Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: COM:AN

Administrator's assistance
Vandalism (post | watch)	User problems (post | watch)	Blocks and protections (post | watch)	Other (post | watch)
English: Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard. Suomi: Raportoi ilmeisistä vandalismitapauksista. Muut estopyynnöt jätettäköön estojen ja suojauksen ilmoitustaululle. 한국어: 문서 훼손을 저지른 사용자를 신고하는 곳입니다. 다른 이유로 인한 차단 요청은 차단 및 보호 요청 문서에 남겨주세요. Svenska: Rapportera användare för tydliga tecken på vandalism. Begäran av blockering för någon annan anledning ska rapporteras på anslagstavlan för blockeringar och skydd.	English: Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Use of the disputes noticeboard if no admin assistance is required is strongly recommended. Suomi: Raportoi ylläpitäjän väliintulon vaativa käyttäjän ongelmallinen toiminta. Käytä käyttäjäongelmien ilmoitustaulua jollei ylläpitäjää tarvita. 한국어: 관리자의 개입이 필요한 분쟁을 해결하는 곳입니다. 관리자의 개입이 필요하지 않다면 분쟁 해결 게시판을 이용하시기 바랍니다. Svenska: Rapportera tvister med användare som kräver hjälp av en administratör. Använd anslagstavlan för användarproblem om ingen administratörshjälp behövs.	English: Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here. 한국어: 문서 훼손 관련 관리자 요청에 맞지 않는 차단 요청이나 문서의 보호/보호 해제 요청을 이곳에서 할 수 있습니다. Svenska: Rapporteringar som inte passar anslagstavlan för vandalism kan rapporteras här. Begäran för sidskydd eller borttagning av sidskydd kan också begäras här. Suomi: Tällä sivulla voit kuuluttaa vandalismin ilmoitustaululle sopimattomat ilmoitukset. Tällä ilmoitustaululla voit myös pyytää sivun suojaamista tai suojauksen purkua. ‪中文(简体)‬: 这里可以报告不适合破坏行为布告栏的报告。这里亦可以请求页面保护/解除保护。	English: Other reports that require administrator assistance (i.e. requested moves/renames) which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed here. Suomi: Tällä ilmoitustaulla voit kuuluttaa muille ilmoitustauluille sopimattomat ylläpitäjän huomion vaativat tehtävät ja ilmoitukset, esimerkiksi suojattujen sivujen siirrot. Pyynnöt sivuhistorian yhdistämisestä tai jakamisesta tulee tehdä täällä. 한국어: 다른 관리자 요청 문서에 맞지 않는 일반적인 관리에 대해 관리자의 도움을 요청하는 곳입니다. Svenska: Andra rapporteringar som kräver administratörshjälp (t.ex. begärda flyttningar/namnbyten) som inte passar i någon av de föregående anslagstavlorna kan rapporteras här. Begäran för sammanslagning eller delning av historik ska lämnas in här.
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
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. Azərbaycanca: Bu bölüm istifadəçilərin idarəçilərlə ünsiyyət qura biləcəklər bir yerdir. Bir idarəçiyə vandalizmle müdaxilə ehtiyacı, problemli istifadəçilər ya da başqa bir şey ifadə edəbilərsiniz. Català: Aquest és el lloc destinat a que els usuaris puguin comunicar-se amb els administradors, o viceversa. Podeu notificar edicions vandàliques, reclamar l'atenció sobre usuaris problemàtics, o indicar qualsevol altre assumpte que requereixi la intervenció d'un administrador. Česky: 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: Diese Seite ist für Gespräche mit Administratoren. Du kannst hier Probleme melden, die den Eingriff eines Administrators nötig machen, zum Beispiel Vandalismus oder Probleme mit anderen Benutzern. 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. Esperanto: Ĉi tie estas loko kie uzantoj povas interkomunikiĝi kun administrantoj, aŭ administrantoj unu kun la alia. Vi povas raporti pri vandalismo, problemaj uzantoj, kaj ĉio alia, kio bezonas intervenon de administranto. 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. Frysk: Op dizze side kinne meidoggers oerlizze mei behearders, of behearders mei inoar. Jo kinne hjir fandalisme, problematyske meidoggers en oare saken dy't oandacht fan in behearder freegje melde. 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. 문서를 훼손하거나 문제가 있는 사용자를 보고하거나, 관리자의 중재가 필요한 사항이 있으면 이곳을 이용해주십시오. Македонски: Ова е место каде што корисниците можат да комуницираат со администраторите, или пак администраторите меѓусебно. Тука можете да пријавувате вандализам, проблематични корисници, или било што друго кога има потреба од администраторска интервенција. മലയാളം: കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകരുമായി ആശയവിനിമയം ചെയ്യാനുള്ള വേദിയാണിത്, കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകർക്ക് തമ്മിൽ തമ്മിൽ ചർച്ച ചെയ്യാനും ഈ താൾ ഉപയോഗിക്കാം. നശീകരണ പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ചോ, പ്രശ്നകാരികളായ ഉപയോക്താക്കളെക്കുറിച്ചോ, അല്ലെങ്കിൽ കാര്യനിർവ്വാഹകരുടെ ഇടപെടൽ ആവശ്യമായ മറ്റെന്തെങ്കിലും വിഷയങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ചോ താങ്കൾക്ക് ഇവിടെ അറിയിക്കാവുന്നതാണ്. 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. 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. 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. Русский: Это место, где участники могут обратиться к администраторам, а администраторы обсудить вопросы друг с другом. Вы можете сообщить о вандализме, некорректных действиях участников и всём прочем, что, по вашему мнению, нуждается во вмешательстве администраторов. 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. Slovenčina: Táto stránka slúži používateľom na komunikáciu so správcami tu na Commons, alebo na komunikáciu správcov navzájom. Môžete tu nahlásiť vandalizmus, problematických používateľov alebo ďalšie záležitosti, ktoré môžu vďaka svojím právomociam vyriešiť len správcovia. 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. Svenska: Det här är en sida där användare kan prata med administratörer, eller där administratörer kan prata med varandra. Du kan rapportera vandalism, problematiska användare eller någonting som behöver en administratörs ingripande. Türkçe: Bu bölüm kullanıcıların yöneticilerle iletişim kurabilecekleri bir yerdir. Bir yöneticiye vandalizmle müdahale ihtiyacı, sorunlu kullanıcılar ya da başka bir şey bildirebilirsiniz. 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)‬: 这里是用户能够与管理员或与管理员及另一个人沟通的地方。你可以报告破坏行为、问题用户或其他需要管理员干预的事情。 ‪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: Ky është një vend ku përdoruesit mund të komunikojnë me administruesit, ose administruesit me njëri-tjetrin. Mund të raportosh vandalizëm, përdorues problematik dhe gjithçka tjetër ku ka nevojë për ndërhyrje të administruesve.

Important discussion pages (index)

Commons Help desk Community-wide general discussion: Village Pump Village Pump: Proposals Graphics and photography: Graphics discussion Ask for image improvement Photography critiques Categories discussion Deletion requests Copyright and licensing questions OTRS noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators: Vandalism reports User problems Blocks and protections General (none of the above) CheckUser requests Disputes noticeboard IRC Commons mailing list archive Bugzilla: Commons (last 7 days)

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• If appropriate, notify the user(s) concerned. {{Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Wikihounding by User:Whaledad

Last weekend User Whaledad has started wikihouding me (which I explained here among other places), and has started all kind of irrational discussion on three Wikiprojects now.

The matter here is clear to me, that I own the copyright of my own art objects, and I only mentioned the photographers as a courtesy. Verbal agreements have been made, and I not in contact with the photographers any more. It is clear matter, that the art objects are copyright by me, and pictures of art objects could be a shared copyright of a photographer, but this is not the case according to me (and has not been questioned by the photographers). I guess this is the problem for all artists, who offer there work under the CC licence.

I would appreciate if an administrator gives me some advice, what to do here. There are similar attacks on my work and presents on the other Wikipedia's, and I could use some reduction pressure. If there are no simple answers here, I am willing to consider speedy deletion, because there are more important things to do. Could anybody give some advice.

