User talk:Multichill/Archives/2010/June

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi

I appreciate the work you do here Multichill but I have to question whether you really read the comments here. This really is a questionable image (nothing to do with porn as far as I am concerned). Age and model release seems highly questionable at the very least and that was what was being said there. Can I ask you to review it please - many thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Herby as you failed to address the concerns beyond COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
So open a deletion request. The image was kept and after that speedydeleted as out of scope which isn't even a speedy deletion reason anyway. Feel free to open a deletion request as described at Commons:Deletion policy#Regular deletion. Multichill (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Multichill, why a DR for material which should be speedied? Shall Commons be a safe web hoster for the publication of images of minors that have possibly been taken without consent and which could be used to harass the depicted person? DRs at times run for months. There was a wide consensus of other admins to keep this deleted. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Borchert, nothing indicates that "Britt Suza" was a minor. It was a Flickr-pro account. What is your problem with a normal DR? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Er - http://www.flickr.com/photos/40816417@N03 - that is certainly a concern of mine. --Herby talk thyme 15:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I value personality rights of depicted people higher than the advantage of a regular deletion request. We have a responsibility here. I do not know for sure if the model in question is minor or not but we should be on the safe side. Pieter Kuiper, you are fighting hard for strict rules in regard to copyright where we insist on proofs in case of permissions per COM:PRP. I appreciate that. We should do the very same in all doubtful cases where personality rights could be violated. And have you seen that image? It is crap and hardly to be used anywhere for an educational purpose (except to demonstrate how crappy uploads can be). Why all this fight for keeping this crap? This is a waste of resources. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
At one time, Commons had more than 25 images of this woman. Several had been the subject of DRs, and were kept. Including this one. Then Jimbo storms in, and deletes them using his Founder bit. He should have opened a regular DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I assure you my views on this have nothing at all to do with porn and censorship. I am on neither side of this argument. What was done by Wales was not clever - it does not mean everything he did was wrong even if the reasons were bad. --Herby talk thyme 16:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
@Borchert: many voted to keep an image of this woman in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topless young woman.jpg. I was skeptical, but I was also surprised that the debate was about one of the most innocent ones in the series. Same with the oversight by Tiptoety of a different image where this woman was licking her breast. Oversighting something like that as "child porn" is just panic. Yes, one could weed out less tasteful photos. The task would be huge. The only other area where there is weeding seems to be low-quality chemistry. But that is kind of objective. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Pieter Kuiper, I will not comment on whether this constitutes "child porn" (I do not think so but I am not really familiar with the associated legal definitions in the US) and whether this should be oversighted (I am glad that I do not have this responsibility). My main point here is COM:PEOPLE#Moral issues, not COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The woman was posing, and it seems that new photos regularly appeared on the Flickr-pro account. A google search with safe-search off on "brittsuza" gives loads of pages (probably all the same, I do not wish to check). She seems to be in the erotic entertainment business. I would be much more worried about COM:PEOPLE#Moral issues with the accounts that upload just one or a few nude images directly to Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
While working as admin Im bound to the policy, however besides that it is allowed to say my own opinion. So here we go. Maybe we should talk about what is more abusive: (1) Adding such trash to Commons and claiming it under some kind of idenfinite preservation protection imidatly so that noone can remove it without having talked about it or (2) deleting the trash in order of quality. The deletion opened the way for an quality approach, finaly, not refering to its bad implementation. Im not convinced that backpaddle to status quo is the best idea as now it will likely be more difficult for users to go for quality without becoming the victim of this idiotic "no cencorship" mace upholded on Commons without caring about quality and in most cases abusive inclusion (abusing Commons as an host for self-exhibitionism). Good bye quality. --Martin H. (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Just logging my agreement with many above - the file should have stayed deleted for the various reasons given at COM:UNDEL. If the undelete was based on missed procedure, I'll note that the original DR was never listed at Commons:Deletion requests/2010/04/20 - also missed procedure. Wknight94 talk 16:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I found this thread by searching. I've been looking into Brittany Suza (Brittsuza). Images with this user name are all over the internet, and this user (or group of users) have created profiles at Flickr, Photobucket, and numerous adult sites. From what I see is that it's not one girl, it's several, and they are all by appearances around 10.5-15.3 years old (Tanner scale IV). I think they should be speedily deleted as copyvio ASAP. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Go to Commons:Deletion requests. Multichill (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The procure for this is too immediately speedy delete, then report to an Oversighter for suppression the inform Mike Godwin so he can report this to National Center for Missing And Exploited Children. This user should also be reported to the NCMEC for other activities outside Commons. Presenting suspected child pornography to lengthy public discussion is highly inappropriate. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
And you expect me to do that? No, go bother someone else. Multichill (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I sent an email to Godwin and OTRS asking for he images to be looked into. - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
A file in Candidates for speedy deletion can be speedy deleted under the following circumstances: Corrupted, infected by a virus, completely blank, causes browser to crash, etc. (if in doubt, list it on Commons:Deletion requests as an unknown format/content). Has previously been deleted under Commons deletion guidelines. Licensed under any non-free license (like fair use, noncommercial or permission-only) or it is a clear copyright violation. Was uploaded with the intent to be used solely for purposes of vandalism, personal attacks, and/or spamming. Nowhere is there *any* mentioning of your so-called procedure. The procedure for this kind of cases is use DR and if the closing admin disagrees with you, stop reiterating the same point, as this is *very* disruptive. Kameraad Pjotr 07:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have combined the speculations and reasons of several users along my own analysis of why I believe these images are of 3 or more girls and not one girl "showing off her body" as described on Brittsuza's Flickr profile into a mass DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Brittany Suza (brittsuza) from Flickr. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bot error

