Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/mld

Inappropriate behaviour of User:Aylaross

User:Cirt posted a complaint about user:Aylaross in my discussion - unfortunately I cannot help him:

"Inappropriate speedy deletion tagging by User:Aylaross:

Hello Cholo Aleman, I hope you are doing well. I noticed that you had previously already warned user Aylaross (talk · contribs) about inappropriate tagging of pages for speedy deletion, at 18:32, 22 November 2009. It appears that your warning to Aylaross (talk · contribs) had no impact, as the user is still continuing with this pattern of disruptive behavior, see [1]. Any ideas on what should be done here? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puh - I have no idea - you are an administrator, perhaps you can discuss it on the administrators noticeboard? - Sorry, I do not know the rules to prevent bad behaviour. Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your response. I shall keep you updated on further developments. -- Cirt (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Check this out - in response to the warnings, Aylaross (talk · contribs) chose not to respond at all - but instead to ignore them all, and blank them out from the user talk page [2] and [3]. What do you think about that? -- Cirt (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

As far as I see, Cirt is wright and aylaross shows a strange misbehavior - but I have no idea how to take action against it. Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth telling him that "out-of-scope" in not a reason for speedy deletion of files. It requires a regular deletion. -- User:Docu at 20:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't really updated deletion policy accordingly. If yes, then there wouldn't really be anything inappropriate about his tagging? -- User:Docu at 20:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After the speedy tags were removed, he should not have reposted them. Especially after being warned about inappropriate speedy deletion tagging in the past. The only response of Aylaross (talk · contribs) was to blank out all the warnings from his talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should invite him to voice his opinion in a regular deletion request rather than telling him to "stop". Whether the file would actually be deleted is another question. -- User:Docu at 21:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I've left a note[4] on his talkpage about this thread.--Túrelio (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I think we are all in agreement that repeatedly adding back the speedy tags after warnings is inappropriate behavior. -- Cirt (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, looking at this file history, maybe you could outline:

(1) what you think would have been an appropriate conduct for Aylaross, provided current Commons policies, guidelines, templates, and given his opinion that the content doesn't meet Commons' scope
(2) if you want, you can also indicate what you would have considered appropriate in terms of "staying ~~melon~~ mellow" and "not staying mellow".

Point #2 is optional, but as you think it's important, it might help Aylaross understand your approach. -- User:Docu at 18:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aylaross (talk · contribs) should not have repeatedly engaged in inappropriate behavior, after warnings by 2 different users to his talk page. Instead, Aylaross (talk · contribs) should have engaged with those 2 users in discussion, instead of choosing to ignore those 2 users and then blank out his talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Though I'm also critical of some of the uploads, that had been tagged for speedy by Aylaross, a regular DR would have been appropriate, at least after he noticed that people were critical about his speedy-tagging. --Túrelio (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nod, so we are at least agreed on that part, however one would hope that Aylaross (talk · contribs) would engage in discussion instead of repeatedly tagging, especially after warnings from two different users. -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of administrator Cirt (talk · contribs) in relation to deletion requests

As Cirt insists on changing back the previous section header and my two questions above haven't really been answered, I guess I have to start a new section:

Cirt, looking at this file history and given the absence of any notice on Aylaross talk page about these, please explain:

(1) what you think would have been an appropriate conduct for Aylaross, provided current Commons policies, guidelines, templates, and given the opinion of Aylaross and Turelio that the content doesn't meet Commons' scope. Please answer this question by referencing specific policies, guidelines, and templates.
(2) what you think is appropriate in terms of "staying ~~melon~~ mellow" and "not staying mellow".

Point #2 is optional, but as you think it's important, it might help Aylaross understand your approach.

