User talk:Lar/Archive 10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


I recognize that this user page belongs to this Wikimedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.



This is an archive of threads started in User talk:Lar from about 1 June 2009 through about 1 September 2009. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at left for the list and to navigate to others.
My archived talk        [+/−]
Archive 1 — start through about 1 Nov 2006
Archive 2 — about 1 Nov 2006 through about 1 Mar 2007
Archive 3 — about 1 Mar 2007 through about 1 Aug 2007
Archive 4 — about 1 Aug 2007 through about 1 Jan 2008
Archive 5 — about 1 Jan 2008 through about 1 Sep 2008
Archive 6 — about 1 Sep 2008 through about 1 Nov 2008
Archive 7 — about 1 Nov 2008 through about 1 Jan 2009
Archive 8 — about 1 Jan 2009 through about 1 Mar 2009
Archive 9 — about 1 Mar 2009 through about 1 Jun 2009
Archive 10 — about 1 Jun 2009 through about 1 Sep 2009
Archive 11 — about 1 Sep 2009 through about 1 Jan 2010
Archive 12 — about 1 Jan 2010 through about 1 May 2010
Archive 13 — about 1 May 2010 through about 1 September 2010


Forgot to block someone...[edit]

Hi, Lar. I'd like to point you to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/MRDU08, where you'd said that you had blocked all the users you checked. Well you appear to have missed one; DRB394. Just thought I'd let you know! Thanks! —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That user at the time was blcoked, but it subsequently expired, which I missed. 22:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey again, Lar. I just noticed a new sock from this group pop up at enwiki, and followed him back here and noticed a flurry of restored copyvio images. Check out RepDom809's contribs, where you'll note the author for each image is the sockmaster (see for example File:Flag of the Muncipality of Puñal.PNG). No idea if there are more sleepers to find. Sorry if the appropriate course would have been to reopen the RFCU or open a new one; I'm not familiar with Commons vs enwiki processes, so I hope you'll excuse me if this is the wrong place to ask. I'm going to go ask about the contributor at enwiki. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Reopening the RFCU is ok as is nudging me.. things are a bit more informal here. I'll take a look. ++Lar: t/c 03:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Looked. No new sleepers found, but that's a hit. Blocked. thanks for letting me know. Case updated. Contribs need addressing though. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Newbie admin question[edit]

Hey, thank for promoting me to +sysop. I just have one quick question: where can I find a directory of all the deletion/project scope/vandalism user templates? Thanks in advance, –Juliancolton | Talk 18:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Try Category:Message templates. (Please remember that Commons is multilingual, but also please remember that users prefer not to be templated) ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks! –Juliancolton | Talk 21:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

CU[edit]

Hi Lar. Could you (and your colleagues maybe) have a look into this, this and this? Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Has this been requested at COM:RFCU ? Don't want to duplicate effort. If not, why not? (feel free to mail me if it's sensitive). If so, does it have some rationale attached? Just asking us to run through contribs looking for a reason may not be the best way to go (again, feel free to mail me if it's sensitive). ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
It is a multiple vote issue at FPC. I'll open a request at COM:RFCU. Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I ended up doing a little digging and I warned a couple of the accounts. If the problem continues advise, I'll block the lot of them except one, chosen randomly. ++Lar: t/c 05:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Lycaon (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Another sock of MRDU08?[edit]

Hello Lar, I'm not sure of the process on Commons for amending to a closed CU investigation (Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/MRDU08), but I think Inefable001 (talk · contribs) might be another sock, as he/she seems to have uploaded a lot of Dominican Republic related photos that are almost certainly not his/her "own work". Thanks Andrwsc (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably ping a CU and add it to the case (going forward... I'm working this one now) ++Lar: t/c 02:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this user is related. If the behaviour is problematic I advise blocking. Have updated case. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for checking. The uploaded files weren't exactly the same areas of interest as those of MRDU08, but two of them were Miss Dominican Republic contestants, so that's what caught my eye. Andrwsc (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging my old account into my new one.[edit]

