Hosta

Could an admin please restore the page Benutzer:Reinhard_Kraasch/Category:Adamite (and move to User:Reinhard_Kraasch/Category:Adamite). This page is used as a proposal category page for this project: Commons:Batch uploading/Minerals from Rob Lavinsky on mindat -- Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Benutzer:Reinhard_Kraasch/Category:Acanthite restored (the only page I could find). --Polarlys (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - the remainder Benutzer:Reinhard Kraasch/Category:Acanthite can be deleted now. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Background

Having trawled through a lot of rename requests in recent times, there are many that are easy, there are some that change the nature/context of the image; especially the places where articles are attached to them on the various wikis. In relation to the latter category I feel that we need more robustness around the requests

Issues

The existing issues that I see are:

• We should have an evidence base where a change of the nature/context of a file
• The instructions at Commons:File renaming make reference to WHICH and WHY files should be renamed, and stops there
• Any changes are part of a rename template not referenced in the document
• Where usage exists based on the original sourcing, the next step is problematic
  • CommonsDelinker will replace the image now in a different context, and have a wrong image relationship. While an additional option may be available to the existing script, request a modification to the script, it would require agreement of administrators before approaching
  • Images can be commented out on home wikis adding a commentary, which can be a larger task
• No ready means to indicate a query on a request for a move, or a place to park until resolved

Example File:Antropow - Zarin Katharina I..jpg

Request is for a change of name, the initial upload quotes a certain name of the subject and a reference to the source, someone with an interest requests a change. No problem, though who/what is right? At the point it is a he said, she said argument with a non-authoritative source.

Comment

• While in initial naming while there is no requirement for evidence, we do require source, description and the like.
• Not looking to make rename more difficult, just increase the evidence, and protect the project.
• There is a political aspect to naming and the potential for some of the disputes from that other place to spill over.
• There is an expectation from some that as they make a statement, it should be carried out, and they cite the wording of the Category:Media requiring renaming as there being no requirement for evidence.

— billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello.

Five months ago, I tagged File:Robotpeintre.gif for deletion, because a lack of source. The deletion request took place on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robotpeintre.gif. User Mod mmg (talk · contribs) “took the liberty” of closing the DR as keep; so far, this user has made only 18 edits, and potentially uploaded two copyvios (File:Rsnewarea1.jpg and File:Rsnewarea2.jpg).

Afterwards, I received the following message on my talk page.

Initial message: “Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robotpeintre.gif”, posted by SilkTork (d · c).

The deletion discussion has been closed by User:Mod mmg as a keep. This is an inappropriate closure as Mod mmg took place in the discussion, and the consensus was not for a keep. The file itself, File:Robotpeintre.gif, was then detagged by Mod mmg, which included removal of a legitimate {{No source since}} tag. Under the Commons:Deletion policy, the file should be deleted because it does not contain essential source information, and has been tagged as such for more than seven days. I have restored the tags on the file, but as I am not an admin on Commons, I cannot delete the file myself. Regards SilkTork (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As I did participate to the DR, I would like another admin to review this and (normally) delete the file. Thank you. Diti the penguin — 12:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am from the English Wikipedia and suspect Mark2220 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Jumamuba (talk · contribs) (who has been blocked as a serial copyright violator and as a puppetmaster here) that while has not edited Wikipedia yet, has uploaded two images, one nominated for deletion at Wikipedia. The second has source information but was shortly added to the article wikipedia:Bogotá thereafter by David1588. Please see wikipedia:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jumamuba for details, and keep in mind that I do not wish to draw too much attention... PleaseStand ^(talk) 03:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Smells of copyvio, but tineye says no results. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that I already blocked 2 Jumamuba socks based on check I checked the IP again an yes, sock. --Martin H. (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

@mattbuck: I left a helpful note at File:Seventhavenuebta.jpg how to find it. --Martin H. (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

This main category has just had over 3,000 files dumped in it that shouldn't be there. Is there a robot that can remove them, without removing the subcategories that should be there? - MPF (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. To avoid that the end up in uncategorized, shall I remove all those that are also in Category:Unidentified plants [1]? -- User:Docu at 10:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Can they all go in a holding category of their own, perhaps [:Category:Gardenology images], placed as a subcategory of Category:Unidentified plants? That would be the best way of dealing with them until they can be looked at individually for identification. - MPF (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the 3k files from Category:Plants and left a note to the uploader. All files are already in Category:Gardenology.org. If needed, I can move them to subcategory of Unidentified plants. -- User:Docu at 11:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be a great help, please! I'd been working recently on trying to get Category:Unidentified plants down to a slightly more manageable size by subcategorising many of them - MPF (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you create the category, I would move them there. At the same time, we might want to change Category:Gardenology.org to a more standard Category:Images from Gardenology.org. I also asked RaffiKojian for additional information we might be able to add. For now, I added a link to the description of Category:Unidentified plants to skip to the files after Gardenolog, -- User:Docu at 11:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC), edited 11:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, Category:Images from Gardenology.org is a better title than the one I suggested first above. If the files could all be placed there, and that category made a subcategory of Category:Unidentified plants so they can be moved out of there, that would be good - MPF (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's suitable to replace Category:Gardenology.org as an image source category, but at some point the images should also be in a topical category. Maybe Category:Unidentified plants of Huntington Gardens would do. -- User:Docu at 13:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, assuming they're all from there (I've not checked!). "in" or "at" Huntington Gardens would be a better title than "of". That could then go in Category:Unidentified plants by location. - MPF (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

They all got "hunt" in the filename. I made a category at Category:Unidentified plants at Huntington Gardens. I will ask the uploader what he thinks of it. If there are no issues, I will move them there. -- User:Docu at 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm moving most of them and asked the uploader to create a subpage at Commons:Batch_uploading if there are many more. -- User:Docu at 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Can sombody ask a bot to put [[category:Photo taken by a Sony Ericsson K800i]] (or something like) on all the photo I've take when I use my old account (user:Medjaï.)? I'll correct the document I've not shoted by my phone. Tank U.--HAF 932 (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You might want to try COM:BR or vote for Bugzilla:21795. -- User:Docu at 07:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

I noticed entries in this category from February 20 (File_talk:Flag of Serbia.svg) and 10 day old uncontroversial request (MediaWiki talk:Deletedarticle/pt-br).

It would probably be useful to have a faster handling of cases. Otherwise we non-admins are better off not using the template, putting requests here or at an admin's talk page. I think the speed should be the same speed as usernames are changed. Maybe a notification system should be implemented?

If the request may be controversial, consider making a comment on the talk page and put the page on your watchlist.

Fred J (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the Flag of Serbia, but have no idea how to perform the second request as the to-be-edited page says it still has to be created. --Túrelio (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

and the file is now created.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You might want to consider updating the translation over at the Translatewiki. This will make every wiki profit of this message improvement. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both :)

Fred J (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ryan White.jpg with an eye toward personal attacks, groundless accusations, incivility, on the part of SkagitRiverQueen? This sort of behavior toward other editors in untenable. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Template talk:Translation table languishes in Category:Commons protected edit requests since March 1, perhaps someone will show mercy and edit it, please? Thanks a lot. Hekerui (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Also added html comments added to make this more painful to edit. Esby (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I am "User:David Webb" in wikipedia and I believe I may be user Davidwebb in the commons. However I do not have a copy of the password for the commons and when I asked for a copy of the password to be sent I am told that there is no e-mail address saved. I also tried to create a new identity "David Webb" but was told by the system that it is too close to Davidwebb. Can someone check if I am Davidwebb. I am not sure what information you would hold - but I would prefer to send details by e-mail. I can be contacted at "djwsoton.ac.uk". See "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Webb". Thanks. DJW.

Maybe you want to create an account. What is your desired user account name? – Kwj2772 (msg) 12:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer the name "David Webb" - but I remember making a mistake when I tried to create an ID some time ago - so if the "Davidwebb" ID is the one I set up, it seems more sensible to claim this ID and possibly modify the name later. David.

OK Account created. Password is randomly generated and sent to your email. Thanks. – Kwj2772 (msg) 03:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a huge mistake and hit the "Include all templates" function on Special:Import and it made a mess. I had no idea that it just overwrites pre-existing template on Commons. I was just trying to use it to get one template from enwiki and it overwrote on a bunch of other things. I tried cleaning things up as best as I could, and Juliancolton tried to help me a bit. I think something is still wrong with Template:Documentation and/or a template it relies on. I am very, very sorry for this and I would greatly appreciate it if another admin could please help me out. :-/ Killiondude (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: I will be away from my computer for a few hours, and I did not mean to make a mess and run, I just ran out of time trying to fix stuff. Apologies again, Killiondude (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the other day that it just adds all revisions from other wikis and afterwards there isn't really any easy way to figure out which revision is from which wiki. Besides, there isn't really a way to roll it back. -- User:Docu at 07:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a warning that comes up in the next window, asking if the admin would like to continue with the "include all templates" checkmarked and possibly showing a list of all affected templates. I don't know how feasible that is... Killiondude (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The fun thing if people import your contribs with "import all revisions" is that it makes you wonder how you could have made so many contribs in wikis you have hardly ever been ;)
At least within WikiMedia wikis, I agree that "import all revisions" shouldn't be the default. -- User:Docu at 07:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

To avoid happening again, we could add #InterwikiTemplates { display:none; } to MediaWiki:Common.css, which will hide the checkbox and/or change MediaWiki:Import-interwiki-templates. I also agree that it's quite funny to have edits elsewhere through the import feature (e.g. on als.wikipedia; the source page was deleted in the meantime), but it's necessary for the licensing terms to include all authors of a page. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

At Commons, I once even got a deletion notification for a template imported from enwiki ;)
Personally, I think the risk is more the import of all revisions (checked by default I guess), not necessarily the possibility to import all sub-templates (in general crucial to get things working). -- User:Docu at 10:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a note by that option in the import menu (MediaWiki:Import-interwiki-templates). I was tempted to hide it completely because the damage is usually unrevertable and it has happened one too many times, but it could be useful sometimes, like when importing a template with many subtemplates. Most templates have documentation, so unfortunately this option should be used very very rarely (any subtemplates need to be imported one by one). Rocket000 (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just discovered that there are images in this category that were tagged as far back as 22 December. Could someone(s) go through these and delete the problematic images? Nyttend (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed some tags of files that can be kept, but this seems to make people upset. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say we could safely remove source tags when the source is subsequently provided. However, what you did here was inappropriate, as the lack of evidence for PD-India is a good argument. Transitioning from no source to DR is much more appropriate. ZooFari 00:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Why when there is a good license? The Deletion-Request backlog is even longer. And increasing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, there's no evidence. Assuming that it's PD-India would be controversial and therefore should be discussed appropriately. ZooFari 00:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of old photos for which no original source can be given, without any effect on copyright status. An inordinate amount of time here is spent on pre-WWII photos, pre-WWI photos, even 19th-century photos, while much recent material is pasing through unchallenged. There are obviously great risks with accepting {{Own}} as a valid source for anonymous accounts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand my point. Just please don't remove tags like that to support your point of view. You may be right, but it is too controversial: Commons:Deletion requests/File:De Koninklijke Muzikanten.JPG is already leaning towards delete. ZooFari 21:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

<-- Just a quick note for people going through there, some files in that category may use {{own}} and are still tagged as "no source". This is usually because the tagger believed that the uploader wasn't the real copyright holder and was asking for the real source (i.e. the image is likely a copyvio). Personally, I've generally deleted the ones that appear to be copyvios, unless it seems plausible that the uploader really did create it. Killiondude (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we had a discussion quite recently about this common practice of tagging files with {{Nsd}}, {{Nld}} or {{Npd}} when there is reasonable doubt about the truthfulness of an uploader's authorship claims. (I can't find the archive, though.)

I can see the benefits:

• not clogging up COM:DEL with requests where all you really need is the uploader giving a credible affirmation that they really did create the file themselves
• giving uploaders more time to respond than tagging for immediate speedy deletion
• not leaving files in the permanent limbo in which {{Disputed}} tends to result

I can also see the problems and risks:

• arbitrary application
• lack of documentation
• misleading statements in the tags used

The fact that it keeps getting brought up and keeps causing some friction is an indication that status quo is not a viable long-term solution. Neither is ignoring the problematic uploads. I think what we should do is to define a separate but similar procedure to n[lps]d tagging, whereby the authorhip and/or licensing of a file can be called into question and the file deleted after a predetermined period if no additional information or objections are put forth. We'd need to define when this procedure could be used, and when COM:DEL should be used instead.

This would allow clearer communication for these cases; reduce confusion surrounding undocumented but commonly used practices; make the backlogs for files without source, licensing or permission more straightforward to deal with; and deprecate {{Disputed}} once and for all.

Thoughts? —LX (talk, contribs) 22:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely would endorse a separate procedure. Perhaps we could use a procedure like the English Wikipedia's Possibly unfree files page. ZooFari 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I remember proposing a separate tagging system for files whose authorship claim is questionned. It got almost no reactions (except maybe a suggestion to create a {{Yeah, right}} template). What I currently do is tag the file as missing a source and automatically add a note to the user message. The note I use for the cases where I find own work claims dubious is User:Eusebius/Messages/dubious. I would clearly prefer having a fourth autotranslated tagging system. --Eusebius (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

 Agree: Would be awesome if we could separate this. I think something similar to PUF could work. Subpages for every file shouldn't be necessary, log pages should be sufficient. I was actually always wondering why Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, had something like this and we, the media database, didn't. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you summarize the benefit of logging them on a page (I'm not very active on WP)? Wouldn't it be another DR-style backlog? --Eusebius (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree Well, personally I think that the Deletion Request page is best for these images. I think it would just create more work to have yet another, a third, way of listing and deleting images. Why not just list it for deletion? Then everyone knows where to look and where to list images, the procedure is all set up, everyone knows the rules.

Sure there is a backlog of images at DR, but that is an unrelated problem. There is nothing preventing an image of questionable source to be deleted after 14 days. This gracing period could be added as a guideline on the Deletion Request page.

If the limbo is a problem for images with the disputed tag, then such images could be listed on the deletion request page after a few weeks.

I think in general creating more b'racy is something that should be avoided if possible.

