Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 48

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

Quick request

Could anyone who's around give me the filemover right when they get a chance? Thanks. INeverCry 15:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. Good to see you back :). Natuur12 (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@INeverCry: - wb --Maxxl2 - talk 15:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. INeverCry 15:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Happy to see you here @INeverCry: ! --PierreSelim (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Pierre! Nice to hear from you. INeverCry 00:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Geiko Kimiha.jpg

As the user commented there, it is not simply a DR issue. Commons:USERNAME#Company.2Fgroup_names is a proposed policy. I don't know whether Wikipedia:Username_policy#Promotional_names can be applied in Commons. But we have no evidence that this user is a representative of that site. Further that site seems a commercial one. Please advise him accordingly. Jee 02:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This discussion can be closed now as OTRS received. Jee 16:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Robot: Removing space(s) before file extension

Be careful while doing it as it breaks {{Assessments}}. See example. Jee 02:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Because there are missing only a few file, i don't see the need to change the script atm. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the issue is more of the file rename script. It will replace all the instances of the file name; but will not move FPC pages. The default name of FPC page is "Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/<filename>". If it is a different name, it should be mentioned at com-nom= parameter at {{Assessments}}. Jee 14:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I think after the bottask is done, this can be fixed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Still opened discussions

Still opened discussions (I guess) that should be closed, as they are no longer listed as current discussions:

--FlávR (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Category:Body tattoos, but not sure what to do with Category:Nude or partially nude women. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done for the other one. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

one image doesn't load

It's this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Van_Dyck,_Sir_Anthony_-_A_Grey_Horse_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.217.131.222 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Works fine for me … --El Grafo (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
And me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted image check

Could an admin please check whether the deleted file File:Larry E. Haines (2008).jpg is the same as en:File:Larry E. Haines (2008).jpg? Tineye, mentioned in the deletion log, finds nothing when fed the Wikipedia image. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It is the same thumbnail of an image. also used at https://www.peekyou.com/larry_haines/157761253 . --Jarekt (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Jarekt! I'll attempt to figure it out at enWiki... it's possible that since it was uploaded over there in 2009, the other files found online are copies of it, rather than the other way around. The original uploader seems to be an experienced contributor. Storkk (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I would still ask him to upload a full size photograph. That would make the claim of "own" photo more believable. But I also like to Assume good faith. --Jarekt (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks for your help! Storkk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Republic of China National Emblem.svg

The colour of this file has been argued over for several years. The only stable & sourced version has been [1], and the users who do not like this shade of blue, while providing various different sources and suggestions, have never been able to form a consensus on a single one to use. The file should be reverted back to the version by Sekisama. Fry1989 eh? 17:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am really tired of this being given a blind eye. The file was stable for nearly a year with a source, and was only recently changed without consensus or new sources. The group of users who oppose the previous rendition are completely unable to find one source they can all get behind and therefore their opposition has nothing to replace it with. Fry1989 eh? 01:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm keeping this open until it is properly addressed. Fry1989 eh? 18:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Still open. Fry1989 eh? 17:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Still open. Fry1989 eh? 16:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, I'm not going to let this be ignored until I get a clear answer that admins are willing to completely ignore the following facts;
  • Current colour is not sourced
  • Previous colour is sourced
  • Those who oppose the previous colour can not agree upon an alternative
I want admins to admit they are willing to ignore sources in favour of not stirring the pot, or properly address this matter. Fry1989 eh? 17:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Still open. Fry1989 eh? 19:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Version by Sekisama has been reinstated as current version. Please discuss color changes before applying them or upload under a different name. Also I have restored all deleted versions of the file description and the file itself as those were not covered by the deletion policy. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This issue is not resolved, admin Denniss and user Ericmetro have reverted the image again! Denniss keeps claiming the other colour is correct but has no sources. Fry1989 eh? 01:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
This still needs wider discussion. Denniss's repeated reverts claiming one colour is correct when it is not properly sourced or supported is unacceptable. Fry1989 eh? 16:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Still needs attention. Fry1989 eh? 17:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussion is already ongoing at File_talk:Republic_of_China_National_Emblem.svg#CMYK_conversion, please keep participating there. If no consensus can be reached, feel free to start another request. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It is required to address that Deniss keeps reverting and claiming an unsourced colour is "the correct one" without even participating in the discussion, and the fact that for too long now admins have been ignoring sources. I'm keeping this open until I see these concerns actually dealt with. Fry1989 eh? 20:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Deniss DOES NOT keep reverting the image, he has not made a reversion in weeks. If you continue this witch hunt against Deniss, I am going to block you for gross disruption. There is a discussion about the colour of the image on the talk page, please continue to discuss this issue there, making constructive comments to aide the situation. Nick (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Resolved

Media of the Day

File:Piccadilly Circus 1961 by FullScream.webm. I see no evidence that „FullScream“ or „Andrew Eick“ put their work under CC3.0. Nor is there evidence that the up-loader Tomchurch1 owns the image rights. It is not his work. I suspect a copyright violation. Greetings Jahobr (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done This is a clear copyright violation. Thanks for reporting! --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Collusion on uploading non-free wrestling photos

Users M7md eltb3y (talk · contribs), Flikerst (talk · contribs) and Ana Xsosta (talk · contribs) appear to be co-operating in order to upload non-free images from WWE.com (the official website for the US professional wrestling promotion WWE) for use on the English language Wikipedia. Evidence is as follows:

  • Though currently blocked for a month on Commons, Ana Xsosta returned from a block on the English Wikipedia in order to add the Commons image File:Batista bomb on Del Rio.jpg to the article on Dave Batista.[2], which, after some Googling, proved to be a non-free image from WWE.com.

I'm not sure whether this points towards sockpuppetry or not. However, I do note that M7md eltb3y's very first edit to Commons was to request an unblock on their talk page, which seems odd.[5] Thanks, --VeryCrocker (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, 7alawa el3antbly (talk · contribs) and Devil Stunner (talk · contribs) are using the same modus operandi (only one image so far, now tagged as a copyvio). On the English Wikipedia, User:7alawa el3antbly has already been identified as connected to Flikerst and Ana Xsosta (see here). --VeryCrocker (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
And Undertaker Tombstone (talk · contribs) also appears to be another sock... --VeryCrocker (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

COM:SPLIT

There's quite an array of requests accumulated at COM:SPLIT, could somebody please deal with them? Thanks. YLSS (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you know whether there is a script that could people give a hand to accomplish splitting more conveniently? -- Rillke(q?) 11:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no tool :/ See also this backlog: Category:Media requiring a split up --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Earlier this year I looked into creating a tool for this. I would like to create it relying on OAUTH so that a bot acts on behalf of the admin after laying out the split(s) on a nice visual webpage hosted on WMFlabs, showing the file history, points to split at, and new filenames to apply. The new pages would be created with full history, probably after deleting the original page, depending on the user's choices.
However this may take a while, there's not much point me analysing or experimenting further until I'm an admin on Commons, and can play around in the production environment with real cases by hand, rather than on the beta cluster. I'll ponder making a requirements page for it, maybe after Wikimania. --Fæ (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't always remember everything? No problem. SHA1-lookup it.

