Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 51

Russian speaker admin

Can someone, Russian speaker admin, can help with User:Mikl.kulachkov. -- Geagea (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: ^. — Revi 12:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Taken care of.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Geagea (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hide edits

Hello. Please hide this IP's edits. --Matiia (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done I was able to do a history clean on two of the affected talk pages, but User talk:Gastón Cuello has 311 revisions, so I simply hid the vandal revisions. I've put in place protections and will keep the pages on my watchlist. INeverCry 02:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Uploads by User:HHubi

Hi, there's a vandalism report on de.wp indicating that most of HHubi's text contribs and image uploads, if not all, are copyvios, i.e. [1], [2], [3] from "Wörterbuch zur deutschen Militärgeschichte, 1. Auflage" Militärverlag der DDR, Berlin, 1985, Vol 1. The user has been blocked on de.wp. I suggest he'd be blocked on commons too, and his images speedy-deleted. - Well, probably the chevrons are public domain, as governmental drawings? Greetings, --MBq (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted the drawing, now sure about the chevrons (??). The user wasn't blocked (for uploading copyright violation) before, i left him a warning on his talkpage. If he continues with uploading copivios he will be blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I just marked 4 other copyvios of this user 17 other copyvios and 2 false authorship claims of this user. --Ubam (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

And I deleted even more that were obviously scanned or taken from elsewhere. I'd feel more safe if all uploads of this user would be nuked, most/all of them seem to be scanned from some GDR military books (judjing from comments at de wiki). Should also include uploads by previous User:HHaeckel. --Denniss (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Are next gallery on scope or out out of scope

Atlas of Sindh, this seems to ne one picture gallery with plenty of text--Motopark (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done, deleted. Taivo (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-usage of user reviewed and appropriately licensed file

Orphan file https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sophie_Hunter.jpg. Should be used as primary headshot for Sophie Hunter's page. It's properly reviewed and appropriately licensed. It is such a waste of free media to improve a page to not do so. 188.20.240.134 01:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done I've added it, but this is really an en-wiki issue. --99of9 (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you!188.20.240.134 01:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The only problem is the image and the source file on Flickr are both copyright violations, see http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/benedict-cumberbatchs-fiance-sophie-hunter-4765683 where the same image can be found with a Getty Image credit. Nick (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Same event but different images, look closer. No identical photo from the link you provided, same with Getty, Zimbio and other stock images site. User on flickr is a seasoned photographer (See Li who also uses the name LondonPictureCapital, see Flickr bio) and it's clear he was there and photographed the event and put the photos under commons license.188.20.240.134 01:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The source image appears to be a Weebly site for London Picture Capital which is selling the photographs, and appears to be some sort of picture agency. What's the original primary source for this image and what's actually going on with the copyright ? Is the photographer running two sites with one purely to provide a CC licence for uploading material to Commons ? Nick (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The primary source is Flickr, Weebly is just one of his websites to promote his work and fees when you hire him as a photographer.188.20.240.134 01:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Universal replace of erroneous picture

Hello. I'd like to request a universal replace of File:Melchior van Brauweiler-engraving after van Calcar.jpg, and its former location at File:Tintorretto-Andreas-Vesalius-engrav-Tavernier.jpg with a picture that's actually of Andreas Vesalius, possibly File:Andreas_Vesalius-Pierre_Poncet.jpg.

Literally 100% of the dozens pages using the engraving of Melchior van Brauweiler do so in the erroneous belief that it depicts Vesalius. Now that the factual error has been fixed at Commons, I don't think that a bot should "repair" all the filenames to continue to point to an erroneous picture (as has been requested here). Could someone take care of this? Thanks, Oreo Priest (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Image reviewers and admins - new tool

New tool created by user:Fae based on my idea can help us to find Flickr washing almost in a real time. It still needed improvement but working very well so far. Already added 3 flickr accounts to the black list only from uploads of today. Image reviewers and admins please add the new tool to your watch lists and help with Flickr bad uploads from the list. here the discussion in village pump. -- Geagea (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If there is any feedback, please drop a note on my talk page. The report is in 'beta', for example I am just running a retrospective test on RecentChanges from 31st Jan as well as in parallel rerunning from the start of today (it runs through the data at about 25x "real time") and I only started adding Flickr nickname resolution to Flickr NSID today (e.g. agenciasenado resolves to 49143546@N06, though the ID is not mentioned on the uploaded pages). Once the report is stable I will think about moving it to run as a daily job on WMFLabs.

There are fancy things one could add, such as counting up all related images at the time of identification, or putting the data in a sortable wikitable; however I'm minded to keep it simple. --Fæ (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent tool Fae, well done --The_Photographer (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Current events

The left menu contains a link Current events even though that page doesn't exist really. Can you remove the link from the manu? --ŠJů (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

(#wikimedia-operations) 20:04:55 <legoktm> Steinsplitter: a bad cache entry was stuck...looks correct in English now

^^ Schould be fixed now. Thanks to Legoktm --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

OTRS group membership

Hi all - I used to have membership in the OTRS group, but with the shuffle and move to the global group I guess that got lost. I don't do the permissions queues much, but it's not uncommon for me to process release tickets in the info-en queues, and I guess it would be nice if I didn't get a big warning and show up in the logs as "OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member". Is there a noticeboard where I can request this? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you should take this up with the OTRS admins at meta:OTRS/Volunteering because only they can add the group now. Green Giant (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Green Giant: Duh, that makes sense. Thank you :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Theoretically only permissions queue should be taken care of permissions tickets. So apply for permissions queue access on otrswiki:AR. — Revi 08:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

delete

I uploaded a picture yesterday and today was deleted. I know the rule is that the picture will be deleted after seven days when the user get notified. FirstK I did not get any notifications and my picture got deleted in less than 24 hours. The reason for deleting the picture was "Copyright violation" and the claim was not approved. now, we will come the picture itself. the picture was a group of picture In Commins and they were; File:Coat of Arms of the Russian Federation.svg, File:Flag of Russia with border.svg and 50px. User:Denniss deleted the picture and the log is here.--Khaled (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Help needed

Can any admin review this file urgently? It is used in a list on Wikipedia which is currently a Featured list candidate. Please review the file, to make sure if the image is tagged with the appropriate license. Thank you. Jim Carter - Public (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Google image search gave this and the bollywood hungama does not have upload date.... Uhm. — Revi 12:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Red carped photo, not uncommon to have multiple photographers in the same location to get the best images. --Denniss (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

please delete new overwrited version

please delete new overwrited version File:Deprtments in advertising agencies.jpg and also picture can be protected --Motopark (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done I've cleaned the history and warned the user who did the overwrite. I'll keep the file on my watchlist. INeverCry 08:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Urgent undeletion

Please undelete all images uploaded by user Postscriptum123 since 29 January 2015. In ticket:2015020310013083 is declared that the license is CC-BY-SA-4.0. Images that didn't have a license template will be corrected today.

There is a need to do this as soon as possible, because they are needed for a Europeana editathon that takes place today.

-Geraki ^T_L^G 08:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Galleries with plenty of text

Example Atlas of Italy one of those, shall we clean and format those galleries or delete them, what are your opinion. More of same users history--Motopark (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Out of scope

We probably could do without this selfie collection. Palosirkka (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done and I see that the user has been reminded about scope, so thank you for doing that. Nick (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done I was bold and deleted ALL those selfies. All were unused. Some of them were recreations of previously deleted content and so qualified for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Listing accounts handling OTRS tickets for Commons uploads

From my time as an OTRS volunteer and understanding of the move away from using a Commons OTRS flag, I believe there is no reliable system to generate a list of OTRS volunteers who are "authorized" to give tickets to files on Commons. Since the system changed, no users are shown as being in OTRS on Userlist. I would like to reintroduce this information by pulling the data from Commons:OTRS/List_of_members_by_language. Unfortunately this is not an actively maintained list though it does benefit from being more specific than the global version on meta.

One alternative would be a pragmatic approach of seeing who is actively using {{permissionOTRS}}, though as many OTRS volunteers may have access to one of the permissions queues without ever using this process, it will differ.

If someone has a better suggestion, I would be happy to consider it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Does https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:GlobalUsers&group=OTRS-member list what you're after? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Strange uploads

Look at the recent uploads of this guy. Monochrome rectangles of .jpg file type in megabyte range. I find that pretty strange, steganography comes to mind. Palosirkka (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Really strange. I deleted 2 unused files, because we have them in .svg. But the others are used in uk.wiki and so they are in scope. User:Ahonc, please look the article in uk.wiki. Is it possible to replace these big files with small .svg files? Taivo (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There have been recent concerns regarding multiple accounts uploading possible steganographic files; see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#User:Vuir5644 CU check required (permanent link). —LX (talk, contribs) 10:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have processed File:Белый 3.jpg ‎and File:Белый 2.jpg using JPEG-optimize function of IrfanView, which resulted in a shrinking of the file size from 580 kb to 125 kB. --Túrelio (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• There are SVG versions of all of these flags at Category:Racing flags. I'd suggest that all uses be replaced with the SVG and all this users uploads be deleted as the remaining images have serious questions about provenance. ColonialGrid (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Reuplaoding with more compression (File:Зелений прапор.jpg) clears the potential issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This DR

Will this DR be closed as kept or deleted? Its been open for 10+ days. I doubt it is own work for the reasons given but perhaps someone can examine it closer. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've handled this one, but please don't ask for more out of process handling. We have a large backlog and will, I hope, eventually get through it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• I did not know about the large backlog. I will not mention any DRs here next time. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Help needed

Can someone help me regarding deletion of photos in this category? I've uploaded them but didn't notice their small resolution. --IvanaMadzarevic (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done I will delete all your small files in the category. Taivo (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Taivo Thanks! :)

250 item backlog at category:copyvio

Experienced admins needed at Category:Copyright violations, thank you! Palosirkka (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

pic to delete

please someone could delete the real pic thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 10:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• The problem here is that User:Pierpao moved the file after the DR had been instigated, therefore, when INC deleted the file, they deleted the redirect. This file File:Nereo Quagliato - La fontana dei Bambini - Vicenza.jpg (which was at File:Vicenza-statua di bimba.jpg) needs to be deleted based on this Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vicenza-statua di bimba.jpg. @Pierpao: this is one reason why you should never move a file subject to a DR. ColonialGrid (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Out of scope

I'd say this guy is outside of scope Special:ListFiles/Витяня_ИТАЛЬЯНЕЦ. Palosirkka (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not scope (some may be in scope), but some are blatant copyright violations and all are likely to be copyright violations. --Fæ (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Deleted, user warned. --A.Savin 12:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Please close this DR

Commons:Deletion requests/Poets from Laos empty gallery--Motopark (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Benetton assassina.jpg

File:Benetton assassina.jpg (is defamatory material) é material difamatório. O revolucionário aliado (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 DoneDeleted by Green Giant as copyvio. Yann (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please delete copyvios

Special:ListFiles/Honda_KL seems to be promotional and copyvios.--Motopark (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Denniss. Green Giant (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Errrr

This seems potentially problematic - take a look at the DR logic for example. For a "new" user there does seem to be an agenda. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done User warned, edits reverted. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hack user

This image has been used to vandalise es wp and likely should be deleted. In practice given the nature of the edit/name etc the account is questionable. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Deleted by A.Savin and user blocked by Denniss. Green Giant (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Offensive words?

Here. I think the words used on this user page are offensive and I would imagine others may well find that the case. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Deleted. Green Giant (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

[To Commmons admins]: missing detection of some non-empty redirected categories

See Template talk:Category redirect#MediaWiki bug (and solution): missing detection of some non-empty redirected categories. (Please reply there). The cause of this old (MediaWiki) bug, and its solution, are fully explained there, but the template is protected, and I cannot fix it myself. verdy_p (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Use {{Sudo}} next time. — Revi 14:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No the template is heavily used, and I understand that it remains protected for admins. My proposed fix is simple to do immediately by an admin without unprotecting the template. And please reply on the template talk page, where it can be followed for long (not the case of this noticeboard). verdy_p (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sudo exists to request admin's attention of protected pages. — Revi 14:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Verdy p: Please post the content of the fixed template on pastbin (or similar) and i will copy&past it in the template. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This is already done on that talk page: look at the very visible frame. That's all what needs to be done, a single replacement. verdy_p (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

- {{PAGENAME}}
+ {{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}}}

^^ Can you confirm that this change is OK? --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Yes, this is also the only correction I made in its /sandbox subpage (only one line, the 6th line, needs to be fixed, the line with PAGESINCAT; it is not needed for other occurences with #ifeq: or for showing the pagename, as I explained on that talk page). verdy_p (talk)14:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There may be other templates having exactly the same problem (those used to track various issues in pages, for feeding tracking categories that should remain empty). verdy_p (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done @Verdy p: Edit request fulfilled. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You've replaced ALL occurences, only one occurence was needed, as I said (only because "PAGESINCAT:" cannot accept an HTML-encoded category name, but "#ifeq:" and "#switch:" decodes them without problem).