Further, given the comment of Turelio [5], can you explain how your own approach is compatible with the current wording of {{Speedy}}. -- User:Docu at 06:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit surprised this morning when I read the notification of Túrelio about this discussion. But, now, I'm a lot more surprised reading the comments about ME. It is true that, perhaps, the speedydeletion procedure wasn't correct. However, what really suprises me is that the same administrator that deleted my tag was the user that uploaded the videos. In my country, this kind of behaviour is called "abuse of power". I still think that these videos of Aaron Saxton are not realistically useful for an educational purpose. See: Commons:Project Scope. But, as my behaviour is being in question, I just hope that an objective administrator (NOT Cirt) takes a decision about them. I feel that the wikipedia could be a very good source of knowledge. But, a free and independent encyclopedia should'nt include in its pages videos for personal propaganda. NOTE: Fortunately, I'm not a man.--Aylaross (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just note that Commons is not Wikipedia. We're not an encyclopedia and have a different scope. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I've already read the Commons' policies about Scope.--Aylaross (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be it as it may, in your last two sentences you were referring to Wikipedia and the goal of a free and independent encyclopedia. I just wanted to note that this is not relevant to whether those files should stay on Commons or not; that's more about whether they should be included in a particular Wikipedia article or not, which is not relevant in this case. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems that cirt's uploads in Category:Videos of former Scientologists seem out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many of these are individually notable individuals. In and of itself, this is an extremely noteworthy topic. Former members of this organization coming forward - an extremely difficult thing for individuals to make the decision to do, was recently profiled on the front page of The New York Times. This has high educational, historical, and encyclopedic value, across multiple different projects. -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aylaross (talk · contribs) should have attempted to engage in discussion, especially after warnings from two different users about repeatedly re-adding the inappropriate tags.
Same as first response, with regard to behavior of Aylaross (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project scope

Perhaps certain Commons editors are not sufficiently familiar with Cirt's work. The current issue of the Wikipedia Signpost notes that one of Cirt's featured articles about Scientology gained offsite attention for the spike of readership it sent to a historic Time Magazine article. Two-thirds of en:wiki's featured articles and good articles about Scientology were written by Cirt. He is also an administrator on at least five different WMF projects including Wikisource and Wikinews where he documents this subject as appropriate to each project's scope. He has also written featured articles about Scientology for Wikinews and is an arbitrator on that project. The material that was recently tagged for speedy deletion already had OTRS tickets; obviously a speedy template is inappropriate in that context. Few Wikimedians are as scrupulous as Cirt about acting within project scope; he contributes at a very high level on specialized subjects. Durova (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that writing articles on wikipedia can have an impact. But I see no good reason for commons hosting Category:Videos of Aaron Saxton (I have not watched them). This kind of thing opens up for just about anybody using wikimedia as a megaphone for his or her favourite cause. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This thread was initiated to discuss out of process speedy deletion nominations. That should be easily resolvable: the items tagged already had OTRS tickets. No administrator noticeboard attention is needed to discuss potential suitability for the regular deletion process. It would probably be more fruitful to discuss concerns with him in user talk, though, before moving to formal venues. This contributor is at the far right end of the bell curve. Durova (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a deletion request, starting with the Saxton videos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate to see things progress that way without an attempt to clarify questions at user talk. Durova (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ResolvedIssue being addressed in proper forum. -- User:Docu at 03:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of administrator Cirt (talk · contribs) in relation to deletion requests (2)

Cirt, (4) can you provide links to the two warnings Aylaross should have taken in account when tagging this file? Above you respond "especially after warnings from two different users about repeatedly re-adding the inappropriate tags. ". I don't think there were any such warnings.

Thus, let me repeat my questions:

(1) what you think would have been an appropriate conduct for Aylaross, provided current Commons policies, guidelines, templates, and given the opinion of Aylaross and Turelio that the content doesn't meet Commons' scope. Please answer this question by referencing specific policies, guidelines, and templates.
(2) what you think is appropriate in terms of "staying ~~melon~~ mellow" and "not staying mellow".
Point #2 is optional, but as you think it's important, it might help Aylaross understand your approach.
(3) Further, given the comment of Turelio [6], can you explain how your own approach is compatible with the current wording of {{Speedy}}.

I hope your responses will clarify your conduct in this matter. -- User:Docu at 03:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd way of following up: the deletion discussion is getting unanimous keeps. Material that isn't deletable certainly isn't speediable. As Cirt noted in the opening post, Aylaross was warned for the same problem last November[7] and resumed the behavior without responding. At the point where an image edit history looks like this[8] an admin board filing is within the scope of appropriate action. Both Aylaross's and Cirt's explanations look like good faith misunderstanding. These are longstanding contributors with good histories; let's wrap this up with a handshake. Durova (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the file history, you will notice that another administrator agreed with Aylaross that the file is out-of-scope. That question is however being addressed in the appropriate forum. It is regrettable that the discussion there wasn't initiated earlier.

