Commons:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:44, 15 June 2009

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

English: This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention.

العربية: هذا هو المكان حيث يمكن للمستخدمين التواصل مع الإداريين، أو الإداريين مع بعضهم البعض. يمكنك الإبلاغ عنه التخريب، المستخدمين الذين يسببون مشاكل، أو أي شيء آخر يحتاج للتدخل من قبل إداري.

Čeština: Tato stránka slouží uživatelům ke komunikaci se správci zde na Commons, nebo ke komunikaci správců mezi sebou. Můžete zde nahlásit vandalismus, problematické uživatele nebo další záležitosti, které mohou díky svým pravomocem vyřešit jen správci.

Deutsch: Dies ist eine Seite auf der Benutzer und Administratoren, oder Administratoren untereinander kommunizieren können. Du kannst hier Vandalismus, schwierige Benutzer oder andere Sachen, die den Eingriff eines Administrators benötigen, anzeigen.

Ελληνικά: Αυτή είναι μια σελίδα στην οποία οι χρήστες μπορούν να επικοινωνήσουν με διαχειριστές, ή οι διαχειριστές με κάποιον άλλο. Μπορείτε να αναφέρετε βανδαλισμούς, χρήστες που προκαλούν προβλήματα, ή οτιδήποτε άλλο χρειάζεται την παρέμβαση ενός διαχειριστή.

Español: Este es el sitio destinado a que los usuarios puedan comunicarse con los administradores, o viceversa. Puede notificar un vandalismo, reclamar atención sobre usuarios problemáticos, o indicar cualquier otro asunto que requiera la intervención de un administrador.

فارسی: این جا مکانیست که کاربران با مدیران، یا مدیران با یکدیگر می‌توانند ارتباط برقرار کنند. شما می‌توانید خرابکاری، کاربران مشکل‌ساز، یا هر آن چیز دیگری که نیاز به اقدام مدیران داشته باشد را گزارش کنید.

Français : Cette page est destinée à permettre aux utilisateurs et aux administrateurs de communiquer entre eux. Vous pouvez utiliser cette page pour signaler des actes de vandalisme, des utilisateurs au comportement problématique, ou tout autre fait nécessitant l'intervention d'un administrateur. Si vous ne maîtrisez que le français, la page Commons:Bistro reste cependant utilisable et vous y trouverez des administrateurs francophones.

日本語: このページは、管理者同士、あるいは、利用者ユーザがJA:管理者,EN：administratorsと連絡を取るための場所です。問題のあるユーザを報告したり、荒らしユーザを通報したり、管理者の協力や仲介を必要とする事項などにご利用ください。

한국어: 이 문서는 사용자가 관리자, 혹은 관리자가 다른 관리자와 의견을 교환하는 곳입니다. 반달을 하거나 문제가 있는 사용자를 보고하거나, 관리자의 중재가 필요한 사항이 있으면 이곳을 이용해주십시오.

Polski: Jest to miejsce, gdzie użytkownicy mogą kontaktować się z administratorami lub administratorzy ze sobą nawzajem. Możesz zgłosić tu akt wandalizmu, problematycznego użytkownika albo cokolwiek, do czego potrzebna jest interwencji administratora.

Italiano: Questa è la pagina dove gli utenti possono comunicare con gli amministratori, o gli amministratori fra loro. Puoi segnalare qui vandalismi, utenti problematici, e qualsiasi altra cosa richieda l'intervento di un amministratore.

Magyar: Ezen a helyen üzenhetnek a szerkesztők az adminisztrátoroknak, vagy az adminisztrátorok egymásnak. Itt jelentheted a vandalizmust, a problémás szerkesztőket, vagy bármi más olyat, amihez adminisztrátori közreműködésre van szükség.

Română: Această pagină este destinată comunicării dintre utilizatori şi administratori sau între administratori. Aici poţi semnala cazuri de vandalism, utilizatori cu comportament problematic, precum şi alte situaţii care necesită intervenţia unui administrator.

Português: Este é o local no qual os usuários podem se comunicar com os administradores, ou onde os administradores podem conversar uns com os outros. Aqui você pode relatar casos de vandalismo, usuários problemáticos ou tratar de qualquer outro assunto que requeira a atenção de um administrador.

Suomi: Tällä sivulla voit keskustella ylläpitäjien kanssa. Voit esimerkiksi ilmoittaa meneillään olevasta vandalismista, ongelmakäyttäjistä tai mistä tahansa muusta joka tarvitsee ylläpitäjien huomiota.

Nederlands: Op deze plaats kunnen gebruikers communiceren met de beheerders, of de beheerders met elkaar. U kunt hier vandalen, of probleemgebruikers melden, of andere dingen die de aandacht van een beheerder nodig hebben.

Српски / srpski: Ово је место где корисници могу да комуницирају са администраторима, или администратори са другима. Овде можете пријавити вандализам, проблематичне кориснике, или било шта друго што тражи интервенцију администратора.

Tiếng Việt: Đây là nơi người dùng có thể liên lạc với bảo quản viên, hoặc giữa những bảo quản viên với nhau. Bạn có thể báo cáo phá hoại, thành viên có vấn đề, hoặc bất cứ điều gì khác cần đến sự can thiệp của một bảo quản viên.

中文（简体）：这里是用户与管理员或管理员之间进行通讯的地方。您可以在此回报破坏、有问题的用户，或其他需要管理员介入的事情。

中文（繁體）：這裡是用戶與管理員或管理員之間進行通訊的地方。您可以在此回報破壞、有問題的用戶，或其他需要管理員介入的事情。

Shqip: (missing text)

Feature suggestion for the category moving bots

I suggest that the bots making the cat moves in response to the {{Move cat}} requests on User:CommonsDelinker/commands replace, once the move is done, the content of the source category by a category redirection, instead of leaving behind them an empty category. When contacted about that, Siebrand objected that the actions to be taken after a cat move were of the responsibility of the requesting admin, and that there was a choice point (that should not be left to the bot) between putting a cat redirect, deleting the category and reaffecting it. He is ok to amend his bot if and only if there is a consensus here to do so. My opinion is that if the category is to be reaffected, the requesting admin has to modify the category anyway, so the {{Cat redirect}} does no much harm, it will simply be replaced by some other content, as would have been the former content of the page. For the two other cases, {{Cat redirect}} helps, either because it is exactly what we need, or because it provides a nuke button with a preset deletion summary.

Therefore, I suggest that modification in the bot. What's your opinion about that? Am I missing something, another case for which {{Cat redirect}} would be counterproductive? --Eusebius (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just create a new parameter for {{Move cat}} wich specifies what to do after the move? E.g. redirect or mark for speedy deletion or leave the admin a note or whatever. Simply putting a cat redirect on all emptied cats doesn't sound like a good idea to me. There are many cats which should not even exist (vandal cats, typo cats) and should thus not be a redirect. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The fact is that personally, I use {{Cat redirect}} as a speedy deletion template when I need one for a moved cat. A parameter in {{Move cat}} sounds nice. --Eusebius (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed that already several times (or another form of {{Move cat}}, such as {{Moved cat}}). But anyway, almost all categories are redirected or deleted after the move, so replacing the source category with a redirect by the bot would help in almost all cases. If the source category is deleted (with or without the nuke button), the redirect generates already the right edit summary, so we all win with that solution. Only when reaffecting the category, which is a rare case I try to avoid, the redirect is not really useful but harmless. --Foroa (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the bot to at least remove (or not add) {{Move}} at the destination category. Multichill (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered that yesterday: small improvement but a great time saver. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, where are we? Should the bot add {{Cat redirect}} systematically? Should we add a parameter to {{Move cat}}? Should nothing be done? --Eusebius (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we add an optional "action" parameter to the template (with "action=redirect" as the only value taken into account at first, I guess), but I'd like a bot master to confirm first that it will not break anything in the way the bots currently behave (like interference with numbered parameters, I don't know). Unless, of course, there is a consensus for a systematic {{Cat redirect}}, which I think would be better and simpler. --Eusebius (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's apparently a consensus for not doing anything :-) --Eusebius (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

This is a request for comment on this exchange between myself and User:Wknight94. Wknight94 admits to not being familiar with the topic in question (nor does he seem to show an interest in trying to understand it) yet he moved a category without initiating a debate or notifying those who created and edited the original category. Is this wise and proper for an admin? KTo288 (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Replaced removed section with a diffKTo288 (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not notifying me of this. I offered to totally yield to any administrator with a differing opinion at COM:DL. Frankly, since there are multiple opinions on this subject - mine, the original requestor at COM:DL, and KTo288's - this should go straight to COM:CFD now. But I suggested that as well and was ignored. Not sure what else to add here. Wknight94 ^talk 21:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't even a lame edit war, it's just lame 9.9

Please stop bickering. The category was fine the way it was, but it's not the end of the universe the way it is now. Move it back if you can be bothered, and if not then give it a rest. — Mike.lifeguard 22:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it bothers me, and it is my desire to change it back. However given that there is a difference of opinion over how it should be named I don't wish to do it as a unilateral action as Wknight94 did. It seems strange to me that Wknight94 would seem so keen on debate, given his stated denigration of it; and that is my main reason for the raising of the matter here. To me the issue is not this category and how it is named, but the process and lack of transparency by which the move and delete were carried out, the rush for action without due consideration.KTo288 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bundesarchiv images with questionable licensing status

Hi everyone, today I have had a talk on IRC with a person directly involved in the Bundesarchiv deal. We both agreed that it was likely that the Bundesarchiv only owns the photographers' rights to the image and not any third party rights. This means that a few images depicting copyrighted artwork might have been uploaded to Commons without permission of the original artist. As there has so far been no process for dealing with these images, we concluded that creating a page where such cases are gathered is the best way to go. I have now started this page at Commons:Bundesarchiv/Questionable licensing. Your comments and improvements are welcome. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are the important contributors informed about the planing, especially User:Raymond? --Martin H. (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 01:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I agree that it would be a good idea to collect this cases and solve them in concentrated requests together with the BArch instead of scattered and unnecessary discussions on Commons (unnecessary because a simple request can resolve the problem) and without bother the BArch with uncoordinated requests. However, the Commons:Bundesarchiv/Error reports for wrong identification, typos etc. is not good working, the problem page should be maintained/moderated a better way. --Martin H. (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a known issue. The problem with the error reports is, that those have to be worked on by the Bundesarchiv. If they don't do it, it's not really our problem because we can correct the image information on our own. This new page, however, is intended for keeping track of OTRS requests made to the Bundesarchiv about the licensing of some images. If the Bundesarchiv does not reply, we will simply delete the file. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS Pending discussion

Just a quick notification that there is an OTRS-related proposal over at COM:ON#Specific proposal... Wknight94 ^talk 19:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pikiwikisrael

Hello,

However I support all kinds of ways to find free media I think this project isn't doing a good job with it.

