Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:AN)
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:AN

  Welcome   Community portal   Help desk
Upload help
  Village pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 

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 report]
User problems
[new report]
Blocks and protections
[new report]
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 here.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55
Translate this page
Commons discussion pages (index)



File:Volozh Arkady.jpg[edit]

This image is the uploader's only upload on Commons. If you think it is the flickr account owner's work, please feel free to pass it. If not, please consider filing a DR or a speedy delete. The uploader has one copyvio notice on his talkpage apparently on the same subject. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, no, the image (and crops from it) has been available on the internet at higher resolution since at least 2012 (see http://www.informilo.com/2012/06/can-russia-s-yandex-bring-freedom-of-choice-to-search/ among others ). Speedied. Revent (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

HotCat edit request[edit]

Hi all. Could someone have a look at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js#Add rawcontinue URL parameter? I've made an edit request there, but the edit request template is not showing up as there are too many expensive parser function calls on the page. Also, it's quite important that this happens before 1 July, as that's when HotCat will break if no-one fixes it. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 09:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
There is the project page: Commons:User scripts/Default continuation --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Commons admins and their awareness of the sister communities[edit]

I am again seeing number of administrators at Commons acting in a means that is contrary to the interests of our sister wikis. This week I have seen images that have been held for five + years deleted when widely used by a sister wiki. No deletion discussion, no consideration for the wiki ... bang. Now the image deletion needs to be appealed and then the repair work has to be done at the wiki. I have also seen a discussion taking place about the generation of gif files to png files by a bot, and the last time that the bot ran it also deleted these gif images and replaced them with png. What gives us the right to act in such a way? These are files in use, they have been uploaded by these wikis here for their purposes. That is meant to be the function of this wiki.

It is not our role to think that we can just take actions independent of the sisters. It is not our role to think that we know better. We have a special role here at the centre of the files and images that the user have uploaded. Ye, we need to make sure that the files are within our scope. It is not our role to think we know better than the sister wikis on what they want, without inviting them into our conversations. If we wish to broaden our scope, or to put forward a better/brighter/improved vision, then we can, and this is done by having a discussion and inviting the wikis to participate directly to each of their forums, to take the time and effort to widely consult. It takes time, it takes patience, and effort, and if we want to make changes it is contingent on us making that effort.