Kind regards, -- Mdd (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I take offense to this accusation of 'Wikihouding' (sic) (here and elsewhere) from User:Mdd This started by me finding that Mdd had not properly attributed a picture, which I made Mdd aware of. I then helped him correct the file page, to the state it is now in (page history will show my corrections). I then started checking Mdd's other contribution ntoi the project, finding that there were other files that had issues, and flagging those. I'm not disputing Mdd's claim that he owns the rights to the work of art, but he doesn't own the rights to those particular photographs of them, unless the actual photographer (or agency) has given those rights to him in writing. As far as I'm aware Commons doesn't accept verbal agreements (unless maybe if they were recorded and the audio file is sent to them). Please ask Mdd to stop these false accusation of Wikihounding. Whaledad (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: It would seem that this user has a history of copyright issues here. Whaledad (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a clear case of Wikihounding, which started trying to find mistakes to turn this into his advantage. Whaledad is giving a wrong picture of the history. When he found a small mistake, he came to me here, which I fixed and reported back within 7 minutes. After he continued attacking me, I asked for a second opinion here, where a large possible problem, with 304 files occurred, which Whaledad even tried to cover up. he is not in the least interested in solving problems here.

There is a clear mistake in the further argumentation of Whaledad. In real life people make both verbal and written agreements and both are legal. He doesn't have any clue that the verbal agreement is not like I have stated. Here history repeats it selves. In stead of admitting he is empty handed, he starts creating chaos with new possible accusations (which have nothing to do with this matter) and he starts playing the system. -- Mdd (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The accusation of Wikihounding is not well founded -- it is perfectly standard practice to check all of a user's uploads when several of them have been found to have problems, particularly when the user apparently does not understand how copyright works. I do it myself regularly -- not because I have any particular animus against the user, but because where there is one problem, there are often more.

Verbal agreements are effective for many things, but as a general rule not for copyright transfers -- in many countries a written agreement is required for such a transfer to be effective. In any case Commons policy is that we do not accept assertions from the uploader that he owns the copyright in an image taken by another person -- we require that the photographer send us a license using Commons:OTRS.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward, this comment of yours opens a new perspectives:

1. The whole conflict here started with the attribution of this File:Conscience and law.jpg, which I started correction here
2. In the discussion about this on the Dutch Wikipedia (here and here) I realized that there seemed to be copyright problems with all image in the Category:Bilder von Johannes Otto Först
3. In stead of taking steps for further investigations...
4. ... accusations of my plagiarism were shouted from the highest tree in the Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Grootschalig langdurig conflict for example here with the text:

   ... Hij weigert fatsoenlijke bronnen te gebruiken, hij fantaseert er lustig op los en is niet te beroerd om plagiaat te plegen. Nu mag men mij verwijten dat dit plagiaat ver gezocht is en bij het aanmelden van de zaak nog niet bekend was, maar dan zeg ik, juist de reactie van Mdd op de constatering van collega Whaledad maakt duidelijk dat hij niet alleen ongeschikt is, maar ook een groot gevaar voor de integriteit van dit projekt...Peter b (overleg) 27 jan 2012

5. the previous accusation of plagiarism by Whaledad should have been handled with great care, and should have been dealt with here instead of start repeating the accusation else where.
6. On the Dutch Wikipedia I asked for a second opinion in the matter of plagiarism (here) and Edoderoo and I agreed that the original text could lead to confusion, but did contain the information needed.
7. In stead of dealing with the accusations made on the Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Grootschalig_langdurig_conflict, which became very insecure, new offensive action has been undertaken by Whaledad, not to solve new problem of 403 images, but towards me and my work.

Now there is a matter of not one but several alleged cases of Wikihounding, see for an other one here (see also here. Especially the matter that they don't redraw old accusation, but started new accusations here and on Wikiquote makes this a clear case of Wikihaunting.

Now this is a matter where I don't understand every single detail about how copyright works, and I have noticed thing evolve here on Wikicommons. But Whaledad is the person who doesn't understand the first thing about copyright. He has nominated four of my images based onthe argument that copyright is with the magazine, that first published the images. -- Mdd (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Mdd, first of all: the word you are looking for is Wikihounding, not Wikihouding. Secondly, your "proof" of my "hounding" you (as listed above) includes all kinds actions not done by me, even pages that I have not contributed to at all! Your accusation of Wikihounding is false, malicious and without merit, as is your statement that I don't know the first thing about copyright. I may not know all that there is to know about it (it is a complex area), but looking at the long list of files that you uploaded that have been removed for copyright reasons, you can certainly not be called an expert. The four pictures in question are NOT your works and require written permission by the original author before they can be use on Wikipedia,. While verbal agreements are perfectly legal, the Wikipedia requirements are very clear and go beyond the "normal" legal requirements. Whaledad (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just ignore all the things you have done. Putting everything under a microscope, and started shoulting from the highest tree after finding one alledged flaw. Oh, it was not you but your mate. Oh, there were some things you did not do. Well that was the whole point. When real problems occurred you where not interested, even trying to intimidate me not to take notice. Maybe this accusation is not perfect here, this is just a noticeboard, where I state my concern.

Lots of things do not go perfect here, and multiple series of images have been removed, and am still learning here. Today I have learned about that written approval, and will set some thing in motion. But stop pretending your are not harrasing me. Mdd (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Mdd: I'm sorry you've been having a bad time with this, but when an experienced participant in Commons finds a problem about attribution, etc., it is simply normal practice to scrutinize the user's other uploads. It looks like there were places where he worded things poorly, and in particular he should probably be more careful about the use of the word plagiarism. However, it also looks like there were problems with some of the other uploads. I'm sure your intentions were entirely good, but I gather you didn't fully understand that a photo of an artwork has two levels of copyright issues, one for the underlying artwork and the other for the derivative photograph, and that Commons needs to be concerned with both. (Usually, of course, we see this problem the other way around: the photographer ignores the rights of the artist.) It looks like you understand that now, which is great. As long as you get that right in the future, I would presume this won't recur. - Jmabel ! talk 03:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, thanks for your efforts in trying to make mr. Mdd understand what the issues are. One thing though: I never used the word 'plagiarism' with respect to Mdd's contributions. I iknow he means well, is just 'sloppy' in dealing with the details. And unfortunately sees all forms of criticism as the whole world coming after him. The response below is an excellent example. Whaledad (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, things are more complex here. I don't have a problem with other users "scrutinize" (I guess this means "double check") my (1000+) uploads. The game Whaledad is playing is called: Drive your Wikipedia opponent of the road by demanding the conditions to be absolutely perfect, and when the opponent give prove, change the requirements even more. Now the particular example:

• A deletion request has been made for this picture where the demands have been raised, see here
• Now the problem is that I have no written prove, and I lost all sight of the photographer.
• I can prove the image has been published a dozen times over the last 20 years: between 1992 and 1998 at least six times (see here), here on Wikipedia and on Flickr for three years and on a dozen other places on the web, without the photographer being mentioned or the picture claimed by the photographer.
• I can also prove that image itself in a way is derived work, because I came to the photographer with a set of images that where not that perfect, but did contain the same concept of the image and the shadow.
• The photographer had put all his skills into the picture and made it a perfect picture. The picture is an excellent example of craftsmanship. However the copyright is on the unique signature on the picture, which was already in the examples I took with me to the photo session. I guess the situation here is similar to google streetview, which can not be copyrighted because of it's lack of creative input, it is pure craftsmanship.
• Now I will try to track the photographer, and make a deal. Also I am willing to take my changes in court if the photographer starts claiming the picture after 20 years., and/or take immediate action here when a copyright claim would arrive (just like a took immediate action when this all started [1])

