Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcut: COM:AN or COM:ANB

Navigation Administrators' noticeboard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Vandalism archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Attention archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disputes archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C K User problems archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Blocks & protections archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Other links Talk +/-

Important discussion pages (index) Commons Help desk Community-wide general discussion Graphics: Graphics discussion Ask for image improvement Categories discussion Copyright questions OTRS noticeboard Contact administrators: Vandalism reports User problems Blocks & protections General (none of the above) CheckUser requests Disputes noticeboard IRC Mailing list

[graph/hist] Toolserver status Last update 05:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC) MySQL rosemary up MySQL daphne up MySQL yarrow up Replag s1 0h 0m 0s Replag s2 0h 0m 23s Replag s3 0h 0m 6s Replag s4 0h 0m 27s Replag s5 0h 0m 4s Replag s6 More information...

[edit] copyright for plaques and Freedom of Panorama

Here is a deletion request from the admin durova Commons:Deletion requests/File:Voorpl.jpg that argues that texts of memorial plaques are copyrighted in the US, and there is no freedom of panorama for this kind of photo. Is this interpretation common sense? It will apply to several files, for instance File:Toaping Castle Historical Marker 01.jpg as far I understand. Fortunately for me this is only an academic question. I hope my English is clear enough. Best wishes Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO Durova is right. If something is copyrighted, you may not reproduce it without permission. Some countries have Freedom of Panorama, which allows you to reproduce works in a public space without permission, but the US don't have that. This makes the photograph a derivative work of the text and as such it would need permission by the author of the text. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In the deletion request are new arguments from user:AFBorchert, that FOP applies in this case, and he even cites a case - there should be a consensus on this issue for further discussions Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Rename broken

Please fix it:

{{rename}} creates (by calling {{rename needs target}}): <<nothing>>

78.55.96.90 06:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to suggest a new filename, "new name.ext", as shown in the example.

{{rename|new name.ext|(optionally plus a reason)}} Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. {{rename}} (without a new filename) should create (by calling {{rename needs target}}) a yellow message box like this. But it creates nothing (see 3rd (missing) example).

78.55.105.162 19:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. The parameter was checked for emptyness in a context where we already knew that the parameter was non-empty. --Slomox (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File redirects

This is a friendly reminder to admins that redirects to another file as a result of moving files should almost never be deleted. There are several reasons why, and I think brion VIBBER sums it up nicely in his post about it, when the move option was enabled for admins back in September. It could break outside links (outside of Wikimedia projects) that are used to attribute files, among other things, and we don't want that happening. I've brought it up because I've noticed that some admins do delete these redirects. Killiondude (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually wondering why we have the option of leaving a redirect behind. Since it's almost always the right thing to do, the UI should not offer to disable it so easily; in the few cases where a redirect is not needed, it can always be deleted manually afterwards. Making it a less straightforward process shows that it should only be done in exceptional cases. –Tryphon^☂ 08:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this post. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And a quick question - would this also mean that when a file gets deleted because there is an exact duplicate, a redirect should be created to this other file? -- Deadstar (msg) 09:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Had the same question in mind, from one side attribution is not required because file is deleted and better version has all information, but if we care about projects outside of Commons that may link/use deleted version, it may be a problem --Justass (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What could be done about deleting redirects would be to create an AbuseFilter that prevents people from deleting them. Preventing from moving with "redirect suppressed" isn't possible, because there's nothing that could be checked about it. It could however be mentionend in MediaWiki:Movepagetext within the File-only content. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The full discussion is now at Village pump/Archive/2009Oct#What should we do with File redirects?

I think we should modify the current way of dealing with file names that are being renamed because they are misleading or erroneous.

Sample: File:Dent d'Hérens 0001.jpg was renamed to File:Dent Blanche and Weisshornjoch from Bishorn, 2006 (161212318).jpg because the main peak in the image is not "Dent d'Hérens". In this case, I think clearly the redirect should be deleted.

The additional problem is that the rename went through CommonsDelinker (standard approach) and all erroneous uses were updated to the new filename (nl:Dent d'Hérens, uk:Дан Д'Еран, nn:Dent d'Hérens).

From my recent review of rename requests (see Commons talk:File renaming#File renaming requests), I think these make up only a minor part of the renames, but I think it's important to get these right.

