User talk:Lar/Archive 9

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

I recognize that this user page belongs to this Wikimedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.

This is an archive of threads started in User talk:Lar from about 1 March 2009 through about 1 June 2009. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at left for the list and to navigate to others.
My archived talk        [+/−]
Archive 1 — start through about 1 Nov 2006
Archive 2 — about 1 Nov 2006 through about 1 Mar 2007
Archive 3 — about 1 Mar 2007 through about 1 Aug 2007
Archive 4 — about 1 Aug 2007 through about 1 Jan 2008
Archive 5 — about 1 Jan 2008 through about 1 Sep 2008
Archive 6 — about 1 Sep 2008 through about 1 Nov 2008
Archive 7 — about 1 Nov 2008 through about 1 Jan 2009
Archive 8 — about 1 Jan 2009 through about 1 Mar 2009
Archive 9 — about 1 Mar 2009 through about 1 Jun 2009
Archive 10 — about 1 Jun 2009 through about 1 Sep 2009
Archive 11 — about 1 Sep 2009 through about 1 Jan 2010
Archive 12 — about 1 Jan 2010 through about 1 May 2010
Archive 13 — about 1 May 2010 through about 1 September 2010

Cedar Point[edit]

My maternal tong is the French so my level in English isnot perfect . Could you upload other photos of Cedar Point on Wikipedia Commons ? Because for the major rides , we have a great number of files but for the other rides , we have only one or two photos like Gemini , Iron Dragon ... Cedar Creek Mine Ride has no image . (I speak for the French articles , but in realty , we translate English articles). I do the same thing for European parks I visit last year like Walibi Belgium and Plopsaland. Thank you . JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look to see what I have but I did not take a comprehensive set of pics, I was just taking a few random ones here and there so some of the rides I don't have pics at all... :( Thanks for your interest and for your uploads of other parks! (let me see, how many days till the Point opens again?) Best wishes (and PS, your english is just fine). ++Lar: t/c 11:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Help[edit]

Looks like the Ford images have caused a brouhaha. As I mentioned to you at the time I uploaded them, they were tagged on Flickr with cc-by despite having a cc-by-nc watermark. The Flickr checker bot verified this at the time and I did e-mail Ford at the time with no response. It doesn't matter what the situation is now, the license at the time can not be revoked or changed, even if it was a mistake. It is just too bad for Ford. It isn't our responsibility to determine intent, we go with what they chose in the license box on Flickr. According to the Flickr terms of use, the license they choose is the license that it is licensed under at that time. Since it is the official Ford Flickr stream, they can not say that they were licensed unofficially. I request that these images be given safe harbor until we can negotiate a more suitable situation with Ford regarding future images. Even if we cannot negotiate an acceptable resolution, I believe we are legally entitled to the images for my preceding reasons and thus they should not be deleted. Right now I am extremely busy in school, which is why I haven't been around since the Slim Virgin brouhaha (things just haven't been letting up at school and so I am still on wikibreak). Would you please have a look at this and maybe run interference for me? If you look through my en-wp talk archive, there is another admin who is also interested in Ford images who might be able to help resolve this. BTW, Hope you are doing well! --Dragon695 (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Replied there. Who is the other editor? ++Lar: t/c 18:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
en:User:GeeJo --Dragon695 (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

everywhere but frwikis?[edit]

dear lar, if you have time, could you please take a look at the 2 pics which are now here? thx! oscar 21:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I will look, but I think what governs is where the pic was taken, not where it is used, else we would have a rather tangled set of wikis to worry about... remember that frwiki is used by the Quebecois (at least the francophone ones) among others, not just by the residents of France. I could be wrong though. My suggestion is that you try to see if you can get permission somehow (from the estate?) ++Lar: t/c 21:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


You have 1 new message on your Meta Wikimedia talk page. --Wallsuches (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nudie pics once more[edit]