I own User:AeronPrometheus and now User:AeronPeryton because I changed my name properly on en.wikipedia.org and opted for a global account not thinking that I still had my old name here. Could you help me merge them together so I can keep my contribs and such in place? Thank you. AeronPeryton (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see COM:CHU. Account mergers (in which two accounts contribs get credited to one) are not possible at this time. However renames are. Pick the account with the contributions you want to keep, and request a rename there. LMK if that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

COM:VP[edit]

Please don't miss this. While there wasn't a problem this time, the policy is in place for good reason; you're bound by it; and I can't criticize others for breaking the policy unless I also criticize you (well, unless I'm a hypocrite). According to a few other people there was some behind the scenes machinations you couldn't reveal publicly; AFAIK your posts to stewards-l still get through without a problem. Thanks for your response.  — Mike.lifeguard 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of it. I think your approach leaves a lot to be desired, because it assumes, or appears to assume, that I didn't have a good reason for what I did. You should have raised your concerns privately. ++Lar: t/c 04:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 917cb3e310ae63129dbda738b1cd0efd[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Changing username[edit]

Thanks for your help. Treehill 16:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, you're welcome. ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

changing username[edit]

pleas proceed now [1] --КаіСорен (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Did. Advise of concerns, if any. ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Botting in[edit]

Hi Lar, sorry for "botting" in, but I noriced you have been active here today. Do you recall I had my bot request on hold for a few weeks and that I needed to do a test run. Well, I am back and I have made a test run, and another users has said it seemed OK for him. I you have the time and agree that the test run is OK, I would be very happy to have a bot flag flipped, such that I could set it to work ;-) --Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Done... will archive it shortly. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast. Thanks. I will get my bot moving then... --Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm on holiday, you just caught me when I happened to be on. Best. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I already posted it on AN but what does CU mean?[edit]

You said CU request page would be the appropriate place.But I Have no idea what CU stands for. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser. When allegations of socking are made, probably best to bring it before the checkusers. Try COM:RFCU if necessary. If AN is handling it, good. ++Lar: t/c 11:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Colons[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you removed removed the colon from the License MediaWiki Template. Unfortunately in the german Version it is still there. I now finaly found the right page. Can you please edit this too MediaWiki:License/de? I will watch these pages an write you, if someone complaines. --Schlurcher (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It had been deleted (it's good practice to use the default versions of MediaWiki messages if at all possible) so what you were seeing is the installation default. I restored it, so it's non-default again. The version I restored already is missing the ":" so you should be all set. Advise of issues. ++Lar: t/c 09:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, this message is used on the upload form as the label for the license drop-down menu, and there it should have the colon! Lupo 09:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
In all languages? I certainly don't have any clear idea of the right answer here. I tink maybe we need a wider discussion. ++Lar: t/c 09:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
In most. The problem is that the server-side software uses this message for both purposes. Maybe file a bug report (assign to Michael Dale) about it? I think it'd be better if the software used two different messages for this. Lupo 09:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
If you file a report I'd vote for it. I could file it but I'm not 100% certain I can describe the problem correctly. Will look in later today. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
bugzilla:19966. Lupo 07:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Voted. Thanks! Best. ++Lar: t/c 07:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible fix[edit]

Hi, sorry to bother you again. I had an idea on the colons problem. But I do not have the rigths to test it. If you use the following code in for example the german Version MediaWiki:License/de it should do the trick:

{{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:6}}|Lizenz|Lizenz:}}

It will use the "Lizenz" version in Namespace 6 (File) and hopefully the other version in all other cases. This would be a simple trick to use the same Template for both uses without software changes. --Schlurcher (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting. I have found that sometimes some of the magic words and parserfunctions don't work in the MediaWiki namespace though (when the text is used directly by the interface to display, it sometimes isn't run through the full parser, or so I speculate). Some testing would be needed I think, but it seems worthy of investigation. Commons may not be the place for it. Maybe get an admin ID on the testwiki and try it? ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I try. I will inform you of the results. --Schlurcher (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, me again. I tested it on the Testwiki. And it works. Unfortunately the license message is not used, so I use the MediaWiki:Upload-maxfilesize. The code here [2] and there [3] produces the correct message in the upload form, and at the same time it produces the other message at a file: [4]. After the change I had only to wait until the template was updated. Changes in Language also work. --Schlurcher (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
THANKS for testing this! I will take a look at those and try to determine how to apply that here. Appreciate your taking the time to work on this. ++Lar: t/c 23:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Grundtvig memorial church.jpg[edit]