In this matter, there seems to be indeed some misunderstanding on Cirt's side (and factual inaccuracy).

Personally, I think the note in November wasn't particularly well thought through. The edit history of, e.g. this file provides some additional information, but the note fails to explain what Aylaross should have done instead. Besides that, it has no relation Cirt's conduct about the file we are discussing. I think Cirt should either attempt to explain his conduct or present excuses to Aylaross and myself.

To put this matter in context, maybe an administrator can provide us with the information how many of the files Aylaross tagged with {{Speedy}} were deleted. -- User:Docu at 07:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's understandable that people might flag anything as problematic if it seems outside the norm, Cirt is the type of exceptional contributor who does outstanding work at such a high level that its relevance is not always obvious to passersby. This particular set of videos is relevant to a set of events that made international news in Australia and New Zealand. All of the reviewers at the deletion nomination agree that this is within project scope now that he has written an article which puts that into context. There really isn't anything to be gained by continuing this thread on the premise that he must have done something wrong. Let's be mellow and be glad this worked out well. Durova (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should bring this up in the corresponding deletion discussion, but if the reviewers there agree as you say, the work doesn't seem to be outside the norm.

This thread was initiated by a contributor who was confused by Cirt's approach after Cirt placed a note on his talk page about another user's edit he labeled as "pattern of disruptive behavior". This type of conduct does seem well outside the norm and I think we can expect that he would attempt to explain his reasons.

Besides that, his way of dealing with a speedy deletion request doesn't seem compatible with our current process on {{Speedy}} nor on the usual approach expected from administrators in deletions. It wasn't too long ago that we discussed another administrator who closed deletion debates on his own uploads. -- User:Docu at 05:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of the speedy deletion criteria that was arguably applicable was the project scope clause, and project scope could only have been questioned on the basis of COM:PS#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose. This is an area where familiarity with the subject--and possibly systemic bias--play a role. The biography article at en:wiki now has forty sources including citations to these videos. This is a very notable person in Australia and New Zealand. This discussion leaves a slightly uneasy sense that perhaps if the subject had done exactly the same things but been Canadian or British his inclusion might not have been challenged in such a persistent and aggressive way? Durova (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost deletion request

Hi there,

In December 2009 I started this deletion request. No doubt because of screwing up on my part, it apparently never appeared on Commons:Deletion requests/2009/12/07, which has since been deleted. The nomination still needs to be resolved though, but I'm not clear on how to rectify the situation. Anrie (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I closed your request. I am often confused as well about our procedure. --Polarlys (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Polarlys (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should not have been deleted. This was a free photo. The alternatives are not. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PD-art. But I restored the one from the Yorck project, whenever it even hurts to look at it. --Polarlys (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter, how is the Yorck one more "free"? Anrie (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source site of the better image tweevioleneneenbas.nl does not give any information about its photo, so it is probably copyrighted. Commons policy and {{PD-Art}} does not change that, as US law does not apply extend to The Netherlands. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've been able to find on Dutch copyright, it won't extend to an identical copy of a public domain painting, since faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art since it doesn't contain any creativity or originality on behalf of the photographer/scanner. Anrie (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any court case on that? But this is probably a German photo, as the painting is in Kassel. German copyright law has automatic protection for Lichtbilder, independent of creativity. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reproduction of two dimensional public domain artwork is specifically exempt from Lichtbilder protection. Please see de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Simple_Bilder and de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Nicht_sch.C3.BCtzbare_Fotos_.28Reproduktionen.29_.E2.80.93_2-D-Regel. Durova (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal to "nach herrschender Meinung" does not convince, so I looked for a source, and I found a text by Mertens. But this is by no means universal, see for example here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Perhaps this discussion should move to Commons talk:Licensing due to the broader implications of that line of reasoning. If that holds true then a very large number of images currently hosted at Commons would need their rights status reevaluated. 21:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Following up: it seems like the best thing here would be either to delete the remaining image per the nominator's rationale or to open a discussion about German copyright law at Commons talk:Licensing. Opinions? Durova (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the objection has dropped I will complete the deletion per Anrie's request. Durova (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reevaluation is not likely, as commons (per the Foundation) has decided to apply {{PD-art}} universally. (I wonder what is happening between Dcoetzee and the NPG.) But if one is cautious about copyright, one should keep the Yorck project uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to waiting for the outcome of a policy discussion if you want to hold one. Durova (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.svg