Pikiwikisrael is uploading a lot of images under a free license. But when I review there site there is nothing about some good rules for uploading. It even says that everybody can upload photos if he has the permission from the copyright holder.

I have read back the mailinglist and I can't really find a agreement that this project doesn't need to send OTRS permission, this project uploads photo's by other people we can't check the license like Flickr and we cant check the original uploadform. Do we AGF and just let it go... And there will new projects uploading in the same way or we stick to the policy and need OTRS permission. Using AGF can endanger the pikiwiki project and can be harm for legal actions again Wikimedia.

I would like to hear some opinions about handeling this.. Huib talk 12:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed on Commons-l in January, see here and later posts. Commons rules, of course, also apply to Pikiwiki images. If they are not sufficiently documented, delete them. I haven't reviewed the Pikiwiki uploads regularly, but if copyvios from this project should become a major problem, we might consider closing the account. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've had a quick look at the latest uploads and I think we should close this account _immediately_ until the project finds a way of making users deliver valid source information. The current form of source information consists of a link to the project itself; this is totally insufficient as the Pikiwiki project is not the actual source, but only a vector. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user gives a legally binding statement that he owns the copyrights or possesses a written permission from the copyright holder, and that he releases or has written permission to release the images under CC-by or to the public domain. The statement was written in Hebrew by an Israeli lawyer whose expertise is copyright laws. The contributers are Israelis who live in Israel. I can ask the users to send me a film showing them holding the Bible and swearing they own the copyrights, but only few people would be willing to contribute images in such conditions. Drork (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Huib and ChrisiPK. These "permissions" are impossible to trace, and in many cases they are quite unlikely. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if Pieter Kuiper won't participate in this discussion. It is hardly news that he is prejudiced against Israelis in general and against me personally. Drork (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very close in closing this project down. I think you should get OTRS permission first.. You aren't uploading your own work, and our policy says thet you need to give some proof before you can release it.. Since you aren't doing that, you are uploading images without proper permission. Huib talk 17:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huib - close this project down, and you won't have Wikimedia Israel anymore, no donations of neither images nor money from Israel, no more connections with the Israel Internet Association. Your attitude will lead to the extinction of one of the most active Wikimedian community. Is that where you're heading? If so, please say it explicitly and don't hide behind technicalities. Drork (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To make it even worse here you state that you are uploading PD images under a cc-by license (here). I think this project has a malfunction and is doing damage to Commons and all free images.. Placing PD images under a CC-BY license is not done. Huib talk 17:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably have to take a deep breath right now, but this is way too much. There are people who work hard for the Wikimedia community, and there are people who sit behind the keyboards and try to impede their work in every possible way. This project has been conceived during more than one year. It was published in every possible way. Constructive criticism is welcome, but I see here nothing but punctiliousness to say the least. I have nearly given up on Wikimedia activities due to the lack of discernment I see here. I have to warn you, you are shaking the boat too hard. Drork (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the legal part was cleared with the foundation right? Drork, could you confirm this? So we should be in the clear for that part. The part I don't like is that the bot is malfunctioning since March, so I would agree with blocking this bot until that's fixed. Multichill (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PikiWiki Israel 236 Immigration to Israel גלויה עם ציור של אוניה.jpg is a clear example of a false licence. The kibbutz does not have any right to licence this image of an Italian shipping line. There is no reason to believe that the archive of Gan Shmuel understands copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will strongy ask a uninvolved Adminstrator to block the account so the problems can be fixed before it can upload anything more on Commons. After a conversation with Drork on IRC is still believe this project is malfunctioning and needs to be shut down. Some major problems that need to be fixed before the even upload any more images:

Project doesn't support the FOP, there are 20 images deleted because the are copyvios.. And that was only in the last 100 uploads.
PD images are uploaded under a CC-by License and Drork stated on IRC that he will not fix it because Legal rules make it PD and the Template doesn't count.
Uploading a lot of images that are out of scope
Users are promised that Wikimedia Commons admins will not delete or edit the page without asking permission on pikiwiki (What is a clear ristriction and a promises that can't be kept.)

All by all I strongly recommend to fix current problems before making it possible to upload new images. Huib talk 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation informing them that the Israeli chapter is going to dissolve due to lack of cooperation with the Wikimedia Projects. I am not sending this letter yet, but I will send it if the Pikiwiki account is blocked. I will also immediately halt all of my activities in Wikimedia, and advise my colleagues to do the same. Neither I nor my colleagues nor the donors and contributors in Israel are going to tolerate such a shameful treatment. Some of it, I suspect, is motivated by anti-Israeli political approach. We have toiled and worked as hard as we could to make this project happen for the benefit of the Wikimedia movement and the worldwide free knowledge adherent community. Distinguished Israeli NGOs invested thousands of dollars in this project. We consultant the best lawyers, only to encounter a humiliation, which unfortunately has become a habit on the Commons when it comes to Israel and Israelis. I hope people here will come to their senses so I can delete the letter from my Outbox. Having read the dialog above, and recalling the attitude in the past towards Israel-related issues here, I am not too optimistic. Drork (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not helping anyone with uploading copyrighted pictures. Not the people who place it on articles and find out after a few weeks the picture has been deleted, and not the foundation itself. There is no use of 'testing the mods of Commons' by uploading copyvio pictures. To protect the foundation and the projects of the foundation, the account should be blocked till the bot works correct again. Sumurai8 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of playing the victim, threatening to dissolve chapters, or overblowing the issues here, let's actually look at the facts, and deal with them in a rational manner.

As far as I can tell, there are real problems with the bot, and the project more generally. However, I don't know that they couldn't be resolved easily enough by those involved with the project. There are many people involved, and multiple people from Pikiwiki could easily enough solve all the issues raised here if they were so inclined. So, it's not clear that blocking the bot is the best immediate solution—though if the bot operator or others involved with the project aren't responsive to community concerns then a temporary block until issues are resolved may become necessary.

I'd urge everyone commenting here to avoid that outcome because this initiative from the Israeli chapter has been a boon for Commons and other Wikimedia projects. It'd be a shame to see this escalate to a point where there is hostility in either direction, or where irreversible actions are taken. We're all here to work on improving Commons, so let's work together towards that end. The content being contributed here is valuable, but we also need to ensure that when legitimate issues arise they can be dealt with in a respectful and timely manner—the Pikiwiki project does not operate in isolation. — Mike.lifeguard 21:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you don't take me seriously, and that's regrettable. If this project is blocked, even temporarily, that will be the last activity of Wikimedia Israel, and the last attempt by me and my colleagues to promote any project related to Wikimedia. Furthermore, the press around the world has already reported an anti-Israeli attitude on several projects, and I am getting tired of being the one defending the projects, especially when I have a bad feeling that these press reports might be true. I repeat - any constructive criticism is welcomed. If an image violates copyrights it should be deleted - all I'm asking is a warning, so the localized interface can be updated. Israel has full FOP principle, and a public place is defined as any place accessible to people without special invitation - it can even be private premises as long as people can gather there. In Israel, image taken 50 years ago or more is in the public domain. This principle is always valid. If you see that someone used a CC tag instead of PD tag - you may change it, because in such case the PD principle always prevails. A person cannot, I repeat CANNOT upload a photograph through the Pikiwiki interface, unless registering and confirming a statement in which he announces the release of the images under CC-by or to the public domain. S/he has to assert that s/he is an adult, that s/he owns the copyrights or has a written power of attorney from the copyright holder. S/he has to reconfirm a shorter version of this statement before actually uploading the images. All statements were checked by an copyright expert lawyer who confirmed they are legally binding. Such a statement is valid, even if the person uploaded the image to Flickr or another site with another license. Drork (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Images taken in the British Mandate of Palestine whose copyrights were held by Israelis-to-be, are subject to the very same rules. Drork (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree with Mike.lifeguard. This project seems an interesting collaboration and brings good materials. However threatening won't help to solve the issue. I think part of the problem is misundertanding due to language. I am ready to assume good faith for most images, but some changes to the process would help:

Could you transliterate the authors' name in the Latin alphabet? This seems the minimum requirement so that Commons admins can follow what's going on. It is also useful for reusers.
Could you add the English description which is present in the title in the description itself? Most people here can't read Hebrew, so the images are useless for them unless there is a description in English.
Could you use {{PD-Israel}} instead of {{PD-self}} if the image is in the public domain? It would be more accurate and save work by others who need to correct your tags. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea here is to localize the process of image contributing. I hope I'll see such projects in many other languages. English is our working language, but it shouldn't be, by no means, the single language of the Commons.

We cannot supply a Latin transliteration, because Hebrew orthography works differently than the Latin orthography. It is quite easy to tranliterate Hebrew to Arabic and vise versa, and the same goes for Cyrilic-Latin alphabets. It is very hard to transliterate Hebrew/Arabic to Cyrilic/Latin. My name in such transliteration would be "Drwr". Ilana Shkolnik, one of our regular contributors would have her name transliterated as "Aylnh Shkwlnyk", the Israeli president's name would be transliterated as "Shm'n Prs". I doubt if it solves the problem.

