Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 42

User:CommonsDelinker is not working

Hi, the Delinker is not working. No replacement and no deletion. Can anyone fix them? --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  08:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The Toolserver is currently (mostly or completely) down, just wait for it to come back. --Nemo 09:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/Translate extension

This has some (unanimous) support but needs more comments, can you please link it from MediaWiki:Watchlist-details or sitenotice? Thanks, Nemo 09:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done at MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary (See talk page for the change from Watchlist-details). --whym (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Updating Licensing tutorial image in Macedonian

I translated the Licensing tutorial a while ago but failed to see that I had not used the option to make it propely legible. I have since corrected this, but cannot re-upload it to File:Licensing tutorial mk.svg in any way (there is a note to that effect where the re-upload link should be). What should I do? Can someone enable re-upload for a time while I do it, or? --B. Jankuloski (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just unprotected the file—go ahead and upload the corrected version. odder (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Done now. Thanks a lot for the prompt response! --B. Jankuloski (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. odder (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Promotional username

User:INaCAGE Music and User:INaCAGE (band)--Motopark (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I've blocked both accounts and deleted their contribs. 3 accounts of this user have been blocked on en.wiki for spam/promotion. INeverCry 05:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Toolserver down

Toolserver's geohack is not working, clicking on 'Camera location' on a file leads (after a tiresomely long wait) to a timeout. This is a long-lasting problem happening on-and-off (more often failing than not) for some time (several months). I note also Nemo's comment above (09:20, 12 May 2013) "The Toolserver is currently (mostly or completely) down, just wait for it to come back" - but how long must one wait? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Any hopes of getting it working again? - MPF (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

WMF is rolling out a new labs project which will house some bots that currently reside on Toolserver. It all takes time, and there are decisions that the bot operators will be needing to make. All we can say is watch the appropriate spaces. Wikipedia Signpost reports on these matters occasionally in their technology section.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Category renaming

Is it possible to rename the following categories:

• Category:Wikimèdia CAT -> Category:Amical Wikimedia
• Category:Events organised by Wikimedia CAT -> Category:Events organised by Amical Wikimedia

This is the new proposed name for our Thematic Organization. Thank you.--Arnaugir (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure this is the correct name? Just making sure that you don't want to use the è in Wikimèdia… odder (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, without the è. :-) see: [1]. Thank you. --Arnaugir (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done, please let me know if there are other categories that you want to have moved. odder (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Zmaan-888

User has been uploading numerous copyright violations. S/he was warned on 14:07, 8 May 2013 but has continued. All uploads need to be deleted and the user likely merits a block. Thanks! --auburnpilot talk 03:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Uploads nuked, user blocked. INeverCry 03:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion of Armenian FOP-deleted images

Dear colleagues, Recently the (noncommercial) restrictions to the freedom of panorama in Armenia have been lifted. Therefore I think that most of the files deleted per Category:Armenian FOP cases can be undeleted. I have dealt with two cases, but I think I will not have more time to do so today. Perhaps some of you can help going through these. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Try to be careful with adding {{FoP-Armenia}} in case someone has missed the recent change at COM:FOP#Armenia. If there is an FOP template there, there's a smaller risk that someone will nominate the files for deletion again. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Marisa Pavan.jpg

Hi,

It has been suggested on English wikipedia that this image is in fact of her sister Pier Angeli. Google images searches tend to support this. If this is the case then the image needs to be re-named. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Dominican fake flags

Hola.

Este usuario Cvkfekjf238 ha estado subiendo una gran cantidad de banderas falsas o creadas por él mismo a Commons. Las banderas fueron borradas el año pasado y resubidas nuevamente por el mismo usuario.

Hello. Sorry for my english.

This user Cvkfekjf238 is been uploading a lot of fakes flags to Commons. The flags were deleted the last year and reuploaded again by this same user.--Inefable001 (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

name change

please change name of this image File:Miodu Polish Rapper.jpg to "Miodu Polish Singer", he is not a rapper, and also fix the name of File:Czarny (Brat Squad).jpg to "Czarny (Beat Squad)" DingirXul (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Next time please use Template:Rename. Thank you.--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Name change

I would like to change the name of File:La nena obrera.jpg to File:La petita obrera.jpg --Andri8 (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Next time please use Template:Rename. Thank you.--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/RobertoRobertuz

see edits of Special:Contributions/RobertoRobertuz--Motopark (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done blocked for 1 week. Thank you for reporting.--Steinsplitter (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriately named images

I would like to humbly suggest that in this category it is inappropriate to use names like 'black cock' rather than more respectful terminology. I note as well the racist implications of using this kind of slang, when other photos are named in a more scientific manner. And finally I humbly suggest that you look with extreme skepticism on all human sexuality related images that are uploaded by single purpose accounts with no proof (nor even evidence) of the claim that this is 'own work'.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

1st part (4 images:[2],[3],[4],[5]):  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that "colored" is not racist, while "black" is? I know a lot of black individuals who would disagree with you. If you wish to make it even more racist than it is now, you can say "colored boy" (the term 'boy' needs to be pronounced with the southern accent) that will not only make a neutral (but non-pc) term racist, but will also get a rise out of "OMG CHILD PORN" croud. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As I am not a native-english-speaker feel free to rename them more appropriately, though a bit less aggressive attitude towards other users would be welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realise that you are not a native speaker of English. In many countries (USA included) the term "colored" is considered extremely offensive by many people. As for the question about the appropriate name I would go with either "Black cock" or "Black penis", preferably the former since the image is not medical in nature and there's no reason to apply medical terminology. But, of course, Jimbo doesn't like it. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Why the former? Penis is the default neutral term in English; it's not medical terminology. Cock is vulgar. Maybe it would be nice if English had terms between penis and cock in formality, but it doesn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Might I suggest tally-whacker? russavia (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Typo in #3... unless it's a pacifist vegan penis. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Around server-time 18:13 UTC I have renamed them again, now to File:Penis8 uplByMs65876.jpg, File:Penis7 uplByMs65876.jpg and File:Penis3 uplByMs65876.jpg (I didn't touch the 4th file as it's subject to a DR), assuming that this is at least 200% pc. --Túrelio (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo, and welcome back to Commons. We welcome your comments, and this is something that could be looked at. Perhaps you would like to pitch in with this effort. You can use {{Rename}} on any image to request a rename. Your reasoning would be #7 from Commons:File renaming. If you would like to pitch in and do some of these we would welcome that. You might even find a few problematic images, for example copyright violations, that you could take to COM:DR for community review. We are of course a collaborative community and if everyone pitched in and helped, these issues would be dealt with in a much nicer time frame. In fact, scrub the use of {{Rename}}; I've just given you the file mover right, so you can now move files to a more appropriate name; just be sure to get a quick grasp of that policy, and quote the rationale (in this case #7) in the reason, and you're set to go. If you run into any snags, we're here to help. Cheers, russavia (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"And finally I humbly suggest that you look with extreme skepticism on all human sexuality related images that are uploaded by single purpose accounts with no proof (nor even evidence) of the claim that this is 'own work'." That's the default practice, unfortunately. There are countless explicit images that fit that description, and they tend to survive every deletion request unless you have absolute proof that the image is problematic. --Conti|✉ 16:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Using the word "Black" certainly is not racist, replacing it with "colored" is more likely to cause offence to the general public and replacing it with "African" or "African American" would be bizarrely inaccurate. As for "cock", yes it can be swapped to penis as a slightly more accurate word, however this is such a common English word for penis that Commons even redirects the category cock to penis. If there needs to be a discussion about what counts as defamatory language on Wikimedia projects, I suggest we move from the 1970s use of American English and move to modern international English by starting with the word "queer", which apparently has been determined to be okay to use to randomly describe gay contributors to Wikimedia projects, and the WMF actively defers to that consensus when interpreting its website terms of use. --Fæ (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It is impossible to determine the cultural heritage of a human penis from a photograph of said penis. Attempting to do so will only result in an arbitrary classification that is virtually guaranteed to perpetuate racial stereotypes. It's a question of accuracy not "political correctness". ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed an interesting question. How about we simple use the HEX/RGB/Pantone colour of said penis, and rename ALL penis photos to the format "#000000 male genitalia.jpg". This way we avoid having to making racist judgement on the name on said penis, and we also avoid discussion on whether to call it a penis or cock. And then we would also avoid people with a #000000 penis from complaining that #FFFFFF coloured penii are not separately required to have their colour distinguished; and then also possibly avoiding the argument of whether a white penis is really white at all. (we only need to look at en.wp lately to see how such things could result in bad publicity). We would need a bot to do this though. Any takers? russavia (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I won't strike the comment above, but I will say I didn't know that this was an issue that Jimmy himself raised. Sorry if I took this too light-heartedly. I've explained the issues above to Jimmy over at en:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Inappropriately_named_files_on_Commons, so anyone who's interested might want to take a look there at the issues I've raised. Cheers, russavia (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Black penis would be an acceptable name IMO. Colored just feels racist. A pantone thing wouldn't work, since colour balance is always wrong. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Some spam

Please, look at this pics: Special:Contributions/PoliNat_S.L.. Spam, IMHO. Longbowman (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Should I go through and crop out all the company text/watermarks and just overwrite the files? They are nice images and it sure was nice of the company to free licence donate them. The company logo itself should stay if they rate an article on a project somewhere.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that "donate" is the right word? "Ulteriorate", eh? Longbowman (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I do not insist, but I must say that after you replaced the word, the part "was nice" is deprived of reason. Let us say, they uploaded something like that, but I have no suggestions, why would it be necessary. I tried to insert it in an article on plants, but there is logo. Where it can go else, I can't imagine.Longbowman (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that cropping out the logo would be very useful. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of images are copyvio and should be deleted.  ■ MMXX ^talk 12:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinkerHelper

Hello, the User:CommonsDelinker no longer works since 2013-05-10.Therefore, the Helper should not unsubscribe from the list → User:CommonsDelinker/commands the files. I mean its better to stop the User:CommonsDelinkerHelper. His edits should be made ​​there undo since 2013-05-10. --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  04:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, it only removes jobs that it has successfully added to its own internal database/queue. If the database/queue is lost however, we well have to dig through the revision history. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision cleaning needed for files overwritten by Oyakmohsen

ResolvedRillke^(q?) 16:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please delete the file revisions of unknown origin added by Oyakmohsen to the following files:

• File:زیرگذر.jpg
• File:Googoosh in Cupertino CA.jpg
• File:Gold coin with the image of Khosrau II.jpg
• File:Margaret Thatcher 1981.jpg
• File:Googoosh+Changiz Vosughi.JPG
• File:Shahbanu of Iran.jpg
• File:Shah and Carter.jpg
• File:Farah.jpg
• File:Ebi Live In Montreal 02.jpg
• File:Dariush concert Kuala lumpur 2009.jpg
• File:Vigen.jpg
• File:Bijan Mortazavi.jpg

Also, please block Oyakmohsen for continuing to overwrite files in spite of being warned at 04:54 not to do so (one additional revision to File:Dariush concert Kuala lumpur 2009.jpg at 05:04; three new revisions to File:Vigen.jpg at 05:30, 05:31 and 05:34; and one new revision to File:Bijan Mortazavi.jpg at 05:58). The user has also engaged in other disruptive behaviour, such as adding nonsense to help pages, creating nonsensical deletion requests, adding noise to translation projects, needlessly requesting one-degree rotations of images and removing information from file description pages. They do not seem to be willing or able to participate constructively. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for a special erase

Hello, Could you delete the first version of this picture? It shows faces of children. Thank you very much in advance.--Nachosan (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The first version is now hidden. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

file:Bridgit Mendler 2010.jpg

Source picture has been deleted ?, what we shall do with this ?--Motopark (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I restored the original source File:Jason Dolley, Bridgit Mendler and Bradley Steven Perry 2010 (cropped).jpg

I also restored one other file deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Blue Marble which had a dependant derivative file. I can't actually find the non-watermarked version of File:Mitchel Musso 2010.jpg, which was deleted for the same reason –⁠moogsi (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Broken location template

One of the location templates seems to have been modified and screwed up - every image with geocoding I now see (in addition to the geocode) has in red {{#coordinates:}}: invalid latitude. I can't find what was changed though. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

+1. But I see this error message only on my two very recent uploads, and only when there are decimal places. All previous ones look OK. Very strange --A.Savin 19:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Update: now I see it on several of my older uploads as well. It also seems that the files are now automatically sorted in Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags which recently contains about 9.000 files. --A.Savin 07:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

see also Template talk:Object location#Decimals are an error? and Commons:Forum#Meckermeldung_in_Koordinaten

maybe caused by [6]?

i've left a notice on Commons talk:Geocoding. Holger1959 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

{{#coordinates:}} seems to always complain about an invalid latitude when you give it a valid one. Would point to a problem with mw:Extension:GeoData? I imagine if you force any pages that look ok to be rerendered (edit or purge them) then they will show the error, but only pages using {{Object location}}. Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags currently has 1385 members –⁠moogsi (blah) 03:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I undid the last edit on {{Object location}} to see if it has any effect (it doesn't seem to). Bit of a long shot because it's a bit old for something that people are only just noticing now –⁠moogsi (blah) 03:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This has done nothing except make the error more visible as the template is rerendered across ~80000 pages, sorry :/ (Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags was already slowly filling as people rerendered pages by editing them)

This does however seem to rule out the template as causing the problem.

The strange behaviour of the parser function is shown at User:Moogsi/Invalid latitude. Probably. I'm way out of my depth so I'll leave it here –⁠moogsi (blah) 04:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a problem in the GeoData extension. It was broken here and fixed on 11:14, 2013-05-02 (unknown timezone), but the latter isn't deployed yet. Lupo 10:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Deployed now. Max Semenik (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed by the lovely MaxSem, now deployed –⁠moogsi (blah) 10:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --A.Savin 10:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

thank you, too Holger1959 (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50488

To me it still appears to be broken. A few minutes ago my File:Stuyvesant Fish house 2013-04-29 12-17.jpg was showing "invalid latitude". When I changed the coords from DM.xxS to DMS.x it stopped complaining. Has DM.xxx with S=0 become an unaccepted format? If so, hundreds of my coords will show this error flag even though Google Earth is going to the correct location when I click. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Until the pages are "touched", they will continue to show the error (see #Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags below). The coordinates you entered are still fine, you don't have to correct anything yourself –⁠moogsi (blah) 18:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems like we still have a small problem here, as Jim.henderson says above. Some pages that previously showed no error before the bug still do. It seems to be a case of co-ordinates in H|M|S format, where M is a decimal and S is 0. This affects far fewer pages than before but it's still a problem –⁠moogsi (blah) 01:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem is demonstrated at User:Moogsi/Invalid_latitude. Bug report is bugzilla:48488 –⁠moogsi (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Again. There are ~8500 images incorrectly placed in Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags. It may be necessary to run touch.py on all the files in the category. Again –⁠moogsi (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki page edit request

Coming here because I don't expect to get any input at the talk page.

