User talk:Sven Manguard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Babel user information
BG-1 This user is able to contribute at a basic level to bitmap graphics.
Commons Administrator.svg This user is an administrator on Wikimedia Commons. (verify)
OTRS Wikimedia.svg This user is a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team. (verify)
Users by language

Looking for something that was here? Check the archives: 20122013
Fast navigation: English WikipediaWikidata
Shortcuts: Upload


You are probably not aware but photos from Acrofan are uploadd with permission. The owner even put the Commons logo on his website (!). An explanation is at kowiki, there is a category: Category:Images from and there is an OTRS ticket from the owner (the photographer) of Acrofan, who agreed to release all photos on his website under cc-by-sa-3.0. So I don't really understand why you deleted File:MBLAQ from acrofan.jpg. Teemeah (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I misread the completion status of the ticket (i.e. the process was botched on our end and I initially thought that it wasn't a complete ticket). Looking over it again, I guess it's fine, so I've undeleted the image. You will still need to provide a source for the image though, as the given source isn't accurate. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I edited the photo description. (I'm not the uploader, though :) I have the MBLAQ article on my watchlist and I saw the photo removed by commonsdelinker.) Kind regards Teemeah (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions converted to normal[edit]

Hi there,

I notice you converted some of my speedy nominations to standard ones. I'm not offended by this, but I labelled them as such because the reason for deletion was a relatively straightforward and unambiguous one.

In this case, these were images that were either out of scope or personal ones. Obviously, personal images are permitted for limited use on Wikimedia user pages *if they are being used*, but these ones were over six months old and had never been used. Many of them were by users who had uploaded only those images then never come back, but I notified them anyway.

The reasoning would (or should) be double-checked by any admin who knew what they were doing before actually deleting the image, so there was an obvious check in place.

If there had been any significant ambiguity in whether the image should have been deleted, I would have used a normal nomination (which is actually slightly less work for me, since it's all automated). The reason I used speedy was that I didn't think it necessary to clutter up the nominations page with "personal fluff" cases that were quite clear-cut with respect to policy- as I said, the admin would provide the necessary double-check safeguard.

Would like to hear what you think. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Ubcule - I am of the opinion that when there isn't a compelling reason to bypass the normal process, you should use the normal process. It leaves a much better record, allows the action to be contested (even if that is, as in this case, exceedingly unlikely to happen), and is general good practice. I don't see waiting an extra seven days to get rid of such files as being a burden. It's not that I disagreed with them being deleted - if I did I would have commented - rather it's that I disagreed with going out of process for those images. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I see your point, I've no problem with a record being kept, I just didn't want to clutter up the discussion-worthy regular nominations with countless obvious cases. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
You made a good point, and I opened this discussion at the Village Pump (referencing this discussion) to get an idea of the general feelings of the community on this matter; please add your thoughts if you think it'd be useful. Thanks. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


How do you feel about being nominated for bureaucratship? Have the other administrators also discussed this? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

While I would appreciate the offer, I would probably decline the nomination. I haven't been active on this project in any of the areas that bureaucrats work in (RfA, renaming requests, bot requests), and while I would have no problem working in the first two areas, I don't consider myself qualified to play any significant role in the third. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Spirit of Metal[edit]

Can you please fix the Spirit_of_Metal_Logo.jpg page so that I can change the copyrights please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by S.R.G.G Spinster (talk • contribs)

Adding a license by email?[edit]

Hey there. Hoping you might be able to answer a question for me: I know there's a way you can add a license for an image by sending an email including the relevant permissions by the author to some central place. How exactly do I do this? Thanks... Girona7 (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think I figured this out. Sorry to spam your talk page... Hope you're well. Girona7 (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/Allow transferring files from other Wikimedia Wikis server side[edit]

Hey Sven, please accept my apologies for just writing the reply without any signature in the cons section. Although, I was a bit angry when I saw you removing my comments without a meaningful edit summary nor pinging me, nor starting discussion; I think it was a mistake to add the reply there. Everyone is able to evaluate their own or reading the discussion that is below now so you are right.