Well all names can be written in the Latin alphabet. How you do it is your problem, but Commons admins should be able to know who is the author without using an external translations. Yann (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This can be done. I'll mail our programmer about it.
We advise contributors to write their names in Latin Characters, and to supply a short English description. Although English studies are obligatory in Israel, most people don't bother, and it would be unwise to force them to use English. I called upon the Hebrew speaking volunteers on the Commons to translate the descriptions (I myself often add descriptions in Arabic and French when relevant), but this is done slowly. Drork (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PD-Israel means the copyright period expired in Israel (and in the rest of the world unless there is a local overriding arrangement). PD-self means the copyright holder waives his rights completely and indefinitely. It is not the same thing, hence not the same tag. For example, a person can say that he waived his rights while being intoxicated, and therefor his statement is invalid (I hope that is never going to happen, but there's always a risk). If it is the period of copyright that expired, such a claim is irrelevant. Drork (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If {{PD-self}} is irrelevant, why do you use it?

In addition, I see that images were deleted because "no FOP", however COM:FOP#Israel states that Israel law has a FOP. These images should eventually be undeleted. Yann (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Israel, there is no FOP for 2D or for text. One other problem with pikiwiki uploads is that there is no direct link to the original page on the Israeli project. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record - what Mr. Kuiper says about the Israeli law is wrong. I doubt if he can read Hebrew or have sufficient knowledge about the Israeli system or similar legal systems around the world. Mr. Kuiper expressed anti-Israeli views on the Commons in the past, and therefor he is biased against this project. I suspect his misleading remarks are merely provocations, and hence I am not going to respond to them in the future. Drork (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The similar legal system is in this case English copyright law, and according to this Israeli lawyer, English precedents used to be authoritative, so FOP-Israel should be quite similar to COM:FOP#United Kingdom. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked though ~20 of the recent uploads, and I don't see the problem. The images are within scope, and there is a copyright holder giving a free license. This is not different from how we allow our pseudonymous users to claim "own work". Sure, some of the uploads are derivative works, and some are probably copyvios, but we should assume good faith. I'm opposed to blocking user:Pikiwikisrael. Regards, --Kjetil_r 22:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that PikiWiki is an amazing project which brings valuable images to Commons. However, even if we welcome such efforts the raised concerns must be constructively addressed without resorting to threats to dissolve the Israel Wikimedia chapter. I see following points:

Not just Israel copyright law has to be taken into consideration but also international law, hence we cannot keep images like this.
As ChrisiPK already pointed out, the source field does not conform yet to our guidelines. A pointer to PikiWiki - Israel free image collection project alone is not sufficient. We have the usual rules: If this is a photograph shot by the uploader, it is "own work", if it is inherited through the family, tell it, if the uploader had a written power of attorney from the copyright holder, elaborate this, and if it has been scanned or photographed from PD material, provide a reference to it. If this gets specified when uploaded at PikiWiki, it can easily transfered to Commons. Please understand that this is important. The copyright status of images cannot just be questioned now but also any time later if we, for example, get a notice through OTRS about a copyright violation. Then we need all relevant informations in the image description. And to be on the safe side, I recommend to document any non-trivial cases which are not the uploaders work nor PD through OTRS. We have fortunately with permissions-commons-he a Hebrew speaking permission queue for Commons.
I have no problems with descriptions and authors in Hebrew. We are an international project and we accept descriptions in any language. In case of Hebrew we are even in the comfortable situation that Google Translate can process it.
There must be an understanding that Commons admins do not have to seek consent with the PikiWiki project to perform administrative actions on these images. Usual procedures apply, e.g. notifications will be posted for images filed for speedy or regular deletions but there is no additional process.
In case like this one we have a derived work. In such cases we have to address also the copyright of the artist or to make explicitly clear that freedom of panorama applies using the {{FoP-Israel}} template. But even then the name of the artist should be given.
Many uploads (like this one) have a quite recent date in the Date field which seems to be more likely the upload date at PikiWiki. This should rather be the date when a photograph was shot and simply "unknown" if this is no longer known.
You have some additional fields like OriginalName or Location which do not fit into the {{Information}} template. As it is currently formatted, is looks broken. Couldn't this be integrated into the {{Information}} template or put into a seperate template or in some other way nicely formatted?
I suggest to suspend further uploading until the concerns have been addressed and we got some consensus how this project can be continued.

--AFBorchert (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case of a postcard sent from Italy to the British Mandate of Palestine is very unique. This postcard is about 75 years old and is saved in a local small historical archive. I think the archive managers would be quite surprised to learn there are still a possibility of copyright limitations after so many years. We have a policy of handling only images which are subject to the Israeli law, but such a postcard could have been drawn in B.M. Palestine, so that's a very innocent mistake. Once it is here, I think it is worth while checking the Italian law.
Why such detailed information is necessary? The uploader's statement says the following (in Hebrew): "I assert that I fully possess the copyrights of the content which I upload to the site - including the rights to copy, publish, publicly perform, broadcast the content or release it to the public; or I have a valid license from the copyright owners to do all of the above without any limitation; or that the content I upload is in the public domain (...) I am aware of the fact that I have full and exclusive responsibility to anything that might result from the content I give away and that the content is legal." Having three different statements for each case will make people run away.
If an administrator on the Commons sees a copyright violation, he has no alternative but to delete the image. However, these cases are rare. Most warnings I get are punctilious. If a PD tag should be used instead of CC - anyone can change it. The CC license never overrides the national law, and there is no need to make a big fuss about such errors. If the date happens to be in the wrong place - anyone can fix it, we are working collaboratively. If a picture seems in bad quality or redundant, I would appreciate having a clear notice before deleting the image.
Israel has a very liberal FOP principle incorporated in its copyright law and court rulings. Some people, Europeans in particular, find it hard to believe, but this is true. Any creative work which is permanently displayed in a place accessible to the public, can be freely photographed or sketched. People in Israel take this principle for granted, and they often extend it too much, but in most cases I saw here, non-Israelis simply found hard to believe that the Israeli law is so liberal.
We cannot place the FOP/derivative work tag automatically, but it is very easy to add it manually. Anyone can do it. Again - we are working collaboratively.
I asked the programmer, and he said he can do without the line "OriginalName, Location etc." you may delete it, and he will change the code as soon as possible.
I think you don't realize the consequences of suspending such a project. I wasn't exactly threating - such a suspension can and probably will result in the collapse of the Israeli chapter and of many activities in which it is involved. This project was planned about two years, thousand of dollars were spent, several NGOs are involved, the press covered it extensively. A suspension will cause a domino effect. Generally speaking, administrators on the Commons tend to follow rigid rules without considering the consequences of their actions. I say it not as an accusation, but as a constructive criticism. Rigidness is a very bad policy, and you must always remember that a lot of work is done with real flesh and blood. Drork (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - there is nothing wrong with the date here. Ilana Shkolnik is a regular contributor and a photographer. She probably took the picture during the holiday (Shavuot) and uploaded it immediately. Drork (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Usually international copyright systems protect works for _at least_ 70 years, so it's not surprising that a 75 year old postcard could still be copyrighted.

2. Basically uploaders have to say the same thing on Commons when uploading things as own work. Fact is that some people don't care about copyright and just upload stuff. You find them everywhere: on Commons, on Flickr, on DeviantArt and so certainly also on your project. This is the reason why we require OTRS confirmation for copyright claims that are not obvious or a bit more complicated. Your project is currently opening a gate in Commons' protection when we blindly accept all images from there without confirmation. We don't even do it for Flickr, so there's no reason why we should do it for Pikiwiki.

7. The project does not conform with Commons guidelines. I have expressed my concern about this before and was not heard (“There is no need for any member of the Commons community to verify the legality of the license statement”). I'm really sorry you are about to learn the hard way, but we simply cannot have a project uploading images without any source information, mainly for the reasons i mentioned above. This is why I really encourage you to fix the issues mentioned here. The images uploaded so far can probably not be corrected, but source information should be made mandatory for future uploads. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. is wrong, in Norway it can be as short as 15 years. Jeblad (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are, of course, exceptions. Note the word usually in my statement. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do none of the uploads have EXIF data? Are they stripped? It seems that all uploads have a maximum size of 700 pixels. The process seems to degrade the image quality when one compare to Ilana Shkolnik's uploads on Flickr (where they are "all rights reserved"). Why not transfer to commons the original upload? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, no comment to any of Mr. Kuiper's remarks. Drork (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a poor excuse. Pieter has valid questions here. Could you answer please? Yann (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you scan old documents/photo, you don't get EXIF data (unless you later add them). RE:Ilana Shkolnik's uploads - anybody could ask her directly whether she would grant us the hi-res versions.--Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot blocked pending further approval

I've blocked the bot indefinitely pending permission to run the bot any further, as in accordance with the bot policy. Also per misbehaving. I ask the bot's operator to file a request to run the bot any further at Commons:Bots/Requests. Please follow the instructions and submit the bot request.

As to the block, I understand it may have collateral damages, but the operator has been asked not to run it further til the issues have been resolved. Yet the bot's operator hasn't stopped it, despite the valid concerns about copyright issues and the bot misbehaviour. Commons takes copyright violations very seriously, and so do I. Sorry Drork that it had to end like this for now, but the concerns have to be fixed before it can run any further. Copyright is a serious issue, and I can't let the bot do any further harm til it has been fixed, and the operator seeks permission to run it.

