Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, I uploaded a file with a typo in the file name. I am unable to change it. Could you please move File:AUNE Buidling Front.png to File:AUNE Building Front.png ? Thanks so much!

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello all,

I'm new to adminship and on of my goals with this status is to manage the event Wikipedia takes Quebec. I work on this event with Benoit Rochon. For the event, we have created an upload wizard to simplify things with participants. It is accessible here. I created the page, but Benoit is the best with web tools and programming. I would like to update his user status to add Upload Wizard campaign editor. Can I do this unilateraly? If not, is this the right place to ask for this user status update? Thank you all for your help! Have a nice day, Letartean (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

While admins are reading this, I have a question concerning the upload wizard. I did some tests on commons.prototype.wikimedia, and I was able to upload 14 pictures at the same time. I was under the impression there was a limit of 10 pictures at the same time. Is anyone knows how many pictures the wizard is limited to? Thanks for your help! Benoit Rochon (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

(UploadWizardConfig.maxUploads === 50) === true; go to the wizard and examine window.UploadWizardConfig yourself, there is a lot if interesting stuff. -- RE rillke questions? 18:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this would be a problem. ;-) -- RE rillke questions? 18:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, and also for accepting me as a "Wizard campaign editor". On the top of the upload campaign Wikipedia takes Quebec next June, I'm also the organiser of Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 Canada next September. So I'll have to work on the Wizard campaign form every years! Being able to have access to this Special page, that's awesome. Thank you again. Benoit Rochon (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The Wrong Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I am not sure whether this is a good place to ask, please feel free to move to the appropriate location. The Wrong Man appears to be blocked in 2006 (at least this is the only block I see), and he claims he can not currently login. However, he edited in 2008 from this very account. Could somebody pls have a look, I do not understand how this is possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

+1 - I don't understand either... The account did edit in 2008, yet the indefinite block from 2006 appears never to have been lifted. What the ??? Rd232 (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Some wikimedia software bug related to renaming accounts. Clues: the block is from 2006, yet there are no edits earlier than 2007 from this account. It was created in 2007 as TWM and moved to The Wrong Man shortly after creation [1] (thus we see the contribution of the renamed user TWM, overwriting the past contribs from The Wrong Man). This is also a bit odd. Anyway, I've removed the block. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. --the wrong man (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Jhayron2620 (talk · contribs) was recently confirmed to operate sockpuppets on the English Wikipedia. Those sockpuppets also extend here: Rodale2216 (talk · contribs), Themark18 (talk · contribs) and Superluvteentop (talk · contribs). These should also be blocked here. Regards. — ξ^xplicit 09:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked all, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

FPCbot is adding File:¿Qué es Wikipedia?.ogv to the category FP/Animated but not removing it from FPC resulting in it being added multiple times.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin please delete the latest revision of File:Moje.jpg (uploaded by Mysacka)? It is completely unrelated to the original version, the file description, and the Czech Wikipedia user page on which it is used. There is also no source, authorship or licensing information for the new version. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Instead of history splitting, I've deleted the cover-up image because indeed there was "no source, authorship or licensing information for the new version". I also moved the file because it's name simply means "mine" :-) in the (original) Czech, and many other languages. Thanks for notifying. Materialscientist (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

How is this possible [2]? Hoo man is not an admin [3]. Materialscientist (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

He is a global sysop according his userpage, but I think it is turned off here? I also checked the page and there was no change in protection? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, so the question is why Commons is bundled with small wikis in user rights? Edits on commons affect all projects. Isn't it a security breach? Materialscientist (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is, maybe just a server hickup. But the projection was placed in 2007, so maybe just a quick reset? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• He can also apparently move files and leave the redirects suppressed, which only admins can do. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  The point is not about Hoo man (no slight to him at all) and particular pages/operations, but about global sysop rights in general. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yes I know. I was just pointing out the system is in fact broken. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  Leaving redirects suppressed comes from the global rollback group, and Hoo man has a locally assigned file mover bit which explains the file moving part. Jafeluv (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) Hoo man is, besides a global sysop, also one of the few (global) interface editors, which means he can edit all protected pages on all projects. Trijnstel_talk 23:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's the reason. Global sysops have no extra rights on Commons, of course. That said, the linked edit does seem out of scope for interface editors (who have the rights for fixing the site interface) and probably should have gone through an ordinary edit request. Jafeluv (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The script, which I guess was used, does not ask "are you a global interface editor?". But I wonder why the script has recognized a sysop in wgUserGroups. -- RE rillke questions? 13:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

see User:ATigre/gallery, in all pictures are same description, shall we ask better description or what ?--Motopark (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Thepromota uploads magazine pages, please delete them--Motopark (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

On it now - I think a break is in order too. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone here who knows why +default was added to "abusefilter-edit-group" here as I have no idea how that's possible. Thanks in advance. Trijnstel_talk 21:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The Abuse Filter is now grouped somehow because en.wp needed this (if I remember correctly to prevent interferences with article feedback or the like) The purpose of this change is to allow AFTv5 developers to run a separate list of filters against article feedback actions without issues of cross-contamination and bumping up against the condition limit. (Gerrit:6726)

BTW, you can't check the Wikitext while uploading (it's empty). Read Special:AbuseFilter/81 and the associated links (bugzilla:19565). Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 11:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The same happened here. -- RE rillke questions? 11:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If anyone can help me sort that last one out (Special:AbuseFilter/95 it would be appreciated :) ? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Why excluding .com? Special:AbuseLog/233696 shows, there are many valid links ;-) perhaps simply disallowing plain links? But IPs are prompted anyway when inserting a link for a captcha ... -- RE rillke questions? 22:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

@Rillke: thanks for informing me! I really hope a dev will fix it soon as it would be very useful for us. Trijnstel_talk 17:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please check this user's contribution. That looks much out of scope to me. -- Ies (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I nuked all uploads of Yenajbus because of out of scope and COM:IDENT. Trijnstel_talk 20:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin provide comment on this case? I think User:BullRangifer is gravely mistaken about User:The Emirr violating copyright, even though he is making strong allegations and demanding answers. User:The Emirr has not edited since the strong allegations were made. I see it as a mess in the making, an obvious violation of WP:AFG almost bordering on a personal attack. --Hydrox (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer is not breaking any rules and he has the right to question the uploader. If the files were found elsewhere first before here, things need to be found out to figure out what to do from here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker has processed no edits since May 20th[4]. --Túrelio (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Would someone please deal with these old noms as appropriate.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:LWE Commemorative Stamp.jpg, should have been speedied a long time ago as a clear copyvio.
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frcadu.jpg which lacks permission.
• File:Nele Lijnen foto.jpg lacks a licence since February.
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:RoselaGjylbeguKM2009.jpg likely a copyvio for more than 2 months.
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:SriGNBala.jpg licence appear s false since February.

Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

All except one have been closed, and I left a comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:RoselaGjylbeguKM2009.jpg. Jafeluv (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, it is better not to name the file with the species (or even genus) name *unless* one is 100% sure. That way, it can be *categorized* as the species one thinks it is, and if that turns out to be incorrect, then it is easier to recat than it is to rename. Polydrusus is a large genus (Catalogue of Life 2012 lists 104 species, though that may not be so reliable), many of which might well look the same externally, so it is hard to be sure which species it might be unless there are only a few externally distinguishable options from the place where it was found. Stho002 (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely :-). There is no need at all for the file name to be the species name, just put it in the description where it can be easily edited and updated if the beast is reclassified. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello.

I uploaded this photo of a underground station in France. Someone told me in my Wikipedia discussion that it should be altered because they're identifiable people in it.

It's only a photo made in public space, but I read that France requires consent for some photos with identifiable people. I've never applied that guideline so I need someone with better knowledge in this matter to decided if the photo has to be erased or altered.

Thanks.--HrAd (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO this shouldn't be a problem as the potentially identifiable persons in this image are clearly not in the focus of the image. --Túrelio (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This counts as a non-copyright restriction. Added {{Personality rights}}. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Turelio, this doesn't seems to be much of a problem for me. It's like taking a picture of a street, you're bound to have someone on the picture. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Vous faites ce que vous voulez, mais il y a la date, l'heure, le lieu de prise et des personnes facilement reconnaissable. Je ne conteste pas l'admissibilité de l'image mais j'avertis simplement que dans cette situation et avec la large diffusion des wikipédia sur le net, toutes demande de quelqu'un s'estimant lésée par ce cliché pourra réclamer sa suppression. Il est tout de même plus simple de flouter légerement pour éviter tout problème par la suite, surtout que ça prend une minute à faire. --Pªɖaw@ne 06:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, as the recognizable persons aren't the focus of the image, it would not diminish its value if the faces were slightly blurred. --Túrelio (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If someone is willing to do the blurring we (the sysops) can RevDel the first version of the file where people are identifable. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Would someone mind answering my editprotected request at Template talk:Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission? It's nice that someone protected my template, but that means that I can't edit it anymore. Thanks in advance. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Huyvu333, too big to my editor, out of scope.--Motopark (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Materialscientist. --Túrelio (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Comemierda (talk · contribs)

Apparently a single-purpose account created to upload porn. Also, "come mierda" is Spanish for "eat sh*t". Are there rules against offensive user names here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for inappropriate username. --Denniss (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I confirm that it is an offensive username as es-N speaker. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 13:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Puppet account blocked too. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In MediaWiki:Uploadtext/es say: "Usa también un [[Commons:Primeros pasos/Formulario de subida|nombre de archivoo descriptivo y conciso]] sin caracteres especiales.". Archivoo is wrong, right is archivo. Thank, --Metrónomo (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Lo cambié. Gracias por el aviso. Killiondude (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I test-uploaded File:Bubble bold.png. Please consider deleting this image because it was a test. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikiwikihealth (talk · contribs) has been contributing a large amount of photographic and textual material, both here and on English Wikipedia, to which he does not hold copyright, and with no evidence of permission from the copyright holders. For image uploads he sometimes credits the photographer, but then tags the image as "own work"; he can't be several photographers at once. This inconsistency has already been pointed out to him, but I think the only result is that he's stopped crediting the photographers. I've gone through his uploads here and tagged some of the more obvious copyvio candidates, but maybe it would be a good idea for the rest of them to be checked (or even removed). —Psychonaut (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep - I've deleted them. There are waay too many cameras in the EXIFs to be really credible as "own work" in my opinion. Also a final warning issued - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Азат Апаков (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been already blocked for a week because of uploading copyvios. Despite this he has continued to upload obvious copyvios. He also tries to change a photo from original in order to make it harder to find copyvio by search tools (e.g. compare File:Niko Kapanen face.jpg and image here - a background has been changed). I think the user should be blocked indefinitely and all his uploads must be removed. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. -- Uploads nuked and user gone for 3 months. --Denniss (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought there were some - three or four - underlying categories in Category:Other speedy deletions which shouldn't be deleted, but now there is only one of them left. In the deletion logs I can only find Category:Non-free logo listed for deletion, but I thought there were more. Is there anyone here who knows what happened? Trijnstel_talk 17:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It could be related to the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/11/Category:Non-free screenshot listed for deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I too wondered where and why they had gone. --Túrelio (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Now there aren't even any underlying categories in it at all. Where did they go?! Trijnstel_talk 16:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Can File:Wiki-frot.png be undeleted, please? It was not uploaded by Rama, but was apparently based on one of his now-deleted works. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done If the file was based upon one of those works, it is in essence a derivative of those works, and as such our precautionary princple applies. The file should stay undeleted. russavia (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, this user continually uploads copyright violations to illustrate an election page despite warnings. Can please someone block the user? Thanks Hekerui (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Please move content from Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2011/Galleries/cs to the Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Galleries/cs, as creation is blocked (showing that page is on blacklist ?!). --Jklamo (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Done while you were posting here. -- RE rillke questions? 21:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Name of this user is inappropriate in accordance with the Chapter 3 of Username policy of wikimedia commons, because it is promotional username. Proof of this presumption is the link from the Vidsich user page to article "Vidsich" on English Wikipedia. Albeit this is proposed policy but on talk page of this rule has no opposition of blocking users whose name is promotional. 94.41.32.168 08:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

{{speedy|I would like delete my website, please}}

Ar777 Polska Mowo Szanuj Słowo.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ar777 (talk • contribs) 2012-05-29T14:26:29 (UTC)

Hi Ar777, surely you meant to have your upload File:Polska Mowo Szanuj Słowo.jpg deleted or what do you mean by "my website"? If you meant the image: is there any reason why you want this image deleted, which you uploaded 3 weeks ago? --Túrelio (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently something went wrong with this upload. Revision history and the page are empty and trys to add the the text are producing an edit conflict. Deleting and reuploading should do? Thanks. Pikne 20:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. Please try re-uploading. --Túrelio (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think someone should check Commons:Vandalism. Showing twice and the upper part is same for all languages.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed in this edit. Killiondude (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have recently uploaded a batch of images from flickr, the author obliged to freely license them and he messaged me saying he did on flickr so uploaded them and now see i see flickrreview is saying not compatible so i checked and yeah he accidently licensed them wrong, i have already messaged him i'm sure he will fix it, when he fix it how do you tell flickrreview its compatible. However all the images have watermark on them i was wondering if one of you could remove the watermark. Here are all the images ; all the new images off toronto AdabowtheSecond (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If the files have not yet been deleted when the licence tag has been fixed, just replace the "failed review" template from the page source by a plain {{Flickrreview}} template to get a new review done. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The license on Flickr has already been changed to a compatible one. The watermark is a different thing. Images with watermarks are not forbidden on Commons, only discouraged. The common interpretation of the CC-BY-SA license is that removal of a watermark is allowed (provided that there is still a correct attribution to the author). --Túrelio (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Watermarks#Images_from_other_photographers for guidance on this topic. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you place the template; the licenses have been fixed i just checked AdabowtheSecond (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You can do that by yourself. I did it for the first 2 on the list. --Túrelio (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

TC) I don't know how to place a template in any way and ok i will try to learn how to remove the watermarks AdabowtheSecond (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that all of them currently are awaiting a review. Some photos are derivative works of a film, e.g. File:Summer Hols Screenshot Niall Horan.jpg. Permission is needed from the one who made the film. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• watermarks: i so i went a read- i'm utterly confused its the same all over again with samples - i'm not computer smart at all *sigh* could someone please remove them for me
• summer hols thing; i wasn't even worrying about those *bigger sigh* AdabowtheSecond (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

as i still have no idea i just started cropping the watermark out AdabowtheSecond (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Chelyabinsk-City (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The user have made multiple uploads of copyvio even after warnings and speedy deletion of first files. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• I do not obviously have access to deleted contributions, but the four ones which were uploaded yesterday all violate copyright. I tagged two of them for speedy deletion, the other two somebody tagged before me.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I was working on RfD's backlog and deleted the pics as per this discussion; an user told me this. Is there any Admin coming from Britain that could possibly examine that RfD? Thanks, -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 22:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

On the process you did nothing wrong: A DR is not a vote, no one answered the question raised by the nominator. On the fact it's legally sounded I can't judge, a british sysop review would be nice. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In the case of File:Orange Herald Small nuclear test device.jpg, the question was resolved and deletion was definitely mistaken. In the case of the other pics, maybe not. Please undelete at least this one. Bomazi (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chuck Connors Brooklyn Dodgers.JPG Would an uninvolved admin mind closing this, as it's been around since January? I think the added links prove the hologram is to authenticate the photo as not being a copy. Thanks, We hope (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks !! We hope (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to create this category for a tributary of the Agger but for some reason don't have the permission. Never got this message before: "Unable to proceed - You do not have permission to create pages, for the following reason ... Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard...". So can someone please help? Thanks. -- Ies (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Created the category Hesselbach river. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 12:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, can someone please create Category:Hesselbach (Agger)? -- Ies (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Why should be created Hesselbach (Agger)? Is there any category named Aniene (Tevere) just because Aniene is a tributary of Tevere? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 14:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly there is no “Hesselbach river” in Germany. The name of the stream is “Hesselbach”. Secondly this Hesselbach, as its name already suggests (Bach = stream), is a stream, not a river. Therefore “Hesselbach river” is misleading. Thirdly "Hesselbach" is a name of several streams in Germany so that “Category:Hesselbach river” is also ambiguous - what I wanted to avoid.