Wasn't I very clear, by even giving you the link to the modified code (with the versioned page in the history) and with full explainations in the Templace talk page?

And why did you insist in replynig only here? My message in the template talk page has absolutely no responses. I will soon move this discussion on the Template talk page (thuis noticeboard will never survive long enough). verdy_p (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Verdy p:

a) If you request a change here, i reply here.

b) If you like to request a change of a protected template use {{Editrequest}}

c) Pleas speak clear. You need to give me a line number or something similar.

d) I am a volonteer and not your employee. Therefore please change your language.

-- Steinsplitter (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

a) No. I requested a change on another page, but I just pinged this one (just a notification here) and asked explicitly' to reply to the other page with the link since the beginning. You insisted to do your own way, and you did not read.

b) No. I understand that the template remains protected, I did not ask to do the change myself, just asked for some admin to do it (there was no emergency). I've explained that, but you did not read it.

c) No. I was extremely clear but you did not read. And I did exactly what you asked (giving you a link to the edited page, as well as the line number! and still bringing you to the talk page to explain this in more details if you want that you did not want to read and that you have still not read at all (and never replied to). But even in my reply here (read above), I just asked you to change ONLY one occurence...

d) No. I was polite with you, but you did not read.

How can I say that to you? Even in your last reply, you don't read at all what you write to even check if this was senseful. Actually you never read anything, you've proven repeatedly this basic fact. verdy_p (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Errm... Can you please claim down and stop with wrong accusations!? You did not read... {{Editrequest}} is not for requesting unprotection, it is for requesting changes on protected pages. You schold thank that someone (me in this case) looks at your edit request... and not the contrary. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have never made here any request explicitly to you. And I didn't even use the "editrequest" template (another nonsense reply from you, you do'nt check before replying), but to some admin that would read my notice just pinged here. Next time, given the fact that:

• you absolutely don't understand what you do,
• and don't understand at all what people are saying,
• even when they use the same language as you,
• and even when they just send a single line sentence to reply to you,
• and even when they fully do what you ask them them to do to prepare your possible action,

then abstain of doing anything requested by others, and use only your own responsbility

(but your current position as an admin on Commons or in any other wikimedia project is very questionable if you can't read anything that people are saying to you). verdy_p (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Verdy p. Please calm down and stop any personal attacks immediately. Thank you. --Krd 13:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am calm and I am not requesting to you any other correction. But after your action (that you clearly did not understand at all), I had to perform tests to see if your additional corrections (that I did not request) were working. Your additions seem not being harmful (even if they were not needed), so don't change anything else and keep it.

But it was necessary to inform you (and others) that your "DONE" reply (without more details, than "Edit request fulfilled") was NOT what was requested.

I acted responsibly everytime. It's not my fault if Steinsplitter just refused to visit the talk page that explained evrything, and if he did not even read a single line reply on this page where he inisted to stay. I discovered other pages using PAGESINCAT: in templates, with the same problem but could fix these templates (with an accurate edit summary). verdy_p (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I had to block you for 2 days per your continued personal attacks. — Revi 14:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. -- Geagea (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. But to be frank, once I was young and full of energy I could have behaved similarly to Verdy p. @Verdy p: It's easy to avoid this kind of stupid discussion: Post a solution for copying & pasting to a page (don't assume any admin here is able do complicated stuff like a history merge or even understands why it's generally good practise to do so for edit requests; most of them never worked with a revision control system, nor used a "blame" tool ever in their life), add a bold link to that page; request that your name is cited in the edit summary; in one or two sentences explain why the change is necessary; use {{Edit request}} if you request a change to a protected page. This is what the template is for. And finally, if you feel you are wrong at a place, lust leave. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

CAT:PER

There are +100 pending protected edit requests... Help appreciated. — Revi 04:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

User contributions footer

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T57473

Unless it is just me it seems to have disappeared in the past 24 hours or so. Makes life much harder when working cross wiki. Any thoughts/fixes? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have footer Taivo: Subpages · User rights · Edit count · User uploads · CentralAuth · Global contribs · Recent activity Taivo (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hum - must be something I've done unintentionally - still missing for me. Thanks anyway --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Aah (& call this sort of  Done). I hit a link the other day which had a language switch in it. Changing it back I picked en-gb - looks like there is an en fotter but not an en gb footer. If anyone has a moment (I think it is a mediawiki page) could they just copy the en one to the en-gb one to save confusion for others in the future. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

For Britain. IMHO there should be a fallback to MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer for any language that hasn't specified a custom footer. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed and thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, are you able to implement this Rillke? Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nemo_bis and Siebrand will know. -- Rillke^(q?) 00:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@99of9 and Rillke: Nikerabbit said it's been discussed and dealt with at phab:T3495 and gerrit:72867 (and other sub-tasks linked from there). whym (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The cited patch set was last updated a year ago. For a couple of messages, I created all language subpages ... so if someone would do so now with the user contribs footer, I wouldn't be opposed to that. It would be better of course if someone would fix the patch. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User add out of scope text to picture

User add out of scope text to picture File:MUERTE DE JUAN ANLLO.jpg--Motopark (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

And continuing to do so... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Revenge DRs by Vikiçizer

Does anybody have time to have a look at the massive revenge DRs by User:Vikiçizer, like e.g. this one? Jcb (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, this is not revenge nomination. Please, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Vikiçizer. I'm still sad for toy files, they're gonna be deleted. My files about toy pianos deleted like yours. And they said "Please do start a deletion request for any files or categories you think are copyright violations. If you want I can show you some easy ways to start a DR" and i'm doing what i believed. We're gonna see the results about nominations. thanks...Vikiçizer (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think it's more a problem of attitude, because your concern might be valid. However the "My files got deleted, I nominate your files, no privilege attitude ..." is a bit away from the collaborative spirit excepected on a Wiki. That said I don't think there is a real matter to discuss here ... --PierreSelim (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"On sabbatical" administrators

Re: User:Fæ/Userlist#admins

Hi, could we have some thoughts on apparent or tacit effective retirement for accounts with sysop rights? There are quite a few Commons accounts with sysop rights that make a handful of edits a year, one of these being a Bureaucrat. When activity is so low for years at a time, I believe it would be appropriate for them to at least be asked if they intend actively to use their rights for the project again (more as positive encouragement), even if there is no intention of removing the rights by automatic process.

As an example, Matt314 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) became an administrator in 2006, described then as a busy worker bee, but has made no visible edit to Commons since 7 October 2013. They were active in deleting a few pages from commons on 4 separate days (each day being several months apart) in 2014. No doubt there are good reasons, but on the surface it seems odd for an administrator account to make no edit to Commons content or discussions for such an extended period. --Fæ (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Question -- Don't we already have the process outlined at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship#De-adminship_process_as_a_result_of_inactivity for this? -- Cirt (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Per Cirt - process there has been used (& should be) for quite a while now. Tools are for folk who are active. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the next de-admin run is to to be done this month or next - see Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Btw, the five admin edits made by Matt314 in the last six months are enough to keep the tools under our policy. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well less than 100 edits since january 2010, there are probably no policy about this kind of cases but it would be nice if Matt314 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) explains his needs for the tools, or just resign. --PierreSelim (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a minimum of 5 admin actions and 50 edits on Commons in the last 6 months would be a pragmatic change. --Fæ (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Five edits every six months is very low. I would agree to increase this. Hopefully it would encourage admins to be more active. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright

Im not shure about the copyright of my last upload, so please delete it. --Bereschit (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This appears to have been done by Fastily. As a side note that's a fuckton of rainbows. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• You have now uploaded two files named "Member of the rainbow family", and requested they be deleted right after ([5], [6], and [7]). Are these the same files, and if so (would an admin be able to confirm or deny this?), why? This is, to say the least, odd behaviour and I think after doing the same thing twice an explanation should be forthcoming. ColonialGrid (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Uploads by Sega Chen

A user (RalfX) at the help desk has pointed out that all images uploaded by Sega Chen are copyvios from here. Under usual circumstances I'd mark them as such with the copyvio tag, or start a DR. However, given the amount of IP jumping edit warring at the help desk to suppress this info, I'm posting here with the hope an admin can quickly delete them all before edit warring starts. I'd also suggest deleting these two files ( File:Kana Ueda.JPG and File:Tomomi Itano at Taiwan.JPG ) which have been uploaded by globally locked user 陳建弘 and had their source fields changed to Sega Chen. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dealt (all deleted) with page protection for a day on the help desk. I have also protected my user talk page as it seems an IP was already messing with it. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you. It all seems very very odd, especially what's happened at DAJF's talk page. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Addendum, could someone please either block Lâm Chi for edit warring on DAJF's talk page? ColonialGrid (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Listing accounts handling OTRS tickets for Commons uploads 2

Re Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_51#Listing_accounts_handling_OTRS_tickets_for_Commons_uploads

The answer appears to be the table at {{OTRS/Users}} which Steinsplitter is maintaining. Rather than all accounts with all queues, the table provides a relevant list for Commons. --Fæ (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright

File:Identidade de Visual Londrina Esporte Clube.png - This image is unofficial and has no rights. O revolucionário aliado (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Mass upload of blurry materials, photo's of photo's and random woman

Hello,

The Flickrbot is currently mass uploading copyrighted materials. At his moment I nominated atleast 25 images from pictures of old vogue articles. (less then 10 years old). There are atleast 50 pictures that are photo's of photo's what means the license of Flickr is discussable, and when I was a reviewer we would delete those files? Over 100 images are blurry, and 60% is "scope".

Is it wise to keep the bot running and clean up afterwards? Cause if we miss anything we will have copyvio materials on Commons? Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 20:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 Cleaned up I uploaded accidentally a few hunderts out of scope / DW files. Not sure why flickr'2 commons has uploaded all files, i only selected a few hundert in scope files. Sorry for inconvenience, the affected files are deleted now. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Happened to me to few month ago. I noticed it early and close quickly the page. -- Geagea (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Response Team needs volunteers

Hi all. The Volunteer Response Team (aka OTRS) is always looking to expand its volunteer team in all queues. At the moment, there is a particular need for agents to process permissions tickets. There are some backlogs that we would really like to tackle and while our existing agents are working through tickets as they can, dozens and dozens of new tickets continue to pour in on a daily basis. If you've been around for a while and have a knack for image licensing, please consider applying. You do not need to be an administrator to apply. If you know of anybody else who may be suited please pass along the word! You may submit your information at m:OTRS/Volunteering. Thank you. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Give me a ring!} 23:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Now I think that this is quite an interesting call, given that OTRS administrators kick people out of OTRS without bothering to justify their actions at all. Perhaps changing that particular policy could help you get more volunteers involved in OTRS. odder (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

bot deleter is detected at 37.144.145.16

Destructive bot seems to be active at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/37.144.145.16 It nominates the images for deletion, ignoring the copyright permissions supplied. Please, consider to do something with it. I copypast the list of its recent activity below. Domitori (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The "bot" does not work anymore. I looked through all deletion requests and one of them I closed even speedily as deleted. I even do not block the user now, but if (s)he/it starts to work again, do not hesitate to contact me (or to write here), because something worries me and most of the requests should be closed as kept. Taivo (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

OTRS tickets added by non-OTRS volunteers

Is the tagging of image pages with references to OTRS tickets supposed to be tagged on new uploads? This does not appear to be happening currently, meaning that it is an easy loophole for anyone that wishes to misquote OTRS tickets. Refer to RecentChanges by tag.

A special report or search could be created (catscan2 will do it), however functionally, this seems more appropriate to be part of how the normal tag works. --Fæ (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As this was asked about on IRC with some apparent confusion, to reiterate, the OTRS tag works for changes but not for uploads. This is a potential loophole for our copyright checks.

Examples I have recently come across of accounts without OTRS access uploading without being tagged (and without any assertion of misbehaviour nor any claim of consistency in searching these out):

1. 12 Feb ticket:2006051010009863 - Horcrux92 uploaded Chiesa_di_Santa_Croce_(Piombino).jpg
2. 9 Feb ticket:2011051110007737 - Lokomotive74 uploaded Naphat Seesraum.jpg, Taneekarn_Dangda.jpg, Silawan_Intamee.jpg and Kanjana_Sungngoen.jpg
3. 3 Feb ticket:2012011710005331 - Sporti uploaded File:Nataša Sukič 2015.jpg and File:Tatjana_Greif_2015.jpg
4. 6 Jan ticket:2015010610016522 - Obelix uploaded and edited Skäralid.JPG

--Fæ (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the bugreport on phabricator... (the bug is reported, but phab. has a bad search engine) but new uploads can't be scanned (wikitext scan) with AbuseFilter. :( --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add me in if you find it.