Fred J (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's curious how we see things differently. For me, putting these images into the DR workflow would be the bureaucratic way, and having a tag system would be the simple way: nXd tag system comes with a grace period, and can be dealt with pretty simply if one keeps tracks of the files one tags. --Eusebius (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User was advised to request on this page that user does not wish to be on wiki. User has not been active on wiki in many months. user wishes for user's name to be removed entirely for privacy concerns. user's name keeps coming up at the top item on google searches and is affecting this user in real life. Please help user's name be cleared from searches. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.134.88 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You might want to either let your user and user talk page be deleted, or add __NOINDEX__ to them. Alternatively, it's possible that you rename your account, however that will make it possible for other persons to recreate an account under your name and possibly ruining your image. As a general advice, it's often good to use nicknames in the Internet if you're afraid that search engines might find your name. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded, earlier today, File:The Crozier of Clonmaenois.png and just realized there is a mistake in the spelling. It should be "Clonmacnoise." I have no idea how to correct that mistake. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. You can use the {{Rename}} template for such requests. –Tryphon^☂ 14:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has dropped by at Commons talk:Map resources asking for some expertise about map image formats etc. --Túrelio (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Could any admin kindly close this CfD? Thanks in advance, — Dferg (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done (non-admin closure) -- User:Docu at 11:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add the commands on User:CommonsDelinker/commands. Regards, — Dferg (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that part. -- User:Docu at 12:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Photographers from unkown countries - simple spelling mistake needs a fix SatuSuro (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I usually misspell it "uknown".--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

done (x) --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you SatuSuro (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This user has nearly incomprehensible edits, has moved his user page to a new location where I can't move it back, and has vandalized Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thivahary.jpg twice, once as an anon. Can someone move the user page back and clean up the redirects? -Nard the Bard 07:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

To fix the user page, I ask at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_&_protections#User:Kayamukan_.3D.3E_User:Shavetharan. I think it currently blocks me from doing it myself. -- User:Docu at 07:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done this been fixed Gnangarra 12:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could someone delete the file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Projected Image of Madeline.JPG? Also, can an admin move a file or does it have to be fully uploaded and deleted? ~ R.T.G 18:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the second question: Just add {{rename|New filename|Reason for the move}} and after some time an admin will rename it if your request makes sense. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you I will do that now in case anyone reads it. ~ R.T.G 00:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

user has uploaded plenty of vinyl-covers with own, what we shall do with those covers--Motopark (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I addressed him on his German user talk page and pointed him to the relevant information. Thanks für notifying us, the pictures all have to go. Do we need a formal deletion request, should we label them as copyvio and have a second pair of eyes review them or should any admin delete them on sight? --h-stt !? 18:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the apparently random file names. - Jmabel ! talk 22:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, can you please rename this image? The name used now is incorrect, and everyone agrees on that (Including the uploader). We would like to use this image with correct name in correct languages - but we can't, as it's name is incorrect.--Gaeser (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't you (or anybody) change the image desription? --Túrelio (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

For the one or two of us who are not in San Francisco (or indeed the US) could someone provide the option to hide the current page header irritation. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you see that I don't? Lupo 13:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Some sign asking to help Commons if you are in San Fancisco - how many of us are!? According the commons-l it looks like it should be an en specific sign though based on today so far it is also randomised... (two pages it didn't appear on, another it did). Looks like a site notice one. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

click on the green box and Its says Help Wikimedia Commons and Earn $75 at Amazon!

We are looking for visitors to Wikimedia Commons to participate in an interview. In-person interviews will be held in San Francisco CA on March 30th. Remote interviews will be held online on March 31st with users throughout the US. To be considered for participation, answer a few short questions. If you are selected to participate, Fleischman Field Research will contact you via phone or email to schedule your interview. why cant ask the rest of us? we can buy just as easily as anyone in the US from Amazon online. I just ignore the box anyway so its not an issue Gnangarra 13:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I always avoid clicking stuff like that! And I spent quite a bit of my time dealing with spam cross wiki...;), "ignore" would be a common courtesy. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the centralnotice from http://upload.wikimedia.org/centralnotice/commons/en/centralnotice.js?257z31. And yes, it's randomized. And that stupid script has a bug ("for (i=0;" instead of "for (var i=0;"). Anyway, you could hide the centralnotice permanently by adding the following to your monobook.css, vector.css, or other user css file:

div#centralNotice { display: none ! important }

Or if you're using an ad blocker, you could make it block "http://upload.wikimedia.org/centralnotice/*". HTH, Lupo 13:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Lupo - appreciated, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that you will miss out on other central notices that may be of interest to you if you add that code in, so beware. :-) Killiondude (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Lupo! It is IMO quite stupid to abuse the centralnotice for things like this; it only makes people ignore/block it — making us miss potentially relevant information in the future. --Kjetil_r 22:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, but actually it's not that bad. I have the whole siteNotice hidden in that way (which also hides the centralNotice) for ages. I learn about the truly important stuff that might be announced via centralNotice from comments made at COM:AN or COM:VP, or the mailing lists. And if you put MediaWiki:Sitenotice on your watchlist, you see the changes to the site notice anyway. Without annoying boxes. Lupo 22:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We're using the sitenotice to find people to participate in a usability study to improve the upload process on Commons; I would think that this is a useful and appropriate use of the sitenotice, not an "abuse". In the future, we would like to target geographically only the eligible users, but this is not currently possible. The banner will actually automatically hide if you click on it and close the invite. If someone would like to improve the script to add an additional "hide" button, please, by all means do so. The script is located at m:MediaWiki:Centralnotice-template-ethnioFordcommons. guillom 22:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't think you need a study to tell you what the gulf between the common man and uploading on Commons is: the masses are stupid and ignorant of copyright, and also to Commons' complex processes for what is free and in scope and what is not, and we don't have time to babysit and coddle them through the process, so we delete their stuff and template them. People's reponses to this vary. Some people learn how to use the templates and rules, and we still drive them off (like User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)), others never come back after their first deletion, others upload with a hit and miss strategy and we happily fix their templates and descriptions and never block them even though they never care if what they upload is actually PD, and some people are hell-bent on uploading violations no matter how much help they get. You don't need a study, and you don't need to make Commons more "usable". People's experience here is unlike anywhere else they try to use and there's a built-in learning curve. Most websites use three approaches, they don't care about copyright, they don't care (too much) about copyright but will remove content if prompted, and heavily moderated sites. Commons, and Wikipedia in general, uses an approach people simply aren't familiar with until they get a hang of it. I don't think survey results are going to change this. -Nard the Bard 06:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points, and disagree with some others :) But to give you a bit more context about the study I'm talking about, please see usability:Multimedia:UX study, March 2010/CfP, and more generally usability:Multimedia:About and usability:Multimedia:Hub. guillom 14:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It annoyed me as well. I found that clicking on the link popped up a small questionnaire window. After the popup was closed, the annoying message was no longer visible and an "ethnio displayed" browser cookie had been stored in my browser info. Athaenara (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've a feeling I am going to regret this posting but...

This may warrant a look by people who actually work on here. The list consists of two stewards who are rarely here, two Commons folk who seem mostly on a break, Lar who has other things to deal with and the extremely hard working Eugene. Maybe some help would be in order? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It does seem a bit odd for such a large project to only have one active bureaucrat. The thing is, I can only think of one or two folks who have a shot at passing RfB. The crat-related backlogs aren't desperate at the moment, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure - I agree (with all that you say!). However some folk may not have some pages watchlisted (can't think why I have :)) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Comment: Kanonkas was also quite active with the bureaucrat stuff before being on a break. But I agree that the other bureaucrats rarely do bureaucrat work nowadays, one bureaucrat PatríciaR was even recently de-sysopped for inactivity. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly this was done at Meta, not Commons. I guess for some stuff it doesn't really matter if an admin places the request at Commons. For others, it's probably counter-productive if it is done by an inactive bureaucrat. As we don't have a bot approval group, Eugene has to do pretty much everything. -- User:Docu at 19:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I do try to do 'crat work when I am able to. Often Eugene is so efficient he beats me to it all. Dude should take a break sometimes :). But we may well need another 'crat or two. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I restored that file, because the reason for its deletion seemed excessive, and its wide use on other wikis made it unpractical to delete without further warning. Please have a look (IMHO it should be kept). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We have a process for that at Undeletion Requestions/Deletion Review or whatever you guys call it here. Go there and state your case. Even if it was used thousands of times, it is a derivative work of a copyrighted logo. (My objections about the flag being incorrect was fixed). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Higher-ranking admins have been known to undelete this way without problem... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry I missed the correct procedure, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.svg I don't want to start a war on that, but a speedy restoration seems appropriate in that case.
• The case is the same as for any of the flags in Category:International flags or Category:Flags of organisations : Reproduction of flags (as such) is not governed by the legislation on artistic rights, but specifically by that of official seals and enseigns (Paris convention, article 6ter).

Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't follow that anymore when it comes to flags. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If some other page is more appropriate for this topic I don't mine transferring it --Blacklake (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest indefinitely blocking this user and thorough examination of his uploads for the following reason. This user is indefinitely blocked in ruwiki since 2008 for a number of reasons one of which was repeated uploading of files with improper licensing, derivative works from unfree media, sheer copyvios etc (other reasons include regular additions of original research and/or almost meaningless text in articles on physics, photography and so on). All the warnings and discussions with Moisey proved to be useless. Here is the relevant ruwiki Arbcom case (in Russian, obviously).

Here the same modus operandi goes on. There are lots of copyvio (see File:Bionitsheskoiy glaz.jpg or File:Shkala savisimostey v metrologii.jpg as the newest examples) or improper licensing (eg. a derivative work from GFDL File:Contactlenzen Confortissimo.JPG is marked as PD). Many uploads have already been deleted, see User talk:Moisey/Архив-2009. Again, judging by ruwiki expirience and the abovementioned user talk archive page I believe that warnings or short-term blocks are of no use and it is indefblock which is required to solve the problem. --Blacklake (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I confirm these facts. Moisey was banned in ruwiki for massivе transformations of many articles into unreadable and un-understandable chaos of bad russian language mixed with original researches from his imagination, without any normal sources. Plus plenty of strange unusable images which he made from different sources, including obvious copyvios and awful hand-made drawings. Maybe indefinitely blocking is too hard, but his conributions must me strictly revised. --Panther (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User has serious problems with understanding concept of DW, but I agree with Panther -- indefblock is too hard for now. I've just tried once more time to explain him this concept -- maybe this time he would get it right. Trycatch (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this acceptable? If it can get a copyright, this is clearly in violation of copyright, but it may not be eligible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly fine in my opinion. It's definitely ineligible, and it appears to be {{PD-old}} on top of that. So double public domain. –Tryphon^☂ 09:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please delete my file File:Sam voc example.jpg. I have created a new one, under the name File:SamaritanVocalizationExample.jpg. Thanks, Shai (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually find the first one better (although SVG would be best). Why not keep both? –Tryphon^☂ 09:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A particular user has taken it upon himself to intentionally reduce the quality of our files. I assume it's being doing to make the file size smaller. I started reverting his contribs, but got tired. Please keep an eye out for more of this behavior. I'm not saying the user is acting in bad faith, I just don't think the changes are welcomed. Rocket000 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion requests/File:OldSkiPoles wb.jpg (hist), nominated five months ago, needs administrator attention (non-admin closures of uncontroversial noms are fairly common on the English language Wikipedia, but I didn't see a provision for it on Commons). – Athaenara ✉ 23:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

See COM:DR#Instructions_for_administrators for such a provision. DR closed. — Xavier, 11:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. – Athaenara ✉ 20:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please help cleaning our backlogs by doing the following: Every admin reading here is encouraged to clean one of these old day categories today. It’s the average stuff - images from magazines, logos without permission, photos from blogs, artworks by living artists. Let us try to reach a point where a handful admins can do the daily maintenance work without frustration. --Polarlys (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

done: 25 January, 30 January, 5 February, 10 February, 14 February, --Polarlys (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please start with the older ones. I am often checking the oldest ones remaining, to see if something can be salvaged. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've now done the first two. It might be helpful to use some tools during the deletions, e.g. Autodelete combined with Navigation Popups. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, that would be nice. I hadn't seen that autodelete thing before. Killiondude (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Today the Library of Congress rolled out a new website design. Apparently they haven't gotten the kinks out and most or all of the source links from Wikipedia are currently broken. Found out about this shortly after the close of the business day in Washington, D.C. So if anything needs verification from that site in the short term, please be patient. Durova (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this yesterday and posted a request for help at User talk:Martin H. Following is the request and two responses: Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The US Library of Congress has recently completely redone its website: all of our old URLs, including the ones provided by {{LOC-image}}, are now broken. Do you know how to update this template, since you've edited it in the past? I don't know about other collections, but the HABS items now have URLs such as http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/hh/item/OH1792. This URL has replaced http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.oh1792, from which I uploaded File:Walter Ring House.jpg. Thanks much! Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• I attempted one change based one some new URLs that works for some images but doesn't work for your example and I reverted until a better solution can be found. I personally think we should complain, those URLs were advertised as being archival URLs, there's got to be lots of off site users who were also assuming those URLs would last. -Nard the Bard 23:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I hate that new design, everything is extremely small and hard to read, the most unimportant things on the site are the largest (the items for photographs, data pages, photo captions), the most important information - reference numbers - are the smallest. Thats stupid, 1/3 of the page is wasted for nothing. However, it looks like for HABS/HEAR/HALS the old digital id e.g. http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.al0666 (with the "hhh.al0666" as id) have been vanished and is not longer listed at the source as a digital id. All the links still work, and redirect to http://loc.gov/pictures/item/al0666/. "hhh" was the HABS/HEAR/HALS, dont know what with other LoC collections. We should ask what to do at the Template talk:LOC-image or another centralized discussion. --Martin H. (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Note that my example of an working old id is not working for all images. However, at http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/catalog.html they say, it will work in future. So we can decide what to do:

1) modify the template to allow for both links, old "hhh.al0666" and new "/item/al0666/" - if this is possible

2) move all "id=hhh.al0666" to "oldid=hhh.al0666" and create the template so that the id parameter will be the new id in future

3) Something different ;)

--Martin H. (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think we should implement that change right away? Suppose the LoC is debugging? Durova (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Just toke some examples at various subcategories of Category:Images from the Library of Congress, the old link is still working, that was improved today. An example with a atm not working link, File:Betty Field.jpg: our old link http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/van.5a51976 should lead to the image, not working at the moment. But if you visit the target with the new link, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/van/item/2004662871/, and klick on 'View larger' at the left hand you will see a page that contains the old loc.pnp link with the id we have here. So I guess it is just temporary that http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/van.5a51976 is not working. Wait one week and all links will be back. The problem in future is, to explain unexpirienced users what ID they have to fill into the template and where they find it. At the record page you now find only "2004662871", http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/2004662871 will not work. So maybe we should do some improvements here in future. I have more suggestions, e.g. more intuitive parameters with only one reqired loc.pnp=van.5a51976 or item=2004662871 or(old) id=van.5a51976, but thats all base on their structur at the moment. Waiting what will happen. --Martin H. (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's wait two weeks and see how they work out the bugs. Meanwhile let's bear in mind (re: deletion issues, etc.) that LoC sourcing may take a little extra work to verify at the moment. Durova (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'll store a list of all template current uses in File namespace in a txt file. --Martin H. (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Did someone contact them? It would be nice it someone just called them, asked to speak to a high level website admin and discussed the issue with them. I'm sure they have a quite simple mapping algorithm between the old and the new identifier. --h-stt !? 13:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If no one else has telephoned I could ring them up tomorrow. Durova (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Cirt posted a complaint about user:Aylaross in my discussion - unfortunately I cannot help him:

"Inappropriate speedy deletion tagging by User:Aylaross:

Hello Cholo Aleman, I hope you are doing well. I noticed that you had previously already warned user Aylaross (talk · contribs) about inappropriate tagging of pages for speedy deletion, at 18:32, 22 November 2009. It appears that your warning to Aylaross (talk · contribs) had no impact, as the user is still continuing with this pattern of disruptive behavior, see [2]. Any ideas on what should be done here? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Puh - I have no idea - you are an administrator, perhaps you can discuss it on the administrators noticeboard? - Sorry, I do not know the rules to prevent bad behaviour. Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your response. I shall keep you updated on further developments. -- Cirt (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: Check this out - in response to the warnings, Aylaross (talk · contribs) chose not to respond at all - but instead to ignore them all, and blank them out from the user talk page [3] and [4]. What do you think about that? -- Cirt (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)"

As far as I see, Cirt is wright and aylaross shows a strange misbehavior - but I have no idea how to take action against it. Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth telling him that "out-of-scope" in not a reason for speedy deletion of files. It requires a regular deletion. -- User:Docu at 20:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It can be. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We haven't really updated deletion policy accordingly. If yes, then there wouldn't really be anything inappropriate about his tagging? -- User:Docu at 20:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: After the speedy tags were removed, he should not have reposted them. Especially after being warned about inappropriate speedy deletion tagging in the past. The only response of Aylaross (talk · contribs) was to blank out all the warnings from his talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You should invite him to voice his opinion in a regular deletion request rather than telling him to "stop". Whether the file would actually be deleted is another question. -- User:Docu at 21:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(I've left a note[5] on his talkpage about this thread.--Túrelio (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for the notice. I think we are all in agreement that repeatedly adding back the speedy tags after warnings is inappropriate behavior. -- Cirt (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, looking at this file history, maybe you could outline:

• (1) what you think would have been an appropriate conduct for Aylaross, provided current Commons policies, guidelines, templates, and given his opinion that the content doesn't meet Commons' scope
• (2) if you want, you can also indicate what you would have considered appropriate in terms of "staying melon mellow" and "not staying mellow".