Isn't there anyone over here able to create the category I asked for or was my request to create “Category:Hesselbach (Agger)” so misunderstandable that I got “Category:Hesselbach river” instead? -- Ies (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You're dealing with humans, not computers. You don't get to demand they do exactly what you want.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

With a non-logged-in Browser I get the message this title is on the local or global blacklist. --Denniss (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet another piece of fallout from Hagger, I believe.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Шамиль Баиев (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user

I deleted one file this user uploaded (File:70761947 Anna Borisovna CHipovskaya.jpg), but aren't all uploads of him copyvios? Trijnstel_talk 19:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, you can safely nuke his uploads.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done Thanks. Exactly what I thought. :) I deleted them all. Trijnstel_talk 19:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Any idea about the reason and extent of the database corruption ? 20% of files in Special:UnusedFiles and Special:UncategorizedFiles. On the other hand, some files are there since months without apparent reason. --Foroa (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, we received a question via OTRS (2012060510010259) to blurr out a license plate on an image for privacy reasons. I uploaded a new version, so could the previous version be made invisible? The image is this one. Thanks in advance! - Kthoelen (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Denniss (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

spamming with same sun-glasses--Motopark (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done thanks. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Abuse filters amended too :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

My name is Rexford, from Ghana. I wanna find out how a picture qualifies to be part of this contest. What's the criteria involved and what does it take for a picture to partake in this prestigious event?

--Nkansahrexford (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rexford,

Please do not cross-post without linking. Furthermore, this is the wrong place. The answer is where you asked first. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 17:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Are next pictures copyrighted from Special:Contributions/Fcleetus or licence valid, I'm not sure--Motopark (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Tagged as no permission. The uploader has now 7 days time to verify he is the user in concern. -- RE rillke questions? 19:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin please delete the second image (the one with the woman) be deleted over the grounds of copyright and/or personality rights? It was for vandalism only it seems. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 02:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Both spamming with same text--Motopark (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The policy suggests that these items 1 and 2 should be closed. -- Thekohser (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Can, not should[5]. --Túrelio (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay -- that's great. Please keep the discussion open for the next 27 years, 3 months, and 19 days, then. -- Thekohser (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for your permission, we will do that. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I do understand your concern, however administrators are volunteers and we have a huge backlog of DR, for exemples we still have DRs from December 2011. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I just found out there are about 14400 files, nominated before June, still waiting for decision. Is there any way we can help the administrator to speed up the process a bit? Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Some of these older ones are very trivial. I just closed 3 and removed the DR tag from one file where an admin closed it months ago but forgot to fix the file page. Killiondude (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Uncontroversial and nonsense requests can be closed as kept. Constructive comments can be made, {{DR proposed close}} can be used.

If you intend to close request at larger scale, you can put wgUserGroups.push('sysop'); mw.loader.load('ext.gadget.DelReqHandler'); into your common.js. Deleting does, of course, not work. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 16:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will see what I can do. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It works, nice tool! Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If wanted I can generate a list of all open DR requests sorted by date. Werieth (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Such lists do exist already. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, with this edit, en:User:CommonsDelinker removed a perfectly valid image and left a redlink. The image had been renamed on Commons, but the new name did not match the name that CommonsDelinker used. I have fixed it but would be grateful if any similar errors were tracked down and fixed by the bot operator. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Not the bot's fault that would be because of Mattbuck adding the wrong instructions to the bot. Werieth (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I improved the image File:Chile.cuencas.hidrograficas.ohigginsymaule.svg and the commons page shows correctly the new (green) image. But en:Perquilauquén River (after many days) still shows the old (transparent) image. Can you fix the problem?. Thanks in advance, --Createaccount 18:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It was an issue with the thumbnail generator. If you right-click the thumbnail and choose "view image" or "open image in a new tab" (depends on your web browser) and then append ?action=purge to the URL (as here) it forces the thumbnail servers to fetch the current version. I've done that and it has fixed it. Killiondude (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, now is working correctly. --Createaccount 19:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any documentation here for restricting particular images, or is that only for MW.org?

Isn't there some form of protection for common vandalism images?

Inquisitor Ehrenstein (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Various wikis have a so-called "bad image list", usually at MediaWiki:Bad image list, which restricts the pages certain images can be used on. That's the only way I know of to restrict image use on-wiki by technical means. If you are instead trying to restrict people editing a high-use image, that is accomplished via semi- or full-protection. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way to prevent an entire category of images from being added, such as images that would likely Nazi symbols? Inquisitor Ehrenstein (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

is redirected to Potd! I think it would be no good idea to simply replace it with another media file... --Pristurus (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, so a few months back, one monument from that Kensico cemetery was deemed a "work of art" and was deleted. So how is this new item not also a "work of art"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

When was the object built? If it was built before 1978 and without a copyright notice, it is in the public domain. Does it count as a building? You are free to take photos of buildings but not of artworks. You might wish to read Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US which describes the issue with artworks in detail and COM:FOP#United States which is a bit shorter. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question more explicitly, no one noticed. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe except me, because I had the Kensico page watchlisted. :) This building vs. artwork stuff is really murky when you get to talking about cemetery objects. Take a look at this and tell me which of the items in the gallery are "artworks" and which aren't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Flickr2Commons crapped out on me. I ended up with the following files which show The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, ...:

1. File:Temperature Sensor (TMP36).jpg
2. File:Continuous Rotation Servo.jpg
3. File:3 Pin Header.jpg
4. File:8x8 Bicolour LED Matrix.jpg
5. File:10k Ohm Breadboard Compatible Potentiometer.jpg
6. File:Basic NeedleNose Pliers.jpg
7. File:Jumper Wires with Crocodile Clips.jpg

I have also have a second set of identical files. These ones work normally. They have a proper description:

1. File:Temperature Sensor (TMP36) (1).jpg
2. File:Continuous Rotation Servo (1).jpg
3. File:3 Pin Header (1).jpg
4. File:8x8 Bicolour LED Matrix (1).jpg
5. File:10k Ohm Breadboard Compatible Potentiometer (1).jpg
6. File:Basic NeedleNose Pliers (1).jpg
7. File:Jumper Wires with Crocodile Clips (1).jpg

Could someone delete the first set? Or even better, delete the second set and copy over the description to the first set, as the names are nicer? Thanks. Bomazi (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to bed. Create the pages for the blank ones using the text of the (1) series, then tag the (1) series with {{Duplicate}}. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Reported as bug 37480. Lupo 05:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it was addressed to me but the software will not allow the blank pages to be edited. It returns a spurious edit conflict message. That's why I am requesting assistance. Bomazi (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done and renamed. You should consider nominating some for QI. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Obige Seite kann nicht bearbeitet werden bzw. wird jedesmal wenn ich auf Seite speichern klicke ein Bearbeitungskonflikt angezeigt.--IusticiaBY (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Reported as bug 37480. Lupo 05:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please add another bugreport (can't login there currently) as the site wikitech.wikimedia.org (site with server log) uses a security certificate that expired in January 2011(!). --Denniss (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Already filed as bug #27291. Jarry1250 (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong here, but Special:Contributions/Star of Sapphire looks to be a series of photos of copyrighted toys. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 09:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, looks like the same concern applies here as in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Barbie dolls (open since February). Jafeluv (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

DR started at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Tonka Toys dolls. Jafeluv (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why do we need another set of categories for files without license information in addition Category:Media without a license? Looks like bots which add {{No license since}} ofter miss files which have this template and problematic files stays for much longer time then one week. Often editors add {{No license since}} manually. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

{{subst:uwl}} is placed on a file while uploading. The user did not necessarily receive a warning message.

It is also good for statistical purposes: How many files aren't tagged by Nikbot? How many files are uploaded using the option "I don't know the license." rough translation of Saibo's thoughts -- RE rillke questions? 08:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please your attention to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kurdistan bajar.PNG. Lots of unknown users are voting 'delete' for invalid reasons. They claim e.g. that it would be illegal in Turkey to publish maps of Kurdistan, which is of course totally irrelevant for Commons. Commons is not censored. Also as long as the map is in use in three different language versions, any claim like 'the map is so wrong' will fail to cause deletion. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand how you feel, but the admin noticeboard is not a place to canvass support for your view in the DR. If people are voting for "invalid reasons", the closing admin will take that into account when the time comes to close the discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If you fear the DR is canvassed by people coming to !vote, you can add the {{!vote}} template. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Jafeluv (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, this will do. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Bot seems broken as it consistently fails to archive the page. Could something can be done? I thought the problem was this but I do not think that fixed the issue. I am guessing the template call is the problem. Bot operator was notified but hasn't replied yet. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 22:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

MiszaBot tried to archive to dev/null, which is impressive! Seems only to affect that page, so I tried tweaking the template call as I saw someone on en:User_talk:Misza13 say that "MiszaBot is sometimes picky about whitespace". Let's see if that works. PS Bot operator hasn't commented on Commons for several years, so en.wp or email may be more likely to get a response. Rd232 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the bot contribs it archives first, then removes archived content from the talk page. There was obviously a problem to determine the archive storage adress but instead of stopping the process it continued to remove the "archived" content. Bot has not edited for 24h so may be stopped? --Denniss (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It does appear to be stopped. I suppose that means the bot operator is aware of the problem (bot isn't blocked). Rd232 (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It was active again today for about one hour but stopped after another dev/null incident at [6]. Another incident at en wiki using a very similar (incorrect) bot template format. --Denniss (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE Lots of problems with this bot currently, very intermittent rund and sometimes if stops halfway through an archiving process (content saved to archive but not removed from master page). Please closely monitor actions and revert if necessary. --Denniss (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please delete these image with database errors? I'll try to reupload them.

• File:Lamb meat (1).jpg
• File:Lamb meat (2).jpg
• File:Fondue with oil (1).jpg
• File:Fondue with oil (2).jpg
• File:Hamburgers on grill (1).jpg
• File:Hamburgers on grill (2).jpg
• File:Hamburgers on grill (3).jpg
• File:Hamburgers on grill (4).jpg
• File:Hamburgers on grill (5).jpg
• File:Hamburgers on grill (6).jpg

Thanks.--Sevela.p 08:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Sevela.p 08:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW: If the file description page was not created, one can delete the images, create the description page and restore them to avoid two uploads. -- RE rillke questions? 10:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

When I checked whether the deceased (2010) eo:User:Laturo had contributions on Commons, I found that SUL lists an account on Commons, User:Laturo, though the user never edited or uploaded here (at least not under this account). (same with User:ИнжИнера)
As deceased user's accounts are usually protected when we are notified about their death, what to do in such a case? 1) same as with a "used" account or 2) doing nothing? --Túrelio (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My first reaction was that there is nothing to protect, so do nothing. On reflection, though, I think we might treat it the same as any other deceased user -- protect it from any vandal who might come along -- unlikely, to be sure, but it costs little to do.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jim. Post a notice on the user page and protect the page. As it's a SUL account we're certain it's that person. Trijnstel_talk 19:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done now. --Túrelio (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Admins on Commons here should consider a policy of automatically deleting images from blacklisted flickr accounts within 5-6 hours and notifying the uploader so that Turelio won't face this problem where an uploader simply reverts a flickrreview bot notification that an image came from a blacklisted account. As a result, the image simply remains on Commons. I had notified Turelio that this uploader was reverting the flickrbot's edits in an earlier message so Turelio acted to stop this...but the uploader simply reverted Turelio's actions. This is an easy way to smuggle suspicious images into Cmmons sadly. I have to go now. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The same is possible with Nikbot (files without license). -- RE rillke questions? 10:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please delete the color photos which were uploaded over this as there's no information re: the color photos being in the public domain? Have reverted the file and asked the uploader to upload the photos separately. Thanks, We hope (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Deforest Kelly Dr McCoy Star Trek.JPG Same with this one also. We hope (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Leonard Nimoy William Shatner Star Trek 1968.JPG<sigh> and this one. We hope (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The fansite the color photos came from says "Star Trek is Copyright © CBS Paramount Television"; while they're fair use there, they're problems here. We hope (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done -mattbuck (Talk) 03:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! We hope (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Mind having a word with the user as there seems to be difficulty understanding the difference between the copyrighted and free use photos-I've tried in the DRs but no luck! Thanks, We hope (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the overwrite. As for the photos themselves, these photos are pre-1978 and, according to your own exhaustive reasoning for the photos you've uploaded from eBay, are just as much fair use. I understand it just fine. Thanks. Erikeltic (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to delete the first version of the file, because contains the Winodws 7 window decoration and is Fair use. Amitie 10g (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how the whole image isn't a copyvio? -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 Completely deleted by Yann. Trijnstel_talk 16:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the poster of this request wants to retract it[7],[8]. Could a colleague who hasn't voted yet, eventually speedy-close it now? --Túrelio (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Morning Sunshine. Trijnstel_talk 17:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think this could be deleted - it appears to have been a rather hasty reaction/misunderstanding rather than anything that warrants keeping? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. For whose sake? The nominator is making a very deliberate attempt to gain privileges (see their user page and Commons:License review/requests#C3F2k (permanent links) while grandstanding against several fellow volunteers (see also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Fry1989; permanent link). The de-adminship nomination has already been referenced in the request for rights comments. Covering up their uncollegial behaviour is, I think, not helpful to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough - I have more than enough to do. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Change the message of MediaWiki:Blockedtext to this:

--Captaincollect1970 (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a fairly large change that might require a bit of discussion first. For instance, I don't think we should advertise people to email OTRS about blocks. I'm not sure how often that is done currently and I'm not sure how many active Commons admins check that queue. Killiondude (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I hardly see any unblock requests coming by via OTRS and I'm fairly active overthere. Trijnstel_talk 22:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, but this request is now not really needed. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

They seems be copyvios or out of scope, please delete.--Motopark (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Denniss did it. -- RE rillke questions? 20:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

See MediaWiki talk:Pagetitle.

This will change the HTML title as displayed in your browser-window's title bar.

Scripts that rely on the title may stop working (but scripts should not rely on the title, if coded correctly). Also it would cause inconsistencies between other projects. Please comment on COM:VP#Categories: the primary way to search/navigate Commons. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 11:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please review these older Flickrwashing noms:

• File:Most Ven Walpola Rahula Maha Thera.jpg
• File:Most Ven Hammalawa Saddhatissa Maha Thera.jpg

and also these stale nominations:

• File:Steamboy.jpg and
• File:Stamp of Jose Maria Lombana Barreneche.jpg.