G'day Lar - public place + long lense + boobs = what exactly? thoughts much appreciated. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

ps. as ever, there are many more where that came from. Also - I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether or not categories can be misapplied in the area of sexual content? - we've now got things like this and if you take a look at this you'll see.. um.. some rather specialist categories. Does an increasing focus of categories at some point become 'out of scope' or a net detriment to the project in your view?
pps. a propos nothing in particular, I spoke on wiki self-determinism and self-regulation at a recent 'Wiki Wednesday' here in Sydney - it was refreshing to have a nuanced balanced discussion of some of the issues, and I was pleasantly surprised by the support for finding some middle ground in moving forward - I'm a bit busy to push much at the mo, but will continue to ask questions, and nom. the odd pic. here and there to try and help out - your advice on my approach is always welcome, and never ignored ;-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

PM: I just don't know what to think. I despair of ever resolving this issue. ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

don't despair Lar - it'll all come out in the wash :-) - I have been pleasantly buoyed recently by support from various quarters on this sort of stuff. I've made some replies at the deletion request, and in the mid term would really like to see a greater awareness of the subject's knowledge / intentions / permissions taken into account. You previously advised that pursuing this through new policy was a poor choice, I guess we're now navigating through some deletion discussions to see what direction the project will take... we'll see :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot requests[edit]

Your comments on asking permission even if a bot flag is not needed make sense (does that mean I should have requested permission to use AWB on Commons? I have only used it a couple of times, on my own images so far). It would seem sensible to put something in writing, and probably start a new page called, say, Requests for permission to use a bot. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

AWB I think we handle via the AWB request page's talk page (AWB on Commons is like it is on en:wp you have to be an admin or on the list)... but a pointer to it from the bot page is probably a good idea. I did a request for larbot back when although all I ever did was AWB runs. ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Closing time[edit]

Hi Lar. Isn't it better to let a bureaucrat chat start instead of extending this to another week? I recall this incident, where the bureaucrats started a chat after the ending time - rather then extending it to another week. Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

See your mail. Also, I think this extension is favored by a clear majority of 'crats. ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
My problem is that the majority of the current bureaucrats have participated. I'd rather let a neutral, as 5 of the current bureaucrats have voted (I'm not questioning that the current bureaucrats can't be neutral) - I think it's better to let the two remaining bureaucrats make the call, as they have not yet voted. If they have already given their opinions, then sorry. I just think it should be clarified. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
If you are asking that one of the two 'crats that has not voted be the one to formally extend the time... that's process wonkery, it's not necessary, but OK, sure... that can be done. However, what I find more concerning are two other points... 1) I mailed you privately and in my response to your first post I again pointed out that I mailed you, which is a fairly obvious invitation to take this conversation to email... yet you did not. What does that say about your sense of when to keep things private and when to keep them public? That's a very important characteristic of a good 'crat. 2) (and this is a biggie) You are opposed by 5 of the 7 current crats and two highly respected former ones... what does that tell you? Kanonkas, I'll say it again, you are much improved from your initial impetuous approach to adminship (block too soon and too often was how I characterized it) but I think you still have some seasoning to go. Your next candidacy should be one in which you have unanimous support from your prospective fellow 'crats. That may mean you should make sure you have it, before you run, instead of just impetuously running. ++Lar: t/c 19:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


I think 15 days is long enough for Commons:Bots/Requests for flags/Hebbot to be archived. :) MBisanz talk 10:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} ? ++Lar: t/c 11:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

PD review[edit]

PD review is now on. List of pertinent pages is here: User_talk:Rlevse#PD_review. I'll start when I get home this evening by marking images I know are solid PD. Ideas on how to advertise us are welcome (Admin board, etc). We'll also need to check the files needing review cat regularly. RlevseTalk 10:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I think a post to the admins noticeboard would be good. Finding some files that need this review to "prime the pump" might be a good idea too. ++Lar: t/c 12:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The templates are ready now. So let's get to it. Can you write the noticeboard posting please? Two files are already in it. Several of of recent uploads are eligible as they are from the Civil War, I'll tag some. RlevseTalk 09:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_Review, advise of needed corrections or whatever. I'll watch and try to catch some untagged so I can do at least one and familiarize myself with the process. Thanks for spearheading this! ++Lar: t/c 11:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew bot[edit]