Point #2 is optional, but as you think it's important, it might help Aylaross understand your approach. -- User:Docu at 18:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Aylaross (talk · contribs) should not have repeatedly engaged in inappropriate behavior, after warnings by 2 different users to his talk page. Instead, Aylaross (talk · contribs) should have engaged with those 2 users in discussion, instead of choosing to ignore those 2 users and then blank out his talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 Support. Though I'm also critical of some of the uploads, that had been tagged for speedy by Aylaross, a regular DR would have been appropriate, at least after he noticed that people were critical about his speedy-tagging. --Túrelio (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Nod, so we are at least agreed on that part, however one would hope that Aylaross (talk · contribs) would engage in discussion instead of repeatedly tagging, especially after warnings from two different users. -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As Cirt insists on changing back the previous section header and my two questions above haven't really been answered, I guess I have to start a new section:

Cirt, looking at this file history and given the absence of any notice on Aylaross talk page about these, please explain:

• (1) what you think would have been an appropriate conduct for Aylaross, provided current Commons policies, guidelines, templates, and given the opinion of Aylaross and Turelio that the content doesn't meet Commons' scope. Please answer this question by referencing specific policies, guidelines, and templates.
• (2) what you think is appropriate in terms of "staying melon mellow" and "not staying mellow".

Point #2 is optional, but as you think it's important, it might help Aylaross understand your approach.

Further, given the comment of Turelio [6], can you explain how your own approach is compatible with the current wording of {{Speedy}}. -- User:Docu at 06:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised this morning when I read the notification of Túrelio about this discussion. But, now, I'm a lot more surprised reading the comments about ME. It is true that, perhaps, the speedydeletion procedure wasn't correct. However, what really suprises me is that the same administrator that deleted my tag was the user that uploaded the videos. In my country, this kind of behaviour is called "abuse of power". I still think that these videos of Aaron Saxton are not realistically useful for an educational purpose. See: Commons:Project Scope. But, as my behaviour is being in question, I just hope that an objective administrator (NOT Cirt) takes a decision about them. I feel that the wikipedia could be a very good source of knowledge. But, a free and independent encyclopedia should'nt include in its pages videos for personal propaganda. NOTE: Fortunately, I'm not a man.--Aylaross (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Just note that Commons is not Wikipedia. We're not an encyclopedia and have a different scope. –Tryphon^☂ 09:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I've already read the Commons' policies about Scope.--Aylaross (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Be it as it may, in your last two sentences you were referring to Wikipedia and the goal of a free and independent encyclopedia. I just wanted to note that this is not relevant to whether those files should stay on Commons or not; that's more about whether they should be included in a particular Wikipedia article or not, which is not relevant in this case. –Tryphon^☂ 09:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

To me it seems that cirt's uploads in Category:Videos of former Scientologists seem out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Many of these are individually notable individuals. In and of itself, this is an extremely noteworthy topic. Former members of this organization coming forward - an extremely difficult thing for individuals to make the decision to do, was recently profiled on the front page of The New York Times. This has high educational, historical, and encyclopedic value, across multiple different projects. -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Aylaross (talk · contribs) should have attempted to engage in discussion, especially after warnings from two different users about repeatedly re-adding the inappropriate tags.
2. Same as first response, with regard to behavior of Aylaross (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps certain Commons editors are not sufficiently familiar with Cirt's work. The current issue of the Wikipedia Signpost notes that one of Cirt's featured articles about Scientology gained offsite attention for the spike of readership it sent to a historic Time Magazine article. Two-thirds of en:wiki's featured articles and good articles about Scientology were written by Cirt. He is also an administrator on at least five different WMF projects including Wikisource and Wikinews where he documents this subject as appropriate to each project's scope. He has also written featured articles about Scientology for Wikinews and is an arbitrator on that project. The material that was recently tagged for speedy deletion already had OTRS tickets; obviously a speedy template is inappropriate in that context. Few Wikimedians are as scrupulous as Cirt about acting within project scope; he contributes at a very high level on specialized subjects. Durova (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that writing articles on wikipedia can have an impact. But I see no good reason for commons hosting Category:Videos of Aaron Saxton (I have not watched them). This kind of thing opens up for just about anybody using wikimedia as a megaphone for his or her favourite cause. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This thread was initiated to discuss out of process speedy deletion nominations. That should be easily resolvable: the items tagged already had OTRS tickets. No administrator noticeboard attention is needed to discuss potential suitability for the regular deletion process. It would probably be more fruitful to discuss concerns with him in user talk, though, before moving to formal venues. This contributor is at the far right end of the bell curve. Durova (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a deletion request, starting with the Saxton videos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate to see things progress that way without an attempt to clarify questions at user talk. Durova (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

ResolvedIssue being addressed in proper forum. -- User:Docu at 03:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, (4) can you provide links to the two warnings Aylaross should have taken in account when tagging this file? Above you respond "especially after warnings from two different users about repeatedly re-adding the inappropriate tags. ". I don't think there were any such warnings.

Thus, let me repeat my questions:

• (1) what you think would have been an appropriate conduct for Aylaross, provided current Commons policies, guidelines, templates, and given the opinion of Aylaross and Turelio that the content doesn't meet Commons' scope. Please answer this question by referencing specific policies, guidelines, and templates.
• (2) what you think is appropriate in terms of "staying melon mellow" and "not staying mellow".
  Point #2 is optional, but as you think it's important, it might help Aylaross understand your approach.
• (3) Further, given the comment of Turelio [7], can you explain how your own approach is compatible with the current wording of {{Speedy}}.

I hope your responses will clarify your conduct in this matter. -- User:Docu at 03:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an odd way of following up: the deletion discussion is getting unanimous keeps. Material that isn't deletable certainly isn't speediable. As Cirt noted in the opening post, Aylaross was warned for the same problem last November[8] and resumed the behavior without responding. At the point where an image edit history looks like this[9] an admin board filing is within the scope of appropriate action. Both Aylaross's and Cirt's explanations look like good faith misunderstanding. These are longstanding contributors with good histories; let's wrap this up with a handshake. Durova (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the file history, you will notice that another administrator agreed with Aylaross that the file is out-of-scope. That question is however being addressed in the appropriate forum. It is regrettable that the discussion there wasn't initiated earlier.

In this matter, there seems to be indeed some misunderstanding on Cirt's side (and factual inaccuracy).

Personally, I think the note in November wasn't particularly well thought through. The edit history of, e.g. this file provides some additional information, but the note fails to explain what Aylaross should have done instead. Besides that, it has no relation Cirt's conduct about the file we are discussing. I think Cirt should either attempt to explain his conduct or present excuses to Aylaross and myself.

To put this matter in context, maybe an administrator can provide us with the information how many of the files Aylaross tagged with {{Speedy}} were deleted. -- User:Docu at 07:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Although it's understandable that people might flag anything as problematic if it seems outside the norm, Cirt is the type of exceptional contributor who does outstanding work at such a high level that its relevance is not always obvious to passersby. This particular set of videos is relevant to a set of events that made international news in Australia and New Zealand. All of the reviewers at the deletion nomination agree that this is within project scope now that he has written an article which puts that into context. There really isn't anything to be gained by continuing this thread on the premise that he must have done something wrong. Let's be mellow and be glad this worked out well. Durova (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you should bring this up in the corresponding deletion discussion, but if the reviewers there agree as you say, the work doesn't seem to be outside the norm.

This thread was initiated by a contributor who was confused by Cirt's approach after Cirt placed a note on his talk page about another user's edit he labeled as "pattern of disruptive behavior". This type of conduct does seem well outside the norm and I think we can expect that he would attempt to explain his reasons.

Besides that, his way of dealing with a speedy deletion request doesn't seem compatible with our current process on {{Speedy}} nor on the usual approach expected from administrators in deletions. It wasn't too long ago that we discussed another administrator who closed deletion debates on his own uploads. -- User:Docu at 05:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The only part of the speedy deletion criteria that was arguably applicable was the project scope clause, and project scope could only have been questioned on the basis of COM:PS#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose. This is an area where familiarity with the subject--and possibly systemic bias--play a role. The biography article at en:wiki now has forty sources including citations to these videos. This is a very notable person in Australia and New Zealand. This discussion leaves a slightly uneasy sense that perhaps if the subject had done exactly the same things but been Canadian or British his inclusion might not have been challenged in such a persistent and aggressive way? Durova (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the deletion discussion, it seems to me that some of the supporters are being rather aggressive and even had to withdraw most of their comments. Overall, I think this probably does rather a disservice to their point of view and probably to Commons as a whole.

Cirt would have avoided us much of this if he'd follow Commons processes on deletion: looking closely at {{Speedy}}, one notices what he should have done:

Appeal: If you disagree with its speedy deletion, change this tag to a regular deletion request using {{Delete}} and list it on Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests so it can be discussed.

Unfortunately, taking it from Durova's comment above (and Cirt's post on his talk page that he agrees with her), it seems that neither have taken the time to figure out what that means:

: Administrator changes the speedy tag to a regular deletion request

: Administrator removes the speedy tag from his own upload

: Administrator re-removes the speedy tag from his own upload

: Administrator admonish the user who placed the tag

: Administrator comments on another user's talk pages about a "pattern of disruptive behavior".

Cirt's conduct probably also failed the central point of "mellow" and its counterpoint (from Commons:Not staying mellow#About mellowness): "It is good to be nice towards .. ".

Overall, taking it from a comment like this one, it seems that Cirt didn't take the time to figure out how the Commons deletion process currently works. -- User:Docu at 07:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,

In December 2009 I started this deletion request. No doubt because of screwing up on my part, it apparently never appeared on Commons:Deletion requests/2009/12/07, which has since been deleted. The nomination still needs to be resolved though, but I'm not clear on how to rectify the situation. Anrie (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I closed your request. I am often confused as well about our procedure. --Polarlys (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Polarlys (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Should not have been deleted. This was a free photo. The alternatives are not. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

PD-art. But I restored the one from the Yorck project, whenever it even hurts to look at it. --Polarlys (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Pieter, how is the Yorck one more "free"? Anrie (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The source site of the better image tweevioleneneenbas.nl does not give any information about its photo, so it is probably copyrighted. Commons policy and {{PD-Art}} does not change that, as US law does not apply extend to The Netherlands. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I've been able to find on Dutch copyright, it won't extend to an identical copy of a public domain painting, since faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art since it doesn't contain any creativity or originality on behalf of the photographer/scanner. Anrie (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Any court case on that? But this is probably a German photo, as the painting is in Kassel. German copyright law has automatic protection for Lichtbilder, independent of creativity. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, reproduction of two dimensional public domain artwork is specifically exempt from Lichtbilder protection. Please see de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Simple_Bilder and de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Nicht_sch.C3.BCtzbare_Fotos_.28Reproduktionen.29_.E2.80.93_2-D-Regel. Durova (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The appeal to "nach herrschender Meinung" does not convince, so I looked for a source, and I found a text by Mertens. But this is by no means universal, see for example here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps this discussion should move to Commons talk:Licensing due to the broader implications of that line of reasoning. If that holds true then a very large number of images currently hosted at Commons would need their rights status reevaluated. 21:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Following up: it seems like the best thing here would be either to delete the remaining image per the nominator's rationale or to open a discussion about German copyright law at Commons talk:Licensing. Opinions? Durova (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If the objection has dropped I will complete the deletion per Anrie's request. Durova (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Reevaluation is not likely, as commons (per the Foundation) has decided to apply {{PD-art}} universally. (I wonder what is happening between Dcoetzee and the NPG.) But if one is cautious about copyright, one should keep the Yorck project uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've no objection to waiting for the outcome of a policy discussion if you want to hold one. Durova (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Since no policy discussion has started, deleting per request. Would consider reinstatement if Commons consensus regarding the applicable policy changes. Durova (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so bent on deleting this file? There is no policy of weeding out poorer quality images. And there is no consensus about whether this kind of photos are Lichtbilder. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the standard deletion line rationales is "exact or scaled down duplicate". Two files were nominated with the same rationale as being superseded by a higher resolution copy of the same painting. The other was deleted; this remained open for discussion based upon a copyright argument. That copyright argument would have affected a large number of other files and required a change in policy. Several times over the course of a week Pieter Kuiper was invited to initiate a policy discussion, but did not. Durova (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This was not an "exact or scaled down duplicate", and there is no policy of weeding out poorer quality images, see for example Category:The Night Watch. A free licence has been a common argument to keep a file. But sure, I can make a formal undeletion request if you want me to. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

See now Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_156.jpg (filed by Docu). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a new rationale. In future please raise all relevant concerns in a timely manner. Durova (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please drop that officious tone. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Original message on french "bistro".
Need advices and help about this composite file : no problem with OTRS about pictures, but what about sound track: the song is not a traditional song, lyrics are about ski-jumping in Planica. We can find this song here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORnJOW5VvCo , with slovenian Lyrics writen there, (you can use a Google translate). This song and singers are also under free licence? So? Thank you. --Manu (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No answers ? I asked this file for deletion. --Manu (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Jymm seems to be making a habit of uploading other people's copyright images as his/her own. See this complaint on en:Wikipedia, also see user's talk page. Does this warrant administrator action here? Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems they haven't edited since November, unless I'm missing something? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Gah! didn't look at that, sorry Julian. All the notices on the talkpage are from this month. I'd keep an eye on him/her if they came back though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I'll keep an eye on it as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Update. He's back, and dealing with some of those pesky notices about copyright information.... [10] Here he claims to be Erwan Balança [11] Here he claims to be Richard Saouzanet [12] [13] Here he claims to be Julien Thébault [14] Here, he's claiming to be Bernard Recorbet

This [15] is one of the pics Maryvonne Charrier complained about in the en.wikipedia link. Guess what, he's licensed it claiming to be her.

Now I think it needs looking at. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like some help to move File:Tyngdkraftspotentalens komponenter.svg, a Swedish title, to File:Gravitational potential components.svg wich has the same meaning. I initially thought I would need some language specific text in the illustration and somehow forgot to use an english title when uploding the file. At the moment it is only used at the Swedish Wikipedia. Johan G (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly :) Johan G (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the image is widely used (and protected for that) so I think it should be internationalized using {{int:filedesc}} and {{int:license}}. Please help? Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Leyo 12:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite the language issues it must be about time to close Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Carpkazu after 5 months. Ww2censor (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to add a feature of searching this noticeboard's archives? I don't know how to do it myself, but it's obviously possible; see the administrator's noticeboard at en:wp, which has one. Nyttend (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Long ago, I uploaded File:St Uros Cathedral.jpg to Wikipedia with the wrong description and title. It is actually the Church of the Holy Trinity in Parteš. Now it's on Commons, still with the wrong description and title, and I'd like to get it corrected. A couple of other editors tagged it a while back to have it moved to File:Church of Holy Trinity in Parteš.jpg and I just added my support to their request. My usage of Commons is somewhat limited, but the image doesn't appear to be in any administrative categories, so I'm wondering if the tag was placed properly. Could someone please just move it to the corrected title? Thanks very much! Kafziel (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding. Thanks again! Kafziel (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Kafziel, I suspect that this could use better categories; could you please check those in the new location? - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Vandalism --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 day. --Túrelio (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I added {{Rename}} to this file over a month ago. Can anyone handle this please? Crazy Ivan (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

OK It's now File:Chuck Eidson.jpg -- Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Crazy Ivan (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please could someone upload the new version of File:Max_und_Moritz.JPG. I cropped it (to remove the border) and uploaded it here: http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/6157/maxundmoritz2.jpg I can't do it myself because the File is protected by User:Bdk/de/images0 because the image is on de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite (Main Page). That's also the reason why I do not want to wait till it is unprotected. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done –Krinkle^talk 00:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The usability beta has been tried out by over 570,000 users across all Wikimedia projects and roughly 80% of those beta users continue using it. See more stats about the beta analysis here. As for Commons, about 7,500 users tried out the beta as of end of February and 86% of users are still using it. The usability team is planning to roll out the current beta interface including the new toolbar as the default interface in April and May; please refer to WMF blog and the tech blog for more details.