This block is just temporary til concerns have been fixed.
The block itself is not some bias on my side, but a protection to prevent any further damage to the project. We appreciate (even I do), the files but the copyright concerns needs to be resolved before the Piwiki can upload further files to this project. This is all done to think of the bigger picture. What if the bot continued, and we later found out it had uploaded thousands of copyright violations. Now wouldn't that be one big mess? Instead we have the opportunity to resolve this now, and prevent such a thing from happening in the near future. AFBorchert makes some valid points, and so does many users above. I understand this is a frustrating issue to you personally Drork, but we're not here to bully contributors. We want the best out of this project, and I want to help you. But for us to do that, you have to help us. Which you have done numerous times too. Take a step back, think about the situation, and come back. A calm head and a relaxed body is always better than the opposite. Despite the hard issue, Drork, help us even further and make the bot run once again. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 13:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia chapters informing them that Wikimedia Israel suspends all its activities until this block is removed. We will not tolerate such a treatment. Drork (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drork its really to bad that it ended in a blockade for the bot. I was really hoping that you would adres the concerns raised on this page and fix some little things with the bot. With suspending all activity you will make the wrong signal to the people that donated money to make this project work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigor (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing outcome

The present status of this discussion is dissapointing in that the outcome is contradictory to our goals. PikiWiki is a project designed to collect free, valuable content. The issues between the uploads and how Commons is receiving it should not have culminated to such a point. While Commons is a project in its own right, it also serves the Wikimedia Projects, as well as serves as a free media to the world at large. Presenting barriers to gathering free media is contrary to our goals, and we need to find a way to make it easier to contribute, not more difficult, for people who are trying to work in Commons' interest.

I hope that we can work together going forward, with that in mind. --Bastique ^demandez 17:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will express my support for what Bastique writes, and hopefully it will be possible to find a solution. Jeblad (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should make it easier for people to contribute here. However, we still need to focus on collecting free media. Yes, it would be a lot easier if we just dropped all the license checking, OTRS validation etc., but that would endanger our mission just as much as blindly importing unvalidated content from third party sites. There have been discussions about this on Commons-l before the project started and several people (with me among them) mentioned this. However, our advice was not heeded, so this is the outcome. I also support any steps to make this project work with Commons, however some serious changes need to be made to make this possible. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer bureaucratic obstructionalism expressed by Commons admins above mostly indicates that Commons needs to be severely reined in by the Foundation. It is a service project, not just its own entity. If it fails in that role, it will need severe and prompt adjusting.

Handy hint: if an entire chapter finds it can no longer work with Commons any more, it's Commons that has failed. - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If opinion of one person is automatically translated to position of Chapter, it may indicate something wrong too.

How about addressing Pikiwikisrael issues too? There is two sides of conflict, and it's not wise idea to blame only one of them.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Solution

If have been thinking about a way how we can make sure that the project can work in Commons without being held back by policies or other things that make uploading a bit difficult. Commons is a project full of volunteers and so is the PikiWiki project, If both the volunteers will work together I am pretty sure we could make a great project out of it.

Source and Permission
The source link leads to the mainpage of the projects, this could be easily fixed by linking to the photo page. I checked the project site and all uploads have there own direct link, by linking direct to the pictures the source problem will be solved in a very easy way. The permission problem could be solved on the image page also, if we go Flickr style... If the images page on the project site gives a license, it will give the people from Commons a way to check the licensing. This is probably not the best way to go but it is the most easy way to start with. Other big sites like Flickr already uses that system and we on Commons believe that license so that wouldn't be a problem on this project also.

PD and CC-by

Drork told in our conversation on IRC that images are uploaded on CC-by by default and PD will overwrite the license when it is needed. On this part I spend the most time thinking how we can fix this, and my idea is to create a special cc-by template for this project. We could mention in this template that the images is uploaded under cc-by but isn't checked yet. If the template will place the images in a category we could have a group of volunteers that check the license and replace it with PD-Israel or PD-self when it is needed. I will volunteer to do this if Drork gives me some info about the rules on PD and stuff, and I am pretty sure some other people will help also.

Not a bad idea. Although since the images are screened (point 3) previous to uploading here, the pikiwiki contributors could as well flag them as PD so they get uploaded as such here. Platonides (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken {{Information}}

As some people pointed out you are giving more information than the template support, when we know all information that you want to put in the template we could create a template that is special made for this project and will solve this problem also.

The bot is blocked now because of the malfunctions, and I know I raised it (And people on IRC told me I am responsible for all this what is happening). I would suggest to tell your programmer the above information and see if it can be fixed in a short time. I really think it is a good project and a good way to get free media on Commons. I hope that the Israel Chapter can work together with the Commons community to get this project back on track asap. With suspending all activity you will give a bad sign to people that donated money and that would be a bad thing. I rather see that you will pick up and fix and tell the people that give money something like: We are working on a project that is new in his kind, there where some little hick ups but we are getting things back on track now. You have my full support in making this project work. Huib talk 18:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to the actual file on Pikiwiki is a step into the right direction, but IMHO not really completely sufficient. What is so difficult about asking people for the source of their images? We require the source when people upload images to Commons. We import Flickr images which often don't have source information, but we delete Flickr images if they are likely not created by the Flickr uploader. Many images on the Pikiwiki project seem to be third party images, not created by the actual uploader himself. Please ask people where they got this image and why they think the are allowed to release it under a free license. Otherwise we open the gate for a huge load of copyvios. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

After a long off-wiki talk we've come up with some solutions. DrorK will contact the operator to fix the issues. I told some of the issues were: the template, source field, FOP, and the bot operator to be more responsive. The operator will probably be able to be more communicative to concerns in the future, and able to fix the template, and the source field that the bot uses. As to the FOP problem, we've come up with a possible solution of a new reviewer group for files uploaded from the Pikiwiki bot. The review process will be such as the PD/Flickr review process. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 18:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why this couldn't have been achieved without blocking the bot. We have all failed in this instance. I'm very sorry to see that this is the end result for what should have been an easily-resolved problem. — Mike.lifeguard 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know that the block is an unfortunate outcome, sadly as events were unfolding, I felt that an emergency measure was needed and I resorted to blocking. This was a well thought out block, and was delayed as much as I could. It wasn't some "block" happiness on my side at all, despite the "emergency" bit. I with others, deemed the block necessary to prevent uploading of more of the material that seemed to be potential copyright violation. As it proved difficult to coordinate with the bot's operator, and uploads were proceeding, blocking seemed to me the safest way to interrupt the steam of problematic uploads til issues had been solved. This is why I felt a block was needed. Further, I explained my reasoning to the block #Bot blocked pending further approval above. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 21:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because too many Commons habitues have forgotten the "service project" aspect of the project. Evidence: most of the above text - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, with all due respect, that's really not helping. People are trying to defuse the situation by finding a solution we can all agree to, so we don't need inflammatory comments like that. howcheng {chat} 16:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post Summery

As this project is in fact based on a donation of many k's of images from various archives, and of about $60k to create, we wish to have it back and running. The scope of the project is to assist people who do not speak english to upload and view pics from the commons. Each picture uploaded is checked by a voulenteer who checks the license and the description before the upload is approved (the servers of the projects hold the pictures for a couple of days prior to the upload by the bot) - I have seen the postcard example from above - it is a mistake done by a voulenteer.

now - I request that the following be taken place in order to proceed.

A. a list of problems to be fixed be listed hereunder:

I know only of the following (please add more if you have any):

1. Source field should include the name of the uploader and the origin (i.e the name of the archive or the person submiting the image) in latin leters - please note that this can not be the officail translation of any name as this will be done by the voulanteer.

2. No fair use image will be uploaded - only PD or CC (including images according to the FOP in Israel - which does allow derative imagaes of 2D works).

3. We will try and have the original size of the photos, however as the images must "await their checking" on a temporary server -their size must be truncated down to 3M (which we hope will expend to mote). The file will include the image data, where available.

4. We will try to have a description field in English and always the correct category for the images. A description in Hebrew will always be added.

5. PD images will be marked as PD Israel (attribution may still be required) and not CC.

The above problems will be fixed prior to further running of the bot.

B. I request that all further probelms be listed in the talk page of the user (to make it easier to find them).

C. The bot be reliesed (due to implications to the project, the failure thereoff may be very damaging to any donation from Israel to the foundation and the use of Hebrew wiki of the commons). Deror avi (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking this on, Deror avi. I think you've covered all the issues raised, and have a suitable solution for each one. I understand there is a meeting tomorrow of various people involved with this project. Do you know how quickly changes could be made to the upload process after that meeting? I'd like to unblock the bot as soon as possible - the problematic images are a minority (and it seems there are far fewer than was previously thought) and the other issues are comparatively minor. — Mike.lifeguard 14:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As well, it'd be extremely helpful if you could expand COM:FOP#Israel and COM:L#Israel with references. In particular, the points touched on in several deletion requests should be clarified for the future. There's no rush on that, but you know what you're talking about, so having that information written down in a reliable form and in a central location will greatly benefit both Commons and the Pikiwiki project. Thanks — Mike.lifeguard 14:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Deror avi (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By Tuesday I will be able to advise when the Bot will be amended, and when we will be ready with regards to the volenteers who will check the picture, so I think that by the end of the week all will be in order. Deror avi (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to see a feature implemented that asks people for the image source on upload. Right now, there is basically no source information at all, only that the image was uploaded to Pikiwiki by the person in the author field. Providing source information is vital to understand the licensing of images. This way we will also know when we might need additional permission sent to OTRS, besides the permission by the actual uploader. I think it would be best to implement this as a dropdown box, where you can select "own work" and such or input stuff manually. This way the source information can be localized on upload, if it was selected from the dropdown box. Thank you really much for addressing the issues as such, so far all we talked about were rogue admins, censorship and ubiquitous antisemitism. Best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as for your request - the project demands that the person admits to ea decelerations that he is the copyright holder or that he is certain that the image belongs to him and is in the public domain. The name and id are kept in the project's database, so in case of any suit - that person may be reach and he is solely responsible for the violation (and not pikiwiki or wikimedia). Other then declating this - and unless the picture is from a public archive (which is supposed to have the information), the project scope forbids uploading of pictures which origin is unknown.