Could you please edit MediaWiki:Uploadtext to add "identifiable" before "people taken without their consent"? The following sentence talks about identifiable people, but someone might be confused or might try to wikilawyer something by claming that all photos of people would need permission; I just want to ensure that nobody uses this statement as a result to ask for the deletion of images such as File:Paducah Masonic Temple site.jpg, which obviously shows living people but not in an identifiable way. Nyttend (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it would have been faster if you would have used {{Edit request}}.  Done. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js/ce

Please create a message that is -- here the translated code. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

JavaScript files please always UTF-8 encoded. If you want me to do this, please paste it into our COM:SAND, save and give me the permanent link. I can't guess the encoding you used for sure. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I do not speak English and I find it hard to understand what needs to be done here is the link. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please create. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! Lupo 21:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Lupo. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

inappropriate canvassing against about re-admin of Jcb

This morning I stumbled over a long series of identical postings "a heads-up" by User:Geo Swan, notifying around 50 other users about the recently started re-admin proposal for Jcb. Its wording, however moderate, doesn't veil the opinion of the poster, which he is free to have, of course. Though he pre-announced this action on the rfa-page, this action is highly inappropriate and clearly canvassing. It doesn't matter whether canvassing intends to promote a candidate or to take him/her down. If a 'crat (or anybody else) sees the need for a longer rfa-discussion to involve more users, he/she can easily request to extend the rfa-discussion, as has been done in the past.
As we hadn't much re-admins on Commons, just a view into history: when some admin-colleagues (from both sides), who had either been emergency-de-admined or self-de-admined during Jimbo's porn-purge, asked for re-admin, this wasn't advertised around to everybody who might bear a grudge against the respective candidate.
As I intentionally choose this board instead of COM:AN/U, I don't aim for sanctions against Geo Swan, but for a clear rejection of such action. --Túrelio (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

While the wording of the message was neutral (unlike the earlier proposal), I agree that the selected audience was presumably heavily slanted towards Geo Swan's opinion (they opposed the restoration of admin rights, and the RFDA was 67% in favour of desysopping). Incidentally, two of the notified people seem to be indefinitely blocked. Jafeluv (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Incorrect. I left the heads-up for everyone who weighed in during the de-admin discussion, unless they had already found the re-admin discussion -- without regard to the position they took. Geo Swan (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I never meant to imply that you cherry-picked which users to notify. The fact remains however that you could very well assume 67% of the notified users to be sympathetic to your own stated position as they supported the original desysopping. Jafeluv (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, but please consider what it seems you are saying. Aren't you implying that only the opinions of administrators and other insiders who Jcb worked with as equals, those likely to notice this discussion, were welcome in this discussion? Aren't you imploying that ordinary contributors -- those who Jcb did not treat as equals, those who experienced his mockery, his intransigence, at first hand -- that our opinions aren't welcome?

Let's be clear here. Did you mean to imply that those who voiced opinions calling for Jcb to lose his administrator privileges in 2011 are less entitled to voice those concerns -- if they still hold them, than the people who have already weighed in here? If so exactly why would that be?

Let's be clear here. One of the comments in the re-admin discussion refers to assurances Jcb gave via IRC. It would be understandable that even after Jcb had his administrator privileges removed he might hang out in the IRC channels administrators share. It would be understandable if Jcb's former colleagues blew off steam to Jcb, and said they couldn't wait until he was re-instated. It would even be understandable if some of Jcb's former colleagues discussed with Jcb if May 2013 was long enough to wait before nominating him for a re-admin discussion.

But it would be really unfortunate if it looked like some of Jcb's former colleagues expected that the formal discussion on the Commons was going to be a pro forma rubber-stamping of a earlier decision arrived at on the administrator's IRC channels.

I consider it natural that it may not have occurred to anyone that even loose informal off-commons coordination of this re-admin nomination would be worse than if I had left a biased note, and I had only left it on the talk pages of people I thought would agree with me. That at least would be open and transparent. And of course I left a neutral note, and I informed all the participants in the de-admin discussion, without regard to their views.

I am not going to ask you, or anyone else, of the extent to which you discussed the re-admin on IRC, prior to the nomination, or whether you are discussing the re-admin on IRC now. I will only suggest, that, really, in the interests of open-ness and transparency, it would be best if, henceforth, you confined your comments to the Commons, so we were all on a an equal playing field.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I'm implying that they're just as entitled to voice their concerns. What you're implying is that they're more entitled to do so than the average contributor, since they need to be specifically notified. However I won't try to read your mind or guess whether the reason might have been the fact that the majority of people who opined in the previous discussion agreed with your current stance. Jafeluv (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• The people who participated in the de-admin discussion weren't more entitled than the rest of the Commons community. Rather their participation in the previous discussion was a strong indication: (1) they were more likely to be interested in the re-admin discussion; (2) without regard to whether called for Jcb to keep the mop or to lose it, their prior participation was a strong indication they had an informed opinion. I try to approach each discussion with an open mind to the possibility that people who disagree with me are correct, and I am wrong, and that if I pay attention and am respectful they might convince me. So I don't discount the opinions of people simply because they disagree with me. Are you open to the possibility that people called for Jcb to lose his mop might have valid reasons to continue to mistrust his judgment, and to mistrust how he would use them if it was restored? WIthout informing the non-insiders who participated in the de-admin discusssion of the re-admin discussion the re-admin discussion would have a bias towards indisers -- those Jcb was nice to. This not a conspiracy, but I thought it was problematic. Geo Swan (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the premise that the people who participated in the RFDA represent "non-insiders" any more than the people who would have naturally participated in the new RFA. Among the people you notified [7] the vast majority are Commons regulars, and over half of them are administrators (i.e. Jcb's "peers", so to speak). Jafeluv (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question: Yes, of course it's quite possible for someone who voted to remove sysop rights in the first place to have valid reasons to continue to oppose that person's adminship. That's not under dispute, is it? Jafeluv (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, off-wiki coordination would certainly have been worse than your on-wiki notifications. And again I'm not saying you only notified the people who supported the desysopping; simply that the majority of participants did. Jafeluv (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Clarification please -- when you say "been worse" -- do you really believe I did something wrong with leaving neutral heads-ups? If so, I'd appreciate you trying harder to explain to me what you thought I did wrong. Not informing the participants in the earlier discussion would have meant only Commons insiders, who monitor fora like that, would find that discussion, and participate there. There is nothing wrong with insiders, the kind of people who Jcb is likely to have felt were his peers, and who he cooperated with, and treated as equals, deciding to trust him. And, it is just as natural and valid for the people Jcb did not recognize as his peers, who he treated shabbily, to continue to see him as unworthy of the trust of having administrator privileges restored. The way I see it, informing all the participants from the de-admin guaranteed a wider participation -- one more reflective of the entire Commons community. I really can't see why this concerned you. If you reconsider whether I did something wrong, and decide I didn't, or that you can't really explain why you think I did something wrong, I'd be grateful if you said so. No crowing on my part. I promise. Geo Swan (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying that your notifications make it look like you're trying to gather more support for your own position in the RFA. You say that was not your intention, and that's okay, of course you know better than I do what your actual intentions are. But that's certainly the way it may look to an outside observer, especially considering how vehemently you seem to oppose Jcb's candidacy. Now then it may be discussed whether it should be a common practice to notify earlier participants when someone is re-nominated, and if we have agreement that everyone should be notified every time, there's definitely no problem on my part. Currently it's not the common practice as far as I know. Jafeluv (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think is the majority position here is that a neutral heads-up to those who participated in the previous discussion was appropriate. I think most people agree that the heads-up I left was neutrally written. I suggest to you that, so long as the heads-up was appropriate, which most people agree it was, and so long as it was neutrally written, which most people agree it was, that it is not relevant if I thought people who called for the removal of his privileges in 2011, would still feel he didn't merit restoration of those privileges today.

Frankly, I did think more of the people who felt removal of his privileges were in order in 2011 would think restoration was not in order in 2013. That hasn't turned out to be the case. But I only learned of this discussion by accident. If I had learned that Jcb's privileges had been restored, after the fact, and had checked the re-admin discussion, and saw that hardly anyone who had spoken for de-sysopping in 2011 had voiced an opinion in 2013, I would have been extremely dissatisfied, and wondered what the result would have been if everyone who participated in the de-admin discussion had received a neutral heads-up. I don't think I have anything to apologize for in this.

I asked you above to clarify whether it is still your position that I was at fault, and, if so, to explain what you thought I did wrong more fully -- or that you explicitly withdraw your suggestion I did something wrong. Sorry, it seems to me you are still maintaining the position I am at fault, and you still can't provide a good explanation as to how I am at fault. So, please either withdraw the suggestion I am at fault, or make a greater effort to explain your position. Geo Swan (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly I don't think such notifications should be used unless we agree to systematically notify everyone in resysop requests. This is the first request of its kind AFAIK so the policy hasn't evolved yet. Secondly in the interest of neutrality I don't think the decision should have been made by someone who has taken an obviously strong position in the RFA. However I'm glad that 99of9 raised objection to the initially proposed message and that the message which was eventually sent out was at least neutrally worded. In short I disagree with the action, but I don't think you were acting maliciously. Jafeluv (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I wrote above that, so long as a heads-up is seen as neutrally written, it is irrelevant who wrote it and who delivered it. Do you mean to continue to imply that I am at fault, because I delivered the heads-up, that my position in the re-admin discussion disqualified me from delivering a neutrally written heads-up? Geo Swan (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as everyone agrees that the message should be sent and how it should be worded, I guess it would be unreasonable to argue that it matters in any way who actually delivers the message. So yeah, you shouldn't be disqualified just because you took a position in the RFA. As I said above I think we really should have a policy about this one way or another (either always send notifications, or never send them), to ensure that everyone is treated the same way. Jafeluv (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You can ask me, I had one trivial note on IRC (#wikimedia-commons, an open channel) in response to another point. I'll happily publish the relevant discussion (I have a temporary log) unless it turns out that doing so compromises some other expectation for privacy. I openly mentioned it in the RFA, as I don't think it is a good thing to somehow pretend related discussion does not go on in real time on IRC. --Fæ (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reassurance that discusion on IRC was passing and trivial. Geo Swan (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Assuming the last paragraph was aimed at me specifically: If you have something to ask me, why not just ask it instead of presenting loaded suggestions? Jafeluv (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Geo Swan has clarified on my talk page that the comment was aimed at supporters generally instead of anyone in particular. Jafeluv (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

With regard to other re-admins, of admins "who had either been emergency-de-admined or self-de-admined..." -- well Jcb was neither emergency-de-admined, or self-de-admined. Rather 61 people weighed in during a discussion that ran for 15 days, ended up with 11 subsections, and was over 170,000 bytes long.

I first asked about leaving a heads-up on the 14th. [8] Turelio has linked to the second instance. I didn't leave the heads-up for random people. I left it for everyone who voiced an opinion in the de-admin disucssion -- without regard to the views they expressed there. Normally isn't canvassing only informing those you thought might agree with you?

I only noticed the discussion by accident. Given how contentious it was, if I had come across the re-admin discussion afterwards I would have been very annoyed that no one had left me a heads-up. However, if other people agree with Turelio I'll bear that in mind. Geo Swan (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this is such a bad form of canvassing (although I admit I would not do it myself). It is similar to the situation where an admin must be notified when a user they blocked is about to be unblocked. In general it is good to ensure administrators have the backing of the whole community, including those who have previously felt qualified to have an opinion on the candidate. I was more concerned to ensure the text was nearly neutral. In this case, I don't think the closing 'crat will have to adjust much to account for this notification/canvassing, given that many of the previous opposers are now supporting (including the re-nominator mattbuck). (en:WP:Votestacking says "Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all 'sides' of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis." so again this is technically similar) --99of9 (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I do not find this notification unacceptable canvassing. All of these people took part in the de-sysop discussion (some for and some against) and so clearly have an interest in this re-sysop discussion. If the notice is not neutral enough, then it should be changed, however Geo Swan openly solicited opinion before sending this out. There is no policy that this action by Geo Swan runs against, Túrelio if you feel Commons needs a COM:Canvassing policy or guideline, I suggest you propose one (so that contributors such as 99of9 are not forced to refer to en.wp policies). I would support a sensible policy, particularly if it had the capacity to recognise rare situations may arise when on-wiki consensus may be manipulated or derailed by off-wiki canvassing. --Fæ (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Although I'd also happily support COM:Canvassing, it's absence shouldn't be taken as an indication that blatant canvassing is ok. Commons has long operated without much written policy, but simple community convention. In the case of canvassing, I've seen numerous censures and failed RfA's because of it. (But I agree that this case was not particularly blatant, and was at least consultative.) --99of9 (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that this could be read two ways, particularly since the instigator is an oppose vote. On the one hand Swan did raise the issue at the re-admin discussion and got approval. He posted the message for all of those (including me) who had not seen the new discussion. On the other hand, the discussion at the re-admin page of the proposed posting was open for only a few hours and, given that the 61 people had voted to remove Jcb 18 months ago, it might be thought to be a biased list.