Now the thing that starts messing with your head is, that Whaledad & Co here (and in earlier situations) pretend there absolutely should be, just that one thing there is not. But the things are not absolutely perfect here. When you prove that (for example 403 pictures missing OTRS confirmation, and all pictures before 2006 missing a OTRS because the system didn't work yet) Whaledad & Co ignore that, start put the pressure on other weaker points, pretending there are more mayor pressing problems. This is not about double checking, but making me a target, keep putting the pressure on (for months), this week on three projects (wikipedia, wikiquote, wikicommons). This is no ordinary double checking. This is a person looking for retribution, demanding perfect conditions in a imperfect world. -- Mdd (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Mdd, you don't own the copyright on the picture, because you had a sample with the same lighting and shadows. The copyright is not on the unique signature in the picture. The copyright is on th epicture itself. Wikipedia has no provision for users taking their 'changes in court if the photographer starts claiming the picture after 20 years'. Nor will Wikipedia allow the picture to remain here if no permission is trackably granted by the copyright owner. I'm most worried by your words: I will try to track the photographer, and make a deal. This clearly shows that there is no deal yet! And if I were the photographer (I am a photographer, just not of this picture), and I would read here that you appreciate my craftmanship, but that you feel that you own the copyright for the "unique signature on the picture", I would never make any kind of deal. Whaledad (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just retribution, Whaledad, I read no more. Of cause I mean a new deal. There has been an understanding between the photographer and me that he doesn't claim anything. That is the current deal. If suddenly he wants to file a claim, I am willing to accept this, and make a new deal. But your are clearly on the path of retribution. You should try to find an other weak spot and raise the limits even higher, because that is the name of the game Drive your Wikipedia opponent of the road... -- Mdd (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there are other images that may have problems is irrelevant to this discussion. We have over 12 million images on Commons. I would not be surprised if 1% -- more than 100,000 -- of those had problems. If you find other images that you think are not OK on Commons, please put a {{delete}} on them.

In this particular case -- as with all the other Mdd images that I have looked at that Whaledad has nominated -- unless we receive credible permission through OTRS, the DR should close with the deletion of the image.

I note that until Whaledad came along and fixed it, Mdd was claiming copyright in File:Geert van de Camp.jpg, which is a simple crop of an image provided by another user. As similar correction was required at

• File:André Dekker.jpg
• File:Ruud Reutelingsperger.jpg
• File:Marcel Wanders.jpg
• File:Marcel Wanders Portret.jpg
• File:Jean Baudrillard portret.jpg
• File:KAST_kast_1992.jpg

I have tagged the following uploads of Mdd with {{delete}}

• File:Galaxy (Barbara Nanning).jpg
• File:Shark Art Gallery (7-24).jpg
• File:Jan des Bouvrie en Marcel Wanders bij de Gamma.jpg
• File:Typographic Architectures.jpg
• File:Chest of drawers by Tejo Remy.jpg
• File:Meubelkist Meubels.jpg
• File:Henny Langeveld (1953a).tif
• File:425727412 54564f94fd o.jpg

Some of them appear to be FOP problems, while others are claims of "Own Work" that do not appear to be correct. There are many other images which are web size with no EXIF which I suspect, but cannot prove, are problems.

So, we have here a user, Mdd, who has, through inexperience and lack knowledge, or perhaps, deliberately:

• Uploaded a wide variety of images that have been deleted as copyvio
• Has marked other people's work as "Own Work" a number of times
• Has failed to properly attribute the photographer on images where he has made a simple crop
• Has not paid attention to the underlying copyright of various artists in places where FOP does not apply
• Has come here complaining of Wikihounding, when the work done by Whaledad appears to have been entirely correct, although his description of Mdd's errors may have been a little too harsh

Under the circumstances, I would advise Mdd to withdraw this complaint before a similar complaint is made against him. Bringing people who are simply doing their job to ANb is a nuisance for all of us.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to request that a Dutch administrator takes over here, or joins the discussion, so he can confirm the statements I made about the Dutch Wikipedia and Wikiquote. Also I would like to communicate in Dutch, because I am missing details here. I am aware that this is a serious accusation, and this is something I would like to be handled with care. -- Mdd (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Most problems have been solved here, so I think this item can be closed here. -- Mdd (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that most copyright issues have been solved, and want to thank Mdd for his cooperation. What hasn't been solved is Mdd's unfounded accusation of Wikihounding. A retraction would be highly appreciated. Whaledad (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think an apology to Whaledad by Mdd would be in order.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Ik vind het niet prima dat Whaledad en Jameslwoodward deze discussie verder willen rekken, en verzoek daarom of een Nederlandse administrator het hier over wil nemen. Er waren al de nodige losse eindjes hier. Zoals bijvoorbeeld, dat Whaledad altijd heeft voorgehouden dat hij slechts het beste met Wikicommons voor heeft. Echter naar het probleem van de 403 andere foto's, dat ik hier heb aangekaart is niet meer omgekeken. Het feit dat Whaledad weer begint te beschuldigen van ongefundeerde beschuldiging, geeft alleen maar weer verdere voeding, dat deze aanvraag terecht is gesteld. Het is zo dat ik in mijn commentaar van 20:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC ) uitgebreide onderbouwing heb gegeven van mijn aanklacht. Ook is het duidelijk dat ik de afgelopen week over drie Wikimedia projecten belaagd ben door een groepje Nederlandse Wikipedianen. Vermoedens die hier werden uitgesproken, werden op de Nederlandse Wikipedia met veel bravoure verkondigd. Ik vind dat er hier behoorlijk onzorgvuldig gehandeld is. Dit noticeboard is toch juist bedoeld om dergelijke zorgen aan te kaarten. Deze zaak is heb ik nu ingetrokken. Maar als Whaledad meent dat ik hier geen recht toe had, en me daarvoor moet verontschuldigen, dan wil ik daaromtrent de voorschriften eerst weten. We kunnen deze discussie ook gewoon kortsluiten door het hier maar bij te laten. -- Mdd (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • For the benefit of the non-Dutch speakers here, Mdd's statement above reads: "I don't agree with Whaledad and Jameslwoodward who want to further extend this disucssion, and I request a Dutch administrator to take over from here. There were several loose ends here. For instance, that Whaledad has always maintained that he only has the best intentions towards Wikicommons. However, the problem with 403 other pictures, that I have addressed here has not been looked at. The fact that Whaledad starts to poke again only confirms that this notice was placed here justly. It is abundantly clear that over the past week I have been hounded on three Wikimedia projects by a group of Dutch Wikipedians. Suspicions that were posted here, were announced on the Dutch Wikipedia with much fanfare. I think that there was a general lack of due diligence here. This noticeboard is meant to address those kinds of concerns, right? I have now retracted this case. But if Whaledad think I had no right to file this case, and owe him an apology, then I want to now the rules on this. We can also just close the discussion and leave it at this. -- Mdd (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)" As you can read above, I never demanded an apology, just suggested that it would be a good thing to do. Obviously this is not the way Mdd operates which is fine by me. Case closed. -- Whaledad (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward

@Jameslwoodward. It is a good thing you have been checking all my work, but those thing do not automatically relate to the others. Ok, you found 15 other images, I found 403. But I am not interested in this kind of competition. You have an obligation to take this complain seriously... and I will take all things you find seriously. -- Mdd (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward. It seems to me you are making similar moves as Whaledad. Things like this should be handled with care. For example I noticed:

• There are seven similar cases that I cropped an image and didn't give the exact right code in the copyright notice, for the simple reason that I didn't know. I will double check my 1000+ uploads myself and will correct that mistake. I apologize for this mistake.
• 2 images are in need of OTRS conformation File:Shark Art Gallery (7-24).jpg, File:Galaxy (Barbara Nanning).jpg (File:Henny Langeveld (1953a).tif is an old version of the .jpg)
• About images like File:Jan des Bouvrie en Marcel Wanders bij de Gamma.jpg, File:Typographic Architectures.jpg, File:Chest of drawers by Tejo Remy.jpg, File:Meubelkist Meubels.jpg, there were similar discussions (delete and undelete) about the File:Ettore sottsass, libreria casablanca, 1981.JPG file which have been deleted en restored.
• Files like File:Jan des Bouvrie en Marcel Wanders bij de Gamma.jpg and File:Typographic Architectures.jpg could be considered a collage, but this I do not know for sure. I will let the community decide

Here you have most of your answers, yet you started a dozen discussions. Now I welcome these discussions. In a way this makes the complain go away. The whole problem with Whaledad & Co is, that there is no rational discussion possible. I noticed you have take side on the matter File:KAST_kast_1992.jpg. This is a clear case where I claim copyright, and I will transfer my arguments from here into that discussion. -- Mdd (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. --Whaledad (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Defford

I have recently tried to update the Defford Village Hall section, but cannot insert two new images although they show (albeit in poor positions) on a preview and exist in the history section. It is some months since I made changes and my technique has suffered! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsoldier38 (talk • contribs)

Сербијана

Can somebody please speedily close all DR's opened by Сербијана (that is all his/her contribution)? There is not a signle one with a valid reason. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Mmxx--Ymblanter (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, perhaps someone should explain to them in Serbian language that what they did wrong.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 00:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done mickit 10:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Cropped version of copyvio picture

Could somebody check File:Aryans.jpg, it are cropped version of watermarked picture of same uploader--Motopark (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done - A.Savin 12:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody combine numerous deletions into one, and ask Kobac to use batch nominations?