On a personal note I wish to say that I try to save the project as a lot of money and two years work has been invested in it, and as many images have been donated for upload. The project has been presented in advance to the foundation and recieved its blessing. I think it is safe to assertain that the death of the project may be the end of any cooperation between donating parties in Israel and the foundation, and may also harm greatly the cooperation between Hebrew wikipedia and commons (it has already been recomanded by users, against my opinion, that all users in Hebrew would stop uploading pictures here and keep all their pictures only on Hebrew wiki, and some have requested deletion of all their pictures uploaded here). So far I have always opposed these voices, but having seen the response and rude behaviour of Pieter Kuiper I completely understand them. Deror avi (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that users assure that they own the rights to the image, but this is sometime insufficient. Basically, Commons and Flickr do the same thing, they also only allow uploading pictures which the user is entitled to release, but it shows that sometimes users simply don't care. So even if the assure you that they own the rights, there are still cases where we would need additional permission sent to OTRS. The source field provides important information why the user thinks he owns the rights on the image and whether such additional OTRS confirmation is really needed. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is requested here - and if there are questions - users can always revert to the uploaded and request info. When a person assures he is the owner of rights - this is usually sufficient (and remember - the pictures uploaded are checked by the volunteers). If in doubt - you can ask at the project page and the volunteer may revert to the donator and ask the relevant questions. I see no deference between this and a random user uploading picture and declaring he is the owner of rights (it is even better as each picture will be checked prior to upload. Granted that volunteers may make mistakes, however they will gain experience, and there is an additional buffer which does not exist with other regular users.). Deror avi (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main scope of the project is not to upload pics from flicker (those who can do that can also handle wiki upload page). The goal is to go tot people who ar enot so handy or do not speak English or to archives and tell them - scan the relevant pictures from your albums and archives - and upload them (we specificaly request pictures older then 1958 so they will be in PD - however also newer pictures are accepted) - so there is no internet page to link to. I believe that the improtent work of the project is to convince all the archives in Israel to digitalize and upload their pictures (so far five archives have sent their pictures and more are waiting). In all such cases - there is no page to link to. Deror avi (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to find out that when a pikiwiki image gets deleted here, it disappears also from Pikiwiki, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:PikiWiki Israel 2219 Election 2009 night - Kadima_Party for an example. So this is not some separate flickr-like creative commons project from which commons could choose the interesting images. It is even a problem to delete images with doubtful copyright status or images that do not fit in project scope. We get everything. Lots of good stuff, of course, I do not deny that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point - piki wiki is an interface in Hebrew for the commons. The images are all here, and the info is all here. There is a small database for the picture to be checked by the volonteers prior to their upload here - but it is very small. The piki wiki project is a project of Wikimedia Foundation (through its Israeli chapter) whose all aim is to upload pics to the commons (via a Hebrew interface for people who have dificulties in English) and the make it easy to search the pictures for Hebrew speakes (not all commons pictures- just those uploaded through the project). Another goal of the project is to go to public archives and upload their picture to the commons - and that is why it is importent to amend the problems, realse the bot and continue with the project as soon as possible. As to scope and copyright - the piki wiki project has narrower scope than the commons - so images which are not educational do not fit in piki wiki. Same with regards to copyright. Deror avi (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Last night a meeting took place attended by me, the head of the Israeli internet association, the attorney of the association, representatives of Wikimedia Israel and volonteers from Hebrew Wikipedia. The programer of the bot was instracted to ammend the bot in accordance with the above requests (as I understood them), and we expect it to be amended by the end of the week. Following the amendmets, we expect the bot to be released. Deror avi (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are any further objections, I will unblock the bot. --Meno25 (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait with the unlock until I update that the amendments are complete (otherwise - the bot, during the upgrade and while it is checked, may upload info according to the old format). Deror avi (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming an image

Hello,
I'm not sure it's the right place, just tell me where if it is not...
I miss-identify an animal on a picture I uploaded, so I want to rename it. How should I perform it? The file is File:Rieppeleon kerstenii.png, which should be renamed File:Rhampholeon temporalis.
Thanks in advance. Regards,
Hexasoft (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest way, in a case like this one, is just to reupload the image with the correct name and tag the misnamed version with {{Bad name}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I will do that. Hexasoft (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Water lilies abuse

I deleted the three copies of the same picture this morning, all uploaded by different accounts at different times with different copyright claims (or lack thereof). Further, one of the images had been deleted three times before and the other five times! That's 11 uploads and deletions that I know of from 11 different uploaders over several years. Kungen442 (talk · contribs) even uploaded one with a ridiculous racist vandalism comment. That's too many times to be coincidental, isn't it? Is this some long-term abuse case? Checkuser needed maybe?

File:Water lilies.jpg - Now deleted six times. I've protected.
File:Ninféias.jpg - Now deleted four times. I've protected.
File:Nenufarrjfsdt.jpg

Wknight94 ^talk 15:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the very first version of File:Water lilies.jpg this is maybe a standard Windows example image, I cant proof it because I deleted this trash from my computer, but entering Windows water lillies to Goole shows this result. People uploaded this image under its original filename (english, portugese) to Commons, thats the secret here I think. More obvious is the german filename, it should be Wasserlilien.jpg, enter Wasserlilien to Google is obvious. --Martin H. (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes, the 800x600 version with the SHA1 checksum fb662cbd45033e03f65e0f278f44f4206a3c4293 ships with Windows XP at least. Larger versions are apparently included with Microsoft Office. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! Excellent detective work, all. I protected the two names so hopefully that will deter to some extent. I'll modify the protection wording a bit. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 16:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protected template previously vandalised

The template {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}} has been vandalised, and now has lololol or something like that at the bottom. Guy0307 (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and protected. Protecting a few related templates too. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 11:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange things happening during renaming

Has anybody any idea what has happened with/during the renaming (ordered by me and performed by BetacommandBot) of this File:Ruben.jpg?
(hint: the total discrepancy between the original and the renamed image)
And the same problem here: File:Heyes.jpg.
--Túrelio (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, sounds like Betacommand needs to take care of this. And File:Josef Heyes Willich.jpg needs to be deleted as a blatant copyvio. Where did that come from I wonder? Wknight94 ^talk 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It grabbed en:File:Heyes.jpg instead of File:Heyes.jpg. Betacommand has been alerted. Wknight94 ^talk 20:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I've nominated en:File:Ruben.jpg for deletion on Wikipedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im scratching my head for whats causing this issue, Ive checked my logs and for some reason the bot is getting the wrong URL from mediawiki Im looking into trying to figure out why its happening and Im trying to add a safety check to prevent this. Ill double check the logs for any more errors. Betacommand 13:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really be sure without reading the code to your bot, but the only way I can think of for your bot to be getting URLs pointing to en.wikipedia files is that it's querying en.wikipedia.org for the URLs instead of commons.wikimedia.org (which, of course, will work exactly as long as there isn't a local file by the same name). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive checked the code again and the only thing I can think of is there is some bizarre bug with pywikipedia's fileUrl() function. I dont have the time to try and figure out exactly what. So Ive modified a custom API query that I was using to get other data so that it now includes the real URL. once that is fully running we shouldnt have this issue again. Betacommand 01:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a peek at the code, and I think the bug is caused by ImagePage.fileUrl() not passing the site parameter to query.GetData(). I think adding something like site = self.site() ought to fix it. Now let me just file a bug report... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now reported as item 2801955. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about block of User:Jiffman

It appears that User:Jiffman has been blocked. Upon reviewing his history I believe this user never acted in bad faith and was simply very confused. He was chastised for re-uploading a deleted image, but all of the deletions were requested by him and there was no discussion regarding them. He appears to be under the impression that the correct way to update an image is to first request deletion of the old image. In another case he says he requested deletion because the image was not in use (which someone should have just explained we don't typically do). I fear the sexual nature of his images may have led to reactionary behaviour. Because there is presently concern that the existing photo used to illustrate autofellatio may have copyright issues, I would like to give him the opportunity to re-upload self-portraits of this act. If there is no disagreement within 24 hours I will unblock him. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea. I disagree. This guy is just wasting our time. Lewis and I got tired of screwing around with him in the first place. This user goes and uploads a bunch of pictures of himself, then marks them for deletion - fine (IE Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Autofellatio_example.jpg. I can understand he doesn't want that type of material on the internet. Then he goes and uploads the images AGAIN and noms them for deletion AGAIN. Now he's wasting our time and trying to screw with our system. He uploaded and nom'd for deletion other files too. As for your (Dcoetzee)'s comment about "no discussion regarding them", you're right, there wasn't. If an author requests their files be deleted, we tend to grant that (Though we're not required to). What is there to discuss? -- If the community feels he should be given a second (or is it 3rd now? Maybe 4th?) chance, I'm not going to stand in the way... But even still I think he should be given an extremely short leash. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that he was nominating the images for deletion based on some misunderstandings of how the site works: he seems to think that you're supposed to delete old versions when you upload new versions, and also that images that are not in use should be deleted. I don't think he ever expressed any concern about the sensitive nature of the images. For these reasons I don't see the deletions as disruptive. I've done my best to explain these misunderstandings to him. If you think there's something else going on here that my explanation doesn't account for I'd like to check that out. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of time? As far as I know then we could sumply stop deleting images if they are in scope and license is ok. Just because an uploader request a deletion that does not mean we should delete. Then some one could drop the uploader a message telling that it is not neccecary to delete images to upload a new wersion.

I believe we should try to help users to understand how it works before blocking it. As far as I can se no one really tryed to explain the user what the problem was before the user was blocked.