Note, though I currently have a handy script to rapidly find OTRS ticketed images in a day's RecentChanges, it does not pull the wikitext for all potential image candidates, if I did, then doing this remotely would probably be slower than real time, especially when we have a significant batch upload happening! Consequently the ones I find will be haphazard and if we are going to address this, it needs to be at a more basic level than a remote user bot, such as a positive check at the upload event that anyone quoting OTRS tickets is in the OTRS group at that moment, and tags or gives warnings as needed. --Fæ (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

--> phabricator:T21565 --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:Steinsplitter: Task is now to track the AF bug, the necessary local workarounds/tasks here until fixed don't fit into phabs scope at the moment.--se4598 22:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned on Phab, if it is unlikely to be fixed or prioritized for the visible future, then it's best to say that on Commons and we can shop around for someone to put a bot together. With the new facility of web sockets, it should be easier to put a true real-time bot together rather than retrospectively licking the log (not that that's a bad thing, I'm just not convinced it can become efficient).

To be honest, as I have been kicked out of OTRS for reasons that are either still being kept a secret from me, or bizarrely unspecific, I have not been left with much of a personal incentive as an unpaid volunteer to take this on myself. In practice it makes sense for someone with OTRS access to be able to test it while developing it. --Fæ (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

All users may upploaded files with OTRS-ticked. Skäralid.JPG is correct. Why do not you ask an established user instead of suspicion? Obelix (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What is being highlighted is a technical issue and these cases illustrate how Commons currently works. As stated above this is "without any assertion of misbehaviour". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been mentioned above. Any wrongdoing from my site? (I've read through the thread but understand onyl little what you guys are talking about. Sorry) --Lokomotive74 (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, no wrongdoing, nothing to worry about.

You are using a ticket from 2011 for recent uploads but you have a long history doing it and doing this is not against any current guidelines. The issue highlighted here is that this could be a loophole for a vandal to mis-use tickets if they wanted to, as the current system does not tag new uploads as OTRS tickets being added by non-OTRS members. It is near impossible for new image patrollers to find these to review. I have taken out the user links above to avoid it looking like we are pinging uploaders. --Fæ (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• OTRS tags may be added at upload time by Commons Helper and similar tools which copy files from other projects. Do we need to watch those edits? --Stefan4 (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have a bot detecting such "moves". --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense to build tagging into the Commons Helper rather than bots watching bots. --Fæ (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• See phabricator:T89252. But i don't think that this will be fixed this year. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please

Прошу переименовать File:Храм во имя Святого Благоверного Великого Князя Александра Невского. Город Термез.jpg в File:Church of Alexander Nevsky in Termez02.jpg и File:Храм во имя Святого Преподобного Алексия, человека Божия. Город Термез. Бухарское ханство. Российская империя.jpg в File:Church of Alexander Nevsky in Termez01.jpg, считаю не приемлемое имя, не мог этот храм относится к Бухарс. ханству. Есть в категории Category:Church of Alexander Nevsky in Termez уже есть подобные фото File:Church of St. Alexander Nevsky in Terme78.jpg и File:Church of Alexander Nevsky in Termez 13-56.JPG. --Bobyrr (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please check same pictures

If I rfemember right those pictures File:Dj Ajit Dot Tk.jpg and File:DjAjit.jpg was same. Please check.--Motopark (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

uploads nuked and accounts blocked. --Denniss (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Inactivity run for February-March 2015

Hi admins; this is just to let you know that I have just started the admin inactivity run for February-March 2015.

As usual, all administrators listed in the table on that page have been notified on their talk pages and via e-mail; those listed here have had their adminship removed on Meta by steward Mentifisto. Please join me in thanking @ChristianBier, @Effeietsanders, @Guillom, @Grin, @J Milburn, @Juliancolton, @TheDJ and @Zirland for their excellent service to our community. odder (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you :-)! --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you to all of you for your contributions and hopefully we will see you all return soon. Green Giant (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you guys! --PierreSelim (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks to each of you. I'm sorry to see you go. We now have 240 admins. When I became an admin in 2012, I was one of 270+ admins. We need some RFAs! INeverCry 09:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• Agreeing fully with the thanks sentiment to each and everyone of the hard working admins who have helped I'm afraid I can't agree with the advert - some quote somewhere about people who seek power being quite the wrong people to have it - I might pop on en wq and find it later! (Oh and it is quality not quantity that counts...) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Those who seek power are not worthy of that power." - Plato Revent (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the work.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
• The removal of rights from Grin appears to be in error. He responded to the notice six months ago within two hours, and it is likely that a search for those logged actions went back a day short. I have notified Odder, since Grin complained on Odder's user page, which I'm watching. --Abd (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have now re-sysopped Grin, as the removal of his admin privileges was indeed done in error. My apologies for the trouble. odder (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hold on just a second

I use my admin tools. I have moved and deleted images (1, 2 and 3) in the last couple of months, I do source reviews (see here and here for some from the last few weeks) and I have reason to check deleted page histories from time to time- chasing up copyright problems and the like. Why do I have to go through an RfA again if I want to be able to do these things? Do I not have some kind of right of reply? Where was my notification? J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

On 13 August 2014, here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Source reviews and page/file moves does not count as admin action, see the policy. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The policy is clear that non-logged actions do not suffice, and the reason for that is obvious. However, the page move that J Milburn made left no redirect, and that requires admin tools, and the policy does not exclude these. Unfortunately, that still gives him only four logged actions. The point of a policy like that of Commons is for the process to be relatively automatic. It must be simple. Making exceptions can create enormous work for the community, arguing about them. J Milburn, you could argue that the page move should be included, but if you want to continue with admin tools, the simplest thing for you to do now is go to RfA. Your logs do show that you have been more active than 3-4 logged actions would indicate. It is possible that Commons policy should be changed. It is unusually draconian. (But the normal policy on WMF wikis is very loose.) This, however, is not the page to discuss that. That would be Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship. --Abd (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Page moves are not limited to Admins. --Fæ (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That's correct, Fæ. However, page moves without leaving a redirect can only be done by an admin. The option is not on an ordinary user's move screen. An ordinary user moves the page, a redirect is left. I do it all the time, and I then place a speedy deletion tag on the redirect. The page move done by the user -- he cited it above -- was not leaving a redirect, you can see that in the log. So that is a logged action that can only be done by an administrator. It fits what the policy states. If that's not good, fix the policy. It's moot here, because 1 plus 3 is still only four, not five. Unless I missed something. He cited source reviews and viewing deleted pages, perhaps since that viewing requires tools, but the requirement is not "use of tools" but "logged use." --Abd (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Moves with deletions are logged on the underpinning database. What has been chosen from all sysop related logged events is not exhaustive, and could be extended if anyone were to feel this was an injustice. In practice the minimal level of activity is set so ridiculously low, and the amount of time given from a notice to anything happening so long, that anyone who is hitting that minimum does not have a foot to stand on. An experienced admin who wants to return to Commons should be easily able to run a reconfirmation RFA. If their only reason to avoid returning to be an active administrator is that they are worried about having a few questions in public from the community they are here to support, then there is a deeper problem with why they want this particular hat. --Fæ (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are agreeing with me, Fæ.

1. A move with a deletion is an admin action as defined by the policy, because it requires tools and it is logged as such. (If that is not correct, the policy should be made explicit.) If such moves were not counted, that would be an error, because users should be able to count on what the policy actually says.

2. The user did not meet the minimum, regardless, and, by nature, the policy is not flexible. Being flexible with many decisions to make is a nightmare.

3. The user, if he wants to continue with the tools (as seems apparent), has, by policy, an open door and path. I'd encourage him. He lost it a little today, with that angry comment. I've seen lots of admins do that. If he were to apologize, it would help. Beyond advising the user to go for RfA again, and advising users who don't like the policy to fix it, i.e., seek consensus on the policy talk page, is there anything else? --Abd (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The whole system is rotten and needs to be abolished. We're losing experience and knowledge when we remove the sysop permission from users who might be technically inactive, but as demonstrated above, still contribute their time and skill to the running of Commons. Nick (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Imho the system is not rotten. J Milburn is imho not very active on commons. We need active admins. Doing 5 admin actions in 6 months is really not hard... --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually making more than hundred admin actions during one day is not very hard. During last month, I have done that more than once. Taivo (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Steinsplitter: I don't really care what "counts" as an admin action. I'm not going to pretend that I'm particularly active at Commons- I'm not. But what's the utility of removing my tools when I am actually doing admin things? J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, in all fairness, you're really not. I count three deletions made by you in the past year and frankly speaking, it's not a particularly impressive activity record. This policy was implemented for two reasons: 1) Commons is an ever changing environment and inactive admins are by definition a lot less familiar with the project; inactive admins are more likely to make mistakes and given that Commons is extremely understaffed, we just don't have the resources to audit poor administrative decisions 2) Encourage our admins to contribute or resign the tools. Now a quick look at CAT:CSD should make it clear that this requirement isn't terribly hard to meet, and so if you're unable to meet this requirement, then maybe it's best you resigned the tools. Kind regards, FASTILY 00:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

THIS is not nice :( --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It certainly isn't, but then, neither's "checking up" on my contributions when you disagree with me (or maybe it was just a coincidence?), and nor's leaving ridiculous challenges on my talk page, and nor is reverting me without comment like I'm a common vandal. Unless I'm mistaken, we've never met before, yet you suddenly seem to be very anti-me. You'll have to excuse me if I don't take kindly to that... J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Just looked at your recent edits (too see how much reviews you have done) and seen that one. The full conversation should be always archived in the OTRS system. The new ticket looks okay :). Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Fuck off is inappropriate. No matter what. People have been blocked for less offensive replies. It is not only inappropriate but also does not address the issue brought up. -- Rillke^(q?) 00:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am generally in favor of even tougher standards. 240 Admins is far too many when 25 of us do 90% of the work. We might even get more hard-working Admins if the group cut still more of the deadwood. I would support raising the number from five to fifty.

With that said, however, I think that warning someone six months ago that he needed to do five actions in the next six months and then de-admining him six months later when he fails to do them is a little unfair. Perhaps there should have been a reminder warning a month ago.

I should add that I'm speaking in general -- "f*** off" eliminates any sympathy I have for this particular case. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, first of all, this thread was intended to thank removed admins for their service. One of the admins did not understand what happened, and, today, blanked a notice with an obscenity. That admin was understandably upset. Bringing this here was irrelevant. This is not a discussion of whether or not the user should be an admin. (If he wants the tools back, I would support it, I've seen plenty of admins who do far less, in fact, consider the other activity of the user, and the difference is *one action.*) The discussion of the policy's wisdom, in either direction, is useless here. Application of the policy may be, the user's question heading this subsection was appropriate.
• However, above this section, I pointed to an error, an admin who *did* have the required number of admin actions, which were somehow missed, and, oddly, nobody seems to care about that, so obsessed are we by wanting the policy to go away or get stricter, or the drama of a user writing a four letter word when he's upset. --Abd (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• From what I can see this is being resolved on odder's talk page. Also, speaking of drama, your statements here appear to be inflammatory, so it's quite ironic when you're contributing to the same 'drama' you're criticizing... -FASTILY 05:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because I pointed it out there. I'm reminded of the story of three monks with a vow of silence for a day. At a meal, one said, "This soup is great!" The next said, "We have a vow of silence!" The third said, "I am the only one who has not broken the vow." --Abd (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• As a reply to several comments above... My edit summary comment to Steinsplitter certainly was inappropriate- I was extremely frustrated (with the situation, and with S's actions), and I have now apologised to Steinsplitter (though I do maintain that S's actions were also a long way from perfect). I will note that the removal of the message from my talk page was accompanied by explanations that the problems identified were not problems, and then attempts to resolve the issue, and that S is now happy that the licensing of the image in question is accurate- the "issue" with the image is resolved. I may reapply for admin privileges in the future, but the fact I was demoted (utterly ridiculous policy or otherwise...) and the fact I lashed out afterwards probably wouldn't work in my favour. I've no great love for the project (the English Wikipedia is what I care about)- I hope someone who has a little more patience is willing to put the time in to remove this policy so the same thing doesn't happen to others. J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi J Milburn, did you read my reply to you above? I disagree that this is an "utterly ridiculous policy", so perhaps you'd care to respond to my comments above? Regards, FASTILY 03:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• I did see it- I didn't bother replying as it's hardly convincing. There is a difference between people making a small number of admin actions and people failing to keep up with the changing policies/practices of the project- that should be obvious. As for the "it'll encourage more people to resign" thing- why do you want that anyway? If these are the best reasons you have for the policy... J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• And with your reply to Fae below, you've exemplified my point exactly! Your dismissiveness has only shown us that you have no interest in Commons, and so even if you were to retain the tools, you'd probably end up making mistakes, cause trouble, and then walk away not caring! This is precisely why this policy was implemented and why inactive admins are encouraged to resign the tools. -FASTILY 02:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

In the light of the comment "I've no great love for the project (the English Wikipedia is what I care about)", it seems highly appropriate that an RFA would be needed to have access to sysop rights again, I am sure the wider community would have questions about whether it is good for this project to have admins who appear to care so little for it. As there is no further action required and there is little point in badgering J Milburn for responses beyond the blanket statement given, we should let this thread close. --Fæ (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I care about this project - I think it's a great idea, with a noble goal, and is a valuable resource for other Wikimedia Projects - I just have little love for it, because a number of the policies, procedures and users seem to be deeply problematic. If you really want to twist the knife while calling for the thread to be closed, that's your prerogative, but you're hardly selling the project to me. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please check description and google finds result

Sherryphotography (talk · contribs) has uploaded some pictures and there are same description and I check 3 pictures and google finds them from flicker.--Motopark (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

These images are avaialble at [8], but I suspect license washing here. This is also spamming for some astrology service (spam removed on all descriptions). Regards, Yann (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Uploader requested deletion vs. Irrevocable licenses

Ping: AVSVEK, Ellin Beltz, Amitie 10g, YLSS.