Few hours ago I uploaded ~150 pictures from a museum, half artifacts, half descriptions which I do not have time to transcribe. Soon afterward, 80.187.110.44 (talk · contribs) nominated a dozen of descriptions for deletion, citing low quality and no encyclopedic value. I replied at each, suggesting that the anon helps with adding more information, transferring the description from the photos of the plaques to the photos of relevant artifacts (I agree that the descriptions can be deleted afterward; I added them for the utilitarian purpose of information harvesting for captions). I also asked the anon to log in, so that we can discuss this. Instead of answering me, about 30 or so of my images - the remaining descriptions, I assume, because I don't have time to check each individually - have been nominated for deletion by Kobac (talk · contribs), who I assume is the anon from before. I do not have time to respond to each of his 30 deletions with the same message; I find such mass nomination annoying. Can somebody collect them into one batch, so the discussion can take place in one and not fifty places, ask anon/Kobac to behave somewhat less like a bot (as in: reply to others), and use the batch nomination process in the future? I don't appreciate that he has ignored my objects and requests to join the discussion, and instead keeps spamming my talkpage with the deletion requests. For the list of files affected, see my talkpage, half of which is now taken up by those deletion requests. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Complain

I was categoryzing Media needing category review (June, July and August 2011) and Category:Uncategorized NOAA images.

Templates {{Check categories|year=2012|month=January|day=10}} and {{Uncategorized|year=2011|month=July|day=28}} are a nuisance.

I deleted "Uncategorized" from File:NMos World Cultures Galleries 07.jpg for instance, a waste of time (Category:National Museum of Scotland). I don't know why the Category:National Museum of Scotland was listed in Category:Media needing categories as of 28 July 2011 (total files: 271).)

I deleted "Check categories" from File:Theb0741 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg for instance, another waste of time. I don't know why the categorized NOAA images are listed in Category:Media needing category review as of 10 January 2012 (total files: 396).

Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering this, I fail to see what was a waste of time and why it should not have been in Category:Media needing category review as of 10 January 2012 . --Foroa (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

See the revision history, it got "Categories have been checked" three times, I think that something might be rotten here. I mean, HotCat needs one mouse-click, the templates need another two mouse-clicks to get rid of it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

One edit re-inserted the template. That's a bit strange. Concerning HotCat removing this template automatically, there is a proposal on Commons:Village pump‎#HotCat — Remove Template:Check categories. -- RE rillke questions? 14:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thx, I'll keep an eye on it :/ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

user:Innova Management

Innova Management (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Keeps uploading copyvios after warning. Moros y Cristianos 11:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - on it now. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Shabirlai

User User:Shabirlai says in userpage that he are adminitrator but verifying fails.--Motopark (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I think they didn't like your speedy tag and decided to cover it up... Deleted now - blocking if there is any other junk I think. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Immediate Deletion of Image!

Donation_to_the_WMF.PNG is a $10,000 check uploaded without voiding it! Keep the voided copy (erased in places) and delete the "good copy" before someone tries to print and cash it. Doug youvan (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done User:Mmxx deleted the old revision. Rd232 (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you... A classic of an idiotic mistake. However, there are all of those safeguards. ??? Doug youvan (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This page appears now have been deleted with a comment by the deleter that the uploader requested deletion. But he didn't. He just requested deletion of one image in the chain. Someone else requested deletion with the statement "I think that the copyright isn't held by the uploader but by the issuing bank" but there was nothing copyrightable there: the only copyrightable elements there would be the sheaves of wheat, which were presumably de minimis. Is there a reason not to restore this (voided version only)? - Jmabel ! talk 03:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I see, he requested deletion on a separate thread on this same page. - Jmabel ! talk 03:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Help on .en re-establishing editorial privileges

I think I have been doing a good job on Commons. The figure I made for the Genetic Code article gets 600,000 hits per year. I am trying to resolve a very complicated issue on Commons, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#.2410.2C000_Donation_to_the_WMF.2C_if_... , which also contains information on my ban from editing at .en. Would someone here on Commons pass this over to .en? Would someone on Commons be my advocate? Restrictions on editing .en are fine with me. Please give me another chance. I will do trivial tasks if requested. My IP is blocked on .en at this time. Doug youvan (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Kindly provide a link for the Genetic Code figure and a source for the 600,000 hits per year number. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, we do not advocate cross project for blocks or bans. You have to bring it up there with the blocking admin or someone there to do that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Walter, http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Genetic%20Code multiplies out to 800,000 hits per year. The 4th figure down is in my Commons gallery. Someone did a reformat, so you need to click through to the original upload. Zs, I am looking for an advocate here and not wanting to get involved myself if that is possible. Thanks Doug youvan (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We do not advocate lifting bans on other projects, and I would not support lifting your ban as an en editor either. As for your stats, the article en:Genetic code is indeed very popular, and your diagram File:Genetic Code Bias 2.JPG is a useful and welcome contribution, but you oversell yourself if you imagine those 800K views can be attributed directly to you. Many people worked together to build that article. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, no. I would never attribute all of those hits to me. More like < 1% ! I said, "The figure I made for the Genetic Code article gets 600,000 hits per year." Let me lower that a bit. The yearly rate for the article looks like 800,000. If half the readers read like me, they spend 30" on the article and check out the figures and leave. So, I will estimate that a few hundred thousand people per year see the figure I contributed. Dcoetzee - I did not mean to sound proud. Sorry. I would like to leave this request "up" and see if another editor will help me because you all are using the word "advocate" rather than citing a rule on a strict ban. OK?Doug youvan (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your file, File:Genetic Code Bias 2.JPG, was uploaded 2008-06-03. Your indefinite block was 2008-07-02.[3] You may wish to reference positive contributions subsequent your block to make your case. Commons:Village_pump#.2410.2C000_Donation_to_the_WMF.2C_if_... may be seen by the unsympathetic as an attempt to harass User:Kraaiennest.[4] "I'll have that put through an FBI lab, too." may raise concerns about legal threats.[5][6] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Walter: You are correct about the unsympathetic. Maybe I should spend more time on Commons - doing good work - before making any request of .en. Also, I understand the ban on civil suit threats by the WMF and plan to comply completely without question. Criminal law is different. However, since I seem to be in the dog house, I will lay off that particular image and leave it to others to decide. Doug youvan (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want privileges back on en.Wikipedia, check with ArbCom on en.Wikipedia. You've been advised of this before. End-runs are not typically either wise, nor successful. Every Wikimedia project is separate, including Commons. Bwilkins (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Need help moving an image back to original name