Dear fellow administrators, dear patrollers. Occasionally, you were wondering whether a file has been previously uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Looking this up was either impossible or required a lot of efforts. Good news: It is as easy as never before to find out whether Commons has seen a file before. COM:SHA1 accepts file input (from your file system), SHA1 in Hex format and Commons file names. It can also tell you the SHA1 of old and deleted file revisions if you fill-in a file name. The interface could be somehow polished but I currently have no time doing this. If you think more output (like file metadata) would be useful, write it down. -- Rillke(q?) 19:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Nice tool. Thank you Rillke for writing this tool! --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Great tool! Natuur12 (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Interesting! Jee 02:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we prevent unregistered unapproved bots from doing mass uploads?

I am currently cleaning up after the unregistered unapproved bot account Nigellegend, who in a matter of hours uploaded 10,000 images using Flickr2commons. Based on the number that I've got through, and how many I've deleted thus far, I estimate that between 4,000 and 6,000 of the images will have to be deleted as COM:DW violations. Most of the rest of them are random people in costume - something we can accept but really won't ever use - but I will leave those if only because I don't have the energy to fight people that think we should keep them.

Either way, it is going to take me hours to sort through this, which begs the question: Why isn't there a technical measure in place to prevent brand new accounts from uploading thousands of files by bot? There's no downside to preventing new accounts from mass uploading that I can see; if someone has a large batch of files they want to upload, they can request an existing bot, which would mean that an experienced users would be looking over what's being uploaded and would be able to see these problems before they happen.

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 17:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You enabeled autoblock when blocking this user. I undid your autoblock since you blocked the entire tool labs ;). Didn't had time to give you an update about that. Sorry ;) Natuur12 (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Labs whitelisted --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Whoops. What's your thoughts on the subject of this thread, however? Sven Manguard Wha? 18:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
To be pedantic, there are no unregistered bots as registering is required for uploading media files to Wikimedia Commons. Throttling through AbuseFileter is possible but returns weird error messages to users of tools that do not understand "hookaborted" errors. I thought we already had a throttle for new uploads by new users? Steinsplitter? -- Rillke(q?) 19:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Special:AbuseFilter/110 (Prevent massive uploads by brand new users). But this filter is throttling only if users editcount is -5 --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
If anyone feels, based on hard statistical evidence from past misusers, that increasing the editcount limit before throttling is removed would reduce misuse, an RFC might be a smart thing to try. I do not have any strong views, however my intuition is that for any increase to be effective, a proposal might have to recommend quite a radical increase. It would be nice to know what throttling means, N files per minute maximum?--Fæ (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Reding the filter page, it prevents uploads if user has uploaded 6 files within the last 45 seconds, in effect reducing the maximum possible upload rate to 8 files per minute for users with less edits than the set limit. --Pitke (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Why do we allow batch uploads by non-bots anyway? In my opinion it would be much more convenient to only allow (personal) bots to perform such tasks. (This thread rather belongs to VP or VP/P than AN ...)    FDMS  4    23:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Out of the user's 9,200 images, 3,900 had to be deleted (42%). There needs to be some way to prevent people from uploading that many images before we're sure that they know about copyright, derivative works, and freedom of panorama (the last one wasn't relevant here, but is often an issue). Sven Manguard Wha? 01:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. In the meantime, I wonder if it wouldn't both be justified and less burdensome to mass delete all the files. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I went through all 9,200 of them. The ones that remain should be fine. Had I not been stuck on one place anyways (I was watching the world cup), I might have been amenable to that option because I don't really think that we gain anything from 5000 images mediocre cosplay and people standing around in comic/gaming convention booths, but right now I don't see mass deletion of the remaining files as a good option. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If there's no easy technical method to prevent this, then I agree that mass deletion (and a block) are the best response to unauthorized mass uploads if there are a significant number of files with problems. (Obviously this no longer applies to this particular set since Sven has gone through them manually.) --99of9 (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
It is possible to block users using abusefilter but this function is disabled on commons. We can atm only revoke the autoconfirmed status (for non autoconfirmed users skipcaptcha is disabled) using abf. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to modify the abuse filter so it triggers for all users without autopatrolling (or comparable rights), regardless of existing edits? One would expect mass uploads from known experienced, long standing users but not from newbies. Basically some kind of flood control for newbies/spammers.--Denniss (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


This has drifted a little, but in the absence of anyone creating a RFC or similar, I'd like to put a viewpoint in this general area.

As a well known mass uploader, I would like to point out that, as far as I know, there is no policy on Commons stating that mass uploads need "authorization"; neither do I believe for one minute that having a policy like this would be best for our community. Smart management of upload limits for newer users would definitely help avoid them making a massive pile of doo-doo for others to sort out, but this should be used as an opportunity to encourage them to learn more and do a good job on their uploads. For example I see no reason why a user who creates a new account with the intention of uploading 10,000 images in their first week, should not be expected to explain what their project is about, somewhere, and use that as evidence to ask on a suitable noticeboard for the automatic throttle to be removed (which might in practice limit them to 1,000 images in their first week rather than 10,000 or 50,000).

I believe that as a community we should be encouraging anyone with an interesting large upload project to create a project page where issues can be discussed and support offered. COM:BATCH has some excellent examples and means that uploaders like myself can explain when there are unforeseen problems and what is being done to fix them.

At the end of the day, deleting 10,000 files is not a huge problem, we can just blast the lot automatically, but this is a last resort if the user refuses to explain what they are up to, or just repeatedly walks away and avoids discussing problems that need to be fixed (presuming that more experienced users are being mellow in expressing the issues and not just telling off the newbie). As a rule of thumb, anyone uploading 10,000 files really needs to ensure they are 80% problem free in the basics (categorization, templates, good file names), and probably 95% free of significant copyright doubts. Preferably they should be uploading test batches (<1000) and discussing these, before releasing the floodgates. --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