If Dcoetzee (or an other user) agrees to help and guide Jiffman i support an unblock. --MGA73 (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for unblocking him on 2 conditions.. Since he has now offered over on Wikipedia to take yet another picture of himself performing autofellatio, that an admin look at the other deleted images of him in this act and make sure they will be of decent quality and not just some faded, low light blurry web cam pic. Secondly, make sure he understands that if he uploads such an image again, it will not under any circumstances be deleted so don't even bother to ask. That should stop the merry-go-round he's been playing for a year now with these autofellatio images. Once he's released it to the public domain, no revocation. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 09:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dcoetzee, look closely - he did not request deletion to "update" the image. First he said he just wanted to "take it down", but then re-uploaded the exact same image - under a different name. Then he requested deletion as "Pointless" - his own image is pointless? No one else is bothered by the fact that the only activity from this user is related to autofellatio? Or by the fact that he's used 8 different file names to upload the same 4 images, including 4 different names for the one he had deleted twice? Sorry but all I see is some kid uploading pictures from hornyboy.com (yes, it's a real site) and snickering with his friends, then deleting when they're done, then re-uploading - with a different name so it doesn't appear on anyone's watchlist - to snicker with new friends, etc., etc. If I'm in the minority then do what you will. Wknight94 ^talk 12:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that all those excuses do make it a difficult concept to swallow, but I do feel that it is incumbent up on us to apply good faith and bend over backwards to help our amateur sword swallower. --Webhamster 14:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't. AGF isn't a suicide pact, nor a license to waste the valuable time of our contributors on exhibitionism. — Mike.lifeguard 14:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'whoosh' went ---> thattaway --WebHamster (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess this thread is pointless since one his images, File:Autofellatio3.jpg has been un-deleted by another admin. Move along, nothing else to do here. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really wanted to unblock because in my view the user was not acting in bad faith and I believe the punishment was too harsh - not just in order to acquire the image. I'll go ahead and do so and take it upon myself to monitor his actions. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously denied unblocking because I had also the feeling, upon analysing his contributions, that he was playing around with us. I'm fine with unblocking, even if very reluctant, but please keep an eye on him, good faith can't be stretched to infinity. Patrícia ^msg 17:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

I'd like for the following images of me and my family members, to be deleted please:

Thank you. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 09:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the one unused and/or poor quality. For remaining, I am waiting for others' opinion. May be a proper DR is needed. Yann (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted two more.. The where only in use on pages in the usernamespace. Please make a deletion request for the last one since it is in use on more than 5 places. Huib talk 09:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and done. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of fair use text in description of File:Es Vedra (251613005).jpg

I don't know if there is a template to report the presence of a possible text copyright infringement in a file description. It is a text from a blog, then copied on Flickr, then copied here. It is probably fair use, but not GFDL. Teofilo (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about any templates, but you could just replace the text with something like

English: Aerial photo of the island of Es Vedra

and note the copyvio issue in the edit summary. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio would still be available in the "history" tab. I don't know here, but on wikipedia, copyvios are removed from "history" too. Teofilo (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once it's been fixed, it would be possible to delete the revisions containing the copyvio text, and we'd certainly do that if the violation was egregious or if the copyright holder complained. In this case, I'm not sure it'd be worth the bother: as you note, the problem isn't so much that we'd be in legal hot water because of that brief quote (if we were, we wouldn't be sitting here chatting about it while letting it stay up, would we?), but simply that it's not free and therefore a violation of Commons policy. Anyway, in either case, the first step is to remove the copyvio from the current version and replace it with something non-infringing. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CC-NC + GFDL incompatible?

After the uploader put this image File:Fluffys Birthday Cover.jpg under CC-NC and GFDL, a speedy deletion tag appeared automatically, though this combination license should be o.k. on Commons. Any idea? --Túrelio (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as at least one of the licenses permitted is free per our criteria, the image should be okay to host here. I tried changing the order of the two licenses, but it didn't make a difference. I'm not sure what to do here. Perhaps just have it as GFDL, but note that reuse is also allowed under CC-NC in the text? -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cc-by-nc-3.0}} is just a redirect to the speedy deletion tag {{Noncommercial}}. If you want to multilicense a file under CC-BY-NC and a free license, you could either make a comibination tag for it, like {{GFDL or cc-by-nc-sa}}, or you could simply note the CC-BY-NC license in plain text (e.g. in the permission field of the {{Information}} template). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:redirect: beyond the discussed file, shouldn't we remove this redirect? --Túrelio (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest not. I suspect that in the vast majority of instances where {{Cc-by-nc-3.0}} is added to an image that is the only licence and so it should be speedily deleted. There is only going to be a few odd occasions like this where it is accompanied by an acceptable license. Adambro (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we rather remove all occurences of non-free licenses, also such like {{GFDL or cc-by-nc-sa}}? After all, allowing people to publish content under non-free licenses is really not furthering our mission in any way, I don't see why we should advertise them. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we remove them, if this kind of licensing explicitely declared to be ok in COM:L? Sounds like kind of purism. --Túrelio (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the non-free license is not of any use to us. We are working towards building a free media repository. Instead of having people choose semi-free licenses (such as the GFDL, which is de facto completely incompatible with images in offline media and is thus - not surprisingly - often used with other non-free licenses) and then let them choose a non-free license, we should rather ask them to choose a really free license and open their images for reusers. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Yes, this is purism. Isn't that, what we're doing here? Collecting free media only? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ChrisiPK here. We shouldn't approve licenses which are not suitable for a free resuse of media files (GFDL, *-NC-*, etc.). Yann (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then COM:L should be changed accordingly.

If taken seriously, Wikimedia would have no image of Theo Van Gogh at all. --Túrelio (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People can license their files as they wish. Why shouldn't they be able to explain that on the description page? As long as at least one of the licenses is acceptable on Commons, such files can stay, they are usable within Wikimedia and beyond. I understand the purist point of view, but see it from this side: even if it was not pointed on the description, the author could license a, let's say, GFDL image, as cc-by-nc-sa outside of Wikimedia (to use on some website, for example). Not tagging appropriately such images doesn't avoid the non-free licensing. Patrícia ^msg 08:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. But that is not a reason for us to advertise the non-free license on this site. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but it's not advertisement. We could do as Infrogmation suggested and have it just as a note on the description. Patrícia ^msg 19:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL was acceptable upto now. But once the relicensing is done, use of GFDL without another free license should be dissuaded. Yann (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Maybe we should take this to Commons talk:License Migration Task Force. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dissuaded, yes. Even taken out of the upload form, yes. Forbidden, no. It's still a free license. Patrícia ^msg 19:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why drop the GFDL? I think about publishing some of my photos double licenced with GDFL and CC-NC for one reason: If someone want's to use my picture on a non profit base, he just hast to add some lines for the creative commons page. Talking about profit use I see two possibilities. First is to include my picture and several others to a big compilation, there some extra pages for the GDFL won't harm. But if someone wants to use just my picture to make profit of it (if he deals to find someone to pay for it) he still has to include the full GDFL thus making it a bit nasty to handle! You see, if wisdom is free, noone should pay for it! axp_de ^Hello! 11:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone really want to make money of your photos (which I doubt, why always preventively restrict commercial use, since you have no proof a reuser will ever do that? NonCommercial or not, the reuser will always have to cite your name, include a link to the full license, etc.), they won't mind the GFDL. “Normal” people as me, on the contrary, will be annoyed because your NC clause forbids me to include your image on my blog, which has Google Ads. Well, that's all. I just wanted to give my voice about what I call nonsense, but I'd like to hear real arguments regarding to NonCommercial licenses (for a blog post). Thank you. →Diti the penguin — 12:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not want everyone being able to commercially exploit your work, don't use a free license. This sounds purist, but this is the way it is. The GFDL might be changed in future once again, exactly to facilitate commercial re-use, like it has been just now and all the people that had the same intention as you, are now shouting out loud because it turns out that everyone is able to easily use the images commercially, which is exactly the intention of the GFDL. Using a license against its intention is never a good option. So please, if you don't want this, don't use a free license at all. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency and copyvios

Admittedly, back during my wiki-infancy, I did dumb things like upload images that weren't mine and claiming them as PD-SELF. This was dealt with in the past but apparently some were missed. I used the wikimedia gallery tool just now to look at all of the images I have uploaded or had something to do with. Neat tool, didn't know it existed. Anyway, via this tool, I found some old copyvios that were missed during the last cleanup. If an admin has the time, either review my contribs to see which ones those are, or just deal with them from the regular copyvio category. I have tagged them as copyvios. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. odder 12:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion file

File:Gandhi with Lord and Lady Mountbatten.jpg has been tagged for Speedy Deletion. It was taken, therefore first produced, in New Delhi, India (as noted here), which seemingly would make the photo fall under India copyright law. Apparently, through the speedy deletion tag, someone in the UK is claiming copyright as well. So there is confusion as to which country's copyright law takes precedent. Anyone in the know? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people have irrelevant copyright claims, that doesn't mean anything, except that some have vested interests and/or a poor understanding of copyright law. Since it is clearly not a clear cut case, could you open a proper DR please? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already see two opposite copyright claims: one by Getty, one by Corbis. They are both based in Seattle, WA. Are they related to each other? Yann (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt: Convert to normal deletion request so people can comment on it. Multichill (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009May#British photographer takes photo in Australia—which is the country of origin? and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clarrie Grimmett.JPG. The photo is in the Hulton-Deutsch Collection (the Hulton Archive); Getty and Corbis are managing the rights for this collection. Jappalang (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I converted this to a proper DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gandhi with Lord and Lady Mountbatten.jpg. Yann (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal & Forgotten username/password

Hi there, I created a Wikimedia and would like it removed, unfortunately I have forgotten my username and password, any help?? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.78.125.13 (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove Wikimedia, then there will be no more Wikipedia and no more Commons ;-)

You probably wanted to say, you had an user account at Wikipedia or at Commons. Well, here is Commons. But, if you even have forgotten your username, how should we help you? In case you had uploaded any images, do you remember the exact name of any one? --Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr and National Governors Association