I assumed it would be as easy as moving a page back... The uploader has requested that File:National Amusements City Center 15 Cinema De Lux - Movie Theater Lobby - White Plains, New York.jpg be moved back to File:10.5.07CityCenterLobbyByLuigiNovi.jpg, MW won't let me as it thinks there is another file there (the redirect), and there don't appear to be any templates for this. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 13:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "uploader requested" in Commons:File renaming envisages naming it back to something meaningless. And I'm not sure either that uploaders get to insist on attribution within file names if they want to (since that seems the motivation). Rd232 (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, perhaps we should take a closer look at the license on all of this User's files -- he requires attribution near the image or a link to the Commons file page. This precludes use in all WPs, since use in the WPs is two clicks away from the Commons page. It also precludes use in any print media that collects all attributions in one place, as is common in many large format books of images.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There was no good reason for this file name change. All this file renaming is getting out of hand. And if photographers want their name in the file name, their is generally nothing against it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it back to the original file name. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? Rd232 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap and that is what categories and description pages are for. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

None of those are relevant for users browsing a category trying to find content - there, all they have is the visual and the filename. Rd232 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Good. Most file renames are a waste of people, system and bot time, not to mention the problems that they can cause in the referring articles. If the same energy was spent to properly document and categorise the images ... --Foroa (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The file was renamed within 72 hours from something nearly meaningless to something descriptive. (And it isn't in use.) Are you really opposed to such renames? If so, maybe you should suggest some clarification of Commons:File renaming. Fact is, decent filenames help people find content, both by searching and by browsing categories. Rd232 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:File renaming#What files should not be renamed? is good guidance. There will always be slightly better filenames. The new name in this case was not better, just a whole lot longer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, in your opinion I guess. I think the new filename was a lot more descriptive (perhaps on the long side), and certainly doesn't fall under the current guidance's "don't do that" examples. Rd232 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, I give more specific reasoning for the choice of title on my talk page. This was in part a reaction to a deletion attempt on WP (a user thought the image was useless because they didn't know what the subject was). And for the record, I was not trying to disparage the uploader or the title of the image by posting here, I just needed help moving it back. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 18:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• That was a ridiculously long filename, a filename is not a description, it's a handle for accessing the content. As I have said before (too many times ;-) : Concise, meaningful and preferably mnemonic are good features of a filename. Users often put their own unique identifiers in the filename to help them keep track of their uploads, and save them accidentally re-uploading the same image again. The filename is hopefully only in a single language, the description should be in multiple languages. And lastly (AFAIK) the result of moving a file (renaming) is that it is no longer on the uploaders watchlist. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  The new name and the old redirect stay on everyone's watchlist. There are user categories for keeping track of uploads. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 18:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why MediaWiki does not distinguish between a title and the filename? Why are there no permanent IDs for files? -- RE rillke questions? 21:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• The file name (not id) is displayed in a <h1>. Do you expect a static difficult to read ID or something useful as a heading? Should we file a feature request on Bugzilla? How should the ideal image-description page look like and how image usage should work? It is probably worth making a few drafts? -- RE rillke questions? 21:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds interesting thoughts Rillke, but I for one don't know what you mean... :) Rd232 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

user:Ai Ciara

Ai Ciara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Seems to be uploading only unfree internet leeched stuff. Moros y Cristianos 16:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done nuked all uploads, warned.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

user:Valentin4500

Valentin4500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Keeps uploading copyvios after warning. Moros y Cristianos 17:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I nuked the remaining copyvios. PierreSelim (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Emergency deletion of image

I do not know banking law. For all I know, File:Donation to the WMF.PNG violates bank law. Please delete immediately. Doug youvan (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I've deleted it. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug youvan (talk • contribs)

You're welcome! It's an easy decision to delete, as a request by self from the uploader. -- Cirt (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not know that. Please delete Pi.tif. It's mine and waisting time in a deletion vote. Doug youvan (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please add your request to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pi.tif.  ■ MMXX  ^talk 01:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, deleted, per self request here, by uploader. -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hum, just to clarify: you wrote Self request by uploaders satisfies speedy delete criterion, I hope you know it doesn't. I guess it's fine for this one image, the consensus seems to have been in favor of deletion, but in general you shouldn't speedy delete images just because the uploader requested it (they have no special privilege over the image after all); they should go through a regular deletion request. Prof. Professorson (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It does under G7, though the only catch is that the upload has to be under 7 days for it to be used as a speedy delete. Everything else just goes to a DR. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, thanks for the correction. In the case of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pi.tif, the closing argument is wrong nonetheless: the file was uploaded much more than 7 days ago. Prof. Professorson (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for the clarification. Glad we're all in agreement that it's fine for this one image, the consensus seems to have been in favor of deletion. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Special:ListFiles/Infoxp2500

This user uploaded several copyvio images and animated GIFs. There are still many files to be reviewed. Any help is welcomed. --Leyo 15:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:J Jayalalitha, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu (2011-2016).jpg old revision deletion

Hello, please can you delete the second revision of the file File:J Jayalalitha, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu (2011-2016).jpg, the revision where the file in question was uploaded by Kumarrajendran. I am of the belief that is image is most probably copyrighted, as the uploader is a serial copyright violator, it looks like a relatively old image - you can find more details regarding the uploaders infringement activities at his Contributor Copyright Investigation (CCI) on enwiki. I'm not sure if this is the correct forum to request a deletion, but I couldn't find any links pointing to places otherwise. Cheers, Acather96 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done - image revision deleted. --Denniss (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Image page protection

The image page suffers from an editor who removes the description of this image. Could you please protect this page against those who want to change the complete and understandable informative description into meager one-liner? Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

reverted watermark removal

Regarding this image, a watermark was removed. The original uploader promptly reverted the edit. I reverted back explaining that watermarks are discouraged and attribution belongs in the description or EXIF data. He reverted back again suggesting that watermarks are only discouraged, not prohibited and reverted yet again. Looking at past discussions on the matter and Commons policy it seems the original uploader is in the wrong and is being obstinate, yet reverting back and forth will get us nowhere. Might an administrator get involved and put this issue to rest? Jbarta (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would upload a separate non-watermarked image and let users choose. His comment of "the watermark is part of the image, keep it or delete the image" is not right since once he uploaded and chose his license, he agreed to have his image modified any way the reuser sees fit. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that's sidestepping the issue and is not really a solution. We'd then have duplicates floating around and fights over which image to use, etc etc. It boils down to either attribution watermarks are allowed or they're not. "Discouraged" is simply another word for "allowed". If they're allowed, then why do we bother removing them? If they are not allowed (which effectively seems to be the case) then we(an administrator) should deal with the issue directly. Another way to look at it is that an edit to an image should be an improvement. It's pretty hard to argue that putting a watermark back into an image is an improvement. Jbarta (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The uploader is incorrect. An image with a watermark such as this one is generally less useful than one without. Watermarks negatively impact the free use of Commons images. We can't start uploading two images of every image that an uploader demands be watermarked -- not only does it encourage other uploaders to do the same, but it creates the precise problems identified by Jbarta. There may be occasional times when a watermark is appropriate, but this is not one of them. And, yes, the uploader seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the license under which he uploaded the image. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I note that the en-Wikipedia, the biggest user of Commons media, has a policy that states: "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. Exceptions may be made for historic images when the credit forms an integral part of the composition. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page." I presume that many of the other Wikipedias have similar policies. If we start allowing watermarks, we risk creating an entire class of images that are largely unusable. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Commons has a policy in development concerning watermarks. It's not official policy yet, but there's no indication that it would evolve to allow image uploaders to revert and retain edited out attribution watermarks. Jbarta (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add watermark tools to the toolbox to easily tag watermarked images? There are already tools for rotation, deletion, etc.▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 01:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have MediaWiki:AjaxQuickDelete.js enabled, all you need is to add this to your common/vector/.../.js file.

var AjaxDeleteExtraButtons = [ { 'label': 'Watermark', 'tag': '{\{Watermark}}', 'img_summary': 'This file contains a watermark that should be removed.' }]; --Sreejith K (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Responding to original post: Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:CC-Dont-Remove_Watermark was very clear that uploaders cannot forbid the removal of visible watermarks, and that all licenses we accept permit this to be done. If the user continues to edit war over the image, I will block them. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed Siebot move initiated by Foroa. Category:Palestinian culture

Category:Palestinian culture. Foroa moved the subcategories and emptied the category via the Siebot bot without discussion first. See User talk:SieBot which points to User talk:Siebrand which points to the edit history of User:CommonsDelinker/commands. That edit history shows his initiation of the bot move. See this diff from there. It lists this:

{{Move cat|Palestinian culture|Culture of Palestine}}

See: Category talk:Palestinian culture. Foroa has not yet commented there on the move. Foroa also added the category redirect without discussion, and then protected the category. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. Active Commons contributors routinely make thousands of edits and moves as part of their maintenance work during any given month. If each and every action required the contributor to initiate a talk page discussion, the Commons project would just grind to a halt.