Ww2censor (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Done -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin please delete the 21 May 2012 revision of File:Riga view.jpg? It's a non-free Internet image uploaded by serial copyright violator DimagermanLV over a completely different photo. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Denniss deleted the revision. -- RE rillke questions? 08:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If the trylon and perisphere thing was a "work of art", then this thing is too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a work of art (architecture). Whether it is original enough is a horse of a different color. But this does not belong to COM:AN. -- RE rillke questions? 07:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nicola Bartolini Carrassi.JPG please have a look and leave a comment. For me it's a rather questionable claim. IP threatens with legal action, sounds like the depicted subject doesn't like the image and tries to get it removed. --Denniss (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Done DR closed with KEEP --Neozoon (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Johanekensjo (talk · contribs) has unloaded a significant number of images which, unfortunately, all appear to be derivative works of ceramic figurines/sculpture by Lisa Larson (who is still alive/active) with no evidence of permission for the CC/PD licenses. Frankly, these seem like speedy candidates. Is there an automated tool to nominate all of these (be it speedy or conventional) for deletion? The sheer volume would make manual tagging incredibly tedious. Эlcobbola _talk 23:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You can use VisualFileChange.js. But talking to the user before and explaining the situation, like you did here, would be a good idea, I think. This way you could probably avoid having to tag all files and an admin could take action(Special:Nuke/Johanekensjo) or not based on the user's response. -- RE rillke questions? 07:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

‎Golden pirate (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user removed an open request from COM:AN/B. Please take action. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

01:45, 20 June 2012 JuTa blocked Golden pirate with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Edit warring after warnings) -- RE rillke questions? 07:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please revert to original and please give ingo to wrong version uploader.--Motopark (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for reporting. Jafeluv (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody check the users [9] uploads, please? Seem to be low quality self made porno photos of people who might not agree with this publication here --188.104.125.51 16:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked for 1 day. Hopefully s/he will unterstand. I deleted some, which really could not be used for anything. Yann (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Sbonacorsi promotional material. please delete--Motopark (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I started a mass-deletion-request. Out of scope speedy-deletions are often not a good idea. -- RE rillke questions? 07:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, although I'd qualify that a little: Out of scope speedy-deletions of files are often not a good idea. Out-of scope gallery pages are routinely speedied without the need to go through DR. Jafeluv (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

moved from COM:AN/User problems

Wouldn't it be better to make an actual translation of Commons:Categories into Persian? Jafeluv (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I second that, seems the right way to do it.--Trex2001 (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, in case of copies, the revision history should be imported or at least the users who contributed should be mentioned. The page contained many red links because it was just copied and therefore it may also contain misguiding suggestions. -- RE rillke questions? 07:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Farsi - so can't be of help. But what's the problem in restoring a deleted file when the act seemed to be on flimsy grounds : "Copy from Farsi Wikipedia instead of Commons" - the same can be said for any language. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC).

Because it's a collection of red links with misguiding content that was made for Wikipedia, not for a media hoster like Commons and a possible copyright violation? Why don't you trust Mmxx, who is the deleter and a native speaker of Persian language or ask him directly and, instead come to this noticeboard? -- RE rillke questions? 14:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Politically, it is a bit tricky too as there are important "marketing" efforts to use everywhere "Persian" in stead of Iranian language, and to try to make farsi disappear, while technically, en:Persian language is a collection of old and current languages, Farsi becoming the 'modern Persian" or "Contemporary Persian" I guess. I have undone several "merges" related to Farsi. --Foroa (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Farsi and Persian are names for the same language, depending on whether the speaker wants to make the language seem new, modern and hip, or ancient, important and dignified. I suspect a large part of introduction of "Farsi" into English was the Shah's Iranian government, that changed the country's name from Persia to Iran. Yes, Persian can be used to refer to distinct older languages, as can Greek, English, German, French, Chinese, Japanese, Dutch, etc. Iranian is just wrong; there are many languages spoken in Iran, and none of them are uniquely identified by Iranian.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to contact either one or two native Persian speakers on Commons or elsewhere and see what can be done. I posted a message on one Persian-speaking Commons admin's talk page a few days back, but I did not get any reply. Can any one of you at least paste the text of translation on my talk page. It can probably be of some help. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC).

Why?! It is this version just without files, the first template and language links. I compared this with a diff. You can pull it yourself if you need it. -- RE rillke questions? 08:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Mitsubishi-diesel-generator.jpg is both copyvio (it would need OTRS to confirm release under a compatible licence) and spam. Look at the site the image points to, backed up by the user's Wikipedia contributions and you will see this is nothing more than a common or garden spammer looking to drive traffic to his website. Can someone take a look please and if necessary also deal with the user? --Biker Biker (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done in that I have deleted the image and agree with you - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Thanks so much. You may want to tidy up the file talk page. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And now he's back with the exact same trick. Perhaps you should have words with the user after deleting the file? - File:Perkins-35kva.JPG --Biker Biker (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep sorted - global locking will be next --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I had moved page about village due to perceived spelling error and only afterwards I realized, that this was different village with similar name (unlikely in the same district) (see the diff). Please move it back (Deštná (Jindřichův Hradec District) -> Dešná (Jindřichův Hradec District)) and please delete the redirect (it would be misleading). Thank You -- Reo On (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- RE rillke questions? 08:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for cleaning up my mess. ;-) Reo On (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To File:Bahrain health workers protesting 3.JPG: Category:White clothing, Category:Demonstrators and protesters. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- RE rillke questions? 19:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried to get some feedback about a mass tagging from the tagging editor without result.

Main diff showing all tagged images. All were tagged using the summary rationale of "What studio?" The editor claimed they got a go-ahead from another admin and thereby tagged 36 images. The other admin noted in their discussion with the editor:

"We can't rely on third party claims those photos were issued by the studios without copyright notice - we need proof/confirmation. This requires an unaltered image from both front and back."

If the above statement is accepted, it creates a new, much higher, and essentially impossible standard for most older photos demanding "proof and confirmation." Impossible, because photos are a mass-produced item, and almost every claim is thereby a "third party," or claim of the photo's owner and/or seller. Review is requested as the topic creates a new Commons rule by one admin without reasonable concern for film still purposes and copyright law. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This is absurd. If the tagging editor had been paying any attention at all, s/he would have noticed that sources were given for all of these images, and policy has never prohibited anonymous items, so tagging for lack of a source is blatantly wrong. Something published in the USA without copyright formalities at this time is in the public domain regardless of the creator; this is as absurd as tagging an anonymous US government work as "no source" when it's marked as anonymous and a link is provided to the source. User needs a w:WP:TROUT and should begin to take these to DR if s/he doubt the statements given on the image descriptions. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

These images use a special copyright excemption in the USA thus we have to be sure there was no or an insufficient copyright statement on these images. To be sure we need unaltered images of the front and back. We can't rely on thirdparty claims for this. A good Ebay seller shows these shots. --Denniss (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Please erase Category:Nardo family. It was mistakenly created by me. Sorry, Oyoyoy (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Done, no problem. Mathonius (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Maurizio Maruggi (talk · contribs) already warned, is still uploading copyvios.--Vituzzu (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked MorganKevinJ^(talk) 02:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Vituzzu (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a few requests that will/ could have serious implications (heavily used templates etc.) that weren't touched for a while. Please comment/fulfill/deny, if you are knowledgeable.

• MediaWiki talk:Sidebar#Changing one link text
• _yue" title="MediaWiki talk:Loginlanguagelinks">MediaWiki talk:Loginlanguagelinks#zh-yue -> yue
• MediaWiki talk:Pagetitle
• Template talk:Autotranslate#Parameter count
• Template talk:FormatnumDigit
• Template talk:Artwork#Edit request, alignment issues
• Template talk:Information field#Additional line break
• Template talk:Multilingual description#Some corrections and changes

Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 16:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've struck through some that have been done. There are some outstanding, plus others in Category:Commons protected edit requests. Rd232 (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Rd232. -- RE rillke questions? 14:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I need English ID please change My ID please--DangSunM (talk) DangSunM" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">11:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please follow Commons:Changing username. -- RE rillke questions? 13:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you--DangSunM (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please hurry up. This has been posted now for over 2 days. With explicit reference and a bold-titled batch arrangement. Yaffo –> Yafo Orrlingtalk 09:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Orrlingtalk 12:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

hey guys, this user evidently possesses certain Bot activation tools, that is - technical permissions endorsed to him/her by us, and he/she now has broken some of the rules of conduct within his/her authority as a bot-user, first by sending a disputed rename order undiscussed, unagreed-upon and obviously incorrect; and followingly blocking the original page to secure that editors be unable to process this category over.

Please be sure to revert these steps, urgently

Orrlingtalk 12:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

On Commons:Deletion requests/File:James-franck-fig-1.jpg it's possible that the IP casting the delete vote is a sock of the original author (currecntly indef blocked) of the DR. I would be happy if a checkuser could deny this. _→AzaToth 16:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a local checkuser, though based on my experience as a steward I think they'd deny this request as this looks a lot like fishing (en:WP:NOTFISHING). I don't see evidence anywhere of a second account Pieter Kuiper would've used or is still using. And besides, DR are not votes and this one was even closed yesterday. Trijnstel_talk 20:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm uncertain how this could be regarded as fishing, as it's highly probable that Pieter and the IP is connected in some way. But I agree that for the DR in question, it's moot; But it was at the time of reporting meant as a notice for possible abuse from Pieter (I didn't know there was a user problem page for him at that time). _→AzaToth 21:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's likely it's him I'd say  It looks like a duck to me. Trijnstel_talk 21:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

See here for the views of two project CUs on this. Checking around 400k dynamic IPs looking for IP socks is not acceptable to me. If another account is mention with valid reason I will check without hesitation. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have reverted some of the blatant trolling by 194.47.95.146 as the account claims to be Pieter Kuiper by signing posts as Pieter Kuiper and is therefore an indef blocked user attempting to by-pass a current block. Any advice on if this is the correct approach in consideration that other administrators have advised PK on his talk page that he merely has to write issues on that page for them to be passed on if suitable? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper has today raised the following DR's in explicit violation of his current block. I request that these be removed until he requests them on his talk page as previously directed: --Fæ (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harlow - Mark Hall Cycle Museum guide book. c 1982.jpg
2. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Motorradmuseum_Augustusburg_DDR._Broschure,_with_AJS_Motorcycle_photo_c_1987..jpg
3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Everyones favorite stoner muppet.jpg

Note, this same IP address was blocked in 2009 when it was used by Pieter Kuiper to by-pass a block.[10] Exactly how many years has Pieter Kuiper been maliciously misusing Commons in this way? --Fæ (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked this IP. Most of the time in the previous years, Pieter Kuiper was unblocked and I never observed any case where something even looked like him working as IP while his account was without block. There were some claims of block evasion by working under IP in the past and now at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pieter Kuiper. I suggest to raise such cases at COM:AN/B if a block appears to be warranted and otherwise at the already open CU case. Please understand that DRs that appear to be worthy for discussion remain open and will take their due course according to COM:DEL. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

With regard to these 3 DRs, I have no vested interest, these were neither my original copyright declaration or my original images. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

---

I don't think it is useful to fork the discussion (especially since it is so voluminous). Please take these new claims to the AN/U subpage. --99of9 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but that page is such a mess. The way to cut through it would be Pieter starting to engage, but it's quite obvious at this point that he isn't going to lift even a single finger towards getting his block lifted. Rd232 (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)According to the file history, all 3 files were uploaded by Fae from Flickr using User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske). So whilst the nominations are probably correct, this is clearly a continuation of Pieter's behaviour of targeting uploads of people he's had disputes with, which is bad enough; and then socking to create DRs, which is worse. Rd232 (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's leave aside the source of these DRs for a moment. Whoever posted them -- and I agree it was probably PK -- they appear to be legitimate items for discussion and should not be closed simply because the nominator is a problem. I would probably delete the first one, but I agree there are legitimate arguments for keeping it. The other two look like clear copyvios.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Caíque Barbosa Oliveira (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

is uploading copyvios (Special:ListFiles/Caíque Barbosa Oliveira) after warning. Does not seem to understand the system. Moros y Cristianos 18:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Now recreating deleted content. Moros y Cristianos 21:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This new user has uploaded within 48 minutes no less than 98 video files, all without any source or author entry and likely all copyvios. The 5 ones, on which I did a search for the source, we all copied from YouTube. I've blocked the uploader for 1 day just to stop him. As the videos are mostly trash, I propose to nuke them all. Other opinions?

Beyond this case, we really need to think about better safeguards against such mass video uploads. If they are not blatant copyvios, checking them for copyviolating elements (graphics, audio parts, etc.) will be rather time-consuming, as one needs to view each entire video. --Túrelio (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 Support (nuke) and  Support (better system against mass uploads). :) Trijnstel_talk 10:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

To which rate (count/time) video and audio uploads should be throttled? And I guess only for new users? This should be possible with AbuseFilter since the title (but not the file description) is available during upload, I think. Please make a suggestion. -- RE rillke questions? 08:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea. I just see that here is/may be a "safety gap", which may put a lot of strain to the new-uploads patrolers and to the servers. Of course, there may be scenarios in which a user may legitimately upload a number of video files. So, it's not a simple question of yes or no. May be, we should set a "breakpoint" or "threshold value" of x per 10 minutes or per hour for the upload of video/audio files by new users and eventually also by users with only infrequent uploads, provided they can be technically defined at all. x might 1 per 10 minutes of 5 per hour. --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 Delete all. No reason to have these copyright violations hanging around any longer. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Liliana-60's request that Hindustanilanguage's filemover rights be removed has been open for over two months. Hindustanilanguage has recently responded to the request, so it would be nice if an admin would take a look at it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

please provide links to those discussions. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

They are at COM:RFR#Filemover. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody please take care of this very old, very confusing DR? The uploader of the images in question has now taken it upon himself to selectively remove items from the list of nominated pictures, and is edit-warring over it [11]. He is also selectively removing and changing many of his own old comments, in an apparent attempt to cover up some of the untruths and self-contradictions he produced in them, and making the surrounding discussion impossible to understand. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. has a serious problem. He has been nominating the same images like so many times and the admins always kept them. The fact is that he is up to no good because he has been going around wrongfully removing Ahmad Shah Durrani's images from Wikipedia articles [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] but now that I uploaded an 18th century image of Durrani Fut.Perf. decided to edit-war with me over my own words in my comments. I have carefully removed irrelevant words from my very own comments because it confuses readers and he is putting it back. This guy should go away and leave my comments alone because I was replying mostly to others. Fut.Perf. basically does not like File:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg to be used in any Wikipedia page because he believes this image is copyvio but I presented evidence that it is a pre-1943 image by Afghan artist "Breshna" [17] so it qualifies as {{PD-Afghanistan}}. By the way, there are others who don't like Fut.Perf.'s attitude here.[18]--Officer (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this DR, all the images qualified as PD-Afghanistan until now because before Afghanistan didn't have copyright law. I'm not sure if it does or not and it's up to you to decide.--Officer (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If you didn't want the irrelevant words there, you shouldn't have put them there in the first place. It's a discussion, and what's been said has been said and has been replied to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It is stupid to say that because everyone modifies own comments in forums. I have discovered new evidence and felt like sharing that but you completely removed my comment in which I said:

• "It qualifies as PD-Afghanistan because it was created before 1943 according to this.--Officer (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)"

I usually reply very quickly and in the process I often use too many words by providing more info than needed. The words I removed do not affect the replies, I'm not stupid to take out words which come into conflicts. A person has the freedom to correct himself even in courts a person can retract what he/she has said. Even you stated that: "All the rest of this discussion seems irrelevant" [19]

We are here to determine the copyright status of these images and that is by looking for the author, date and place of original publication. Who took pictures of these paintings is IRRELEVANT, the photographer cannot claim authorship in this case.--Officer (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Asking you not to make significant edits to comments after others have replied to them is not stupid. It's common sense. Please don't do it. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It would help if instead of replying very quickly and verbosely, you replied more tersely and carefully in the first place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

In this particular case it is stupid because there was no significant edits made. I have explained in the edit summary:

• "Removed Zahir Shah, we already have a photo of him" [20]
• "Clearing up my statements" [21]

Like a wise and intelligent man that I am, I carefully made sure that the words I remove or alter wouldn't conflict with the replies. But yes I agree it is not good, especially without explaining it. On the other hand, Fut.Perf. reverting me and then reporting me here clearly explains what his intention was. This is childish to me and there's no need for all of that, and you didn't comment on Fut.Perf. action (i.e. removing images of the founding father of Afghanistan) which means you're probably working against me. I'm not going to fall for these traps but rather ignore and avoid all of this.--Officer (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Our practice is very clear. If you say something that you later would like to change, you may strike it out, but you may not remove it. While it may have been aggressive to bring the issue here, please be clear that it is you, Officer, who is making changes that do not conform to our way of working on Commons. Please don't remove any of anyone's comments -- including your own -- again.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You're implying that I removed another person's comment but let's be clear that I didn't do that so it shouldn't be mentioned here. I'm a highly disciplined guy, served in military, and maybe this is the reason I attract people like the guy who reported me here. Can you show this policy about users not allowed to change or remove their comments. I simply typed the following question "***On this one File:Ahmad Shah Durrani - 1747.jpg, can we apply any kind of not subject to copyright license?--Officer (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)", nobody replied and then removed it after discovering new evidence. I don't understand what's the big deal with this. About modifying a few of MY comments, I believe that is ok in some situations as long as the person explains in the edit summary (which I did) and is reasonable as I did here because in an email exchange the painter (a she) felt offended that I wrote "he" instead of "she", and she told me which was her sock and which wasn't. So far no body directed me to the policy which states that under no circumstances must a user change, modify or remove OWN comments from forums. I feel that I'm being mocked here.--Officer (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion needs to be closed because it is months old. --George Ho (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Yann for the closing, as a reminder we have a huge backlog of deletion requests to process (lots of DR from December 2011 are not closed) so DRs from March are not that old. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Since around yesterday, the Quick-delete tools are no longer appearing in the left-hand "tool box" when I view image pages with my standard browser, Internet-Explorer 8, and instead I find the following error message on every page

• "http://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=de&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki&> at line 145: Ungültiger Prozeduraufruf oder ungültiges Argument".

As usual with such problems, I didn't change anything in my preferences or on my local system (XP prof) and I'm neither aware of an update of MediaWiki to a new pre-alpha release. The problem does not occur when using Google-Chrome browser. Any solution (except of changing the browser)? --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Opened since December 2011. George Ho (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please don't tell me you're going to start a new section on this noticeboard for every open discussion listed on Commons:Deletion requests/Older discussions. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

en:WP:administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure exists. Why not /Closure requests? George Ho (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done --AFBorchert (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And what's the noticeboard for requesting closures of old requests on the closures noticeboard? Backlogs don't become shorter by tracking them in multiple places. The discussions in Commons:Deletion requests/Older discussions aren't kept open for the fun of it. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

meta:Requests_for_comment/Internet_Defense_League – There's a discussion at Meta about whether or not the WMF should join the Internet Defense League. Feel free to participate in the discussion and to share this news with other Wikimedia projects. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This has been debated since January, and I wonder if, in this case, a discussion is not a majority vote, as consensus should outweigh polling. --George Ho (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Kaldari (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear George Ho, If you are willing to help with the back log, may be you should start a request for adminship. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe next time but not now. I am thinking about reviewing revisions for violations or image licenses. --George Ho (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please delete the images that I upload between 28 and 29 June. Those with the mark "EoL" in their name because I made a error in the license, it is cc-by-nc-sa. Thank, --Metrónomo (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please delete this photo. See: [22] Thx. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes.  Done Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please delete this and this? I uploaded them from Flickr, but it looks like the uploader has now deleted the photos. Alex T. (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Techman224^Talk 20:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Dont know, but maybe you copied the wrong urls or numbers to the file description? File:Troop of Olive Baboons under a tree 2.jpeg is www.flickr.com/photos/hbarrison/7468494478/ (source was 7468393144). --Martin H. (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure I probably did screw something up. I used the Filinfo tool, so either it put the info in incorrectly or I accidentally changed it. Either way, thank you both for the help! Alex T. (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

meta:Requests_for_comment/Global_bans – The Global Bans RfC is now live. Feel free to participate in the discussion and to alert other Wikimedia projects. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow, it's July. Would someone remove stale proposal(s) from March? --  Docu  at 12:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

How about picture collection pictures, can someone who will have account in Flicker, check copyright from this picture, my propose are that we need collection with local pictures and delete this one.--Motopark (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Not free, CC-BY was incorrectly used by the uploader. Based on e.g. this one -- ARR. --Trycatch (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Please restore all Images listed on his user talk. There is a request at permissions-de; he is the copyright holder. Thanks in advance. --Hephaion (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Hephaion (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

When uploading http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dudley_L._Herschbach_in_Lindau.jpg, I made a typo in the middle initial. It's Dudley R. Herschbach, with an R. Could someone please change this? Thanks, and all the best: Mapos (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Hephaion (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

There is also the {{Rename}} template that you can use to ask for a rename. --PierreSelim (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And there is a "move"-link in the tabbar in vector-skin (this dropdown next to the watchlist-star) when you are logged it and have JavaScript enabled. -- RE rillke questions? 22:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What we shall do with Special:Contributions/Taekwondo_Federation_of_India,_TFI pictures, it seemd that they need OTRS-permission and they are used only in userpage of en-wikipedia. Can someone delete this uderpage out of scope and those pictures also.--Motopark (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that user has still an active account which is not blocked: Father of Taekwondo in India (talk · contribs). I've tagged the three pictures with {{No permission}} as they are within scope as historic images of the sport Taekwondo in India but which needs to be processed through OTRS to be kept. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not someone who worries much about the odd personal image that gets uploaded here - personally I have no idea why you want your own face here but maybe that is me! However this collection of what seem to be wedding images seems to a go a bit far for me. I don't really see how they can be within scope. Other views? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Out of scope for me, I've added {{Personality rights}} but I'm not sure the pictures will stay should stay on Commons. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've speedy-tagged most of them. --Túrelio (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please review the contributions of Ansemolu (talk · contribs) as he made ​​many copyright violations in Spanish Wikipedia. He's a minor with difficulty in understanding the function of these wikis. --Metrónomo (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Recently, we have again had the deletion of a djvu file here at Commons without reference to the Wikisource to where it was transcluded. As a gentle reminder to my fellow Commons administrators in that a djvu file is integral to the work of the Wikisources, and its deletion here is problematic, especially with regard to a speedy deletion. Again I ask administrators who wish to progress the deletion of such files to pause, and notify the uploader, and, if possible, the respective Wikisource Scriptorium, of the pending deletion, and to allow them to move the file to their local wiki (if possible), or to look to whether the text pages at the Wikisource need to be deleted. [Technically a djvu file stored here will have a corresponding Index: and Page: namespaces pages to which there will be text, and the deletion of the file here makes those pages inaccessible, see s:en:Help:Proofread for more information].

As Commons administrators we need to be alert and mindful to the position that Commons has as a central repository [our goal], and that while we obviously need to maintain the integrity of the site, that there is consideration that we need to give to these wikis. And that we may need to give time to these wikis to clean up before a deletion takes effect [CommonsDelinker will not resolve it all]. Commons sits in the middle of this morass of wikis, not out on the edge on its own, and sometimes some here appear to forget. If you think that the help assistance for Commons administrators is insufficient in its guidance on this matter then maybe we can update it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I do think there is little we can do efficiently except having a bot going throught the new DRs and adding a message to the talk page on the wikis where the images are used. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think our goal should be to maximize efficiency at the cost of our users. It is a perpetual frustration that the decision is made to delete files, and promptly they are deleted, with no chance to transwiki the files once the decision to delete them has been made, nor does the deleting admin ever (in my experience) transwiki the files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I often see admins on Commons deleting files that should obviously be transferred. There is no time-limit here. We should be doing the correct action, not the most efficient action. Kaldari (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What were the deleted files? Yann (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You could add ref to the ws site if you simply put a hidden <span style="display:none;">[[Media:file_abc.djvu]]</span> somewhere (e.g. the index, if this is possible). -- RE rillke questions? 11:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This correspondence is in response to your decision to delete an image posted on the Raul Julia-Levy page. Please see: (Removing "Julia_Levy_Magazine_Article2.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by EugeneZelenko because: Copyright violation: Magazine article.)

I ask that you reverse your decision due to the following legal facts: 1. I was the one who took the images for this now-defunct magazine 2. My news archival company owns the legal rights to this single page that bears a total of three images 3. This page from the defunct magazine is now considered historical data and has been archived in perpetuity by my news archival company 4. As sole proprietor of my company, I have given Wikimedia Commons the legal right to publish said page.

I appreciate your cooperation. 37celsius (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Get in contact with COM:OTRS at the email address listed there and we can move forward from there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

See Special:Log/Anang Lastriyanto. I deleted his user page (Anang Lastriyanto) because of inappropriate use of user pages - one of his uploads is already deleted for being copyvio. Are the other uploads of Anang Lastriyanto (talk · contribs) also copyvios? I'm not completely sure. Thanks in advance for your help. Trijnstel_talk 16:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• I marked one for deletion and one for speedy deletion. Give that out of six uploads of this user one has been deleted and three are awaiting deletion, it is reasonable to assume, given professional quality of the other two, that they are also copyvio. Probably mass-deleting is appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I keep seeing "Evidence: Will be provided on request." on files by newbies. I've seen it so often and from a variety of people which makes me wonder if someone somewhere has suggested that this is acceptable? Is it? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. See en:WP:File Upload Wizard and in particular en:WT:File Upload Wizard#Evidence: Will be provided on request. The upload wizard has an option to upload to Commons. I frequently search for the text "Evidence: Will be provided on request." since such files tend to need {{subst:npd}}. The wording is used on both Commons and on Wikipedia, so I always search for the text on Wikipedia since that search form returns files on both projects, making it easier to find all of the problematic files. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hum - I don't like that but I really appreciate the info :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, this should be fixed. I would suggest instead a line more close to Evidence will be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. It is important to know for the uploaders that evidence must be sent (not just on request) and that files will be deleted without evidence. Such uploads could then be automatically tagged with {{OTRS pending}} which would give the uploaders plenty of time to contact OTRS while we can be sure at the same time that the uploads will get deleted if nothing happens after 30 days. (BTW, does anyone know why HersfoldOTRSBot got inactive? This bot used to warn uploaders short before that period expired.) --AFBorchert (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

For your information, there is already a different checkbox somewhere in the upload wizard for {{subst:OP}}. In "step 3", select "This is a free work" and "This file was given to me by its owner" and then look at the checkboxes in the "Evidence" section. I would say that it would be better to remove the last two checkboxes. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: I posted a message on the user talk page of Hersfold to restart his bot. I'll contact him on the English Wikipedia if he won't reply here. Never mind - I posted a request overthere too: en:User talk:Hersfold#Request to restart HersfoldOTRSBot. Trijnstel_talk 11:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes - reflecting I agree with AFB - that really does have to go. Evidence needs to be provided - it ain't optional. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Per default, I tag every new upload with this claim as no-permission. --Túrelio (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment from the person who designed that upload form: Of course the option can easily be removed if there's a consensus it isn't useful. Just as an explanation for why I included it: it was my understanding that current policy (at least on en-wp) is that immediate OTRS use is not absolutely obligatory, and that there are cases where an image reviewer may accept a licensing claim on assumption of good faith. For instance, I tend to do that on en-wp when an uploader is quite obviously acting on behalf of an article subject, e.g. as their publicity agent. There was also the thought that giving people this "easy" option makes it easier for them to admit that the image isn't their own in the first place, and lessens the temptation of falsely tagging it as "own work" instead (which often makes abuses more difficult to detect). But seeing the consensus here, I guess I'll just go and disable the "to Commons" option for those cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: done [23]; these cases should no longer be arriving here. Sorry for the trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

@Future Perfect, your rationale was surely reasonable. However, as many uploaders are fly-bys, it will be surely harder to get such a permission weeks or months after upload than days after upload, which I try to ensure by my no-perm tagging. --Túrelio (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please could someone remove all Disney movies' poster imported by TonyDidou13 : Special:Contributions/TonyDidou13, all files with Affiche de --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 10:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done merci --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In a current arbitration case, the English Wikipedia's Arbcom is attempting to pass a remedy to the effect that Wikimedia Commons should conduct a review of a prolific contributor to this project. (See [24].) This strikes me as a remarkable attempt to extend the Arbcom's authority (the less kind might say a power grab).

Wikipedia:Arbitration states explicitly, in the first paragraph, "This Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction extends only to the English Wikipedia". As far as I know (and I've been involved with arbitration cases for eight years now), Arbcom has never previously attempted to direct any actions on any Wikimedia projects outside the English Wikipedia. I very much doubt whether the arbitrators have fully thought through the consequences of a governing body on one project attempting to direct the governance of another project. It raises a nasty prospect of cross-project clashes over who exercises authority. I suggest that those involved with Commons' governance should take a close look at the matter. Prioryman (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The finding at issue is entitled "Encourage review of Fæ's file contributions". (emphasis added) To encourage something is a vastly different notion than, say, mandating it. Further, actual verbiage of the section is that the committee merely "suggest[s]" that a review occur. If there is a concern that a user has uploaded copyvios, a review is in the best interests of the Commons regardless of the party suggesting it. The assertion that this finding is an attempt by the arbitration committee to extend its authority appears sensationalist and utterly unfounded; indeed, it seems to ignore other sections on the proposal page which include comments that explicitly contradict it (e.g. “the English Wikipedia arbitration committee has no jurisdiction over Commons” [25]). Note, also, that notifications that do not use neutral wording (e.g. “power grab”, “nasty prospect”, etc) are generally considered canvassing. Эlcobbola _talk 20:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The suggested remedy seems a bit odd and it may make some Arbcom members appear a bit careless about this type of thing as they support the finding that "no specific files have been alleged to infringe" (see "Finding of fact" at Fæ has been accused ..). I wonder if Commons administrators could get away with such unsubstantiated claims.

