Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Exhibitionist user: that's different
Line 160: Line 160:
----
----
Haven't looked at the photos, but Fry1989 may have been thinking of [[Commons:Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera]]... -- [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Haven't looked at the photos, but Fry1989 may have been thinking of [[Commons:Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera]]... -- [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:However it is somewhat ironic to see someone who apparently wants everyone to know how ''small'' their weiner is. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


== Copyright and an old painting ==
== Copyright and an old painting ==

Revision as of 20:26, 23 September 2012

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

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-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.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 DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

Note

  • Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
  • It is usually appropriate to notify the user(s) concerned. {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN/U|thread=|reason=}} is available for this.
  • Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.


Copyright and old paintings

Moved to COM:HD#Copyright and old paintings

Request by user to rename against our generally accepted naming conventions regarding non-English names

My friend has requested renaming of a file which I've refused to rename twice. I look for opinions of others on this issue. I'm reproducing our dialogue from his/her talkpage:
Please read this guideline for which files should not be renamed? # 2. We cannot rename a non-English file into English. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Well I totally understand this rule, but it was for harmonizing as a set of images:
    • File:NATO Medal Yugoslavia ribbon bar.svg
    • File:NATO Medal w Służbie Pokoju i Wolności BAR.svg
    • File:NATO Medal Eagle Assist ribbon bar.svg
    • File:NATO Medal Active Endeavour ribbon bar.svg
    • File:NATO Medal non-article-5 Balkans ribbon bar.svg
    • File:NATO Medal ISAF ribbon bar.svg
    • File:NATO Medal Macedonia ribbon bar.svg
as you can see, this one is the only "non english" filename, for this set of images. And as english is the official NATO language I thought its "better" if its english. I just want to highlight this fact. If I cant change ur oppinion its ok as well :) --Flor!an (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harmonizing a set of image names is an accepted reasoning for file renaming. I don't believe there's a over-riding and absolute rule that "We can't rename a file from one language to another" even when it's in the best interest of the file(s) and is acceptable under the 7 renaming guidelines. Fry1989 eh? 21:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Fry1989, for your opinion. I now look for the opinions of at least two admins / fellow filemovers before deciding on the rename request as I see a conflict between the harmonizing rule v/s honouring non-English filenames. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
There are plenty of files in other languages in category:Ribbon bars of NATO; harmonisation is not desirable (and not feasible) in such case and has lower priority that the the respect of the uploader language. Harmonisation and/or extension of the file descriptions will be much more effective. --Foroa (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Foroa: FYI here I'm talking about the "NATO issued medals". Some nation wear different variation of these eg. Norway Version (File:NATO-medaljen Former Yugoslavia.svg) (with "fullsize" Plate on it) = Norwegian Name; or German Version: (File:NATO FORMER YUGOSLAVIA ribbon (Bundeswehr).jpg) (smaller size). And for allot images in this Category I requested a delete because there are simply wrong drawed. --Flor!an (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons_talk:File_renaming#Naming_convention_for_ranks_and_insignia. If you want harmonisation for templates, use a naming scheme that redirects to the best picture available in that class so that better versions/colors/formats don't need renaming of other files. --Foroa (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, as I see, Flor!an's rename request seems to be endorsed by Fry1989, whereas my cautious approach in not renaming the file straightaway is endorsed by Foroa. I still need one or two more opinions of at least two admins / fellow filemovers from this noticeboard. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

 Comment This has nothing to do on the ADMIN noticeboard, no admin actions are needed. Please Hindustanilanguage use the village pump (COM:VP) for this kind of questions. You are regularly posting this kind of question on the COM:ANU. Please avoid this when not needed. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selim, my personal view on the issue is that status quo should be maintained. But Flor!an insisted on "harmonisation" principle over our guideline for which files should not be renamed? # 2. Since there is absolutely no ego issue involved, I felt let me take the "opinion" not "action" of you people on the issue. If this open, friendly and democratic approach causes you inconvenience, sorry. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The approach is not the problem, but you'll get more answer from the village pump (which is the place for thoses kind of questions IMO). The administrator noticeboard is to be used when administrators are needed. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. Additionally, this isn't so much a problem with the user who requested the renaming as with the policy to be applied, so it doesn't belong in User problems. It's more of a "policy wonk" question, and those people tend to hang out at the Village pump. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Esoglou edit warring on File:Holysee-arms.svg (and other files)

Esoglou has reverted this file once again against previous standing consensus and official sources. As promised if such an action was repeated, I bring this here. Previous consensus was made at this Deletion Request (I apologize, it's a very long page to read).