Hi. Just a quick fyi that yon bot is up, but inactive. I'm going to use this on Wikisource first w/John. I'll go through the policy and approval process here once I've cut my teeth elsewhere and have ideas for here. There's a fuller discussion and more links at:

Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. If you go to COM:A (which is easy to remember) you'll find the links to COM:BRFA where requests are made. the latter is embedded in the former as it turns out. ++Lar: t/c 12:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


You have email. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Trust me, I read my email a lot. :)... replied in both places. ++Lar: t/c 13:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


Did I miss something, or isn't Giggy supposed to have the admin and crat bits back? See this --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

He did get them back, but then I think he asked that they be turned off again, see [1], which Dungodung did, see [2] ... the archive probably should note that it's off again (if it doesn't) ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
after edit conflict
I am not Lar but I have the answer:
You missed this he/she asked for removal of his/her access again after a month. A great loss for Commons :(
Best regards,
Huib talk 20:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I updated the archive to note the removal. ++Lar: t/c 21:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I did miss the removal request. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Requests and votes/Wutsje[edit]

If I understand your edit correctly, you thought that Spacebirdy forgot to cast his vote, but he's actually voter #2. –Tryphon 01:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Not quite... sorry if I was unclear. My vote is a support based on Spacebirdy's nomination. My fellow steward is a very good judge of character and that she chose to nominate Wutsje is about as strong a recommendation as it's possible to give, so it's an automatic support from me. ++Lar: t/c 04:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see... sorry for the misunderstanding, all clear now. –Tryphon 10:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

permanent deletion[edit]

Hi Lar - I saw this deletion of yours, and wanted to find out whether or not you might support a system for a more permanent deletion - it doesn't seem appropriate to me that images like that one (or this) should remain available to all commons admin.s - thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have oversight here and I debated whether I should have made those deletions not visible to admins or not... such action is governed by the Oversight policy absent a more comprehensive policy at a particular wiki (which cannot be more "lenient" than overall WMF policy), and it was not clear to me that it was necessary. But I may be wrong. ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree it's a close call, but personally speaking, I'd be happier if the images above were in some way permanently deleted. Does oversight accomplish this? - or does it just restrict the ability to view the image to people with oversight? Presumably out and out child pornography would be removed from the server completely somehow? Are you aware of whether or not this type of issue has been discussed / resolved previously in any way, by any chance? (hope you're good, btw... :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It would require a developer to get something so deleted it's not still on the server. Oversighters are chosen on the basis of trust. Including the trust that they are not going to misuse oversighted information. Commons has 3. Total. See m:Oversight for details on policy and pointers to implementation information. ++Lar: t/c 11:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you happen to know if the full deletion thing being developer only something that's been around commons since its inception? - I totally agree that the risk of any of the 3 commons oversighters doing anything nefarious seems very slim, though I note that there seem to be 42 other people with access to all deleted media (presumably access to said wouldn't appear in any log monitored in any way? - perhaps a server log, but I don't really know how they work) - I also note that positions such as priests and teachers generally speaking require trust, though sadly the controls to ensure that trust isn't abused have proven necessary time and again.
Presumably thus far, exploitative and extreme imagery (such as child pornography) hasn't been a problem at all - although images skirting the edges have been - it's my view that we'd do well to think about this a little ahead of a time when events overtake..... Privatemusings (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
ps. just realised it wasn't entirely clear - the 42 other people are stewards + dev.s + jimbo - and the no.s are wrong regardless, because I see you're also a steward - I didn't check the other commons oversighters.... you get the idea though ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're driving at, I'm afraid. Can you put your question in the form of a question that admits of a yes/no answer? ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

< heh! how's this;

  • Has 'developer only' deletion always been the case?
  • (follow up) - Is every file ever uploaded to commons therefore available to admin.s unless oversighted?
  • Does viewing an oversighted image result in a monitored log entry?
  • Has child pornography been uploaded to commons?
  • (follow up) Do you think the policies and practices are currently in place to handle uploaded child pornography appropriately?