Hello everybody. I restored that file, because the reason for its deletion seemed excessive, and its wide use on other wikis made it unpractical to delete without further warning. Please have a look (IMHO it should be kept). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a process for that at Undeletion Requestions/Deletion Review or whatever you guys call it here. Go there and state your case. Even if it was used thousands of times, it is a derivative work of a copyrighted logo. (My objections about the flag being incorrect was fixed). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Higher-ranking admins have been known to undelete this way without problem... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed the correct procedure, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.svg I don't want to start a war on that, but a speedy restoration seems appropriate in that case.
The case is the same as for any of the flags in Category:International flags or Category:Flags of organisations : Reproduction of flags (as such) is not governed by the legislation on artistic rights, but specifically by that of official seals and enseigns (Paris convention, article 6ter).

Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't follow that anymore when it comes to flags. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Media missing permission

Please help cleaning our backlogs by doing the following: Every admin reading here is encouraged to clean one of these old day categories today. It’s the average stuff - images from magazines, logos without permission, photos from blogs, artworks by living artists. Let us try to reach a point where a handful admins can do the daily maintenance work without frustration. --Polarlys (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done: 25 January, 30 January, 5 February, 10 February, 14 February, --Polarlys (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please start with the older ones. I am often checking the oldest ones remaining, to see if something can be salvaged. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done the first two. It might be helpful to use some tools during the deletions, e.g. Autodelete combined with Navigation Popups. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moisey

If some other page is more appropriate for this topic I don't mine transferring it --Blacklake (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest indefinitely blocking this user and thorough examination of his uploads for the following reason. This user is indefinitely blocked in ruwiki since 2008 for a number of reasons one of which was repeated uploading of files with improper licensing, derivative works from unfree media, sheer copyvios etc (other reasons include regular additions of original research and/or almost meaningless text in articles on physics, photography and so on). All the warnings and discussions with Moisey proved to be useless. Here is the relevant ruwiki Arbcom case (in Russian, obviously).

Here the same modus operandi goes on. There are lots of copyvio (see File:Bionitsheskoiy glaz.jpg or File:Shkala savisimostey v metrologii.jpg as the newest examples) or improper licensing (eg. a derivative work from GFDL File:Contactlenzen Confortissimo.JPG is marked as PD). Many uploads have already been deleted, see User talk:Moisey/Архив-2009. Again, judging by ruwiki expirience and the abovementioned user talk archive page I believe that warnings or short-term blocks are of no use and it is indefblock which is required to solve the problem. --Blacklake (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm these facts. Moisey was banned in ruwiki for massivе transformations of many articles into unreadable and un-understandable chaos of bad russian language mixed with original researches from his imagination, without any normal sources. Plus plenty of strange unusable images which he made from different sources, including obvious copyvios and awful hand-made drawings. Maybe indefinitely blocking is too hard, but his conributions must me strictly revised. --Panther (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User has serious problems with understanding concept of DW, but I agree with Panther -- indefblock is too hard for now. I've just tried once more time to explain him this concept -- maybe this time he would get it right. Trycatch (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress website revamps, links broken

Today the Library of Congress rolled out a new website design. Apparently they haven't gotten the kinks out and most or all of the source links from Wikipedia are currently broken. Found out about this shortly after the close of the business day in Washington, D.C. So if anything needs verification from that site in the short term, please be patient. Durova (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this yesterday and posted a request for help at User talk:Martin H. Following is the request and two responses: Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US Library of Congress has recently completely redone its website: all of our old URLs, including the ones provided by {{LOC-image}}, are now broken. Do you know how to update this template, since you've edited it in the past? I don't know about other collections, but the HABS items now have URLs such as http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/hh/item/OH1792. This URL has replaced http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.oh1792, from which I uploaded File:Walter Ring House.jpg. Thanks much! Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I attempted one change based one some new URLs that works for some images but doesn't work for your example and I reverted until a better solution can be found. I personally think we should complain, those URLs were advertised as being archival URLs, there's got to be lots of off site users who were also assuming those URLs would last. -Nard the Bard 23:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- I hate that new design, everything is extremely small and hard to read, the most unimportant things on the site are the largest (the items for photographs, data pages, photo captions), the most important information - reference numbers - are the smallest. Thats stupid, 1/3 of the page is wasted for nothing. However, it looks like for HABS/HEAR/HALS the old digital id e.g. http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.al0666 (with the "hhh.al0666" as id) have been vanished and is not longer listed at the source as a digital id. All the links still work, and redirect to http://loc.gov/pictures/item/al0666/. "hhh" was the HABS/HEAR/HALS, dont know what with other LoC collections. We should ask what to do at the Template talk:LOC-image or another centralized discussion. --Martin H. (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that my example of an working old id is not working for all images. However, at http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/catalog.html they say, it will work in future. So we can decide what to do:

1) modify the template to allow for both links, old "hhh.al0666" and new "/item/al0666/" - if this is possible

2) move all "id=hhh.al0666" to "oldid=hhh.al0666" and create the template so that the id parameter will be the new id in future

3) Something different ;)

--Martin H. (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should implement that change right away? Suppose the LoC is debugging? Durova (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just toke some examples at various subcategories of Category:Images from the Library of Congress, the old link is still working, that was improved today. An example with a atm not working link, File:Betty Field.jpg: our old link http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/van.5a51976 should lead to the image, not working at the moment. But if you visit the target with the new link, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/van/item/2004662871/, and klick on 'View larger' at the left hand you will see a page that contains the old loc.pnp link with the id we have here. So I guess it is just temporary that http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/van.5a51976 is not working. Wait one week and all links will be back. The problem in future is, to explain unexpirienced users what ID they have to fill into the template and where they find it. At the record page you now find only "2004662871", http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/2004662871 will not work. So maybe we should do some improvements here in future. I have more suggestions, e.g. more intuitive parameters with only one reqired loc.pnp=van.5a51976 or item=2004662871 or(old) id=van.5a51976, but thats all base on their structur at the moment. Waiting what will happen. --Martin H. (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Let's wait two weeks and see how they work out the bugs. Meanwhile let's bear in mind (re: deletion issues, etc.) that LoC sourcing may take a little extra work to verify at the moment. Durova (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'll store a list of all template current uses in File namespace in a txt file. --Martin H. (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone contact them? It would be nice it someone just called them, asked to speak to a high level website admin and discussed the issue with them. I'm sure they have a quite simple mapping algorithm between the old and the new identifier. --h-stt !? 13:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The change in the interface

The usability beta has been tried out by over 570,000 users across all Wikimedia projects and roughly 80% of those beta users continue using it. See more stats about the beta analysis here. As for Commons, about 7,500 users tried out the beta as of end of February and 86% of users are still using it. The usability team is planning to roll out the current beta interface including the new toolbar as the default interface in April and May; please refer to WMF blog and the tech blog for more details.

As the acceptance rate of the beta by Commons users is relatively high, we would like to make the switch for Commons at first in the second week of April. In order to facilitate the transition and to avoid critical issues, we would like to ask as many of you as possible to try Beta before that date, so that most issues are discovered and fixed before we go default. You can opt-in via the 'Try Beta' link at the top of your interface.

We appreciate that Commons heavily relies on custom user scripts and site-specific JavaScript; Our changes are not especially related to multimedia usability, but we need your help to make sure the most used tools are compatible with the new interface. If you encounter issues using the beta, please share your feedback on the dedicated page.

Many thanks in advance.--Shuhari(Naoko Komura @ WMF) (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped using the new interface on Commons and de.wikipedia.org since one click more is needed to reach admin functions. Or did I miss something? --Polarlys (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same experience as Polarlys. Killiondude (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although admin tasks are not visible at the first sight on the new tab layout, you can select them by hovering over your cursor to the drop down arrow (caret). It does not require another step or a click to get to the admin tasks. We would like to work with the developers or script writers to makesure that site-specific Java Script is compatible with the new interface we are introducing so that you can customize the tabs to meet your needs. --Shuhari (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I tried Beta for the first time, but quit like two minutes later because I couldn't find those links. Now that I know where they are, I still prefer working with Monobook, because (despite what you say) it's quicker to reach those tabs (Tineye, Delete and Log, mostly). I wish there was a way of selecting which tabs we want directly on top of the page, and which ones we want hidden away (is there?) –Tryphon ^☂ 10:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