See [1] - I don't know why the bot assumed it's in Cheshire (it's not, it's in the West Midlands). I've reverted it. Tivedshambo (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the image is in Category:M6 motorway. Why did you just revert it and not correct it if you know where it is? Multichill (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Just because part of the M6 is in Cheshire, it doesn't necessarily follow that every part is. Also, I don't always have time to locate the correct category; reversion of an obvious mistake is the sinmplest option. Tivedshambo (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Template-tracker and fair use

Hi. I added tracker for non-free files. It is a pleasure working with you. -- Bojan  Talk  15:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I keep running in encoding problems :-(
I'll probably have to make some sort of workaround. Multichill (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Doxey_Marshes.jpg

Thanks for reminding me about the lack of license! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I ran into it when I created Category:Doxey Marshes. Multichill (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA translations

The Esperanto translation of Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-cz was correct, nevertheless it is wrong after your adjustment. I don't understand the actual template now. Could you please set the previous texts back? Thanks, --Petrus Adamus (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you've updated the template. It can take up to a day to actually show up here. Multichill (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I have noticed one thing: ex. the sentence part Ĉi tiu dosiero estas disponebla laŭ la permesilo Krea Komunaĵo Atribuite 3.0 is same for all countries (for Wm-license-cc-by-3.0-XX-text/eo), only the country name behind it varies. Is there any ability to paste this part as a template in translatewiki, or it is necessary to repeat it always?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrus Adamus (talk • contribs) 20:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is some redundancy, that's because we don't want lego sentences. Do you want to apply this change to all /eo translations? I could probably have my bot do that in one go. Multichill (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I would like to execute that change. Unfortunatelly I don't understand what lego sentence means. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please advice me several things within the context of translatewiki?

  1. I need to see more language versions of a concrete template to can translate or correct it. Formerly, there were switch language links in every internationalized template. What should I do now? Perhaps I do not need to change my language settings every time.
  2. In contrast to standard use of Commons templates, the application of {{int:xxxx}} doesn't list the page used on translatewiki to the section Templates used on this page, so it is more complicated to get to the page where the translated text is placed (I have to copy the address manually). It is very confused and quite inaccessible for most users. In fact, where the link beginning int goes? Maybe it is some intermemory and not Translatewiki, if changes appears in Commons only after several days.
  3. Editing translatewiki, I need to see a context where the text is used. Nevertheless, there are no links to such pages (in contrary to Commons and its What links here). How can I enquire it? It is absolutly necessary for creating of quality translations.

It is strange to be forced to register on other project to can control Commons templates. In my opinion the moving is much more problematic than advantageous. I hope the previous state will be restored soon. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please apply the change [2] for all /eo translations in some automatical way (by a bot)? Thanks, --Petrus Adamus (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hm, lot of variations. I'll have a look at it. Multichill (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ziet je bot sommige foto's over het hoofd?

Dag Multichill. Bij het categoriseren van foto's die geen categorie hebben kwam ik een hele reeks foto's van user Cyr tegen. Bijvoorbeeld File:Lava Expeditions Credner Glacier 8.jpg heeft als categorie "Self-published work". Is dat de reden waarom jouw bot deze foto niet herkent als uncategorized? Wouter (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Volgens mij is {{LavaExpeditionsCredit}} de oorzaak. Multichill (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Locator maps again

After the tensed discussion on my alleged deletion mistakes, File:Erpel in NR.PNG has now been deleted by 32X. Is it now required to start a new mass deletion request for the other cases (which are all exactly the same) as described under Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request or could they be speedydeleted by any administrator by citing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erpel in NR.PNG? I'm not sure about this because on de.wikipedia there is the possibility to delete several pages for on the deletion requests page it has been decided that one example page be deleted.--Leit (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You have to open a mass deletion request. Multichill (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Changing category gheorgeni

I do not think it is a good idea to declare a naming policy as standard practice when it is actually not. It is also not a good idea to send a robot to handle a controversial issue. The categories that you change from a position of power were not added by me or you but by the people who spent their time on creating and uploading material to Commons. Kind regards Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Disputes noticeboard#User:Rokarudi forcing Hungarian names on places in Romania (now on Commons). Multichill (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of uncategorsized images

all my images within the different Thasos articles, which are uncategorized, should be deleted/removed. They have been made uncategorized by myself and been replaced by qualitywise better ones. I dont know how to delete them. Please help me to delete all of them. Thanks. -- Haubi (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2010

Use {{Duplicate|<name of the better image>}} if the image is a duplicate of another image. Multichill (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Georgeni - Gyergyószentmiklós naming dispute

Hi, once you made an admin move in the above-mentioned dispute, please do not abandon it. [3] I would like to know what you think about the whole issue exposed on the noticeboard as you are the admin whom the opposing party will notify to block me if sees minority language titles. I would like to hear your opinion not only with respect to category but gallery title as well. Details are on the notice borad. Kind regards Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Abandon? Not really, I'm just stepping back and see where it's heading. Multichill (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleting of Template:NoVectorImage

Hello. That was not a nice idea. You've seen that the tempate has been created by me and therefore it shoudt be a well way, to ask me about the template, if it maybe will be used in future.