Hi Lar, as requested, I'm here to request a Flickr review for the above. Many thanks. --Mcginnly (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC) (aka. Joopers)

OOps - wait! I've just noticed someone's already uploaded it as File:Pv jensen-klint 05 grundtvig memorial church 1913-1940.jpg. Would you mind deleting my one instead. Wipes egg from face.....sorry. --Mcginnly (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You uploaded the biggest version available, arguably more useful... (if for example someone wants to make a crop of a certain detail for something) so it's your image that ought to be kept. But the other image's paperwork is "better" :)... good categories, geolocated nicely, and has better links to Flickr, as well as having been reviewed. Since you still have that big image locally, presumably, can you upload it at the other file name, replacing the one there with the bigger version? Use "replace with larger version of same image" in the edit summary. Then tag yours for speedy using {{duplicate}} (add File:Pv jensen-klint 05 grundtvig memorial church 1913-1940.jpg as the parameter, so it's clear what it's a dup of...) Thanks for your efforts to secure a high quality image! ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
God this is complicated, but I understand and wilco. Has anyone produced a flickripper tool, where you point it at flickr images you like with the correct licenses that are then ported over here automagically? --Mcginnly (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. However it's currently not working for lack of a sufficiently knowledgeable maintainer. Contact Bryan if you know of someone that might be able to take it over (requires time and mad coding skillz...) ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, Tryphon has beat me to it. I'm afraid I don't move in those sort of circles. --Mcginnly (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a bit thick today, beat you to what? ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Adminship[edit]

Now that the August 1st deadline has rolled around, I plan to do a little bit of post-event cleanup and then relinquish the bit on Wednesday or so (coinciding with my plans for a good long wiki-vacation). Just wanted to keep you updated on my time table. Dragons flight (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads up. ++Lar: t/c 06:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Final warning[edit]

Hello Lar,

How are you doing?

I think we give User talk:24.159.24.87 two times the final warning, my message was also mend as first and final warning :)

Best regards, Huib talk 17:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm well, thanks! you? I started editing before you did, and I wasn't going to throw it away :) so I made it an "elaboration" of yours. The next thing 24... does that's off, a short block is in order, maybe I'll beat you to it, who knows? Perhaps you could try to get Erik9 to calm down too? A much defter touch there is needed, I think. Best. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see you have. As have others. Thanks! I think your last edit you forgot to sign, though? Best. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot to sign, thanks for the note about that.
I hope both the users will calm down and that no other actions are needed, it looks to me like the are both taking it a bit personal and the IP user is trying to provoke a aggressive reaction by removing content from the page.
The way its going in now is kind of useless to discuss because both are just on a collision course with the other, but when they not calm down it would result in a blockade, and I would prefer to not let it come that far. ( I still dislike blocking)
See ya,
Huib talk 18:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
nod, I don't want to see anyone blocked either. Hopefully Eric9 and 24... will take the hints and mellow out. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Temporary retirement[edit]