Hey folks. I recently came across this request when working at COM:HMS. If you dig deeper, you could see the fellow uploader had uploaded this file, and then a few weeks later, made an acceptable crop and then reuploaded another file, before requesting the older file for deletion.

I personally think that there is no issue with deleting the older file, or at least merging those files. Does anyone else think so too? I intend to update COM:DEL and/or COM:CSD with regard to how strictly we should (or shouldn't) be following the Irrevocable License clause sometime later (if no one objects here, of course). Rehman 15:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I forget, is the option to re-upload a file (incl. one uploaded by you) granted from the start or not? If not, possibly the user was just unable to re-upload it. Or didn't knew that there is such a possibility... YLSS (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. possibly there was the same issue with File:Первомайская.jpg vs. File:О.п. Первомайская.jpg — or wasn't there? YLSS (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi : Subsequent to that closure, I found and saw the double upload, but the criteria given for the deletion nomination was merely "uploader request" with no explanation. There was nothing wrong with the image, it had metadata and a good upload size. The outcome would have been different had the nomination been more clearly stated. I certainly will not oppose a reversal of this decision. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Final update... user renominated the image and I have closed the DN this time deleted. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Rehman 03:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Enforcing the Commons CSD policy

Hi all. Unfortunately, even though we have an official CSD policy, none of it is actually being followed, when it comes to our deletion summaries. Please see my proposal to change that here. Thanks. Rehman 05:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Userfying gallery page

New ships gallery page was used to track newly created ship categories by User:Category-bot, but this bot has been inactive almost two years (since March 2013). Bot owner User:Docu has also been inactive for a year. I suggest userfying the page away from main space to User:Category-bot/New ships. MKFI (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done & unprotected. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Experience required for processing Commons OTRS tickets?

Could I have some experienced eyes on OTRS/Noticeboard#2015021310011879 León Gómez Alonso please?

To assure confidence in the current system, would a public proposal that OTRS volunteers who process tickets for Commons should at a minimum meet the Commons project experience requirements agreed for image-reviewers, be out of line or unnecessarily inflammatory? There is little doubt that the vast majority of OTRS volunteers who regularly process tickets for this project easily meet that basic criteria. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Tlx

An ordinary low priority pending edit request might deserve immediate attention: Please check out Tlx here and on Meta, there is a window of opportunity to get this beast in sync with enwiki, wikidata, mediawikiwiki, and meta. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

While I can't get into the 'technical' argument about what code to use, it's worth noting that the current version of this template on Commons is actually broken for practical use...

"{{tlx|PD-Art|PD-old-auto|deathyear=1944}}" yields {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto}}... not exactly an extreme use case, that doesn't work. (FYI, that 'result' is not typed manually, it's the result of the exact code in the quotes.) Revent (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The standard problem with "=" sign. Use either "{{tlx|PD-Art|PD-old-auto|3=deathyear=1944}}", or "{{tlx|PD-Art|PD-old-auto|deathyear{{=}}1944}}", or even "{{tlx|PD-Art|<nowiki>PD-old-auto|deathyear=1944</nowiki>}}". YLSS (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Looking, I see the enwiki version has the same issue, it's just documented better. TBH, when it's been a problem for me in the past I'd just put 'nowiki' around the entire blob instead of trying to find a way to make it 'work'. Revent (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Attribution-NavyofBrazil

Hi Above (protected) template needs an update considering Template talk:Attribution-NavyofBrazil because licensing had changed since +/- 02.2011. Gunnex (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I temporary lowered the level of protection; would you please update the template and let me know when you are done. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thx. I already updated Template:Attribution-NavyofBrazil/pt and Template:Attribution-NavyofBrazil/mk but Template:Attribution-NavyofBrazil/en is protected (you may use the mk translation text for updating en by yourself - if you like). Gunnex (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed that one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. You may reprotect all related templates. Thx. Gunnex (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, reprotected--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This deletion request

Closed but not deleted Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hines logo.png--Motopark (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Green Giant (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

correction

can an admin correct this last voting here: Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2014/R2/v/Crystal_Mill,_Colorado.jpg. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 21:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please here: Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2014/R2/v/Mandarin_Pair.jpg and here too: Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2014/R2/v/Dülmen,_Umland,_Sonnenaufgang_--_2012_--_9.jpg. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

in File:Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu Cannes 2010.jpg - other man, (maybe Alexandre Desplat)

I see this file → and I think, this is NOT Alejandro González Iñárritu
This is Alexandre Desplat.
Best regards, ---- Baden-Paul (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and fixed :) ..--Stemoc 08:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Inactive Image-reviewers

The following 63 accounts have been inactive for 2 years or more (some are many years more, and a few accounts are marked as retired) and have the Image-reviewer right. I am unsure if this is supposed to be part of standard rights housekeeping, but worth asking these users if they still need it. If they do, then there may be a case to ask them to request the right again as expectations have changed since they last used it. Raising on this noticeboard, though no objection if someone feels it needs to move to BN --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Image-reviewer table

17Drew (talk · contribs) 444pixels (talk · contribs) A7x (talk · contribs) Alpha Quadrant (talk · contribs) Alpta (talk · contribs) Americophile (talk · contribs) Amicon (talk · contribs) Andrew Levine (talk · contribs) Animum (talk · contribs) Brandon (talk · contribs) Brian (talk · contribs) Brynn (talk · contribs) Caspian blue (talk · contribs) Ceranthor (talk · contribs) Chzz (talk · contribs) Coelacan (talk · contribs) Computerjoe (talk · contribs) Drilnoth (talk · contribs) Edub (talk · contribs) Enricopedia (talk · contribs) Feel free to remove --Enricopedia ⇄ 13:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Removed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Erwin (talk · contribs) Evalowyn (talk · contribs) Fernando Estel (talk · contribs) Fetchcomms (talk · contribs) Filnik (talk · contribs) Flamurai (talk · contribs) Fr33kman (talk · contribs) Greeves (talk · contribs) Removed: only 23 edits (including userpage edits), no edits since 2008 --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Hdtcommons83 (talk · contribs) Heligoland (talk · contribs) Removed: granted in 2010 but never edited --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Iamunknown (talk · contribs) Feel free to remove --Iamunknown (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Removed, thanks for your services. — Revi 09:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC) JamieS93 (talk · contribs) Johntex (talk · contribs) Kahuroa (talk · contribs) Kakofonous (talk · contribs) LeaveSleaves (talk · contribs) MacMed (talk · contribs) Malo (talk · contribs) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) McLurker (talk · contribs) Miranda (talk · contribs) Moneya (talk · contribs) Monobi (talk · contribs) NonvocalScream (talk · contribs) Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) Patstuart (talk · contribs) Privatemusings (talk · contribs) Pumpmeup (talk · contribs) RG2 (talk · contribs) Rocket000 (talk · contribs) Sanchom (talk · contribs) Sodakan (talk · contribs) Sopoforic (talk · contribs) The Wordsmith (talk · contribs) Truu (talk · contribs) Tyrenius (talk · contribs) Vaya (talk · contribs) WODUP (talk · contribs) Xymmax (talk · contribs) Yamanbaiia (talk · contribs) Yummifruitbat (talk · contribs) Zachary (talk · contribs) З2Х (talk · contribs)

 Info Notified all affected users (User:Monobi talkpage is fullprotected). --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Because there is no oppose, i am inclined to remove the flag from all accounts where last edit is before 2011. Concerns? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me. Natuur12 (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me too. If the accounts are inactive then they don't need them anyway. We always have procedure to restore them. ~ Nahid ^Talk 12:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

+1. -- Geagea (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

+1. Thank you Fæ for raising this issue. Green Giant (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 Support OK for me. Yann (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

OK I removed the flag from all accounts where last edit was before 2011 and RG2, Privatemusings, Miranda and Computerjoe because less than 4 edits in 2011. And i removed all right from З2Х - rights never used and inactive since 2011, 2nd account of 32X. Users can request lr flag back at COM:LRR. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ: can you please update the list. Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Alpha Quadrant (talk · contribs)
2. Americophile (talk · contribs)
3. Brian (talk · contribs)
4. Brynn (talk · contribs)
5. Ceranthor (talk · contribs)
6. Chzz (talk · contribs)
7. Erwin (talk · contribs)
8. Evalowyn (talk · contribs)
9. Fetchcomms (talk · contribs)
10. Filnik (talk · contribs)
11. Fr33kman (talk · contribs)
12. Kahuroa (talk · contribs)
13. MacMed (talk · contribs)
14. Malo (talk · contribs)
15. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)
16. NonvocalScream (talk · contribs)
17. Rocket000 (talk · contribs)
18. Sanchom (talk · contribs)
19. Truu (talk · contribs)
20. Trycatch (talk · contribs)
21. Xymmax (talk · contribs)
22. Zachary (talk · contribs)

--Fæ (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the updated list. I think at the most we should give them seven days from when they were notified, so anybody who hasn't responded by 9 February should have the permission removed. Green Giant (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed all of these users from image reviewers group.Thank you Fæ for your efforts. Please let us know if there are any users in this group who have not edited in the last 18 months as they will need notifying soon. Green Giant (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Angusmclellan (talk · contribs)
2. AnonEMouse (talk · contribs)
3. BarkingFish (talk · contribs)
4. C-M (talk · contribs)
5. Chaser (talk · contribs)
6. David1217 (talk · contribs)
7. Dnikitin (talk · contribs)
8. Doug (talk · contribs)
9. Raeky (talk · contribs)
10. Samuel Grant (talk · contribs)
11. Spundun (talk · contribs)
12. Stevenfruitsmaak (talk · contribs)
13. VasilievVV (talk · contribs)
14. Yarnalgo (talk · contribs)

This is the list of remaining image-reviewers inactive for 18 months (taken as 548 days). --Fæ (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Users notified --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If I want to keep the flag, do I ask about it here or somewhere else? vvv^t 21:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you intend to do image reviews? If you're not going to be active in image reviewing, the flag should be removed. INeverCry 22:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Commons:Administrators/De-adminship states that any admin who wishes to retain the rights must log at least five actions following notice of de-adminship. I don't see how a similar requirement of reviewing at least one file shouldn't be required here; any user who wants to retain the flag should be using it. ColonialGrid (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it should be added to COM:LR? --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, trustworthy users should be able to retain the right even if they're not actively reviewing for them to be able to use upload_by_url.    FDMS  4    21:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think this is a fair comment, at least they would be using the tools, this demonstrates a need. However, in the case of editors who don't either edit or use the tools I don't see why they should retain them, even if they ask for them to be retained. ColonialGrid (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Certainly, contributors that have a history of using the upload_by_url right have a rationale to keep on using it. I see no harm in removing the image reviewer right and giving it back on an informal request whenever this is the case. Keep in mind that this list was based on completely inactive accounts that were dormant for two full years (the last table for 18 months), so none of these users could claim to have current projects on the go nor that losing the right due to what appears to be effective retirement is unfair. Were someone to lose the right because of poor judgement about copyright, that's a different issue and a formal request would be appropriate as if it were a new application. --Fæ (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

To clairfy: I don't disagree with removing the Image-reviewer right from the clearly inactive accounts listed above, because, as pointed out in your first comment, expectations have changed since they last used it. I only disagree with automatically removing the right from inactive reviewers, and am not sure about removing it from inactive accounts in the future. Unlike a lot of the administrators' tasks, license reviewing does not require a "community connection", just knowledge of copyright laws and local policies (and, of course, trustability); and unlike on OTRS, inactive accounts don't cause any harm to the LR system. If the only reason for automatical rights removals would be that the community's "trust is lost", rollback/filemoving/patroller rights should be removed as well.    FDMS  4    14:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Unarchived. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Because there is no oppose (FDMS4 is only opposing a completely automated process but have no problem with removing the users listed above) and only support i  Removed the right from all accounts. Excepted accounts who made edits after notification. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Sofiadesmond32

Could an admin please look at the (so far) only contribution of User:Sofiadesmond32, on User:Ragesoss's user talk page? It looks like a spam message sent via WikiLove -- something I haven't seen before. -Pete F (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done - thank you for bringing this up; I've blocked the account as a precaution but we will need to keep an eye open for more of this. Green Giant (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

Ivan seznec, creator has beend deleted twice speedy deletion tag and ones deletion request--Motopark (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

pictures deleted

hello , do not understand why the images by Maurodeathrage have been deleted, do not think of violating any copyrights seen that the photos in question are taken from me , takes my mother and it are in my possession i wait an answer

thanks a lot

Mauro Tonon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.175 (talk • contribs)

Hi Maurodeathrage, I am not an administrator but perhaps I can help a little. I see that these files were discussed here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Maurodeathrage (and there were some additional pictures flagged on your user talk page, here.)