As the acceptance rate of the beta by Commons users is relatively high, we would like to make the switch for Commons at first in the second week of April. In order to facilitate the transition and to avoid critical issues, we would like to ask as many of you as possible to try Beta before that date, so that most issues are discovered and fixed before we go default. You can opt-in via the 'Try Beta' link at the top of your interface.

We appreciate that Commons heavily relies on custom user scripts and site-specific JavaScript; Our changes are not especially related to multimedia usability, but we need your help to make sure the most used tools are compatible with the new interface. If you encounter issues using the beta, please share your feedback on the dedicated page.

Many thanks in advance.--Shuhari(Naoko Komura @ WMF) (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I stopped using the new interface on Commons and de.wikipedia.org since one click more is needed to reach admin functions. Or did I miss something? --Polarlys (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I had the same experience as Polarlys. Killiondude (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Although admin tasks are not visible at the first sight on the new tab layout, you can select them by hovering over your cursor to the drop down arrow (caret). It does not require another step or a click to get to the admin tasks. We would like to work with the developers or script writers to makesure that site-specific Java Script is compatible with the new interface we are introducing so that you can customize the tabs to meet your needs. --Shuhari (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I tried Beta for the first time, but quit like two minutes later because I couldn't find those links. Now that I know where they are, I still prefer working with Monobook, because (despite what you say) it's quicker to reach those tabs (Tineye, Delete and Log, mostly). I wish there was a way of selecting which tabs we want directly on top of the page, and which ones we want hidden away (is there?) –Tryphon^☂ 10:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

„Hovering the cursor“ is nothing for power users (as needed here, see our backlogs). Don’t forger us sysops when implementing a nice looking interface for the average or unexperienced user. All it all we need tools within the software to make our work faster and without the need to implement our own tools to do so. Give us shortcuts for or some floater with generic reasons for deletion to click on instead of deletion tabs and drop-down menus. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that admin shortcuts need to be supported for Vector. Let us make sure that the shortcuts are working for Vector. The bug is filed. --Shuhari (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What does your statistic say about admins? The new interface should also be capable of viewing, tagging and deleting files as fast as possible (independent from all these scrips we use today). I never had the feeling that it is too difficult to upload files here. It’s more difficult to get rid of them ;-) Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what the Multimedia usability project is about. The new interface was mainly to improve the editing experience for newcomers. Improvements are in the works for multimedia participation, and I want to facilitate the work of both newcomers and power users. It definitely is difficult to upload files -- believe me, or review our research. But we don't want to forget users who review the incoming files either. We just need a little more time. guillom 02:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Next to the star tab, there's a tab with an arrow. Make a mouse-over over it, and you'll find the delete and protect buttons. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I know. And it works like this: Point. Click. Click. Choose. Click. Click to close the tab. :-( --Polarlys (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We didn't conduct the beta survey targeted just only for Admins. So the beta survey results are from all different user class. The focus of the usability project was targeted for novice users, and we haven't reached out to admins much. Our wish is at least not to interfere the work you do, and improve the user experience for admins in the future. --Shuhari (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Monobook forever! No, vector looks nice, and is probably better for the casual editor, but I don't see many heavy or technically-minded editors liking the reduced access to their tools. I want more tabs, not menus. Rocket000 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Amen to that! –Tryphon^☂ 12:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• The Vector-skin has been my default since the first day I saw it. Though there are fix I am annoyed by, so far I've either fixed that by a client side script or just left it be. Overall I think it's an improvement. A few things I disliked the most:

- Unused whitespace in the header ; Fixed by #page-base{height:3.6em} #left-navigation{top:1.1em} #right-navigation{margin-top:1.1em}

- Big-screen unfriendly ; Though the default right-tabs (View, Edit, History) jump into the dropdown when the window becomes too narrow. The advanced tabs (Move, Delete, TinEye etc.) do not jump out of the dropdown when the window is wide enough for this. I really like the system of the dropdown. But in my opinion it is mandatory that it works both ways for the sake of unused screenspace and to not have to hover first (because we cant see what's in it untill we hover + .. why not if there's room enough?)

A few things I liked most:

- White background color ; Not yellow, pink etc. But clean white everywhere.

- jQuery loaded ; Enables making nifty little scripts in no-time. Though I'd be nice if it were loaded on every page by default and, unless other libraries are loaded, the $-variable could be used (without need for setting $=jQuery)

- Choosen theme ; I prefer the current vector roll out (Not collapsible left menu's or a different color scheme)

- Searchbar ; Logical, top right

Greetozz., –Krinkle^talk 13:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Jump out menu is a groovy idea. It is some thing to reflect on. --Shuhari (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll also be staying with Monobook due to the reasons Polarlys outlined. Vector is not particularly admin-friendly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Also there are lots of scripts for the monobook skin. There probably will be just as many for the vector skin, but that will take a bit of time. Until then I see no reason to change my skin. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Naoko's message is precisely aimed to give a heads-up to the people able to make sure the scripts are compatible with both Monobook and Vector, so that when Vector becomes the default skin, the scripts continue to work. guillom 15:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, all usual Monobook and Gadget scripts work the same on Vector. The last know script which didn't work was the hiding of the FirstHeading on the Main Page, but after the creation of MediaWiki:MainPages.css, it seems to work now. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I switched back from vector to monobook after I could not figure out how to customize the toolbar on top of the edit window, the way I am used to (see User:Jarekt/monobook.js). --Jarekt (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

@Jarekt: The way those buttons are inserted is no different in Vector. I copied the contents of User:Jarekt/vector.js to my own and confirmed that it works fine (I'm using Vector too). You might have had a cache issue, or there is a conflict with another script you're using. –Krinkle^talk 16:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Question: Has the skin already be changed to Vector? I can't say it, because I use Vector all the time. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The Preferences still read "MonoBook (default)", so I presume not. –Krinkle^talk 16:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, has anybody seen to where the check-usage function/tab is gone? If I remember right, it did work yesterday evening and early this morning, but no more, as the tab has disappeared. --Túrelio (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It was removed from MediaWiki:Extra-tabs.js [16], maybe it's really redundant but I somehow dont trust GlobalUsage with all those toolservers lags (or is it working on live server?), besides what I really miss is Checkusage local duplicate show --Justass (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

GlobalUsage is independent from the Toolserver, which is exactly the reason why it's installed here. We shouldn't be dependent on the Toolserver to check where a file is used. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the question is not if the button reads Check usage or Global usage. The question is, is the button there at all. I would like to keep the button on top, since scrolling all the way down to View more global usage of this file. is not user friendly. About 2 hours before you deleted it from Extra-tabs.js I swapped Check-usage for Global-usage. I suggest not deleting it everywhere without discussion first, I therefor reverted the removal of Global-usage in Extra-tabs for now.
See also Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Change_Checkusage_to_Globalusage. –Krinkle^talk 22:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't sure if GlobalUsage is always up to date. I'd like to know how long the time lag between edits in local wiki and GlobalUsage. Regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 13:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see MediaWiki talk:Vector.css/rtl. Without it vector skin isn't working in RTL languages. ערן (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for fixing the upcoming Vector skin. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi fellow Administrators,

As you've probably noticed, since almost a month now Commons has the ability to mark any edit as patrolled (See here if you missed it). That enables us to keep track of anonymous edits in a systematic way and organise what is and is not checked and thuss fight vandalism in a fairly effective way (See COM:ANON for that). To know more about patrolling see the updated COM:PATROL.

But to the reason why I'm posting here in the Administrators' noticeboard; Every admin has the patroller right. So next time you block a user for vandalising Commons, and checking the other edits of the user please click [mark as patrolled] while there as this saves the vandal-watchers a lot of wasted time patrolling already checked edits (in an already big checklist of anonymous edits).

Ofcourse that doesn't only apply to checking edits of blocked vandals, just in general. Whenever you're on a diff-page, mark it as patrolled. Both when it's a bad edit or a good edit. Good edits can be checked and go off the checklist automaticly, bad edits can be checked and then acted upon (ie. reverting). Ofcourse, when you dont intent to revert the edit or take action, leave it unpatrolled.

Anyhow, thanks in advance. If you have any questions feel free to leave a note on the CVU-talkpage or on my talk, –Krinkle^talk 12:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This user has uploaded a lot of images that appear to be copyvios (e.g. most of the Glee cast from [17]). I'm on a crappy 115.2bps EDGE connection for most of today so it'd take me ages to go through and figure out if there are any valid images. Can someone please have a look through and take any appropriate actions? Stifle (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

User is claiming to be a journalist, and images have full meta data from camera. Maybe we can just confirm his identity and that'd be good enough. I'm willing to assume good faith here. Doesn't appear to be copyvio, and the photographer credited on that webpage is the same person claiming to be User:Tomdog. I'd be another thing if we had two different names of people. -Andrew c (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As announced last week, Commons will have new user interface as of 7am 6am UTC on April 6. --Shuhari (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Corrected the time above, should be 06:00 UTC, not 07:00. --Catrope (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, during my patrolling labors I found an image of Frank15 (talk · contribs) which doesn't have any source or Author information, checking user contributions I found that all images uploaded by the user don't have source/author. Also in the summary of his first upload we can see: "[...]Source=panoramio.com [...]". So, what do you think? Best regards --by Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 03:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tracked down the sources of several of his uploads (=copyvios). But there is still work to be done. --Túrelio (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,

several local wikipedia projects introduced "draft versions" of edits, which have to be marked "sighted" or "patrolled". Within several projects I got local rights to do this, in de-WP and pl-WP it's called "editor", in hu-WP "trusted" and in no-WP "autopatrolled". Is there a possibility to apply for global rights to mark edits ok?

You might know, that I don't mess around, I just try to keep the Category:Icons for railway descriptions in order ... axp_de^Hello! 08:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The right place to ask might be meta not commons. --Schlurcher (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In short, there is no such global right. In fact, many of the projects aren't set up with patrolled edits. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I asume you mean flagged revisions instead of patrolled edits. –Krinkle^talk 00:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

For having your edits marked as patrolled see COM:RFR Gnangarra 01:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As said before, some wikis call it "flagged revision", some call it "patrolled", others call it "sighted" or "marked" ... but ok, I will show up at meta ... Cheers axp_de^Hello! 15:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

are this valid template Template:PD-geq, deleted before and created again--Motopark (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be created only to avoid redlinks. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

May be bots will better solution for this problem? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I closed a renomination as a speedy keep because file was in use and therefore in scope. Nominater did not like that and reverted [18]. I suggest another admin take a look at it and close the DR when (s)he find it safe. Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

While you did nothing wrong, In use does not always mean "in scope". You can have 60 different articles about Male Ejaculation on 60 different wikis with various hidden galleries demonstrating male ejaculation and therefore these images can be gamed to be "in scope". This image was removed from one of those galleries before the person deleted it Bastique ^demandez 18:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Yes it was removed by User:Zscout370 with this edit [19] (00:29, 6 April 2010). I would have prefered that wiki was given a chance to revert that removal if they liked the image if they had not reverted within a few days we could asume that they agreed image was no good. Also I think that Zscout370 should have left an note on the DR so closing admin could have taken that into concideration. --MGA73 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, this is about a bad male ejaculation photo. The only reason it was on Chinese Wikipedia was because it was loaded, en masse, to a hidden gallery with no regard of contents or result. It was removed from the page before it was closed, and therefore, it was no longer "in use". The closing administrator who has reverted it could have taken the same action, and removed it the same way.

Given the circumstances, I have no doubt the project in question could care less whether it was on the hidden gallery or not. I know enough of that project's Wikipedians

This is about an amateur porn image. It is not about protecting the rights of projects to determine their own fate and use of freely licensed image. This is about removal of an amateur porn image. The world is not going to end. Bastique ^demandez 18:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the world will not end. But almost all "porn" images we have is amateur porn since models are not paid ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see here [20] Just the other day the animation worked fine. The article with this file is in DYK section at main page in English Wikipedia, so it is kind of urgent to fix it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• See Commons:VP#GIF scaling re enabled and w:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Re-enabled GIF scaling. Trycatch (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at MediaWiki_talk:Vector.css#font-size_for_pre. Thanks. --APPER (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems this filter does not work anymore (this was not tagged for example), though the the small image note one does. Any reason ? Could someone knowledgeable about filters look into this ? Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

We had some problems reading the resulting log. It generates quite a lot of volume and I don't think that there was an easy way to select just the ones that haven't been checked (well maybe now that we have patrolling, maybe we could do another experiment ..) -- User:Docu at 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi I have put a newspaper photo into the wikimedia commons for artist Sylvia Tait. The managing editor at the paper gave me permission to use it. What kind of licensing to I put it under so it will not be deleted and I can put it in the article I want to do on Ms. Tait? Thank you, Stephart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephart (talk • contribs) 01:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Would recommend you follow the instructions on COM:OTRS and forward the permission across to them, There is a standard format for whats required from the copyright holder. Once you've sent the permission across then tag the file as instructed with {{OTRS pending}}. Gnangarra 05:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Commons_talk:Bots#Bot_policy_.2F_upload.py. -- User:Docu at 09:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Commons_talk:File_renaming#Category:Phoebastria_immutabilis_.28head.29. -- User:Docu at 23:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The image File:Elizabeth Smart Sketch.jpg has been uploaded here after being deleted on the English Wikipedia. It clearly appears to be a derivative work of the image found here on Library and Archives Canada website. Surely the licence should be inherited from the original and certainly not claimed to be entirely the uploader's own work. Ww2censor (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

does not seem to be working. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Which image are you trying to do this with? Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 20:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried to upload this one File:Point Lobos 3 -edit.jpg over this one File:Point Lobos 3.jpg few times,but it did not work. Maybe I am doing something wrong?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The "upload a new version" page opens for me. What error did you get? Jonathunder (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It should ofcourse work. But if it is only this one image that "will not work" it should be rather easy to fix with the "move" tab. --MGA73 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you do that for him? I don't have the move tab on commons. Jonathunder (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The screen comes up for me too, but... Anyway I tried one more time, and it put the file under different name File:Untitled Panoramab.jpg (BTW please delete it somebody). I'd like to ask somebody to test it please. Please try to upload any image over an old one from the beginning to the end, and see how it works. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In order to simulate you should ask a non-admin do to so. Admins can e.g. upload images with some “cryptic” file names, but normal users cannot. --Leyo 21:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done I clicked "Upload a new version of this file" just below the File history and marked "Ignore any warnings". --MGA73 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Both are there, now. Very nice photo, BTW. Jonathunder (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This happened for me, too; I couldn't upload a replacement until I tried it with the warning ignored. A Vector bug, perhaps?--ragesoss (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

After placing File:Orban viktor00.jpg on the English Wikipedia's main page, I noticed that its description is highly questionable, so I then removed it. I've just deleted a couple of other copyvio images of Viktor Orbán, but I have to get going now. Can someone with free time please investigate this photograph and the user's other uploads? Thanks. —David Levy 13:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

... cause the last time I uploaded one I got banned. So I would like to know is this one copyright free (it is if I understand the disclaimer on the same web page right), or this one (it is if I understand the disclaimer on the web site right) or this one (it is if I understand the disclaimer on the web site right). Please let me know which one I may upload and if not what can I do to make them up-loadable. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Also asked the same question at Commons_talk:Licensing just yet. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 08:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, as far as I can tell, it's literally impossible to upload a new file over an old one. You just get it telling you to edit the description, and it refuses to tell you what's wrong with it.