"Culture of Palestine" is actually much more in keeping with Commons naming conventions than "Palestinian culture", although I assume that your concern relates to the fact that the category in question does not apply only within the borders (whatever those may be) of Palestine (e.g. it could include images related to the Palestinian community in Amsterdam, for example). I am not sure that the new category name is inconsistent with your view of the scope of the category, but nonetheless your concern is certainly a valid one. Having said that, the proper process is to raise the issue over at Category talk:Palestinian culture as you have done, and if the consensus is to revert, then it can easily be done. But Foroa hasn't done anything wrong or inappropriate. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was related discussion at Category talk:Culture of Palestine beforehand, and so Foroa knows he was overstepping his bounds. He used his admin powers to get his way. Since when is that right? That drives away many editors. Wikipedia is losing editors due to stuff like this, and other reasons. The number of active editors is declining. See: en:User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors.

Foroa added the category redirect, locked the page, and initiated the bot, all on the same day. Even though 2 people disagreed with him. User:Orrling added most of the subcategories. I added a few too. All of this occurred within 24 hours of the creation of the category by me. You are incorrect, Skeezix, in saying that "Culture of Palestine" is more in keeping with Commons naming conventions than "Palestinian culture". Read Category talk:Palestinian culture. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What can I add? :-/ The situation of feeling that you & your collegues are subject to an arbitrary aggression performed uopn this place's basic delineation of equality and argumentariness is really unpleasant. And far apart, nothing will convince me that "Culture of Palestine" is a more adequate naming than "Palestinian culture"... which speaks to a more comprehensible scope and better-defined meaning than the proposed "-of Palestine", which is in turn only a part of no less than a rediculously obvious aggregate attempt to bias the Commons categorization. This is done in a non-civil tone. Orrlingtalk 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going to initiate discussion at the Wikipedia Village Pump about creating a "Rude admins noticeboard" there. Abusive admins are one reason the total number of active editors is steadily declining. See en:User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that earlier discussion that Timeshifter points to that shows Foroa "overstepped his bounds". It seems to cover an unrelated issue, although related to the same general topic. Did you point to the right discussion? And Timeshifter, I am referring to the practice of naming categories "(subject) of (location)" -- the examples you have listed, which perhaps are innapropriate themselves, does not make me incorrect. As for the issue Orrling raised, I think some good faith is required, and it helps to assume that other Commons contributors are not trying to somehow demean specific nationalities. And Orrling's point, unless I have misunderstood it (and maybe I have), seems to go more to whether the category ought to be Category:Culture of the Palestinian Territories over Category:Culture of Palestine, rather than whether the category should be at Category:Culture of Palestine. In any event, I see here a disagreement over proper category naming, which is fine (and it sounds like an interesting debate), but I still don't see any wrongdoing or inappropriate behaviour here.

And, Timeshifter, Commons is a different project than Wikipedia. And please keep your comments on the substance of the dispute. Blaming Foroa for declining participation at a different project seems odd, and isn't particularly helpful here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Skeezix, you keep changing the subject away from Foroa's abuse of his admin powers. I am not the one continually bringing the discussion back to a content and naming dispute. In fact, I don't have a problem with the name of either category. I had one as a subcategory of the other. That is not what this discussion is about. If you want to have that discussion go to Category talk:Palestinian culture. I started this discussion about Foroa's abuse of his admin powers. Foroa added the category redirect, locked the page, and initiated the bot, all on the same day. Even though he knew that 2 people disagreed with him. This is an abuse of admin power, and it is occurring throughout Wikimedia projects. The fact that you, as an admin, ignore my main point, and circle the wagons around a fellow admin, proves one of my previous points. I initiated a discussion at the idea-lab village pump on Wikipedia (a village pump I helped create). See: en:Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#A noticeboard about rude and abusive admins. Please note that it is not a voting forum. It is a discussion forum. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to the query raised regarding my point, then nope – the Palestinian culture-vrs-Culture of Palestine issue is apart from the ok-settled Category:Culture of the Palestinian territories. It has to do only with the user's urge to *correct* every item baring the attribution "Palestinian X" into "X of Palestine", yet I'm not going to be martyr on that, as long as distinction is kept between the recognized Palestinian territories and the broader, historic region of Palestine which one may try to blur (and thus forward ideas of political, non-encyclopedic nature). Orrlingtalk 22:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Foroa foreclosed on that discussion and decided in favor of the political by only allowing Category:Culture of Palestine. My creation of Category:Palestinian culture was separate from any political considerations. Palestinian culture exists independent of Category:Culture of Palestine or Category:Culture of the Palestinian territories. Foroa has effectively deleted a category without discussion, and against the wishes of 2 people. All within one day. That is a big abuse of everything Wikipedia and the Commons stands for. Foroa's logic and forceful intervention against policy would eliminate these Wikipedia categories and create new political ones:

en:Category:Jewish culture to Culture of Israel.

en:Category:Kurdish culture to Culture of Kurdistan.

en:Category:Basque culture to Culture of Basque country.

en:Category:Tibetan culture‎ to Culture of Tibet.

The Foroa names are much more political. All those cultures are now dispersed beyond the initial lands of those peoples. Same as for Palestinians dispersed in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Israel, Chile (! huge numbers there), etc.. See en:Palestinian diaspora. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to say this one more time, and I am going to say it simply, because you appear to have missed the point of/not read my earlier comments. Regardless of whether or not you disagree with him on the category move, and on its face it seems like a debatable point, Foroa does not appear to have done anything wrong. You pointed to a discussion that you said that proved he knew that the change was disputed, but that discussion is on a different issue, and you have't pointed to anything else. If you are going to make accusations of abuse, please provide evidence. Mostly, you just come across as being peeved that he has a different opinion than you. Your accusation of "circling the wagons" is just silly, since Foroa and I regularly disagree on issues. I've wasted enough time already on this discussion, I'll now just let this discussion wind down from lack of interest. I tried. Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be you, Skeezix that has "missed the point of/not read my earlier comments". See my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of hyperbole and irrelevance here. Well, the timeline I see is:

1. 8 Feb Discussion at Category talk:Culture of Palestine initiated by User:Orrling
2. "Ok. I see what you are doing: Category:Culture of the Palestinian territories." --Timeshifter (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
3. 07.23 9 Feb Foroa applies CommonsDelinker command
4. 12.38 Foroa applies the category redirect Palestinian culture to Culture of Palestine
5. 13.12 9 Feb Foroa protects the category redirect Palestinian culture, after Orrling reverted
6. 15.04 9 Feb Timeshifter starts discussion at Category talk:Palestinian culture