This Template is not for continuos inclusion on pages. It's used only temporary for working with images to mark them as SVGs with included Bitmaps. when any use of the image is replaced at all projects, the inclusion of the template disappears, usually by deletion of the wrong-formatted image. Therefore it is normal, when there is no inclusion at most of the time. Please undelete the template, it's needed sometimes. Antonsusi (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems redundant to {{BadSVG}}. Maybe it should just be redirected? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You can move the deleted page to my user-area. I'll look about the redundance and I need the code somewhere else. Antonsusi (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's at User:Antonsusi/NoVectorImage now. I hope you have no objections to this, Multichill? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. I'm just cleaning up unused uncategorized templates. Thanks for undeleting Ilmari. Multichill (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. From my point of view: all ok. Antonsusi (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

{{FishBase species}}

Hi,
I created {{FishBase species}} some time ago and would like to improve it. But it is now protected
1) I would like to add a link to the "FishBase common names" page (see here a good sample).
This will be very usefull to all contributors to check the species commons names, the {{VN}} and interwikis.
2) I also would like to replace {{{1}}} by {{#if:x|{{{1}}}}} to trim leading white spaces in the first parameter.
3) I also would like to add carriage returns arround {{documentation}}

Could you simply replace {{FishBase species}} content with this (You can see the result on my sandBox Template):

[http://www.fishbase.org FishBase link] : <span class="plainlinksneverexpand">[http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/speciesSummary.php?id={{#if:x|{{{1}}}}} <small>species </small>''{{{2}}}'' {{{3|}}}] <small>([http://fishbase.mnhn.fr/Summary/speciesSummary.php?id={{#if:x|{{{1}}}}} Mirror site]) ([http://www.fishbase.org/comnames/CommonNamesList.php?ID={{#if:x|{{{1}}}}} +names1] [http://fishbase.mnhn.fr/comnames/CommonNamesList.php?ID={{#if:x|{{{1}}}}} & 2])</small></span><noinclude>

{{documentation}}

</noinclude>

Thanks in advance. Liné1 (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you left a note at Template talk:FishBase species. I'll leave it up to another admin to check it (#if:x seems to be an error, not sure). Multichill (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Bouhou, nobody wants to help me. And I lost my friend User:Rocket000.
But believe me #if:x works fine. I have put it on all french templates.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
What's the point of having #if:x? It's always true. Multichill (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
It trims leading and trailing spaces: "{{#if:x| true }}" returns "true" not " true ".
That way {{FishBase species | 68 | Eutrigla gurnardus }} will work when currently only {{FishBase species |68 | Eutrigla gurnardus }} works (see arround 68). Cheers Liné1 (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Camera locations in Google Earth

Hoi Multi, enig idee waarom het afbeelden van de camera locations in GE (zoals beschreven op GeoCommons) bij mij sinds vandaag opeens niet meer lijkt te werken? Zie ook nl:Overleg sjabloon:Tabelkop rijksmonumenten#Objecten op Google Maps. Groet, Wutsje (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Aanvulling: zie ook Commons talk:Geocoding#No Google Earth roundels. Wutsje (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Ik heb geen flauw idee. Ben er ook niet helemaal thuis in, ik zal er morgen eens naar kijken. Multichill (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Bot for Category:OTRS pending - No timestamp given

Hi. You said a long time ago that you had set up a bot to monitor Category:OTRS pending - No timestamp given and add time stamps. (Archive here). Does that still exist? I thought maybe it was replaced by HersfoldOTRSBot (talk · contribs) but Hersfold says otherwise, and he and his bot have apparently retired anyway (here and at en.wp). Maybe you can resurrect yours? Otherwise I can request a new one. Thanks. Wknight94 talk 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Some people were rebuilding the whole structure and were running bots. This conflicted with my bots so I stopped them. I'll have a look at it to see if it's easy to restart the bot. Multichill (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this is what I've done:
Multichill (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Flickr review notice


File:US Navy 090712-N-0000G-005 The littoral combat ship Independence (LCS 2) underway during builder's trials.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:US Navy 090712-N-0000G-005 The littoral combat ship Independence (LCS 2) underway during builder's trials.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Schlendrian (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Potd categorization

Only bunnies are allowed to hop here :-)

The issue you asked me to fix has been fixed for ages - but there was a minor error elsewhere: Template:Potd/DaySetup lacked a couple noincludes, so the monthly pages were categorized in the main category. That's now also fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Adam Cuerden#Categorization of POTD templates broken, no talk page hopping please. Multichill (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)