On balance, though, I think it was a good thing -- one that should be policy. When someone who has been voted off asks to be reinstated, it seems to me that all of those who participated in the original discussion deserve notice. It is true that that a large majority of that list will have voted originally to de-admin the person, but, as the votes in this case shows, people change their minds and I see no reason why a re-admin should not have to face a list that includes all of the previous accusers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

+1. Though there are bound to be die-hards and blow-hards that invariably grief discussions with old wounds, most of our community is willing to give good faith contributors a second chance when their past transgressions have not been overwhelmingly heinous. Darn, I might have to live up to this myself. --Fæ (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

+1. I felt this was a good thing as it was happening, with transparent discussion on the RfA page. In hindsight, the thing that would have been better would have been for somebody more neutral to deliver the messages. But I don't think that's a big deal, and it doesn't reflect bad intentions on anybody's part. Geo Swan, thanks for taking the steps you did to inform past participants. -Pete F (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any problem whatsoever with what GeoSwan did. He raised the issue at the re-admin discussion and left a neutrally-worded note on talk pages. I fail to see (in these circumstances) how the list of the 61 individuals was "biased" (saying so suggests that the 67% of the notified users who supported the original desysopping are likely incapable of reasonably or fairly assessing the re-admin proposal). To the extent Geo's action troubled some people, the better course would be to propose guidelines for discussion as to when and how such notices should occur in the future. Absent that, Geo did nothing wrong. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Even if this act can be considered as innocent attempt with good intention, it will affect the result adversely. For a healthy result, the voting sample should be a generic representation of the active community; that's why we shuffle cards before distributing to players. Here many of the voters are attracted by the "invitation" and some of them may inactive now; so no chance for a healthy sample of voters. So the result will also biased. JKadavoor Jee 16:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with that at all. This is a re-admin discussion, not a double-blind clinical trial. There is no target "voting sample" or requirement that there be a "generic representation". People in the first discussion may have useful thoughts for the second discussion. We routinely advise people who participated in one discussion of another discussion that pertains to the same subject. Again, I would suggest that if people are concerned then they should pick the appropriate forum to propose guidelines for this type of situation, rather than making up requirements here on the fly. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

+1 Skeezix -- very well said, couldn't agree more. -Pete F (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Geo Swan has acted properly. By choosing everyone who had an interest last time regardless of their voting pattern, Geo Swan found an economical way to gather a good, and interested, cross-section of the community. A wide section of the community spoke last time, a good representation of opinions, and exactly the same wide selection was notified. There is also the VP, which is probably tldr and wouldn't be as effective at targeting an 'interested' group of editors. I see no pattern in choosing one side or the other to stack votes, so the advertising is entirely appropriate, and probably the best way at the current time.

That said, there is room for improvement in the process, Jkadavoor makes a good point about the active community, how do we properly inform the community of these kind of discussions specifically without it drowning in the clutter of the VP ? I would suggest and support we come up with a better way to have a fresh and wide consensus for such matters, at the moment we don't have it, we don't have a clear procedure written down, because, if even the best case scenario by a GF editor causes such a long discussion then there has got to be a better way. Penyulap ☏ 08:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Very good points Penyulap! If I had my way then any time an admin is called under fire three times then we pull their tools. If they repent then we give them back. We are short on admin so I would rather we pull and push leashes to keep them coming and going. This would keep them on their toes and more focused on the projects. Others could be added on with only 5 !votes creating a few hundred more to help with the workload. Deletions and undeltions should never be the big deal that they are now. They are just binary bits that are never really gone. In other words nobody loses an eye or limb when a file is deleted or undeleted. I think we should give Penyulap the tools on a 30 day trial after 5 !votes. If Penyulap makes a mess in two days then pull them. If Penyulap does well then we can have them made permanent on 0 !votes until Penyulap gets three strikes against. Penyulap for admin! !vote 1.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

oh that gives me a hearty laugh, but I won't want or be given tools, there are too many naughty people who know I don't miss a trick, but I think some of your humorous idea would have popular support, the 'take away' part, the only problem is that to enjoy the savour of taking them away, you'd have to thrust them upon me first. Won't happen. Sorry.

On the serious side, it is most important that the admins are comfortable and not on edge, it is stressful, and it is important not to do things that cause even more stress. I think your idea may well fall down on that one. What's needed is a method and a process that avoids the stress and confrontation as much as possible. It's not hard to improve, but we have to see the process from everyone's point of view to find the common ground. Penyulap ☏ 12:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Close both. Give the admin his tools back. If any problems arise in the future then any tool taking discussions can refer to these speedy tool giving back discussions as ammunition to take the tools away again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Notification of a RfA discussion should not be done unless it includes all users and is in accordance with policy or guidelines. In the absence of specific guidance, Geo Swan acted properly by discussing notification prior to his action. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

concluding remarks

As the starter of this thread, thanks to all for your comments/thoughts. As is evident from your replies, none sees any culpable behaviour with Geo Swan, to which I agree. So let's take away any association to a specific user.
I do not criticize how the notification of the voters from the earlier de-admin was performed, but I am still critical of the notification to a selected audience. Therefore, I propose:

• if in a future request-for-admin/crat/whatever (rfX) case a user thinks that the case merits a larger audience, the need for such an audience-extension should be discussed (probably in the discussion-section of the respective rfX). If a consensus for an audience-extension is reached, the rfX case should be "advertised" (notified) to the general public, i.e. COM:VP etc. What needs additionally be discussed (eventually case-based) is 1) whether individual notifications (such as in the jcb-case) in addition to the general advert should be allowed, and 2) to which further boards a notification should be posted, as not everybody reads COM:VP. --Túrelio (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That seems entirely illogical and a violation of traditional user rights, as well as an invitation to "off-the-board" canvassing. The most likely reason a user would want additional eyes and voices is s/he thinks the current set is not [or would not be] representative of either the entire community or of a significant subset of users who would be impacted by a decision. And [under your proposal, if I understand it correctly] that user is to remain silent outside the formal discussion unless s/he can obtain consensus to bring in more voices? In such a case there would be a huge first-mover advantage, favoring "insiders" and also favoring non-transparent modes of recruitment. Dankarl (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC) I have added some explanatory comments (bracketed) in response to Túrelio's comments below. Dankarl (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

@Dankarl, sorry, but your comment doesn't make sense to me in regard to what is discussed here, what was the original problem and what I had proposed. I think it's all just the other way round. But may be I just didn't understand you correctly. --Túrelio (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

My notion is that the way to minimize gamesmanship is to have a maximally open process. Restricting recruitment to the discussion is counterproductive and dangerous on multiple levels. See below for a concrete counterproposal.Dankarl (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• • It may be difficult to obtain a consensus to notify the general user base in just those situations when it may be necessary. I wonder if it suffices to say that if an administrator finds evidence of non-representative participation in a Rfx discussion, s/he may post a MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice or on COM:VP calling attention to the Rfx? Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We then need to define what minimum/degree of "consensus" would be required. In the Jcb-case, the audience-extension was proposed rather early (< 12 hours from rfa opening), so it wasn't based at all on the finding of non-representative participation. --Túrelio (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's a simple counterproposal. Open and transparent notification of ANY discussion, by anyone, to anyone, should NOT require consensus.

a) A de-adminship or reversing a previous de-adminship should require at minimum notifying everyone involved in the antecedent discussion(s), and the VP. This would be the responsibility of the proposer. The community may want to have a similar requirement in a few other types of discussions as well.

b) In all cases any user should be able to ask for additional eyes using neutral language, with notification to the discussion. If another user thinks the notification is inadequate s/he can ask more broadly. Dankarl (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I prefer this approach to the one suggested by Turelio (which I agree won't end canvassing, but will just push it off the Commons more than it is today). However, I am not sure that the notification in (a) should be a requirement - some such discussions may be non-controversial and shouldn't necessarily require wider notification. But whenever a notice *is* sent out for any RFA or de-admin discussions, I do believe that there should be an accompanying note on VP and AN just so as to minimize any suggestions that the notification was too narrowly given. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. JKadavoor Jee 15:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

wrong board for discussions and proposals. Penyulap ☏ 14:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

How about this edit

User:皇帝バウアー, see who has created user page.--Motopark (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

File:The_Mikado.jpg

Can this please be moved back to en-wiki. It was an inappropriate transfer, as the artist, en:John Hassall died in 1948, so the work is still in copyright in Britain, where it was created. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this was transferred in 2011! So, on :en it would go as fair-use? How about the others in Category:John Hassall? --Túrelio (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Not fair use, en:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad, specifically, {{PD-US-1923-abroad|2019}} which marks it to be transferred back here in 2019. Remember en-wiki accepts things out of copyright in the US, but not their source country. As for the rest of that category, all of it is before 1923, so all may move to en-wiki, under the same tag. Exception which likely may be kept here: File:John Hassall, Vanity Fair, 1912-08-21.jpg is by a different artist (John Hassall is the subject of that image), and may be acceptable (I'm of the impression most Vanity Fair artist nicknames are identified, while it says it's unidentified.)

I have noticed that Gilbert and Sullivan material on en-wiki - while almost always out of copyright in the U.S. - has a nasty habit to be tagged simply as being out of copyright in the US, even if it's in copyright in its home country; after which bots tag them for transfer to Commons. I tend to fix them when I see them, but if admins don't check - and they often don't - things can go wrong. Actually, I think this tends to spread out to a lot of other theatre-related images, but I don't really follow much outside G&S. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

When re-checking the cat-content, I found that File:Hassall painting.jpg was just mis-categorized, and that File:John Hassall Vanity Fair 21 August 1912.JPG and File:John Hassall, Vanity Fair, 1912-08-21.jpg show John Hassall, but were created by some Strickland. Do you think that File:BLW Poster for Cinderella, about 1895.jpg should be considered as work (or derivative) of John Hassall? --Túrelio (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

He's listed as the designer, so it should go as well. Also, File:Hassall painting.jpg is by his daughter, who died in the 80s, and needs to go to en-wiki. It's in use there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize the connection. However, this needs surely to go per fair-use, as she died in 1988. --Túrelio (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The date on it, in the image itself, is 1913. That's before 1923. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Since this was an artistic work by a child, it was probably NOT published promptly. Unless we have some history to the contrary, date of creation is irrelevant. Dankarl (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

File:When It Was Dark.djvu

This is a public domain work that I uploaded before I realized that it included copyrighted Google Books front matter. I re-uploaded the file, this time with the front matter removed. So, the old version probably needs to be deleted. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 hidden. --Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Translate extension use

There is an idea of a watchlist notice like "Be aware, we are moving to a new translation system. There will be chaos for some time" or smth like that. It will help community keep calm and don't beat translation admins. -- Ата ^(talk) 10:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Accepted. The new watchlist notice system will be deployed now. Please report bugs to MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-summary. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Vsop.de an appropriate user name or is it a misleading username

Dear fellow administrators, I am curious about your opinion regarding Vsop.de (I was asked in chat/IRC) as a user name. There is also a website having this domain. So do we have to ask them to rename or block them per Commons:Username policy#Company/group names? The account was active since March 2010. -- Rillke^(q?) 17:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I can't see any clear indication that this a promotional username; I see a heap of useful contribs though. Whilst the username policy linked to above is only a proposed policy, this is obviously one case in which I would not block outright. The username could refer to VSOP (as in cognac) and the .de is referring to Germany (as we often use de.wp to refer to German WP). If we ask them to rename, it should be done across the board on all projects using a unique name for which SUL isn't currently taken, so that it can be done immediately. As to the asking to rename, I am neutral on that until they comment. russavia (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The website vsop.de, to which this account may be linked, is from an association which may be an NGO, but I am not sure. However, whether NGO or commercial company, we probably need to decide for a policy about such kind of usernames, in order to be consistent. Though, if usernames are centralized, which seems to be underway currently, do we have any chance or need for an own Commons-policy about that? I've just seen that on :de, this account exists since 2010[9]. --Túrelio (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Vsop.de has nothing whatsoever to do with www.vsop.de. Not being aware that a Verein für Sozialplanung with nowadays 220 Members was using the acronym VSOP, I started on de:WP as Vsop. But when I tried to register this name with en:WP was told it was already taken. So I added .de for discrimination. As Vsop.de I "can now log in to any wiki site of the Wikimedia Foundation without creating a new account", even to de.WP. There however I still do most of my contributions as plain Vsop. ;-)) --Vsop.de (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If you don't have to do anything with vsop.de, you should probably write a disclaimer on your userpage. --Túrelio (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

BSicon request

Would it be possible to separate file history into two pages? The issue is with File:BSicon dSTRr+1h.svg and File:BSicon dSTR2h+r.svg. It was decided that the versions of these files prior to Axpde's messing up the histories on 9 May 2013 (currently hidden from public view) should be restored at File:BSicon dSTRr+1.svg and File:BSicon dSTR2+r.svg, respectively, while his own and later uploads and revisions should be at titles with an "h". Thanks. YLSS (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disappearing translations of important pages

Please have a look, for example at Commons:Licensing. All translations were overwritten after the page was marked for translation. Just that you don't wonder, this is the suggested way to go when using the translate extension. But I see 3 issues here:

1. The English source page was not properly prepared before marking it for translation.
2. For a long time, we will now have no localized versions of our licensing policy.
3. I think all the localized versions should get a look before a page is marked for translation whether there is something in that is worth adding to the English version before marking it for translation.

So my question is: Should we require a proper proofreading process and a discussion before marking pages for translation? Please comment at COM:TN#On overriding existing translations -- Rillke^(q?) 15:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Closure request

Could someone please close Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/07/Category:River locks? It's been open since July 2010. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done, although not the way you called for. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You are unable to edit this page! - Translate Extension

With the introduction of the translationadmin user right by the Extension translate, Administrators (sysops) are now unable to edit each page; specifically the template text that will be shown as a source for the translation. I think Commons administrators could be trusted not to destroy translated pages and they should be able to edit everything that is editable here.

Currently administrators must ask at COM:BN for getting the right to edit the source text. Please comment at Commons:Village pump#Translate is now enabled on Commons. Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Let's get this turned off until it is thought through more carefully. I just went to delete the gallery page Kruistochten which was recently created nonsense. I got the message

"Unable to proceed

You do not have permission to manage translatable pages, for the following reason:

The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Translation administrators."

The page had the <translate> tag on it, put there by a contributor with two contributions, both nonsense. I removed the tag, and then blanked the page, but was still unable to delete it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• • This is how this extension works. odder (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • So if one wants to make persistent spamming, just add the translate tags once and you get protected for a while. I tried too to delete Kruistochten this morning. --Foroa (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Any user can wreck any and all the pages of the project with that tag, thus making the normal work more difficult for bona fide users and making the pages undeletable by sysops until some unelected "translation administrator" finds the time and interest to intervene? That looks like a tool to encourage vandalism, bypass basic principles of community work and make the projects frustrating and unmanageable. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we can creat an AbuseFilter to prevent such Vandalism.--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

see Special:AbuseFilter/119--Steinsplitter (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

copyvio assertion sent to wrong person

I have received a notification on my talk page (sent on Commons by user:PAC2) about a file:

File talk:Infrastructures du Poitou-Charentes en 2002.png

that I had absolutely not contibuted myself.