Given Foroa's view that the naming was "non-standard", this was not entirely unreasonable, given that one of the participants in the discussion had said something (2.) which sounded vaguely in agreement. However, more discussion would certainly have been better, and I can understand complaints that Foroa went off and implemented his own decision using admin powers. But making it into an "admin abuse" issue is totally disproportionate for one incident; if this was a pattern, I would be more concerned. Disclosure: I'm not convinced the renaming is correct; maybe we do need categories like "Palestinian culture", "Chinese culture" etc, since peoples are not synonymous with countries. But that's not something to discuss here. Rd232 (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the timeline. You left out the timing of a couple items though. My creation of Category:Palestinian culture at 21:12 on Feb. 8. See this. Then the timing of the creation of the many subcategories by Orrling before Foroa applied the CommonsDelinker command and the category redirect. Foroa did those 2 things in spite of the fact that I created the category, and in spite of the fact that Orrling supported the category by adding many subcategories. So Foroa knew that both I and Orrling supported that category. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, but it remains the case that it was a very recently created category which Foroa thought non-standard. Seen in that light, it's easier to understand a quick action to prevent non-standard structures being developed which would need more work to clean up. Nonetheless, it should have been a Commons:Categories for discussion case at least. CommonsDelinker's instruction actually include the warning Please do not request name changes that you know may be controversial... Now, I will ask Foroa for some input in this discussion, I don't think there's much point in continuing without it. Rd232 (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this story is rather misrepresented. The original category was Category:Culture of Palestine, which is conforming to Commons naming standard. Without any form of discussion, Timeshifter created an undocumented Category:Palestinian culture as a parent category without any discussion and moved some of the items from the first to the second category. Then user:Orrling moved the remainder which is understandable as Category:Culture of Palestine as a subcategory of Category:Palestinian culture makes no sense. I just restored the original situation and blocked reverts, that's all. --Foroa (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, OK, Category:Culture of Palestine was created (by Timeshifter, in fact) in 2007. But it doesn't take a CFD to create an additional category (Palestinian culture), whilst the later move (to merge from the old category into the new), plus your view that the new category shouldn't exist as a separate category, does suggest a CFD to sort things out. At any rate, just because you're trying to reconstruct the status quo ante, according to what you think is the standard (and a standard you think is correct) doesn't mean discussion is redundant, or that the CommonsDelinker warning doesn't apply. Rd232 (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Can the category redirect be removed from it, and the page unprotected? Otherwise, the category effectively remains deleted without discussion. It is not up to Foroa to decide what is standard and non-standard. And categorization is oftentimes more of an art than a strict rule-based endeavor. Admins do not have special privileges in deciding these things, too. Anyway, I have a lot of experience categorizing. And I also have a lot of experience on Wikipedia concerning the politics of Israeli-Palestinian issues (IP issues) and how they are dealt with on Wikipedia. So I am not an idiot. I suggest Foroa take a break, and categorize less. Or avoid categorizing controversial stuff when doing a lot of categorizing. It is hard to listen to others well when one is doing a lot of other editing. That is some advice I read recently on Wikipedia concerning admins while editing controversial issues. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure no-one thinks you're an idiot, and you don't need to prove your experience. To take the content issue forward, I think a CFD is best - and that doesn't need unprotection, which risks opening the door to new conflict. The only question I think is whether the CFD should be on Category:Culture of Palestine or Category:Palestinian culture. If the latter, since it's protected, I (or any admin) can add the CFD template to the category page on request. Alternatively, though, if you think there's too much of a risk of a CFD becoming an argument all about what the standard is, you could try raising the broader issue of what the standard should be in a COM:RFC (perhaps at Commons talk:Categories). Rd232 (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

All I want is the category redirect removed. I don't have a desire to change the name of either category. They both can exist as far as I am concerned. If someone else does want a change they can ask for a CFD, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I normally wouldn't bother with following up something like this all the way to a noticeboard. But lately, I have been doing so to help figure out why so many active editors have been leaving. I myself have mostly stopped editing Wikipedia articles for awhile. I may leave a note on an article talk page. After lots of study, and involvement in multiple discussions the last few weeks, I see 2 main issues:

• Unresolved content disputes such as this one. See: en:User:Timeshifter/Unresolved content disputes.
• Lack of centralized oversight of admins by admins. See: en:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#A noticeboard about rude, abusive, or policy-abusing admins.

Note that half the people commenting there support the noticeboard, and half do not. My reading is that those who are against it just do not understand how serious the problem is. Kind of like the half here in this noticeboard thread did not see a problem. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting, but really beyond the scope of this thread. If you want to pursue this here as well as on en.wp, please start a new thread somewhere. Rd232 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If I may pop-add, "out of the blue", hoping it won't be considered beyond this thread's scope, a succinct report on what I just very recently happened to view here: About two days ago I published a move proposal at Category:Palestinian handcrafts thus: {{Move|Palestinian handicrafts|Typing error|3=2012-02-09}}. My numerous rename requests are fulfilled regularly so I had it totally beyond concern, and then like an hour ago I had some interest in that cat and couldn't find it, nor by the corrected naming. I tather found this (and see history). I think it's no need to say that the particular user has used the rename permissions to, taking advantage of editors' good-faith alerts on errors, turn over a whole entire category's definition giving it a title that renders it devoid of its actual essence, all without stating a reason summary in the deletion log or elsewhere accounting for manipulating the cat's name away from the requested one. This is a very interesting trend. Not to mention an opportunistic misuse of trust. Orrlingtalk 03:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. What was your move request? --Timeshifter (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Now I see. The category was originally named "Palestinian handcrafts". You put on a {{move}} tag to correct the misspelling. Foroa used that as an excuse to continue on his mission to change all Palestinian category names to "X of Palestine." That is what started this long discussion thread. Foroa wanted to put "by country" categories on all Palestinian categories. We pointed out that it makes more sense to put a "by country" category on "Culture of the Palestinian territories". Since that is the only possible country, and even that is not a country in the viewpoint of a minority of countries. "Palestine" is normally thought of as the region. At least in the U.S. news media which is what I see mostly since I am in the USA. Maybe "Palestine" has now become the name for the Palestinian territories. I don't know. In any case there should be discussion, and not an admin running around doing deceptive things, and running roughshod on Commons guidelines. Also, the Commons needs to decide how to deal with all these aspiring countries like Tibet, the Basque country, Kashmir, Kurdistan, etc.. I support a Palestinian state very strongly. I support en:WP:NPOV even more strongly though. I thought Wikipedia and the Commons did not take sides in political matters. "Palestinian culture" and "Palestinian handicrafts" is a non-political solution that does not take sides. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What does it have to do with political sidetaking? This issue is far beyond into the very content`s scope and these moves (which may be politically aspiring, that's not the matter) distort the actual meaning of the categories. What's here to explain? Images at the Palestinian handicrafts category, for example, are in a large number artwork made in Jordan or other diasporas; so this cannot be attributed deceptively as to a "Culture of region X", since this is the culture of a cultural group of people with less regard of their place of descendancy. This is the reason why retitling "Kudish culture" into "Culture of Kurdistan" would be erroneous, and is in the same rate why "Handicraft of Palestine" is erroneous, unclear; and minimizing the scope the cat's aiming to represent. - Just as much as "People of Palestine" is a problematic and malrepresentative naming for the category aiming at listing palestinians, of which many have never been in Palestine! This is exactly the logics underlying Category:People of the Palestinian territories, Category:Religion in the Palestinian territories etc, that we maintain as to denote the fair political dimension of Palestinian existance in Palestine but also to strike a decisive distinction between the non-political i.e. geographic/cultural dimension (aka Palestinian) and the political one (aka Pal. territories), a distinction which is vital to us aiming at a NEUTRAL maintenance of this educational environment. No importance to how strongly one oppose or supports the Palestinian motives, w:Palestine is not listed yet as a country and therefore items related directly to the West Bank and Gaza are the sole ones entitled to a "by country"-tagging. Anyhow as earlier said, the very point starting the discussion here is the misuse of rename/delete permissions (and I didn't know he were admin. How can you tell a user is also an admin?) embodied in the choice to underhandedly, independently manipulate category branching while paying no account to co-editors. Enough clear? Orrlingtalk 04:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Some guidance might be taken from English Wikipedia too. See:

en:Category:Cultures and subcategories:

en:Category:Culture by language‎

en:Category:Culture by ethnicity

en:Category:Jewish culture

en:Category:Kurdish culture

en:Category:Basque culture

en:Category:Tibetan culture‎

See also

en:Category:Culture and subcategories:

en:Category:Culture by region‎

en:Category:Archaeological cultures‎

See en:Palestinian diaspora and Category:Palestinian diaspora to see how widespread Palestinian culture is. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

COM:REVDEL

I've threatened it, and here it finally is: Request for comments on making Commons:Revision deletion an official policy. Because this simply documents current practice, I'm not sure if a sitenotice is really necessary. Rd232 (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Hadi.masir

Please check user User:Hadi.masir, user says in userpage that he are administrator butr verifying fails.--Motopark (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed the inapplicable user rights userboxes, on the assumption he copied them from someone's userpage without really understanding what was involved. Rd232 (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with OTRS ticket

Not sure where to do this request..
An editor uploaded an image in 2009. The original release ticket is 2009021910058544 where it can be seen that the requester never gave a full declaration or had the release fully explained to them. Since then the image has been seen to be sold and the uploader was not happy with the situation. They only now understand that this means full commercial reuse, so there is a clear rationale for them to request removal due to the lack of release information in 2009. The uploader has agreed to properly release a small version of the image, and has approved a cc-by-sa-3.0 for a 533 x 480 size image with a new ticket number of 2012011710008963. I have reduced the image size as required and uploaded it. Could you please rev-del the high resolution images. I have also had to do the same reduction to the derivative work - please also rev-del that high res version there as well...