At the moment I see too much disregard for the sisters by numbers of people who just put on a Commons hat, and only a Commons hat. To me that is the wrong approach, we all should wear a Wikimedia hat that allows us to see outside of our own little fenced area. Actions here have global effects and a full awareness of the consequences of our actions should always be considered.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A few days ago an image, File:Bankim chandra chatterjee.jpg was deleted, which was being used in multiple wikis, including at multiple places in English Wikisource. s:Author:Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay died in 1894, how his image could be non-PD, I could not understand. Whatever website hosts it under whatever copyright claim, obviously the image was taken in or before 1894. Hrishikes (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, without names or links to diffs, billinghurst there isn't a lot we can do to understand your complaint and pointed jibes. Copyright violations will be deleted regardless of number of uses or duration on the project. It would be of great benefit not to cast aspersions without details, that's no more helpful for the sister Wikicommons than the alleged behaviors about which you are complaining. Hrishikes the image in question was removed as a copyright violation. It doesn't matter how many of the wikis are using an image, copyvios are removed when found. The image was originally uploaded as own work, subsequent edits to source (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030302/spectrum/bankim%20chandra%20chatterjee.jpg) provided no greater clarity to the license status of this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
This image is quite old. this painting kept at the museum established at the author's house was made from this image. Hrishikes (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Just because the person died in 1894 doesn't mean that's when the painting was made nor when the picture was taken. The picture is clearly done on a relatively new camera with good resolution. So it has to be done fairly recently. The data of the image says 2008 which seems to match my theory. That doesn't mean it is or isn't copywritten, but it does give us a good indication that we should be sure that it isn't before we post it. Reguyla (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla, that's a picture of a picture, not a painting. So Hrishikes is right that it is obviously in the public domain. Now it would have helped if information provided was right... Yann (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Umm, it sure looks like a painting to me. So even if it is a picture of a picture of a painting, its still a painting as the source of the picture. The answer to all of this may very well be that the picture is allowed and that the painting was made in 1908 and in the public domain. I admit I don't know and maybe we should have discussed the deletion first, but we shouldn't have to open a discussion on every image that's used on every wiki that links here when dealing with Copyright issues just because someone might complain. Wikipedia doesn't do that with unsourced BLP's, they get deleted all the time and we shouldn't be the exception because its "just" a picture of a picture of a picture of a painting. Reguyla (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla, as I said above, this is NOT a painting, just an old picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The picture is still of a painting and we still don't know if either has a copywrite do we? Reguyla (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you look at it? Did you read what I wrote? BTW I uploaded a bigger version. Don't forget that pictures from India are in the public domain 50 years after creation, so this is in the public domain since at least 1944. Yann (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind what I said, I see the problem now, we were both talking about different images. Your right that image does seem to be fine but I am not a copyright expert so I'll let you all hash out the details on that one. Reguyla (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Guys, using the word "picture" (or "image") in contrast to "painting" is very unclear. You need to use the word "photo" (or "photograph") here. -- Tuválkin 05:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
billinghurst I haven't seen the problem you mention and I know that we have frequently not agreed on some issues but I agree this situation needs review. Could you provide a couple examples?
With that said, I for one know that the other "sister wiki's" don't come here consulting commons when they make changes or decisions so I don't agree that this community need necessarily cater to them. This community works to maintain the images just as Wikisource maintains source information, Wikidata maintains data elements etc. One good example is on Wikidata every wiki has a little box but commons falls under the "Other Wiki's category like we don't even fall under Wikimedia. That's just one example. So I agree that there should be some collusion with the sister wiki's but at the end of the day this community also has some autonomy and we need not cater to a community just because "its their file and they are just storing it here". Reguyla (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata must be a masochist community, another wiki whose sitelinks can only be found in the "other wikis" section is their own project.    FDMS  4    15:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
That is nonsensical Reguyla. These individual local wikis are managing local issues, nothing that they do affects Commons. There are three global wikis Commons, Meta, and Wikidata, and where they/we are making decisions wikimedia-wide they need to discuss. Meta has done so for steward elections and the one policy push for advanced rights holders, and they have to consider xwiki when they apply components for global filters, blacklists, etc. Wikidata does it regularly through contacting and involving communities in their discussions, while not perfect they have done a brilliant job.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure whats up with the attitude towards me but I agreed with you on several aspects of what you say so I'm not sure why you are saying I am being nonsensical without saying the same of yourself. I just don't like how commons is treated as "Other wiki" on Wikidata when the whole reason this project is the way it is, is a result of the special nature of it so it can be used by all wikis. Its also worth noting that there are more than 3 "global wiki's" because the incubator where projects are sent to die is a global wiki and so is Wikitech, they just aren't as well known or used. You also cannot tell me that some decisions on projects like Wikidata and ENWP don't affect Commons because I know better. Sure they are rare. Remember I have been around almost as long as you have, I just never became an admin. Reguyla (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I just now saw this discussion.. I haven't been here much the last few days, largely due to a sprained ankle keeping me mostly horizontal. I was the one who deleted File:Bankim chandra chatterjee.jpg, and I agree that my doing so as I did was an error (I have since undeleted it, and restored all of it's usage). I would like to explain why I did so, however. Several images by that user were marked as copyvios, with watermarks showing they were from www.historyofbengal.com ... they had been uploaded as 'own work' in 2010. Checking, they had been on the source website years prior to the upload. The editor's history showed close to a dozen other files that had been deleted as copyvios from the same website, with links given, years ago, also uploaded as 'own work' in 2010 (though prior to the ones that were still around). I made the, apparently mistaken, presumption that the rest of the persons uploads were the same... copyrighted 'own work' uploads from the internet, and nuked them on that basis. Since this was pointed out to me, I've gone back and looked at them all again, and undeleted this and two others... one was a 'own work' upload that was a watermarked PD-Art (which I fixed the data on after undeleting it) and one is probably IMO an 'own work' copyvio as well, but I can't prove it due to the website it tracks back to being broken (with a redirect loop).