I've clarified the scope of the RfC. Please help me making the RfC even clearer and share your opinion or questions. I could imagine that some points are not sufficiently discussed, respectively are in need of explanation. -- Rillke(q?) 20:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, I was annoyed to see you put replies into that section. Oh well, it's noting worth staying upset over. I suppose we're even? Sven Manguard Wha? 18:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Cover deletion[edit]

Hello, Sven! I am contacting you in regards to the removal of my upload of the cover to Kimberly Cole's EP The Prelude. I contacted the photographer, who holds the image rights, and he agreed to release it under Creative Commons 3.0. I have forwarded this correspondence to OTRS staff and am awaiting a response. Is there anything else I can do in the meantime? While I understand the concern over users uploading covers without proper licensing, that is not the case at hand. Thanks, Feather Jonah II (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Feather Jonah II - Does he own all of the visual elements of the cover, or just the photo. The copyright of the cover isn't the same as the copyright of the photo, as the cover includes the flower and the double image arrangement. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I am under the impression he owns rights to the entire cover as it is on his photography website with no additional information, but I will write back to him and ask to make sure. Feather Jonah II (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In re[edit]

…your comment to me at my talk page,

It seems to me like you didn't understand what happened in the AN/UP thread. To be clear:
  • Lx 121 was not blocked for his irregular style of formatting his statements. He was blocked for making personal attacks, after having had several years of warnings. The specific trigger for the block was his comments towards Binksternet at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edward-furlong-mugshot-01.jpg.
  • There was most certainly a consensus to block Lx 121 if he did not respond to the AN/UP thread. His response was judged, by several users, to be inappropriate.
  • Fastily's answer was to block Lx 121 until he agreed to refrain from making any further personal attacks. I didn't personally agree with the indefinite block, but it was a valid solution. As was said in the AN/UP thread, the block would last only as long as Lx 121 wanted it. In other words, once Lx 121 agreed to stop making personal attacks, his block would be lifted.
  • Russavia understood exactly what was going on. Once Lx 121 agreed to stop making personal attacks, the block was lifted.
As far as I am concerned, the issue is now resolved. I don't see what you aim to do by confronting the people involved in it, but I can guarantee that you're not going to see any chances made because of it. The blocking admin was well within his discretion, and had sufficient community backing, in making the block. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I thank you for the patient explanation, but there is little stated that I did not indeed perceive through my reading. We fundamentally—I and certainly Fastily (a user with a past history with the person disciplined), and you, and perhaps others—disagree over levels of conduct which demand discipline, the level at which an indefinite block should be invoked, and if and when a single individual (versus a community, only after consensus) should take such a disciplinary action. It is certainly the freedom of individual and sets of editors at Wiki operations to act in nearly whatever manner they see fit; it is likewise the prerogative for me to state clearly that I believe that, while allowed, the action was unwise, and substantially unjust vis-a-vis any ordinary (meaning real-world, extra-Wikiworld) idea of due process. Fastily, at least, should have introduced the topic, and then withdrawn, to let others discuss (given his history and COI with regard to impartiality), and more time should have been allowed to move the issue beyond a tight circle of editors, to a more general community. By the time it moved beyond that circle, the matter was a done deal. All further that I wished stated—about the relative perniciousness of the infraction, about behavior much worse by Admins in my work areas, etc.—has already been stated at the site of the original discussion. Cheers, and best wishes (as we go separate ways). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Upmerged categories[edit]

Hi, I protest to your action regarding deletion of these categories:,_Maps_of_geographical_regions

I spent a lot of my free time to sort maps in some categories such are these ones:

In another words, I have moved all maps from these parent categories to relevant subcategories to make categorization better. Now you deleted some of these subcategories and moved some maps back to parent categories. Why you done such thing? If you had problem with names of some categories (such was "Category:Maps of geographical regions of Serbia") then you should have renamed that category into sometning more suitable to your opinion, but you certainly should have not deleted all these categories.

For example, this map here is certainly not an general map of Serbia and it should not be located in main category "Maps of Serbia". That map indeed show an geographical region within Serbia. I am not going to recreate categories which you deleted, but can we have some compromise solution here? Can we create new category named "Maps of regions of Serbia" (without word "geographical") or anything similar? Or perhaps you can propose suitable name for subcatefory where this map should be included: PANONIAN (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

PANONIAN: You might disagree with my close, but it's clear that "geography of" and "geographical regions of" were considered unnecessary. As for "Maps of regions of ____", that's fine, I think. I see a bunch of those. There is also "Maps of ____ by region‎" (see Category:Maps of regions of Italy and Category:Maps of Italy by region for example). Sven Manguard Wha? 20:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You break the bot[edit]

if you want the right colored close box, do it yourself. There are too many of them to memorize. - No. Please use the correct box... --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should reconsider having a different box for every different discussion process. There's no real reason why we need to have {{udelh}} and {{cfdh}}, when they just add one or two extra words from {{discussion top}}. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Famous woman with fur[edit]

