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC) It would probably be better to ask on COM:AN; that way, you avoid any possible appearance of shopping for a favorable admin. That said, if no-one else feels like doing it, I think I'd be willing to close these DRs (as "keep", or at least "no consensus to delete" for the second one). I did comment on the first one, but only tangentially, and didn't actually vote on it; and you're right that they've been hanging in limbo for more than long enough. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Oh, okay, I just asked you because you were familiar with the situation. I have no objection to you closing the deletion request, if that is what you choose. I didn´t know Commons:Administrators' noticeboard existed until now, so I left a message there as well. Taric25 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Would someone please either close this old request or show no objection to Ilmari Karonen closing it? Thank you! Taric25 (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    The fourth of those was already closed, I closed the other 3. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Dinho maquina

    Resolved

    Please stop Dinho maquina (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

     Blocked for three days. Tiptoety ^talk 22:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    User:Nickname kyky

    Please remove the copyvio revisions of File:LeoMessi.JPG and File:Randy Orton 08.jpg uploaded by Nickname kyky (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Done. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    File Tetraethylmethan

    Dear all, today I have a request to the Administrators here on Commons. The occasion is the following incident:

    In the German Wikipedia we have sometimes provocations or flirting with Nazi vocabulary or signs. We had now three edits from three different users who used a swastika similar picture for their political context: „Hell, even in chemistry they are EVERYWHERE ...“ ([22];[23]; [24]). When I go into detail I found out that this picture is on Commons and is the structural formula of File:Tetraethylmethan.svg.

    Going more into detail I found out that this structural formula is only one possible (of many others) to present the substance (in the German Wikipedia we are using another picture for the article 3,3-Diethylpentane. Also in reputable Chemistry Reference Websites there is no preference or one preferred structural formula. So you find the swastika like here but also other examples you can find here: first example (please fill 3,3-Diethylpentane in the search mask) or this here (please fill 3,3-Diethylpentane in the search mask; third hit from the top).

    There was a deletion request you can see here. Because somebody told on Wikipedia, that there was another case, where the structural formula like a swastika was not deleted but changed, my question would be, if this structural formula can be changed too, so that it is impossible for political intended users to use this picture for their abuse. I would not ask, if there were not alternatives, and nobody could answer my question until now why it seems that the swastika like picture is the preferred structural formula for this compound here on Commons. Looking forward to your answers. Kind regards--KarlV (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    What makes you write that this is the "preferred structural formula for this compound here on Commons"? The presence of this one doesn't preclude you from creating (and uploading) others. If and how they are used at WP is another question. -- User:Docu at 08:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    I wrote "it seems that" and not "this is" because I did not found the other 2d-Formulas of the compound.--KarlV (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    Maybe, we could get some opinions whether or not this addition of a template was necessary. --Leyo 09:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    I think it definitely wasn't and should be removed. This is not at all an image depicting a Nazi symbol, even if some people choose to see it that way. No court would rule in this sense, so the warning is irrelevant. –Tryphon^☂ 10:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    Agree with Tryphon. Only if you want to see a Swastika here, you'll see one. The file should not be marked as a Nazi symbol and should not be deleted.Nillerdk (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    My question was was neither the addition of a template nor the deletion. My question was „if this structural formula can be changed too, so that it is impossible for political intended users to use this picture for their abuse“. Reason: there are many ways of 2d-presentation of this compound - so why keeping this?--KarlV (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    With "doesn't preclude you from creating", I meant "you can create". BTW You might be interested in this. -- User:Docu at 18:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

    Though I was the first and only one who added an deletion tag to the file as it was only on de-wiki (I and was reverted within one day) I have to disagree Karl's arguments. First there are some examples in literature (as shown e. g. in the deletion disussion above like Pubchem or ChemID -> "formulas") showing the formula in that way - so no big deal. Second we had even deletion request on pic like that - only and nothing else as the SVG-bug was the reason to redraw it recently. Third just because some could abuse (?) the file does not justify to scan now every chemical or what-so-ever picture for an hidden Nazi sign. In fact you missed the point WHY people are using that picture. It's not because the use or abuse the picture for a certain political context. In fact they just want to demonstrate in a ironic way that not every Nazi-like symbol is a Nazi symbol.