I've just spoken with the IT director at the NGA, and he has confirmed that the Flickr account National Governors Association does not belong to their organization. The Flickr account owner does not have permission to release the images under a free license. While images such as File:Jan Brewer official photo.jpg, File:Chet Culver official photo.jpg, and File:Bob Riley.jpg need to be deleted, is there somewhere that such Flickr accounts need to be listed? Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 18:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COM:QFI Wknight94 ^talk 18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not an admin here, and both that list and User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors are admin-only. Could somebody add the above linked account? Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 18:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Wknight94 ^talk 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a Flickr email to that account a couple days ago. I just got a reply. "I do not have information on the copyright, they were uploaded to the Creative Commons Attribution license by default." (!) The licenses are false and unauthorized. (The actual default setting at Flickr is "all rights reserved". I sent a reply back suggesting they change the licenses to "all rights reserved".) -- Infrogmation (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And just within the past half hour, the account has been deleted from Flickr. By the way, AuburnPilot, if you have a chance to pass on a message to the National Governors Association, could you suggest that having a legitimately free licensed image availible for each of the various state Governors would actually be a good idea? Thanks! -- Infrogmation (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to enable uploads for DNG files

If you haven't already, please see Commons:Village_pump#Proposal_to_enable_uploads_for_DNG_files. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please lower the protection of Template:Departments of France

Hi there! Following my request to sort Template:Departments of France differently, we've had a discussion on the French Village Pump and we reached the consensus that those department names would be sorted alphabetically and their number would be added to their name. I'd like the protection of this template to be lowered to semi-protected so that I can edit it... and others maybe if they don't fully with the collation rules I have chosen. Thanks. — Xavier, 23:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced to semi-protection for now. Wknight94 ^talk 01:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Xavier, 00:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scans of books

The uploads of this user might be worth looking at. The licensing seems to be incorrect in several cases. --Leyo 07:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He seems to be claiming to be the copyright holder of works he clearly did not create. Without a source and without substantiation, it looks shaky. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we just add {{copyvio}} to all files? Some images might be old enough to be kept. --Leyo 14:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Pod

Could I get some admin attention at File talk:Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg in regards to today's Picture of the day. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 09:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

I find this template, User:Böhringer/Template:Credits, very pointless and redundant since the same info would be in any image's summary and, as for attribution to the author, would be in the license. I just removed it from File:BallonKathedrale01.JPG. It's in use on well over 500 image pages, and I stopped counting there. Is there a process for deletion of templates on Commons? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DR - although I don't see anything wrong with a template where he nicely asks to be informed if his images are used. Wknight94 ^talk 11:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template I'm reading doesn't ask to be informed if his images are used. The one I'm reading says please mention me as the author and if you want send me a message. as well as This Photo was taken by Böhringer Friedrich. I just find it redundant and useless when he's already being attributed in the Author parameter of the summary and if he wants attribution, he should select the appropriate license for it and it will cover the "please mention me" part.

Take the image File:Melkende Ameise Honigtau.JPG for example. The license says, under the conditions that you appropriately attribute it. The template says This Photo was taken by Böhringer Friedrich. please mention me as the author. Redundant and we could do without the clutter of such a template. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 11:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "if you want send me a message" part is his extra part. I don't see why this would be bothersome. My general sense is that people are allowed to put what they want on their images. The image itself is the real subject here, not the text, which is more of a helpful description and fine-print footnote. If you want to concern yourself with the image description pages, Category:Media lacking a description has a nearly endless backlog and any work there would be much appreciated. Wknight94 ^talk 11:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Allstarecho, if you want to get an impression on how observant re-users are to our usual CC-BY attribution instruction, take a look at File talk:LucMontagnier1995 065.jpg and try to calculate the share of re-uses with proper or any author credit. Any more concerns? --Túrelio (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not someone actually pays attention to the license is another issue. The template is still redundant. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 12:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May be. But, it's the desperate (and fully justified) attempt to get the re-users' attention. --Túrelio (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allstarecho, a lot of use use this kind of template. You seem to assume that our description pages are easy to read and understand. This is not the case. The GFDL-self template runs: "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license", blah blah. Who is the copyright holder? Is it the same thing as "the uploader"? Why does this all looks like a puzzle whose pieces have to be put together? This kind of template does provide redundant data, but it's organised in a human-readable way: "this picture was taken by John Doe, please mention me". It also provides an easy way to contact the author. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In short, it is my personal experience that this kind of templates *are* useful. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly vote no on any deletion. While the template is admittedly redundant, it's hardly unreasonable to put your own template on an image you uploaded - plenty of people do it, and it may help those who are less familiar with wikis. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that reusers welcome such templates. --Kjetil_r 14:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good to know everyone is fine with redundant clutter. Moving on... - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 15:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clutter is in the eye of the beholder. Talking about redundant clutter, you could propose {{Information}} for deletion. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Allstarecho, for one thing, there is less need to touch other people's stuff here than there is at en.wp. At en.wp, everyone is scanning people's user pages looking for things to complain about and WP:ANI is abuzz with nonsense that has nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia. We are trying very hard to avoid that same drama-for-the-sake-of-drama here. But moreover, there are simply bigger things to worry about here. Go through uncategorized images and you'll find hundreds of missed copyright violations. You'll find hundreds of people whose only one or two contributions are to store personal images as though this were Facebook. There are tens of thousands of images with no description at all. Making an issue over how good established contributors label their images is simply not done here. It's one of the things that make this community so much more endearing than en.wp's. Wknight94 ^talk 15:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Aleksandr_Bezdomny

All of these are copyright violations of this MySpace album. Can someone delete them, and leave him a note? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two deletion requests

Could somebody, please help me to close two deletion requests.

Here's one As you see I nominated my

own image to be deleted, nobody voted to keep it, so I believe it could be safely deleted. The image is not used in any

project.

This deletion request has

been oppened since Juanuary 22. I believe it is about time to close it down.

Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New versions of existing photos uploaded to new files

A new contributor has found and uploaded higher-quality versions of a couple of images that were already in Commons. Unfortunately, the new versions were uploaded as new image files, rather than as new versions of the existing files (and has already changed links on EN, but probably not on other projects). I believe that some files will need to be deleted and some histories need to be merged. The affected files are:

File:Y-12 Shift Change.jpg is a new version of File:Y12 shift change.jpg
File:Y12 Calutron Operators.jpg is a new version of File:Calutrons at Oak Ridge.jpg

--Orlady (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually think anything needs to be done. The old versions are not exact scaled down versions of the new versions - different crop, different reproduction quality. I think it would be interesting to evaluate the differences between the versions, eg any detail airbrushed or cropped out? So definitely no deletions, and no merging needed either. All that is needed is links from each to its other version --Tony Wills (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Orlady, should be uploaded as new versions on the existing file names. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

uploads by JcHnd (talk · contribs)

Hello all, I believe many uploads of JcHnd are copyvios, he mostly gives some name in the author section and then just puts PD most of the time (& puts pd-self [1]), or unknown or has as source a webiste, where it says " ® 2006 CatrachoWings.com Todos Los Derechos Reservados" [2], or "source:public work", "author:unknown" [3]... Please can someone have a closer look at this, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 13:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms

Ok mates. Could please anyone restore these coas or at least transfer them to German Wikipedia?

List of files

# 01:44, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Vevey district coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)