To be absolutely clear for those reading this, we are taking about the arrangement of the two keys. A: with the gold key bending upwards to the right, and B: the gold key bending upwards towards the left.

Esoglou was the only user supporting the idea that the keys are the way he has arranged them (arrangement B), while all other users agreed, based on all available official sources that the keys are the other way around. The official sources include The Holy See Press Office in English (and it's Italian version shows/describes) the same arrangement. Also showing this arrangement is the website of the Holy Diocese of Rome's website (wherever it shows the keys symbol in colour), and the Vatican City's website site. There are no official sources showing it Esoglou's way only secondary opinion-based sources that he is fond of. Because of that, when it was made clear that all three of us on that DR would not change out minds, he switched from trying to convince us that his sources are right to trying to say that the Holy See and the other official sources are wrong. He took this battle up to English Wikipedia's article on the Holy See and Vatican's coat of arms, and again here on this other talk page where I have limited involvement. He claims a "new consensus" has been formed, but it appears to be without the involvement of any of the three of us who were in the DR. Most likely, he simply brought down people who agree with him from English Wikipedia, held a fake vote and pretended that it erases everything else, including the simply fact that the Holy See is absolutely clear what way the keys are arranged.

I am therefore asking for the file to be reverted, protected, and a proper and complete discussion take place to solve this once and for all. Esoglou's forcing of his ways against the sources he doesn't like is neither appropriate or helpful to the problem. This AN/U is not to further discuss the issue so I ask that any opinions about the arrangement of the keys be left out, the only purpose of this AN/U is to enforce a hold on any reverts or changes until a broad discussion involving all sources and many users can take place and a final decision based on true consensus is made and enforced. Fry1989 eh? 20:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I think my name is bound to crop up in this discussion one way or another. I was dragged into the discussion when I tried to respond a rename request about File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg. The rename request could have not been fulfilled; even if it could, I would have declined it on the merits of being controversial. So, I tried to resolve the problem by unmerging file's history but I was unsuccessful because I didn't know who deep the problem goes. These editors have issues with an image description; however, to make their point, they have resolved to revision warring, a Deletion Request and even making up rules that Commons do not have. The only thing they have not tried yet is a civil discussion in absence of all consensus-disruptive activities. The fact is that apart from the restrictions on licensing and project scope, a contributor has wide latitude to contribute his free work of art. Another editor may upload newer revision and overwrite that image for the right reasons, but has no right to overwrite it with a completely different image because the original is not what the editor thinks it should be or because he want to usurp the file name. Fleet Command (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not the name, whether it be "coat of arms", "emblem" or whatever else. The sole issue is that the Holy See is explicitly clear on it's websites, in two separate languages, of how the gold and silver keys are arranged. Esoglou insists on reverting to have them arranged the opposite, choosing to ignore what the Holy See says (about it's own symbol, no less), in favour of secondary sources, saying that the Holy See is wrong. Because of Esoglou's absolute insistence on this issue, I am asking for the file to be reverted to how the Holy See says it must be, and protected while a broad discussion can take place with all available sources from all users, and once a true consensus (of more users than just the original 4 who were involved) is formed. Once that consensus is clear, it will be enforced on the file(s), and Esoglou will have to abide by it, just as any other user. Fry1989 eh? 21:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fry, a "free image" by definition is a work based on which derivative works can be made, in spite of the consensus, the opinion of the Holy See or that of the secondary sources. That is why we do not have COM:RS or COM:CONSENSUS in Commons. F l a n k e r has irrevocably donated a free image to the public domain that you, for whatever reason, wish to censor. What you should have tried at the very beginning was to politely show Esoglou that both files can co-exist peacefully on the project. Fleet Command (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the two versions can NOT coexist peascefully when you Esoglou have edit warred to get your way on atleast two files, against the reverts of multiple users. You caused this problem, and now it needs to be dealt with. The Holy See is clear. If you think they are wrong, you need