If I understand you correctly, you own these physical pictures (newspaper clippings), which you received from your mother. The issue is that, even if you own the physical pictures, somebody else likely has the copyright -- the photographer, usually, or their heirs. Unless the pictures have fallen into the public domain due to their age (a complicated topic, which varies depending on the country of origin), only the copyright holder has the right to assign a free license to the pictures. I hope this helps. It's unfortunate, but the problem lies with the copyright laws of various countries, not with Wikimedia Commons; we aim for a high standard of reusability (so that those who find pictures here can confidently republish them elsewhere). -Pete F (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

'm not talking of the newspaper clippings (only 2 images ) , on which I can agree ( delete them as well) , but all the other photographs of my mother with other celebrities, can't know wikicmedia who could have photographed, I take the paternity of these photographs, IT WAS MYSELF THAT TUUK THOSE PICTURES !!!!!!!

thanks a lot

Mauro

You claim to have shot File:Isabella Tonon al Derby Club.jpg. However, when this image had been shot, your mother was only 30 years old. ... --Túrelio (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you know how old she was my mother in the picture? then you know who took these pictures , right? if you really want to know, the picture I took in collaboration with my father (r.i.p.) Now you start to calculate how many years could have my mother in the picture? are you kidding? is ridiculous!

I get judged based on your assumptions ? I laugh

anyway, if you believe that I am a vandal or an abuser of copyright as well delete my account

thanks thanks thans

File mover right for Jean-Jacques MILAN

I am passing along a request from Jean-Jacques MILAN (talk · contribs), who asked me on Meta Wiki. (I am not an admin here.) In short, he says his work often surfaces factual inaccuracies in file names, and he would like to be able to correct them himself. I know that file moves can be a little delicate, and that it's a good idea to ensure that a user has a good understanding of the guidelines for renaming: Commons:File renaming So, Jean-Jacques, I suggest you leave a note here stating that you have read and understand that guideline. -Pete F (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Such a confirmation would be highly appreciated. And note, one can always request additional user rights at Commons:Requests for rights. -- Rillke^(q?) 19:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Conscription map of the world.svg at the verge of an Edit war

Please have a look at User talk:Roopeluhtala and File:Conscription map of the world.svg. Two users (one of them as me) sees no basis for the claim that there is no conscription in Denmark and Austria (while both have it in their laws and draft sizeable numbers of men every year), while the opponent argues that conscription is not compulsory if you are not punished seriously. He does not seem to be familiar with the principles of the Wikipedia projects and argues with speculation and based on questionable facts. Thank you. --Hansbaer (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Uploads by Unauthorized Bot - Out of scope?

User:Unauthorized Bot has uploaded 32,500 PDFs of legislation documents(?). Looks like out of COM:SCOPE (See also this DR, but unrelated to the SCOPE). I don't like to tag 32,500 files for DR, therefore i bring this up here. Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It also created all the subcats of Category:Monitorul Oficial which was originally created by User:Bogdan. I think this was his bot if I remember right, but don't quote me on it. Looks like it was run by him. INeverCry 08:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

They are in scope if there is a project to use them. Hopefully Bogdan/the bot operator has one in mind. --Fæ (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

They are within scope. First of all, Commons is not just a repository of images for Wikipedia. It wants to all Public Domain works that are educational (i.e. provide general knowledge). The exceptions are in the policy and include works of private, not public interest (for instance, party photos, etc.) or duplicates of better things we already have. I think it's obvious that this publication is a public work, not someone's party photos.

Also, scanned works are specifically mentioned in the policy:

Remember that Wikisource may use PDF or DjVu files in order to proofread or create source texts: Therefore, scans of suitable editions of notable public domain works are almost always within scope for this reason. (Commons:Project scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats).

Currently there is no project to transcribe them on the Romanian Wikisource (to which it seems I'm pretty much the only active editor), but that may change in the future. Bogdan Giuşcă (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Note, that this one is discussed in a separate DR. Ankry (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

How to succesfully move this picture En wiki picture to Commons?

Hello,

I wanted to move the following picture from english wikipedia to Commons so that it could be use in other Wikipedia languages groups (as it was suggested in a box under the file that this file is a "candidate" but I am getting the following message :

   "You must provide the original source of the image, the author of the work, and a license."

I failed with the following data:

DescriptionAdministrators' noticeboard/Archive 51	Paul McCartney, David Lynch, and Ringo Starr at David Lynch Foundation press conference in April 2009
Date	July 17, 2009
Source	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lynch_Foundation#mediaviewer/File:David-lynch-foundation.jpg
Author	Rvanschaik
Permission (Reusing this file)	Public domain
Other versions	unfortunatly there is no better resolution

Would you kindly explain me what is missing so that the file can be moved successfully?

Cordially--Amator (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed at EN. Try again. Source should be {{Own}} and license should be {{PD-Self}}. Jee 07:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Amator: You can just mark the file with en:template:MTC. It may be slow, but these do get done. --Fæ (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This photo is a cropped version of http://bigstory.ap.org/photo/paul-mccartney-david-lynch-ringo-starr-bettye-lavette-donovan = http://binaryapi.ap.org/38fbe5cfce254c908551252893c997fa/512x.jpg (exif available), credited with "AP Photo/Evan Agostini", is most likely copyrighted and should be deleted. Gunnex (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Tagged with copyvio locally at enwiki, considering also published before upload date via (example) http://www.suprmchaos.com/bcEnt-Sat-040409.index.html (04.2009, credit: "Photo by Evan Agostini")) = http://www.suprmchaos.com/lynch-concert1_040309.jpg = http://www.suprmchaos.com/lynch-concert1_040309.jpg (last modified: 04.2009, exif available). Gunnex (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Jee, Fæ and for clarifying and deleting Gunnex. Like that we might perhaps have a chance one day to get a similar picture with a better definition! Who knows! --Amator (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Need to have photos deleted from the permission to use.

Hello, I am an A & R person and would like to have a couple of photos deleted from the Wiki Commons photos that I uploaded. In an effort to conform to Wikipedia guidelines and develop a neutral standpoint how do I delete those photos. I only need to leave the album covers for the music artist.

Please advise Deloris SOIJaySey795 (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Could you please link to the images you wish to be deleted, and explain why? ColonialGrid (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• @SOIJaySey795: valid deletion reasons are listed here. Ankry (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Isle of Man flag

It is a "disputes with users", therefore moved to COM:AN/U. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Enrique Urbizu.jpg

Can any admin review the history of the file and remove the initial version? I cropped it to remove the copyrighted artwork. Many thanks in advance. BR --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 22:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Natuur12 (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

15. Wandkreuz.jpg

Please delete the first version of this File from the version history so that only the current one is cept. The uploader wasn't able to provide a permission for the first one, but emailed another version and permission via OTRS. Thanks // Martin K. (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Krd 12:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Box

Hi. I made the documentation page Template:Box/doc for the template. Please add the {{documentation}} on the template's page.--RicHard-59 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Awesome! Thank you! --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Vrvroo

All uploads look suspect. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

All uploads nuked -FASTILY 08:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

NASA duplicates with a few kilobytes more

Currently, there are quite a few NASA photos in Category:Duplicate that were recently transferred from Flickr and have one thing in common: The files marked as duplicates, such as File:Ed White First American Spacewalker (9457842193).jpg, are of the same size in pixels as the existing file on Commons (in this case, File:EdWhiteFirstAmericanSpacewalker.1965.ws.jpg), but do have a few kilobytes more: The examples both are 3000×3094 and look exactly the same to me, but the new file is 6002 KB, the "old" one only 5937 KB. It's a similar small difference in all these current cases (e.g. 3066 vs. 3051), so I wonder what to do: Switch files and keep the new ones, presuming it must contain a bit more information? However, I'm also aware that larger file size in duplicates not always means better image quality, it might also result from bad processing. Maybe someone is able to find out what's the reason for this file size difference and which files are the better ones? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I think I found the reason: The new files (marked as duplicates) mostly have extensive Exif data, whereas the existing ones haven't. So, I think we should keep the new files with their Exif data, right? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: A third option? That image is from "Great Images in NASA", and has been color-twiddled and rotated. The same image is available as a TIFF at https://archive.org/details/S65-30431 with about twice the resolution... personally I prefer the colors in the original version (that the IA has a copy of)... if you look at, in particular, the US flag on his arm, they made it rather orange-ish.

FWIW, I'm not crazy at all about the "GRiN" photos, they seem to have been typically played with to look good on the 'web', and scaled way down. Not that I'm claiming the 'higher resolution' is necessarily more 'detailed', it's obviously a scan of a film camera shot, and the focus isn't great, but it is usable at a larger size. Revent (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Revent: Thanks for the answer; well, I think there's room on Commons for the modified "GriN" photos as well as for the original TIFFs you mention. But if these TIFFs are uploaded, that would still leave us with two copies of the GriN photos, the older uploads without Exif (or less Exif) and the recent ones. For the time being then, I think I'll start deleting not the new uploads, but the Exif-lacking older ones as duplicates. As the GriN photos are "color-twiddled", as you say, some people might like these versions, others might not, but I think we can keep one copy each. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, was not objecting to removal of the actual 'duplicate' (or keeping the GRiN version), just noting that it's a modified version and the original is available... not uncommon with NASA stuff, where the same image is often duplicated in several different 'official' archives in various formats. Revent (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Wait

Hello! I didn’t do everything perfect while migrating to the Translate extension. Please delete Template:Wait/i18n/frr (it’s a Norwegian translation at a bad place) and please merge the page history of Template:Wait/i18n/no and Template:Wait/i18n/nb at nb (the other page can be deleted). Thanks a lot, --Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Jarbas Barros

Plenty of out of scope uploads claimed under own work. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I will handle it rubin16 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

not authorized

Please File:LONDRINA.png and File:LONDRINAEC.png

images without license or permission from the owner of the rights. O revolucionário aliado (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Gunnex (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

pagemove throttle for new users

Hi, I moved Category:Finis Bellis (ship) after a consensual discussion on the talk page of the category. The move was performed, the talk page was not moved and I was blocked automatically. How can I get unblocked? --Stuhlsasse (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. INeverCry 10:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like to move Category:Flavio Biondi to Category:Flavio Biondo, but I have no 'move' button. Perhaps I should try again tomorrow. --Stuhlsasse (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done ColonialGrid (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well here's something new

So OK, I went to nominate for deletion File:Strasse von Bonifacio.png, but the program was unable to notify the uploader (User:Darsie) because he has full page protection on his talk page. Since the program was unable to place the uploader notification, it aborted the entire process. It's apparently not possible to nominate a file for deletion (except by hand) if the uploader's page is protected. Who knew?

Turns out that User:Darsie is dead and his page was protected for that reason. OK fine, but the file needs to be deleted, and my inclination would be to delete all the files uploaded by Darsie, unless this one's an outlier, because: The file doesn't look like own-work, expired, or otherwise free; there's only the bare assertion that it's free, with no provenance given, except to to point to where he got it: the German Wikipedia, here. Well, the file there was uploaded by Darsie, and again with no explanation whatsoever of where it came from, only the bare (and almost certainly false) assertion that it's licensed under Creative Commons. If this was Darsie's modus operendi, I'd say deleting all his uploads would be called for here. Herostratus (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The file was nominated correctly (diff 1, diff 2) with the script - but the unloader was not notified because of the full protection. This is normal, maybe the error output should be improofed a bit. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, OK, hunh, it looked to me like it backed out the whole transaction, but I guess I read it wrong. Nevermind. Herostratus (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected file page needs to be tagged for NSD

See File:Princess Sophia in 1900s.jpeg, which is cascade protected since it's on enwiki's main page. It should be tagged with {{subst:nsd}} as it lacks both authorship and publication date information to substantiate the license claim. Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 06:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Piastkarnin

All uploads looks suspect. LukKot (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 Deleted Copyright violation --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Allegation of illegal OTRS access

Dear Administrators,

I would like to make an unambiguous statement after a false allegation by an OTRS volunteer on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Melissa Wolf (diff) that I have been "attempting to access OTRS wiki illegally" and making a threat to take me to the "Privacy Ombudsman".

I have never attempted to access either the OTRS database or the OTRS-wiki without authorization. I have never attempted to access any Wikimedia database or system illegally or without authorization.