This file was originately coming from WP.FR where it was delivered with a GFDL licence in 2002 by fr:UTilisateur:Archeos. 6 years later the file was transfered to Commons by someone else, preserving its licence that was not contested by anyone.

But PAC2 refused to contact him and just replied that he was not in the file history (normal because the file was created in WP.FR by Archeos in 2007, then transfered in 2008 by a Bot request to Commons). He insisted that i was the only "contributor" of the file (this was completely wrong, I just moved the file to the correct category after its initial import in Commons, but I kept all copyright, authors, and licences claims in the description page and did not alter the file content itself).

PAC2 registered on WP.FR in 2009 and first started to use Commons in 2011, but he absolutely does not know the difference between a licence and a copyright line.

In fact he ahs used an express procedure for deletion where as there was a valid GFDL licence that was contested by nobody (just by seeing the presence of the copyright line which is just an attrobution but not a licence by itself and not a restriction for open contents).

I informed PAC2 after his incorecte notification sent to me but he refused to contact Archeos in WP.FR (which is still active). Now the file is deleted in Commons, and Archeos was still not informed !

I had to notify Archeos myself (on his talk page on WP.FR), to give him a change to appeal this abusive deletion.

My opinion is that copyvio deletion requests posted on Commons should always be notified at least on the adminsitrators board of the origin Wikipedia from which the file was imported, and that the original author should be contaced (PAC2 did not contact Archeos, I had to do it myself only after the file was alreay deleted on Commons).

Otherwise, anyone can come on the project and start contesting any file and get these files deleted at any time for any reason. A copyvio allegation has to be proven by either:

• the existence of another place of publication where licencing is more restrictive than on Commons.
• claims of different authorships and author rights.
• faked attributions (this is clarly not the case here)
• contestation of licences by legitimate authors.
• failure from contributors to prove their licence agreement from legitimate authors, or to prove their own authorship.
• some judiciary order sent to the WMF (subject to legal appeals, but executable immediately: files can be restored later if the judiciary action finally fails).

The unproven Copyvio allegations, not respecting a minimum procedure, and without contacting the correct person, made by someone that does not know the difference between a copyright and a licence and does not how to read and use page histories, and comes long after the initially published work that caused no problems at all for anyone for years,

All these will be very harmful to the whole project (imagine that some one comes in 10 years contesting the work made on Wikimedia by your mother died 10 years ago... How can the project claim to be persistant and viable for the long term?) We should better protect our collective works, including works performed by people that are no longer there to defend themselves or their past reputation. For projects that are now reacching one billion people in the world, with hundreds of thousands of contributors, in more than 10 years, this means that tens of thousands of our contributors have already died (it is unavoidable) and their past work should also continue to be respected abd protected by our collective community to warranty our collective licences; otherwise our collective commons of knowledge we want to build is just an illusion. We need stronger procedures to protect our works from basic attacks made by the incorrect decision of a single newcoming person.

And we should not accept defaming them by notifying copyvio to the wrong persons, as I was notified incorrectly (this is abusive for my own reputation given that I did nothing that could be a copyvio, about a file that had been considered valid since 5 years in Commons, or more in WP.FR !).

In fact I absolutely don't know if there's a copyvio or not, it's up to Archeos to reply and prove its right faith (he is still present andd active in WP.FR ; not very frequently, but it's not really the problem here, we also should repsect the works cmade by modest contributors), given that he said he had got the authorization from the IAAT (the true author of the graphic file even if the graphic was inclideing data derived from an IGN copyrighted databasee, but that file is not this database and the GFDL does not cover database rights).

For me the deletion is abusive even if Archeos really did a copyvio simply because the copyvio was not justified by any evidence or opposed claims and because the contributor was not notified at all (and not even its origin community in WP.FR).

What do you think ? verdy_p (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(Le téléverseur a l'air d'avoir changé plusieurs fois de compte utilisateur sur Wikipédia. Vous auriez probablement plus de chances d'attirer son attention en le contactant sur ce qui semble être son compte actuel.) -- Asclepias (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot assert that the user you suggest is the same. Only an adminsitrator that can inspect IP logs can assert who is now the correct user. For now I see that Archeos on WP.FR is still active. For such issues (finding a user) this should involve administrators with appropriate rights to inspect logs, and histories of deleted files. I don't have these priviledeges so that's why I contact the asministrators here, they'll work with administrators of WP.FR to trace back the origin of this file and who may need to be contacted (because the information for linking accounts may be private according to Wikimedia privacy policies). verdy_p (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I would not call really active an account whose last contribution was as far as almost two years ago, in July 2011. And that last contribution from this account was precisely to redirect his user page to the other account, mentioned above, which is currently active. I don't see any ambiguity there or the need for any inquiry when the user himself tells about his other account. I think it would be normal to contact him on the current active account to which he directed instead of on the account inactive for two years. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I see that this file was part of a series of maps uploaded in May, 2006 [10], before the OTRS system was in place. From other files of the series still available on Commons, I see that the uploader wrote that he obtained the GFDL from the source organization. However, he should have taken the precaution to provide a quote from a mail or a contact or some other manner of verifying the license. Still, for such old pre-OTRS files, with at least a look of a valid claim of license and no complaint for seven years, it is preferable to proceed with a normal deletion request and leave the opportunity for a discussion, instead of a speedy deletion, unless a discussion already took place about another file of the series and concluded to a deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the speeduy deletion request, made by someone that come 7 years after the initial upload and started using Wikimedia without much knowledge of the real issues was the bad way to proceed. He did not try to contact the true uploader, he noticed me of a Copybio even though I had nothing to do with the issue.

Such file should be restored, due to the incorrect procedure used.

Speedy deletion requests should be better scrutinized with better rules and chances offered to appeal these requests. Clearly, the only fact that caused the deletion was the presence of a copyright line. Which is definitely NOT a valid cause for deletion and not a "copyvio" by itself. The file clearly respected the copyright statement. And the GFDL licence has NOT been contested by anyone.

The issue is not specific to this file, but needs to be understood more largely because we have now lots of contents in Wikimedia for which the original uploader is no longer active (and possibly dead), but whose work was perfectly valid and whose indicated licence has not been contested for years... He won't be there to defend his case, and the community must supply this collective protection using reasonable procedures (the speedy deletion procedure should not be valid for uploads that have caused no problems for several years and whose licence has in fact never been contested; if the correct procedures had been applied, I would not even have been contacted using a false allegation of copyvio sent to me only). verdy_p (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

In an ideal world much of what you demand above would be both desirable and possible. However the facts are that we are very close to being overwhelmed -- Commons gets about 8,000 new files every day of which about 2,000 must be deleted for one problem or another. That work is mostly (76% in the last month) done by ten Administrators. The backlog at the moment is several thousand DRs and growing. If we had more active Admins, we could do a better job of notification, but as things stand, we are doing the best we can. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the larger issues, if you see a speedy deletion you don't agree with, delete it, or less controversially, convert it to a DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

some strange codepages

see edits of Special:Contributions/Yearningdraw, there are some codepages, are they valid--Motopark (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by codepages. They've apparently uploaded some files for w:zh:LaTeX that seem like reasonable enough examples of LaTeX in practice; why wouldn't they be valid?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

License review

Since no one is marking the license review images, this category has grown to 600 images as of right now. I don't mark these images since there are already too many images in human flickr review to mark. I have a job in real life and I don't know why there aren't other Admins marking or failing images in this category. Hopefully someone can step up here. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed some of those recently, but there are really too many of them. Some of them seem to be a bit tricky. For example, the Commons uploader claims that File:Kagoshima Aquarium -July 2009 a.jpg that this is licensed as {{Cc-by-2.1-jp}}. It is obvious that CC-BY is correct, but I can't find any evidence that the version number is correct. What do we do if some website specifies the name of a CC licence (such as CC-BY) but you can't manage to find the version number? --Stefan4 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Abuse Filter Writers

Hello! If someone could tweak Special:AbuseFilter/117 to be more stringent on disallowing IPs (or maybe non-autoconfirmed users...) from blanking that would be great! cf. Talk:Main Page (hist • logs • abuse log). Killiondude (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

And anyway, There is NEVER a good reason to blank a category nor a file or gallery that is not created by the requesting user. --Foroa (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

For posterity and record keeping, it looks like Rilke took care of this in Special:AbuseFilter/history/117/diff/prev/775 (not sure if this link is viewable by non-admins. Killiondude (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy rename

Can someone do a speedy rename on File:Kristine Bonnevie.jpg? It has a file by the same name on en:wp that is fair use and we want to replace it in the article so we can delete the fair use image. The article won't accept the commons image because of the same name. Kristine Bonnevie portrait.jpg should be fine.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I've renamed it. However, per default and as the file is from 2012 already, I've left the redirect intact for the moment. If that doesn't solve the problem, then tag the redirect for deletion (or rename the fair-use-file on :en). --Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The article has the commons free image now. The re-direct may have to stay as other languages are using the file.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Request unprotection for Flag of Malaysia.svg

Request for unprotection to update the file per Talk:Flag of Malaysia#Royal blue or dark blue. — иz нίpнόp  22:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done; please update the flag and get back to us here so I can protect it again. Thanks :) odder (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I still can't update the file because the edit permission is still set for only administrators. :( — иz нίpнόp  23:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done now -FASTILY 05:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Already change it, thanks odder and Fastily. But it's weird because the file preview still didn't change, hope someone can fix it and it can be re-protect again after that. — иz нίpнόp  06:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Perhaps you need to clear your browser's cache. -FASTILY 06:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Already clear my browser cache, but still got the old version. I only see the file preview change on Malaysia article infobox. — иz нίpнόp  07:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Finally it works, now it can be protect again. Thanks Fastily. :) — иz нίpнόp  10:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Denniss (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Main Page Template

Hello! Can some one add a parameter to Template:Main Page Template that will allow for customization of the site name? I'm trying to convert the Hebrew main page to use the template, but it should say ויקישיתוף instead of Wikimedia Commons. Thank you, Inkbug (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done — sitename_localized. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Inkbug (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Source info VANISHED! CommonsHelper2 Bot lost it?

File:Franklin_Sands.jpg shows that there was source info - see the Original upload history ("...Source=http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Represent...") It seems that CommonsHelper2 Bot or some corruption since caused loss of source info. Known problem? Widespread? Resolvable? --Elvey (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

All the info was in there, the {{Info}} structure was just mucked up, perhaps by the bot that moved it as it was corrupt when it arrived here, but that was 4 years ago. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Твори в двох томах (Ольга Кобилянська). Том 2.djvu

ResolvedRillke^(q?) 15:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This file was deleted but somehow the page is still showing. Why is this so? --DixonD (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The file vanished while deleting. But now it is in the deleted-files-archive and the file description page is empty for me. Can you confirm that? -- Rillke^(q?) 11:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is ok now, thanks. --DixonD (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important to fix this bad rename as soon as possible

An overly hasty file-mover renamed
File:Aid worker in Afghanistan poses before inflatable satellite dish.jpg to
File:Mujahideen in Afghanistan poses before inflatable satellite dish.jpg apparently because the filemover thought the individual looked like a mujahideen. In fact the individual in the image is an aid worker -- and an award winning and prolific photographer. We have uploaded hundreds of his very fine photos, and it is a shameful way to pay him back to describe him as a mujahideen. Further, given that his aid work has him visit war-torn Afghanistan, having a picture of him that names him as a mujahideen, could, potentially, get him listed on the CIA's kill or capture list.

I tried moving it back to the old name, but ended up putting it at
File:File-Aid worker in Afghanistan poses before inflatable satellite dish.jpg.

I think it is important that the redirect that contains the term "mujahideen" be immediately erased. I request the image be put back to its original name. Geo Swan (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

+1; the talk on flickr reveals that he just dressed up as mujahideen to scare his mom. --Isderion (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to like dressing. Geo Swan, could you clarify this in the file description please? Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This photo does not show him. The comment there just says that he participated in the same event. This other photo shows him. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to have evidence of the author's permission for the license. I wouldn't be surprised that she may offer some of her photos under a CC-by-sa 3.0 license (as some of the Fab Lab people seem to offer much of their contents under that licence). However, the CC-by 2.0 license routinely placed on the flickr user's account for his own photos isn't automatically valid for other people's photos, unless there is evidence somewhere of their respective author's permission. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW the "Mujahideen" title also reflects ignorance. Mujahideen is the plural form of mujahid.

It's about as foolish as referring to a single American soldier as "an Army," "a National Guard" or "a Marines." — Alarob (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please replace PNG with SVG

Hi, I have made a small mess while figuring out how to create and upload a vector graphic. Would someone please remove File:Letters Sk in Fraktur.png and leave its replacement, File:Fraktur letters Sk.svg, in place? I was unable to replace the PNG with an identically named (except for the file extension) SVG file. Thanks. I put a {{helpme}} no my talk page but will remove it. — Alarob (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Verify license

Could someone verify the license on File:Freiburg F piping.jpg? A user at en:wp emailed them to tag it but the website got messed up when they did. I don't know if they are going to fix it and possibly lose the license at the same time.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Steinsplitter, I think it is a copy/paste from Commons:Email templates/Consent so we should either support it or change the text on our page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I hav rollbacket my {{done}}. I am not sure if the licensing is correctly. Greetings--Steinsplitter (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"The photograph on this webpage is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

 Done. License are valid using BY-SA-3.0. (diff). --Alan ^(talk) 17:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Are we avoiding the use of the double with the GFDL license now? I am also wondering if my text is copyvio of the source description. The Flickr bots do the same thing when they upload images with descriptions. Do the CC licenses cover the whole Flickr page or just the images?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No, we can choose the license (Commons:Multi-licensing), but if you like add {{GFDL}} (dual licenses are recommended).

Yes, descripction text changed. Texts are excluded.

