User talk:Sven Manguard/2013

Obvious Copyright

Sven, I do not really know the protocol on Commons so much, but I do attempt to work in the image space on WP where I obviously attempt to follow in footsteps of yourself, Fastily, Stefan, etc... Early today I stumbled upon an obvious copyright on Commons (see: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2013 Uribana prison riot.jpg) where another editor claimed that the uploader had previously uploaded copyvios. I wanted to AGF, but generally editors don't make outrageous claims, so I check over the uploader's other files (see: upload history) and every one is from another place on the internet. I opened up deletion discussions for each one individually with links to where the image originated. At first, while still trying to AGF, I thought the editor must not understand copyright, or how it works to upload images. Then I saw the users en.wikipedia talk page (see talk page) where most, if not all had been originally uploaded to en.wikipedia and then later deleted. Obviously the uploader realizes that these are copy vios, but has added that he is the author because he has cropped them (side note, none are cropped). What really took the cake for me was one image that came from Flickr (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:2012 Romanian protests.jpg) where the uploader added the flickerreview bot tag themselves (see diff of addition. That is an obvious admission of guilt in my book. I believe the images all need to be deleted, (probably speedy) and I assume they will be in good time. I am coming to you because I believe there may need to be some administrator action taken against the offender. I honestly do not know where to start here. I sort of could figure it out on en.wikipedia, but I dont know what I need to do to get this all noticed. If you could point me in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it. (If you want to see all of the deletion logs, the best place would be to look at my contributions for today (27 January 2013).

Thanks for your time as I know you are extremely busy on the various projects and in real life. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Denniss has extremely graciously and quickly handled the situation (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kr1st1deejay97). For future reference though, is there a better way to handle this than the way that I did? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to ask about assistance with problematic users, you might find COM:AN, COM:AN/U or COM:AN/B useful. If you want to nominate lots of files for deletion at the same time, consider installing Help:VisualFileChange.js by adding a line to Special:MyPage/common.js. This adds a "perform batch task" link in the toolbox at Special:ListFiles/SomeUser and category pages which allows you to easily nominate files by a user or files in a category for deletion at the same time. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Antena3D.png

Hi!

I send a file to speedy deletion, File:Antena3D.png, and you didn't consider it as elibible for copyright. It's clear that threshold of originality is subjetive and we have diferent points of view but that's not my point.

My point is that the file was uploaded by the user Donperfectodewiki (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user. As you could see at his talk page, he has uploaded a lot of copyrighted files and he is still doing it whenever he wants.

That logo was first uploaded to File:Logo-Antena-3.png. After a discussion at Spanish Wikipedia about the use of copyrighted images comming from Commons, a deletion resquet was opened in Commons. The file was deleted due to that deletion resquet.

Just after the file was deleted, the user re-uploaded a version of it to File:Antena-3.svg. And when it was deleted again, he re-uploaded it to File:Antena3D.png. He didn't reply at the deletion resquet, he didn't reply at the talk pages, even he didn't use the PD-shape template. He just re-uploaded, and reuploaded, and reuploaded it... and every time he added it to dozen of articles at es.wiki.

So the lesson that we are giving to a user who has the hobby of uploading commercial logos is that he only have to reupload, reupload, and reupload it until he finds someone that feels that the file should keep at Commons.

I think that's not a good lesson at all, apart of if the imagen is original or not.

Regards, --HrAd (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions about renaming image files that show people

Thanks for your advice on my correcting of file names. I had a question about another thing that I was hoping you could answer. If I come across a photo of a singer or some other person and the filename of the photo either does not have the person's name or it just has their first name with no last name, or just their last name and no first name, should we rename the picture so that it includes both their first and last name? (This would help people figure out who exactly the photo is of without having to click the image and read the file description). Or, would that be considered as another one of those minor changes you had recommended that I avoid making? (Also, I am not talking about people who are known by their first name such as Madonna, Cher, or Rihanna). Thank you for your help.
Examples are: File:200d.jpg - which is of Michelle Shaprow; File:Greta44.jpg - which is of Greta Salpeter; File:Gordonphoto.jpg - which is of Mikalah Gordon.