Hi Larry

I've been shaking off the effects of a chest infection for the last three months, and am feeling a bit jaded. At the moment I don't feel motivated enough to put in the time and effort here that I would like to, and I'd be grateful if you could for now at least remove my admin and 'crat bits. A rest should do me good and enable to to return invigorated in a few months or so. If the community thinks I should reapply in the normal way when I return (as I fully intend) to admin-type duties I will be happy to do that. In the meantime, I plan to drop in and out and perhaps use some of the time to contribute a few photos from my new camera. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done - Have a good rest. In my view, all you need to do is ask for your bits back and you shall have them, but it's your call. Best wishes, have fun with your new camera, and don't be a stranger! ++Lar: t/c 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Like I told in the email Michael take care, Lar is it needed that I temp remove Michael of the list of administrators and crats? Huib talk 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, someone should. I suppose I should but if you beat me to it I'm not going to get upset. :) Let's just comment him out (wishful thinking! :) ) ... Thanks for remembering! ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done I just hope he gets back soon :( Huib talk 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

commons categories[edit]

hi1 Who do you have to sleep with to rename a Commons category, and why is it impossible to discover this information by navigating from the Community portal? Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! See COM:CFD... not sure who you have to sleep with, though. Where do you think this should be linked from? Does the Comm Portal need better links? Did you check COM:VP? Should it be linked from there? Meta has a list of common places you might want to go that is embedded in a lot of those places so once you find one you can find a lot of the other ones. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - it is on a template at the VP, but I never thought of looking there. To judge by the level of traffic, not many have found it. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Genevieve Nnaji's picture[edit]

Hi. Your assistance is needed in this case here. A few days ago I uploaded this picture to wikimedia commons. I then got the written email permission from the owner of the picture and forwarded the email to permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org. After that I contacted someone with an OTRS account, Trixt. Trixt confirmed the permission and fully released the picture under the required license. A few days later Trixt tagged the picture with the "Personality rights warning" tag. I asked Trixt why this is being done. You can read the reply of Trixt here and here on our talk pages. Finally, Trixt wrote me, saying that his english is bad, that I should get in touch with an English admin, that he doesn't know what to do.

I have checked through many wikipedia pages and have taken a close look at the pictures used from wikimedia commons. There are loads of pictures that do not have the "Personality rights warning" tag. Trixt claims that all pictures of living people should have that tag. This claim makes the whole issue suspicious. If all pictures of living people must be tagged with the "Personality rights warning", and the only way to properly upload pictures into wikimedia-commons is to get the approval of someone with an OTRS account, then what happened to all those pictures AFTER they were confirmed by someone with an OTRS account? How come those people with OTRS accounts didn't immediately tag these pictures with the "Personality rights warning" tag, the way Trixt did to the picture I uploaded? This looks like a double standard, and I thusly ask you to look into this and please remove the "Personality rights warning" tag from the picture in question.