So why do you believe that requiring authorisation is bad for our community? I don't see why following (even) the creation of a project page we can't simply give away the bot flag for a batch upload bot …    FDMS  4    15:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I did not say bad, I only explained what seems best based on my practical experience. We all want new contributors to be welcome, especially those with creative ideas for adding significant educational content, both in quality and quantity. This means a lightweight approach than puts as few bureaucratic barriers in the way of getting with the project's aims as part of preserving human knowledge. As for bot flags, that's a separate issue. In practice it can take months of discussion and testing for a new user to be trusted to operate an account with a bot flag, further this is not how tools like Flickr2Commons, or the new GWToolset, are intended to be used, and they were designed in line with existing policy. --Fæ (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Fæ: If a user uploaded a batch of 1000 files, and only 95% of them were properly free, that would mean that 50 of them were copyright violations. That would get a stiff warning at least. A second batch with 50 copyright violations in it would, at least if I were handling it, result in a block. Likewise, 80% properly categorized means 200 that were not properly categorized. If you're talking about failing to categorize, that's one thing, but if you're talking about 200 files that have random, irrelevant categories (the Nigellegend uploads clogged up categories such as 2 and V), that would also result in a stiff warning followed by a block for a second violation. Unless the uploader immediately and without prompting swoops in to clean up after the bot, the failure rates you're quoting are too high. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Some realistic rules of thumb for newbies to test against are better than none. I have had it argued that 99.7% or more accuracy is an unacceptable failure rate (on some of my uploads) while 80% accurate was argued as an acceptable design aim in other cases (large and ever increasing numbers of mobile uploads). I am not attempting to put up a straw man here, just give some perspective. To move this forward someone else might do well to create their own Aunt Sally RFC. --Fæ (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed alternative paid contribution disclosure policy for Commons

Just as a matter of interest, I started a discussion about an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy for Commons. Your input there would be greatly appreciated (see village pump for a more detailed announcement). Thank you for your time, and I hope to hear from you on the proposal page :-) odder (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You are attributing work to the wrong person

File:Amphiprion_akindynos.jpg

And other photos that you have attributed to Leonard Low of Australia are incorrect. Those photos were loaded onto Flickr from a CD bought on a dive on the Great Barrier Reef by Leonard and myself. He did not physically take those photos. He's taking credit for other people's work which is wrong. 13 June 2014 BethPrice

 Comment The flickr account source of the image https://www.flickr.com/photos/leonardlow/340744868/ is currently marked "all rights reserved". I see the tag for flickrbot reviewed; but with the concerns raised by the above and the change in license, I was curious to see the extent of the possible problem. I searched Commons by the photographer's name as shown in this search url: "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Leonard+Low&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go" and found a large number of images by this photographer have been uploaded. The one image listed here is but the tip of the dorsal fin. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I check and most of the images I looked at were taken with the same camera as the selfie and this image where the photographer described his equipment in great detail. --Jarekt (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Black Arrow.jpg

Not quite sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but File:Black Arrow (150021646).jpg was moved to File:Black Arrow.jpg yesterday by தகவலுழவன் (talk · contribs). This is causing problems on the English Wikipedia because another image with that name already exists. Would it be possible to have the move reverted until a better title can be determined. --W. D. Graham 21:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done See file usage. If a filename in a local project conflicts with a filename at Commons, the file in the local project should be renamed. Renaming it at Commons would mean changing it in a lot of projects instead of just one. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Then surely that should be done as part of the move process. The local file(s) were already established, the global file has only just been moved. --W. D. Graham 21:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Rollbacking this move means changing a lot of pages in a lot of wikis. I have renamed the file on enwiki to en:File:Black Arrow (telefilm).jpg --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
This is actually a Bug of CommonsDelinker, replacement should be skipped if a local file with the same name exists. No idea where and how to report this (not that firm with bugzilla et al).--Denniss (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
⚑ Bugzilla ☞ Tool Labs tools ☞ Commons Delinker --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Steinsplitter, the image is not showing up now. "404 Not Found" while trying view full size. Jee 14:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, This is because of the broken Swift. The uploader need to reupload the file :(. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
File isn't lost. It is still on the server, just no longer linked. Bidgee (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was not moved in the table. The WMF knows abut this isuisse since months. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Nuit8

This user has provided massive uploads of primary sources (unpublished photographs from private familly albums). To be cleaned up. Thank you. --83.204.229.91 13:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Very old category move discussion ("coloured" or "race"), help needed

image from "yellow people" category

i today found Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/09/Category:People by colour with other related and strange discussions, eg. Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/10/Category:White people. There is a general difference between users who think this is about "human races", native skin colour or so, and other users who think it's about coloured or painted people (including clothes of this colour), like the rest of our "by colour" category system.

Now it seems more categories were created or are questioned like eg. Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/06/Category:White people of Zimbabwe. There's even a gallery White people. And many categories show up with a deletion/renaming request at the top.

From my point of view those "race" discussions could be much easier handled when our normal "by colour" category system isn't affected, see [6]. This could best be reached by renaming the relevant categories to "XY-coloured people" as suggested by some other users before.

I don't know how such category moves are handled, but i think it's not wanted to waint nearly 3 years with a decision. Maybe it was only overlooked because it's so old. I hope an admin can have a look now at this issue before this spreads more and more. Holger1959 (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Files uploaded by User:Iziman33

Hello, this user has uploaded non-free files by uploading new versions of existing files :

Can someone delete the old versions and explain to this user the rules about it ? Thanks, Bloody-libu (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

MarkZueus

MarkZueus (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  keeps uploading files with questionable authorship claims while remaining completely uncommunicative in spite of several talk page notices. I think they might need a short compulsory break from uploading to focus on sorting out the issues with the existing files. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked for one day. Thanks for the heads-up. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please delete

Folklórní soubor Hořeňák--Motopark (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done by Túrelio --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Rogc7

Not sure, but looks like all most of the files from User:Rogc7 are Copyvio. See Special:ListFiles/Rogc7. --Slick (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done by User:JurgenNL, see DR --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible problematic user

Hi, I just saw edits of this user: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/192.168.1.1PL

Basically, this user started to rename some city pages in commons to "native names". For example, Athens was renamed to Αθήνα, Varna to Варна, Nagasaki to 長崎市, etc. As I understand this kind of content in commons should be in English, so actions of this user are not looking as constructive contributions to me. Perhaps someone can tell this user not to rename pages in that way or someone can revert these renames which already were made? PANONIAN (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Already reported on COM:AN/U#192.168.1.1PL and it seems their edits are OK. Ankry (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

copyrighted till februar 2021 - Please delete

Hello, I found out who is the sculptor of this picture I uploaded File:Origny-en-Thiérache (Aisne) mémorial Armand Larmuzaux.JPG. He died in febraur 1951. Can you delete and file for restauration after februar 2021. Thanks.--Havang(nl) (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Till 1.1.2022.
✓ Done Deleted as uploader requested Ankry (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Closure of the review of precautionary principle RfC

I'm cross-posting this from the village pump, but I believe that administrators might be especially interested in learning that I have now closed the review of precautionary principle RfC that was started by Michael at the beginning of April. Comments are welcome just about anywhere. Thanks, odder (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed Odder's comment that he supports reverting COM:L. I think there is a quick need to arrive into an agreement in the URAA issue instead of pushing the community in to further disputes and separation. Any thoughts? I disagree with his argument that the outcome of one RfA is superior than other. I didn't look at the statistics like how many people participated in both case. But I think the second one is not well announced, was vague and not attracted many.Jee 09:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Odder Since you mentioned that the conclusion you arrived in the closing of this RfC will override the previous RfC, I checked it and found that you are involved in voting there. So I wonder how can you close this (especially this way to override the other) per Commons:RFC#Ending_a_Request_for_Comment? :) Jee 12:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
"Override"? The closure just says there is a contradiction. It's in practice a "no consensus found" closure, what's surprising? Odder left the "implementation" of the (non)outcome of the RfC(s) (in the text of policies) to someone else, so what's the problem with involvements? Those who want the policies changed can ask so on the respective talk pages and see if they find someone willing to; those who are content with the current text can sit down and see what happens. --Nemo 10:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
meh ("your own edit summary"). Jee 10:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:MB Jahna (ship, 1968)