Couldn't you find no better name? In this category were only special known females. A category for people who are looking for more famous women, which are wearing a fur. The other, common categories are named "Fur garments" and "Male fur clothing". -- Kürschner (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I am getting rid of the term "Famous" per Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/05/Category:Famous people. As is clear there, "Famous" is a highly subjective and not terribly useful classifier. I will likely wind up merging other categories as part of this process. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Your bot breaks templates[edit]

Hi Sven. Your bot breaks correct templates {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}} by changing them into {{cc-by-1.0-sa-3.0-migrated}}. You can find examples here and here. Please fix your bot before continuing its operations, and go through its past edits to fix the broken templates. Thank you. tsca (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

tsca: Embarassingly enough, This is also Sven Manguard isn't my bot; all of those edits were done manually. I knew that it had a problem with that specific template, but I also knew that when it ran into that template, the edit summary would end in a "(2)" or a "(3)" (which is the case in the edits you linked to), so I was checking all of the edits that had those edit summaries, and fixing them manually. I guess that I missed a few of them, sorry. I will go take a look and make sure I didn't miss any other ones. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted image[edit]

File:RFpatent.gif is from a patent. and is PD. Another image from the same patent is still here,--haabet 21:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted by Fastily, another administrator, because you did not specify the source of the image. "It is from a patent" is not enough information; we need to know which patent, and who created the image. If you want to have the image undeleted, go to Commons:Undeletion requests, follow the instructions there, and make sure to include the source of the image in that request. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

World Cup[edit]

Hi! I liked your comment about World Cup in the Hanay-block-thread. You might need a new sign

Something like this

as well. Face-smile.svg. Best regards, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello Sven Manguard Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Block by User:Sven Manguard. Geagea (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would please unblock Hanay. I think that your point has been made.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
billinghurst: Hanay is unblocked even before the start of that discussion. Jee 09:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Good-o, just catching up with conversations, and working through notices. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC not ready (I don't think)[edit]

Hi Sven, I just noticed your votes here. But unless I misunderstand, @Rillke: has not yet published the RfC -- it's still under development. You might want to withdraw the votes until it's formally opened, as I think the text of the RfC is still being developed. -Pete F (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Peteforsyth: I think it's live. I got to it from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for Comment - Help required. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's how I found it as well. But I think (and I'm sure Rillke will clarify) that he was seeking help in completing and publishing the RfC, not in responding to its questions. When it's ready for votes, I think you'll know by the {{rfc}} banner at the top. (Since I just set up an RfC myself, I happen to have these technicalities fresh in my memory -- otherwise I'd really have no idea :) -Pete F (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sven, thanks for sharing your opinion. It will certainly help improving the Rfc. The {{Rfc}}-template is not yet there and the options are worth consideration, as well as the overall layout. Therefore I hope you don't mind if I move your comment around. Apologies for the confusion. -- 10:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Rillke: The reason the RfC looks so terribly cluttered is because it is terribly cluttered. You're asking the same question four times, or at least the same two questions two times. In each of the four times you ask, you have several largely redundant options. Commons is a multilingual project, so all RfCs should, in theory, be multilingual. Commons is bound by consensus, so any RfC that achieves one should, in theory, be binding. If you want people to give you a clear answer, the less options you give them, the better chance that the community won't get sidetracked. If you want the RfC to be successful, it needs to be trimmed. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

To do[edit]

[17:27] Sven_Manguard legoktm: I need to get a list of all of the images that link to Flickr in the Template:Information template, and are not a cc-by-2.0 or cc-by-sa-2.0 license
[17:28] Sven_Manguard because I am finding a bunch of them like
[17:28] legoktm um
[17:28] legoktm you'd need to do a join against the externallinks table
[17:28] legoktm so, doable, but I don't have time to do it
[17:29] Sven_Manguard Crap. Who do you know that has the technical skills to do it?
[17:29] legoktm anyone with labs access and knows mysql could do it
[17:29] Sven_Manguard alright
[17:29] Sven_Manguard thanks

How about that?