It's a bit hyperbolic, but you get the idea :-) thanks Lar - apologies for waffle.... Privatemusings (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK... this is complex. For accurate details you would want to see the history of the mediawiki software. Which apparently is not documented all that well
  • Has 'developer only' deletion always been the case?
  • Yes. Files are a special case... they are not saved as Diffs in some table somewhere. Instead they actualy live out on the file system and what is kept in the DB is a pointer to the file itself. Each time you upload a new version, the MW software puts it somewhere, and creates a new pointer... So when a file is "deleted" it's merely made invisible. To actually get rid of a file the pointer needs to be deleted, and the file needs to be deleted. Deleting the pointer (just like deleting any other "diff") requires DB access. Deleting the file requires shell access to the system...
  • (follow up) - Is every file ever uploaded to commons therefore available to admin.s unless oversighted?
  • or thus deleted as above. A bit of history. Very old MW didn't support files at all. Then, when file support was added, it was not possible to replace files. Or delete them. Then we got deletion, which means only admins can see the pointer. Then we got oversight, which added an additional layer of deletion. Oversight really is just deletion that even admins can't see, only oversighters. Then we got revision deletion which is a "better" oversight since it allows more fine grained control
  • Does viewing an oversighted image result in a monitored log entry?
  • I have no idea
  • Has child pornography been uploaded to commons?
  • Surely. But if it's brought to the attention of responsible folk it is dealt with.
  • (follow up) Do you think the policies and practices are currently in place to handle uploaded child pornography appropriately?
  • I have no idea, you'd have to be more specific.
Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 00:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
helps a great deal, Lar - thanks for your time :-) - here's a final few for now to try and nail that specific bit;
  • You mention that child pornography has surely been uploaded to wikimedia commons - are you personally aware of any instance?
  • Would you presume (or perhaps you know?) that dealing with this material includes developer removal from the server?
  • Regardless of your presumptions / knowledge - would you agree that removal from the server is both necessary and desirable?
  • Would you further agree that policies and practices need to be established to ensure that appropriate law enforcement agencies are informed etc. - are you aware of any such practice?
jeez - well my 'couple' turned into a few... though hopefully these are relatively easy to answer (I really hope that you don't feel 'on the spot' at all - I'm hoping that simple, direct questions might work better than my usual waffle! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, more answers interspersed (and I suggest my talk page is the wrong venue for a wider discussion of this topic, all you are getting is my opinion)

  • You mention that child pornography has surely been uploaded to wikimedia commons - are you personally aware of any instance?
  • What something is often becomes a bit of an existential discussion... is the Virgin Killer image child porn, for example? I do not presume to be able to definitively declare what is or isn't a thing that society itself struggles with at great length. We get all sorts of vandals uploading all sorts of things... among the millions of images I would be greatly surprised if there wasn't at least one image that fits your definition. I don't know which one or ones with certainty as I don't personally review all of them.
  • Would you presume (or perhaps you know?) that dealing with this material includes developer removal from the server?
  • I do not know how dealing with them is, or should be, done, in cases where I wasn't the person that dealt with it. I'm not clear that developer deletion is required, legally, and I'm not competent to make that assessment. You could ask Mike Godwin.
  • Regardless of your presumptions / knowledge - would you agree that removal from the server is both necessary and desirable?
  • I'm not sure I agree that out and out removal is necessary. Again, that's a question for Mike Godwin, not me. I think personally, once it is very clearly of a certain nature, out and out removal is desirable, but that's a personal opinion. There is also the issue of slippery slopes here.
  • Would you further agree that policies and practices need to be established to ensure that appropriate law enforcement agencies are informed etc. - are you aware of any such practice?
  • I do not think that the WMF at this time routinely forwards information of this nature to law enforcement agencies. I do not have a well formed opinion on whether it should or should not. Again, that's a question for Mike Godwin, not me.

Hope that helps. As for feeling "on the spot"... I do in fact feel that way. I get the impression you are going somewhere, and you want a particular answer or answers from me, and you are not going to stop worrying the bone until you get them... I'm the wrong person to ask, I think. Not because I am unsympathetic, but because it's not within my remit to solve this problem. When stuff is brought to my attention I try to deal with it to the best of my ability. ++Lar: t/c 16:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)