I have a problem with the fact that User:Ein Dahmer does not respect the fact that ship-categories are named according the name that was painted on the particular ship. We discussed it already in Category:Ms Regen (ship, 1999) in my talk page. But now the user is still defaultsorting categories. Also for Category:SG-Otter (ship). The problem is, that prefixes are not used in categorising of ships for Commons. No problem at all in a local Wikipedia. Unfortunately these ships have names that look like a name with a prefix. But look at the images, they are the names as painted on the ships. I don't want an edit-war, as it will be by reverting. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. --Stunteltje (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Block by User:Sven Manguard

Moved to COM:AN/U (See COM:DISPUTE) --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

new created template

Template:Louvre Museum has been created, can somebody check deletion history. In my mind this template can be deleted out of scope.--Motopark (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Deleted by Denniss. JurgenNL (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

File:WindowsME.png

This picture transfered from English Wikipedia. [7] But his copyrighted. --Kolega2357 (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Deleted by Steinsplitter. JurgenNL (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Help required

Hey, I need some help setting up Commons:Requests for comment/New extensions. Recently, I stumbled upon bugzilla:67209 which makes this new RfC necessary — hopefully the last time for this sort of issue. The current structure looks messy/ bloated and it might be non-intuitive what the RfC is exactly about or what single options mean. Therefore, please share your thoughts. -- Rillke(q?) 22:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The Rfc is not really open to votes and comments on the subject itself but needs some formal considerations before. Comments about that are, however welcome. -- Rillke(q?) 10:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Moldovan language" propaganda with unfree content by User:Лобачев Владимир

I wonder if someone can review the activity of User:Лобачев Владимир who is primarily uploading unfree Russian propaganda content for a so-called "Moldovan language" (practically Romanian), all in the context of tensions in the region, with Moldova signing an agreement with EU yesterday. Examples include: File:Eu vorbesc limba moldovenească.jpg, File:Limba noastra moldoveneasca.svg, File:Graffiti politice în Republica Moldova.png. Also the insistence of adding all kind of politically-loaded content into the Category:Moldovan language, together with other images, such as those relating to the Moldavian subdialect of Romanian which shouldn't belong there. If "Moldovan" is a distinct language as this propaganda tries to imply, then images treating the dialects of Romanian language, such as File:Sprachatlas Weigand 65.JPG don't belong into this category, as a dialect can't be another language at the same time. Any changes and fixes I did have been reverted, while I am accused of a Pro-Romanian stance. As I don't want to get into any edit wars or conflicts, I hope someone neutral can review this. Thanks.--Codrin.B (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

From our wiki article on the matter:
  • Romanian is the official language of the Republic of Moldova. The 1991 Declaration of Independence names the official language Romanian. The Constitution of Moldova names the state language of the country Moldovan. In December 2013, a decision of the Constitutional Court of Moldova ruled that the Declaration of Independence takes precedence over the Constitution and the state language should be called Romanian.
So I wouldn't necessary call this propaganda. Also, nominating an image for deletion as "propaganda material" is not proper, we do not censor Commons in that manner, all content is allowed to be here as long as it is not copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 18:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. That's why I investigated further and discovered that all those images were unfree, stolen from internet. As a matter of fact, if you look at User talk:Лобачев Владимир, you can see dozens and dozens of violations, plus blocks for edit wars, from the past. So the pattern continues to repeat, unimpeded. He has been ignoring the license requirements and other Commons and WP rules for a long time. --Codrin.B (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Harbours in Fishbourne, Isle of Wight

As allowed by Commons:Categories for discussion#Closing a discussion, I closed the old cfd for this category (closed as delete). Since I am not an admin and therefore cannot delete the category myself, what is the correct procedure for getting it deleted? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. As empty category. Ankry (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. For future reference, though, what is the proper way to get a category deleted after closing an RfD? Is making a request here really the best way? And another question: is being empty a recognized reason to delete a category (not counting administrative categories, of course)? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion policy#Categories Ankry (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit a protected file page for me, please

Hi, I'm not an admin on Commons so can't edit File:India-locator-map-blank.svg. I would appreciate an administrator editing it for me. The file is no longer an English Wikipedia FP, so please replace {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} with {{Assessments|enwiki=2|enwiki-nom=delist/File:India-locator-map-blank.svg}}. Ta! Julia\talk 17:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. --A.Savin 18:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Given that the image is only in use on a handful of pages I have lifted the protection. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
No idea how you came to this conclusion, is in use on thousands of pages so protection partially restored. --Denniss (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, sorry, I didn't check correctly. Thanks for reverting me. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

all foto delete !

Hello All, you have all my (only my!!) Foto from uploads delete. Why? I have all fields korreckt writed. Its only my Fotos! Please help Best regards saleer777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleer777 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 3 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Saleer777. Lupo 09:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@Saleer777: Please confer to Commons:Guidance for corporate editors. -- Rillke(q?) 12:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Disputes relating to URAA, policy, Israeli images, and behaviour

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the notice boards on Commons, or who is subscribed to the [Wikimedia-l] mailing list, will be aware of a huge, wide-ranging and unfocused set of disputes and ill-natured arguments that have been raging for several months. The disputes are becoming more and more intemperate, and the positions of some editors more and more entrenched. While a few contributors have tried hard to pull the community back to constructive discussion and have made sensible suggestions, their comments have been drowned out in the noise.

We need to stop now and focus not on stating a re-stating positions, but on making definite and constructive proposals for ways in which these issues can be fixed. The [Wikimedia-l] discussion has been non-productive for some time, and I suggest that editors should drop discussion there and should focus attention here.

As a contribution, I'll start things off here with a brief overview for those who might not be familiar with the very complicated history.

History of the dispute

On 2nd April Yann closed the RfC on Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA as follows:

Closed as YES. URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR. Potentially URAA-affected files should be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}.

In Implementing the closure of Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA I pointed out the problems with the closure of that RFC, and suggested that the community contribute to a new discussion on updating the Precautionary Principle.

The resultant review of precautionary principle RfC suggested that one way forward might be to look again at the wording of the Precautionary Principle policy. That suggestion was not approved by the community, and was closed as "rejected" by odder on 21st June with the careful comments:

It is my understanding that the outcome of this discussion stands in direct contradiction to the recent discussion on restoring files affected by URAA.
Given that there are many problems with the way in which the URAA discussion was closed, and given the fact this discussion was originally initiated as a means of resolving the incompatibility between the precautionary principle and the outcome of the URAA discussion, and the fact that the precautionary principle is an official Commons policy, it is my understanding that at this time there is no community agreement to host files affected by the URAA.