I think flickr license is only valid for pics. --Alan ^(talk) 22:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is what you see if you try to change the licence for an already uploaded image: http://i.imgur.com/GFTqxXy.png

Note that the header reads "Set a license for this photo". This seems to mean that you only license the photo and not any text, at least if the licence has been changed after the file was uploaded for the first time. There is also a default licence which applies to "everything you upload". It is unclear if "everything you upload" is meant to include text. I think that it is safer to assume that a Flickr licence only covers the photo and never any associated text. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Request temporarily unprotect again to File:Flag of Malaysia

Request temporarily unprotect to do some minor fix on this flag per discussion here. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 11:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

 Already done by Odder -FASTILY 05:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Isaque6

This user keeps adding unfree images of cartoon characters. Someone has also raised sockpuppetry concerns regarding Isaque7. De728631 (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Considering that they're using 2 accounts to upload nothing but copyvios, I've blocked both. INeverCry 17:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Paul Laxalt 2000.jpg

Please see File:Paul Laxalt 2000.jpg. I inadvertently overwrote it with another file. Can someone wipe the incorrect picture and the redundant copy of the correct one, please? --UserB (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - update flickr2commons tool link

Update an link to magnus manske´s flickr2commons on the pages below, so that it links to the tool on labs, instead of toolserver like it is currently. The new url is http://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/

• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/defromflickr
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ltfromflickr
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/thfromflickr
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/mkfromflickr
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/bgfromflickr
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/cafromflickr
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/etfromflickr
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fifromflickr
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/plfromflickr
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/hrfromflickr
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ptfromflickr
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/glfromflickr
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/hefromflickr

--Snaevar (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

deleted page

Hi, I created the page Crystal the Monkey instead of the category, now a Bot(?) deleted the page. Could anyone please copy the content from the deleteed page to Category:Crystal the Monkey? Thanks.--CennoxX (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Jim is not a bot.  Done by Steinsplitter. -- Rillke^(q?) 13:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

not done, Category already exists: Category:Crystal the Monkey :-)--Steinsplitter (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Túrelio created the category. Is it even possible to move a page into the category-namespace? -- Rillke^(q?) 08:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you can't move a page from article namespace to category namespace. You can copy the content onto the category page though. dainomite 09:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Updating the "edit counter" link on a user's contributions special page

I'm not sure where to post this since I'm not super active here on commons but Special:Contributions needs an update for the edit counter link at the bottom of the page. Tparis's edit counter was moved to wikimedia labs so the old toolserver url no longer works (as you may know). Here's the new URL if anyone could update it with my username in there, http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=Dainomite&lang=commons&wiki=wikimedia I also updated Template:User_contrib with the new URL so that works again. Regards, dainomite 08:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thank you!--Steinsplitter (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, thanks for the hasty update. dainomite 09:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it could be interesting, but I've coded an upload counter, available on this adress. Pleclown (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind if I embedded that into Template:User Files the same way the edit counter is embedded into Template:User contrib? dainomite 21:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah shucks, looks like it would conflict with the category [[:Category:Files uploaded by <username>]]. curses! dainomite 21:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please delete

Please delete uploads and user page of Special:Contributions/Devianttwo--Motopark (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Pages and files deleted as spam, user blocked as spammer. INeverCry 00:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate files

File:HMS Mansfield FL3285.jpg and File:HMS Mansfield 1942 IWM FL 3285.jpg are duplicates.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted one -FASTILY 02:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Could an admin please double check this deleted file? The original in the IWM archive is larger, and I believe the alternative should be kept as a valid other_version rather than an identical duplicate, particularly considering the writing on the negative (which appears to have been cropped out in the retained version) may have archive value in terms of confirmation of exact date (not the date currently given) and identification. --Fæ (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Image undeleted; you're correct in File:HMS Mansfield FL3285.jpg having archival value (specifically, the date on File:HMS Mansfield 1942 IWM FL 3285.jpg appears to be wrong). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks EVula. Fastily, perhaps you could avoid deleting claimed duplicates if you do not have the time to look more carefully at the images?

If anyone would like to practice on this type of analysis, or enjoys it, there are several hundred suspected non-digitally-identical duplicates listed at User:Faebot/SandboxL, all of which require a bit of careful sleuthing to decide how to merge and which, if any, to delete. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

File:PM.jpg

This file is a clear case of copyvio from here. The uploader of the picture keeps removing the speedydeletion\copyvio templates from it's page. Also the delete template that was set hasn't been logged because there was deletion debate for a picture with same name that archived. Thanks for you attention GilCahana (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Deleted by INeverCry. Alan ^(talk) 17:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Problems with existing translations being overwritten

Hi guys take a look through the various language versions of Commons:Licensing. Since Commons:Requests for comment/Translate extension and Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:FuzzyBot, the group of translation admins have begun tagging pages for translation, despite there being not enough people with experience and willingness to use the extension, there are at the moment about a dozen users able to use the system. Despite suggestions at the rfc to start small, someone has tagged large and important pages for translation, with the result that for example with Commons:Licensing we are no longer multi-lingual we have just one usable page, the English one.

I've raised this at Commons:Translators' noticeboard to only be given the run around, being told that's just how the extension an dthe system works. Maybe I'm over-reacting and being pessemist, but I don't see the community of users familiar with the extension and with the language pairs needed to complete translation work on even the pages that have already been tagged growing fast enough to complete the work in a timely fashion. --KTo288 (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is a big problem. Thank you for starting this discussion! In the last few weeks, I have reverted a lot of wrongly tagged pages. Furthermore, I have warned several translation admins, even with a notice, etc. Commons:Licensing is plain vandalism, in my opinion. There are many TAs who still do not react to all the warnings and do not seem to know how to use this tool. In my opinion, we should remove the TA rights from all users who do not know how to deal with the extension. Regards,--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)That's because:

• there is no documentation for migrating old translations to new ones
• no one is willing to help translation admins with this (see here)
• moving and fixing and patrolling pages is tedious and difficult
• translations from the old system are outdated , meaning there is no way they will match up with the (current) English pages

These issues need to be addressed, rather than attacking translation administrators for their efforts. —Mono 17:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Steinsplitter might have been a bit harsh, but in fact he is right. The problems he mentions are indeed existing here on commons, and "there is no documentation for migrating old translations to new ones" cannot be a reason for this mess. It is up to you to create such a page to prevent further abuse, not to the devs or anyone outside the project. These translations were made by commons users and commons users should decide whether translations have to be kept or not and if they should, how to do that. If one does not know how to manage translations in a satisfying manner, one really should not have requested translation adminship … Vogone (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the problem is outside people trying to enforce Meta rules on Commons, going after translation admins who probably know best, and refusing to help remedy the situation with a clear instructions. —Mono 00:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

On one hand you are accusing us of enforcing meta rules and on the other hand you are saying that we should give clear instructions? That does not really seem to fit together … Furthermore, I don't know how to express this in a clearer way than it currently is. Anyway, local communities have to decide what should happen to their content, not others. We can only share our experience on other projects, but it is still your decision, which standards you are going to implement here on commons. Vogone (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As I see it the guys with experience of the extension have that experience from meta, and are trying to import that experience from meta without modifying their work practices to be compatiable with Commons. The bot thing makes sense if all you have is the English version and you wish to create translations from scratch for other languages. The thing is Commons already had pages translated into lots of other languages and setting the bot on such a page destroys all that previous work. Rather than complaining that no one is willing to help the Translation admins do their work, why not ask why? As I see it at the moment those familiar with the extension are too few in number for the work that needs to be done. The TA's should for the moment not see their job as one of translation but one of outreach and education, promote the benefits of the extension and teach/show how it works to those of us who haven't a clue about it. But until you can grow the community of commoners willing and able to use the extension, only use the extension and its associated bot for those page in which you have the languages to get the work done in timely fashion, at the moment it looks like French and German. Tagging a page like Commons:Licensing for translation when you only have the people to do the work on at most four out of thirty five languages is overly ambitious.--KTo288 (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Request admin Flickr review

Request admin Flikr review of this picture, now at EN FP. If this is not right desk, please let me know. File:Sheikh Maktoum.jpg TCO (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Denniss (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

How to transfer a deleted WP file to commons?

I thought contributions on Wikipedia could not be made proprietary, I want continued rights to it for my user page only, so I believe I must learn how to put the file onto wikicommons. Until 08:02, 24 August 2012, I used Golbez sandbox File:Page 1.gif, an animated map of the American Civil War. I titled it “States entering the Confederate Congress and vacated in the US congress”. The administrator and I disagreed with the legend descriptions I made on his creation on my own homepage. He initiated its deletion as “unneeded” by him without notice to me, a user. When I asked him about it, he said he had nothing to do with the removal, it was a bot. But the map is needed by me, in that I enjoyed it, found it informative as I edited (amended) it for my use here. How can it be restored from the private domain for use on my User page? 09:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi TheVirginiaHistorian, if you are referring to File:Page 1.gif, this was uploaded by Golbez himself to Commons and indeed also deleted by Golbez himself. Of course, after the deletion, a bot would remove any existing usage-links. However, as he stated "unneeded" in the deletion-summary, it should not have been used anywhere at this point of time. So, if I understand you correctly, that you created a different version of this map/image, what was its filename? --Túrelio (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

See [11]. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've notified Golbez about the problem and will restore the file if he doesn't object. --Túrelio (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It was a rough draft (hence its name, "Page 1" and lacking any detailed information) so I dumped it, to be remade at a future time. If you wanted it back, you could have asked me and I could have given you a copy. (In retrospect, I'd forgotten it went the whole way, I thought it was only a few frames) ps you did not edit the map, at least not under this filename. I have no problem with a temporary restoration for TVH to obtain a copy, but a permanent restoration should not be done as it was an unfinished work provided to obtain comment on how to proceed. If commons is not the proper place to put WIP Wikipedia images then let me know and I'll confine them to Wikipedia. --Golbez (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I would appreciate using it on my user page again. Will you please post it to my Talk for my use? I continue to learn from it whenever I return to it. You may recall when I added a legend to your draft and posted at CSA, you deleted it there on the grounds "it was not fit for human consumption" work in progress. I am pleased you are going to take up the project again. I will defend it as before at Map update fourteen months ago. I am surprised that one editor must wait on another's complete satisfaction before using sourced material. sorta reminds me ... of including US territories in WP.USA, I've got to refine the presentation. who knows, it could take fourteen months for me to get to that again at the US article. Thanks for the patient example. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC) 12:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Inversione di due file

Ciao. Per errore ho caricato due file invertendone il nome. Si tratta di File:Sileno.png e File:SilenoZeus.png. È possibile invertire i nomi? -- Yiyi (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Pardon... In English: I uploaded two files (File:Sileno.png and File:SilenoZeus.png) and the first has the name of the second. Can you invert the names? Thanks. -- Yiyi (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Housekeeping or non-controversial cleanup"

Why have several deletion requests in Commons:Deletion requests/2013/05 been deleted as "Housekeeping or non-controversial cleanup"? A deletion request should normally be closed, not deleted for a cryptical reason. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

BSicon request

Would it be possible to separate file history into two pages? The issue is with File:BSicon dSTRr+1h.svg and File:BSicon dSTR2h+r.svg. It was decided that the versions of these files prior to Axpde's messing up the histories on 9 May 2013 (currently hidden from public view) should be restored at File:BSicon dSTRr+1.svg and File:BSicon dSTR2+r.svg, respectively, while his own and later uploads and revisions should be at titles with an "h". Thanks. YLSS (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Anybody? YLSS (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's messy. I believe an admin can delete specific edits and then move the "live" edits" to a new page, then undelete the edits on the first page therefore creating two different pages. But it's been a while since I've done this and even then I've never attempted it with an image file. Maybe a more experienced admin would know more. Killiondude (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Request suppression please

Hello, can I have the first upload, dated "19:37, 6 June 2013", of File:Anna Ternheim, Le Cargo interview, 2009.jpg suppressed/removed please? The metadata says it's in the public domain (my error), which it most certainly isn't. Thank you so much! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 01:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time I've used this tool, but this site says the metadata on the first file upload still says copyright © Benoît Derrier. This image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Generic license. Killiondude (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I almost asked people to not check the file on third-party exif reading sites just because that technically uploads and spreads the image around. Yes, that phrase is correct, but there is another copyright field that says "Public Domain". If you don't believe me :) we can revert the file to the original upload, then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "Show extended details" in the Metadata section, and you'll see Public Domain. Can I please have the original upload suppressed? Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, were you looking for an admin to do whatever you asked without doing any due diligence? Regardless, the situation not a big deal (but you never know with Commoners...) so I just suppressed the content. Killiondude (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 00:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong heading for USS Virgina (SSN-784)

At the following link . . .

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Virginia_class_submarines

There are two links for USS Virginia . . . from what I've gathered at the site, I *believe* the second one, with the 784 should be USS North Dakota, ssn 784.

Best of luck!

 Done, thanks. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot not working

ResolvedRillke^(q?) 22:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The Cat-a-lot facility has disappeared, anyone know what's happened to it? - MPF (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Syntactical invalid code served @[12]. Unfortunately Gerrit dies with Error 404 so I can't look up whom to blame. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

copyright check

I stumbled upon this photo tonight: File:Mayer, Louis B and MGM players.jpg and began to add links to the articles of the actors presented. As I don't know all of them I googled for the photo and found it at Getty Images [13] listed as copyrighted and owned by Time Life Pictures. On the commons page it says it is public domain... please someone check if the photo is actually rightfully on commons. thanks, Noclador (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Another one of Wikiwatcher1's claims that didn't hold ground. Gone. --Denniss (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not the same photo, although taken at the same event. But Getty attributes them both to Sanders. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks for taking the time to check the copyright. Noclador (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Reporting misbehaving bot

This bot http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:YiFeiBot has sended me to ask here, so:

What is the sense of edits like this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Anett_Griffel&diff=97965050&oldid=97956464 91.66.57.9 16:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Category:female models from Estonia is a redirect to Category:Models from Estonia and not exists "technically". These changes only serve to reorganize the categories avoiding redirects. If are right or bad depends on each one, there are many opinions. --Alan ^(talk) 00:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

user/talkpage protected

Just for the record: per his own repeated requests[14],[15], out of personal reasons as I understand it, today I've courtesy-protected the userpage and user talkpage of User:Roland zh. He is a long-term contributor and productive editor especially in the area of categorization, but has quite some difficulties with notifications and discussions on his userpage (per his own public statements). I am aware that this is an unusual step, though it's not expressedly mentioned in Commons:Talk page guidelines, but I tried to balance the restriction of communication with this user versus the overall benefit for the project by his contributions. --Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This is unusual, I hope that Roland zh will feel up to using his Commons talk page again after a break. There is notice pointing to an alternative talk page for communication and that would seem good practice for someone who is not retired. If there were other serious or contentious issues where discussing them publicly on a user talk page could be damaging, infringing on a legal matter, or seen as harassment for any involved party, I would suggest a talk page notice explaining that anything on that topic(s) would only be discussed by confidential email, a step which might avoid the need for protection as a solution. I doubt this is common enough to need an extension to the guidelines. --Fæ (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This is unusual indeed, but considering the history of that talk page, this seems acceptable in that particular case. Indeed, I find it sometimes very intimidating being overwhelmed by all sorts of flickering orange messages and tons of discussions, some of which never end. There will be however a need of a clean-up and probably a link to an alternate discussion page. It would be good to mention on that talk page that the user prefers to have discussions on the related category pages. Maybe, to give the time/opportunity to set it up properly, the page should be unlocked till Roland get its arranged to his liking. He might prefer a structure such as User_talk:Rillke. --Foroa (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that this request by User:Steinsplitter not to delete threads from the user talk page is the main problem here. I clearly disagree on the obligation to archive all threads on a user talk page. This is especially the case for automated notifications, e.g. concerning a DR.