--Dobie80 (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

For some reason I don't have the orange banner showing a new change to this page, so while I've been on Commons in the past two days, I didn't see that you'd made an edit here. File:200d.jpg is an utterly useless name, feel free to change it. The other two are passable. I'd say if you want to change those, go ahead. Those names aren't good enough that a change would be 'minor' but not bad enough that a change would be 'needed'. I personally wouldn't take the time to move them, but if you like moving files, those are decent candidates, and no one would bat an eye if you made those changes. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd say such changes were needed: "Greta44" is a nearly-meaningless name, as is "Gordonphoto" - there are so many people who have, or who have had the names Greta and Gordon that no-one would know what the files were of. Of course, my file names tend to be around a dozen words, so... Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, guys. Dobie80 (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Zombie drawing.jpg

Hello, quick question about this deletion: it was a a file found on the web with CC license. I don't understand why it's not acceptable...? Thank you for your answer. Triton (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. So the license it was under is the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license. Commons does not allow any of the licenses that have the NonCommercial restriction, because we view it as too restrictive. Take a look at the blue box at the top of this page for more details. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I wasn't aware of this restriction Triton (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. Both we, and Creative Commons, need to do a better job of teaching that there's a huge variation within CC licenses. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

To be sure I understood correctly: are this one and this one acceptable? And I can edit them before upload also? Triton (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Both images are licensed under the Attribution 2.0 (CC BY 2.0) license, which is acceptable. That being said, it appears highly unlikely that the uploader of the second image is its rightful owner, as the person has several images that are clearly copyrighted by other parties that he is licensing under CC BY 2.0. Therefore I would still not upload the second one. The first one is perfectly fine though. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Wikidata edit interface glitch on IE7.png

File:Wikidata edit interface glitch on IE7.png 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Ricordisamoa 23:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

<rolls eyes>Sigh</rolls eyes>. I've fixed the incredibly minor issue you brought up and simply closed out the deletion nomination. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Shanghai University title.png

File:Shanghai University title.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Wylve (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

sockpuppet of User:MarkMysoe

User:MarkMysoe is socking and evading block under username EnzoRivos. He uploaded on commons the same files with exactly the same description like he uploaded on English wikipedia before he got blocked also there, for example: [1] and [2]. Also if you look at the type of uploaded images (Ghanian people, Ghanian logos or AC Milan footballers) and exatly the same style of writing descriptions: MarkMysoe uploads[3][4] EnzoRivos[5], you will be sure that it's he.--Oleola (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Gangst3r66

Hello Sven,

You have deleted the files from this user on May 19th. It didn't took him 12 hours to reupload the same files and some new files which are all under copyright again (for example : File:African village.jpeg from [6] and File:African market.JPG from [7]). Thank you! --SamuelFreli (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I've deleted the files and given him a three month block. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Bulatov stellations

Template:Bulatov stellations 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 template, 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. 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!

Rezonansowy (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

CONGRATULATION CONGRATULATION CONGRATULATION

You have unlocked cake

YOU'VE WON ONE WIKIDATA CONGRATULATION

To redeem take wikidata candle to cake and insert hypoetenuse

Again congratulation

...I don't know. -— Isarra ༆ 22:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

CONGRATULATION YOU HAVE UNLOCKED YOUR CAKE there is now time for cake time for cake !