Can we please stop making changes to our upload system that users cannot opt out of without running it by the community first? In the last year or so, we've had:

• The sudden switch to the form-style uploads, and away from basic uploads. It took quite some time for knowledge of how to turn that off to percolate through, since it's completely broken if you have the upload page already made up, or want to use one from another.

• A tweak to make sure information was included which did not check whether a file information page already existed, forcing you to fill out the information again.

• This.

Please make all future changes after community discussion, and post a notice asking for testers to use the changed format for at least a month before implementing it generally. Breaking file uploads every six months because you don't test things is unacceptable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You can upload a new version if you click "Ignore any warnings".--ragesoss (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There ist no "ignore all warnings" on my upload form, if I try to upload a newer version of an existing file. The whole funktion is broken for more than two days now. --h-stt !? 16:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you click "Upload a new version of this file" just above the heading "File usage on Commons" at the file page you should go to a upload form. At the bottom is a "Ignore any warnings" just above the button "Upload file". At least that is what I see. Good luck :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This code was tested btw. (and so was the commons specific form uploads). If you think that you can test all changes for each ridiculous usage that Wikipedias have come up with and each implementation of the browserside that browserdevelopers have created, then you are delusional. Breakages will happen and breakages will be fixed. Here the "ignore all warnings" was specifically NOT made the default anymore, because it ignores ALL warnings, and not just the reupload warning. This was leading to problems. File a bugticket if you want reupload mode to always ignore the reupload warning. TheDJ (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have opened bugzilla:23176 for this issue. TheDJ (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I was wondering if it would it be possible to make the favicon of the wikipedia logo transparent? There's no need to keep the white border. Thanks, --Meldor (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is Commons, not Wikipedia, and in either case the request should go to bugzilla:. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I done the buttom [speedydelete] in [File:FranziskaÖ-GeorgWaldburg.jpg.]. (this is my own file) Is this ok and enough for speedydelete? Please a short answer, my English is not so good. How long I must wait for the delete? Is speedy longer as a week? Thanks. --Adelfrank (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Adelfrank, why do you want to have this file speedily deleted? You haven't presented any reason. Given that File:FranziskaÖ-GeorgWaldburg.jpg appears to be PD (the photographer died in 1927) it seems to be fine. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(after EC) Du hast keinerlei Begründung für den Löschwunsch angegeben. (mit dem Hochladen unter einer freien Lizenz hast du quasi die Verfügungsgewalt über das Bild abgegeben, weshalb ein "ich will es eben" nicht ausreicht.) --Túrelio (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ich habe die Mitteilung bekommen, dass das Bild nicht von Carl Pietzner, sondern von seinem Sohn erstellt wurde. Was soll ich da bei why angeben. I got the information this photo is not from Carl P., it is from his son. --Adelfrank (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Von wann bis wann hat dieser Sohn denn gelebt? (das Bild trägt schließlich einen Datumsvermerk 1912) --Túrelio (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Das weiss ich nicht, hier [21] ist nur ein Hinweis, dass Carl P. bereits 1907 in Pension ging. --Adelfrank (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dann steht der Löschantrag aber auf schwachen Beinen, denn nach dem Augenschein spricht alles dafür, dass das Bild gemeinfrei (PD) ist. Falls du noch "Beweismaterial" finden solltest, kannst du es ja auf der Bildseite unter dem LA-Fenster eintragen. --Túrelio (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Prima, dann kann der LA wieder raus, dachte es wird hier mit den Lizenzen immer ganz genau genommen und wollte keinen Ärger kriegen. Hätte es sonst in die deutschen Commons gesetzt. Danke --Adelfrank (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Was sind denn "die deutschen Commons"? Davon habe ich trotz einiger Wikimedia-Jahre noch nichts gehört. --Túrelio (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mein Gott ich meine die Bilder die nur in der deutschen WP verwendet werden dürfen, mit Lizenz 100 Jahre nach Erstellung des Bildes. Ich glaube Du weisst ganz genau was ich meine. Heisst es dann Deutsche Wikimedia? Ich weiss nicht wie es richtig heisst, vielleicht kannst Du mir ja die richtige Bezeichnung nennen. Gruss vom Volltrottel --Adelfrank (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I took this photo of Ryoji Ikeda in Transmediale 2010. Recently, I received complaints from him about the photo being uploaded here. Also, I was informed about the reasons of his concern which I didn't know beforehand. So as a matter of respect to him, I wanted to ask you to remove the photo. Thanks in advance. I do appreciate your help. --Shervinafshar (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a picture of a public figure at a public event, and it's currently in use. We don't have to delete it, and I don't think we should. –Tryphon^☂ 08:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly were the reasons of concern? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you dont want to raise it publicly you can email a request to us just follow the instruction there COM:OTRS Gnangarra 09:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for response. Have you considered the fact that I'm the owner of the photo? What are the rules if someone decides to delete his/her own photo regardless of the reasons? And I know the fact that this photo is used on the page about him (because I, myself, put it there, before the concerns were raised). This artist has a "no portrait policy" as part of his creative carrier. This I didn't know about before taking the photo. After explaining it to me, I was persuaded and now want my photo deleted. -- Shervinafshar (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to allow some drawing to be made of the photograph, so the article could still have some sort of illustration while this photograph could be deleted? Esby (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

By uploading your photo to Commons under a perpetual license, you actively elected to permanently waive some of the rights to the work that you originally had as its copyright holder. Specifically, you granted Commons and the world at large the irrevocable right to use the photo under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license and the GNU Free Documentation License. See also Commons:Ownership of pages and files#Deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That problem is also adressed in Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Removal at the request of the subject, photographer or uploader. Given the licensing under a free license the ask for deletion on the basis of 'requested by owner' is usually declined as LX just said (edit conflict). There must be some other, more important arguments. I see no legal issues, so COM:OTRS will also not be of help, the case should go the way of a regular deletion debate. --Martin H. (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. We have no reason to upset people who ask nicely. That case has come up in the past and has been solved in the same manner. Rama (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

True, we sometimes delete images at the request of the uploader. But rarely if there's no replacement, as is the case here. Anyway, Shervinafshar, you can open a deletion request and see how it goes. –Tryphon^☂ 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And please don't single-handedly delete a file under discussion, especially when several people are arguing it should be kept. I restored it, as COM:SPEEDY doesn't list uploader's request as a valid reason. –Tryphon^☂ 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So the file will get deleted in 6 months? @Shervinafshar: what is your nationality? does your local law allow you to retract your photograph if wanted (similar to the french law)? Esby (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a reasonable reason for speedydeletion, as long as it's non-controversial. IMO that someone doesn't want photos taken of them when they're a musician... well, maybe you should wear a mask or something. Let's take it to DR. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is a japanese cultural issue where photograph of themselves are considered as 'arrogance' prior to anything else. I am with Rama on this case by the way. We don't lose much in deleting the photograph, and we also gain more in not making some 'enemy' of us. Esby (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

So basically the rules say that I should ask for "sympathy" from the admins which is kind of vague. But the reason that I want this photo pulled is that I'm sympathizing myself with the artist's argument in his pursuit - which indeed as Esby said is a part of Japanese cultural tradition - to put his work before his own image. And about possible replacement I have many images of his works which I can upload to replace this one.

I've been an admin and bureaucrat of Persian Wikipedia for two years and I know when a guideline or policy is being forced and there is no way to reverse or change it, but here the official policy says that the "sympathy" of the admins should be gained. So again, please as a matter of cultural respect to this artist, delete this photo. -- Shervinafshar (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please nominate it for deletion. –Tryphon^☂ 16:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2010/04/15#File:Transmediale-2010-Ryoji Ikeda.jpg -- Shervinafshar (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In the past I have uploaded a number of photographs of identifiable people taken in private places. In some of those, I am not sure I have permissions from the subjects. Out of concern for the privacy of these people, I'm asking to have the following deleted:

File:KnightSCA.JPG

File:MilkPour.JPG

File:NorthshieldHromnice2008.JPG

File:SCAroyalsNorthshield.JPG

I apologize for any inconvenience. Where possible, I will try to find suitable alternatives with permissions from the subjects. Jonathunder (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a public event to me. If it is open to the public it is not a private place even though there are walls and a roof over it. --h-stt !? 07:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Just like the thread above, I think a DR would be the best place to discuss this. But as h-stt said, it looks like a public event, so these images are probably fine. –Tryphon^☂ 08:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

These events were not open to the public. Jonathunder (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

When closing a deletion request as Kep with the gadget DelReqHandler.js (using Firefox 3.6 on Vista), I have an issue with the addition of the {{Kept}} template to the File talk page. I get two warnings from Firefox ("Do you really want to leave this page? All your changes will be lost, blah blah.") before the edit is saved (despite the warning, no changes are lost). I don't remember this happening before. Do others also have this issue or is the problem with my system? Pruneau^talk 09:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Go to Special:Preferences => "Editing" => uncheck "Warn me when I leave an edit page with unsaved changes". –Krinkle^talk 02:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And for reference. All these edit scripts ought to be rewritten to use the edit API. Their functionality is not supported and definitely not guaranteed by the MediaWiki developers. TheDJ (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Pruneau^talk 20:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know I have blocked this user on en:wiki as a sock of User:ChaceWatson. Since the latter and his sock-drawer are blocked here, I propose this account be blocked here also, to minimise any damage. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Sockpuppets of Chace Watson. Will take care of this. --Martin H. (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I would like you, administrators of Wikimedia Commons, to teach the user:Kanonkas about free license, especially about Creative Commons licences. This administrator do not understand that Creative Commons CC-BY-2.0 license says that "You are free: to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work, to Remix — to adapt the work; Under the following conditions: Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." If you do not believe in my words, have a look at this, this and this. Thanks in advance, Patrol110 talk 23:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to have it undeleted, you can request that at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests‎. -- User:Docu at 23:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

To me it looks like a file that was moved to a new name. At the time it was not possible to move so it was done by uploading the file with a new name and delete the old one. If you did not like how it was done you could just add whatever information you thought was missing. It is a Wiki :-)

I just noticed that Kanonkas undeleted the file and moved it so history is now restored. So I really do not see what else we should do. --MGA73 (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And now everything is okay. But, if I hadn't seen that issue by chance after two years since published a retouched version the mistake would have been stored for ever. Anyway, thanks for reaction. Patrol110 talk 15:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand the issue? Care to explain? Esby (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

AFAICT, Patrol110 made some edits (color balance and background blurring) to File:Keira Knightley (2005).jpg, but did not add his name to the {{Information}} template. When Kanonkas later moved the file to File:Keira Knightley 2005.jpg (by reuploading and deleting the original, as the only way was back then), he did not paste the old upload history to the new discription page. Thus, the attribution of the edited version to Patrol110 (via the upload history) was lost.

What I don't quite get about all this is:

• why did Kanonkas make such a trivial rename in the first place (surely the file name with the parentheses was just as good), and
• why did Patrol110 decide to throw such a hissy fit about it now, given that he apparently didn't care enough about attribution before to bother noting his shared authorship in the {{Information}} template?

To be clear, there was definitely a mistake here, and I'm glad that it's been corrected. But unless there's some further history between these two users that I'm not aware of or something, I find all this vehemence and strong language a rather startling response to what appears to have been a minor and honest mistake. From my viewpoint, this all just looks like much ado about very little. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker seems to be down since 57 hours, at least it hasn't performed any request since then. Anything known about? --Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Might be related to the recent DB server issues on the Toolserver mentioned in this thread. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds rather bad. Thanks for the info. --Túrelio (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No Wikicommons, aparece o título La Pont Neuf para o quadro que, no entanto, se chama Le Pont Neuf. Could someone fix that? thank you!

--Betty VH (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I put {{Rename}} and corrected the decription. --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 13:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Tryphon renamed it and I changed the links on pt.wp and ru.wp. --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 10:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We are used to have some pictures, which have been deleted on Commons, appear on the list of missing files on de.wp, but this time there is an exceptional large amount. So, what's wrong? Can a bot-run be started or should I start delinking manually? --Rosentod (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

See 4th paragraph above. --Túrelio (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So? Do I understand correctly that the bot is down and it will work on the backlog when it's running again? Or will it just resume delinking newly deleted files? It there a time estimate? I'm trying to decide if it's worth the effort to delink manually. --Rosentod (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from its edit history, the bot hasn't made any edits since April 18th. As you may know, forecasts are rather difficult when they refer to the future ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's probably better to delink them manually or with your own bot. CommonsDelinker only does the replacements when it comes back, but no delinks. As this isn't the first time CommonsDelinker is down, we should actually find some alternative for when CommonsDelinker isn't there. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I bring to the attention of administratorsn to the non-functioning nature of CommonsDelinker, and highlight the problem with removal of files, especially long-standing files, that this causes for the broader wikis.

CommonsDelinker notifies the various wikis to the removal of files at this site, and it allows for a rename of files at other wikis. With it being broken the renaming process is basically non-functional that means that any file that is deleted or renamed, that all the wikis outside of Commons do not get updated. Yet we have admins still seemingly undertaking deletions solely on the grounds that it is a local issue and without consideration for the wider complications.

Bryan said that no-one has notified him of the the down status of the tool. He has undertaken some work, though notes that its return waits upon this resolution. I suppose our first lesson is to specifically notify the bot owner of the tool being down.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks for helping out. -- User:Docu at 20:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

CommonsTicker disappeared with barely a wimper, and now we have CommonsDelinker down and seemingly no action. It seems to me to be unsustainable for both tools to be non-functional, and then administrators to be acting solely with eyes on the local situation without consideration for the WMF site as a whole.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What measures do you suggest (in terms of tools, e.g.)? -- User:Docu at 13:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me, we should have more than only one CommonsDelinker. I know that en.wikipedia has 7 AIV bots, similarly should it be for CommonsDelinker here. The only real alternative is to remove/fix the links by hand, but I admit that this can be quite annoying. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If the all run on toolserver, it wouldn't really help. BTW is there something an administrator could do about it? -- User:Docu at 13:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, they shouldn't be operating from the same place. To compare this situation with the real world, it has some parallels with the recent volcanoe eruption in Iceland when no planes could fly and certain industries stopped to work because they relied on the planes. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a bot that remove links to deleted images from all other wikis? does CommonsDelinker normally do that, "Delinking deleted images"?   ■ MMXX  ^talk  22:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Anyway, CommonsDelinker is running again since about an hour. --Túrelio (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean I don't need to remove all those links manually or give a command to CommonsDelinker? I read it's documentation but I didn't find anything about "Delinking deleted images" globally.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  22:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Despite users (and admins) complaining about it here, it's a global bot operating from m:User:CommonsDelinker. -- User:Docu at 22:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(after EC) Well, depends. When you want to perform an requested image substitution, you can order the CD via the link in the duplicate- or badname-message on the first image. CD then tries to perform the substitution. After some time you (or any other admin) has to check the "first" file again. When the CD has performed the request you will find an additional windows on the first image. But you still have to usage-check again to be sure whether really all uses have been replaced. If not, you may do the replacement manually. Only thereafter the first file should be deleted. I hope that was what you meant. --Túrelio (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've read it's description at meta I got it better. well, up to now I did all those works manually!   ■ MMXX  ^talk  22:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's an unusual case that I would like to know what my fellow admins think should be done. Moviefan uploaded a series of photos at Category:Chicago (film) with a compatible CC-by SA 3.0 license, but in "Permissions" he states, "This picture is meant for Wikipedia purposes only". See File:Dresses from Chicago.jpg, as an example. Regrettably, the uploader has not responded to my note on his talk page here, although he's been active on Commons since then.