IMO no talk page of an active (i.e. neither deceased or retired) should be fully protected.

Is there the possibility to opt-out from automated notifications by QuickDelete and similar? --Leyo 11:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

While I understand that one may get this impression, I have to correct you. Roland expressedly emphasized on my talkpage[16] that the small quarrel with Steinsplitter was not the trigger. His "difficulty" with the notifications and discussions on his talkpage have bothered him since long, as evidenced from the customized message boxes on his talkpage. By the way: I still remember earlier times, before becoming an admin myself, that seeing the orange notification banner made me nervous, at least for the first moment.

Though such situations will surely be a rare exception, we as a community simply need to get accustomed to the fact that even productive long-term editors/contributors aren't all the same. Apart from the different cultural backgrounds, we also differ quite largely in our age, the amount of reallife-burden and the capacity to cope with all this, which may also vary over time. Therefore, we need to weigh the real (or perceived) disadvantage against the advantage, as I tried in this case. --Túrelio (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There should be room in Commons talk page guidelines to allow for people who feel harassed to be able to handle their personal talk pages in a way that enables them to cooperate with others in a non-hostile environment. Fully protecting a user talk page is a naff solution, but perhaps the guidelines could explain options, such as explaining their preferences in notices, through to explaining scenarios when deleting threads and telling folks to go raise their issues somewhere else, might actually be okay.

Slight off-topic, but the same theme - Please keep in mind, that as well as folks that might be "thin skinned" (why would we only support thick skinned folks to contribute here?), there are people with sensitive real-life professions such as teachers and social workers, who would be scared rigid with public accusations about "topless boy scouts", as we have seen in the past on this page, or similar that they may accidentally stumble into. Certainly in the UK, public allegations which may be interpreted as inappropriate conduct can, and do, lead to being suspended from your job and then require a ghastly official investigation which can blight a career, even when it is plainly obvious the allegations are crap. Clamping down on "loose" language which may be read as anonymous public allegations may be entirely appropriate, and in such situations I would certainly support a user requested temporary user talk page protective lock. In fact forcing such a discussion to be held in a more moderated space (like this one) tends to move argument away from personal conflict and force potentially obsessive witch-hunters/accusers more carefully to research their allegations.

In general, it strikes me that Commons lacks a reserve of reliable third party opinion givers; a process that I significantly improved on en.wp years ago, and some folks there have found a useful concept to apply in heated disputes. --Fæ (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chase Masterson - Comic-Con 2010.jpg

At this deletion discussion we've got a new account Chasemasterson (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) claiming to be said person. I think this needs either an OTRS ticket or a block for inappropriate usernames. De728631 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

License review backlog

There is some serious backlog in marking images from Category:License review needed (600+ images, some are a couple of months old). A bit of assistance would be appreciated. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move File:Vlad_Tepes_002_(joke_version_-_eyes_move).gif -> File:Vlad_Tepes_002.gif

Originally Vlad_Tepes_002.gif contained an image considered out of scope as it was an adaptation of file:Vlad_Tepes_002.jpg with moving eyes to frighten the user and existed solely as part of a practical joke. Despite three comments suggesting it should be kept as an example of images designed to frighten people it was deleted. After a recent off-wiki discussion about the image, I opted to create a similar image for use on my userpage and on any articles where it would make an example of moving eyes or images designed to scare the user with unexpected movement. Since then User:Beyond My Ken has been edit warring due to his dislike of this image, firstly nominating for deletion despite the current scope being allowed by project scope, twice he has edit warred in attempting to remove the animation from the image (history). This was an action he also took with the original image clearly in an attempt to obfuscate the deletion discussion by presenting a different image from that being discussed. In neither edit did he attempt to gain consensus for the changes he intended to make. Now he has moved the file out-with renaming policy and again with no consensus through discussion. Ideally I'd like the image returned to its previous location at least for the remainder of the deletion request and should BMK still want it moved he should discuss such a move in a constructive manner once the deletion request is resolved. --Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The image in question has been deleted once already as being out of scope, but was recreated by WR with minor changes. The image takes an existing historical image and turns it into a joke by making the eyes move. The editor claims he did this so that he can use the image on his user pages here and on en.wiki, but he also added it to an article on en.wiki, en:Intenet Screamer, and rewrote the article to make it match the image, changing the meaning of the article. My move of the image came after WR edit-warred to keep his version from being replaced by a non-joke version. The change of title -- with the addition of "(joke version - eyes move)" -- makes the nature of the image more explicit, and thus is justified under #3 of the renaming policy, which allows moving images to make the name more accurate. The only reason I can see that WR would object to the name is that his intention is to fool unsuspecting users into using the image, thinking it is an historical image, and not knowing that the eyes are going to move. We are not in the business, as far as I understand, of fooling or scaring the people who come to us for images to use, which is why I still believe that the image is out of scope, but if it is to stay, the new name seems to me to be a reasonable compromise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking this image shouldn't have the word joke in it, or any hint at that sort of thing. Possibly, possibly it can be catted that way, but what makes an artist 100 years ago drawing this guy any better than an artist today ?

The image is supposed to portray the scariest person who ever lived short of Barney the Dinosaur. This is supposed to be Vlad the Impaler, and when a kid reads the article and looks at this picture he is more likely to burst out laughing at that ridiculous moustache. It's like who is this guy ? Willie Wonka or the actual historical person that was dracula ?

It's no joke, if a person was serious about drawing Dracula, then they wouldn't make him look so god-damn loveable. Make the kid who is reading the article wet his pants is all I'm saying. I think that the eyes shouldn't just go back and forward like that, I'd make them turn much, much, much slower towards the reader, so slow that 'maybe-it-moves' or 'maybe-it-doesn't' kind of thing and you have to really concentrate, and then like after they end up looking at you, then they oscillate between staring at you and opening even wider and like REALLY staring into you, yeah I'd be going for that kind of look. But as for Joke in the title ? what a crock of shit, pardon my language. Y'all wouldn't say that if he was hiding under your bed, I'm telling you now.

(disclosure, Beyond My Ken and I had some head-butting or butt-heading or whatever it was here and then like, next day he's over on en.wikipedia here trying to get me even more blocked in the ass than I already was/am.. I don't give a care about it, actually I thought it was funny actually, but I mention it just in case people think I'm biased about good old loveable vlad the impaler and saying he shouldn't be such a warm and fuzzy John Cleesey moustached kind of guy) Penyulap ☏ 10:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I would much prefer Penyulap's proposed compromise of putting it in something like Category:Joke items to either labelling it as a joke in the filename (which denigrates it) or giving away it's userpage intent by mouseover and seeing the difference in the filename (although again I'm happy to make this explicit on the image page - once people visit it) - in articlespace it should be added with a caption explaining the eyes move as I did at en:Internet Screamer . The original file location also preserves the original Feb 10th diff of en:Vlad Tepes on enwiki for discussion purposes such as the external Reddit thread discussing the previous change, so readers who are interested can look it up. BMK you should look up the definition of edit warring, it's the second revert - yours in this case - that turns it into a war as the original editor is forced again to restore the status quo, in this case you were changing it to a different type of image without explaining what was the additional value gained by keeping the static gif over the animation. Would you believe it to be acceptable if I took your last upload File:Robert_Morris_Hotel_entrance_closeup.jpg cropped it down to just the sign above the door and then uploaded it as a "new version" of your picture, as opposed to a "New Picture"? I don't believe you would find that acceptable and have yet to see why you think editing my picture down to a single frame when it is intended to be multiple frames is any better, labelling it as a joke does not excuse that behaviour - it's just plain rude. Do I think the image should be should be used to " to fool unsuspecting users into using the image, thinking it is an historical image, and not knowing that the eyes are going to move." only in the context of restoring the Feb 10th diff of Vlad Tepes as a separate article on Meta in its "Humor" category, and for that the file could be under any name. --Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Let the image live (for user pages and the like), but label it clearly as a joke. Version .02 is too likely to be reused in article, perhaps even by mistake.TCO (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think catting is the proper way to label it at most. What demands that people say one old artists work is proper and all modern artists work is trivial ? The modern artist has an idea about portraying dracula and it's just as valid as anyone else's. I think we should take into account how the modern artist wants to describe the image, there is the view that an image of Dracula should be 'spooky', it's a valid viewpoint. Moving eyes doesn't absolutely define a joke, images in Harry potter are animated, but not all of them are jokes. We can make many images animated, but they are not all jokes. Maybe it was a april fools-day kind of joke, maybe it was serious. The discussion here and the discussion at DR should be linked to or copied onto the file talkpage. Penyulap ☏ 23:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)`

I think the discussion should go on the file talkpage to make it easy to find in future. I might move it there later on. Penyulap ☏ 08:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Urgent!Upload a new version of this file

I want to upload a new version of this file because we have a special logo tomorrow.But i can't upload:"This page is currently protected from editing because it is transcluded in the following pages, which are protected with the "cascading" option enabled:".who can help me before tomorrow?--DannyChan (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Did anything happen here? I can imagine that there was an easy work around (such as uploading a new derivative image rather than over-writing this one) but it would be nice to know the outcome. --Fæ (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As of the edit-history and the logs of the file in question, nothing has happened. The image wasn't individually protected, but is listed on page Commons:Auto-protected files/global/logos. Anyway, now it's too late. The poster had also opened the thread Commons:Village_pump#Upload_a_new_version_of_this_file, but had no further edits after the above one. --Túrelio (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete

Can administrators delete all the files that I've uploaded in the commons? Because I do not want to liberate my property files to be used by the public for free. Aldo samulo (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aldo, why would you want to do this? Are you angry about any conflict here or on your home-project or about anything else? When you uploaded your images to Commons, you released them under a free license. Such licenses are not revokeable. One might compare it to a gift you had given somebody and now you want to get it back. So, even if we would remove those images, which are in use on any project, from Commons, anybody who had downloaded the image already, could still use it under the original license. --Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Image:Kaltenbrunner.jpg

I noticed Image:Kaltenbrunner.jpg has been uploaded again. See this previous discussion on this same board. Can an admin check if it's the same photo and perhaps delete it again? If it's indeed the same photo and previous reasons for deletion are still valid. Garion96 (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the deleted versions are different from the current one. --A.Savin 18:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That's good. Thanks! Garion96 (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Not good, lacks a valid primary source. Without this the chosen license is invalid (most like not of finnish origin anyway). --Denniss (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't even looked at that yet. Garion96 (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Global Replace Tool

Hi everyone, I have created a new tool to assist filemovers in the field of cross-wiki renames. Please help me test it!  :) -FASTILY 23:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

delete temp cats please

Please delete Category:De re metallica scan by Mining Heritage and the subordinate subcategories. They are empty. (I changed my mind about the hierarchy I want for a bulk upload).

04:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

So, I have deleted "Category:De re metallica scan by Mining Heritage", "Category:GIF files" and "Category:JPG files". Please use different category names in future. Especially "Category:GIF files" and "Category:JPG files" may cause interferences with official Commons categories. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Unable to proceed

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:G%C3%BC%C2%81nter_W%C2%84%C3%B6ller&action=edit

please add Woller

• Nachweise: Der gehörlose Günter Wö„ller war DDR-Meister 1952 im 5000 m-Lauf und 1953 im Waldlauf, vgl. http://einheit-berliner-baer.de/Chronik50.pdf . 1992 bekam er die Heinrich-Siepmann-Plakette des Deutschen Gehörlosen-Sportverbandes, vgl. http://www.berliner-gsv1900.de/ehrentafel.html 91.66.63.117 07:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Done: Category:Günter Wöller --тнояsтеn ⇔ 07:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. btw: this file File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-15312-0012, Ingrid Preibisch.jpg should be moved to Elfriede Preibisch (to stop confusion: 01.11.2001 – ...einstige Studentenweltmeisterin im 100-Meter-Lauf von 1951, Elfriede Preibisch, wurde 75 Jahre und der Vereinsvorsitzende des LSV Pirna,.. Quelle: http://www.pirna.de/downloads/November2001.pdf .Regards 91.66.63.117 08:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Continuing in German... Sicher, dass es nicht auch eine Ingrid Preibisch gab? Die Bildbeschreibung wurde hier geändert. Sollte eigentlich auf Commons:Bundesarchiv/Error reports thematisiert werden. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 09:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Jetzt auf Commons:Bundesarchiv/Error reports#June 2013. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 11:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. тнояsтеn ⇔ 11:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for Checkuser rights

This is to inform the community that there is a nomination for Checkuser rights here. It was agreed a couple of years ago that such requests and for Oversight (which are quite rare) should be publicised due to the high level of trust required in users with these rights. Trijnstel_talk 20:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ownership issues may hinder input at Commons:We miss you

Tired of this shit. Blocked user Penyulap 3 days for trolling and being a pain in the ass. Multichill (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I sympathize. I know some people don't care to look at how enwp does things, but a history of tedious edits and behavior is definitely blockable there and I believe it should be as well here. Killiondude (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No need to refer to other projects, Commons recognizes actions which disrupt its collegial atmosphere and has disruptive editing and creating a hostile environment in the handy list of how to use blocks in Blocking policy. Short, simple and does not require alternative policy pages to explain it. --Fæ (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to tell me "no need to refer to other projects"? I'm not a Commons newbie. The reason why I linked to enwp is because the page there is more fleshed out than anything here. Killiondude (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

(On a tangent to the original thread) Why? I'm glad you asked ... Well I believe that Commons policy is sufficient and adds necessary distinctive value to Wikimedia by having policy focused on media and licencing rather than encyclopaedia articles; indeed Commons is seen by many as a key understandable reference on interpretation of international copyright. There are serious problems associated with Commons sysops frequently referring to en.wp policies rather than leveraging existing policy and guidelines on Commons which are written from a multi-lingual and certainly more multicultural viewpoint (one of the reasons policy here stays more simply expressed and shorter). Where Commons has no specific policy, another project may be a useful starting point to reach consensus on actions here, but there are many areas, such as "encyclopaedic value" and the many associated en.wp guidelines on "notability", which detract and confuse away from the focused educational and public benefit policy of scope and the underpinning logic of Licensing. I see the same patterns of misinterpretation constantly being raised in Commons Deletion requests, which undermine and damage this project's distinctive value to the global open knowledge movement.