As for the entire rest of the dispute .. --  Docu  at 20:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that that so far as the remedy merely encourages Commons to do something, it should be fine. But even if it commanded Commons to do something, Commons could just ignore it, you know. Separate projects and all. Similarly, if ArbCom oversteps its bounds on en.wikipedia, there's not much that we could do about it from Commons. Yes, many of us are on both projects, but you get my point, I trust. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Our deletion policy is ours and everyone who does not follow it will run into trouble. Either a file has to go according to our policy or not or it's not clear. I see no need for a further discussion here. Read COM:PS, COM:D. -- RE rillke questions? 20:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that everyone reading this thread go help out Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review. There, that's about as much an extension of my authority as ArbCom's is. Incidentally, Prioryman, ArbCom didn't say Commons should conduct a review, it says (ungrammatically...) we suggest that a review of files that Fæ has contributed.... There's nothing to stop Wikipedians with appropriate experience coming to Commons and doing such a review (especially if they're also experienced Commons contributors), or posting at COM:VPC to ask for help, etc. The rest of the discussion makes it quite clear that ArbCom knows it doesn't have the authority to require Commons to act in any particular way - not even to enforce it's own policies. To call this a storm in a teacup would be an exaggeration; it's barely a tempest in a teaspoon. Rd232 (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It is quite simple. Members of the en-wp arbcom and every one else are invited to go through the uploaded files at Commons and look for copyvios and to file deletion requests where necessary. Commons serves the other WMF projects and of course it matters for us that all files of our repository conform to COM:L. And that Commons has a far less mature governance model than the English Wikipedia does, as claimed by en-wp arbcom member Jclemens, does not mean that we cannot take care of copyvios. Commons regulars are usually more busy in processing backlogs than in generating drama and sophisticated governance structures to handle them. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Some time ago there was much drama about Pieter Kuiper doing exactly that, but with the difference that he usually found them .. --  Docu  at 21:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note from an interested observer: en.wp's ArbCom is not at all the same creepy animal that it was 4+ years ago... the drama cabals have been broken down and left behind to a surprising degree. Commons' "mellowness" has also been degrading over the same period, which ain't a good thing.

I know there's no structure in place here to make (and much less execute) a resolution to work with them on this, but I think it would be good for both communities if an ad hoc group could organize itself and do the gnoming on this end. I never thought I'd think this, but it seems to me lately that en.wp actually seems the more responsible and well-managed project of late. --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I know, en-wp's arbcom appears now indeed very advanced. Firstly, they add this notice to all the case pages where they boldly state that there will be NO speculations allowed and secondly they did themselves exactly this by proposing this remedy without having any evidence. You contributed to this through this allegation at Jimbo's talk page and now you come here and ask for the organization of a task force finding the evidence for your claims. We at Commons are pretty old-fashioned in this regard as we prefer to have some evidence first before we jump to conclusions. One of the arbcoms refers to CCI which is a good-working process at en-wp (I worked with them last year through a complex case) but which also requires evidence to open a case. We do likewise. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some might say that User talk:Fæ/2012 is enough evidence not to prove wrongdoing and justify punishment (!), but maybe to justify a review to make sure things are in order. Rd232 (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I've not done a in depth review but a quick scan doesn't shown anything too bad (give me anyone with a decent sized upload history and I will find some issues). File:British Library QR code example.jpg is a copyvio but its a common issue. There are a couple of blue plaque images and we've never settled the copyright status of those. File:Tate Britain North Gallery Jaguar.jpg is currently listed for deletion but its a complex case balancing on the limits of "useful article".Geni (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

give me anyone with a decent sized upload history and I will find some issues - absolutely. Which is why I created Commons:Contributor feedback and suggested putting it in the {{Discussion menu}}. Rd232 (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion of COM:CF in {{Discussion menu}} but missed the proposal. There is no discussion at Template talk:Discussion menu. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, since the discussion didn't get very far I've tried again at: Template_talk:Discussion_menu#Commons:Contributor_feedback. Rd232 (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I also vaguely like the idea of strongly encouraging (even requiring) active admins to list themselves at COM:CF once a year (say, on the anniversary of their RFA). Since it's just feedback (hopefully positive and helpful as well as negative), this shouldn't be too scary/unpleasant (unlike being listed at AN/U...). One advantage of this would be to ensure enough activity that the board would actually work (so non-admins would also be able to get feedback when desired). And whilst it would be an opportunity for negative comments, those tend to turn up anyway - I think it might actually turn out a rather unique opportunity for positive comments - recognition of all the hard work not much recognised normally. Plus a real learning opportunity. (Compare en:Wikipedia:Administrator review.) Rd232 (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to start with some cases first to see how this evolves before making it mandatory. As usual, these things need some development. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Though there may be a chicken-egg thing on getting started... Well, maybe it'll help if I volunteer myself. Rd232 (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of admins are also active contributors to Commons, and other projects, and any more "bureaucracy" is only going to take away from 1) our own time as editors and 2) our available time as admins; of which there are already too few. It shouldn't be too difficult for any editor to ascertain how they are going on their own. Adding layers and layers of bureaucracy is not a good thing for this project; keep such things to those project which love bureaucratic nonsense (like enwp). russavia (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the worst abuses of an accusation of "bureaucracy" for a new idea I've ever seen - and that's going it some for Wikimedia, where any new process is routinely abused as involving more "bureaucracy" by people who just don't like it. In this case, a process with zero requirements cannot be bureaucratic; there are no hoops to jump through, forms to fill in, or votes to survive. There isn't even a requirement for an admin to read what's said as feedback, never mind respond. Honestly... As for the idea that "It shouldn't be too difficult for any editor to ascertain how they are going on their own." - this is patently untrue. It makes my head hurt just thinking about how someone can believe such a thing. Rd232 (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea how this turns out but I tend to be open to new ideas. Some of them work out, others not. I see no harm in opening such a page and to see how it develops. In my opinion, it would possibly become bureaucratic in the moment when it becomes mandatory. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is clearly only one solution here. We must... hmm, actually I can't think of anything annoying and stupid for en.wp that wouldn't add to our workload. Make arbcom walk around with their pants on their head maybe? But that doesn't really work in an internet context. I guess we just ignore it then. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well we could always try enforcing COM:L, regardless of who tells us to do it (or not to do it, come to that)... Rd232 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the particular merits of the Fae case, but en wiki can't tell us to do anything. I think it is fine if they want to ask/request/suggest we do. In such a case, it is up to us to decide to act or not act. We should judge each instance as to whether the action is warranted, ie, does the possible benefit warrant the likely effort involved? PumpkinSky talk 20:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw this file while working on monuments lists for Belgium and realized that there is a great picture that was uploaded first. I would like to use both on the English Wikipedia - the overall farm picture and the doorway picture. I can split the top doorway into a new file by hand, but was wondering if an admin could do that and keep all the other metadata: author, user upload date, cats... For the "whole farm" one, the WLM template should be removed, that's all. Thanks in advance, Jane023 (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Done and thank you. --Foroa (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I've been working on a new Commons upload tool (Up!) which greatly simplifies the upload process. Up! is currently in alpha release, and I could really use some help testing this tool. If you're interested, please add your name to Commons:Up!#Testers and upload away :] Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Great. Would you mind adding "why it is better than Commonist" to the documentation? Also would you agree if I announce this to the German community on COM:Forum? -- Rillke^(q?) 10:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Done at Commons:Up!#Purpose. And yes please! The more feedback I get about the tool, the better :) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please delete the first version of the file. I uploaded it by mistake (clicked a wrong button), and it is accidentally copyrighted. The reuploaded version is ok. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated quite a few derivative images for deletion (with the source photographs cited, [26], [27], [28], [29]). However, there are a lot more where they came from and I'm wondering how best to handle this, as it's a little too time consuming for me to search for the sources of individual images, but they are all traces/reproductions of photographs. Any suggestions? Cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

They're all uploads by User:Konkani Manis, yes? If you think this is a general problem with the user's uploads, you can do a Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request (I recommend using Help:VisualFileChange.js). Rd232 (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I think I didn't ask the right question in my earlier note. There's way too many of these art work images and it's time consuming to get the right sources for all of them (which is why I'm hesitant to nominate them for DR under the precautionary principle). So, I was really wondering if there's a holding pen like en:WP:CCI where all individual images can be evaluated and either deleted or removed from the list. Many of these are older newspaper images (e.g. en:The Hindu image which actually got me to this set, was recently reproduced on their website, but the original was from before they started the online edition) etc and it's a fair bit of effort to find them. If a mass-DR would still be considered the best alternative in this case, I'll go ahead and do that. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no equivalent of en:WP:CCI. (Recently there is COM:CF, for people who want their contributions reviewed voluntarily.) Mass DR is the way it's done at the moment. Of course it doesn't hurt to talk to the user in question (he was active a couple of days ago) before doing a DR. Rd232 (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the response from the user. They don't have the source images at hand. I've alerted them to this post. —SpacemanSpiff 04:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing to my notice, this discussion. Its not my interest to flood the Wikicommons with Derivatives of Copyrighted Works. We want to give faces to the achivements of people. Its not in the best interest of wikicommunity to treat them for Mass DR. Thanks. Konkani Manis "" (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

These images have a OTRS ticket. Hopefully the OTRS volunteers have checked that the proper permission was given. If not, this is a serious issue for them. Yann (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I did check the OTRS ticket before nomination, it is a standard form OTRS, there's nothing specific about the source for the art work or even the artist's name. It says that the person sending the email (representing World Institute of Konkani Language, World Konkani Centre, Mangalore) is the sole owner of the exclusive copyright, no info on authorship or how it was transferred. Subsequent to my DRs, User:Asclepias found this link on their website asking people to submit scanned photographs for them to paint (I wasn't aware of this when I posted here). —SpacemanSpiff 08:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• They are now listed in a multi-file DR for all the derivative art work at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Konkani Manis

To whom it may concern, Greetings Someone has removed a photo from the above wiki page. Please note that this photo (and all photos on this page) are my own personal property and were taken by me. I uploaded this photo to Wikimedia Commons and made it available to everyone. Please restore it to its place on the page. Thanks!Scotty1891 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be in reference to File:St Paul's relay team 1982.jpg. Can't review it myself, ofc (not an admin). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Usually undeletion requests/ request for restoration have to be made on COM:UR. The files all had a wrong date (the upload date, not the date when they were taken) and some of them were scans from a newspaper. All of them were low-resolution scans or had Moiré pattern or JPEG compression artifacts. Why are you uploading scans of newspapers (or similar) if the photos are your personal property? -- Rillke^(q?) 10:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with Rillke's comments I would just add that the file was deleted because nor source for the image was provided. We need that to host files. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

To be exactly, there was |source={{own}}, |author=[[User:Scotty1891|Scotty1891]] and this is what Scotty1891 claims in his comment here, if I read it correctly. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Rilke is correct, but....

Scotty1891 is a new user who has uploaded 18 files, 14 of which have been deleted. All that I have examined are small -- 300px or less and only one has EXIF (given the dates, I would not expect camera EXIF, but I would expect it from the scanner). At least a few of them are clearly not "own work" as claimed -- old, B&W, and/or newspaper scans (I note that Scotty1891 is 75, so he might well have taken old B&W images, but in 1938 he would have been a year old and probably not taking pictures.)

While we try to Assume Good Faith, the combination of small images and at least some incorrect claims of "own work" inevitably leads to the question of whether any of these uploads were actually photographed by Scotty1891. I suggest to him that the easiest way to prove that he took this image and the others is to upload them at full resolution. And, as pointed out above, the correct place for future discussions of this kind is Commons:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jim

I'm a newbie so it took me some time to find this page relating to the deletion of the St Paul's relay team. All the photos that I uploaded and used were taken by me (or by my father who took the very old photos). I want to make several points here.

1) I uploaded the photos in small resolution because I thought that was what was required. The B&W photos that I uploaded were taken from my photograph albums, were in a small size and then scanned by me in TIFF format. Because the quality in some was poor I used software to "clean" the photos. I then used other software to convert from TIFF to JPEG and then reduced them in size. Maybe that will explain the "JPEG compression artifacts." The close-up B&W photo of John Keane (Hurler) was taken by my late father. It was originally a team photo but I isolated John Keane and enlarged the image which I subsequently uploaded.

2) While I understand your concern re the B&W images I am mystified about the deletion of the relay team. Please explain!

3) If you would be so kind as to indicate to me the other photos in question I will try to resolve the problem to your desires.

4) Please also let me know the size of image that you require in MB and the format viz., TIFF or JPEG.

Hoping that we can settle this ASAP. Thanks for your comments because they are helpful. As you can see from the "Talk" section I needed a lot of coaching from your people to complete the wikipedia page.

Best wishes

Scotty1891 (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

I've researched the B&W photos that I uploaded and I now ealise what has happened. Those photos of hurlers from my hurling club were indeed taken by me and then published by me in a club journal. I now realise that the photos on my computer are not scans of the original photos but are, indeed, scans of the journal. Sorry about that. Although the photos were taken by me I should only have used scans from the originals. You may ignore those photos.

My apologies.

The only photos that I am anxious to see restored are the images used in the wikipedia pages for Susan Smith-Walsh and John Keane (hurler).

Scotty1891 (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please delete the 2011-08-03 revision of this file, in which copyright violator Dreamss (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user overwrote a perfectly fine free file with a non-free Getty Images photo. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Trijnstel_talk 15:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

May one move the file File:Peter_Kyros.jpg to Commons in order that I can embed it in the German Wikipedia? Thanks a lot! --77.58.255.212 16:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

May one unlock/unprotect File:CMA Colour croped.jpg in order that I can change the categories? For example one category should be Category:Christian Motorcyclists Association. Thanks a lot! --77.58.255.212 16:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Cat added. --Túrelio (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

May you/one add the following complete list:

[[Category:Christian Motorcyclists Association]]
[[Category:Motorcycle club colors]]
[[Category:Motorcycle leather vests]]
[[Category:Bikers]]

Thanks! --77.58.255.212 18:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please chewck those edits, thanks.--Motopark (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In the page will be read muut Örön valokuvat vai omaan käyttöön, julkaisu ilman Puolustusvoimien lupaa kielletty (other Örö photos only for personal use, publication without permission of the Defence Forces), what are your opinion, must this picture delete.--Motopark (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a non-copyright restriction. If you upload a photo, it seems that you might be accused of espionage but not of copyright infringement. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Does Cycycy have any deleted uploads? His only live edit is uploading File:24389576663l.jpg, which has no discernable geographic information. If you find and tell me about any deleted uploads, it might help for me at least to know the geographic area (if ascertainable) in which he's uploaded images. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No deleted contribs, but I agree it is suspicious. I opened a DR. Yann (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone close this or advise how to handle it? Quite a few individual images in the nomination have been deleted, the files were brought to DR after a discussion on the OTRS board regarding the ticket. It's now six months since the DR was opened. I'm trying to clean up India related images, especially related to OTRS tickets. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at the DR above: LUIGI19956 and Almo67 is always the same copyvioler and all of his uploads are likely to be copyvios. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, blocked, locked etc. I left File:Francesco longo hj.png (OTRS permission) and File:Luca sepe.png (asked for permission). Trijnstel_talk 13:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to this long term abuse item on en Wiki. User(s) have been very actively spamming again the past few months; please consider deleting contributions from this user and this one which are the origins of the promotional spamming. (Note that none of appropriate copyright info). Thanks, Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Denniss (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, on en.wiki, these three people have been determined to be the same person and blocked. I don't know commons policy on duplicate accounts, since I can't seem to find Commons' policy document on accounts. So, if this is inappropriate, then you might want to examine en:user_talk:OrionHsu , en:user_talk:Orionandhsu , en:user_talk:Orionwebmuseum , en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Orionwebmuseum , en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive238#Problem_articles_-_possible_fraud.3F.