to form a consensus and get others to agree with you, not edit war until others get tired of dealing with you and walk away. This discussion is absolutely necessary to clear this issue up, because it didn't work in a DR when 3 users all told you that you're wrong, you refused to accept it and edit warred anyways. I should be asking for you to be blocked. Fry1989 eh? 01:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I repeat myself for one last time: The type of thinking that caused a problem cannot fix it. The solution is to stop commenting on each other and start negotiating a course of action. Instead of using past tense verbs and second person pronouns, start using present tense sentences in subjunctive mood. Politely request an admin to unmerge the history into new file with appropriate licenses. Then, go to Wikipedia and request Mediation Cabal to mediate your discussion. If that didn't work, file for Mediation Committee action. At all this time, both version must remain available on Commons and none should comment on another.
The choice, of course, is yours. You can continue in the current path, but I assure you, if you do so, by the time an admin even comes to intervene, you are both disenfranchised with not only the project but the world itself. Fleet Command (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fry, in line with consensus among the editors discussing this file, I reverted it to the original, thinking it right to restore an image of the arms of the Holy See for which reliable secondary sources vouch. You reverted this same file to an altered image, thinking that Commons should contain no image except what corresponds to your interpretation of a certain webpage, an interpretation unsupported by reference to a secondary source. You had earlier altered out of recognition the other file that showed the arms of the Holy See with the gold key in bend, File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg, the history of which is now, as a result of overwritings aimed at eliminating images of the arms as described in the secondary sources, to be found at File:Emblem of the Holy See.svg. Which of us (if either) is right? Your changes both to this file and to File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg contravene the proposed guidelines Commons:Overwriting existing files, which exclude overwritings that involve "controversial or contested changes". The discussions on the matter, including this one, amply show that your overwritings to eliminate all images of the coat of arms of the Holy See as described in reliable secondary sources are indeed controversial and are contested and should not be allowed. This is something that the Administrators should look into. Esoglou (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FleetCommand, at present the image of the arms of the Holy See as described in the secondary sources is not present on Commons. As long as that continues, Fry will feel no need to do anything. What should I do? Esoglou (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I AM trying to do something. I'm trying to get a community discussion started so this problem can be solved once and for all. YOU caused this problem by edit warring on File:Emblem of the Holy See.svg and File:Emblem of the Holy See within 3to2.svg (and possibly others). The fact some of those edits have been deleted doesn't change the fact you did it, against the reverts of multiple users telling you not to. I'm trying to fix this, and your stubbornness is making it worse. Community consensus on this issue is absolutely necessary for as long as the Holy See says one thing about it's own symbol and Esoglou the user refuses to accept it and edit war to get it the other way. Fry1989 eh? 18:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite willing to discuss the problem of our divergent views on whether an image of the coat of arms of the Holy See as reliable secondary sources describe it is allowed on Commons, or whether instead any and all such images can and should be altered to what you say the arms should be. Your withdrawal from the discussion begun at File talk:Holysee-arms.svg#Correct image left a consensus there on the basis of which I restored the image that the secondary sources describe. Where do you want the discussion to take place? Here (if such is allowed)? Or where else? Esoglou (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrew from that discussion because you simply brought down your friends from English Wikipedia to agree with you and form a false consensus so that you could revert File:Holysee-arms.svg, the third file you edit warred on. Fry1989 eh? 19:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio uploads of Wikipics (talk · contribs)

The uploads of Wikipics look like copyvio as this one has a watermark and this one is at panoramio, but I'm not sure about them all. What do you think? What kind of actions should we take? Trijnsteltalk 10:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All taken with the same cam it seems, at least they have very similar exif data. Several (all?) images are found in this Panoramio account. I'd tag them as no permission as there's a remote chance they are the same user. --Denniss (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DaniBet