I am aware you are not a newbie, and though numbers are not a good guide to much, just as an indicator I am aware you have several times as many edits to en.wp than Commons. I happen to now have a magnitude more edits on this project compared to en.wp, though on both projects my level of editing would probably be considered significant. On both projects I would say I am well versed in policy and their common interpretations, and know enough about other language projects to be aware of how different policies, even with what are on the surface very similar projects like de.wp and en.wp, can make a huge difference to their communities, and consequently in what actions should or can be made by sysops and other trusted users. --Fæ (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The above seems moot for now as Fastily has promptly unblocked Penyulap. --Fæ (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A reminder to Administrators about following the Blocking policy

I am sure all readers here are familiar with it, but could administrators please take a moment to refresh their minds as to the steps detailed in Instructions for administrators in the Blocking policy. Informing the blocked contributor on the their talk page of any administrator actions on their account is a requirement. In Penyulap's case this has neither happened for the block, nor the unblock, as can be verified by checking their talk page history. I am not an administrator, so if anyone is aware of an existing consensus, or "norm", to not follow these instructions in certain circumstances, I would be happy to be enlightened. --Fæ (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

holey crap I got blocked and didn't even know about it ? well where's the fun in that.

Meh, never mind, no need to get over-excited about it Fae, I can pretty much guess what the message would have been, no diffs, no policy, just lots of name-calling. I'll consider myself impressed. Penyulap ☏ 16:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, some admins act like the bodyguards of other admins. :( JKadavoor Jee 16:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most admins think independently, otherwise, like, if one couldn't think of any policy or find a diff, then it would be a bit embarrassing if the next one said the same thing and couldn't think of a reason either. Penyulap ☏ 17:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Medialuka

Please block user Special:Contributions/Medialuka because this user uploads copyvio picturesa after warnings.--Motopark (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Alan ^(talk) 04:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Pierre bouvet.jpg

I managed to do 2 edits to File:Pierre bouvet.jpg today, but I seem to be blocked from doing 3rd edit to add missing }} bracket on the end of {{LangSwitch}} block. There is a message from Spam protection filter about the source link which we have in the file. I do not know how come some edits of such files work and some do not, and I am not sure how to tag the file that this link seem to be OK, so it can be edited. --Jarekt (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Due to the missing brackets the weblink could not be properly tracked/traced I assume and as soon as this was fixed the Spamfilter snapped-in. File is fixed now. --Denniss (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Could you please delete this blurry picture File:KawitChurchjf1500 02.JPG. It was uploaded by a user who uploads a lot of pictures, but do not check the quality of some of his pictures (Not me!). Thanks. Briarfallen (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You can use the link "Nominate for deletion" which you can find in the left hand of your screen when you are viewing the image page. A rationale like "This image is too blurry to be of educational use." would be sufficient. Anyone can raise deletion requests like this, just make sure you take a look at scope before doing lots of them. The deletion process is described in more detail at Deletion requests. --Fæ (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@Briarfallen, with such deletion-rationales against uploads from good-standing contributors, I've always found it more collegial and productive to first contact the uploader and explain your rationale to him/her in order to get his/her understanding and eventually to get them requesting it for deletion by themselves. It usually works well and provides the advantage of a potential learning effect. --Túrelio (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

wow, I'd love to have my own project right now, if there was funding enough, I'd send that saint a better quality camera. Penyulap ☏ 05:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request by Thekohser

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

Rather than "giving" thekosher "enough rope" it seems more like giving a tutorial and practical demonstration on how misbehaviour is done. Odder asked for the discussion, did not like the outcome, and then overturned the resulting unblock. Odder should allow another uninvolved admin make any reblock, he refuses to unblock and invites wheel-warring instead. Penyulap ☏ 23:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have been settled in a manner that simply extends the kosher's blocklog considerably. Penyulap ☏ 23:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Odder has been very nice about it and apologised to the editor. Penyulap ☏ 06:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:Four Provinces Flag2.svg and File:Flag of Ireland hockey team.svg

Hi, I'm someone who contributes to the Dutch Wikipedia, and I saw that Caomhan27 has been updating these two flags for over ten times in the last few weeks. I'm really astonished, because he's making a mess of these flags and nobody does anything. I don't have an account on Commons, so I can't intervene. I asked on his Users Talk to stop doing this, but he just deleted my reaction, as he did with several others. So my question is: can you stop him, can you change the hockey flag back into this one (you can check www.fih.ch, where you can see this is the only correct flag), or if not, who should I contact to do so? 87.64.182.28 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

from: klick. I think this is the better place (@admins: just want a little guidance on how to proceed). Thank you--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Requesting Move/Delete for a misnamed image.

Apologize for the mess I created and to make a long story short, File:PSM V57 D270 William Walton Rogers.png is with the wrong middle name and should be named File:PSM V57 D270 William Barton Rogers.png which is an empty page. I have move privileges,but couldn't correct the error. Could someone please move the image and delete the "Walton" page? Thank you in advance. — Ineuw 07:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Alan ^(talk) 08:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. — Ineuw 09:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I updated the description and added month and page ref. It is unfortunate Wikisource does not provide original pagination - is this standard? Dankarl (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, delete this

Can someone delete this images:

1. File:LordPrayerChurchSlavonic-srb.jpg
2. File:LordsPrayerChurchSlavonic-srb.png

???

The reason is the existence of appropriate graphic of the same content.

Thank you,--Гибаничар (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User rights of User:BrandonBigheart

I'll admit I should have had BrandonBigheart (BBH) ask for rights at Commons:Requests for rights, but I didn't. I gave him some lower-level rights. He had asked for them here. At 22:08 on 17 Jun User:Odder unilaterally removed those rights without any prior discussion nor inquiry and without notifying the user. At 22:12, 17 Jun he did notify me and we ended up in a "heated" discussion. BBH is a valued and trusted user on en and commons. Rather than myself or someone else wheel warring here, let's not hurt this user and the community and give him his rights back. See full thread at User_talk:PumpkinSky#BrandonBigheart. I was hoping this would settle down overnight but today I see it's still raging, so I bring the issue here for discussion. PumpkinSky talk 20:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. BrandonBigheart is an editor who has done one thing: upload professional grade coin images. He does that very well and clearly knows his way around a camera and software so when he needed help with an image move, I suggested he asks PumpkinSky for it. Now let me make one thing clear. The numismatics project, which generates a large numbers of FA on en.wi, is basically him and me right now. I do NOT need Odder acting so precipitously and risking driving him off. I can't write the articles without the images, and he has both access to coins and skill with a camera that I lack. So would someone mind restoring the user rights? They are not very powerful, and he can be trusted to look before he leaps.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but 53 edits in my mind is way too low. There is no reason that he can't just use {{Rename}} template like all other new editors. I appreciate that you guys obviously know him (off-wiki too I am guessing due to his overall low edit count), but we have long-term editors who still do not yet have that right. Plus with Commons delinker currently down, I'd rather he simply stick to using the rename template. There is no requirement that people need the rename tool to upload. Also, I think both sides need to step back, just calm down a little, and perhaps remind BBH of COM:MELLOW. russavia (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Remind BBH of MELLOW? Odder is the one who has been over the top for two days now, not anyone else; not to mention him twice not following policy himself, something he refuses to acknowledge himself, why is everyone ignoring that?PumpkinSky talk 20:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I had a good look through both projects at the related conversations, contributions, the guidelines here, what Brandon is up to and why, and it all looked just fine to me. Thing is, it doesn't come down to a simple matter of the number of edits somebody does, it's how well they will handle the rights, what they'll do with them. From that perspective, I think it was a good call to give Brandon filemover, less things for everyone else to do in a specialist area where fights are really unlikely. Penyulap ☏ 20:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

actually Russavia, I do lots of moves and requests and don't have the filemover right, but that is totally irrelevant to Brandon. Seriously, he should complain that I'm interfering with his request if your reason made any sense. Penyulap ☏ 20:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

per russavia, 53 edits in my mind is way too low.--Steinsplitter (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fast seeing that people want to make a two second judgement, a twitter sized summary and everything is TLDR. Appalling results for the project. Whatever the 'usual number of edits' required is, that in itself is still not enough to give out the filemover (can destroy the world) bit. Other things, like the potential for trouble, edit warring, competence, basically all the stuff that can go wrong is taken into account. THAT is, when people actually DO THE JOB of working it out. Not a moron. No SVG nazis to deal with. Coins are a specialised area of conflict free work. Lots of friends to help and support with advice. I'd talk about objective and subjective, but I'd be talking to myself. Penyulap ☏ 21:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't understand. I see that BBH is uploading excellent files, files that we are glad to have and that will be useful not only to WMF projects but to the wider world. With that understood, if, as User:Wehwalt seems to say, that is all he is doing, then why does he need Filemover? Occasional mistakes in naming uploads can be dealt with with {{Rename}}. I'm reluctant to give advanced rights to any user, no matter how valuable his contributions might be, who has only 50 edits here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• I have been looking at this for 2 days, rather than 2 seconds, and I agree with the point of view that there seems too weak a rationale here to bend guidance of needing more than 1,000 edits for file mover rights. The guideline at Commons:Requests_for_rights#Filemover nicely allows for special cases, such as having a few hundred successful renames as part of a project, or using a special legitimate alternative account for someone with an existing track record on Commons to reference. File moves can cause problems on other projects, as well as disputes on this project, so this is a non-trivial right. If BrandonBigheart finds that using {{Rename}} is damaging a project of theirs for whatever reason, such as the process taking too long to be useful, that might make for a good rationale on the rights request page to re-apply. There's nothing personal in this, if you look at the archive of the rights page, contributors with ten times as many contributions are routinely turned down. I would like to thank PumpkinSky for taking the initiative to raise this thread and getting consensus. Nobody is perfect and hopefully this has helped other administrators with deciding what best practice on Commons looks like. --Fæ (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• When PumpkinSky gave the rights on their own discretion, I expect them to mentor the users to whom the rights were granted closely; but if they have good x-wiki contribs and can be trusted, I see no need for being overly bureaucratic. However, I agree that BrandonBigheart should have shown at least a (basic) need for every single right before it was granted. Neither did I find "undo"s nor "rename requests". -- Rillke^(q?) 15:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, and it raises the questions about backlog, workload, and of why the right is limited in the first place. I would expect it is primarily to prevent disruption, good natured or not, with each field having it's own conventions. Given we'd be looking to experts in those fields to formulate their ideas, then an informed choice about Brandon seems ok.

Hmm, I still think that 1,000 edits, or 100,000 edits doesn't always ensure the contributor is making progress towards abiding and determining naming conventions.

Sure, there is a very good question as in 'why do they need it'. But the flip side of the question is interesting too, like does a random filemover know more about naming conventions of coins than Brandon ? Penyulap ☏ 15:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

4 posts so far from Penyulap, with a maximum of 2 from any other contributor, including PumpkinSky who created it.[18][19] --Fæ (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

All the wikis I've been involved with tend to be overly bureaucratic and shoot themselves in the foot rather than help themselves. IMHO this is such a case. This is a great case to IAR in order to the overall benefit of the project. PumpkinSky talk 20:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the auto-patrol flag has an unintended positive effect on editors, people often leave notes thanking admins for marking their accounts as accounts that we don't need to watch closely. It is more for our own benefit in sorting out the workload than it is for theirs. I can see the idea that it is some kind of favouritism when it comes to the filemover flag, but it's hardly a great deal different to the autopatrol flag. People can see it as a favour, but it's just to reduce workload in both cases. Penyulap ☏ 02:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I can’t see a problem if one admin rollback the action of another admin. But I see problem in the way it was executed. It should not be a problem if Odder informed the user that he rolled back the rights due to some reasons. But unfortunately he prefer to shout at that poor user when faced in a discussion: "I don't care what you do, who you are, and how much time you spend on Commons (why would I? what users do in their real lives isn't really anything that should influence our decisions here)…." Here BrandonBigheart seems a victim of admin conflicts. Anyway I think this discussion can be closed since BrandonBigheart acknowledged that "I'm not offended by the actions of odder. Every part of life has people like him. I'm happy to be here and able to help out with the projects I can improve. As I said in another page, this is the first person I have encountered of this type on the wiki. I chalk it up to a "goderator" complex. Some people wield power to do good; others wield power to satiate some psychological need. Cheers." JKadavoor Jee 03:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair use images loaded to the commons

These two images should have been uploaded to en.wiki as fair use. Can someone please move them?