To avoid problems in the future, the following could help:

• deal with misleading names separately (maybe a parameter to add in the template, placing them in a separate category)
• review the current use of a file
• if it is used incorrectly elsewhere, CommonsDelinker shouldn't be used to update the filename
• redirects should be suppressed

- -- User:Docu at 11:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Even in this case I don't think the redirect should be deleted. External use still need proper attribution, and if we break links, we basically prevent honest re-users from complying with the license terms. The only case a redirect can be deleted is when it's realistically impossible that someone linked to it from an external site (i.e. the file has been uploaded very recently). –Tryphon^☂ 11:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems like I'm missing the point, which part of the license requires that? Commons:Credit line doesn't seem to mention that. -- User:Docu at 12:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be sufficient to give a link to the duplicate file in the editing comment. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the recommended way of giving credit and licensing information for an image is to link it back to Commons (and some users might require it explicitly as part of the license agreement, for example Section 5b (iii) of the Creative Commons license). If we delete the file as a duplicate, the link doesn't point to authorship and license information anymore, and one has to jump through hoops to find it. –Tryphon^☂ 12:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

One could make the info in the warning box more visible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see what you mean. With a direct link (which is typically what you have in case of use on an external non-wiki website), you don't even see that box. And even if you somehow manage to get there, in this example you don't even get a link but an image name that you have to copy paste; that's what I meant by jumping through hoops. –Tryphon^☂ 12:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the problem. What I meant was that maybe the software could be made to present the edit comment that is in that warning box. Immediately in the response to a direct link. And edit comments can include clickable links. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That could be a solution, but until it's implemented, we should stick to using redirects. And although links can be included in the deletion summary, it requires admins to be diligent and always enter those; there will always be some mistakes or negligence. All in all, redirects are a much more systematic and simple way of solving this issue, with the added bonus of not breaking image links in external wikis. –Tryphon^☂ 13:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the persistence of links is a requirement, the name of the file deleted as duplicate should redirect to the other file and one shouldn't be able to upload over the deleted file's name.

In any case, if it's the preferred way for images, at least a sample should be given at Commons:Credit line. -- User:Docu at 12:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For the 5b (iii) to require that the redirect isn't deleted, wouldn't the uploader need to specify the URI? -- User:Docu at 22:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: Though suppressng redirects wouldn't become technically impossible by doing this, we could add #wpLeaveRedirect { display:none } in MediaWiki:Common.css to hide the "Leave a redirect" button. The English language Wikipedia has done similar to hide the delete button on their Main Page. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • A bit hackish, but not a bad idea. –Tryphon^☂ 12:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Disagree, Admins should be able to decide if a redirect is necessary or not. In cases of rename short after upload a redirect is unwanted. Also the log tells you, if a redirect was surpressed or not (example), logging this is enough. --Martin H. (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Agree with Martin on this one. Please don't obstruct people from doing things they are allowed to do. If some admins are abusing their tools, talk to those, but don't nag the rest of the crew. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't think that the "suppress redirect" option should be disabled, as there is probably some instances where it might be good to use (like when the file is recently uploaded and is being renamed), and I agree that it's a bit hackerish to disable it with that method (which we should avoid if possible). :-) I don't agree with some people above who have stated that the log for the page should be enough for outsiders who come. People will be led by a URL (honest reusers who have provided a link or given the filename of the file they are reusing) to a page that has no file content, and most won't research much further than that. I believe we should make it easier for people, rather than harder. Don't we want our files to be viewed more? And like it is said on en.wiki, "redirects are cheap". That is, they don't use much disk space or bandwith and for our purposes they would provide much more benefit than deleting them. Killiondude (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Killiondude above. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Same here. I can't see any real reason not to leave a redirect, unless it's vandalism or something. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Usage statistics consistency?

Just a quick note on a related topic: So far, redirects were deprecated because they broke CheckUsage and made it impossible to determine which pages actually use a file (as some just use the redirect and those don't show up on CheckUsage). Does anybody know whether the GlobalUsage extension, which has been enabled, can handle redirects correctly? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple accounts ?