Somebody should definitely keep an eye out on his latest edits. He had all his photos deleted once at the beginning of the month, now he's back with more of the same.--Strainu (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least three of the images are copyright violations. {{Copyvio}} tags added to those. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Files deleted and user off for a month. I remember some of these files were used for vandalism on en or another wiki. --Denniss (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio uploads by User:Onjoly

I have recently tagged many of uploads of Onjoly (talk · contribs) for copyvio. They are all of actress Category:Ragini Khanna. Few of those were easy to find whereas others were difficult as the user seems to be morphing all images. I request that all uploads be deleted and some suitable action be taken on user. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Files nuked, user warned. --Denniss (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asking again for review

of user's uploads by an admin or admins. I tagged some remaining UPI photos today and here's what happened at en.WP. Thanks, We hope (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Donaldduck100 a new account of Sridhar1000 or Saleem100?

I've suspicion that going by the uploads / edits as well as the naming, Donaldduck100 is a new avtar of the two blocked accounts. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Request for protection of file

Multiple reliable sources say that the coat of arms of the Holy See has the gold key in bend and the silver key in en:bend sinister. See Donald Lindsay Galbreath, A Treatise on Ecclesiastical Heraldry (W. Heffer and Sons, 1930), p. 9; Bruno Bernhard Heim, Heraldry in the Catholic Church: Its Origin, Customs and Laws (Van Duren 1978 ISBN 9780391008731), p. 54; Heraldry Society of Great Britain; Michel Pastoureau, "Keys" in Philippe Levillain, The Papacy: An Encyclopedia (Routledge 2002 ISBN 9780415922302), vol. 2, p. 891. Two images of the coat of arms of the Holy See as thus described were uploaded to Commons. One, originally titled File:Coat of arms of the Holy See.svg, has been overwritten out of recognition and renamed File:Emblem of the Holy See.svg (see its history). The other image is File:Holysee-arms.svg, and attempts have been made to overwrite this file too so as to remove from Commons the image of the coat of arms described by the reliable sources.

I ask the Administrators to be so good as to protect File:Holysee-arms.svg from elimination of the image it was created to present or else to use some other means to preserve on Commons just one image of what these reliable sources describe as the coat of arms of the Holy See, leaving editors free to upload additional files representing whatever ideas they may have of what the coat of arms of the Holy See is or ought to be. Esoglou (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wise admins would take notice that there is already an AN/U above and that there was a previous consensus which Esoglou ignored and edit warred against. This issue needs a proper discussion of all the sources and a true consensus, which the above AN/U is requesting. To blindly take Esoglou's request of file protection without looking at the issue would be a grave mistake considering Esoglou is the one who has caused this problem by his absolute refusal to accept an undeniably straightforward official source. Fry1989 eh? 18:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fry1989 has again eliminated the one image of the coat of arms of the Holy See on Commons that corresponds to the indications in reliable sources. It would be better if Fry simply uploaded a version of the coat of arms corresponding to his personal interpretation of what he calls "an undeniably straightforward official source", an interpretation for which he has presented no reference to a secondary source (in spite of the Wikipedia rule that "all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors"), an "official source" moreover that Wikipedia editors have declared an unreliable source for either of two opposing claims of its meaning. In the absence of protection for the lone image left on Commons of the Holy See coat of arms that has reliable secondary sources to back it up, I am forced to restore it in what appears to be an edit war.
On second thoughts, I am delaying the restoration of the reliably sourced image, which is at present quite missing from Commons. Esoglou (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're the ONLY person saying the Holy See isn't reliable about it's own symbol. You're the only one who seems to think that edit warring to get his way is better than having a broad discussion that would sort this out once and for all. You're also trying to apply Wikipedia rules for reliability and validity to Commons where the rules are very different. I don't have time for you to say bullshit about me, I've worked very hard to keep the peace in this matter and to get it worked out, and the only reason it isn't yet is because there are admins here who are so incompetent in their job that they would rather ignore an AN/U started by my name regardless of the validity than deal with a real issue that needs to be solved. Fry1989 eh? 19:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Fry, it is you who, on finding you were a minority of one, refused to discuss the matter further on the talk page of the image. You have engaged in an edit war with me. Let's instead discuss reasonably the appropriateness of eliminating from Commons the single remaining image that has the backing of several reliable sources. Why cannot it be allowed on Commons? Esoglou (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You brought your Wikipedia friends down to Commons to that talk page to build a fake consensus, I had nothing to add to such games like that. What I'm trying to achieve is a real consensus involving dozens of users, a consensus that regardless of the result both of us would have to accept. You are the one edit warring against an official source, that's how things work here, you are approaching it with a Wikipedia understanding of reliability rules which simply do not exist here. Fry1989 eh? 19:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was a real consensus, not a fake, and I look forward to a result that "both of us would have to accept". I do not expect to be shown the Commons rule that you claim entitles you to eliminate this well-sourced image, as you have already eliminated another. Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It WAS fake, it was just you and two buddies, which actually makes it a tie 3/3 to the three of us who disagree in that DR. There is no consensus and until there is this will not be resolved. Faking one doesn't give you the right to do what you have done. Fry1989 eh? 19:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a) Of the other two, one had no involvement whatever with the question on the English Wikipedia; b) There was no previous threesome in favour of your present claim: even you were against it, as shown also in the discussion on the reliability of either your then interpretation of what you call an undeniably straightforward official source or the opposing view of Bellae artes. But let us leave these side-questions alone. The essential question is still: On what grounds do you claim that the reliably sourced image cannot be allowed to exist on Commons? I don't object to you uploading on Commons either your earlier interpretation of the "undeniably straightforward official source" or your present interpretation of it. Esoglou (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enought of this, I've deleted the file and splited in two version so each of you have his own version, now go fight on wikipedia to use the right version:

--PierreSelim (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As is obvious from what I said above, I am happy with this, as long as Fry does not now set about eliminating this file too. Esoglou (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pierre Selim, don't tell me "enough of this", I've tried to do everything right. There are disputes like this all the time about flags and coats of arms, they're almost always solved by a consensus-forming discussion, which is what I am trying very hard to get going. It's a childish and short-sighted to think that simply splitting up the files is a magical cure to a serious problem. Fry1989 eh? 20:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we care to let you edit-war until you get your way? There are choices of images for the projects to use. Let them choose.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you just blind or what? This entire thing is an attempt to solve the issue, not make it worse. If the Holy See says th esilver key is on one side and the gold on the other, then to flip them around is FAKE! There was already a consensus formed to follow what the Holy See says. It's Esoglou who has edit warred and fought and even gone so far as to build a fake consensus to over-ride it. I've been consistent in trying to follow the official sources and have a consensus. It of course doesn't matter to someone like you, all you care about is getting in the way without adding anything valuable. This isn't about getting my way, my language has always been that once a consensus is formed, both Esoglou and I would be bound by it regardless of the result. Does that sound like I only want my way?? No, it's the opposite, but of course you've never been able to read my posts correctly, you always misinterpret them. Btw, I reverted myself, in case you didn't notice. Fry1989 eh? 20:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fry, please accept that Commons has room for more than one version. It has room even for the shield-less version that you formerly fought for, if you want it. (Congratulations on your "reverting yourself" by repeating the reversion already done by another editor.) Esoglou (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is room, but the proper room is to acknowledge that there is an official way the symbol is supposed to be, and that any other arrangements of the keys are unofficial. You are trying to force an arrangement against what the Holy See says it is as if that was the real arrangement of the keys and the Holy See is so dumb and ignorant they don't even know what their own symbol is supposed to be like. As for the self-revision, don't get smart with me, Prosfilaes and I clicked the revert at the exact same time, it was out of chance, I didn't do it "after" him for good measure. Fry1989 eh? 20:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for misinterpreting the reverting. You are right in that. I do not believe you are right in either your present or your former interpretation of what is on the Press Office website, and I do believe that what the cited experts on ecclesiastical heraldry expressly said is authoritative. Esoglou (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well since the Holy See's Press Office both says it in text and shows it in illustration in both English and Italian on two separate pages, you're the one who needs to convince people they're wrong, not me who needs to convince people they're right. As for how I mark my edits, that's none of your business. Fry1989 eh? 21:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Holy See Press Office shows an illustration of the coat of arms of Vatican City State, not of the Holy See. The arms of the state are exactly as in File:Holysee-arms-B.svg and were adopted by law in 1929, the year the state was founded. They have the silver key in bend. The same arms of the state are shown in the flag of the state, as AnonMoos says below. While the English version of the Press Office information does mention (without specifying) a coat of arms of the Holy See, the Italian version makes no mention whatever of the Holy See's coat of arms: it speaks only of that of Vatican City State. In short, the Press Office does not say either in text or in illustration that the arms of the Holy See have the silver key where the reliable secondary sources clearly state is the place of the gold key in the arms of that distinct entity, which is centuries older than 1929.
However, Commons has room for an image showing your present interpretation of what is on the Press Office webpage, and indeed also for the interpretation of that same material that you formerly argued for no less heatedly, when you overwrote the file that has since been renamed as File:Emblem of the Holy See.svg. Any Commons contributor who believes - as you did in the recent past - that the Press Office gives that as the coat of arms of the Holy See is free to upload it as File:Holysee-arms-C.svg. Esoglou (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Guide to the Flags of the World by Mauro Talocci, revised and updated by Whitney Smith (ISBN 0-688-01141-1), p. 53, shows the silver key in bend and the gold key in bend sinister on the coat of arms of the Vatican City State, but the reverse arrangement as supporters for the coat of arms of John Paul II! Otherwise, I don't know and don't care very much about the facts in dispute here -- however, I have observed in the past that sometimes Fry1989 is a little too quick to try to have only one image file for a particular emblem on Common, and to try to get all other alternative image files deleted or declared so-called "superseded"[sic], even when there's no real valid reason why this should be done...
In general, Commons should not host blatantly factually-false or hoaxing images, but it also shouldn't take sides in a legitimate dispute between competing interpretations, or attempt to arbitrate between conflicting somewhat reliable sources. Instead, Commons should allow the alternative legitimate interpretations to coexist, and leave it up to the individual Wikipedias to decide. It's not our job here at Commons to make such decisions for the Wikipedias. AnonMoos (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who has used the new name User:Szillasst assinmk has overwritten File:Holysee-arms-A to make it identical with File:Holysee-arms-B. What should be done? Esoglou (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted and warned this user. Yann (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio uploads by single user