• File:Jimmy Badra Muscular Magazine.jpg
• File:Jimmy_Badra.jpg (this one was just deleted by User:Túrelio

Evrik (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate template for this would be {{fair use delete}}. --Túrelio (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've never seen that template before, thanks. Evrik (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Violetamyftari

User:Violetamyftari uploaded copyvio photos from Flickr. After deleting some of these photos I noticed that all of them from the smae Flickr user violetamyftari which is the same name in Commons. Can someone with Flickr account can check with this user if he is the same person. Geagea (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/05/Category:Perth International Airport

Can someone please close this, or do whatever needs doing? Orderinchaos (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Promotional out of scope pictures

Special:Contributions/Papillonrougeparis, please delete--Motopark (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have created a bundle DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gamme complète des parfums.jpg. Please consider using this process if you find similar problems with other accounts, where all uploads are copyright violations or out of scope. --Fæ (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes pictures

There seems to be a campaign of Japanese war crime denial going on by User:Takabeg.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] This list is not exhaustive, I have not gone through the user's edit history. This is only what has popped up in my watchlist. SpinningSpark 16:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Yeol.jpg

I don't believe for a moment that this was really created by the uploader. Perhaps you all can have a look. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• And File:ExoXOXO.png seems to have an incorrect license as well. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Both files have been deleted. INeverCry 19:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

[SOLVED] Template translation problem

I've just translated Template:User own photos to Greek (Template:User own photos/el) and now, instead of a box I get: Template:User Files 2/el. The only thing I did was to replace en with el and /own photo/own photos with /δική του φωτογραφία/δικές του φωτογραφίες. If you have no idea what's wrong, please delete page Template:User own photos/el. --Protnet (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

My bad! I just realised that I had to translate Template:User Files 2 too, in order to work. I just did it and everything now works fine! --Protnet (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see history of User talk:Ivander12

Please see history of User talk:Ivander12 ?--Motopark (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Strange. This user has copied Main Page and Talk:Main Page to his user and usertalk pages. --Túrelio (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

why bother deleting it ? Penyulap ☏ 09:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Rename

I added a rename tag to File:Alleged Luka Magnotta Murder Video View Statistical Data.png and someone reverted it. On en:wp we usually have people innocent until proven guilty. Is it the same policy here? Any good new name would work and the history may need revdel.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Canoe1967, well, there is no doubt that this individual murdered kittens. That's bad enough. Anyway, it is a "Murder Video" as it shows the murdering (or so I am told; don't intent to view it) of that poor Chinese student and as it is clearly associated to Magnotta. In this specific case, I don't see a problem with the filename. --Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

At en:wp they believe that "no doubt that this individual murdered kittens" and "clearly associated to Magnotta" should be decided by a court of law not us. Using his name in the same sentence as 'murder video' may be considered as finding him guilty before a trial. I don't really care one way or the other but others may have stronger concerns. I may contact the WMF and if they don't have an issue with it then I guess we shouldn't either.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

(IANAL) Until the trial is completed, any reference to an alleged crime should be qualified, such as "alleged murder". I would have thought simply renaming to Luka Magnotta video of alleged murder, view statistical data would be sufficient to address any potential for doubt under the defamation section of Photographs of identifiable people. By the way, I have not seen the video, if it is of someone killing kittens, then it is not "murder" and using this in the title would be misleading and possibly defamatory. Murder is defined as "unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." --Fæ (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There are two videos mentioned in the article. One of kittens and another of a human. Neither are available to view anymore. I don't know which one this graph is about. Adding 'alleged' to the file name may suffice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

O.k., o.k., I've inserted an "alleged" in the filename for the kitten-killer. --Túrelio (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I know it seems rather trivial but I think lawyers can use stuff like this to say things like: "Can't get a fair trial because commons has labeled him" type thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Hi. I am not a commons editor but I have noticed that this user XDBKx (talk · contribs)is apparently uploading copyrighted images as his own work and inserting them into articles on en.wiki. See User talk:XDBKx for a short list of probable violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Most files sourced and tagged as copyvios, user warned. --Túrelio (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Offensive name

I believe that this user's name is offensive and the user is a vandal.

• Chupenla todos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Evrik (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Does look like a vandal. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've warned the user, that looks to be sufficient enough to me. Trijnstel_talk 15:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment Trijnstel, in Spanish language this username is offensive. I think its feasible blocking. Alan ^(talk) 17:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you speak Spanish, so feel free to do whatever you think is right. :) Trijnstel_talk 18:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done User blocked, Inappropriate username: Offensive usernames (Translated in en: suck it you all)--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Steinsplitter (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Commons protected edit requests

There seems to be some backlog in doing those requests currently. I have some rather trivial requests in the technical section that sit there for a whole month now. Are there any specific reasons for the backlog (shortage of administrators, shortage of administrators doing edit requests, shortage of time for those administrators that normally do those request, etc.)? Or is it only coincidence that nobody has looked at it lately?

I'd especially be interested in the edit requested at Template talk:Convert to SVG#Vectordata parameter. It would be great if somebody could do it for me!

Regards, --Patrick87 (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Rillke did the "technical" ones I requested. Thank you!

There are still some requests left, though (including Template talk:Convert to SVG#Vectordata parameter). But Take your time, this section is only intended to notify you of the issue, not to urge you. --Patrick87 (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• On a related note, is it fair to put any request that doesn't give the coding the OP is asking for into Category:Commons protected edit requests (technical)? I get frustrated because there are currently many requests in CAT:EP that don't supply the actual code they want done. And it makes me not want to look at the rest. That having been said, I've done several over the last few days. Killiondude (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC) (I should note that I'm not great with coding, which is why I don't spend my resources attempting to do it when someone else could easily.)

Other editors could help with that. We could go through and flip the templates pending a code request for those that don't include the code. That would take them out of the cat until a coder adds code and flips the template back.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

valid template ?

Are next template valid Template:Copyright notes/uk--Motopark (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not translated yet to Ukrainian. Besides that there's nothing wrong with it that I would have noticed (or did you have something specific in mind?). --Patrick87 (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Please check the last edit in template {{City}}

The last edit caused a malfunction.
One "{" is missing in the |Vinci={{Vinci}} key.
Also in Other location the last edit is not correct at all (according to me); please substitute the paragraph with:

<!-- Other Locations  -->
  |Asia = {{Asia}}
  |Central Asia = {{Central Asia}}
  |Africa = {{Africa}}
  |North Africa|Nordafrika = {{North Africa}}
  |Sahara = {{Sahara}}
  |Europe = {{Europe}}
  |European Union|EU = {{European Union}}
  |North America = {{North America}}
  |South America = {{South America}}

Thank you! — TintoMeches, 03:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Partially done, typo fixed but I think the Other location may require a discussion. Bidgee (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a discussion is necessary... basically the key |European Union = {{European Union}} had three occurrences in the paragraph before, and I just asked to reduced them to one (adding the acronym EU which is pretty common to find). But I'll ask someone else if you want. — TintoMeches, 03:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- explanation in edit summary. -- Rillke^(q?) 08:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please clean out of scope from talk page

User talk:Mohammad Ali Ashraf Attari--Motopark (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've notified the user and asked him to remove it by himself. --Túrelio (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Canadian coats of arms

I'm sorry but I don't understand the process for contesting the speedy delete nomination of File:Canadian Coat of Arms Shield.svg. Perhaps someone could edit Commons:Deletion requests/File:Canadian Coat of Arms Shield.svg to reflect User:Trackratte's concerns? DrKiernan (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

about removing offensive images

I made a proposal at Minority removal of welcome images. Penyulap ☏ 16:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

flickerwashing

In picture File:Song Qian.jpg and other uploaders picture seems to be flickerwashing.--Motopark (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. File:Naomi-Scott.jpg has Getty in the exif and the same uploader states 'own work'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Should we also add that Flickr account to a block list?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Deleted and the Flickr account has been added to the blacklist[30][31]. Bidgee (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Please move this talk page

Commons:Rename a category and its talk need to be synchronized. Need an admin to do this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Rillke^(q?) 11:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons delinker incomplete file removal

[32]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

https://jira.toolserver.org/browse/COMMONSDELINKER-24--Steinsplitter (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Avion isn't for airplanes

The User:タチコマ robot is adding the Category:Avion to every airplane image uploaded. Now, in the category:Avion are approx. 700 images of planes and only 6-10 of the French (?) Avion region. I reported it to Commons:Upload_help#Avion_isn.27t_airplane_in_Commons but no one can stop it. Please:

1. Stop the robot
2. Remove the instruction that adds the Category:Avion. (A category:Airplane isn't needed because the images are correctly categorized as airplane type and airline)
3. Restart the robot
4. Delete the category:Avion from the 700 airplane-images in Cat:Avion

Thanks in advance, --Createaccount 07:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I am deleting the category:Avion from the ~700 images with "Perform batch task". --Createaccount 08:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Now, please stop, reprogram and restart the robot. Then, please move all "real" Avion-Images from Category:AvionX back to Category:Avion. --Createaccount

Moved them back. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Worth considering disambiguating the category, 'Avion' means aircraft in a number of languages including French. If there are hundreds of images lining up for the category when there are only a dozen geographical images, well, the aircraft have it I would think. I don't know how geographic regions are disambiguated on commons, unless someone knows, I guess just go with Avion, France or something like that. Penyulap ☏ 08:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be the Chaos. German uploaders would fill the Category:Flugzeuge, English uploaders Category:Airplanes, Spanish uploaders Category:Avion, Chinese uploaders Category:... . We have enough with the differences between US and UK English. --Createaccount 14:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

well, wherever the images end up, we might as well put a bit of a note on the category pages, don't you think ? Penyulap ☏ 14:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Done in en, fr, de --Martina talk 15:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

1. the robot is still running and has uploaded 218 images to Category:Avion
2. the "real" Avion images from the French region are disappeared, they arn't under the 218 images in Cat:Avion.
3. the Category:Avion shouldn't be empty as stated in the {{category redirect}}. There is a region in France named Avion.

I the User:タチコマ_robot page, there is a "stop" button for emergencies and admins. Does an admin read this page sometimes?.

What next?. --Createaccount 22:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Undid the redirect, left a link to this discussion. --Martina talk 00:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, the bot has been uploading those files for a week on request from a user and has uploaded thousands of them. Although the bot has been programmed with a categorization mistake, the other user has been cleaning up most files after the bot. For example: [33]. So, I guess there's no worry if the user is willing to continue and finish the cleanup, even if he is lagging behind the bot by a few hundred files. There's probably no need for anybody else to do anyhing other than be patient. You can keep a loose watch on the category in the next week and see if the cleanup is done correctly and if necessary contact the user. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Commons is a error tolerant system.

No, it isn't reasonable to allow wittingly the failure of a robot and later to load the last of the work on the volunteers. --217.91.99.45 10:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I think all the photos from Avion have been moved to Category:Avion (Pas-de-Calais), this seems like a good idea, and should stop their category being filled with pictures of planes. What should happen with all the plane photos currently in Category:Avion? Is there a working group along the lines of 'plane sorters' who can sort them out? Or should they just be dumped into Category:Aircraft and let who ever notices sort them out? I would note that the problem is also occurring at Category:Jet (lignite) and probably elsewhere. Is it not easiest simply to stop the bot, sort out the problem, then restart rather than fix all this? Liamdavies (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I like Category:Avion (Pas-de-Calais), it will be clearer to many people, as for a bit of extra work, meh, who cares. It's easier by far, and welcome work, to fiddle with categories after the images are here. It's like a miniature version of watermarks, no need to be upset when it is so easy to fix. I think if people didn't want a little tiny bit of extra work, then they'd go play computer games instead. A note about extra cat work would be put at the vp? that is, if the problem hasn't already been gobbled up. Penyulap ☏ 15:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Just don't worry too much about all that: russavia might have been involved in some trouble at other parts of this project, but he is very good in keeping track of this kind of batch-uploads performed for him and assigning the right categories. --El Grafo (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The user who requested the uploads seems to be taking care of the categorization, being his own working group. You can look at the progress and at the result and see if he completes it. As long as he's expected to do the work and he actually completes it normally, there shouldn't be reason to worry. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems quite reasonable as long as the people who are responsible for the upload are taking care of the categorization in a reasonable time. That's what they're doing. They haven't loaded any work on anybody. There is obviously some arrangement between bot operator and job requester to the effect that the bot uploads the files and the other user categorizes them. That looks like a logical way to do that sort of uploads, the requester being the person who knows about the topic. Their job is currently progressing. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The robot is sending images of LAN Chile airplanes to the Category:Local area networks (LAN) instead of Category:LAN Airlines. --Createaccount 15:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Bot uploaders don't worry too much about category names and even less of their descriptions and notes. Only when there is no category existing that has the same name as the Flickr keyword, they look closer. Anyway, on 90 % of the files I checked, the avion/aircraft cat was an overcat. So I cleaned it out and deleted it. Note that this happens with many categories, such as Arbre, Bergen, Grave and some others that I couldn't find back. --Foroa (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

That still begs the question of why other users should be expected to clean up after batch uploaders. If you are sophisticated enough to run a bot, or even to request a bot run, you should be able to identify categories. Dankarl (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It does? No one is expected to do anything aside from the bot operators whom are required to clean up. As discussed below on my post the problems will be dealt with. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 01:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As it has come up on their talkpage, I'd like to echo the assurances of El Grafo for those who don't know, that Russavia has a good reputation for cleaning up after himself in regards to uploading and catting. You can check their contribs, however their talkpage is key. The archive won't show much, there is so much uploading (and subsequent cleaning up) that most concerns are handled so quickly they're deleted as they come up, rather than archiving.

Sometimes programming scripts and bots can get so fiddly if you account for every possibility, that it's more economical to program for the greatest number of possibilities and then do some fast mopping up. There is a balance between how much programming keeps things neat and how little is too messy, in general people seem pretty happy with the balance this editor manages. Penyulap ☏ 20:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am running the script for User:Russavia as I have done so many times before. As mentioned he has a good reputation in dealing with such issues. I will also remove incorrect bulk additions by the bot myself. I am aware of Category:Avion and Category:Local area networks (LAN) at the moment. Feel free to point me more of them should you notice. I will fix issues once the running task is complete as much as I can and Russavia will do a second sweep after me. All files uploaded by the bot are under Category:Files uploaded for Russavia (Aero Icarus) which I will use to run find and replace scripts to either remove or replace the programmatic categories. There are a LOT of files (tens of thousands possibly) so I want to avoid dealing with the problem multiple times. I can if you really want me to do so to limit clutter on categories but bot would populate them again until the upload task is done.

Also in the future it would be a lot better if my talk page was used to discuss the bots conduct. The above discussion on Category:Avion-Category:AvionX is strange. If I were told I could have fixed it effortlessly as it is a very simple AWB find and replace task. I may not necessarily follow this thread later on (busy with other matters), please give me a nudge if you have strong objections.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 01:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I told it to upload-help and to admin-noticeboard. I didn't write to the talk page of the robot because there was at that time no so much activity. My intention with AvionX was to save the images of the region Avion before I deleted the cat Avion with "Perform batch task". I support 100% your's and Russavia's work. --Createaccount 07:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Createaccount, are you now happy with the robot's work ? will talking directly to the bot operator without admins intervening be ok for you ? Penyulap ☏ 10:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Rush request for deletion nom closure (OTRS verified)

Resolved– Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 01:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, may I request a rush closure to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Avril Lavigne - May 2013.jpg? The image has been verified through OTRS, a process I had started before the deletion nomination, but which kicked into high gear due to a pretty weak speedy deletion request by known sockpuppet User:MyCanon—which only helped ramp up the verification process anyway. But the deletion tag is pretty unsightly now. Other related links include Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Avril_Lavigne and User_talk:Freaktheclown#Verifying_Avril_Lavigne_image (uploader discussion). Thanks for everyone's help! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 01:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 01:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sooo awesome, thank you very much for your (and everyone's) quick help. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 01:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)