    To make things easier I uploaded a new version of the file for a fresh perspective and to end this ridiculous "everything if full of Nazi symbols" paranoia. --Yikrazuul (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    First of all thank you – the change was one in the right direction. I´m only missing, that the Methyl-groups have free rotation to all sides and the picture now is only one possible 2d structure – so in fact we had until now this one of Pubchem, now you changed it to ChemID – but it could be also those ones from ChemExper or ChemDB. Then I would like to stress out that it is not me seeing a swastika there. I disagree with you about the WHY this three contributors are using a structural formula in a political context. The ironic demonstration is perhaps somewhat misleading. For example one user is using this sign as a babel sign saying "Hell, even in chemistry they are EVERYWHERE ...“ – So you do not read anything about Tetraethylmethane, but the suggestion “they are everywhere” could be also be seen as a statement in the way saying – look guys – the swastika in Germany is forbidden, but see here, I am using a similar picture and you can do nothing against, because it is a natural compound. So - this three Users used Tetraethylmethane-Nazi-like picture as Nazi Symbol for their political messages.--KarlV (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

    If you want to act against such a usage, do it on de-WP. Currently, it is not used at all. --Leyo 16:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

    I agree that the proper place to deal with the usage of an otherwise valid and educational file on de.wp user pages is on de.wp. That said, for the sake of accuracy, I should note that the reason the file is currently unused is that CommonsDelinker delinked it after the first deletion by DaB., and apparently the (two) users who had it on their user pages haven't put it back there again. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

    Rename request

    Wondering if an admin can rename my account to User:Chris Kuehl? Thanks. -ChrisKuehl (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

    Please make the request at COM:CHU. --Leyo 08:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

    69.134.224.64

    Hi, 69.134.224.64 (talk · contribs) seems to have created quite a few pages that would be more appropriate as Wikipedia articles. These should probably either be transferred to enwiki or deleted. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

    All pages created by this user have been deleted. --Leyo 08:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

    List of Adminstrators

    I have completed a review of our three lists of administrators ((Alphabetic, Date, and Language) and founded thirty discrepancies. Please see Commons talk:List of administrators#Discrepanices for details.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    Well done - very useful. --High Contrast (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Is there a list of active administrators (or at least those who ever had been active)?  Docu  at 10:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.

    • If you mean those who are have admin rights on Commons now, see Commons:List of administrators which I have just finished updating.
    • There is also Commons:List of former administrators, which is by no means complete.
    • And Commons:Administrators/Archive, which should have all the admins, except perhaps early history, in it. At least one is missing, however.
    • If you mean activity as defined by the policy on keeping adminship, see this list.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    There are quite a few administrators who haven't been active recently (last 6-9 months) or only chatting on talk pages. There are others who did hardly any admin tasks ever.  Docu  at 11:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    That's true. That's why we have a formal policy and procedure, see Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section, which goes through the list every six months and ultimately removes admins who are not active.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    I'm not sure if that actually works, as some might get removed for not being that active in a period and others stay without ever having done anything. Besides that, the list you mentioned is actually quite interesting. For Commons, it might be help to have separate columns for deletions in production namespace (file namespace) and deletions in non-production namespaces.  Docu  at 11:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    Certainly it's not a very high bar -- one could pass by doing five admin edits at the ends of July and January. On the other hand, it doesn't really cost us anything to keep an Admin who isn't active, so this is more a matter of cleaning out those who have really stopped contributing at all.

    I don't understand your comment, "and others stay without ever having done anything" -- in the absence of errors or malfeasance by those doing the semiannual cleanout, I don't see how that could happen.

    As for lists of actions in the two spaces, I'm not sure why you would want it -- but it would be easy enough to pull a copy of an Admin's logs and sort it by space. It took me less than 30 seconds to find out that I've deleted 25 files and 5 galleries today.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    User talk:Aleksa Lukic

    I blocked this user for socking in an attempt to vote stack (for which they have done the same on other projects). They are now requesting an unblock, which has been sitting untouched for a number of days now. I am personally not willing to unblock, but would like another administrator to look over the request and make their own determination. I am not opposed to an uninvolved administrator unblocking. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 19:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

    I looked it over and agree that the block is appropriate. I don't believe that all of the other accounts, most of which saw little or no use, were created by other people at the Internet cafe. Perhaps in a month....      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    Template:Universally replaced

    Just a quick note: For easier id, the background of the template is now green, when all uses could be replaced--DieBuche (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

    File:玉御冠1.jpg

    Please delete the first revision of File:玉御冠1.jpg, which is a copyvio. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

    done--DieBuche (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks for paying attention to that first version, missed that. Now the flickr bot can confirm the license :) --Martin H. (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