Both uploaders stores same files user1 user2, could someone check--Motopark (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Commons:Requests for checkuser is better place for this request. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Master image probably not free with multiple derivatives

We have File:Dreamliner Center model 787.jpg showing a model of a 787. According to the Flickr page from which this image is sourced, it appears the image was taken in Seattle (tagged with Seattle). This is a 3D work of art. Within the United States, there is no freedom of panorama. Copyright holders of 3D works of art US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2) hold copyright of the original and have exclusive right to authorize derivative works.

Further, this image was used as the basis for the following images:

• File:Dreamliner model in flight.jpg
• File:Dreamliner rendering BA 787.jpg
• File:Dreamliner model 787-9 in flight.jpg
• File:Dreamliner rendering ANA 787.jpg
• File:Dreamliner rendering JAL 787.jpg
• File:Dreamliner rendering ANZ 787.jpg
• File:Dreamliner rendering AC 787.jpg
• File:Dreamliner rendering QF 787.jpg

making all of this derivatives copyright violations as well. Input welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this a "work of art"?. The outer shape of the plane probably is registered as design patent but I doubt it is copyrighted, as there is no creative "originality". Design patents are non-copyright restrictions and therefore not recognized here on Commons. The photographs in the background might be an issue, but could be discarded as "de minimis". Finally: I don't see why you even mention FOP, as this image was taken indoors, probably on a trade fair or presentation. --h-stt !? 09:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's pretty blatant that it is a work of art. We consider images of toys to be derivatives of works of art. How is this different? This is a (Boeing) artist's interpretation of how the plane would look in flight. How is it not a work of art? The patent you mention isn't for the model. The patent is for the plane itself, which this is not. This is artwork. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's definitely creative decision-making going into the creation of these images: light modelling, choice of angle, livery design, background etc. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not referring to the photograph as an artwork, but artist's model of the plane. The photographic creativity has been released under a free license. The plane as artwork has not, making this image, within the United States, unfree and its derivatives as listed above unfree as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It seems I missed the origin of the file. Indeed, scale models are often considered to be copyrightable, as their creation may require creative decision-making with regards to, for example, the level of detail and abstraction. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] COM:DBR

Hello administrators. I just wanted to drop a note stating that MZMcBride was kind enough to run a few database reports for Commons, and created the page at COM:DBR. It is similar to enwiki's version except that, as you can tell, not all of the reports are done and they are not automated like enwiki's. I don't know if MZ plans to run the other reports or how often they will be updated, but I think it is very kind of him to do what he's done thus far. I'm leaving this note here, because most of the work that could be done by reviewing these reports would require the admin bit (deleting pages, etc.) but feel free to "spam" the word around about the database reports. Killiondude (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, these pages sound very interesting. I might clean them up a bit in the next days, unless someone else does it first or I forget to do so. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly spam? need eyes

• http://homemade-atlas.org

Accounts

• Special:Contributions/Ionut_Cojocaru

• en:Special:Contributions/Ionut_Cojocaru

• Special:Contributions/Ubitubi

• en:Special:Contributions/Ubitubi

• ro:Special:Contributions/Ubitubi
• en:Special:Contributions/84.232.153.161

Was caught link-spamming on en.wikipedia, but it appears this user is possibly Image-spamming. Not sure if these images are appropriate or not, perhaps someone can review? see user Special:Contributions/Ionut_Cojocaru--Hu12 (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you at least spell out what exactly you see as a problem? Offhand, Ionut Cojocaru seems to be uploading potentially useful images (though they'd be a lot more useful if they also cited the sources for their data). What exactly do you think makes these possible spam (not saying they're not, but prima facie they look like reasonable uploads). Is the issue the category? Anyone can recategorize, and if you think the category is outright inappropriate, you can use {{cfd}} to start a discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 05:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Derivative drawings by User:Rama

See gallery of images by Rama and discussion at en:wikipedia. At least three of the images are copies of photos, i.e. derivative and copyvios, and doubtless more, if not all. Ty 01:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So what stops you from making a DR on the specific images, unless you suggest (with a logical fallacy?) that all images of Rama are copyright violations? Esby (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Until recently, the gallery was entitled Paintings inspired by historical photographs. Since the source photograph is never credited, there is no way of knowing if it's in the public domain or not; hence all drawings in this gallery are suspect of being copyright violations. –Tryphon^☂ 10:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The first drawings, until Colonel Dimitri Amilakhvari, are made from unique photographic sources as documentation. I have already expressed my position regarding these -- some people gave me assurances that these images were acceptable, others have emitted doubt, and I refrain from taking position on the issue. Since I have drawn these things myself I am intrinsically in no position to judge them, and I will accept any remark or decision.