To my way of thinking, such an explicitly stated restriction contravenes the CC-by SA3.0 license terms and these photos should all go to DR, but what say ye? JGHowes ^talk - 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There is {{Permission}} template for cases like this, have reposted your notice on users English Wikipedia page [22] where he seems is more active. Hopefully Moviefan will change his "Wikipedia only" permission --Justass (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have become sick and tired of having to continuously revert edits by user User:Srbonis on the article Србија/ Serbia. User:Srbonis continuously keeps on removing the images of Serbia without Kosovo. I have in a neutral way showed both version of Serbia which are:

• 1: Serbia with Kosovo
• 2: Serbia without Kosovo

This is because it is POV to show just one version because it is unclear of Serbia's boarders, depending on the definition.
User:Srbonis wont accept a compromise and will only have the images which show Serbia with Kosovo. This is POV and unfair as it is disputed as to whether or not Serbia is apart of Kosovo, hence the reason why I included both versions. If you have a look at the revision history of the page [23], you will see that this silly edit war has been ongoing since October 2009. I have tried to explain to User:Srbonis on his/ her talk page that his/ her edits are unfair and POV, please see here (User talk:Srbonis). I told User:Srbonis that we mustn't take sides and that we must reflect both point of views. I have warned User:Srbonis twice now and he/ she is continuing to revert my edits and thus making the page POV. Please will someone help me out and explain in a more authoritative way that User:Srbonis mustn't be POV and that we must reflect both views so that we can be neutral. Also may I recommend protection for the article. Thank you very much, regards IJA (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Protected page for one day. If this continues after that, the user will be blocked. Kameraad Pjotr 16:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I need an admit to update my Licence template User:Schlurcher/Lizenz, that I use in my picture. The new text is here under the section "Lizenz". Please add only the text inside the section, not the header itself. Thanks in advance. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Done. --Dschwen (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the recent update to the MediaWiki software brought us working upload protection, i.e. the ability to prevent the uploading of new revisions over a file without also preventing the editing of the description page. As some may remember, this feature was briefly activated last year, but it turned out to be buggy and was removed. However, I just tested it and it seems to work now: after protecting a test image as "upload=sysop", I was still able to edit the description page with a non-admin account but unable to upload a new version.

If this really does work now, it should be very useful — when protecting files due to high visibility, there's rarely any need to protect the description page too. However, I would urge some caution here before we start doing massive protection changes; last year we had to run adminbots to fully reprotect a bunch of files after the upload-only protection turned out not to work. Let's test it properly first this time. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I also noted it, but didn't yet use it to avoid the same disaster as last time. If it's clear that it wil remain in the software, then it might be a good idea to let an admin bot reprotect the files to the upload protection. However, I know that some files were protected due to edit warring; it might be better to fully unprotect those as the edit wars are probably over by now and they shouldn't have been protected indefinitely in the first place. Again, if it works, it might also be a starting point to protect some more files. I recall that some protection requests of images that were used widely on one project were denied because we can't protect every file. This option would solve the problem, as for such images, a reupload (but not category changes and the like), should be requested first. Unfortunately, Potd and Motd will likely remain protected when displayed, as upload cascading doesn't exist. For those interested in Bugzilla, here is a bug report somehow related to this new feature. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I should've mentioned that there's also wikitech-l thread about this, which is what brought this to my notice. BTW, it occurs to me that cascading protection could (and should) perhaps be changed to only protect files displayed on the page against uploading. After all, the description page won't be shown on the cascade-protected page, so there's no need to prevent editing it. I should take a look at it and see how much work it would take. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Good news, it's always frustrating when you can't improve / translate the description of an image which is on the main page of some project (a good reason to improve it, no?) because it's on the main page of some project. --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 12:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I tested it today at File:Testing upload protection.jpg and it appears to work. If other people (non-admins) also get this warning when trying to reupload, we might want to implement it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The message I have is

Erreur de permissions

Vous n’avez pas la permission d’effectuer l’opération demandée pour la raison suivante :

Cette page a été protégée pour empêcher sa modification.

Not very verbose (should we update MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext/fr from english version?), but it seems to work. --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 12:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a translation here would be good. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

But I wonder, the english text says semi-protected. Is it correct? See mw:Manual:Interface/Protectedpagetext. --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 16:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Could someone deal with User talk:Spurt spurt's vandalism to images of myself? Thanks. Is there any way of protecting them from being overwritten? Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

He has been warned before. Hereby blocked  Done. –Krinkle^talk 15:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

For a week? How astonishingly lenient. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've extended to a week. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, how does that help? It was already a week. Is there no concept of a vandalism-only account or personal attacks here? Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Julian mistakenly said a week, but in reality he blocked indef. Killiondude (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had over three months of this on en:Wiki and it's getting tedious. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, yeah, sorry. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

the uploader has reacted very quickly to my deletion request - I do not need the original file, and I have no idea how to handle it further. If the uploader is correct, the DR can be closed. Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks to Turelio! this case is closed here. Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

File:B Block Room.jpg has been nommed for deletion for six months. It should go, since it appears to be inaccurate, undefended and unused. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Camilla Belle 2009.jpg has been open since February, but this one I think has been successfully defended. (It seems to have been nominated on the grounds that other pictures were also taken at the same event by other people.) An admin want to confirm and close it out? --GRuban (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Adam Cuerden! --GRuban (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This article describes accusations of improper images (involving child pornography) being hosted at the Commons. The accuser is Larry Sanger, an erstwhile founder of Wikipedia. Can someone with more expertise in this area please have a look? I believe the legal threshold to use is the state of Florida, correct? Ronnotel (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

already resolved Ronnotel (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi dears. Some users, named Dalejenkins and Bravedog decided to pourrir my talk page. I don't know why. I try to keep cool with that, but if you could help me... --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 19:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, I need help. --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 19:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Indef blocked both of the trouble makers (probably the same person in real life) as trolls. Killiondude (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi admins here. I'm currently trying to translate MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext into French. This message is namespace/pagename dependent, and I quickly found that to be able to test it I had better to make sub-pages with one message on each (see User:ArséniureDeGallium/Protectedpagetext/fr/1, User:ArséniureDeGallium/Protectedpagetext/fr/2, User:ArséniureDeGallium/Protectedpagetext/fr/3).

For maintenance ease, would you agree to split all theese interface message, including the default message in english MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext, into sub-templates, with only the #if #switch stuff in the main page?

Of course the sub-templates could be protected as well. The main advantage would be the readability/maintainability of the code (which is terrific at the moment).

--GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 09:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The #if #switch stuff is at the moment (see User:ArséniureDeGallium/Protectedpagetext/fr) :

{{#switch:{{FULLPAGENAME}}
|Special:Upload={{/1}}
|#default={{#ifeq:$1|protect|{{/2}}|{{/3}}}}
}}

--GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 09:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You may prefer to put the sub-pages in MediaWiki: namespace. In fact I would prefer that. But if so I won't be able to create/modify these pages. --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 09:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia:Protectedpagetext - Let's asume ArséniureDeGallium ment "MediaWiki:" instead of "Wikimedia:". . –Krinkle^talk 09:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Opps sorry of course corrected. --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 12:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I created

• Template:Protectedpagetext/UploadProtected
  • Template:Protectedpagetext/UploadProtected/fr
• Template:Protectedpagetext/PageProtected
  • Template:Protectedpagetext/PageProtected/fr
• Template:Protectedpagetext/PageSemiProtected
  • Template:Protectedpagetext/PageSemiProtected/fr

I will ask for changing MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagetext & MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagetext/fr. --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 12:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That would definitely make the coding easier, and I would support it. Unless there's some opposition, I'm gonna do it if no one else is faster than me. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for a change - here - given the name worth a review I guess. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Two of his uploads are already the subject of a DR. Why bring it up here? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

When I was an admin I would have considered deleting such uploads as being "out of scope" given the number we have. Others may see it differently - this is a wiki. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a large divide occurring on Commons about sexual content and how much of it is actually "in scope". The DRs that Pieter referred to are currently leaning keep, so I would be hesitant to delete the other uploads. Bleh. Killiondude (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus ca change - maybe not the meme chose. I'll take some care with the buttons for now :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I am going to be bold here and delete them. For starters, COM:SCOPE applies here. Commons is not someones personal playground to upload their porn. We simply don't need 357 pictures of your penises, young men. Thanks for your offer to help, but you know, we've already got a nice clinical one, and that's all we need. And second, I would like to note COM:NUDE which states "Commons is not for exercising voyeuristic or exhibitionistic urges." Tiptoety ^talk 18:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

But you are deleting images that are the subject of an active DR. Why using the power buttons when you are not willing to discuss? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some problems on contributions of User:Chzhdndb123(Special:Contributions/Chzhdndb123. Some of his files definitely have a problem(I think that maybe all of his file has a problem). First, File:Korail EMU361000 trial run.JPG. You can find it on [24], its original size is 1024x768px, and its original license is CC-BY-NC-ND. Second, File:HEMU400X.jpg. Its original image is here: [25]. There is a comment: '무단전재 재배포금지'. It means 'No redistribution allowed; All right reserved.' Third, File:E231-2.jpg, File:E503.jpg, and File:9733b-morioka-station-12.jpg. Different cameras, different resolutions, and he says they are all his own works. I think there are copyright holders of this work and he is not one of them. - Chugun (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I made in kowiki since this account seems to be related to ko:User:김재완. Chzhdndb123 transferred 김재완's files to Commons. So, if the account is a sock, I will delete all his images and block indef. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

All files deleted and blocked indefinitely. – Kwj2772 (msg) 03:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Diego Grez is looking for a "cross wiki spammer" and added several speede deletion request, for instance here [26]. I doubt that these requests are correct. These request are part of a "crusade" against a zoo of socket puppets who defend a (tentatively unnotable) chilean poet and writer Cristian Berrios against deletions, see [27] - maybe Diego Grez maybe right in most of his assumptions, but his means seem to be a bit overwhelming. This writer Berrios is obviously not a fake. Some comments on this can be seen on my talk page, here [28]. Strange case. Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There was no need to post anything there. It is just a misunderstanding. He's not a writer and most-likely a fake. It has to be deleted and he has uploaded a lot of copyvios. I'm just doing my job copyvio tagging them all. Proof: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock.2Funlock_for_Cristi.C3.A1n_Berr.C3.ADos --Diego Grez _{(previously MisterWiki)} ^{let's talk} 20:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus, if you check Marcelo Ríos, Seth Garden et all contribs, they are all flickrwashing, uploading videos screenshots and copyrighted pictures through flickr. AFAIK that's flickrwashing. --Diego Grez _{(previously MisterWiki)} ^{let's talk} 20:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested him to use a DR instead of speedy (link) --by Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 21:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems, that there is no Administrator, who looks frequently about these category and the speedydelete-requests listed there. It will be nice, if a Administrator will do that. Antonsusi (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not the problem. I as well as others frequently patrol this cat. The current problem is that the CommonsDelinker ist completely down since nearly a week, and you really can't expect us to delink all uses manually. --Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The images are not delinkable by CommonsDelinker. Therefore they have been delinked manually or by a Bot. GlobalUsage shows only a few User-pages (allways the same). That are large tables of images and to prevent hundreds of separate accesses (and versions) , I wrote them a text to find the table of replaces at Table of replaced BSicon-files. So I think, that the images can be deleted. Antonsusi (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Antonsusi. CommonsDelinker is a bot. The bot is broken. So wait some days, it will be done. That's my experience here. -jkb- (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Why did you need CommonsDelinker, when there are also files without any use ?
2. In several days, they may be used again
3. I wrote, that the Delinker did not work correctly with this images. The name of the included files are "calculated" by templates.

Antonsusi (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Mir hat nur die Eile überrascht. Gruß -jkb- (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Antonsusi,
falls du an den Icons noch dran bist: sämtliche BSicons in Category:Other speedy deletions, Category:Duplicate oder Category:Duplicate - bad name sind inzwischen mindestens 1x, manche 3-4x, von mir oder anderen admins zum CommonsDelinker, der inzwischen wieder läuft, "geschickt" worden. Die wenigen, die nur noch auf 1-2 User-Seiten in "Gebrauch" waren, habe ich gelöscht, das war aber eine Minderheit. Die meisten, wie z.B. File:BSicon uSTRrg-ELEV.svg, sind weiterhin in einer Vielzahl von Seiten auf eine Weise eingebaut, die der Delinker nicht bearbeiten kann. In diesem Zustand können wir die Dateien nicht löschen, egal wie lang der LA schon steht. Ich sehe als einzige Möglichkeit, dass ihr BSicon-Fans sämtliche Nutzungen auf Projektseiten manuell ersetzt. --Túrelio (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Du könntest auch diese Dateien löschen, und dann sie mit einem #REDIRECT ersetzen. Dann wäre die Nutzungen nicht gebrochen, und die manuelle Substitution wäre nicht nötig. –Tryphon^☂ 23:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

@Tryphon, aufgrund der ganz speziellen Einbindung dieser Icons (siehe nächster Beitrag) bin ich nicht sicher, ob redir da wirklich funktioniert (vom Ergebnis her). Davon abgesehen sollte dann mal ein redir-Spezialist kommentieren, ob redir hier erwünscht sind, hinsichtlich Systembelastung oder sonstiger Auswirkungen. --Túrelio (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ich habe ja geschrieben, dass der Delinker hier nicht funktioniert. Die Bilder sind mit einem Quelltext wie z.B. {{BS|STR|....}} eingebunden und in der Vorlage wird mittels einem Quelltext wie [[File:BSicon_{{{1|}}}.svg|20px]] der Dateiname zu "BSicon_STR.svg" zusammengesetzt. Das kann der Delinker nicht finden. Die Links müssen mit einem Bot geändert werden, der einfach die Zeichenketten in den Artikeln tauscht. Die Meisten Bilder sind bis auf wenige Benutzerseiten entlinkt. Das sind jedesmal die gleichen, wenigen Seiten auf en.wikipedia.org:

• Benutzerseiten von en:User:AlisonW:
  • vierzehn Seiten, von en:User:AlisonW/Rail grp1 bis en:User:AlisonW/Rail grp14. Da sind große Tabellen mit Hunderten Icons drauf. Die Seiten haben alle Vollsperre, weshalb nur Admins editieren können. Die sind nur per Bot unter Admin-Account änderbar.
  • Ich bin auch der Meinung, dass User AlisonW dies deshalb selbst ändern sollte, wenn Einbindungen tot sind.
  • die anderen Seiten sind Einbindungen oder Kopien dieser Seiten von AlisonW:
    • en:User:AlisonW/Rail grp7Simplex
    • en:User:AlisonW/Rail Icons2
    • en:User:AlisonW/Rail grp12Simplex
    • en:User:LeheckaG/BSicon/RR
    • en:User:LeheckaG/BSicon
    • en:User:Renxu350/Alison Wheeler's Rail Icons
    • en:User:Renxu350/Endings
    • en:User:Tuvalkin/BSicon0A
    • en:User:Tuvalkin/BSiconDH
  • Ich habe allen Usern geschrieben, das Icons umbenannt werden und auf Table of replaced BSicon-files verwiesen.
  • Seiten, die nicht gesperrt sind, könnte evtl. Axpde mit seinem AWB bearbeiten.