„Hovering the cursor“ is nothing for power users (as needed here, see our backlogs). Don’t forger us sysops when implementing a nice looking interface for the average or unexperienced user. All it all we need tools within the software to make our work faster and without the need to implement our own tools to do so. Give us shortcuts for or some floater with generic reasons for deletion to click on instead of deletion tabs and drop-down menus. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does your statistic say about admins? The new interface should also be capable of viewing, tagging and deleting files as fast as possible (independent from all these scrips we use today). I never had the feeling that it is too difficult to upload files here. It’s more difficult to get rid of them ;-) Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next to the star tab, there's a tab with an arrow. Make a mouse-over over it, and you'll find the delete and protect buttons. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know. And it works like this: Point. Click. Click. Choose. Click. Click to close the tab. :-( --Polarlys (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook forever! No, vector looks nice, and is probably better for the casual editor, but I don't see many heavy or technically-minded editors liking the reduced access to their tools. I want more tabs, not menus. Rocket000 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amen to that! –Tryphon ^☂ 12:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Vector-skin has been my default since the first day I saw it. Though there are fix I am annoyed by, so far I've either fixed that by a client side script or just left it be. Overall I think it's an improvement. A few things I disliked the most:

- Unused whitespace in the header ; Fixed by #page-base{height:3.6em} #left-navigation{top:1.1em} #right-navigation{margin-top:1.1em}

- Big-screen unfriendly ; Though the default right-tabs (View, Edit, History) jump into the dropdown when the window becomes too narrow. The advanced tabs (Move, Delete, TinEye etc.) do not jump out of the dropdown when the window is wide enough for this. I really like the system of the dropdown. But in my opinion it is mandatory that it works both ways for the sake of unused screenspace and to not have to hover first (because we cant see what's in it untill we hover + .. why not if there's room enough?)

A few things I liked most:

- White background color ; Not yellow, pink etc. But clean white everywhere.

- jQuery loaded ; Enables making nifty little scripts in no-time. Though I'd be nice if it were loaded on every page by default and, unless other libraries are loaded, the $-variable could be used (without need for setting $=jQuery)

- Choosen theme ; I prefer the current vector roll out (Not collapsible left menu's or a different color scheme)

- Searchbar ; Logical, top right

Greetozz., –Krinkle^talk 13:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rep1.JPG

Is this acceptable? If it can get a copyright, this is clearly in violation of copyright, but it may not be eligible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly fine in my opinion. It's definitely ineligible, and it appears to be {{PD-old}} on top of that. So double public domain. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete

Please delete my file File:Sam voc example.jpg. I have created a new one, under the name File:SamaritanVocalizationExample.jpg. Thanks, Shai (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually find the first one better (although SVG would be best). Why not keep both? –Tryphon ^☂ 09:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:FIS Ski-Flying World Championships 2010.ogv

Original message on french "bistro".
Need advices and help about this composite file : no problem with OTRS about pictures, but what about sound track: the song is not a traditional song, lyrics are about ski-jumping in Planica. We can find this song here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORnJOW5VvCo , with slovenian Lyrics writen there, (you can use a Google translate). This song and singers are also under free licence? So? Thank you. --Manu (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jymm

User:Jymm seems to be making a habit of uploading other people's copyright images as his/her own. See this complaint on en:Wikipedia, also see user's talk page. Does this warrant administrator action here? Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality reduction spree

A particular user has taken it upon himself to intentionally reduce the quality of our files. I assume it's being doing to make the file size smaller. I started reverting his contribs, but got tired. Please keep an eye out for more of this behavior. I'm not saying the user is acting in bad faith, I just don't think the changes are welcomed. Rocket000 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin attention for stale nom

Deletion requests/File:OldSkiPoles wb.jpg (hist), nominated five months ago, needs administrator attention (non-admin closures of uncontroversial noms are fairly common on the English language Wikipedia, but I didn't see a provision for it on Commons). – Athaenara ✉ 23:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See COM:DR#Instructions_for_administrators for such a provision. DR closed. — Xavier, 11:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]