Where are we now, and how do we move forward?

  1. Commons is a website owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, and we are required under their Terms of Use to ensure that we comply with US law.
  2. Although some Wikimedia editors would like to argue that the URAA can be ignored entirely, that is not an option that is legally open to us. Under US law, URAA-based copyright is just a valid as any other copyright and we absolutely have to ensure that we comply with it, no matter how poorly that law may be viewed from the perspectives of other countries.
  3. The best that can be said, based on the community's views so far and the US legal requirement, is that images should not be deleted purely based on an allegation that they are covered by the URAA. Instead, each image should be evaluated carefully, and its true copyright status under US and local law determined as carefully as we can. If the end result of that is that there is indeed significant doubt about the freedom of the image under US or local law it must be deleted. To be quite clear on this: if the image is definitely protected by the URAA under US law, or if there is significant doubt about that, it must be deleted.
  4. The licensing policy at COM:L was amended following the URAA RfC closure, and that needs to be corrected as it is now misleading.
  5. As the community is not prepared to amend the precautionary principle, we still have to work to the significant doubt test.

The Israeli images

Since we are legally unable to ignore US copyright protection, each image has to be reviewed to determine to the best of our ability whether it is copyright-protected in the US or not. That protection may arise from the URAA, but may also be a general US copyright which differs from Israeli copyright due to the US government's non acceptance of the rule of the shorter term.

If an image is public domain in Israel (under Israeli law) but is copyright-protected in the US (under US law) then we may not host that image on Commons. That is the case whether or not the US copyright arises from the terms of the URAA.

Now, what about those images that have fallen into the public domain under Israeli law and where the Israeli government has confirmed their public domain status? The question for us, in that case, is whether the US courts would accept the Israeli public domain statement as applying in the US as well. If so, the images can be retained, and if not they must be deleted.

Traditional Commons practice has been to accept a government statement along those lines only if it it makes clear that the government considers the public domain status to be global. Without that, the Israeli government has made no statement whatsoever about its intentions with regards to its US copyrights (which exist in the US whether the Israeli government cares about that copyright or not).

That Commons practice has been in effect for many years and is the reason that we continue to hold UK Crown Copyright expired material which might otherwise be protected under US domestic law. The UK holdings are based on an email from a civil servant at (I think) the Patent Office, who said "any Crown copyright material published before <1954>, would now be out of copyright, and may be freely reproduced throughout the world".

There is an active proposal to extend this approach to the expired copyrights of other governments at Commons:Works by non-U.S. governments declared to be in the public domain globally. Although that is still a proposal, in practice I think it highly likely to be accepted, especially if the Israeli images could be included within it.

Quite a large number of editors from outside Commons have expressed outrage that some very well known images have been deleted, but that is the reason. There have been several suggestions on [Wikimedia-l] that a local editor should ask an Israeli official to make it clear that they understand the public domain to be global, but surprisingly not a single editor has confirmed that that question has yet been put. It should be, as it may quickly solve some of the problems. If it is difficult to get the required statement from a top-level politician, as it may well be, I would recommend instead putting in a quick request in to one of the legal advisers at the Patent Office.

If that turns out to be impossible, could Commons change its policy to accept a government statement of public domain to be assumed global, even if unstated? Could we reasonably say that the current Israeli government statement can be deemed to put beyond significant doubt its intentions regarding US copyright? The community would have to accept some risk that a government might at future time attempt to enforce its US domestic copyrights before the US courts, regardless of what it says now.

An argument could certainly be made along those lines. Government copyrights are different from private ones, and where a government states that their works have fallen into the public domain without qualification, they are no doubt making a statement on the basis of an international treaty that they have themselves signed. For that government later to apply to enforce a foreign copyright that they arguably have not recognized under international law is in practice unlikely to happen, and if it did could easily cause an international incident. That's quite different from a private individual attempting to exert continued control and perhaps extract money for their own works in the US given the 'free' additional local copyright the US government has handed them.

In any event, if that is a reasonable argument, it should be put up for consideration by the community as a new policy. As things stand at present, we require a 'global' declaration and no amount of anguish will allow individual images to override existing policy. Anyone who thinks that policy is wrong should propose a new one.

Behaviour

Some Commons admins have recently been acting with little regard to the policies that they have committed to uphold on behalf of the community. There have recently been multiple out of process deletions, restorations and wheel-warring, and that must stop. Contentious out of process actions and wheel-warring are never acceptable.

Admins who violate the community's trust in that way (no matter how 'right' they may be, and no matter how much they argue they are 'just trying to enforce policy') have no place on this site.

  1. Admins must at all times comply with Commons policy. While nobody would criticise an admin who used discretion to deal promptly with something quick and easy, such as an uncontentious courtesy deletion, it is quite another matter for an admin to delete or undelete contentious images out of process based on their own view of what is 'obviously right'.
  2. Any admin who deletes or restores a contentious image out of process (including closing a Deletion Request before the normal period) should be reported to AN/U for community discussion. Any admin who makes a habit of doing that is liable to have the sysop bit removed for non-compliance with the admin policy.
  3. The correct response to an out of process admin action is to ask the admin on his or her talk page to voluntarily revert. If the admin refuses or is non responsive, any admin may do the reversion. One such a reversion has been done, nothing further out of process should happen. In particular, the original admin must not engage in wheel-warring by reverting back. And if that does happen, the second admin must equally not engage in wheel-warring. Wheel-warring is never acceptable behaviour, regardless of the merits of the argument and regardless of who started it.
  4. Of course, should there be a real emergency that requires immediate admin action in order to protect an individual or the site, the admin should of course do what is necessary, but should then explain the reasons straight away to the community.