I do not appreciate Wikimedia Commons being misused to defame me with allegations of criminal or illegal actions. I believe this is a violation of the terms of use of the website.

Thank you. --Fæ (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Then it's a matter for the WMF, not here. Terms of Use breaches should be reported higher-up, and need to be dealt with centrally. In any case, how does expressing someone may have leaked material even come close to a ToU breach? If you have nothing to hide, you could have just said you hadn't had access to it and left it, rather than blowing it out of proportion. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. A publicly stated allegation as the above cited one by Jee towards Fæ is a serious matter. Either there is some solid evidence for the allegation, then it needs to go to Ombudsman or WMF legal. Or, if the allegation is unfounded, it is a severe personal attack and inacceptable slander. --Túrelio (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing more I have to say. I'm not a native English speaker; not you too. (And I'm surprised to see you didn't see " circling the wagons using the OTRS-wiki" is not a "severe personal attack and unacceptable slander." :( Jee 08:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

More unfounded personal allegations. I did read that before and, despite not being a native speaker, I do well understand that "circling the wagons" is a figure of speech, which means criticism, but is alltogether different from an accusation of attempting illegal access.

Besides, does your strange defense mean that my option 2 (allegation is unfounded) is true? If yes, I would recommend an immediate retraction and apology. --Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you read everything? It all stared yesterday and I didn't involve in. I tried my best to stop it; but his reaction was strange. BTW, why are you demanding apology here? This is AN; not AN/U. (EOD from my side as it is better handled by Ombudsman.) Jee 08:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If someone has to apologize is Fae, not anyone else here. He is clearly stalking volunteers handling OTRS tickets because of the campaign started by Russavia against OTRS. Fae is a cunning wolf crying under the moon... Yann (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

For those unaware, it was Yann that chose to create the above DR which resulted from perfectly valid questions being raised about an OTRS ticket on OTRS/N. In this scenario, allegations of stalking are way off beam. --Fæ (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh grow up Fae. You of all people I know on Commons are one of the worst offenders in the "unfounded allegation" department, and if every little grievance was met with a "Mum, Dad, he said a bad word." threat of "Terms of Use" violation (which we all know what Fae implies by that -- globally block this annoyance now) then none of us would still be editing. It is quite clear you are picking on OTRS volunteers, which has the effect of provoking them. When people are provoked they don't always consider their words well and AGF is understandably lost. You don't regain AGF by then trying to take advantage and seeking blocks. You and Túrelio are shamefully gaming the system. Stop it now. -- Colin (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, Colin. "gaming the system" for requesting clarity about a serious allegation? Though you despise me since long, that's a new low. --Túrelio (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I know Commons doesn't have a civility policy, but do you guys really have to clog the administrators' noticeboard with endless snipes and insults? Geez. Everyone say you're sorry and get back to work! Kaldari (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ombudsmen Commission

I have received an email from the OC confirming that they have received no claims against me of privacy violations, neither have they made any investigation related to me. The allegation of criminal access to OTRS, with threats to report me, was made less than a month after a false OTRS related claim of meatpuppetry (here) with later redacted legal threats.

As I am not an anonymous contributor to this project and my employment is in the field of information systems, I have to take a public allegation of attempted illegal systems access seriously, even when I know full well that it is false. Should anyone have evidence, I ask them to please have it independently reviewed, and that I am shown basic decency by being presented with it first in confidence, so that I have the opportunity to investigate them myself, rather than finding that unproven allegations have been made public where they cannot be withdrawn.

I ask administrators to take action against anyone using this project to make allegations of crimes when there has been no evidence presented. This project should not be allowed to be disrupted with hostile defamatory allegations, particularly as a response to a contributor attempting to ask valid good faith questions about copyright based on problematic or unclear OTRS tickets.

P.S. I remain astonished that OTRS administrators would want volunteers who have a history of making defamatory public allegations of crimes, or public threats of legal action, to have access to the OTRS database.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Fae, stop playing the victim. As said above, you are the one guilty, by staking OTRS volunteers. Yann (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please go ahead and raise some evidence for your repeated claims of stalking on AN/U or go away. My track record on OTRS/N shows this is false. You are an experienced administrator, you know exactly what COM:BP requires and in no way does raising valid copyright questions on OTRS/N provide an excuse for harassing me with false public claims of being a criminal. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It is worth reading the deletion request. A deletion request should be a discussion on the merits and issues with hosting an file on Commons. Instead, two users (Fae, Nick) take the opportunity to mount personal attacks on the OTRS agent who I assume approved the images ("staggering incompetence", "+1"). Requests for this user to be removed from the OTRS team should be done somewhere else, in a place where the community/authorities can review their overall record. Is that not reasonable? Jee tried to explain the difficulties facing an OTRS agent. This is relevant given the attack just made. Fae's response is again off-topic with some defensiveness presumably referring to some posting elsewhere, as the DR contains no attack on Fae at that point. But during that completely-off-topic defensive rant, he accuses the OTRS team of colluding using the OTRS wiki to defend themselves (presumably against Fae). How does Fae know this? I don't know, but it looks like Jee puts 2+2 together and assumes Fae has access to this Wiki, which Fae shouldn't have. An alternative explanation is that Fae came about this self-claimed knowledge of OTRS wiki discussions through a leak by someone else. Or that it is just paranoia and speculation. Or completely made up to make the OTRS team look bad. Nothing would surprise me at this point. So what is it Fae? Is this knowledge of OTRS wiki discussions made up? Or is someone leaking its contents to you? -- Colin (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that the same people complaining that OTRS admins remove access without providing the full evidence to them also constantly ask for OTRS access to be removed from users they disagree with.    FDMS  4    14:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Colin I have raised issues with Ktr101's competence directly with the OTRS administrators, accurately detailing several issues which have occurred, but at the moment, Ktr101 is so bad at dealing with OTRS tickets, it's getting to the stage where, if the OTRS administrators refuse to remove his access, he will need to be asked to voluntarily refrain from dealing with permissions tickets, or we will need to block him. He has approved tickets where the uploader and person providing permission is not the copyright holder, he has poor to absolutely no understanding of freedom of panorama and he uploads copyright violations himself due to having no knowledge of derivative work copyright legislation. I have had, for the avoidance of any doubt, some quite heated discussions and disagreements with OTRS administrators and other OTRS agents, and Ktr101 remains the only user I believe should have their access removed, and that is purely because of his staggering incompetence. I've absolutely no interest in having OTRS access removed from any other user I have disagreed with, as long as they are competent. Nick (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Nick, what you say may be true, I have no opinion as I don't even know the person or his activities. But it remains that you chose to rant about this "staggering incompetence" at a DR, where the good people of Commons who are active there go to discuss whether a file should be deleted. This is done based on policy and legal grounds concerning the file alone. Did your sole contribution: "And will someone please remove Ktr101's OTRS access on the grounds of his staggering incompetence" aid any administrators in coming to a decision on those files? Did Fae's sniggering "+1" help resolve any complicated legal issues? Just how many people would have viewed that DR had Fae not chosen to highlight it here? Were you really starting a serious discussion with the aim of achieving community consensus on some action to take? Is going "+1" at a DR the correct procedure for voting on removing someone's OTRS access? Do tell where this new policy has been documented. You are like schoolboys who have been caught taunting a classmate for being fat and ugly. When told off for being mean, they retort "But it's true; he is fat and ugly". The person you two have decided to shame for "staggering incompetence" is a human being and volunteer. If you feel this has reached the point where he must be prevented from making more such mistakes, do so in the proper forum (whatever that may be) with linked evidence and moderate language, rather than insults in inappropriate and ineffectual places. -- Colin (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Colin, yeah, it probably didn't help. I've raised issues about Ktr101 with the OTRS administrators and despite them agreeing there are significant concerns about Ktr101's behaviour and competency, they have indicated they don't want to remove his access because they're short of volunteers. My comment was in response to this frustrating behaviour from the OTRS team. Nick (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Bit of confusion, one of my reports went missing, but is now being looked into again by the OTRS team. Nick (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well might I suggest that everyone involved on that page seems a bit frustrated with each other and may have said inappropriate things in inappropriate places. Time to move on and close this unhelpful admin notice? -- Colin (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Nick (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Fæ had CCed a mail that he had sent to legal and ombudsman. So whatever he may want to achieve (global or OTRS ban for me or whatever else) should be procceded through that proper channel. So what he is doing here now and some other user's talk page is quite forum shopping. (I had mentioned an EOD earlier; but forced to comment once more as this is escalating too much.) Jee 15:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• No allegations of "criminal" activity have been made. The word "illegal" simply means "against the law; forbidden by the rules". That might be criminal law, the rules of OTRS wiki, the terms-of-use of a website, or a move in chess. The fact that Fae claims such "allegations of crimes" have been made tells us all everything any admin needs to know in order to deal with this notice: dismiss it. Oh and if Fae is concerned about his record on Commons being used by a (future) employer, then posting his vocation, the words "criminal" and "crimes" together with his user name probably isn't the wisest move. Just sayin' -- Colin (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

User:Sopawan.ka out of project scope.--Motopark (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sirfrederickgol2014

Keeps uploading the same copyrighted logo after warning not to. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Deleted and blocked for 1 week. --Didym (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Templates "by year" leading categories to show up as uncategorized

Moved to COM:VP. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Villa cas.jpg

Resolveddone by INeverCry. Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Please can we get the File:Villa cas.jpg deleted ASAP. Clear copyvio and it keeps getting added to the en:Villa Castelli helicopter collision article. Mjroots (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

trying to register

i just found your site and when i tried to register it said my account was like someone elses, i never signed up before. Thanks Diane in Eugene, love the site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.241.11 (talk • contribs)

Somebody else has registered username Diane. Choose another username and try again. For example, Diane in Eugene is free. Taivo (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Please move to right place

Commons:Deletion requests/User talk:Tsui shall be moved right picture--Motopark (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Flickrstreams of concern report

User:Faebot/Flickrstreams of concern

Now a few weeks has passed of "soak testing", this report provides a useful list for administrators to keep an eye on. More than half of the sources listed to date have proven to be uploading copyright violations.

All uploads from Flickr to Commons are checked and Flickrstreams of potential concern are listed once only for review (i.e. the purpose being to identify unique source streams for human review, not just individual images). I will consider moving this over to WMF labs in a couple of weeks, so any feedback from administrators with suggestions for alternative criteria would be welcome. See the description on the report for the current criteria. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What would be additionally awesome: Suggestions which Flickr-Stream to lock uploading from based on the outcome of deletion requests (e.g. >10 files deleted for license laundering, flickr washing or being copyright violation and > 20% of the files uploaded to Commons deleted), statistics about deletions per stream essentially. -- Rillke^(q?) 00:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is possible, so long as I can access deleted images. However as I am not an admin, and considering the way I was kicked out of OTRS for "reasons" that appear political as I was assured it was unrelated to anything I have done or any complaint about me, it seems unlikely that I will be able to have sysop tools as there is no indication that the slightly bizarre anti-Fæ bad-faithers will ease off any-time soon. --Fæ (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ: Your bot could scan new uploads for flickr-URLs and create a custom database. For all entries it knows to still exist, it would periodically check whether they were deleted. This way one doesn't have to access deleted data. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Work-arounds for not having sysop tools are definitely possible, including off-wiki custom snapshots prior to deletion or piggy-backing on external caches. However it seems a poor use of my volunteer time, and I made a decision a long time back to avoid overly sneaky ways of by-passing the intended system expected by the wider community (albeit sometimes naively). With a bit of thought you can do lots of unexpected things with access to the public tables underpinning the wiki, including deductions about removed material or clever abductions about the past histories of accounts, that does not make it an ethical thing to pursue. --Fæ (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Just can't see how access to deleted material would allow to code it simpler. There is neither URL search in deleted material, nor is it simple to scan the logs, then get the content of deleted file description pages, then scan them for the URL. So far for the coding side. Now the ethical one - all that's being stored would be a pageID, when it was deleted (if it was) and a Flickr NSID. It would say something about a Flickr account but nothing to worry at Commons about. Well, yes, it's your time and your decision. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I would take a state machine view and trigger analysis rather than duplicating data that sits on the wiki anyway. Once I'm an admin I can unpark several ideas around how better to track information around deletion actions, unless someone else has covered it first. Faebot currently categorises mobile deletions, but I have no plans to add to this. It is human nature that there is little incentive for an unpaid non-admin volunteer to invest their energy on an area which will mostly benefit admins and they can personally never follow-through on. --Fæ (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit request months old

Where are the Commons admins? Template_talk:PD-textlogo#Edit_request Ed ^{[talk] [en:majestic titan]} 23:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And even older: Template_talk:PD-USGov#Please_add_Machine_readable_datas. There are 88 entries in Category:Commons_protected_edit_requests that need to be checked. Ed ^{[talk] [en:majestic titan]} 23:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I handled Template_talk:PD-textlogo#Edit_request now and will do some others soon. --Didym (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Labour strike. Don't forget to ask for code review before editing MediaWiki pages. Otherwise they may get super protected.Labour strike. Don't forget to ask for code review by a member of the MediaWiki coding community before editing pages in the MediaWiki namespace. Otherwise they may get super protected or super de-sysoped. To be honest, a lot of requests made are vaguely phrased, do not ship with an implementation or the reasoning behind is not clear, or it is simply someone who boldly denies or fulfils them is required. -- Rillke^(q?) 00:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rillke: Heh. Why we do still fulfill edit requests? All the super cool coders supporting "T71445: Implement a sane code-review process for MediaWiki JS/CSS pages on Wikimedia sites" schold do it. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there one place where all superprotects are listed? --Fæ (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

User:Chinmayamitra user has been removed twice speedy deletion tag--Motopark (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be carefull when deleting files tagged with no source

Hi.