Ich finde daher, dass man die Icons löschen kann. Redirects finde ich nicht gut, da es auch so schon schwer ist, Übersicht zu behalten. Es würde (noch mehr) Chaos entstehen. Antonsusi (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Es gibt aber auch jede Menge Nutzungen im Namensraum (Nicht-User-Seiten); die dürfen nicht einfach gelöscht werden, weil uns dann die Projektleute mit Recht aufs Dach steigen. Hinzu kommen dann noch solch File:BSicon uexKBFe.svg schöne Ergebnisse (siehe Fenster-Inhalt). Da ich inzwischen etwa einen vollen Arbeitstag mit dem Icon-"Theater" verbracht habe, und das weitgehend erfolglos, schlage ich vor, dass sich die BSicon-Leute (es müssen ja nicht alle sein) erstmal zusammenraufen und eine akzeptable Stategie entwerfen; vielleicht ist in der Gruppe ja auch ein admin (Axpde wird ja gerade einer), der ggf. die nur-admin-Aufgaben übernehmen kann und ein bot-Erfahrener, der für die restlichen Aufgaben einen bot programmieren kann. --Túrelio (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

as indirectly suggested by Axpde my rant in english: many, if not most of the speedy-requested BSicons are still used on project pages (not only userpages); those cannot simply be deleted, as this will lead to protests from the projects. As I've spent already a full day with the BSicons-mess, without much outcome, I recommend an informal "consensus" among the icon people about an acceptable strategy how to proceed. In this group there may be one or another admin, who could then perform the admin-only tasks, and also somebody experienced with bots, who might program a bot to perform the BSicon-special replacements wthat cannot be performed by CD. --Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

<Switching back to english>

As reported by Antonsusi above there are about a dozen lists in userspace that do nothing else than listing all BSicons just for the sake of listing. Some of those lists have grown to such tremendous sizes making them nearly unable to edit. In the beginning I asked AlisonW to remove all those lines containing IDs that are about to be exchanged, 'cause many builders use these lists as reference. But AlisonW refused to do so saying as long as they exist they will be listed.

Whenever I nominated BSicons for speedydelete I indicated the usage within those lists, and it had never been a problem, all BSicons have been deleted as nominated.

The CD is not useless at all, I recently found some local projects that haven't introduced the {{BS}}-templates or users not knowing they exist, so CD will delink those icons my cache proxy won't substitute while editing.

Hopefully I'll have some spare time to learn more about bot coding, then the rank growth of BSicons will be cut down some day ... Cheers axp_de^Hello! 08:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

For an overview which ones are being used, you might want to try:

http://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php?doit=1&category=Duplicate_-_bad_name&use_globalusage=1&show_details=1

The links to user namespace don't work, but it still gives an idea which ones are used only in user namespace. -- User:Docu at 09:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In case, that I'm the user, who added the Badname-template (!) and use on other pages than this exeptions, you can simply list them at User_talk:Antonsusi#BSicon-files to delink. I'll look about them. Antonsusi (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. There are icons added. Thank you. Antonsusi (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No thumbnails are created. I tried to purge, but that does not help. Can it be because of the question mark in the title - Erik Baas (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds plausible! Maybe try a re-upload with a different name? axp_de^Hello! 23:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to the same filename, but without the question mark and it seems to be loading now. Killiondude (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this fast solution! :-) - Erik Baas (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is really the case, it should be reported on bugzilla. We could also add an entry to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist to prevent uploading of files with such names. "File:.*\?.*" ought to do the trick. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I just checked and it seems that thumbnailing of all files with question marks in their names is broken. Since we have quite a few of such files, I assume this is a recent regression. Let me just file a bug on it... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Filed as bugzilla:23361. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Please could someone move File:Novodevicij Cemetery Sergei Eisenstein.JPG to the correct name (as explained by the template {{Rename}} in the file description). --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 11:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Bluedisk has just attempted to have his/her only Commons image, File:Olympia Police Car.jpg, deleted because it's "No longer free. Now copyrighted." As noted by DieBuche, this is clearly an attempt to revoke the license. As an en:wp admin, I've encountered this user attempting to revoke this license on many images hosted there. Could someone attempt to explain to Bluedisk that CC licenses aren't revokable, and please keep an eye on his/her actions here on Commons? I'd like to move many of Bluedisk's images from en:wp to here, so it's possible that a similar situation may arise with other images. FYI, I've already notified Bluedisk that this isn't permitted, but I suspect that I'm not as good at explaining copyright issues as some of you are. Two final bits — (1) Bluedisk is far more active at en:wp than here, so I'll leave a notification of this discussion at his/her en:wp talk page; it might be more helpful if you do likewise. (2) Bluedisk filed a deletion request for this image, but it's not been listed at any daily log; could someone please add it to a log? Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to Commons:Deletion requests/2010/04/30. (Ps. It's not exactly a complicated process...) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, a convenient link to point to in these cases is this entry in the Creative Commons FAQ. To Bluedisk, I would like to mention that, even if we're not legally obligated to do so, we do sometimes delete files as a courtesy upon their author's request, if they ask nicely and can provide a good reason for wanting the file removed. However, simply saying that you've changed your mind and want to revoke the license isn't likely to fly, especially if the file is in use and/or has been here for some time. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts on all of your parts to educate me on the copyright laws regarding my images. Perhaps "No longer free" was not the correct terminology because these photographs were never published under a CC license with my permission. While I wholeheartedly support Wikimedia's mission and have chosen to share some of my photos on Wikimedia's projects, the photos I have requested deletion on are not among these photos. I hold copyrights on the images I have marked for deletion. The rights of some of my photos are held by some private organizations, as well as some state and local governmental agencies. What I have learned is that I need to better monitor the photographs that I upload onto my home computer, as the computer is used by others that I live(d) with. These photos were uploaded by these housemates. They were aware that I had uploaded some images to en:wp and made the false assumption that it would be acceptable to upload any of my images. It was just this week that I became aware of the page that lists the images a user has uploaded, and I became aware that copyrighted material had been uploaded to en:wp without my permission. I apologize for the inconvenience it causes to Wikimedia and it's projects. I respectfully request that these images be removed from all Wikimedia pages. Also, I definitely plan to share more images with Wikimedia in the future. Lastly, no longer shall my housemates be allowed within 100 meters of my computer. Thank you, Bluedisk (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Um... oookay. I assume it was your housemate who also added the image to your Wikipedia user page on 17 July 2008? Although I must admit I find it a bit hard to believe that you didn't notice the picture there during any of your 23 subsequent edits to that page over three months. But maybe it was your housemate who made those edits too? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

My housemates made many edits using my account on my computer. Bluedisk (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

When creating an account you usually read something about taking care of your password ... axp_de^Hello! 07:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been having a bit of an argument with user Alex Tora over watermarked images that he has uploaded. I edited out the watermarks from these images, as watermarking is strongly discouraged on Commons and such modifications shouldn't violate any licenses or policies either. Alex Tora, however, does not accept my changes and has reverted my edits; this is heading in the direction of a revert war. I've also discussed this with him and I don't think this situation can be resolved without an outside opinion. The images in question are:

• File:Kimono-nazvy.png
• File:Kimono-mon5.png
• File:Kimono-rukav.png
• File:Kimono-dovzhyny.png

How should this situation be handled? —Quibik (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Revert changes and protect the files? --Jarekt (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I also remember an earlier dispute with him and including his name in the file uploads. Jarekt's solution is the best in my opinion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Done - Huib talk 08:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is a problem with contributions by User:Roo-70. I have found three of his files (File:Aéroport_de_Nuuk.jpg, File:Centre_de_Nuuk.jpg, and File:Arsuk_Greenland.jpg) to be cribbed from 2 different users on Panoramio.com, one of whom is definitely not French, but a Dane who spent a significant part of his life in Greenland. I didn't have the strength to comb the net for sources for all other files claimed to be taken by Roo-70, but there is a bit of background. If you examine global contributions of this user, you'll see that he vandalized user pages of Greenlandic wikipedia users, including its admin, yesterday he created a hoax page on a nonexistent French metropolis in Greenland ( en:Saint-Christian (Greenland) − speedily-deleted today), and for the last two days busied himself blanking pages for settlements in Greenland on his home wiki (fr-wiki), for which he was temporarily blocked. If you examine his uploads to commons, you will notice that they are never full-size, and are taken with various cameras, whilst some of those have no metadata. I tagged the three panoramio-originating files I found as cpvio, but I believe there is a wider issue to address. Regards, − Algkalv (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There are currently only 302 autopatrollers. This fact causes many unpatrolled edits by users who proved to contribute in a positive way. I propose to assign this user right automatically to a user if he/she:

• has been registered for at least xxx days
• has contributed at least xxx edits
• has never been blocked
• has not been reverted more than xxx times

What do you think? --Leyo 09:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this issue as well. We might want to do it like de.wikipedia where there is a clear criteria when someone can be an autopatroller. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The criteria of the German Wikipedia (200-300 edits) are too high for Commons. I would prefer to keep the criteria rather low, e.g. edited 25 different pages and has auto-confirmed status. If a user really does nonsense edits, he would have been detected by an expericenced user by then. --myself488 ^talk 18:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As there doesn't seem to be a consensus which edits need are to be patrolled, it seems hard to discuss criteria.

If uploads were patrolled, I suppose one would fix criteria primarily in terms of uploads (and the type of deleted files). For most namespaces at Commons, there isn't that much use in patrolling edits, but, e.g., category descriptions such as those of Taxon categories are fairly important.

I think edits of file descriptions pages of other people's uploads are an important factor and not really easy to evaluate in mere numbers (and hard to do manually). Except maybe for a total lack of edits, most criteria based on numbers are only marginally useful. At least, that's my personal opinion. -- User:Docu at 20:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Just yesterday, I assigned the autopatrolled user right to a (trusted) user with > 12000 edits. I am sure that there are other trusted users with similar amounts of edits not yet being autopatrollers around. That should not be the case IMHO since there are more unpatrolled edits than we can patrol. Hence, the more users become autopatrollers (or patrollers), the less unpatrolled edits are made. This would allow us the focus on unpatrolled edits by non-trusted (new or inexperienced) users.
I agree that it isn't easy to define the requirements to automatically become an autopatroller, but I find it important to set up an automatic user right assignment. Better to have rather high requirements than not having any... --Leyo 23:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

For this specific user, there might be reason why this hasn't occurred to any other admin/patroller before.

I don't think one should have looked just at the numbers, but checked at least some of the edits. -- User:Docu at 11:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No admin is going to systematically look for users that should become autopatrollers. I quickly looked over the first page of Special:ActiveUsers and found for example -Strogoff-, 1-1111 and 103momo who seem to be eligible for becoming autopatrollers.

We should define the criteria for granting the autopatroller user right in a way that it is very unlikely that he/she is contributing in a negative way. --Leyo 12:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the first user you mentioned (or you) are aware of the most recent discussion on the type of tagging he is doing.

For e.g. User:-Strogoff-, I don't have any reason to distrust, but based on his/her contributions, I don't see a point in adding autopatrolled. It's a user who uploads files and categorizes his own uploads. Maybe edits on one's uploads should be set autopatrolled. -- User:Docu at 12:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

These were just examples without an “in-deep investigation”. To clarify my point, just have a look at Special:Statistics. Only 0.14 % of the active users are autopatrollers. The percentage of patrollers is even lower. It is just not feasible to patrol all unpatrolled edits in the current situation. --Leyo 14:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The percentage of user autopatrolling their edits (312 autopatrollers + 117 patrollers + some of the 266 admins + a few bots) is somewhat around 3 percent. If the other 97% only edit file description pages of their own uploads and talk namespace, I don't think the percentage matters.
I might be mistaken, but Commons:Patrol seems to be using the feature only on IP edits and, possibly, newly created galleries, a namespace I rarely edit. There isn't much use in setting IPs to autopatrolled. To be meaningful, I think the feature would need some changes to adapt it to Commons. -- User:Docu at 10:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Just have a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&hidepatrolled=1&hideanons=1. There are many unpatrolled edits by registered users. --Leyo 12:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure automatic is good for everything. We have some users, particularly some who do a lot of Flickr work, who have done hundreds or thousands of edits and uploads (in one case over 10,000) and are still being reminded to put appropriate categories on images -- without a second set of eyes watching, we'd have a thousand photos with Category:churches and the like. We have others who upload a lot of files that end up with either {{Speedy delete}} or {{Delete}} on them, which wastes time.

On the other hand, I also regularly patrol new galleries. About 80% of these are problems, almost all are created by IP users or are first edits by new registered users. Giving auto-patrol for galleries to users with 100 edits would save a me little time, but not more than one or two minutes a day.

I patrol all the edits in my watchlist -- since I have asked for auto-patrol for most of the people who regularly work in the same spaces, this leaves very few red ! to check. So, I'd prefer to simply remind patrollers that it's not only OK, but good to nominate another user for auto-patrol status.

Trying to make policy based on the number or users who have auto-patrol or higher status is not wise. Of the last 1,000 items in the patrol log, (at this instant, your results will vary)

• 7 were manually patrolled -- of these, 4 were new users and got speedy deletes
• 765 were edits created by bots
• 228 were trusted users with auto-patrol status

So, although only 3% of users have autopatrol, they did 97% of the manual (non-bot) edits in that sample. (And no, I did not count manually -- Excel makes it very easy).

So, I suggest we move slowly -- it might be much better to aggressively manually give auto-patrol to people we recognize as dependable, rather than doing it automatically. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should continue to “manually give auto-patrol to people we recognize as dependable”. However, I think that this should be supplemented by automatic assignments. IMHO the requirements could be rather high (e.g. registered for at least 1 year, at least 2000 edits, ...). --Leyo 21:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

user upload whole time pictures from vinyls without permission, what we can do to this case.--Motopark (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Huib talk 08:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The ones I checked were not problems, as they are ineligible for copyright. Can you point me to files you deem protected? --h-stt !? 09:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I mark with logo some of the newest pictures that will needede OTRS-permission because they will include non text logo--Motopark (talk) 15

00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Very often you are dead wrong. I have often reverted you, but you do not seem to learn that US labels without a (c) mark are not copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from this information--Motopark (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

@Pieter, could you provide a little more "flesh" to your statement; some links (even if only Commons-internal)? --Túrelio (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If the label of a US record does not have a ©-mark, it is {{PD-US-no notice}}, see also COM:L#United States. Many of the other labels may be {{PD-anon-70}}. Uploader does not seem to learn this. It is my impression that the scans are often from eBay. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That's only' true between 1923 and 1977. Plus, I don't think it needs to be on both sides, nor even necessarily on every part. Plus, many of these images are clearly not of American records, see, for example File:Billy Banks Bald Headed Mama Vocalion.JPG which has "Made in England" right on it, and complex cover design which is not ineligible for copyright. Likewise File:Buk_Johnson_Metronome_Tiger_Rag_1945.JPG ("Made in Sweeden") and many others. It would behoove us to take a little more care before falsely claiming no problem exists. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The german trans of the template still refers to using the template:bad name & reuploading the file. I propose changing this sentence "Wolltest du eine Datei umbenennen oder sie verschieben? Lade sie einfach erneut hoch und markiere die alte Datei mit {{bad name|Richtiger Name}}!" to "Willst du eine Datei umbenennen oder sie verschieben? Markiere sie einfach mit {{rename|Richtiger Name}} und ein Administrator wird sie verschieben!". Would have done it myself, but the page is locked--DieBuche (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done; I don't understand German, so please let me know if it looks correct. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, looks fine--DieBuche (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Help I've made a bit of a mess in renaming File:Milan missile.jpg. I forgot to check that the suggested rename was already in use (File:ERYX-2ndFrInReg.jpg), and moved the file on to an already existing file, I've done my best to rectify the situation by reuploading the source image (File:ERYX-2ndFrInReg 2.jpg), the file I tried to rename was the original , the file I moved it to was a derivative work of the file I tried to move. However although I've saved the file I've damaged the intervening edit and attribution history of other users, is there anyway this can be recovered, sorry to have to ask you all in fixing my sloppy editing.KTo288 (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you moved anything on top of anything else — if you'd tried, the software wouldn't have let you. According to the log, File:Milan missile.jpg originally had two versions: one uploaded on 9 September 2007 by Davric and another uploaded on 5 October 2007 by Rama. Both of those are now at File:ERYX-2ndFrInReg.jpg, as are the corresponding edits. You also apparently reuploaded a copy of the earlier version as File:File-ERYX-2ndFrInReg 2.jpg and then moved it to File:ERYX-2ndFrInReg 2.jpg.