Additionally, at en:user_talk:Orionandhsu, there is an admission that en:user:orionwebmuseum is a group account. If the commons user:orionwebmuseum is the same as en:user:orionwebmuseum, then that account is also a group account.

Thanks for your attention.

-- 76.65.131.160 02:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the local CheckUsers might wish to take a look at this? Trijnstel_talk 13:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just adding a note to say that the files of OrionHsu, Orionwebmuseum, and Orionandhsu, all suspected to the be same person, have been nominated for deletion. Pages here - Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:OrionHsu, Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Orionwebmuseum, Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Orionandhsu. Axb3 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hallo, I have a problem with the headline of the above titles. I can't correct this because I'm a IP. Therefore I beg You to change. At the title Faulbach is the text from the village Faulbach (Main) because Faulbach is a brook and You find this text in moment under Faulbach (Main), but that's text from the village. That means, when You change the two headlines then the textes are correct. You can be sure my wish is correct, because I'm living in the neighborhood. I hope, You could understand what I mean, because my English is not so good. Thanks for helping to correct and greet -- 217.227.205.169 20:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

transferred to Commons:Forum#FAULBACH_and_FAULBACH_.28MAIN.29. --Hystrix (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not that familiar with the Do's and don'ts for admins on Commons, so a procedural question: Right now, I handled Commons:Deletion requests/File:French battleship.jpg and deleted the image in question because its creator Albert Sébille died in 1953 (meaning the work is still protected in France as its country of origin as well as in the US due to the URAA). Category:Albert Sébille contains three other works by Albert Sébille which now should be deleted too, I think - but what's the right procedure? Would it be appropriate if I just delete the three without further ado, or should I use speedy deletion requests (four-eyes principle), or even regular deletion requests? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"without further ado" would be inappropriate in these cases, IMO. Either use speedy or regular DR, the latter especially if these images are already for longer time on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I used regular DRs - indeed, whereas Commons:Deletion requests/File:Le Washington.jpg might be another easy case, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SS Normandie travel poster Albert Sebille 01.jpg (and the derivative file) might need some discussion, as it was uploaded from the Boston Public Library's flickr photostream (seemingly, they declared it first CC-BY, then CC-BY-NC, but at the same time they say "Rights status not evaluated", so how do they think they are able to license this French work?) Gestumblindi (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've uploaded two revisions of File:Main page experiment - The Anome.png -- the first revision contains a glitch that leaks a little bit of a URL: the second one is fixed. Could an admin delete just the first version, please? -- The Anome (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Denniss (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I recently changed my username in es: and several WP, but I want to do it here. How can I do it? My new username is Ganimedes. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Try COM:CHU. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone help me delete 1st & 2nd version of the file. 1st one screen content may copyrighted, 2nd one is totally same as current one. IEatSoxLikeAnimal (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done I deleted the two requested versions and commented at the IFD.PumpkinSky talk 17:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I request that this deletion request (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ColinMorgan_Island_premiere_Glasgow_Sun20Feb2011.jpg) be reviewed because OP is asking for another admin to remove the nomination because provenance has been provided. Forty eight hours has elapsed with no action by admins... ^signed by --ppT (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done apparently (by someone else). Sven Manguard Wha? 03:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have put some suggestions for cleaning up deletion reason dropdown. Its been over a few months and nobody replied. So I thought, I should leave a reminder here.

See MediaWiki_talk:Deletereason-dropdown#Cleanup. Thanks. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Bark of Culter Pine.jpg has been copied across from en.wikipedia, but only in thumbnail size; the original has subsequently been deleted there. I know there is very likely a larger original as the related file File:Culter pine cone.jpg had been treated similarly, but in this case the en.wiki original hadn't been deleted and I was able to upload it on top of the thumbnail here. What's needed is for an en.wiki admin to locate and undelete the en.wiki original, and then upload it here, please. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like Category:Aurora shooting and Category:Cinemas in Colorado added to File:The Century 16 theater in Aurora CO - Shooting location.jpg, which is currently protected so it can be used on the Main Page at English Wikipedia. Normally I wouldn't mention it here after putting a request on File talk:The Century 16 theater in Aurora CO - Shooting location.jpg, but the picture is timely, so getting it into Category:Aurora shooting quickly may be helpful to other projects. --Closeapple (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What this means? And how is it possible? -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 18:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It just means that he had moved the pages (using the "move" link at the top of the page) and that the move was later undone (and the redirects deleted), since the moves were to inappropriate namespaces. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The undone was only done after my post here. The other question is, it is done 4 times at the same time!? -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 17:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting. Perhaps he had the pages loaded in tabs and just moved them one after the other? Five "edits" in one minute seems plausible if he already knew what he was going to do. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Admin Fastily has accidentally deleted our main Flag of Chile. This is causing problems across all wikis with missing links! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Undeleted by User:Russavia. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In another random deletion act, user Fastily has deleted the file: Free syria flag.png, without any consideration for the implications of his action. Yes, there was a deletion request, but what fastily didn't tire himself to note was that the file is used in dozens of pages on Arabic Wikipedia, and maybe even on other Wikipedias. The reason of deletion was the file is just a copy of Syria-flag 1932-58 1961-63.svg, but in this case, a bot should have been used to change the file name in Wikipedia articles before deletion. Now, the file has already been removed from dozens of pages, and Fastily himself should correct his mistake by returning it to all pages and asking someone to change the file name by bot --Abbad_Dira (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC).

Please do not assume bad faith. Also, thank you very much for remembering to notify me. For the record, I restored the file within 15 minutes or realizing my error. I'll be working on reverting CommonsDelinker in the meantime. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that if it was the first time, but I had several other experiences with you in the past. Anyway, I have already reverted all deletions in Arabic Wikipedia, now it is the turn of Kingdom of syria.png, please restore it and I will be reverting the bots edits now --Abbad_Dira (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC).

Nonetheless, that does not excuse you from assuming bad faith. As I recall, last time we interacted, I politely asked you, multiple times, to send permission for files you claimed to have permission for to COM:OTRS, but for whatever reason you refused. The fact of the matter is, you're in no position to be accusing me of negligence. At any rate, thank you for helping out with File:Syria-flag 1932-58 1961-63.svg; I do appreciate that. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply the files had a valid permission with all proofs needed, and they weren't used anywhere else, so there was no need for OTRS in the first place. That not to mention the dinosaurs files. Anyway, please restore Syria flag kingdom so I can revert the bots edits before it is burried --Abbad_Dira (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC).

Hi. I´m admin in es: We´ve received a notification of Juan Carlos Recabal saying he is the owner of this picture, with CR and he did´n release it to public domain. It sais he took the picture in January 2007 working for a news paper, "Las Ultimas Noticias". He claims not be Wikipedia user and Jorgebarrios (who uploaded it) released it in wrong way. Please can you see this case? Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a derivative work anyway, and should be deleted whether he's the author or not. Prof. Professorson (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I really think that User:Jorgebarrios needs to tell us which of his 974 remaining uploads are copyright violations before he's allowed to upload anything else. We've had to delete well over 60 copyright violations uploaded by this user so far. It's a really serious problem that such a prolific uploader cannot be trusted. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have notified him of the discussion here. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As discussed at User talk:InverseHypercube#Uploads from http://www.lindahessmiller.com I am concerned that HypercubeBot (talk · contribs) has been uploading copyright protected images from the website http://www.lindahessmiller.com. To give an example, File:Apulo 1990 21.jpg was taken from http://www.lindahessmiller.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=207&pid=6290, where it is very clearly marked as being protected by copyright through a notice at the top of the page and a large watermark on the image itself. InverseHypercube (talk · contribs) states that these images are OK to upload as the front page of the website displays a CC-by licence and states that "This work by Linda Hess Miller is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License." However, given that each image is very clearly marked as being copyright protected, I don't think that there's any reason to believe that the CC-by licence applies to the photos. Could an admin please look into this? Thanks Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

She has released them under CC BY. If necessary I can get OTRS permission, since she changed the license after an email request from me. InverseHypercube 08:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That would solve the problem here, as the statement at the top of each image asking that they not be reproduced without her permission and the prominent non-CC copyright watermarks seem to mean that CC-by can't be assumed to apply. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the statement that it can't be reproduced without permission would contradict a CC license, but I assumed the site-wide license would suffice. Anyway, I'll send her an email. InverseHypercube 08:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The statement is not incompatible with the licence. The statement says "do not reproduce without permission of Linda Hess Miller", and the licence grants such permission when the images are reproduced under certain conditions (specifically, when they are attributed to the author). However, I agree that in this case it would be best to ask for confirmation. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please warn user for edit-fight in Category:People_of_Palestine_by_occupation (and if needed protect category from them), thanx Orrlingtalk 08:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(Update) Two essential subcategories of the above-mentioned tree were recently blocked for editing:

• Category:People of the Palestinian territories by occupation
• Category:Writers from the Palestinian territories

Please be sure to unlock them and restore the content. Orrlingtalk 09:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm having a problem with this DR. I opened it yesterday, and it was closed today already, before I even had a chance to comment on it. I asked the closing admin to reopen it, but they refused, which I find rather rude. Can someone please back me up here? Prof. Professorson (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I would not have closed this so early, but Denniss has a point: your request for deletion has no basis. These files were accepted, and any file might be accepted, regardless of whether the source might disappear. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if I had a chance to explain my point of view, you would see that the DR has merit. But even if I cannot convince you in the end, at least I will have had a chance to defend my point. That's all I'm asking, and it seems reasonable to me.
So far, this is how it went:

1. I open a DR;
2. The next day an admin closes it, claiming that the case is trivial (so far so good, at this point the admin did believe this wouldn't be controversial, so I can see why they would close it then);
3. Then I told the closing admin that I wanted to comment on the DR but didn't get to do so because of the early closure; this should automatically lead to the DR being reopened, as it's only okay to speedily close a DR if it's absolutely non-controversial (i.e. no one disagrees with the closure). Something that seems obvious might seem less obvious (or even wrong) once you hear someone else's opinion.

I cannot believe I'm given such a hard time when all I'm asking is for proper procedure to be followed. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The only reason to re-open the discussion is if you've got a new reason for deletion, preferably one that meets Commons:Deletion policy. --Carnildo (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a new reason, I have my old reason that I didn't get to explain. Prof. Professorson (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Your old reason appears to have been "the source link returns a 404 error". Has this changed? --Carnildo (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh, the rationale seemed more to implicitely suggest something along the lines of: 1) The license allowed reuse of the files hosted on website A. 2) Some of those files were not copied to Commons in a timely manner while they were offered on website A. 3) Website B had copied some files from website A but without the license. 4) The copies on website B have never been there under a free license. 5) Website A has ceased to host the files. 6) Is it acceptable after the fact to now copy those files from website B, where they have never been licensed? In short, is the act of copying from unlicensed copies legal and consistent? How to interpret the author's description of what material he seemed to consider to be covered by the scope of the declaration of license? I may be wrong and the nominator may have somethng completely different in mind. If you ask me, after reading the author's words several times, I am under the impression that it could be okay to get and keep those files, but I certainly understand how there can be matter for debate. But this debate should not be made here. It should be made on the deletion request page. I don't see a compelling reason why the normal process should be forbidden to take place and why a deletion request discussion couldn't be had normally. It seems a duplication of effort and a big waste of time, for everybody, to impose to the DR nominators the obligation to come to the AN and justify their DRs here before they can be allowed to proceed on the DR pages. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Finally some support and understanding... And yes, you've very well summarized what I had in mind. I also agree that here is not the place to start this discussion, so can someone reopen the DR now? Prof. Professorson (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the admin did anything wrong. If there's no valid DR reason, then there's no reason to keep or reopen a DR. Asclepias made a case for a DR, but you didn't, and you didn't do so when you went to Denniss's talk page. Yes, we should impose on DR nominators the obligation to justify their DRs on the DR page. It's a bad thing if half way through the DR the basic DR reasons change; all the people who read the new DR pages who may have found the original reason beneath comment or outside their purview may have a useful opinion on the new DR reason. It happens, but there's no reason to let a DR go without a valid DR reason in hopes that one pops up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope you see the irony in telling me that "we should impose on DR nominators the obligation to justify their DRs on the DR page". That's what I've been trying to do, but the DR has been closed so early that I didn't get the chance to do so. Now maybe you mean that I should have provided a better reason from the beginning; you seem to think that I came up with a completely different reason in the middle of the DR, but that not the case, it follows from the original rationale and the additional information provided by Gohe007. Let me retrace the events:

1. I come across File:Jasmine St. Clair CES2000 1.jpg, its source link (http://www.lukeisback.com/images/images/images/photos1/) returns an error 404, so naturally, I open a DR stating this reason.
2. Gohe007 (the uploader) explains that the image was actually retrieved from archive.org through the wayback machine.
3. At this point, I have new information, so one could expect that, as the nominator, I'd want the opportunity to react to it (at the very least, the source links should point to the actual source on archive.org). But Denniss now finds the case obvious and closes the DR. Argument, counter-argument, closed; no chance for me to answer the counter-argument.
   With this new information, the reason for the DR has not changed (the images do not come from lukeisback.com), but it can be refined and better explained, as Asclepias did above. And that's all I've been asking, on the DR's talk page, on Denniss' talk page and on this notice board (yes, I didn't make a case for the DR there, but that's not the place, and it shouldn't matter; good or bad, I should be allowed to give my reasons on the DR).

And finally, if "there's no reason to let a DR go without a valid DR reason in hopes that one pops up", is there really harm in letting it open for a week anyway? And in this case, it's not about hoping that a reason pops up; I stated explicitly (and repeatedly) that I had a good reason and wanted to comment on the DR.
It's amazing the amount of time I've had to waste on this, when the solution would have been so simple: Don't close DRs early, but if you do, accept to reopen them on request (within the normal 1 week a DR should run). Prof. Professorson (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If you had more justification, then you should have told Denniss. I don't see any reason not to ask that you convince the admin that there is material for discussion. Don't tell us that you should get the DR reopened because you want it; tell us that you want the DR reopened because "..." is a valid reason to hold a DR.