See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BCooper116.jpg for the first one I found (on en.wiki). User:Tanough appears well-meaning but I don't see OTRS permissions for files, and they aren't obviously freely available. In addition, the contributor for many pictures on the GRG website (RYoung) is active on en.wiki, so I suspect if he wanted to release his photos he would have done so by now. Nevertheless, without permission, I think these all need to be deleted. (For questions, please ping me on en.wiki.) Frank (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:BCooper116.jpg seems to have been the only upload by this user until now. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were 18 in total, all of which have since been deleted by User:Denniss. (Thanks, Denniss!) Frank (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Jermboy sock

This time it's named User:Jermboyfarish11, please block per norm. Fry1989 eh? 19:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Blocked indef. INeverCry 19:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beypeople and User:Akrampathan

User:Beypeople and User:Akrampathan appear to be the same going by the edit history of some of the files on Commons. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Exhibitionist user

User:Acerman76 has uploaded several photos which are likely of himself. Check for scope and delete please. Fry1989 eh? 01:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - If there is not a license problem, some of them at least would be on scope, since it's an uncommon variant of that part of the body.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the body part that's the question, it's the multiple repetitious angles that makes this exhibitionist, and that's generally not in scope. I believe there's a guideline somewhere about "Commons doesn't need you to drop your pants for posterity". Fry1989 eh? 01:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on the subject, don't you agree? I don't know how many images of micropenis are here on Commons, but I suspect they are not that many. I believe a DR would be the proper place to decide that.--- Darwin Ahoy! 02:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally do a DR for an image or two, but not as many as were uploaded, which I believe require an overview. Fry1989 eh? 02:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't looked at the photos, but Fry1989 may have been thinking of Commons:Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera... -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However it is somewhat ironic to see someone who apparently wants everyone to know how small their weiner is. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and an old painting

Is this painting protected by copyright?

See the EXIF data.--Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May be the photo is protected. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added PD-Art template, as the photo was not shot by the uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=78941885"