Anyway, the upshot is that there's nothing to fix here. Panic over, you can start breathing again now. :) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know exactly what happened, premove the file had a background, afterwards it was a cut out, the resulting misnamed move was as you have guessed made in panic, anyway thanks for your help in looking over this and passing me the smelling salts.KTo288 (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I happened upon Category:Wikipedia cakes today, and while some of them are okay, some of them I'm afraid are very likely unusable derivatives. I wanted to bring it up here for further thoughts, particularly because I don't have enough time right now to do anything about it. :/ File:100 usertalk entries cake wiki.jpg for instance is lovely and was probably delicious, but it is also released under CC-By-SA, while all rights on the logo in its center are fully reserved (ala File:Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png). This is true of many of the cakes in that category. More than likely this is caused by a misunderstanding, as I imagine many people think the logo is free for reuse as most of our content is. Should these be tagged for speedy deletion as derivative or...? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't adding {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} be fine? That's how screenshots of wikipedia pages are handled--DieBuche (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know, honestly. That's an authorized usage, and these are not...though I'm sure making the cakes themselves are harmless. I'll check with the OTRS team and see what they say. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a photograph of a cake. This is the essence of 'avoiding copyright paranoia'. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 23:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, AKA a "derivative work". If it were a cake depicting Mickey Mouse, it would be speedily deleted for that reason. The fact that it's a cake doesn't mean that copyrighted images are suddenly okay to reproduce. The only thing that makes this different is that it is "in house", so to speak. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have marked all clear derivative works with the {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} tag in place of their original license. I was not the first to do this; Category:Wikipedia cakes was tagged by User:Vantey, File:5. urodziny polskiej Wikipedii - Wikitort 01.JPG was tagged by User:62.233.129.226, File:GDJ Tort.jpg was tagged by User:Sdrtirs, File:Wikipedia-Brygos-Cake.JPG was tagged User:Bibi Saint-Pol, and File:Wiknic167 ST 07.JPG was tagged by User:Yonatanh, over a span of years. If the Foundation is willing to issue a license statement explicitly permitting the use of these derivative works under a free license, I invite them to do so; until then, downstream content reusers need to be protected against legal recourse by the Foundation. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Added File:100 usertalk entries cake wiki.jpg above. -- User:Docu at 08:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

what do others make of this? A simple revert doesn't quite seem the right thing to do for me because the IP also adds some valuable information (eg. 8th DAN Black Belt). The accusations are a bit odd and should probably be deleted?! Amada44 (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the unsourced allegations. But deletion may finally be the best solution. --Túrelio (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would change the speedy to a regular DR. In my opinion it is not obvious enough for a speedy. Amada44 (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

O.k., do it (I'm offline now) with my consent. --Túrelio (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

see pls File talk:Daniel Defoe 1706.jpg, thanks -jkb- (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved. -jkb- (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a pornographic image of a minor-aged person (younger than 18). The "incomplete" female breast on the image shows, that this girl/woman is about 15 years old. Any User in Germnany or several other european states, can be punished, when he downloads this image. For Germany, see §184c of the German penal code. Please, delete this image speedy. We have enough other image of this theme with surely adult person. Antonsusi (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been oversighted. Killiondude (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Antonsusi (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this was done in error, given that active discussion had determined there was no consensus about whether the subject was underage or not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the thread above here is somewhat related to this post that Jimbo posted on his talk page and linked to on the village pump. Since admins will be doing the physical deleting, I thought it'd be a good idea to cross post here. Killiondude (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Can someone do a rollback of all the IP's of this image. thanks. Amada44 (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done but its not possible to rollback if someone (another IP, User or Bot) edits after User/IP vandalism has been done. Bidgee (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I gave you rollback right. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

ohhhh, thank you. I actually only forgot the a in: I need a rollback. but it will be helpful anyhow. Amada44 (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

← Just for future reference, Commons:Requests for rights. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 10:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

For the moment file and category moves are out of commission due to CommonsDelinker being hosed. I have emailed Bryan, and left IRC messages for Multichill and Siebrand. Until one of them can correct the issue they are all pending.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont agree AT ALL with this block. The reason given is a image which is clearly out of scope. Amada44 (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the block is about this image, but the fact that he chooses to nominate pics for deletion mainly because he doesn't get along with the uploaders--DieBuche (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I've unblocked him. It seems completely disproportionate to block someone indefinitely over a deletion request without discussing it first on this board. It might be in vain though, as it appears Pieter has decided to quit. –Tryphon^☂ 09:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think more needs to be taken into account here. This is a long pattern of poor behavior on Pieter's part. I think his block log speaks to that. Tiptoety ^talk 10:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

well yes. I have read about that behavior and I wouldn't support it either. But this does not justify his block as (in my eyes) there was nothing, really nothing wrong in nominating that image. And Pieter was not under a restriction that he is not allowed to nominate images of specific users. I think that this block (which was without discussion!) was completly out of place. Amada44 (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

While I am not happy with all his behavioural patterns with other users he is in conflict, I think that we should follow common practice to discuss this at COM:AN/U, if necessary. And honestly, I am not sure if this DR nomination which triggered the block can be seen as an retaliatory act or something of this kind. If this is suggested, it should be backed up by references such that others can comment this. And I fail to see any pattern in his recent edits which requires immediate action. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Pieter's done this many times to many different users. It's getting to the point where if you make any comment to him that he doesn't like, you should expect your uploads to be examined by him. Not that great of a working environment. Killiondude (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it sucks. Happened to me to. I do not like Pieter, and I often find his views irritating (like in the Latuff discussion). However, often enough he is just plain right. So when he nominated a bunch of of my pictures where FOP did not apply I was annoyed at first, but then I double checked, made a few calls, and in the end had to admit he was right (so I executed the deletion myself). Bottom line is, even if it is annoying to find yourself under a magnifying glass, in the end it helps the project. And the upside is: next time I run into him my slate is already clean ;-) (I guess). --Dschwen (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please close Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Prince_Achaie.jpg, delete all the related images, and close all the related discussions. The articles on this person have been deleted from all wikipedias that I know of, due to lack of any reliable source. The subjects is from Catalonia, and the only formal deletion discussion was opened by me in the Catalan wikipedia, where it was an unanimous delete. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I had problems choosing the right colors for File:Flag of Morocco.svg, File:Coat of arms of Morocco.svg in TFT-LCD. The file history shall be cleaned. --Flad (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

done Huib talk 18:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Same thing with File:Civil_Ensign_of_Morocco.svg, File:Naval_Ensign_of_Morocco.svg, File:Naval_Jack_of_Morocco.svg, File:Coat_of_arms_of_Morocco.png. Thanks a lot ! --Flad (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Its been going on for the last few days at the Atlas_of_Serbia with quite a few reverts and lots of discussions. Thanks for help. Amada44 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying it. This is exactly what I intended to do now. There is a Serbian user who is permanenty reverting my edits. It is an experienced user and he is editing deliberately from an ip-adress in order not to be blocked for making too many reverts. He is accusing me to be a "Romanian nationalist" and every source broght by me mean nothing to him. I have the suspicion that this user could be User:PANONIAN (because I already had a similar dispute with him in en:wiki) or User:CrniBombarder!!! (because I had a similar dispute with him on sr:wiki). --Olahus (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Olahus, you will have such dispute with many Serbs wherever you try to push your POV because what you doing is clear propaganda agression against Serbia. Regarding my IP adress, by the Wikimedia policy it is not forbiden to edit articles with an IP and when reverts themselves are in question behaviour of user:Olahus is not different than my own. Of course, there is one difference between us: I tried to propose compromise solution on the talk page, but seems that user:Olahus do not accept any compromise, his only goal is to push POV that Vlachs are Romanians, which is very controversial claim. If this already came to Administrators' noticeboard, I want to hear proposals from administrators how this problem could be solved. Can any of you propose any compromise? 194.106.189.191 10:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't make any propanganda against Serbia. I use sources, you Serbian natioalist. The talk page is full with reliable sources. --Olahus (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I already agreed on same talk page that view that Vlachs are Romanians exists, but I also presented sources that show that other views about this subject exists too. So, what make you a nationalist is the fact that you want to push only one of these points of view and to ignore other views. Sources are not problem here, the only problem is your selective usage of selected data from selected sources, that is what make you a nationalist. Now please explain what can make me a nationalist because I was not aware that I am nationalist until you told me that now. 194.106.188.53 20:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to let someone know, this just-today-registered user is already making legal threats, in contravention of Wiki policy. Please have a look. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Now they've started vandal-trolling my page because I drew attention to them. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So why did you tag his user page as "socketpuppet"? It's not nice as well, and so far he just nominated some files for speedy deletion. If he's going to act in an inappropriate manner, he'll be blocked. axp_de^Hello! 11:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any threat nor threatened any legal action, but Kintetsubuffalo apparently doesn't like my nominating some files that suck raw dildoes, so he immediately call me sockpuppet of my pre-account IP, and himself threatened to make IP record of my "threat" to his edit summary. TARM Triconsortium (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Both of you are doing null-edits just to leave a comment in the history, that's what I regard trolling, stop it! axp_de^Hello! 13:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I promise I won't do that again. TARM Triconsortium (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This File is Copyrighted By The Company of Rebel Scholar. So This Picture is violation to Company Copyright. So I Demand to Recently Delete from Wikicommons. Thanks for Administrators. --책읽는달팽 (대화) 02:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done iPhone case images deleted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 04:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

... if my first upload ( Brigitte bardot 2.jpg) from Flickr is acceptable? Did I make any mistakes? Thanks signed: An Absolute beginner --MIKEREAD (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

While the image is tagged as CC-by-SA on flickr, i doubt that the flickr uploader is the copyright holder.--DieBuche (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible vio: [29]--DieBuche (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So I can't have the photo on fr: wikipedia?@DieBuche : did you mean that' I'have to ask for an over permission to use the photo? How I can do? Thank's --MIKEREAD (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Your first (and likely most hard) task would be, to find out who is actually the rights holder of this photo. --Túrelio (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

How I do ? I have no experience for that ! By e-mail, letters ? And if he is dead , it was a long time ago . Sincerely, --MIKEREAD (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Search the internet until you find that image with a credit to the photographer. --Túrelio (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok! I will try. Thank's --MIKEREAD (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just another question @ DieBuche: How did you do to find rapidly the same photo ? Thank's --MIKEREAD (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

tineye.com: You just input one image, and the engine finds the same image over the web. Pretty handy if ur patrolling the new files..--DieBuche (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Also bardot google imagesearch with size parameters and google similar imagesearch (dont know if this link works) is of help. However, its still not easy to identify the real legal owner. --Martin H. (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank's MIKEREAD (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new photo File:Brigitte Bardot en couverture de Cinématographe.jpg

What do you think about it? We could think that jon rubin from Flick has made himself this photo in 2007 with an old magazine. Well ? Thank for your answer MIKEREAD (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No, taking a photo of someone else's photo doesn't make it one's own. You need to read COM:DW, and next time, if in doubt, please ask before uploading. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's ok. Sorry I'didn't know ! The next time, I will ask before, be sure. Thank's for the answer MIKEREAD (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Slowly it is not amusing to read pages here: this vandal - I see here a personal attack as long as the point is not clearly solved. When no admin will decide what is in this case allowed and what not so still more people will go crazy. Regards -jkb- (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Civility is currently lost here. --Túrelio (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Somebody opened Pandora's box :-( -jkb- (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is not helping to move Commons forward as far as I can see. We are where we are - the important thing is to take a good look at where we go now (& maybe how we try and encourage some people to return who have sadly left). I'm tempted to protect JW's talk page but then he would not be able to edit it now! We could do without the people who seem to want to "spar" with him and try and get some dialogue going about Commons content instead. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed rollback and patrol rights from this user. There are concerns raised on the CU list about multiple accounts and I have just block an account on Commons on that basis. I have not currently blocked this user however. Comments/criticisms welcome - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that I was wrong about the puppet account and so that user is unblocked. However the user above is blocked on some other wikis now. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This user was blocked indeff a few months ago because of socks. I'm sure he can get extra rights here when the time passes but I guess we need to take it slow for a while with him. I'm not even sure where the discussion was to unblock him. Huib talk 16:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you mean Pansho17. Lolno. It's not me. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please let me defend myself. I have renamed myself a lot of times! And that's probably the reason of the confusion. Please, I apologize for that. Meanwhile, es.wiki blocked me because I spammed, when I was 10-11. I still don't get why I was blocked on pl.wiki, probably because of the same confusion regarding my rename. MisterWiki was hacked by the Zeusbotnet and I received earlier yesterday a mail with a password reset / I just don't know why. I have some other accounts and if you want I can go ask the global lock for them. I HAVEN'T SOCKED THERE OR ANYTHING. I asked for rollback and patroller to help on COM:ANO, however it seems that no one believes me what I say and THIS HAS WENT SO FAR and I just can't control it. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Go check my contributions and look for anything that could be misuse of the tools and I'll can understand the removal. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the idea that you "have some other accounts" is more than worrying. I suggest you sort them out. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do not find this encouraging for example. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I did. Look [30] I don't think I have any other alternate accounts. I don't share my computer with no one else (at least someone that edits Commons). And I repeat, I don't want people to treat me I'm socking when I'm not. I had these accounts on commons and asked cary to block them a while ago. And nevermind the other accounts, my account is Diego Grez. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You just can't refuse that. Maybe you were confused about my multiple names, but that doesn't counts I werent' doing the things well. Maybe these rights are not a big deal, but is the action that you did. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• It was bad that Herby was regranted CU without careful deliberation and the above is just a reflection of the mistake. Furthermore, statements in this case suggest that there is no clear "socking policy" that would even apply in this situation. By jumping the gun on this, Herby has proven that his understanding of how to appropriately use CU is in question. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comment isn't helpful for this topic. create a new topic if you want to get rid of this stuff. Amada44 (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of what stuff? You mean claims that Diego is a sock puppet? I've worked with him on multiple projects trying to sort out his SUL problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Your are questioning the CU rights of Herby. That should go into a new topic (If you really want to do that?). I also think that the way you wrote that comment you are not going to achieve what you want (which is what actually?). Amada44 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have the right to question the abilities of a person claiming Diego is a sock. Your statement is inappropriate. If you want to defend Herby, find something else to defend him over as he made claims that were completely inappropriate. Diego keeps his IP exposed on IRC and has for quite a while. Most of us see it every day. If he socked, it would have been easy to see and he was not blocked for a reason. There is no actual socking. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Anyone is welcome to question my actions of any sort - they always have been and they always will be. In this case I was responding to a posting on the CU list which suggested cross wiki issues so I checked. That is completely normal practice. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Your first statement makes it seem as if you are accusing him of socking. There has been no proof of that provided or other accounts he is currently "socking" as. With the SUL and renaming, the accounts would fall within the socking policy (as exemplified by the request for check of socking above) especially when there was no cross over or examples of where the two accounts were used to game discussions. All CUs know this as standard practice. His IP has also been visible to many CUs for a long time and it would be easy to check if he is socking. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)