I'm not trying to make excuses, just explain 'why' I took the action I did at the time. I admittedly ended up making a mistake, which I fixed as soon as I became aware of it, and for which I apologize. I don't think I was wrong in 'assuming' the uploader was simply grabbing images from the net and calling them 'own work', I just should not have assumed they were all actually problematic because of that. This is the only time yet that I have done so, and I don't do it again. Revent (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I purposefully did not mention any particularly case as I was addressing each matter separately. Doing blame sucks, and this is not about blame, this is about addressing a cultural issue that needs all Commons admins to maintain a WMF-wiki wide awareness of the effect of their decisions, actions and inactions. For each admin to share the responsibility for actions of other admins, for us maintaining that broad focus, and where we see limited local-thinking that is challenged. Each of us needs to have the broader wikimedia hat on our head when making decisions, and when taking actions. Also the actions that we see another do that does not fit within the ideal should be be tested and challenged, not ignored as someone else's problem, so our own inaction also matters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments although I think you need to tell that to the WMF and to the folks at ENWP more than here. Both groups are much more problematic than here. Thanks Revent for the explanation, it makes complete sense. Reguyla (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
On 19th of April 2015 I deleted speedily file:Vince Lombardi Trophy.png, which was used in different projects almost 1000 times. The prize is copyrighted and NFL enforces strictly its copyright. Was it wrong? How to act in such situations next time? Taivo (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that was incorrect, personally. Revent (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Revent, after looking at the source site, which contained a lot of conflicting information. 1) Licensed under CC-BY; 2) Site carries disclaimer: "Unless stated otherwise, the graphical resources uploaded to this site are NOT for commercial use. To use any resource from this site for commercial purposes, please contact the author." 3) Though overall view on source-site suggested that uploader is the true author, the additional information provided in the SD-tag was clearly more convincing. Overall, when facing this information, I would also have deleted this image.
IMO, the only possible point of procedural improvement is: as this was not a blatant copyvio, upload had been >1 year ago and the file was heavily in use, a regular (slow) DR might have been more appropriate to allow for more discussion and eventually to open a local fair-use process. --Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I would agree, except that I think the question of 'obviousness' might be influenced by that the copyright in the Vince Lombardi trophy was the subject of a reasonably well-publicized federal lawsuit a few years ago. See [1] for the actual registration. (FYI, the makers of knockoff 'fantasy football' trophies lost, badly) Revent (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
By blatant I meant an image uploaded as "own work" when it is clearly not, such the typical actress-shot from Getty Images. The trophy-case might be known to people in the U.S.; I had never read of it previously. --Túrelio (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Indeed, the point holds in general, this was just a unique example, maybe not the best to illustrate the point. Revent (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There should be a distinction between deleting unused media and deleting media in use somewhere. It may be the case that the deletion will go unnoticed by anyone on the project where it is being used, but will leave a gaping hole on the page where it was located that could easily be filled if someone was made aware of the situation. I would propose creating a bot to post a weekly or monthly report to the village pump or equivalent page for each project affected, indicating what pages on that project contain links to images that were deleted in the preceding report period. Furthermore, if a specific image is in use on dozens of pages or more, perhaps the better course of action would be to first try to find a non-copyvio version and upload that over the copyvio version, and rev-del the copyvio instances from the page history. BD2412 T 02:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Uploading a substantially different image on top of the original is not appropriate... even if the image is a copyvio, doing so breaks external reusage of the image 'transparently' (I am referring to cases where external websites embed images hosted on Commons, specifically). Instead, if a replacement free image is possible it should be uploaded under a new filename, the usages moved over if appropriate, and the original deleted. At the same time, it's not really something that should be done 'automatically', in my opinion... such a change is just as likely to break local uses depending on the context... among other things, it could easily result in an image caption (and, possibly, an attribution in the caption) that does not correctly describe the replacement. Also, the deleted image might be usable on the local projects as 'fair use'.
It is far better IMO that if an image is deleted for whatever reason, that it should be done in a way that triggers a local edit to the pages where the image is used, so that page watchers are made aware of the change. Doing it 'transparently' seems to me more likely to create cross-wiki drama and complaints. Revent (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412: This is actually a good proposal to begin with besides the issues raised by Revent. Let me just add that every deletion request could add a number in it's header which counts the global usage. Based on that and the reason for deletion, the relevant communities could be notified (they way how to do this is not immediately clear to me, yet) or the file may be replaced by a similar one... --McZusatz (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't often find my self agreeing with BD2412 these days but I agree with that proposal and I also share Revents concerns. Having a bot notify the projects of deleted commons images would be useful and helpful but it will certainly create drama, especially on ENWP where drama flourishes already. If we do setup a bot we should try to do it in such a way that it minimizes the drama that would likely happen and distract us from more important things like improving the project. Reguyla (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I have long supported the idea of deletion notifications on the talk pages of articles that use Commons media; a courtesy action that would improve relations between wikis irrespective of any potential drama. McZusatz, I'm not a coder but could this task be done by modifying the QuickDelete script so that when a file is nominated for deletion using the QuickDelete link, the user account would be used to leave a note on the talk pages of affected articles in the same way it acts when a file is moved? Any manual nominations could then be picked up by a bot at the end of the day? There is a lot that could be done at the Commons end to improve the whole deletion process and a courtesy note would be a good way to start. Green Giant (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The reason that I would prefer a project notification (at the local Village Pump, for example) over a page notification at a specific talk page is that on certain projects, like Wikisource and Wiktionary, many pages are unlikely to be watched by any active editor at all. Another alternative to uploading a copyvio free image over an existing image would be to automate the replacement of images on other projects with a reasonable substitute. I recognize that for a different enough image a caption might become mismatched, but a caption that is wrong for the image it is under is better than a caption under a red link where an image used to be. Furthermore, if the issue is solely something like an inability to confirm who took a photograph of a public domain artwork, then substituting a roughly identical photograph with known provenance should not upset any captions. BD2412 T 14:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I think its reasonable enough to have the notification at Wikisource or Wiktionary Village Pumps but we have to be realistic about the volume of notifications this would involve; this month alone has seen almost 5,000 files nominated for deletion. Obviously they aren't all being used on other wikis but potentially there would have been a lot of notes left on talk pages or village pumps. Thus it should not involve creating a new section for every DR; rather it would be better to have a single section at the top of each VP or even perhaps a VP subpage to which the script/bot could add a link for each DR, together with a list of affected pages in that wiki? On second thoughts if we do decide on village pumps, I think a subpage would be better than the main village pump. Green Giant (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This image is under review.