File:Jimmy Page with Robert Plant 2 - Led Zeppelin - 1977.jpg

File:Джимми_Пэйдж.jpg

Thanks for your attention  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Revert the size reduction. This happens all the time, photographers discover that their photo is worth some money, and then they want to withdraw the irrevocable license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Pieter. OTRS Ticket 2008121610028814 on December 17, 2008, clearly calls out a CC-BY-SA for an image of Alvin Lee. Then, on December 20, he says:

"I'll be sending you many photos - one by one - of classic rock artists from the 1970's. Please give out the same information and layout as you did for my Alvin Lee photo. I'll release the same rights as the Alvin Lee photo. Let me know if you have any questions."

Following this there are 40+ similar images.

Then on February 9, 2009, he submits the subject image, ticket number 2009021910058544, and says:

"I'd like to submit this photo I took of Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page and Robert Plant from a Chicago concert in 1977. This would be for the Led Zeppelin, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant articles. I have submitted many photos of other rock artists before. Use the same copyright law."

Although this is casual, it is a clear binding instruction to use the same license as 50+ previous images he has submitted.

Now, three years later, he has found that he doesn't like the consequences of a CC-BY-SA license, namely that others are selling copies of his images. This is an adult professional photographer who clearly licensed his images to Commons and the world. The images are valuable to our purpose. I see no reason to cut him a special deal.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to add I was not 100% sure about this one (I'm still newish in OTRS), I left it a while for other OTRS persons to comment, and the only response I got was to comply with his request. C'ést la vie.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with strange message

I don't know much how things work. I have even difficulties to post this message. I get a strange message when I click on the button "Votre galerie" to see the last photos I uploaded. Please help me. Dinkum (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC) : Database Error: Access denied for user 'daniel_www'@'turnera-bge0.esi.toolserver.org' (using password: YES) on sql-s4/commonswiki_p - Failed to connect to database! Status: SNAFU. If something is not working, please have a look at status.toolserver.org. Gallery about this tool | bugs and requests estimated lag for commons.wikimedia.org: failed Wiki: Since: Until: Filter by User: (optional)

Sort by:   Format:  

Fatal error: Call to a member function addQuotes() on a non-object in /home/daniel/public_html/WikiSense-live/web/common/WikiQuery.php on line 940

When toolserver is down and you have JavaScript enabled, you can use Gallery tool. -- RE rillke questions? 18:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

CommonsDeLinker 8 days in coma

CommonsDelinker is again out of order after he/it made his last edit more than 8 days ago. Quite a number of tasks are waiting and being not processed for such a long time produces unncessary additional work. Could someone give him a pat on the head? --Túrelio (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's probably due to replications to toolserver being down, see s4 on {{toolserver}} --  Docu  at 09:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:John R. Haggerty

I'm trying to create this category for a 19th century American architect, but it seems to be salted. Could an admin please create it? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand "salted" so I'll explain what I think might be confusing you. Category:John R. Haggerty does not exist, but it was used on Category:St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church, New York‎ because Haggerty designed the church. When you go to create the category, it tells you that. If you click on "create this page" in

"This page does not currently exist. You can search for this page title in other pages or create this page",

it links to the file creation page where you add categories (Born in 18XX, Died in 1YYY, Architects from the United States, etc.) with a DefaultSort, enter an edit comment, and hit "save" to finish the job.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On trying to create the page, I get this message: "The page title or edit you have tried to create cannot be created or edited by you at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, used to prevent vandalism." Kgorman-ucb (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Now this posting makes sense. Too bad for John R. Haggerty. Started the category. --Martin H. (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Martin. I try to teach, rather than doing -- sometimes it backfires, as in this case. Apologies to all for the extra trouble.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No prob, I not understood Beyonc My Kens problem too. --Martin H. (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

For info - I imaging it may be the "hagg" bit - in the past some very extensive vandalism used this basic wording. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume that's what Martin meant with the boldface :) Jafeluv (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Out of scope?

This file looks to be in conflict with the Commons project scope. Any idea? Aditya (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks in scope to me, although the guy in the center is a bit distracting. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In scope. The photo is intended to illustrate that the location depicted is a tourist attraction, which I think it does well. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What does a guy have to do to get a blatant copyvio deleted around here?

Apologies for ranting, but seriously, when I mark an image as a copyvio with an OTRS ticket, it needs to be deleted. I tagged File:Denarius to Orpheos.png for speedy deletion, citing ticket:2012021210005133, 20 hours ago. The image is still there, and the copyright holder (who is not at all happy about their work being passed of as somebody else's), is quite legitimately wondering if I was lying when I told them I had requested its deletion and is certainly not being left with the impression that commons takes copyright violations seriously.</rant> Would somebody be so kind as to nuke that image so I can give the copyright holder something more than "I'm working on it"? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but 20 hours is nothing. The copyvio-cat currently contains 166 images. Please don't forget that even the few admins who regularly perform speedy deletions are unpaid volunteers, who have to do this dirty work in their spare time. I've speedied the image now, purely per trusting your "claim", as I can't look into the ticket (myself not on OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The OTRS e-mail appears to be entirely correct -- it came from the author of the cited source of the image. Perhaps we need either a new template for {{really speedy delete}} or a rule that what when we get a takedown notice on OTRS that it should come directly here?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I fully understand that we're all volunteers, and I very much appreciate you deleting the image, but the people who email us about copyright violations don't understand that, and if they do, they're much more concerned that we're infringing their copyright than they are with how the project works, and to them 20 hours is not "nothing". Maybe I'm too used to enwiki, but if a copyvio there waited 20 hours (especially one that was reported by OTRS), it would be considered a big deal. Jim's ideas seem worthy of consideration to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Well, then the WMF should seriously consider providing more resources to Commons.

Technically: OTRS-based copyvios that go into the copyvio-cat (currently) have no special marker that would distinguish them from other ("regular") copyvios. If an admin opens one of these, he/she will surely delete it rapidly, if it's clear enough. But if the first step is missing, then then second will come late. Therefore, Jim's proposal, though funny-looking on first view, might provide a solution. --Túrelio (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, and then we'd had to verify that {{really speedy delete}} really was added by an OTRS member... no thanks. The fast track to deletion is a DMCA takedown request. If OTRS wants to provide a less formal but also guaranteed-to-be-quick way for removing infringing material (and I do think that this makes sense for clear cases), then the OTRS team should see to it that their volunteers are admins here, so that they can delete files themselves. We might even make a rule that OTRS volunteers may get a fast-track deletion right here at the Commons. (If we trust the OTRS volunteers enough to confirm releases, we should also trust them to delete files in response to OTRS tickets.) Lupo 12:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem there is that copyvio queue is a sub-queue of info-en, which is manned mainly by editors from enwiki. I fully understand why the Commons community doesn't want enwiki editors treating Commons as an extension of enwiki, but my understanding is that RfAs here just for the purposes of expediting OTRS work are typically declined. As an aside, it's easy enough to verify whether somebody is an OTRS agent—they should have the userbox on their userpage, in which there's a "verify" link (or if you use Popups, you can just hover your mouse over their username). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)