Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/Attention 1

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

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 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 14:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC) MySQL rosemary up MySQL daphne up MySQL yarrow up Replag s1 0h 0m 0s Replag s2 0h 0m 1s Replag s3 0h 0m 1s Replag s4 0h 0m 7s Replag s5 0h 0m 1s More information...

Category:Copyrighted free use problem

I've found at least two images submitted by Miuki that are NOT in the public domain: Ancient painting of Akshobhya from http://ethangka.com/artimages/akshobhya.jpg and Samantabhadra, primordial buddha of the Nyigma school with consort Samantabhadri From http://www.himalayanart.org/image.cfm/36.htm These sources claim copyright for the photos of the objects. User: Jelte

• Category:Copyrighted free use still contains many wrongly tagged images. / Fred Chess 20:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Based on what I've seen when checking "Latest files", this is possible the license that is most often used incorrectly. I think that in many cases, it's done in good faith, as the uploader has been told that the image can indeed be used freely; however, that is often meant as an acknowledgment of fair use rights, or as "use, but don't modify". In the license selector on the upload page, the license is described as covering free use, including commercial use, but there is no mention of the right to modify the image. Perhaps that should be included on the selector, to make it clear that this license needs a bit more justification than an e-mail saying "sure, feel free to use it". Cnyborg 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I can hardly find images which are not a copyvio in Category:Copyrighted free use. --Kjetil_r 23:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There are some that are OK, Kjetil – I found one that you had tagged ;-). Seriously, this category needs to be thoroughly checked, but I find it quite overwhelming. Since new images keep getting added to it, it's hard to get through it. Can anyone think of a way that the work in checking this category can be structured, because it really needs to be done. There are thousands of images, and I wouldn't be surprised if two thirds or more of them have license and/or source problems. Cnyborg 02:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if the code is changed so instead of adding to the main cat when the user selects it from the drop menu, it adds it to a by-month cat? This could also be done with the other misused tags (PD, GFDL...)--Nilfanion 18:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That might help; t would be a lot less overwhelming. It might also make the by license-categories slightly more helpful; as it is the ones for very general licenses are too big to search for anything in anyway; if someone for some reason wants to browse for an image by license they could just as well look through smaller categories sorted by month. Cnyborg 20:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We have to assume nobody ever wants to browse solely by license. The categories simply can't cope for that.

But I had an idea about this. Perhaps we can add an optional parameter to the template, reviewed=yes. So by default it is reviewed=no and goes into Category:copyrighted free use provided that. If reviewed=yes then it goes into a new subcat of that cat, Category:Reviewed copyrighted free use provided that. We can start a small wikiproject called License Review or something. This way, the category will be able to be systematically checked and you'll be able to tell which have been checked and which haven't. Ideally, it would go like this: 1. find image that has CFUPT template. 2. If it is dodgy, nominate for deletion (or speedy delete if appropriate). 3. If it is OK, change to more specific license, if available. 4. If it is OK but you can't find the right license tag, put reviewed=yes.

It is possible that people will just put reviewed=yes themselves, but I think it's unlikely (especially if we don't advertise this fact very much :)). It's also possible that the uploader asserts permission sufficient proof. In which case I think the image should be nominated for deletion and the uploader asked to forward the permission to OTRS.

Good idea, yes, no? pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds like a very good idea. As you say, uploaders could try to cheat the system, but as far as I can see, most of the problems in this category come from new users who probably won't be aware of the extra parameter. At step 2 in your walkthrough, I'd add tagging with {{no source since}} as a valid option. Cnyborg 15:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid option every time one looks at a page in the Image: namespace ;) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have implemented this for CFUPT. We should do it slowly because the templates are heavily used and the dev's will complain if we kill the job queue. (special:statistics) I asked Magnus about setting up a special interface for reviewing the images (muchos convenient). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, try this one out! http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/imagereview.php?category=copyrighted_free_use_provided_that --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture of the Day

Our "picture of the day" for August 30 was a non-commercial image Image:Aberdeenshire_scenery.jpg. I've copied one from another date (10/2/2006), because we cannot allow unfree images on our Main Page as featured pictures. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, we need a new featured picture for 10/2/2006. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 17:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: The image was uploaded under a correct and free license, it was not under -nc-nd- at the time of upload. It is just another case of changed licenses on flickr (to a more restrictive one) after the image was uploaded to Commons. See my talk page for more information. --Überraschungsbilder 07:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Nilfanion/Duplicate removal translations

I've set up this subpage to assist with clearing up Category:Duplicate, help would be appreciated with the translations. Obviously we don't need this in the same way as the copyvio translations. However, this sort of thing is probably good practice to other projects.--Nilfanion 23:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Bot out of control?

Can someone please take a look at this bot User:Holnash, it leaves bizarre messages on my talk page, basically hindering my work. Cheers Gryffindor 23:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind I guess I should have said "bot". I have blocked this user for 24 hours now, hopefully this will do the trick. Gryffindor 00:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Accounts pretending to be bots and targetting admin talk pages seems to be a new type of vandal. Please treat as you would other deliberate vandals (ie indef block). BTW what gives with the order of this board... can't we switch to a normal earliest->latest from top->bottom? pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, block the user(s) indefinitely, and put {{Sockpuppet}} on their usepage. / Fred Chess 18:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also User:Vetyes and User:Vaucjel. I've blocked both of these indefinately as vandalism-only sockpuppets. Alphax (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin abuse - anglocentric language domination

Could the administrators of this project please comment the following edit [1]. German Wikipedia is discussing stopping every cooperation with Commons (de:WP:UF) re "PD" Soviet pictures. Thanks --Historiograf 17:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That edit was partially reverted [2], but not completely as far as I can tell. I don't have the language ability to read the German comments, but that seems like blanking just because it "wasn't in English".--Nilfanion 17:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Irpen doesn't seem to be an administrator. On enwiki I'd say that would almost certainly qualify as blanking vandalism. NSLE-Chacor 17:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Historiograf you are an admin...! If the issue is nothing more than: this guy is removing edits for the sole reason that they are not in English, that is not a disputed issue at all. Of course he should be reverted, warned, and if he continues, block. None of us need to be shy about that. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. My comment not to delete statements in german languge Irpen deletet with the comment „rv trolling and harassment, you non-English comments in English project are grossly out of place, to put it mildly“ ([3]). Later he discussed with Angr and now he seems to understand, that this is not an English but a multilingual project. BTW: Histo is no admin but it would be very helpful to get him doing this job. He is an excellent specialist of copyright questions. --Steschke 12:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I'm sorry for my wrong assumption... I really thought Historiograf was an admin!

Glad we could clear this up and remember, never assume that one user's edits represent any more than their own single opinion :) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)