The next images, from Simon Mann to the end, were created later and are all made from several photographic sources and are not related to any single on in particular, precisely to avoid this particular problem. Rama (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image notes

It occurs to me that while image notes may not be an entirely ludicrous addition to Commons, I have seen 20-30 added by anonymous IPs - and all of them were reverted as vandalism. Typically they just say "Haha look at her tits" or "Is this a cameltoe?" or "nice package on this guy" or something similar. Am I alone in my observation, has anybody ever seen an anonymous user add a useful image note? If it's possible from a software side, I'd almost consider proposing that anyone can edits Commons...but only logged-in users can add image notes. Max Rebo Band (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be entirely with you on this. - Jmabel ! talk 05:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This page gives you a list of image notes recently added by anonymous or new users. Not all of them are vandalism, I'd say about 50% of them are. I oppose disabling this for anons as it is basically the same as editing the description page. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where your 50 % come from. Of the first 10 there is not a single one that should be a note. 70 % are vandalism and the last 30 % are comments that should not be an image note but on the description page. But obviously this feature is meant to canalise vandalism. Please disable it for anons. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In other words, disabling it does not affect the ability of serious anons to achieve the same result, but it makes vandalism less convenient. That, to me, seems more like an argument in favor of disabling it. Even if we assume that your 50% estimate is accurate, that still leaves the well-intended but misguided uses, making the actually useful contributions well under half. That's a net negative utility no matter which way you look at it. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Either we need to disable it or we need a tool that makes sure that no edit stays without at least one experienced user having a look at it. Most files on Commons are on no watchlist and I don't think we have a complete recent changes patrol (or am I wrong?). That means that much vandalism persists cause nobody sees it. We cannot allow that our unwatched pages slowly deteriorate due to vandalism and mislead edits. --Slomox (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has reverted such kind of edits since this tool's implementation, I support restricting it. I admit that a few image notes are really productive. But unfortunately that's extremely rare. People either misuse them for commenting, as talk page or for blatant vandalism. We even needed to create an own template and a protection reason for when people add inappropriate imagenotes. I'm sorry to say it like this, but I'm fed up with reverting the same all the time. I once had the idea to create an abusefilter which prevents the people only from adding inappropriate imagenotes, but unfortunately the imagenote tool doesn't display abusefilter warnings. Unless some way of displaying abusefilter warnings is added to the imagenote tool, I can only support restricting it. Furthermore, I don't think it's too much for a productive image note adder under the unregistered users (of which only few exist) to create an account and then add the notes. All gadgets, of which quite a lot are extremely useful, and the ability to upload files, which is probably the most important thing here on Commons, and a lot of other things are also restricted to autoconfirmed users. Adding image notes should become one of them as well, unless the tool can be programmed to display abusefilter warnings. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A technical digression: Unfortunately, it is currently not possible to display abuse filter messages to the user. The filter warnings are not identified in any way in the result page after an edit has been submitted. Therefore, the script has no way of detecting that there is in fact such a warning returned. For that to work, one would need to wrap all such warnings in DIVs with unique identifiers. Translations of these messages would also need to be wrapped. Then the script could, in theory, go look for the presence of these DIVs in the result, and display the messages. Moreover, these wrappers should contain meta-information about the filter: the script would need to be able to determine whether the edit was really disallowed (warn, disallow or just disallow), or would be allowed through if re-submitted (warn or warn, tag). But doing this wrapping here by editing the relevant system messages would be a very bad way of doing this; ideally, the AbuseFilter extension would do it automatically (it could construct a unique identifier from the message page name).

Note furthermore that if the edit mechanism should ever be changed to use the edit API, we again would have the same problems, even if we added identifiers to all AbuseFilter warnings. The edit API does not send back a page, it returns an error code. If you do something disallowed by AbuseFilter through the edit API, you'll only get an error code "hookaborted" with the error message "The modification you tried to make was aborted by an extension hook". That's not exactly useful for a user. You don't get back the actual warning message from the AbuseFilter.