Again congratulation

-— Isarra ༆ 06:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Block review

Thank you, Sven, for the review of the discussion, and your sense of justice. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't mistake me for being "on your side", because I'm not. My issue was that the block was, in my view, an involved block. That being said, the reason why it's an involved block is because the two of you went after each other. You two had issues co-existing then, and you have issues co-existing now. If things don't change, it will not end well for either of you. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that as an impartial user who is acquainted with the matter right from the beginning you will be interested in this user conduct report. This has gone on for too long, so sweeping it under the carpet doesn't seem like a good solution and will not help much. I would be thankful for your comment in this regard. Regards, --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleting picture

Hi, please restore File:G-Dragon - Coup D'Etat black cover.jpg. This cover has an OTRS permission. There was an OTRS tag on it for a reason. Before deleting a validly licenced picture, would you mind next time to confirm the validity of the OTRS permission with someone from the OTRS team, if you don't believe me, the uploader, who is also an OTRS team member? Thank you... Teemeah (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Since you are an OTRS member yourself, you could have just clicked on the ticket link... https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2013102510001373 Please restore asap, as commonsdelinker has already deleted it from articles. Thanks. Teemeah (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I missed it. Not sure how, but I did. No need to get so hostile about it. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Closed discussion

It should have been obvious to you that we edit-conflicted. ;) --Andreas JN466 21:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It was not, but if that's what happened, carry on. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso (the making of).ogv

Hi Sven. Just a quick note to let you know I've reverted your closure for the reasons I have stated on the page. I think we should do this in a rather different way, but thanks for your initiative here. All the best, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sven, Just a word to let you know that I support you on this closure, if it matters. ;) Yann (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, It is me again. ;o)

You said that you intend to close this by Sunday. Sunday is gone, but the circus is still going on. Do you intend to close it today? Otherwise, I am going to do it. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yann, I am well aware that "the circus is still going on". I am going to shoot an email to the rest of the people on the team letting them know that we're under time pressure. I can make no guarantees, other than that I guarantee that if you close it, it will only make the situation worse. If I thought that a close by one admin would stick, I'd have closed it myself. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sven, thanks you for all your efforts on this, and for bringing the community with you on the closure process. Nice to see the DR has been laid to rest at last. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sven, Thank you for taking on this difficult task. It might be considered over-the-top to thank each individual member of the closing group individually, but my thanks go to all of you. Smallbones (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, but problems continue. If you or your fellow-closers, have the guts to be real admins, you'll close the talk page off too. The usual crowd with "comprehension issues" are continuing to stir things up and won't take a clear (if short) statement without deliberately misconstruing it to make their silly points. I repeat what I said elsewhere, that you should be careful not to be critical of others, not least because it might let your impartiality slip. And I would be strongly against one part of the group giving their opinions, or of all of them publishing their own opinions. We got enough of that during the discussion. All that counts is the consensus opinion. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the talk page should be closed, personally, because I see a continuation of the personal attacks that convinced me to get involved in making sure that the DR was closed in the first place. I also know that it would look very bad, borderline unethical, for an admin involved in a close to freeze the discussion on that close. I recommend you go ask an admin that's been uninvolved in either the DR or the close, and see if that person will lock the page. Alteratively, get some blocks issued. I have no problem with people commenting on the close itself, and if they disagree with it, or find it too short, or find it all one big silly conspiracy, that's there right to post it. There are, however, three or four users that have spent the majority of the DR taking about each other (read: personal attacks), rather than the DR or the close. I don't think blocking those people would stick, and I think it would ratchet up the drama considerably (both sad statements), but it is an option. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Well I'm not so neutral so an AN request from someone "who's side won" to close discussion of the outcome would be picked on too. My comment was more an expression of disappointment with admins... This whole farce has been an admin failure from the 'crat who started the mess through to the troll that infested the DR from the moment it opened and still won't stop. That DR has multiple admins and multiple 'crats watching it and if they stand around doing nothing about something under their noses then really what would be gained by a formal request? As for blocks, well a block out of the blue isn't good. There needs to be some "warning from above", rather than from the person being picked on. Commons is crap at standing up to the bullies and crazies. As long as they keep uploading pictures (any pictures), you're bulletproof... -- Colin (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Can you please delete File:Eurohistory.gif? --Rschen7754 04:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Image deleted. User indeffed for cross-wiki vandalism. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)