Examples and admin training

If we are going to keep the "reasonable doubt" test for deleting files, it would be useful at the very least to provide some community-approved examples of what should and should not be deleted. "Reasonable doubt" is interpreted very differently between admins at the moment, which increases uncertainty for our users and re-users. With a set of suitable examples, we could then think about providing (or perhaps even enforcing) admin training with a view to improving consistency. Erik Moeller has made a suggestion along those lines. Would there be interest in setting up a task force to work on such a project? Who would care to sign up? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I would like to join a task force. As one of the most active uploaders to Commons, I have felt at some significant personal risk due to my liability for damages should my uploads not meet copyright law, particularly as defined in the U.S.A. and in Europe. It has been my experience that a significant proportion of admins find international copyright law confusing (such as interpreting sweat of the brow, or the significance and nature of liability remaining after a government agency has published media as public domain, both U.S. and non-U.S. governments or a GLAM has published material as 'no copyright known'). I have also been concerned about how new users with a lack of English skills, can perceive administrator actions, particularly when the new user may be unclear about copyright or how to use Commons processes. We have seen recent difficulties with openness, I would hope that how to maximize openness for administrator and other actions is part of training. Due to our international scope, I would seek as much virtualization as possible, so that training and materials were accessible for those with limited opportunity for travel. Not everyone is able or happy to jump on a plane, even if the expenses are covered. :-) --Fæ (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a good set of ideas; HT to Eloquence. Training for subject knowledge / effectiveness / grace, for admins and anyone who wants to enforce apply such standards, would be useful on all projects. I agree that any training should be virtual. --SJ+ 17:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi SJ. Rather than "enforce standards", let's be a bit more mellow and try "apply best practice" or maybe "act to promote best practice", cheesy but hopefully you get my drift. Generally, though being an administrator can occasionally involve blocking accounts, it is still rewarding to be helpful (and in the long term discouraging to be punitive), especially to newcomers and poorly behaved contributors, who may well go on to do good stuff, and it would be great to see that emphasised in any training. --Fæ (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I used that term to highlight those who see their role as enforcers, but see this wasn't clear; now revised. I support your drift. --SJ+ 21:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
If this training is taking place over a period of 4 weeks in Bora Bora, then count me in. Otherwise, there's more important things to do on this project than drinking Koolaid and going to charm school. russavia (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You can count me in. matanya • talk 21:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I want to suggest an alternative idea - test. Not for the purpose of disqualify admin but to let them to check and understand the our policies and guidelines. The test have to be smart enough to cover the whole important issues without being too heavy. It can be done as part of adminship process or whatever we decide after a user become admin. we need only to decide a general guideline about the subjects of the test. Of Course that every time it have to be different questions. Geagea (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of a training: @Eloquence, Sj, and MichaelMaggs: , if you (and presumably your respective organizations, the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK) are interested in how to contribute to the curation and maintenance of (arguably) the world's greatest collection of freely licensed media, I am sure that a number of the admins here (and also frequent contributors who are not admins) would be more than happy to put together a training. If it would help, I would be happy to design a training program, and recruit Commoners more knowledgeable than myself to develop a curriculum and deliver the training. (This is of course not a small undertaking, and what I do for a living; I would need to charge my full rate for doing so, and I assume that any admins and volunteers would want to be adequately compensated for their efforts as well. So it might be best to start with some questions about what resources your organizations are prepared to invest.) -Pete F (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Pete: that's quite a self-promotional direction to take this section. In other forums you have been fanning flame wars about this topic. What do you hope to accomplish? --SJ+ 21:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Sj: I'm not especially eager to take on this work, so I'm sorry if it comes across as self-promotional. I'd much rather see somebody else put together a corps of Commons admins/volunteers to conduct a training. (I don't see much value in people from an organization that sees Commons as being run by a "club of zealots" coming in to tell the alleged zealots how to be less zealous, though. That idea strikes me alternately as hilarious, and depressing.) -Pete F (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: how about trying a different angle on this for a moment?
If you consider that a grant per se would be neutral, and the community has a free hand to define its scope, perhaps along the lines of:
"To publish improved training materials to support the administrator and other trusted roles on Wikimedia Commons and deliver training events, with the outcome of a wider consensus supporting best practices (or norms) for the implementation of these roles, and a measurably better experience for new users and contributors that are subject to necessary administrator action",
then none of this has to be about an email from one man with rather silly pointy wording. It's not like it's the first time we have seen this schoolboy behaviour, but perhaps trustees like SJ can have a quiet word to explain why emails like this from a senior manager only serve to damage the WMF and its reputation and must stop. A few employees could do with being sent to "charm school" themselves. :-)
I see nothing wrong with our community accepting a grant to run a modest improvement project like this, so long as it is unpaid volunteers in the driving seat (preferably not just volunteers who happen to be WMF trustees or chapter trustees please), and have the final call on how money should be directed for best value. --Fæ (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure, @Fæ: -- this all makes good sense. There happen to be two grants I'm aware of where something similar has been done, and might be worth looking at for brainstorming purposes. (For scale, I think each of these cost about $10,000):
I do hope @Sj: will have a private word with @Eloquence: as you suggest. This is actually something Sj and I have discussed in person before, and my impression was that he shares my concern -- so hopefully he will make an effort to do something about it.
Pete - Thanks for explaining your intent. I don't recall the in-person discussion (one of many reasons I prefer public discourse), and your impression misses the mark. Erik's comments, including the suggestion that inspired this section, are some of the most considerate, thorough, constructive reflections I have seen. I regret that you or Fae think this hurts anyone's reputation; even if a few subjunctive possibilities were put bluntly, in my view the quality and detail of those emails represents the sort of dialogue that any community should be proud to have.
In contrast, I was somewhat concerned about your contributions to that mailing list thread; specifics moved to your talk page to help focus the discussion here. --SJ+ 05:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The one place where you and I disagree, Fae, is that I think those conducting a training like this should be paid. That is why I pointed out that I'd want payment if I put it together -- I can see how it sounded like I was looking for the work, but all I wanted to do was put that notion on the table. I think that the volunteers (like you) who know Commons processes the best deserve to be compensated for the considerable effort it would take to effectively share that knowledge with others.
I didn't take any payment for GLAMcamp DC (though in spite of a budget that's readily available online, I recently noted with some amusement that a number of Wikimedia critics assume I got filthy rich off it), but I also likely wouldn't do something like that without compensation again. It was a good learning experience to do it one time, and I'm proud of our results. Now that I look, I'm pleased to see that those putting the Wikisource event together did get paid. So maybe it wasn't as necessary as I assumed to make that point. -Pete F (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
@Fæ: , it seems a training is first needed for the WMF staff themselves. They are not good in marking third party rights; this is not the first time we are seeing it. Jee 06:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, we are in agreement.:-) I have no issue with a grant being used to pay professionals to help either create materials, or to support the delivery of training events (be it in real time or in virtual). I also have no issue with supporting non-professional Commons regulars being paid something to ensure they can put aside enough time to help create materials, or can schedule time to help with possible events; the academic world is familiar with using a modest honorarium for this purpose, rather than a contract. Having unpaid volunteers in the "driving seat" is a question of ensuring best value and to reassure the wider Commons Community of its neutrality and ethical approach (including a fully open tender process for any procurement decisions). Keep in mind that I was one of the architects behind WMUK's successful train the trainers programme (which originally came from my quality management background and Japanese management methods) which has been one of the most expensive things that WMUK has ever procured. --Fæ (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, glad to see we are in agreement after all. This is all good stuff. And, thanks @Jkadavoor: for underscoring one of the major issues motivating my initial comment. -Pete F (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

New policy options

Above you say, Anyone who thinks that policy is wrong should propose a new one. -- I think that policy is wrong, specifically in these edge cases. One way of phrasing the current debate in terms of policy alternatives might be this:

Replace
"Delete where there is reasonable doubt that something is in the public domain almost everywhere"
with
"Keep something that is public domain in its country of origin, as long as there is reason to believe that rights-holders would want it to be used are not restricting its use in the rest of the world."
An alternate option, per Nemo, would be adding this clause to the precautionary principle:
"A particular file should be deleted where there is significant doubt about its freedom where the copyright holders operate".
This would similarly allow focusing on areas where (c) holders operate and exercise that right. (This would cover most all of the media that we currently keep on Commons, including those PD in the US but not elsewhere & the files at the heart of recent controversy.)