Because of this, the script currently just displays a generic error message ("Edit conflict or other problem"). Lupo 21:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have said several times, get rid of it, or at least restrict to autoconfirmed. I have never EVER seen a useful note, only ever seen vandalism. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with much of what is said here I would like to think the annotations on my images are useful and informative. Maybe Mattbuck should check them out. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the few notes we currently have, they should be fairly easy to monitor. The only disadvantage is that one can't really see which notes have already been checked and/or reverted and which ones not. -- User:Docu at 16:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with The Evil IP address points. I am big fan of notes, but I agree that many notes from IPs are inappropriate. But not all, for example I found this] note from IP very useful, although I move it to file description. But even with this in mind, I support disabling addition of notes for IPs, but would like to allow viewing them by IPs. Can those 2 functions be separated in the current form? I assume that if IP has something important to share (s)he will add it to description or talk page the old-fashion way. --Jarekt (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Viewing and editing can be restricted separately. Can you guys agree on a precise level? Anybody, logged in, autoconfirmed, sysops? Some other combination of user groups? Though I am still surprised that between 100-200 edits per day by IP and newbies are seen as a problem here. In any case I would strongly advise against restricting viewing of notes. That kinda defeats the whole purpose. Another thing to try instead of restricting access would be to make the "add a note" button less prominent by turning it into a simple link. Lupo 18:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Auto-confirmed would seem the most useful, it doesn't restrict any good-faith editors - yet frees up 300 anti-vandalism actions a day to be focused on the more troublesome area of mainspace edits which must be examined. While it's easy to say "300 vandalisms, 300 reverts, we catch them all", part of the problem is that it seems to be simply wasted time - when we could prevent the vandalism in the first place. Max Rebo Band (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say viewable by everyone and editable by autoconfirmed. Restricting the view wouldn't really make sense since they're supposed to be viewed mostly by our visitors. Another thing which I didn't mention in my first comment is that, though happening more rarely, IPs remove perfectly fine imagenotes without any clear reason (example). I don't think that notes themselves are bad; they're quite useful, for example for images of groups where they're used to identify the specific persons, and I imagine them to be useful when used in Wikipedia articles, but most IPs aren't able to properly use them. I liked the idea to make them editable by everyone, but I would say the idea simply didn't work in practise. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This user The Evil IP address idea are good--Motopark (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Evil IP, only autoconfirmed users being able to edit image notes would be the best way to go, I believe. Killiondude (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, autoconfirmed it is. Non-autoconfirmed users may edit image notes only in their own user space. (For the image note sandboxes...) Lupo 10:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Corrupted image transfers

We have a few zero-byte files resulting from some failed bot transfers of images:

• From it-WP:
  • File:Amiata2009Mauro118.jpg
  • File:MEI 2007 023.JPG
  • File:MEI 2007 040.JPG
  • File:Wikimangia2007 042.jpg

• From pl-WP:
  • File:Białasy pow sierpecki cmentarz ewangelicki brischke.jpg — done.

Could some it-WP and pl-WP admins please re-transfer these images? They seem to have been already deleted at their sources. Lupo 09:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I contacted user:Masur about File:Białasy pow sierpecki cmentarz ewangelicki brischke.jpg he transferred the file and is an admin here and on pl.wiki. --Jarekt (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• I re-uploaded the one. I just hope that it is exceptional case and the others are OK. Masur (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it's just these few files; at least the "duplicate files" section on the zero-byte files indicates only these. Lupo 18:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this with a couple transfers. I don't understand why the itwp admin deleted the source files. Doesn't he check? Multichill (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. But the file history for it:File:MEI 2007 023.JPG indicates that your bot touched the page. Does your bot add a "NowCommons" tag or some such? If so, your bot should check before doing so, and the it-admin probably can be excused for not double-checking... Or did your bot add a "MoveToCommons" tag? I'm a bit confused by the chronology here (bot edit at it-WP at 2009-12-16, 19:29, but upload here at 2009-12-16, 22:53). Lupo 11:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Admins should ALWAYS check before they delete anything. If someone adds a speedy delete on your userpage should we delete it? No of course not. Admins should check if image is transfered and if every information is transfered correct before (s)he delete source file. And when they have checked that they could remove the {{BotMoveToCommons}} and delete the file. If admin is not sure then don't delete the file. --MGA73 (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the speed of his deletions I think he used a bot. He should have manually checked these transfers or used a bot which includes a lot of checking (nowcommons.py in the pywikipedia package for example). Multichill (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CfD closure