SELECT pageId, utf8Title FROM(
	SELECT DISTINCT pageId, utf8Title,  CONVERT(categorylinks.cl_to USING utf8) AS cat FROM(
		SELECT CONVERT(page.page_title USING utf8) AS utf8Title, page.page_id AS pageId FROM page
		INNER JOIN externallinks
		ON externallinks.el_from = page.page_id
		page.page_namespace = 6 AND
		externallinks.el_index REGEXP "^https?://" LIMIT 1000
	) AS titlesFromFlickr
	LEFT JOIN categorylinks
	ON titlesFromFlickr.pageId = categorylinks.cl_from AND (categorylinks.cl_to='CC-BY-2.0' OR categorylinks.cl_to='CC-BY-SA-2.0')
) AS titlesFromFlickrWithCat WHERE isnull(cat);

Is CSV-result okay? Excel sheet? -- Rillke(q?) 14:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

sample output. -- Rillke(q?) 14:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sweet! Thanks Rillke. Can you run it with the same output as the sample, but also excluding items in Category:Files from Flickr's 'The Commons' and Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed? I am trying to find files that were taken from Flickr but given the wrong license. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess you also want to exclude PD US*? -- Rillke(q?) 22:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Rillke: Sure, I guess. I've found a grab bag of wrong licenses, but most of the time it was the wrong version of the CC license (either 1.0 because they just put in {{cc-by}} or 3.0 because they assumed everything was in 3.0). Sometimes I did get truly weird ones, though, like a cc-by 2.0 image on Flickr that had {{FAL}} on Commons. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, updated. Might be worth tagging some of them with {{Flickr own work}}. A query for the whole Commons will run about 5 h so please make sure the result is what you want; then I can remove the LIMIT clauses. -- Rillke(q?) 05:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Rillke: There are scenarios that I can't account for, leading to too many false positives. Thank you for offering to help with this, but I am going to need to rethink my plan of attack if I am going to get a list that is anywhere close to manageable. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to make sure I understood you correctly, I should not run this or a similar query, right? -- Rillke(q?) 20:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Correct, at this time I don't have a query that would work well enough for you to run. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, dear Sven Manguard. This night you deleted the cap with Blue Jays logo. Your comment was Derivative of non-free content: non-free logo. However, there are many other files with non-free logos on clothes in Wikimedia Commons. Please, describe me your decision. With respect -- Thermicien (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thermicien: If a photograph is clearly of a person, and that person happens to be wearing a team's logo, we can overlook the logo in most cases because of the principle of de minimis. If the logo is the subject of the image or makes up a substantial part of it, however, de minimis does not apply. Take a look at the case studies on the de minimis page for more information. Note that a small handful of logos do not have copyright protection either because they are too simple or too old. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Futbase block[edit]

Intention of my block was to avoid upload editwarring. The user Talk page is not blocked so the user may ask for unblocking and/or explain their uploads (reverted by few other users. The requester suggested that thare are different versions of the images (with/without logos) elsewhere. However, if you find this block inapropriate, feel free to change or remove it. Unfortunately because of lot work elsewhere, I cannot promise to participate actively in any discussion till next week. Ankry (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ankry: I don't find it objectionable at all, and in fact feel that similar blocks are going to be needed in larger numbers if this area of the project is ever going to be stable. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Funeral of Hugo Chávez 3.jpg , File:Funeral of Hugo Chávez 2.jpg & File:Funeral de Hugo Chavez - Presidencia de la Nación Argentina.jpg[edit]


I was not aware of any prior issues relating to AFP images, in future I will do DR's on any I find. Would you have any objections to me contacting AFP and asking them to confirm the status of the images via COM:OTRS if necessary ? LGA talkedits 02:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

If in image has a source that looks valid, as is the case with these three images, be careful with claims of ownership by any of the major photo houses. A combination of shoddy byline crediting by media outlets and a general ignorance of how copyright ownership changes hands leads to situations where it looks like a photo house took an image (and they may even make an effort to further that impression), but it came from somewhere else.
Upon further investigation, these images actually belong to Miraflores Palace. Take a look at Funeral of Hugo Chávez 3.jpg elsewhere on the internet:
- "AP Photo/Miraflores Presidential Press Office"
- REUTERS/Miraflores Palace
- "Miraflores Palace via Reuters" (slide 22)
- "in this picture provided by the Miraflores Palace."
I'm pretty sure that images are outside of the purview of {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}, so this would be a copyright violation. It is not, however, a violation of AFP's rights, but of Miraflores Palace's rights. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


for the ping. I responded to your close, because I don't believe your attacks on me should be left unaddressed, but if you reply to it I won't respond again. Believe it or not, I don't enjoy being blocked just for pointing out admin abuse. Peace, & take care, DanielTom (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)



Futbase socketpuppet[edit]

Rickismyname2 (talk · contribs) andTimnuehnois (talk · contribs) is his socketpuppet. [1] It is a problem. --Principal adjoint (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)