I noticed that some files are mass tagged with no source even if there is a source. The only problem is that the files are in Category:Files with no machine-readable source because {{Information}} is not correctly filled.

The solution is to fix the problem and not mass tag (and mass delete).

So dear admins please be carefull with the deletion button :-) --MGA73 (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Nuevas tecnologias.jpg

Please delete File:Nuevas tecnologias.jpg, uploaded by User:Juan Andres Espinoza. It's a copyright violation (just another non-free Google search result with a made-up false licensing claim). I can't tag it because the source URL is on the spam blacklist. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 13:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:State Emergency Service of Ukraine (MChS) Mil Mi-8MTV picking up water near Nezhin.jpg

Hi, is it possible to protect this page against the reverts made by severals IPs? -- Christian Ferrer 21:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done by User:INeverCry and User:Dschwen. -- Colin (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is our policy that we discard comments and votes because a page was started by a globally banned user? -- Rillke^(q?) 00:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no such policy. But when a nomination is invalid, anything added below that will also automatically get invalid. If anybody want to make a new nom, please feel to do it in the proper way: "For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2"

COM:FPC is the tightest review process. It has zero tolerance to canvassing for years. In the logs, you can see dozens of warnings we issues against users who tried to override its process by canvassing. So this is a secondary concern too here. (I had closed more than 1000 fpc noms last years. But many names I saw that nom are new to me in fpc even though they are very familier to me at IRC.) Jee 01:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Usually, on wikis, when legitimate users have commented in a process, the process is not "discarded," even if the nominator was illegitimate. The illegitimate comments might be struck, i.e., visible as not legitimate, but still readable. So the principle asserted by Jee is not normal process, and it is certainly not "automatic." I would say it's offensive to the legitimate users who expressed their opinions. --Abd (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

My reply was only to the question asked above. I didn't said anything about blanking or deleting of that page. It is up to the crats/admins already involved and they have enough time to think when the storm is over. They may keep the page for historical purposes.

I repeat the nomination is invalid as we can't endorse the overriding of a ban once it is caught. I don't know every people here know the FPC procedures. Once a candidate is promoted, we note the three parameters (author, uploader, nominator) in many places. So if we consider the nomination as a valid one, we need to endorse the overriding of the ban too which is not possible.

Off topic: Why there is a need to override the ban through uploads and nominations? Many people here (including me) alredy stated that we are happy to upload files if requested off wiki. So this is 100% POINTY. Jee 04:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

We allow AfDs started by banned users to continue if there are legitimate "delete" !votes from others, because the way AfD and FPC work are fundamentally different. At AfD, participants make arguments, and one admin in the end makes a final decision taking into account those arguments. Emotions can run high, but it is hard to find a case where someone would change their !vote from "keep" to "delete" or vice versa because of some provocation. Therefore it is still possible to render a fair verdict despite the status of the nominator. However, FPC is an inherently subjective process, and people may be driven to support or oppose for political reasons. A nomination needs to be rebooted if it is mired in such controversy in order to give the image a fair evaluation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

As others have said, any account who can legitimately edit here is welcome to (re)nominate any legal/freely-licensed image at Featured Pictures. Russavia's uploads have in the past been fairly reviewed and featured and there is no reason this can't continue but he should not be nominating, voting or taking any other part in the activities of Commons users both on and off-wiki. Other hobbies are available :-) -- Colin (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Colin. Also, the protection of nomination page is harsh, I can't even edit it (don't you even trust long serving contributors). Bidgee (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Panoramio Review bot

Is there any reason why the panoramio bot doesn't mark images for 2 days when the panoramio backlog could be over 90 images or so for more than 2 days. It has not marked images for 2 consecutive days now. I'm speculating that the operator placed a minimum threshold of 100 images before the bot operates...but the bot marked 43 images on March 8. Just curious. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Bot is working again, Bot operator has fixed the problem 1 --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

current file move bug, notice?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T93009

admins, please see Commons:Village pump#Attention: bug – new file moving errors. Holger1959 (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Admins can do nothing here. Techns need to look into it. It is phabricator:T93009. @Admins: Please don't touch the affected files, if you try to fix it yourself the database entry will be overwritten and the techs can't look into it. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Attach/rename my commons account to own SUL account

Hope this is the right place for my request. I have a wiki-wide SUL account named "Danielsl" (my home-wiki is "de") and would like to attach/rename this account here ("Salam") to the aforementioned SUL account within Commons since "Salam" will be usurped by another user’s SUL account (from home-wiki "ja") in the near future. Thanks in advance! Salam (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please file a request at meta:Steward requests/Username changes. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Delamata.jpg

could you please check if is about File:Vicente_De_la_Mata.jpg or File:Vicente_De_la_Mata - 2.jpg and eventually undelete it. thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done, no oppose. @Pierpao: pleas fix the license/source if needed. Next time COM:UDEL --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

unsuccessful undeletion

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T93009

Can other admins look at File:Edouard-Théophile Blanchard, Portrait de la duchesse Castiglione, 1877, Musée d'art et d'histoire Fribourg.jpg. It was uploaded without a license, I tagged it with {{No license}} and eventually it was deleted because of it. I was looking into some of the files I tagged and checked the actual file and it was a clear case of {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} so I undeleted it. However somewhere during the undeletion the actual file got lost. I could see it before undeletion and it was gone afterwards. Anybody knows how to fix it? --Jarekt (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Purged by hand. Affected by phabricator:T93052 --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Borked filemove

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T93009

I just moved File:RA-26142 An-24B Pskovavia(Mauritaneene) LPA 06NOV00 (6959382843).jpg to File:RA-26142 An-26B Pskovavia(Mauritaneene) LPA 06NOV00 (6959382843).jpg, but something has obviously gone wrong, as the info has been moved, but the image decided to remain where it was (well at least partially). Could someone fix this please? Is there anyway I can fix this without admin tools (incase it happens again)? Also, does anyone know why this happened? ColonialGrid (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It is the same problem as above. click on purge this page's cache. -- Geagea (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This is most likely an instance of phab:T93009. -- Rillke^(q?) 13:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being lightning quick Rillke. The file has come good now, but remnants persist at the old name. I've checked the move log and it is happening to other images too. Geagea, I can't find a purge this page's cache link, where should I find it? ColonialGrid (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

When you made the file move you dont get the file only a page with two link in the same page. purge this page's cache is one of the links that solves the file problem. It is not solve the probem with the redirect. I alredy done it in your file. -- Geagea (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Illegal content

Hello, Meco is trying to get blurred childp0rn (oversighted) restored (see Commons:Village_pump#Blurred child porn image) multiple times. I warned him to stop with this and threatened pro forma with a block. How to proceed? Indef. block? Thanks in advice --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/03/25/meet-the-editors-meco/ – Meco should be blocked. He's already blocked on enwiki. We shouldn't tolerate supporters of child pornography. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There can and should be some flexibility for discussion and governance related questions, but if they persist in drawing attention to locations for off-wiki child pornography, then I think there is no choice but to block them. In the UK just being presented with links like this may create serious legal problems for our readers. --Fæ (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the kind of case that can harm our readers, our editors and the WMF itself. I saw no other option and blocked him indef. He new he was playing with fire, he was properly warned and he already found out at en-wiki that his behaviour is unacceptable. While I agree with Fæ that there can and should be some flexibility for discussion and governance related questions but not like this. Letting him continue this discussion is to much of a risk. Natuur12 (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we also delete File:Mesol15.jpg? itwiki was inadvertently using a photo of someone involving with child pornography (notice that the name that appears Meco's userpage is the same name that appears in the court documents that Meco links to at the Village Pump thread) to illustrate one of its articles. As a learning resource that children might use, I don't believe that it that it's appropriate to use a photo of someone involved with child porn to illustrate encyclopedic articles that children may view. If the image remains on Commons, then it can be mistakenly added to articles, like what happened at itwiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Good block and good deletion. I agree with the views expressed above. Thank you Steinsplitter for raising the issue. Green Giant (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Yann. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Elderly DNs

Greetings fellow admins: Could everyone take a few minutes to help out with the overdue DNs? There are dozens if not hundreds of complicated issues to close and it would be really great if we did a fast admin-a-thon on the section and cleared out everything possible. Thank you and have a wonderful day! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Lots of empty categories

I've just discovered Category:Built in Indianapolis with its thirty-three empty subcategories. I tagged some for deletion, but it takes a bit of time; would one of you admins be willing to pop over there and hit the delete button thirty-three times? When you're done, please check Category:Indianapolis by year, because several of its subcategories (e.g. Category:1889 in Indianapolis) don't have any contents except the built-in-year category that should be deleted, so some of the YEAR in Indianapolis categories should be deleted too. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 02:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Why delete something like Category:1889 in Indianapolis? Did Indianapolis not exist in 1889, or it is certain that nothing was built there in 1889? With 25 million filed sorely undercategorized, why is is a good thing to delete reasonable categories just because they are empty?… -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

So a guy who was never less than 6000 km away from Indianapolis managed to find one after a few minutes of lazy searching: The Graham-Stephenson Mansion, built in 1889. When this image is moved to Commons it will need the now deleted category…

I’m sure there’s more. I would not be surprised if media about any of these is already among our many uncategorized items. Should a user want to add Category:1889 in Indianapolis to any of these items, or to a category including them, how exactly does the disappearing of this category help?…

Guys, this is not something like Category:Moon craters by type of cheese — these categories make sense and will be needed sooner or later. Deleting them is deterimental for the project. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Falsche Dateinamen - Wrong filenames

Die Namen der folgenden beiden Dateien sind etwas zu lang, wäre es möglich jeweils die ersten 4 Zeichen zu entfernen?

The names of the following two files are slightly too long, would it be possible in each case to remove the first 4 characters?

File:J + Hall in Tirol, östlicher Bildstock, Innsbrucker Straße (9x16).jpg should be renamed to "Hall in Tirol, östlicher Bildstock, Innsbrucker Straße (9x16).jpg" and File:H + Bildstock Haller Straße in Rum (9x16).jpg should be renamed to "Bildstock Haller Straße in Rum (9x16).jpg"

Gruß und Danke im Voraus - Greetings and thanks in advance, MagentaGreen (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Bitte. Taivo (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Inactivity run for February-March 2015 has ended

Hi! The inactivity run for February-March 2015 has now ended. One administrator has resigned their access during the run, and two have been desysopped yesterday on Meta due to inactivity. I already thanked each and every one of the users on their talk pages, but please join me here in thanking @ALE! and @Morning Sunshine for their involvement as admins and for their excellent service to our community over the years. Thank you all, and here's to hope we'll see you active again soon! odder (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Ah! Morning Sun! You'll be missed old friend. I still remember that fun RFA you put me through at en.wiki... Take care. INeverCry 03:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Main page title for Hindi language

Hi all, For Hindi Main_Page we use the word "मुखपृष्ठ" insted of any other word. But previously we used the name "मुख्य पृष्ठ" (up to 2010). So, on may wiki's it is used as "मुख्य पृष्ठ". Since this name is already taken by newiki and it is going forwarded to newiki Main_Page. If I want to open "मुखपृष्ठ" then it goes to Marathi language (mr) main page. On d:wikidata d:Wikidata:मुखपृष्ठ shows both links for mr (Marathi language) and hi (Hindi language). I think it should be similar on commons too. On species:मुखपृष्ठ it is same as wikidata. I think it should be same on commons too. We can create the main page accordingly.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T92814 --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

In above discussion, there is no one who belongs to Hindi community. So, I think that shouldn't be a proper discussion. Another thing, if we will make it मुखपृष्ठ then it will not conflict with Nepali which is according to above discussion.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I found incorrect info but don't know how to fix it.

Sorry to bother you, but this photo found in the article Bamboo is incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo#/media/File:Bamboo_hammer,_Kent_House,_Alexandria,_LA_IMG_4227.JPG I have never edited an article and have no idea how, this just bothered me too much. Its not bamboo, its a hardwood, probably sweetgum. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsmithstudios (talk • contribs) 18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

I just removed it from the article, it was clearly anything but bamboo. You should have mentioned it on the talk pages of a) the file and b) the article. --Sänger (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The uploader Billy Hathorn is also still alive, maybe he can correct his mistake? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  18:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Been there, done that ;) --Sänger (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Cyanistes caeruleus sings - 01.webm is the watermark OK?