In order to get this completed, would some close this thread. Almost everybody seems to agree with the initial proposal or be indifferent to it. -- User:Docu at 07:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Flood flag

Cross-posting: Commons:Village_pump#Flood_flag.3F. Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:WWFlagsBarnstar.jpg

Can an en.wp admin check what the license was on this image and apply the appropriate tag? Thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 16:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Original license was PD. -- Avi (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Was there any indication regarding the source of the background image (the picture of the Earth)? If not, could you ask the author where he got the image from? Sorry for not asking all at once earlier, but it didn't come to my mind at first that this image is a derivative work. –Tryphon^☂ 16:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Per original upload log: "Source = File:Large Barnstar.png, File:Flag of the Soviet Union.svg, File:US flag 48 stars.svg, File:Flag of Germany 1933.svg, File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg, File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg (all believed to be released into public domain)"
• -- Avi (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Added to the description page, thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 08:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• A pleasure, as usual. -- Avi (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Umm...Noob trying to make sure I did an edit right...

I recently added a picture & a small paragraph from one website to another. Since I wasn't sure about the picture, I followed the instructions (otrs). Does doing that automatically generate an email, or do I have to send one? The page I edited is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbols_of_Nova_Scotia

I cited info taken from http://www.gov.ns.ca/playground/Tartan.asp

Did I do this right? I've never tried before.

Mel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowleopard melody (talk • contribs) 23:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be discussing an edit by Snowleopard melody (talk · contributions).[1][2] Please review the guidance of COM:L#Checklist. The file in question is "Crown copyright © 2006" according to the line at the bottom of the cited page. It may not remain on Commons without permission. You must ask the specific copyright holder for a work for permission. S/he is the only one who can legally release a work under a specific license (COM:OTRS). Please follow the instructions at Commons:Email templates and ask the copyright holder to fill out the email template and email the result to the address that is provided. Don't upload files before obtaining permission and initiating this process. Other matters: Please end your comments on talk and discussion pages with "~~~~". That adds your username and the date/time to your comment. Please use descriptive filenames (Commons:File naming): "Nova Scotia Tartan.jpg" may be more descriptive than "Tartan.jpg". Finally, COM:VP is a better forum to ask questions of this sort. Thank you for your inquiry, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template issue

So I was editing something under my IP, as I didn't log in, when I clicked submit and a template stating this came up: "This action has been automatically identified as harmful and has been disabled. You may press "Save" again if you beliebe your edit to be constructive. Furthermore, in case of a wrong warning, please report this error here. In case you aren't sure if your edit is constructive, it's best to ask for help, either on the talk page or on the help desk." Apparently no one bothered to use spell check, as "believe" is spelled wrong. I would search for this, but I am not that good at searching here, so I'll leave it to the experts. Thanks a lot to whoever can fix this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning has been edited accordingly. Thanks for pointing it out.

If the action in question seems like it was constructive, please outline it under False Positives at Commons:Abuse filter. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Upload protection

Is gone? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean? Seems like the script preventing upload without any information is not active at the moment, maybe that? --Martin H. (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, there were some errors in it, which is why it's now disabled until fixed. Probably better to have it disabled than if someone uploads a porn image over the Commons/Wiki(m|p)edia/... logo. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're talking about the possibility to protect a file against upload, just like we can protect a file against editing and moving. Ok, found the bug. It's disabled at the moment so if you used it somewhere, you might want to add full protection. Multichill (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Next step in translations

At Commons talk:Template i18n#Next step in translations I put a proposal about which way we should go with the translation effort here at Commons. Feedback is appreciated. Multichill (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alexia Death (talk · contributions)

Please block Alexia Death (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), vandalism. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done by User:Adambro, I have deleted vandalized versions --Justass (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Justass, I was dealing with the same user on Wikipedia. The block of 3 days could probably be extend to infinite but I'd probably not bother unless the problem continues. Adambro (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)