No, we don't need to keep DRs with the reason "it's porn" open for a week. No, we don't need to reopen them so the creator can comment on how it's porn. Give us a real reason to hold the DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Denniss never asked for justification, judging that "there's nothing to discuss", so it didn't seem like there was much point arguing with him. Besides, this is the sort of things that belong on the DR page; I don't think DRs should be closed prematurely, putting the burden on the nominator to convince the closing admin that they were wrong, only to start the whole discussion all over again once the DR is finally reopened (not mentioning the amount of arguing I still have to do here, even though I think we've established by now that there are good grounds for this DR and that it wasn't "obvious" at all).
And I find quite insulting, given that I've followed policies carefully and have good (copyright-based) grounds for this DR, that you'd compare it to a pointless "it's porn" type of DR. Sure there's no need to keep these open, because whether it is porn or not, images won't be deleted for that reason (although once again, there's no harm in letting them run for a week anyway). But invalid source links on recent uploads is a perfectly valid reason. In fact, the links haven't even been fixed by the closing admin, which in itself shows poor judgment on their part. As for giving "a real reason to hold the DR", I'm sorry I didn't answer within less than a day; people are busy sometimes, I guess that's why DRs usually stay open for a week. Now if we're done blaming everything on me, can the DR be reopened? Prof. Professorson (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my demand; don't tell us that "I want this DR because I want it open and you have to follow my demands"; tell us "I want this DR open because these are the reasons it should be deleted".--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay: I want this DR open because these are the reasons it should be deleted. Pretty please. Prof. Professorson (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Im not sure if taking the photos from a different website - archive.org - is inside the permission. The copyright holder can stop distributing files (see the license text). This will not have an effect on files reused under the license, i.e. those files that we already had on commons at the time the website disappeared. But it will not allow to continue taking photos from an unlicensed copy of the website. --Martin H. (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Enough time has passed that it's now better to just make a new nomination. The issue seems to be unresolved and worthy of debate in the DR. Rd232 (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, this is a very serious alert, you won’t believe it: I was precluded from editing on Commons for a day now, due to a block that affected either my IP-user or my Wiki-user, with the given reason of “Edit warring after warnings”(!). Since the circumstances of the blocking seemed not to have relevance to me and absent of clue what was behind it the first idea that came on my mind was that my ID had been exposed to some automated software feature failure, which may - as explained at the Information for Blocked Users - affect editors to whom the block is irrelated. Anyone coworking with me here over the past three years knows that “blocking” me is quite inconceivable. I hesitated whether to contact one of you Admins to take care of the bug but then I noticed that from the very same source, that is, the “user” identified with appliyng the specific block, there had come out some other random-like edits, such as this one and other indecipherable ones, and I began suspecting there’s an actual person behind the script, and that he/she wants something. If it’s true, then I guess it’s no need to request that you rummage through this user’s motives for an explicit cause of those acts arbitrarily directed at me. Just for the safety of all of us,until it clears up,assuring that the user be prevented from pushing any button on this project must definitely not be ruled out. It’s vital that you check the nature of his/her activity here on our project, and I assume the tools for that are available. At this stage I would personally think it might be too early to designate him/her as a troll, however sharper attention to incomprehensible deeds like the above-linked ones is obviously required. The user’s acts on the Commons platform are available for review here, evidently some of them are to query. But I don’t know how to treat it really. Please be thus sure to secure by any means that such a “block”-flop that shames Commons’ record will not recur here, at least not upon my username. It’s to be reminded that struggling against vandalizing and the abuse of technical permissions is the self-understood assignment of all of us as a system (and it has all the more been performed by us - more or less successfully - across the Wiki fields where I’m active throughout the past years). Let’s all be committed to walk together that way. Orrlingtalk :" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">14:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this block was problematic -- I don't see any warnings on Orrling's talkpage, and each of the pages Matanya reverted him on only had one recent revert, after multiple unchallenged category changes. Matanya, would you care to explain this? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've notified Matanya about this thread, just in case they're not aware of it. Prof. Professorson (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notification. This user had been indef blocked on he.wiki for edit warring, disruption and being antisocial. Now he uses commons as a platform to carry this here, and disrupt the same users he annoyed on he.wiki. As a steward and a cross-wiki disruption fighter, I will not allow this. While having a discussion here he reverted this users actions in bad faith and hence to prevent further disruption, I have blocked him for a day. matanya • talk 18:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In the future, would you mind saying something to that effect (e.g. cross-wiki disruption) in the block log? Not saying whether the block was good or bad, but it is a little hard to understand without context. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Matanya. Special:Log/block says "23:41, 21 July 2012 Matanya (talk | contribs) blocked Orrling (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation blocked) (Edit warring after warnings)". I see no warning on the Commons from an admin to Orrling. Can you point me to one? There is no en:WP:Edit warring on the Commons. So it is common courtesy on the commons to warn registered users before blocking them, unlike on Wikipedia where some abusive admins block registered users without warning even when the person has not come close to en:WP:3RR. I see that you blocked her after she reverted you. That means you used your admin tools in a content dispute. en:WP:Arbcom regularly desysops admins for that. I suggest you remove the record of that block from Orrling's block log. Being a steward does not give you the right to do what you did. Not according to Commons:Stewards. Orrling is a longtime respected editor on the Commons, and what she was doing was not cross-wiki vandalism. --Timeshifter (talk) :" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">08:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Overturn block, advise Matanya to review the m:Stewards policy on conflicts of interest (Begin addition) if he was acting as a steward. Advise that he review the local blocking policy if he was acting as a local admin(End addition). After some consideration, this looks unpleasantly like (and perhaps I'm reading too much into it) Matanya followed Orrling from Mantanya's home wiki, he.wikipedia, (where Mantanya is an admin) to Commons (where he isn't is also an admin) and then blocked him primarily for issues from the home wiki. A far more appropriate course of action would be to have brought the issue to COM:ANU for a local admin - or at the very least an uninvolved Steward from a different home wiki - to address. Oversighting the log (which is what I think Timeshifter proposed) would not be appropriate - but re-blocking (for 1 sec) to add a note to the block log overturning the original block would be appropriate here. If Matanya still has an issue with Orrling, he can bring it up at COM:ANU, of course, but the block should be explicitly overturned first. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Adjusted comment after misreading Matanya's user rights. The idea remains the same, however. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} :" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">18:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like wiki-stalking to me. Here is her block log:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=Orrling --Timeshifter (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 Comment correct or not, the blocked user wasn't notified of the block or of the specific acts that motivated it. This is not optional. Nor was there any warning (user blocked 21 July, no edits to user talk page between 5 June and 24 July). There was some edit warring (eg here), involving User:יעקב. But that user received no block or warning, despite issuing on his talk page what sounds like a threat to edit war ("Until a decision is made in the village pump, all your changes in this matter will be immediately reverted.") The user's comments just after that also give every impression that they went and asked Matanya to block. In any case, Matanya was involved in edit warring with the blocked user immediately before the block (eg here), and incidentally misusing rollback (though the blocked user did it first, that's no excuse). Rd232 (talk) :" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">08:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, for all of you who don't already know, I've been developing a tool named Commons:Up! for quite some time now. I'm excited to announce that with the latest update, Up! now supports the new chunked uploads protocol, and is so much more stable than Upload Wizard when it comes to uploading files >100Mb. Up! is still in testing and could use your help! See Commons:Up! for details. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Fastily, you're a creative genius. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC).

Perfect timing. Would be glad to help :) Rehman 09:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How many uploads are possible simutaneously? I once tried to upload 100 file together, but couldn't do so. What's your take on this issue, Fastily? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC).

There's no limit as far as I know. What error messages did you get? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

My congratulations Fastily. Due to problem I have always had with Upload Wizard, I'm confident that your new tool will be more helpful. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 11:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I published a translated version of the page in Italian, Fastily. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 15:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I appreciate it :) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Just tried it with a small batch of five images in a folder all sharing the same description. Worked fine. It was a relief not to repeat the same thing over and over again for all file pages. A possible improvement: I think some of the edit fields are a bit too small, especially for the description and categories. One thing that could help, would be a resizeable input frame. --Slaunger (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you found it useful! And will do, I'll try to work that into the next update. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Fastily, I remember when uploading numbers in Hindi (1-100), I tried to upload all 100 files in one go. I remember seeing that the upload being in process for about half an hour. It was only when I decided to upload 10-20 files when upload results became quicker and I finished it soon. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC).

By looking at your recent uploads, I take it that you were using Upload Wizard right? Not to long ago, I remember that someone filed a bugzilla report on Upload wizard consuming absurd levels of system resources, particularly while performing multi-file upload. At any rate, given the sheer number of bugs and problems editors have experienced using Upload Wizard, I can tell you that it is, at the moment, a worthless, broken piece of junk that is unlikely to be fixed anytime soon, so if I were you, I wouldn't use it. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What you are saying may be factually correct, but its a bleak scenario. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC).

My favorite part of the upload wizard is how it artificially limits people's licensing choices (unless they're experienced enough to know templates off hand), and makes it hard for users that don't know the templates to correctly lincese work that isn't their own but is still free. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if a deletion request would be the right way. The uploads/modified images of this user don't make any sense to me. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 13:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This user has uploaded several scans of newspapers articles ([30]). An admin could delete all these copyvios? Thanks, Binabik (d) 16:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC).

User:Materialscientist left this note on my talk page:

It is not a good idea to add photographer name into the filename. Credits are given in the image description ("Author"). Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

and renamed a large number of my and other contributors' uploads under this Commons:FR#reasons:

#	Aim	Examples (old name)	Examples (new name)
3.	Correct misleading names into accurate ones	File:MY_CUTE_MOUSE.JPG File:1BIGGest_nOSE_everS33n.JPG	File:Dutch_pet_rabbit.jpg File:John_Doe_at_concert.jpg

I do not see how prefixing my ID makes it a misleading name. It is certainly not what the examples illustrate. Is there a Wikimedia guideline stating that IDs are not allowed in filenames?

The issue is not credit but to keep the filenames unique. E.g. being a popular subject, there could be any number of images called File:London_Aquatics_Centre_interior.jpg while File:cmglee_London_Aquatics_Centre_interior.jpg is much more likely to be unique and would almost certainly not clash with an existing file.

Thanks, cmglee (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is not a justified reason for file rename. I agree that having the author name in the file name is one of several good options for keeping file names unique. Moreover I find it very practical myself to have something user-distinct in the file name as it makes it much easier to find cases of image misuse on internet sites by simply searching for the unique substring as most illegal reusers are too lazy to rename a file. It is not misleading to have the user name in the file name. --Slaunger (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, it's not a justified reason to rename stuff. And why it's not a good idea to use photographer's name in the title? Was it discussed somewhere or something? --Trycatch (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the file renaming right from

I have notified User:Materialscientist of this discussion (which really shouldn't have been started before addressing it with Materialscientist first). For the record, I agree with my colleagues above; these were totally unnecessary file renames. Powers (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly like credits in filenames, but there's no way that removing credits is covered by the current file renaming policy. Rd232 (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much eveything that David Shankbone uploads has his name in the file name (example File:Madonna by David Shankbone.jpg). I don't particlularly like it, I even think it's pretty unclassy, but I don't think it's worth going around changing. Perhaps one key difference to note between your naming and his is that you're using the File:<photographer>_<subject>.jpg format and he's using the File:<subject>_by_<photographer>.jpg format. If I had to choose between the two, and "neither" wasn't a chouce, I'd choose <subject>_by_<photographer>. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I’m with Sven and Rd232: don’t like it much, but not worth the trouble of changing it. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that the name of the photographers doesn't need to be in the filename however for some subject that has lots of photos it might be a good way to identify the picture. It's not a rule that we need but common sense. --PierreSelim (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems that User:Materialscientist has no clue about the file renaming policy. I was going to ask who gave him file renaming right .. --  Docu  at 21:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Samples:

• ‎(Materialscientist moved page File:Marburg 31.jpg to File:Marburg Wasserscheide.jpg: File renaming criterion #2: Change from completely meaningless names into suitable names, according to what the image displays. )
• (Materialscientist moved page File:Marburg 25.jpg to File:Marburg Wasserscheide 2.jpg: File renaming criterion #2: Change from completely meaningless names into suitable names, according to what the image displays. )
• (Materialscientist moved page File:Aigle01.jpg to File:Armenian 'Eagle' postage stamp (1920).jpg: Criteria 2,3 - ambiguous, uninformative name)
• ‎(Materialscientist moved page File:PetlaKW1.jpg to File:Gorzów Wielkopolski ul. Kazimierza Wielkiego, pętla tramwajowa.jpg: File renaming criterion #2: Change from completely meaningless names into suitable names, acco...)
• (Materialscientist moved page File:Fcviktoria1213a.png to File:Kit body fcviktoria1213a.png: File renaming criterion #5: Correct obvious errors in file names (e.g. incorrect proper nouns or false hist...)

Cheers. --  Docu  at 21:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(i) File renaming is a priority backlog. It is also a potential conlfict area, as most renames (not requested by the uploader) can be and are questioned. Thus any admins willing to help are more than welcome there (so that I can step out). We've got many file movers, but admins are needed to move over redirects and complete the requests at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands‎, and their names will be logged as responsible for the rename.
(ii) Commons:File renaming is incomplete because some criteria leave a wide margin for interpretation and some reasonable ones are not adequately discussed there.
(iii) File:Fcviktoria1213a.png to File:Kit body fcviktoria1213a.png was uploader's request. Most file renaming summaries are incorrect or/and incomplete (actually obvious typos are frequent even in targets requested by the uploaders). This is part of the problem - correcting all summaries is tedious, especially during rush hours, while declining and asking to redo is rude.
(iv) Renames like File:Aigle01.jpg to File:Armenian 'Eagle' postage stamp (1920).jpg, File:PetlaKW1.jpg to File:Gorzów Wielkopolski ul. Kazimierza Wielkiego, pętla tramwajowa.jpg, File:Marburg 25.jpg to File:Marburg Wasserscheide 2.jpg fall under criteria 2, 3 (see ii). The Marburg rename is marginal, but to exaggerate it a bit, a rename File:Germany 25.jpg to File:Marburg Wasserscheide 2.jpg would be understood.
(v) There are two issues with File:Cmglee London Aquatics Centre interior.jpg. The first is Cmglee not being related to the design, construction or name of the London Aquatics Centre. Another is on crediting authors in watermarks and image captions (instead of moving credits to image files, which is preferred, AFAIK) and is worth fully discussing here. Say, I scanned a PD cover of a book, and named it File:MyGuinness Factbook cover by materialscientist.jpg (or File:Materialscientist MyGuinness Factbook.jpg), to mark it as my upload, but this name might imply I designed the cover, or even wrote the book. Then another wikieditor significantly improves the images and renames (or copies) it to File:MyGuinness Factbook cover by materialscientist, retouched by JVock.jpg (to mark it as his valuable retouching work), and so ad absurdum. Adding an extra category might be a more natural option to group images by author. Materialscientist (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. Names inside image titles can be confusing, especially if the description page (file description) isn't sufficient. The main reasons to put the own name inside the title is to prominently expose the own credit, to track down re-users and not to organize stuff. A category is clearly the better solution. I can't see the "unique file name" as an real argument. Appending the date of creation would avoid the problem in nearly every case while being a good addition to the file name. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 08:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how it can be confusing. I see it as just a tag, e.g. the way clan names are tagged as [Clan] Player in online games. Two issues I have with tagging dates:

1. All photos of a popular event, e.g. the Olympics opening ceremony, have the same date, making it redundant.
2. The creation date is unkonwn. When I see an article that could use a photo and remember a photo I once took, I often adapt one from my photo album.

cmglee (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The clan names got popular at a time where the name of the player was the only way to differentiate between players. They had not profile page, but showed that they are clan trough the name. Today it is an old habit and still useful because inside games the available information is minimal. Adding the name had only one purpose: To promote the clan. This isn't necessary at Commons, because a user could add all his images to his own category, serving the same purpose. If hours aren't enough, then you could still append minutes and seconds. ;-) -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 14:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