NB: We do not currently enforce the former: Commons hosts files that are freely licensed only in the US, and not in most of the rest of the world; and some files that are only freely licensed in the US and in their country of origin, but not in most of the rest of the world.

I think of partial-PD media in terms of classes of similar-origin works, each covered by the same laws/principles/creators. It seems fitting to me and in line with Commons principles, to keep each of these classes until there is at least one complaint from a rightsholder about a work in that class. That way we don't have to guess whether there might possibly be such a complaint. And moreover, it is useful to free knowledge to collect such complaints: these are examples of inconsistencies in global public domain law being used by creators to restrict reuse of their works. That helps motivate corrections to broken laws.

So, for example: it is circumstantially clear that the Israeli government has no interest in pursuing reusers of government works that are PD in the country. There is abundant and reasonable doubt that they would ever complain about such reuse. It does not advance global knowledge for us to wait for an official to publish a letter affirming this, before we include those works on wikimedia projects. Conversely, while there are only a handful of instances recorded anywhere in the world of a rightsholder attempting to enforce (c) by limiting redistribution of a work that is PD in the country of origin, in each of those cases we should avoid hosting other works by those creators without express permission. --SJ+ 17:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree; this is inline with Erik's comment in the list. Jee 17:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry @Sj: but you seem to be suggesting that we knowingly ignore US laws, and the rights that copyright holders may have in the US. The solution is getting the law changed, not putting editors and re-users of our content at legal risk so that we can protest and essentially give the US laws the finger, and then think this is going to encourage legal change. Because it won't. The WMF has already tried in the courts and lost. URAA is here to stay, we have to work within that law. Or move the servers out of the US, and then risk losing the freedom of speech protections that come with it. Also, Sj, please read Commons:Review_of_Precautionary_principle#Case_study:_Fijian_photos_from_the_1940s.2F1950s -- what you are suggesting above is morally and ethically bankrupt. russavia (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Russavia: Your claim that we would be "putting editors and re-users of our content at legal risk" is a complete bullshit, and you know that. It is a strawman argument I have already shown wrong elsewhere. Sj doesn't suggest that we ignore US law, he simply suggest getting our requests reasonable with the existing legal situation. You disregard answering directly, and instead repeat ad nauseam the same nonsense. Yann (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
That would require a relaxing of COM:PRP and that was rejected. What is needed is clear and precise statements from copyright holders that they relinquish any copyright they might have in the US as a result of URAA-restoration when works fall into PD in the source country. Then we'll be able to host such files on Commons with no worry. Simple as that really. russavia (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Russavia, that is not my suggestion. I will not respond endlessly on this topic, but it is worth a bit of clarification.
You have conflated moral and legal obligations. This is primarily a moral question, since we are deciding both whether publishing media would benefit the creator and whether suppressing media would be detrimental to global knowledge.
Legally -
  • To your concern about putting [uploaders] at risk: an uploader sharing a file that is in the public domain in their country is not at risk, to the best of my knowledge.
  • To your concern about putting reusers at risk: we currently host and publish many files that are not globally PD (those that are only PD in the US, or only PD in the US and in the country of origin). So we regularly put reusers at this (very low) level of contextual risk, and we help them understand this risk by adding detailed license-templates on the files. I would be glad to have a separate discussion about how to address these sorts of risk, but that's not directly on point here. The question here is whether it is reasonable to similarly host other partially-PD files, not just those that happen to be partially-PD in the US.
  • To your concern about server location: the primary (very low) risk is to reusers, not to the servers; the host in this case being willing to take on any risk incurred in hosting. Risk to reusers is independent of where the media are hosted.
Morally -
  • We should respect the rights of creators, including their natural assumptions about their own copyright and its converse: their assumptions about free availability of their work once it passes into the public domain. It is always appropriate to check with creators to be sure of their assumptions, however both individuals and governments often assume that 'public domain' where they live applies everywhere. The question is how to handle cases where we don't have 99% confirmation.
  • Disputes arise when uploaders feel they have context and circumstantial evidence that clearly indicate works are meant to be freely reused and distributed. They believe that publishing the works is the right thing to do - in line with the rights and desires of the creators, and beneficial to future readers. Both sides in such a deletion debate feel the other side is failing to act morally.
  • Morally it doesn't matter where our servers are located. So we should be equally concerned about the rights of a US creator whose work is PD in the US but not in other countries.
  • How we handle partially-PD materials from 50+ years ago is low on our list of moral risks. More significant moral risk comes from a) insisting on publishing media that the creator or subject do not want published, or without subject consent, merely because a legal loophole allows it, and b) rejecting media that are offered under a free license – including those offered by respected contributors – because of a failure to use sufficiently precise language.
To come back to the obvious example: in cases where people living in a country have strong circumstantial evidence that a class of locally-PD work from that country (say, government works) are expected to be freely reused by the rest of the world, I see no reason not to give them the benefit of the doubt about that class while waiting for confirmation. --SJ+ 19:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • According to wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, Commons can only host material which is free according to Freedomdefined:Definition. Freedomdefined:Definition tells that there must not be any restriction on where the material is used. Therefore, a policy which only considers the copyright status in the United States and the source country seems insufficient, as there are restrictions on where the material is used if it is unfree elsewhere. wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy seems to require that Commons only hosts material which is in the public domain, or freely licensed, worldwide. On the other hand, existing Commons requirements to only care about the source country and the United States seems better to me: USA because of the server location, and the source country because that's where the reusers usually are and because of the rule of the shorter term applying to many countries for expired copyrights. Should we strive to change wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Stefan, I agree that we should consider this. I think existing Commons requirements have moved in the right direction. I also think the status in the source country -- and the needs of reusers -- matters more than the status in the US. We should strive to support all media that are in the public domain or freely licensed in their country of origin. If that means supporting multiple archives, or archives in multiple jurisdictions, that seems to me the right thing for us to do. In practice (as noted above) even today with our single archive, US law allows our servers much leeway in what they host: which is why we can continue to host files while discussing how to handle them, save where we receive takedown requests. --SJ+ 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Sj: the community has already rejected the relaxation of COM:PRP. I don't think I should have to point out the pertinent parts of that policy here. On the other hand, perhaps the Commons community will be more inclined to listen to the WMF if the WMF were to guarantee that uploaders, admins whom might use their position to act on those images, and re-users of that content, would have their legal fees paid by the WMF in the event of any legal problems. Until that day comes, sincerely you will not get people such as myself to budge on this issue. And even then, I still wouldn't budge because of the very issues that Stefan4 raises directly above me. This does not mean that we are zealots but that we have the freedom mission in mind. It disappoints that this has to be pointed out to a WMF board member. russavia (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Sj: I think the community has already relaxed the situation on copyright further than envisaged by the wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, to the extent we only concern ourselves with the laws of the US and the source county. If we actually look at what the wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy requires of us, we would in reality, only host files for which there was a CC style licence. For example most of logos tagged {{PD-textlogo}} do not meet the Freedomdefined:Definition of free, most would be covered by copyright in common law countries such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand, a fair number would be protected by trademark protection that even in the US would limit what you could do with them as a re-user. Then there is all the work of the US Government that we host, such works are not public domain in the scene of the Freedomdefined:Definition, 17 U.S.C. § 105 is clear that it is only copyright protection in the US that is is not afforded to works of the US government, they are copyrighted works and the US Government is free to seek copyright protection in other jurisdictions (see here). Then there is also the situation with freedom of panorama exception; the WMF response to a FOP related DMCA takedown notice would seem to suggest we should not apply the source countries FOP on commons which is inline with the wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. (Note : For the record I am undecided on how a US court would rule on a FOP related case and I am not aware of any relevant case law from the US on matters regarding non-US FOP; it is quite conceivable that a US court could rule that such images of copyrighted works are not DW in the US due to the nature of the law in place at the works location. i.e. the copyright owner knew, or should have known, that by agreeing to the works display in a country with a FOP that they consented to such DW.. LGA talkedits 03:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    LGA: you are right. Given our long experience with many edge cases of licensing and reuse, we should consider updating our licensing policy to address these details. The original policy captures an essential ideal, and is appropriate for anything newly created by us and our extended network, or anything that we can recreate ourselves in a way that complies with that ideal.
    However the policy fails for the large and growing body of source material (by definition irreplaceable) and past works that are not now and may never be fully FD-free in every part of the world, yet are free in a significant subset of it. In these cases, I think it is reasonable for us to carve out of those large gray area what feel we can reasonably host/curate with minimal risk (to servers and to reusers). We should also formalize content and metadata partnerships with other very-long-term archives such as the Internet Archive which host and curate knowledge with a much wider range of licenses. This includes knowledge that is temporarily or permanently excluded from free reuse by combinations of (c), FOP, TM and other laws. That way the default response to uploaders who want to share mostly-free knowledge would be to help them place it in a good long-term home, not to delete it. --SJ+ 05:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (This discussion shouldn't be here.)
    • An almost-specific proposal like Sj's is useful: what I think the RfC rejected is the excessive uncertainty/scope of the direction proposed. However, the text above has the same problem: if we argue now on what's the intersection of 2+ laws, imagine the battles on what copyrights holders "would want". A precautionary principle is such if it's actionable and «enables rapid response [lacking a] complete evaluation» (Commons admins are ridiculously overloaded): it must a) be guided by facts rather than mind-reading; b) prevent irreversible damage to reusers (better safe than sorry).
    • The intention of the proposal would perhaps be better expressed, without such problems, as integrating the current «a particular file should be deleted where there is significant doubt about its freedom» with «where the copyright holders operate», or «that is, unless it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt to be free wherever the copyright holders operate». I have no idea if this would work but such a text is at least emendable, e.g. by debating if "free" includes "practically waived", if "copyright holders" includes sublicensees and how, if "operate" means having main seat, or an activity related to copyright, or any activity, or even just visitors to their website from that country, etc. etc. Once clarified, however, it should become easy to determine if the burden of proof was satisfied or not for each file.
    • If the WMF board wants to do something clear in this swamp, it could do so in a couple lines saying that the Wikimedia projects proclaim and follow the Berne convention's rule of the shorter term, until specifically forced to the contrary by law enforcement. PD-art is a community precedent for law interpretation; this would go slightly farther, in the territory of civil disobedience. Again, not my job to determine what this would entail.
    Enough! I wrote too much and spent too much time on this reply... --Nemo 08:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks, Nemo. I incorporated your suggestions above; they're good ones. --SJ+ 13:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that punctilious application of precautionary principle is ok when we talk about single files. In thos cases is ok to be cautious. But if we split the files from commons to the various wikipedia's and each wikipedia build again a structure to handle the files, then with time, We see that Commons becoming less and less necessary. when the existence of Commons may crumble, it will be correct to balance between precautionary principle and handling URAA. Geagea (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Geagea: , this is a fair point. --SJ+ 13:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