Hi thereǃ

I have a quick question. In the file below, there is a small watermark "AllConverter.org" at the bottom right of the video. Is this OK with Wikimedia Common's policy? I would just like to make sure. Thanksǃ The Nature Box (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cyanistes_caeruleus_sings_-_01.webm

this move

User talk:Mina gonzalez see history--Motopark (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the user trying to rename her account without knowing how to do? --Stefan4 (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, please move back--Motopark (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe direct her to m:SRUC. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 04:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

User:Erikajuana09 user has removed speedy tag many times--Motopark (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 04:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Help needed reverting a file rename

Hello, As I do not have the necessary permissions myself, I would like to request an administrator to kindly revert the renaming of this file. I do not think the rename meets the necessary criteria at COM:MOVE and the file name has been translated from Spanish to English, something specifically forbidden in the guideline. Thank you.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is deeper than that. See the logs of the user [9]. I t seems that they don't understand the renaming policy. I'll left them a message to stop renaming and discuss here. Pleclown (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, obviously bad rename. Even ignoring the language change, there is no reason to rename just to remove the Internet Archive 'code' for the source work. Revent (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

As per "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image displays.", I renamed it. I don't understand why this would be a "bad rename". The source is in English and not Spanish.--Zoupan (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Pleas add a reason when moving files (COM:RENAME). Thanks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The name is not meaningless and it is not ambiguous so that rule does not apply. If some part must be removed (I do not think so), then the language must be preserved. The language of the source of the file does not have to be the same as that of the uploaded file, or at least I cannot find such a rule in the guideline. Hence the rename is incorrect and must be undone.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The rename policy specifically says not to rename files just to change the language of the filename. The 'code' at the end was not meaningless, it is the descriptor used for the source book at the Internet Archive. There was no valid reason to rename it. Revent (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I will not oppose reverting the name though I have to disagree with "incorrectness" and "must be undone"; the name describes the subject (in English) and the source (author and publication date). If the uploader insists, have it undone. No hard feelings. Thank you.--Zoupan (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't understand the COM:RENAME policy. I've reviewed a few of your renamings, and most of them where at leat borderline. I'd like you to limit yourself to renamings asked by others contributors, and with the policy in mind, at least for a few weeks. We could then assess your understanding of the policy, and the way things should be done. Do you accept this proposal ? Pleclown (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Richa singh142

Hi, can someone please stop this user uploading copyrighted images again and again and again and again and again ... -- Ies (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done blocked for week by Yann, uploads deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Gameboy Original shipped with Tetris.jpg - Unfree revision present

File:Gameboy Original shipped with Tetris.jpg has an unfree revision present-please consider hiding this revision. (This is assuming that there are no copyright issues with the Tetris cartridge label that is still depicted in the image-it may be that the label is de minimis.) Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted -FASTILY 02:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Image Check

File:Klein ISD logo.png was uploaded to the commons earlier today, under a claim that the logo is there own work, however I am suspicious of this since the logo is for an independent school district, which leads me to believe that the work is copyrighted and not freely licensed. Can someone look into this please? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The design looks very simple. I don't even think it passes the threshold of originality to be copyrighted. {{PD-textlogo}} seems to apply here, probably as a {{Licensed-PD-Art}}. De728631 (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Canon 450D.JPG - Unfree revision present

For File:Canon 450D.JPG, a new revision has been uploaded because copyrighted packaging was previously included in the image. As such, it might be useful to hide the previous (unfree) revision. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker is messing with archives

Please visit Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:State_Emergency_Service_of_Ukraine_(MChS)_Mil_Mi-8MTV_picking_up_water_near_Nezhin.jpg/3 and read Be..anyone's comment and my reply. CommonsDelinker is replacing

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/<filename>}}

with

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/}}

And that causes the entirety of Commons:Featured_picture_candidates to be transluded in the archive pages, which in turn causes painful load times for browsers visiting those archive pages. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please report bugs here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"Michaeldsuarez created an issue." lol, I like the sound of that. I'll use it as the title of my autobiography. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:017.JPG

I was going to propose moving File:017.JPG to a more meaningful name, but I noticed that the image does not correspond with the file description and categories. These relate to a previous image at this title, and were not changed when the new image was uploaded over the old. It seems the necessary thing to do is to split the edit history and move these files to two different locations, except that there is no information on the identity of the more recent upload. The second uploader (User:Peremagria) is gone since 2013, and also provided no license for their upload (other than the existing license provided for the previous image by User:Rj1979), but Peremagria's other uploads generally relate to Catalan territory. I think that the history needs to be deleted so that just the history for the current image either can be moved to a descriptive name like File:Hiker under a red and yellow flag in the window of an old stone house, and then the history of the previous image can be restored and moved to something like File:Sukiennice Mascaron in Kraków.jpg. BD2412 T 04:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

We can't move the other image without having source or license information. It was thus removed. --Denniss (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I suppose there is no other option, since the second uploader has vanished. BD2412 T 12:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 Renamed Yann (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Panoramio backlog

An uploader asked me on my talkpage if I could deal with the panoramio backlog. Unfortunately, I am very busy this week to mark these hundreds of images but if someone could mark some of them and help this prolific uploader, I think he would appreciate it. I can only mark a few. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: I just did about 50 or so... since they are huge sets from the same person, of the same place and with the same camera, they are pretty quick... just a bit tedious. Revent (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• I will mark a few more--maybe 10--but I then have to sign out for tonight. I hope some other Admins or trusted users can help. Most users mark images from flickr but they forget to check panoramio also. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: Doing more today, I noticed some are mis-licensed with CC-BY-3.0-us (instead of the unported one which is correct)... fixed the ones I saw before approving, but something to keep an eye out for. Revent (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thank You. I don't know why some images have the "cc by 3.0 us" version. Here's hoping that perhaps Lymantria, Geagea, JurgenNL or a few other users can help mark some images too. I've marked 99 images now but need help from other users too. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Up to 148 images...but I have to sign off very soon. Please help someone. Yes, the "cc by 3.0-us" licensed images are clearly wrong and should be just "cc by 3.0". Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

same picture uploaded after deletion request

please check User talk:FCDNqn, my 2 last deletion request, are the same than previous deletion request, if yes, please close DR with speedy--Motopark (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Done by @Fastily:  :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Main page title for Hindi language

According to the discussion done at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_51, can some admin make the proper changes?☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be moor specific. What needs a change exactly? A MW page or the hindi main page? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If I am going on the main page of wikimedia commons (where my default language is Hindi) then it goes to मुखपृष्ठ. Now, Hindi and Marathi use the same word. Same thing happened on wikidata and species wiki. There we have created a page with name मुखपृष्ठ which show two links. One goes to मुखपृष्ठ (mr) and another goes to मुखपृष्ठ (hi). I want to see the same change on wikimedia commons too. For that we have to replace present मुखपृष्ठ to मुखपृष्ठ (mr) and present मुख्य पृष्ठ to मुखपृष्ठ (hi).☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done I didn't understand what you request last time. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Yann: . I was unable to do this, hard for non hi speaker ;-). @संजीव कुमार: Thank you for your patience! --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

edit war

FYI, warned both @Sfs90: and @Diego Grez: for edit warring at File:Jean Philippe Cretton crop.jpg. Pinging both to let them know I mentioned it, but this is of course not an invitation to drag the dispute here... it belongs on the talk page. Revent (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Move and delete, please

Completely disregarding their effects on Commons and other WMF sites, the South Dakota legislature recently renamed en:Shannon County, South Dakota to en:Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota. I've spent a bunch of time moving related categories here at Commons, but I just discovered that someone uploaded an almost-duplicate map that's causing confusion. Could someone please delete File:Map of South Dakota highlighting Oglala Lakota County.svg and then immediately move File:Map of South Dakota highlighting Shannon County.svg to the newly deleted title? I can't figure out the difference, but there's some minor difference between the files that prevents them from being perfectly identical, so I can't tag with {{Duplicate}}. Having a file at the correct name, versus the old name, is critical: many wikis employ templates that rely on having a map called "Map of STATENAME highlighting COUNTYNAME County.svg", with the names derived from the page title or something else that can't easily be changed, so COM:RENAME #4 needs to be implemented. Nyttend (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done odder (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Issue about categories of the Isle of Wight

Hello, I need help from an admin coming from the United Kingdom. The issue is this but, not being I from the UK, I can't say whether it's a correct way of categorizing (let apart the fact the rename has been made technically wrong, the issue is not about that, is about the way of naming: "in" the Isle of Wight or "on" the isle of Wight, being it both an island and a county?). -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 21:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done I have commented there. Green Giant (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of file mover right

I've removed the file mover bit of User:Zoupan, for not complying to the COM:RENAME policy (see [10]). I've informed them on their talk page, and will also informed then of this section. Pleclown (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. What move(s) was not complying with the policy?--Zoupan (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Lekë III Dukagjini (1410–1481).jpg for example, where you made an unrequested move of a file where the previous name was perfectly valid (simply less specific), and then immediately requested it's deletion. Perhaps not the best example, but the first one that jumped out at me. Revent (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The former name was not perfectly valid - Dukagjini is ambiguous, while the medieval Dukagjini family had several members with the name Lekë. (Zoupan moved page File:Dukagjini.jpg to File:Lekë III Dukagjini (1410–1481).jpg: proper description).--Zoupan (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Not that this is a perfect example, it's just the first one I came across, but you are taking 'ambiguous' in an overly broad sense.... ambiguous would be something like 'house' or 'cat' or 'person', the description of this person as a 'Dukagjini' was accurate... somewhat vague, but not ambiguous, and the file had been under that name for nearly a year.... file movers are supposed to prioritize 'maintaining stable file names', unless there is an actual 'need' to move it. The opinion that a more specific description would be 'better' is not a reason to move a file, if the prior name was not itself obviously in error. Revent (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, moving a file and then nominating it for deletion? Pointless move. Files with pending issues that might merit deletion (copyright) are specifically not supposed to be moved. Revent (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I moved for better description, I then (afterwards) searched for a better image, and found out that it was in fact copyrighted - deletion request. Retrospectively pointless, but in fact, not.--Zoupan (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, if the DR was a later 'correction' (from the history it looked immediate) but I think the point still holds about the rename, in that an 'old' file should not be moved unless the previous name was actually 'wrong', not just to make it subjectively 'better'. Revent (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

from a German perspective (affected file) here is an other typical example:

Zoupan moved File:Arolsen Klebeband 01 453 4.jpg to File:Hamza Kastrioti.jpg

the move was

1) unrequested (no other user asked for),

2) unexplained (no reason stated),

3) unneeded (first named was perfectly valid, ie. it was not useless like IMG123.JPG or misleading/wrong like Funny_mouse.jpg would be),

4) a bad choice, because the new filename is even less specific/more general than the old, and the move also broke the consistent named and numbered scheme of all other files in Category:Arolsen Klebeband 1 (also see Arolsen Klebeband 1, and Category:Klebebände (Fürstlich Waldecksche Hofbibliothek Arolsen) for more "Klebeband" media).

i think all of us can make a mistake sometimes, but it should probably not happen so cumulative as it appears with Zoupan's moves. Given that others also seem to state one or more moves were biased (Nationalism in Serbia?, see his talk page), please do not restore filemover rights. Holger1959 (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The move did break the scheme of the category, but the name of the image (and all those in that category) are non-descriptive. This particular image is of Hamza Kastrioti, and is the only illustration of him that exists; primary use - Hamza Kastrioti.--Zoupan (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan, sorry, but it seems you are not familiar with large scale book scans, often used for Wikisource, and their common image naming schemes. The name before your move was in fact descriptive, only from a different perspective than yours. It is like if you say that File:Flag of Germany.svg should be renamed to "Flag with three horizontal stripes of black, red and yellow.svg", because the latter is descriptive, and the "flag of (country)" naming scheme is not.

Better explanation: It is good practice to use at least 2 major and continuous parts in book scan filenames: 1) identifying description (book title, author, publishing year, etc) and 2) consecutive number(s). But not to choose a random filename for every image. In the case of "Arolsen_Klebeband_01_453_4.jpg" "Arolsen Klebeband" is the descriptive book name (due to lack of a formal title, author, and year for this rare old work), "01" is the volume number, "453" is the page number, and "4" the image number on the page. You can check this at Klebeband overview and page 453. I am sure AndreasPraefcke know what he did when chosing the naming scheme for all his Klebeband uploads. I think moving the image back would be best. Holger1959 (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Moved back to File:Arolsen Klebeband 01 453 4.jpg. INeverCry 07:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand the scheme, a redirect would have been enough. Sorry if I caused any problems.--Zoupan (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)