    No worries. And thanks DieBuche! By the way, the same user uploaded a number of (color) photos which were originally claimed to be {{PD-art}}, although they were not photographic reproductions of old paintings. They have now retagged them as {{PD-old}}, but there is no date or any other information to corroborate that; should probably be looked into. (File:Bridegroom on Wedding Hobby-horse.jpg, File:Demimonde house.jpg, File:Entrance to Coal Mine.jpg, File:Loo Chooan Bride and Veil.jpg, File:Middle Class Loo Chooan Family chopped.jpg, File:Middle Class Loo Chooan Family.jpg, File:Professional Snake-Catchers.jpg, File:Tatoo-marks on the hands of Loo Chooan Women.jpg and possibly others.) —LX (talk, contribs) 22:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

    •  Comment These pictures are all painted by hand it shall be made after the development. After reading these reference sources are old photos of Okinawa in Japan will be built around 100 years ago probably the Meiji period. Hand painted glass version of the photo tends to be quite old. If it is, if you add the appropriate license to these photos, the problem can not upload here. For more information and I read a book on Japanese copyright law.--Corpse Reviver (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    File:Logo clear2.png possible copyvio

    Yeah, I'm probably in the wrong place, but I'm not active over here. Can someone do whatever needs to be done to File:Logo clear2.png. Looks like a non-free logo to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    • I have nominated the file for deletion. (It's quite simple in fact: just add the {{Delete}} template to the page, click on preview, and follow the further instructions displayed on the template. See Commons:Deletion policy for further information.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Since the uploader may well be a representative of the QTV station and if that's the case, he is in a position to release the file into public domain, I have withdrawn the nomination and asked the uploader to send a confirmation to the OTRS system. See en:Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

    Paulinho15

    Please block Paulinho15 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user for failing to get the message of his previous copyvio block. He's also using 187.22.206.97 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user and Pablitinho1 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user (although the latter is currently blocked for a week). —LX (talk, contribs) 15:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    When you get around to it, please delete File:Geeads.jpg as well. Getting tired of reverting the bogus info and fraudulent OTRS tagging added by 187.22.206.97 (standard operating procedure for this vandal). —LX (talk, contribs) 16:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

     Done and thanks. Puppet - indef (ip is dynamic btw) and other account 1 month (indef next time for me). Deletion done too. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks. Did some more digging. Based on //commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pabli.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=41166031 and global usage of that file, the puppetmaster in question is Paul92 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user, which also matches with that user's global contribs. Anyone know where to report sockpuppets to Portuguese Wikipedia admins? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Yes - I'll mail the CU list :) (tho any passing pt admins may want to check it out anyway). Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Sent and thanks again. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    File:Kepler-solar-system-2.gif

    So I don't know what happened to this file, but the metadata exists, but the image is gone. The history doesn't show that the file was deleted, but it's not there now. It's linked by over 1500 pages globally and needs to be restored. The main usage is WikiProject History of Science template that goes on talk page on the en.wiki. Thanks for the detective help. Wizard191 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    I say it went missing during the Wiki wide server crash. The image was still on the server but just not linked to the page. See: Commons:Village pump#Missing: File:4-Stroke-Engine.gif. Bidgee (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

    Disruptive sockpupeteer

    Hi everyone. Without further ado, I'd like to point out that User:Bugoslav is a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of User:Imbris [25]. The account is also a highly disruptive ultranationalist POV-pusher, responsible for dozens of edit-wars on enWiki, and it looks like the same is true here. He has been revert-warring on files of all sorts, and should definitely be stopped before the damage gets too extensive. Having been banned on enWiki [26], he has stopped using his "User:Imbris" alias for fear of being exposed here as well. In short, User:Imbris/Bugoslav is a highly disruptive sock and needs indeffing post haste.

    (P.S. Sorry if this isn't the proper venue, I'm an enWiki user and I'm still rather unfamiliar with Commons. I'd appreciate it greatly if its still taken-up. :) DIREKTOR (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

     Done Imbris was already indef'd on 18:53, 16 May 2008 by Zscout370; Bugoslav is now indef'd as well. Thanks for the note--DieBuche (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

    File:Eirunepe.montagem.jpg

    Could someone please check if File:Eirunepe.montagem.jpg is the same file as File:Eirunepe montagem.jpg, recreated out of process after the latter was deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eirunepe montagem.jpg, or if Ademario neto is just uploading new files with exactly the same problems? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

    Very marginally different (one image of the four and the web logo had been removed). I would say effectively the same and certainly the same behaviour pattern. Deleted and "end copyvio" message on talk page - block next would be my view. Thanks for raising it. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)