The picture in question shows a nigerian actress, Genevieve Nnaji, in 2008 at a public event, the launch of Genevieve's new fashion label. Genevieve Nnaji is one of the top nigerian Nollywood actresses. She is also a model. Her pictures are all over Nigeria and Africa on billboards (she is the Face of Lux 2004), and she has played in over 100 Nollywood movies. Thus Genevieve Nnaji is a "person of contemporary history". She is a public figure. The picture I uploaded was taken by Niyi Tabiti, a nigerian journalist. Mr Tabiti has fully agreed to the full usage of the picture under wikimedia commons license. There are no personality right infringed with the usage of this picture. If wikimedia-commons claims, like Trixt does, that all pictures of living persons SHOULD be tagged, then this rule must apply to all pictures on wikimedia-commons. The fact that wikimedia-commons has loads of pictures of living persons without the "Personality rights warning" proves that different standards are being applied to different pictures. I thereby ask you to please remove the "Personality rights warning" from this picture. Thank you.
Amsaim (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Personality Rights Warning template adds a caution to re-users of the image, that they should keep in mind that they need to honor the rights of the subject. It applies whether or not the subject is a famous person or not. (remember that the CC-BY-SA license allows derivative images. For example, someone could take that image, and a freely licensed image of a horse, and put Genevieve's (G's) head on the horse (or on someone's freely licensed nude torso, for example).... from a license perspective, that's allowed, but it violates the personality rights of G... and G might have a case to sue, depending on the jurisdiction, for defamation. Adding this template is a way to try to increase awareness among reusers that they need to respect G's rights. It's not a restriction on reuse of the image as is in WMF projects, nor is it a reflection on the subject or the photographer.
As to whether other images should have it, in my personal view, pretty much all images of living people should carry this warning, that we don't do a good job of doing that is not a credit on us.
So I'm not inclined to remove the template. It's not doing any harm to WMF users, it's not a reflection of either the subject or the photographer having done any wrong, and it may do some good. I hope that helps explain matters. If not, perhaps we should take this conversation to the appropriate place (the VP perhaps?) for wider input. Best. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for swift reply. The text in the template itself does not state the same thing which you've written. The link in the template leads to this page. There the following is written:
Re-use of the image - Commons images are released under wide licences, but without any guarantee that they are free of non-copyright legal restrictions on re-use. Someone re-using in a derogatory manner an unexceptional Commons image of an identifiable subject might run the risk of the subject suing for defamation. But since neither the photographer, the uploader nor the Foundation have encouraged such defamatory use, the image itself is still perfectly acceptable to Commons. The fact that a photograph is capable of being misused does not mean, in itself, that it is objectionable here.
The last sentence in that text says it all. Just because misuse is possible, doesn't necessitate tagging of all the uploaded pictures of identifiable persons.
The question still remains: why are some pictures tagged and some aren't? There seems to be a very clear-cut line of approach which is being taken by wikimedia-commons admins in tagging pictures, and it evidently has nothing to do with trying to increase awareness amonst reusers. If increasing the awareness of reusers was the motif for tagging pictures, then how come there are loads of Hollywood actresses, Hollywood actors, artists, songwriters etc. who have up to 20-30 pictures in their wikimedia gallery, and not even one of these pictures is tagged with the "Personality rights warning" tag? The wikimedia admins that confirmed and approved these uploaded pictures, weren't they informed that they had to place the "Personality rights warning" tag unto the pictures they just confirmed and approved? The fact that not all wikimedia admins tag all pictures of identifiable persons with the "Personality rights warning" tag shows that there is no direct regulation concerning tagging pictures and thus tagging pictures is left to the mood of the wikimedia-admin. If tagging pictures of identifiable people is a must-do action, then all wikimedia admins would have done so.
Placing this tag on the picture I uploaded is done in discrimination against my picture. If there is any rule for tagging my picture, then that rule must and should be applicable to all other pictures of identifiable people. Any other situation leads to double standards and uploaders feel discriminated against. So, if wikimedia admins want to tag my uploaded picture, then they should also place the same tag on all other pictures of identifiable persons. Please remove the tag. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Placing the tag should be done on just about every picture of a living, identifiable person. As I said above. It is by no means discrimination against the picture that was uploaded that it was tagged. Rather, it was that we are volunteers, and apparently somewhat overwhelmed. If it makes you feel better, go and tag some other images that are of living people, who are personally identifiable, and which are not yet tagged. I hope that helps clarify this matter. For reference, although this is not en:wp, you may want to review w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which deals with this same principle applied to a different scenario... that item X doesn't have tag A but should, is not an excuse for item Y's uploader wanting tag A removed, and that item Q, not currently up for deletion is of type R does not excuse item P also up for deletion which is also type R. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

ping[edit]

Hi Lar, You have some time for IRC? Best regards, Huib talk 18:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe tonite... ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your help and nomination. I look forwarding working with you and the others. Best regards, Kanonkas (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure... I look forward to working with you as well. However, in view of this comment, please do give some thought to your tone in interacting with others. Herby is a stalwart contributor here and your comment, even inadvertantly, called his judgement into question. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It certainly wasn't on purpose, just FYI. I wasn't even aware that I did that, so I'm really sorry if that is how it was being interpreted. Kanonkas (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Bots/Requests/MaximaximaxBot[edit]

You may want to review this again. In other words, should we grant a bot flag or not? I think the latter, but it would be nice to have your opinion on this. Best regards, Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 07:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs to be closed as not granted. The bot owner is not responsive. ++Lar: t/c 13:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help...[edit]

Thank you for removing the deletion reason. --J.smith (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for the help. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser[edit]

I would like to draw your attention to this. Thank you, Tiptoety talk 04:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, commented there. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)