01:44, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Saint Helena coa.svg" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:44, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Regensburg district coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:44, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Regen district coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:44, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Pazos de Borben flag.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:44, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Pays-d'Enhaut.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:44, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Paris coa b&w.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:44, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Grand Comore flag.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:44, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Flag of San Diego.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:43, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Flag of Bulgaria 1971-1990.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:43, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Turks and Caicos coa.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:42, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Wapenschild Bergachtig Karabach.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:42, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Western Cape coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:42, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Vietnam coa.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:42, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Togocoa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:42, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Vigo coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:41, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Vanuatu coa.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:41, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Victoria coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:41, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Turks and Caicos coa.svg" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:41, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:St Kitts and Nevis coa.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:41, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:South Australia coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:41, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Seal of baltimore.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:41, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Senegal coa.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:41, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Rodeiro coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:41, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Rolle district coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:41, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Provincia di Salerno-Stemma.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:41, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Suriname coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:41, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Sudan coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:40, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Provincia di Rieti-Stemma.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:40, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Provincia di Reggio Emilia-Stemma.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:40, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:PortailBulgarie2.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:40, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Panama coa.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:40, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Paris coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:40, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Ottawa city coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:40, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Orbe district coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:40, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Oron district coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:39, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:North Korea coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:39, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Northern Cyprus coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:39, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:North West coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:39, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Oberallgaeu coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:39, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Nyon district coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:39, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Northern Cape coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:38, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Limpopo coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:38, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Nigeria coa.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:38, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Mpumalanga coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:38, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Moudoun district coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:38, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Morges district coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:38, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Namibia coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:38, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Malta1975 coa.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:38, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Montreal city coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:38, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:MauritaniaSeal.svg" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:38, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Minneapolis city fl n6217.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:38, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Mali coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:37, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Lida city coa.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:37, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Lavaux district coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:37, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Lenin order.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:37, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Lausanne district coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:37, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:KwaZulu-Natal coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:37, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Grasse city coa n4346.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:37, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Kenya coat of arms.jpg" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:37, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Iceland coa1.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:37, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:India coa.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:37, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Guyana coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:36, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Guateng coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:36, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:France coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:36, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Grandson district coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:36, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Fresno city flag.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:36, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Fresno city fl n6338.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:36, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Free State coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:36, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Flag of the Supreme Head of Malaysia.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:36, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Flag of San Jose, California.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:36, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Flag of the President of Nigeria.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:36, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Flag of Japan Coast Guard.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:35, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Flag of Ethiopia (1987-1991).png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:35, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Flag of Infantry Group (JGSDF).gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:35, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Flag of Composite Forces COS (JGSDF).gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:35, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Flag of Belfast.PNG" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:34, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Estrada flag.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:34, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escut Trentino.PNG" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:34, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escut Surrey.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:34, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Flag of Air Defense Command (JASDF).gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:34, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escut de Garait.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:34, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Estrada coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:34, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escut Dorset.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:34, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escut Durham.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:34, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escut Forli.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:34, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escut Essex.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:34, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escut Montauban.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:34, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escut Somerset.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:34, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escut Privas.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:34, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Edmonton-flag.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:33, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escudo de la Comunidad Vasca (coronado).png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:33, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escudo de la provincia de Pontevedra.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:33, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escudo de la Comunidad Vasca.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:33, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escut Cumbria.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:33, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Sao Tome and Principe.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:33, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Saint Lucia.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:33, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Saint Kitts and Nevis.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:32, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Nigeria.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:32, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Niger.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:32, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Nepal.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:31, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escudo de Cardiff.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:31, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escudo de Andalucía.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:31, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escudo COA Santa Fe province argentina.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:31, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escudo COA Santiago del Estero province argentina.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:30, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escudo COA Misiones province argentina.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:30, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Echallens district coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:30, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escudo COA La Rioja province argentina.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:30, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Edmonton coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:30, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escudo COA Rio Negro province argentina.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:30, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Eritrea coa.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:30, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escudo COA San Juan province argentina.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:29, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escudo COA La Pampa province argentina.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:29, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escudo COA Santa Cruz province argentina.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:29, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Eastern Cape coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:29, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escudo COA Jujuy province argentina.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:29, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Escudo COA San Luis province argentina.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:29, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:EE Koeru coa.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:29, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:DR Congo coa.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:28, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Togo.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:27, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of the Marshall Islands.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:27, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of the Cook Islands.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:27, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of the Central African Republic.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:27, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of the Bahamas.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:27, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Zambia.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:27, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Uganda.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:27, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Cyprus Coat of Arms.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:27, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Colorado seal.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:27, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Cuba coa.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:27, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Dundee coa.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:27, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Columbus city fl n6169.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:27, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Zambia.svg" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:27, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Vanuatu.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:27, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of United Arab Emirates (1973-2008).svg" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:26, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Solomon Islands.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:26, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Sierra Leone.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:26, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Senegal.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:26, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Suriname.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:26, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of San Marino.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:26, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Northern Territory.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:26, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Samoa (1951-1962).svg" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:25, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Mongolia.gif" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:25, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Nauru.svg" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:25, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of North Yemen.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:25, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Nauru.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:25, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of Arms of Samoa.svg" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:25, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Mozambique.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:25, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Mozambique from 1975 to 1982.png" (per DR) (view/restore)
01:25, 24 May 2009 Mike.lifeguard ... deleted "File:Coat of arms of Namibia.svg" (per DR) (view/restore)

Chaddy (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2009

I hope you don't mind, but I put your list in a collapsible table (and linked the files for convenience). Rocket000 (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Thank you for your effort.

By the way I removed those files which have already been restored and also the talk page links. Now the list is a bit shorter. ;) Chaddy (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct newspapers

What is the copyright policy regarding newspapers that are defunct (no longer in business) and therefore has no entity existing to own copyrights of their past weekly issues? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 01:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except in extraordinary circumstance, the copyright still exists. The intellectual property of such organizations would generally be sold off in bankruptcy or dissolution proceedings, though you may have to research the cases to figure out who the new copyright holder may be. Dragons flight (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of the problem of orphaned works, where the copyright owner of a work cannot be located and may not even be aware they hold copyright of the work. Sadly, no legislative solution has yet succeeded in dealing with this problem. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So even though the newspaper is defunct and the owner dead, copyright lives on? This was a small town newspaper. We're not talking about a large media corporation here. Just a small town 1-man show so to speak in terms of ownership. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, yes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of pre-1970s US publications when copyrights still needed to be registered to go into effect, it was common for many small town newspapers not to bother to renew their copyrights, and sometimes they were never registered in the first place. So many may be out of copyright, but research would be needed to determine if so. Also, be aware of {{PD-US-no notice}}, as some didn't even bother to claim to be copyrighted-- if you have an intact issue, you can deterimine that yourself just by looking; if present the copyright notice is most commonly with the publisher info on page 2, sometimes on the front page, occasionally elsewhere. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mac OS copyvios

Hi all! User AzaToth is tagging a lot of Mac OS free software screenshots as copyvios with the mere reason "OS X". Since I don't own a Mac, I don't really understand where the copyvio exactly is. I guess it may be on the window decoration, or on the icons, or... In my opinion this would fall under COM:DM and I began reverting their copyvio notification. Now I'm hesitating, hence this note. First, I'd like you to be cautious before speedy deleting those screenshots. Second, I'd like your opinion on these copyvio notifications: are they abusive or not? — Xavier, 11:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe those screenshots are blatant copyvios (I'd say they are ok), so I undid AzaToth's changes (putting {{Copyvio}} for non-obvious cases). Further discussion should be done in a deletion request, not on the Administrators' noticeboard because one's decided those pictures to be copyvios without consensus. →Diti the penguin — 14:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my first concern was to avoid a-possibly arguable-mass deletion. I'll now ask Azartoth to fill a deletion request. — Xavier, 15:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

animals in captivity

Sadly, we lost Mbz1 (talk · contribs).
In one of her last edits (though deleted by herself) she made a proposal that IMHO merits consideration: "if an image of animals, birds, fishes and/or insects was taken in captivity, it should be specified either in the image description or in the nomination (as Featured picture candidate)"[4]. --Túrelio (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a good proposition. Yann (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making it a requirement would be pointless in most cases: when the animal is obviously in a zoo, cage, aquarium, or other enclosed area. Also for livestock and pets. The only case where it would really make sense is when the subject is in a wildlife park that has no visible signs it's not out in the wild, but still, I'm not sure how much weight this has on whether or not a image becomes a FP (judged more for the image itself than background knowledge). If this info is really that important to voters, wouldn't they simply be opposing images that lack it anyway? OTOH, for valued images, I can see where this would make be a fitting requirement. Rocket000 (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful except in the obvious cases, as you mentioned. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes people should be encouraged to give useful detail about the circumstances of all images supplied, getting any description at all out of some uploaders is difficult though :-). The particular instance of whether the image is of a captive animal seems mainly relevant to people who discount zoo shots as being too easy and don't support them for FP status, it doesn't really have much significance for the value of an image to Commons. The exception to this is if the image implies the behaviour or environment shown is natural, when it isn't. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of User pages

Is speedy deletion of a users user-page and talk page, at the users request (eg when withdrawing from the project) now standard practice? I thought user-page deletion was only done under exceptional circumstances, they do not own those pages, everything is released under GFDL. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need those user pages? Chaddy (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need any user pages ;-) That is not the point :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't keep things that are of no use. What are you actually talking about, the userpages of Mila? --Túrelio (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the question was spurred by the surprising deletion of Mila's pages. Why do you think history is of no use? --Tony Wills (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL or not (if you really want the page, you can move it somewhere else, so the history will be kept), if the author request deletion if his own pages, we should (must?) accept it, as a courtesy. If you were an administrator and wanted to leave the project removing your user page, you would do it without hesitation, would you? So, why regular users couldn't be free to choose whether they want their pages to be deleted? →Diti the penguin — 23:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number of points - of course if I wanted a personal copy of the pages, and in particular the histories of discussions of images and other issues, I could have made a copy before they were deleted, but of course can no longer do so. But it is the value to the projects, am I the only one who ever looks at the histories of things, and wants to be able to follow discussions to see what the thinking was for particular decisions? I certainly don't expect administrators to use their access to tools to carry out operations against general Commons policies so that point is irrelevant (and for the record, personally I would not). No one has yet said whether this is current policy though. On your last point - users (or specifically ex-users) should not have the choice to delete material, just because it relates to them, without discussion. Page histories contain lots of discussions, with contributions from lots of people. I don't see why a user request to delete anything would be actioned as 'speedy' unless there are exceptional circumstances. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{Done}}~~. User talk pages shouldnt be deleted, User pages if requested. Restored the talkpage and placed {{Retired}} on it. --Martin H. (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, again a speedy request. I did not know of this meta site meta:Right to vanish, its a good argument. I still think, that keeping the talkpage is the best idea, but i refrain from enforcing this. --Martin H. (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 657: / Line 657: @@
 ::A number of points - of course if I wanted a personal copy of the pages, and in particular the histories of discussions of images and other issues, I could have made a copy before they were deleted, but of course can no longer do so.  But it is the value to the projects, am I the only one who ever looks at the histories of things, and wants to be able to follow discussions to see what the thinking was for particular decisions?  I certainly don't expect administrators to use their access to tools to carry out operations against general Commons policies so that point is irrelevant (and for the record, personally I would not).  No one has yet said whether this is current policy though.  On your last point - users (or specifically ex-users) should not have the choice to delete material, just because it relates to them, without discussion.  Page histories contain lots of discussions, with contributions from lots of people.  I don't see why a user request to delete anything would be actioned as 'speedy' unless there are exceptional circumstances. --[[User:Tony Wills|Tony Wills]] ([[User talk:Tony Wills|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
-{{done}}. User talk pages shouldnt be deleted, User pages if requested. Restored the talkpage and placed {{tl|Retired}} on it. --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] ([[User talk:Martin H.|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
+<s>{{tl|done}}</s>. User talk pages shouldnt be deleted, User pages if requested. Restored the talkpage and placed {{tl|Retired}} on it. --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] ([[User talk:Martin H.|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
+:Not done, again a speedy request. I did not know of this meta site [[meta:Right to vanish]], its a good argument. I still think, that keeping the talkpage is the best idea, but i refrain from enforcing this. --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] ([[User talk:Martin H.|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)