I am understanding that only the wikis where the image is being used at the time of nomination will be notified by some way. This does not solve the possible problem that once the image is put up for DR and later if it was being put to use on Wiki. I know that this case started with images which have been on Commons for a long time but are being deleted now. But let's not ignore such cases too where the images are being put to use after DR has started; the lag can be anything from 1 sec to 7 days or so. Also, as pointed out, the log of 5k or something images would be difficult to handle and also create a lot of e-waste.
Instead, is it possible for all Wikis to somehow include a small line "This image is under review" just below wherever it is used. Individual wikis can use different sentences in their respective languages. Or even better would be simply to add an exclamation sign or such to highlight. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Upload wizard: License allocation error[edit]

Hello, if you upload with the upload wizard images and the default choice cc-by-sa 3.0 takes is assigned to pictures cc-by-sa 4.0, this can not be correct. And what to do with the images, which a false license has been assigned? --Jean11 (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Jean11, the Upload Wizard is no longer being maintained by its developers so this problem is unlikely to be fixed soon. There is nothing wrong with adding the 3.0 license and then changing it to 4.0 as soon as the upload is done. Alternatively I would recommend using the older, slower but more reliable Commons:Upload, and adding the license in the Permission line rather than the Licensing section. Green Giant (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
"this problem is unlikely to be fixed soon. There is nothing wrong with adding the 3.0 license and then changing it to 4.0" that contradicts itself. And we need a policy where the tags should be. Permission is for permission tags not for licence tags. --Jean11 (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hallo @Jean11: Bei welchem Upload ist das passiert (Dateiname oder besser Link)? Hast Du cc-by-sa 3.0 im Assistenten ausgewählt oder einfach unter der Standardlizenz hochgeladen? Welche System-Sprache ist in Deinen Einstellungen auf Wikimedia Commons ausgewählt? Welche Einstellungen sind bezüglich des Assistenten zum Hochladen von Dateien in Deinen Einstellungen festgelegt? -- Rillke(q?) 15:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Rillke, bei File:WillyWobst Hinterhermsdorf Stein (2).jpg, File:Gedenkstein 100. Geburtstag Seesen-Dr. Willy Wobst.jpg, kenn die Einstellungen von Mehltaube nicht, kann auf Wunsch nachfragen. Mehltaube hatte per Klick auf "Eine andere Lizenz verwenden." sich die anderen Lizenzen angesehn, ist aber bei dere empfohlenen Lizenz (Creative Commons „Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0“) geblieben. Weiß von einem Upload von einem anderen Benutzer, bei dem das auch passiert ist. --Jean11 (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jean11: Ich habe verschiedene Einstellungen probiert und kann das Problem nicht nachvollziehen und bitte daher um die Einstellungen. Außerdem ist es sehr umständlich, dass das über dich und mich als Mittelsmänner läuft. So schlagen wir uns wieder Zeit um die Ohren. phabricator: ist die Entität, zu der Probleme mit dem Assistenten berichtet werden sollten. Am bestem mit Screenshot des Assistenten und des Ergebnisses. -- Rillke(q?) 15:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Manche commons user kennen noch nicht mal diese Seite, und kommen mit phabricator nicht zurecht, hätte ich es nicht gemeldet (bei den mir bekannten Fällen) hätt es wahrscheinlich niemand gemeldet. Habe Mehltaube angeschrieben, und geschrieben, das sie ihre Einstellungen am Besten selber meldet. --Jean11 (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Rillke, übrigens ich kann es schon nachvollziehen. Sprache ist deutsch, Assistenten Einstellungen sind: Eigenes Werk – Creative Commons „Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0“ (Text der Lizenz). --Jean11 (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jean11: Hast du die Datei auch veröffentlicht und geschaut, ob tatsächlich cc-by-sa 3.0 oder 4.0 gesetzt wird? -- Rillke(q?) 21:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Indian navy images[edit]