When I upload historical photos I will often append the name of the photographer which in that case is of intrinsic interest as well as aiding disambiguation. Date, also of intrinsic interest is often harder to determine. Of course categories are more versatile but an at-a-glance identification is often useful. Dankarl (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The concern with the author names in file names is over-rated in my opinion. I agree the file name should not be misleading, e.g., it should not say rabbit.jpg if it is a goat, but the may purpose of the file name is to serve as a unique ID by which you can refer to it with a link. So creator_goat.jpg, goat_creator.jpg, goat_datetime.jpg, goat_location.jpg, goat_nnn.jpg goat_creator_date.jpg, or whatever is just fine. Much more important is the description on the file page. This should (ideally) be complete with all relevant information categories, etc. I also have no problems with flower_and_critter_whatever.jpg, when you do not know the id at time of upload, and later establish the species of the flower and critter. flower_and_critter_whatever.jpg is not misleading, it is just very general, but not misleading.--Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I've never added my own name or initials to file names, I've often considered changing over to that practice, so as to cut down on the number of overwrites of my uploads. In general I think we should be encouraging people to add elements that increase file name distinctiveness, whether name or initials or serial numbers, not discouraging it. Stan Shebs (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Username in the file descritpion has nothing to do with crediting the author, names are used as a unique identifier which are essential when you run events as it enables the person uploading to correctly identify the authors images. Gnangarra 06:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Putting user names in the file name, especially prefixing is not a good idea. It messes category-sorting (who cares about sortkeys?) and adds unimportant information to the file name. Instead use meta-data or tiny (hidden) watermarks for tracking or an own user category for sorting or presentation. But there is really no reason to change them because MediaWiki is buggy and Commons is not a Wiki. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas.svg Bulwersator (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done File:Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas 1.svg -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Fastily for doing it, for information, there is also a split request page here COM:HMS --PierreSelim (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Uploads appear to be copyright violations, file descriptions are poor. Could an admin please review? Thanks. Risker (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Files deleted, warnings/message left for the user. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 03:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I totally endorse this action by Tip. See uploads. There are 8 photos, 7 of jewelry and 1 of a man. The 7 have a "Dacemani" logo and they all look like professional photos. As the uploader and the logo are the same name, it's likely they are the same person. The user has not edited commons since Jan 4, 2010. Jewelry is considered art and hence copyrightable. As we cannot talk to the uploader as he's inactive, I would delete all these images. Such photos should have permission for a free license documented in OTRS. Dacemani was also active at fr-wp, had two edits there but both were deleted without any reports on his talk page. This log is telling. The first speedy deletion rationale is "Contenu promotionnel", due to self-advertisement. This business appeared to be non-notable and the article unsourced. Hence it is likely that Dacemani himself is the uploader rather than an imposter. This lack of notability and deleted article would likely make these photos out of COM:SCOPE. It is also extremely unlikely that the uploader is willing to go through an OTRS process. Thanks to AFB for input too. PumpkinSky talk 10:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Are new copyright template valid Template:Copyright to TV5 (ABC Development Corporation) and Cignal (MediaQuest Holdings), All Rights Reserved.--Motopark (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not without OTRS verification or any sort of reference to back it up. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, nonsense template. --Martin H. (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Follow up on Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_36#Editors_Get_Automated_Block.3F...3E: which was archived on 3 August 2012

You may want to see this strange edit: the block came immediately following it :) Orrlingtalk :_2" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">16:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem with users editing their personal Custom JavaScript? --Martin H. (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, rename my account from "Bengt bäverman" to "Bengt Bäverman". This has already been done on sv.wikipedia.org and now I would like it to be done here as well. Thank you Bengt Bäverman (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I need someone with a bot to batch rename some categories for typographical reasons. :)

Long story short: in Romanian, the correct version of the ș and ț letters is with a comma below, not a sedilla. However, early Unicode and Windows fonts included only versions with a sedilla (ş ţ) and even after they were added into the Unicode standard the newer they were not compatible with most Windows computers, so that's why initially Wikipedia used that standard.

Nevertheless, as newer OSes can display them correctly out-the-box (and have the keyboard standard), Romanian Wikipedia completely switched to the correct version a couple of years ago. However, Commons didn't and it's a mix: some categories and pages use the new ones, but most still use the old ones.

I've got the category list here: User:Bogdan/CategoryList, it's based on a database dump and I've manually checked it in order not to include articles that were not related to Romania/Moldova. (Turks also use ş and their correct version is with a cedilla). Bogdan Giuşcă (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a note. If/when this job is done it would be nice if the Commonscat templates on Wikipedia could be updated also. --MGA73 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please delete picturecollections without sourcepicture from user Special:ListFiles/Otto_Placik, they need first upload to commons and then collect from those new picture. Google finds plenty oc copies from those picture.--Motopark (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I upload this image under this license to Commons. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No, as we require any picture to be editable.

You'll find more information on Commons:Flickr. --Dereckson (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have just uploaded a file :

File:Demrick_Wiki_first_Try.jpg

I need this changed to File:Demrick.jpg. I was not aware that the file name would show up on the page. This is a bit time sensitive, so if I could get this changed right away, that would be great! It is part of the Wiki Commons uploads

(Reply to unsigned post above by User:‎Aeida27). Mmm I dont know. I could do it, but before that perhaps you could first tell me how that file fits in out project scope? Or in simpler words, how does it help encyclopaedic content? Rehman 05:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please delete all contributions of Leondoce. They´re all captures from a site with CR (see watermark in the pictures) and none is "own work". Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Andrea. I just deleted Leondece's all contributions, and am hereby marking this as  done. odder (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I request a humane admin to please address my issue at Commons:Requests_for_rights#Hindustanilanguage. I applied for rollback rights and an admin grilled me for knowledge and when repled all his questions, this admin simply turned my request down. Please examine this case in toto.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC).

I fully explained it there (link), but Hindustanilanguage is apparantly frustrated and replies in a very immature manner (personal attacks included). Trijnstel_talk 17:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The personal attacks are nothing new, it happens regularly. From this thread I went there, and found that he refactored (and removed) his own statements on that page after they were responded to. I've restored part of it. —SpacemanSpiff 03:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Trijnstel, in his, response asked for at least one instance where I used "undo" for combatting vandalism. I've posted one such link on the requests page. If the decline for my request is just because of it, then the reason ceases to exist. I've combatted frivolous copyvio uploads and even received threats to my life. Also, as a filemover I declined renaming of many requests with no reasoning, requests of English names for non-English filenames. Does all this make any sense? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC).

There is no "unfair treatment" here - there is treatment which the user doesn't agree with & that is not a matter for this page. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Ex13 is a user with whom I've had encounters with on enWiki. He strongly dislikes me. Hence, here on Commons, he folows my edits and reverts my improvements to existing images. Every time he does so, he "warns" me about "overwriting existing images". Now, the changes I introduce are minor, obvious corrections, but thanks to Ex13 now they're supposedly "controversial" so he can game the system and revert me wherever he notices my edits. Of course - these are images, the matter is always subjective and I acknowledge the right of everyone for their opinion. Had this happened once or twice, or three times, I'd think genuine content-related disagreement is the issue. However, the recent reverts at File:Odluka Maršal Jugoslavije.jpg, File:Svečano otvaranje džamije 18.8.1944.jpg, and File:Coat of arms of Croatia (1868-1918) with crown.svg have convinced me this is nothing other than malicious disruption, and its something other users Ex13 holds an enWiki grudge against have apparently met with [31]. And have a look at this "controversial" edit Ex13 has chosen to edit-war over, or this one. Its getting so I can't do improvements to an image without worrying whether my efforts will be pointless as even the slightest error correction can be declared "controversial" and reverted by this user.

And please mark that improving an image and unnecessarily uploading a new one is not the same at all. Not only would taking such a course of action for nothing than, say, minor colour shade alterations [32] pointlessly create virtually-identical double images - there's also the fact that if an image is in widespread use then the error (or lower-quality) version would still appear everywhere unless manually inserted one Wiki at a time (and that would surely be reverted by Ex13, which actually happened before). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Had those edit wars taken place over the span of a day rather than a year, I'd have blocked both of you for two weeks for disruption. I'm not sure if the yearlong duration makes it slightly better or much, much worse. What I am sure of is that it's disruptive, and that if you two don't stop it, an admin is going to stop it for you.

Looking at the problem at hand, of the examples you've shown, two were Ex13's uploads under his current name, and one was under his former name. It looks to me like he's protecting his uploads from what he sees as unwanted alterations. If there is a cross-wiki behavioral dispute, I'm not seeing direct evidence of it, or at the very least I'm not seeing evidence that couldn't be attributed to someone just protecting their own uploads.

You two need to have a serious talk. If you two can't agree on how to handle things, then I recommend that you (DIREKTOR) avoid editing his images, and if you do edit them not realizing who the uploader is, you don't revert war again. There are tens of thousands of other images in need of color adjustment, do those instead. Who is right is irrelevant at this point, because you've both crossed the line into disruption.

I see no need for any admin action at this time. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what en:wiki got with Commons. I'm mostly work on hr:wiki where i'm admin and check user. If you look at the history of DIREKTOR's talk page, you will see many warnings, as well as "Please do not overwrite files" templates. Many authors mention this to him [33]. I have several times asked him not to touch my files, because I do not like its destruction in Photoshop. Anyway, most of his contributions is not adding the new files.--Ex13 (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Referring to OTRS# ticket:2012081110002476, could you please speedy the image File:Urška Perenič 2011.jpg? Normally, I'd just mark it as speedy, but there's already a RfD on its way. It's obvious that the RfD shows consensus for deletion, so I ask that the process be cut short. The image should have been marked for speedy deletion in the first place. Thanks! Asav (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC) (OTRS)

 Done russavia (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone change the photo? (and its description) The picture isn't featured. It was already changed, but then reverted. Tomer T (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done very late, I'm just discovering the mess :( --PierreSelim (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

May one move the file File:Peter_Kyros.jpg to Commons in order that I can embed it in the German Wikipedia? Thanks a lot for your help! 77.58.255.212 23:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done, see File:Peter Kyros.jpg. Trijnstel_talk 00:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is rather strange. One admin (Yann) decides to keep an image and another one (Martin H.) nominates it again for deletion after which Denniss deletes it immediately, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jawaharlal Nehru gives his speech at the first Independence Day.jpg. Perhaps it's better to talk about it so that all rules are clear to everyone? Thanks in advance. (See also this request of Tittodutta, which was the reason for me to start a discussion here.) Trijnstel_talk 10:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my deletion reasons. No matter how much some don't like it, we delete works that aren't PD in the US, and these weren't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case we have to delete a lot of images. Trijnstel is right that there's ambiguity in applying this, I don't care one way or the other, as long as we have consistency (and I say this as someone who spends almost all my time here on India related images). —SpacemanSpiff 11:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anna chandy judge.jpg is an example for the other side of this. —SpacemanSpiff 11:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Can we please seriously discuss on this issue rather than just supporting or opposing or posting personal opinion? Last time I and another user felt this section has some loopholes. Discussion (this is a casual talk page discussion, ignore the tone, Thouugh I feel it is alright). I feel (last time I told this too) this is a much more serious issue than just deleting few images (details below). I request you find the answer of this puzzle first before cherry-picking
• I also suggested to inform Wikiproject India about this issue. Since there thousands of images which are dependent on only PD-India! I don't know if anyone has informed them! I am quite sure if people from WP:India participate here, we'll get some very detailed and informative opinion.
• Is there any way to move images from Commons to Wikipedia (if we find these images can not be uploaded to Commons, we can upload locally in Wikipedia)?
• Can someone prepare a list of the countries which can also be included here. For example if only PD-India license is not sufficient, then surely one can not upload images with PD-Pakistan, PD-Bangladesh, PD-Sri Lanks too! What's about PD-France and other countries?--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The conclusion of Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA was clear; we aren't going to rush out and delete every file tagged Not-PD-US-URAA immediately, but we are going to have to do so.

No country's template is sufficient by itself. PD-nation needs to make it clear why the work is PD in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anna chandy judge.jpg is a bad practice example. The PD-India is now based on two guesses: 1) the photo is taken at a certain date because the person looks young 2) creation and published is the same. Both assumptions are red flags and not allowed by COM:L, both assumptions contain conclusions that we can not establish on-wiki.

If someone claims that this file was published 60 years ago (and adding template {{PD-India}} is only a quick and standardized way to do this) then it must be possible to answer the question, where it was published. --Martin H. (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As the one who nominated that file, I don't disagree with you, but this is the wide range of inconsistency on this issue. I hope we can resolve this, as this isn't just about a few images here and there. —SpacemanSpiff 11:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Three images were nominated at the same time by same editor, two were kept and one got deleted, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Times of India front Page 15 August 1947.png, which does not make sense! (now, please don't nominate this image for deletion, let's try to resolve the issue first) --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 12:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 Support You've a point. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC).

What you are supporting? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I mean resolution of the issue first before even thinking about DR or no DR about the third file. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC).

Seems to me that PD-India could be part of the Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review. There are about 2.7k files in Category:PD India; each should be reviewed to check that (i) it has a US PD rationale and (ii) that that US PD rationale accounts for the URAA. One way to do this would be to alter {{PD-India}} so that it requires a second parameter specifying a valid US PD license (and if it doesn't have one, it puts the file in a cleanup category). And like the approach in Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, files where there is no valid US PD license get an extra parameter to PD-India that puts them in a "for deletion" category, which will later be cleaned out, possibly with transferring some files to local projects first. Rd232 (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do want a "for deletion" category? Isn't it better to propose them for deletion directly instead? If you want to track files, then the deletion requests could be placed in categories. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If you propose them for deletion, they'll generally just get deleted. Putting them in categories allows for processing via User:Commons fair use upload bot if appropriate. This is especially relevant if we start getting some cooperation on the Wikipedia side, eg from WikiProjects willing to sort out fair use rationales. Rd232 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this apply to all PD-Country and not just PD-India? —SpacemanSpiff 03:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, each PD-Country needs checking really. Most PD-Country templates are actually PD-exempt rationales for that country, but to what extent that avoids the need for a separate US tag isn't clear without checking each case. PD-India would just be a place to start. Rd232 (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If the files are eventually going to be deleted, whether sorted by this or that way, i would request that it be done in batches. That way sister Wiki projects can get sufficient time to sort and keep images under fair-use. If a bot runs and tags all thousands of images for deletion in 2 days or so it would be a havoc. Once batches are decided we also need to inform concerned Wikiprojects, atleast en.wiki about them. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons fair use upload bot is not uploading files to the regional Wikipedias in India. I had requested the bot owner but it has not been done yet. May be we should hold on to a mass deletion until this bot supports all the wikis where fair usage is allowed. --Sreejith K (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How likely is it that this happens reasonably quickly? Plans for bots or bot tasks can very easily drift into taking months, years, and then never happening at all... Rd232 (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note on the bot owner's talk page. See User_talk:Dcoetzee#Fair_use_bot --Sreejith K (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

All such files originating from countries other than US, are subject to the copyright law of US and when URAA is considered all the files will face a deletion as the wikimedia servers are in the US and law of the land must be followed. This must be done immediately for all files which qualifies for the copyright and a case by case move for those files with doubts.--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)