Hello fellow admins! It has been brought to my notice by User:SpacemanSpiff that the images uploaded from the Indian Navy website and which uses the template Template:Indian navy do not go through the normal procedure of manual/bot review to check the claim. This is quite unusual and we need to mend it, even if that means checking some 2k+ images. Also, now that I surfed through most of these images, the "source" mentioned in our descriptions is just the homepage link of Indian Navy. I would request User:Jcb, because he created the template and probably has seen the OTRS too, to provide more clarity on the actual OTRS we have received. The Indian Navy website hosts many images and all can not have been possibly created by them to release under the license. The image which triggered the doubts is File:1971 Instrument of Surrender.jpg, the 1971 image.
I will elaborate the action plan after a while which would be less mess for checking 2k+ images. Till then I would like views of other Admins and OTRS members. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The template says: This work is created by the Indian Navy and it is present at http://indiannavy.nic.in/. If an uploader does not provide a link to the file on that website, you can just remove the template and add {no source}. If there is serious doubt about the authorship, you can just start the DR. The template clearly states what the permission is, if the permission doesn't apply to that file then the template can be removed. It's our longstanding practice to have this kind of templates. Jcb (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes! We can add a "no source" tag to the file or take it to DR or such... But these files aren't getting reviewed at all. I am hence going to add a review process for these files. At start the unreviewed files would be plenty, but I hope we all, admins and reviewers together, can bring down the number. I suppose this is the right longstanding practice we have had. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hi. I am Bojana from Republic of Srpska. I am working with wiki users from this part of world in organizing photography competition Commons:Trace of Soul 2015. We wanted to create page Campaign:tos-rs for uploading files but we do not have access for this namespace. Can someone of you create it for us? I will need it today.--Bojana Wiki PG (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)