protected pages editnotice

ResolvedRillke(q?) 10:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

When you click "view soure" in proteced pages appears a message that links to {{Editprotected}} but it is now a redirect. Could someone change it in {{Edit request}} please. thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope I found all of the instances. Did changes to 4 MediaWiki pages and 2 templates.
Cross-posted to COM:VP#Link to .7B.7Bedit request.7D.7D. -- Rillke(q?) 10:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Belgian coins

Regarding the uploads of User:Delsaut, we received a permission (ticket 2014070510005689):

"Je confirme par la présente que la Monnaie royale de Belgique est le titulaire unique et exclusif des images des pièces de monnaie émises en Belgique.

Au nom de la Monnaie royale de Belgique, je donne mon autorisation pour publier les photos des pièces de monnaie belges sous la licence {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}

Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser ces photos dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence.

Je suis conscient que la Monnaie royale de Belgique jouit toujours des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur son œuvre, et garde le droit d'être cité pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées.

Je suis conscient qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et la Monnaie royale de Belgique garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc.

Je comprends que la Monnaie royale de Belgique ne peut pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia.

<name of the person left out by Jcb>

Au nom de la Monnaie royale de Belgique"

I'm not so familiar with coins. Any opinions on this? Jcb (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Currency#Belgium says that Belgium currency is copyrighted. Sure, old designs may be in public domain. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but this permission comes from the Belgian Royal Mint. Jcb (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks interesting. The question is not so much about coins in general, it's more about 1) evaluating the validity of the mail and 2) interpreting exactly its scope. It's often a problem when we are given to read only an isolated answer, without being given to read what was asked, i.e. without the context to interpret what the answer means, and without the other exchanges of correspondence, if any, that could provide relevant context. We can try to identify as follows the various elements that you could have to evaluate:
  • 1. Does the mail genuinely come from an address from the Royal Mint of Belgium? Basic precaution to help check that a permission is not faked and that the person is actually who he says he is. Assuming that it is checked that it was sent from such valid address, then go to step 2.
  • 2. As much as a reasonable person from the outside of the organization of the Royal Mint of Belgium can be expected to tell, does the signatory of the mail appear to occupy a position of authority in that organization that allows him to decide and offer free licenses on the intellectual assets of that organization? In your question, you removed the information about the position of the person as well as his name, but it can be found elsewhere that he described himself as a person "in charge of numismatics". Assuming that it is considered sufficient authority, then go to step 3.
  • 3. Does the Royal Mint of Belgium own the copyright on the photographs and/or on the coin designs? Leaving aside an independent research that could help confirm those points, for now let's just take the word of the correspondent about what he wrote. But what did he write exactly? That's where it begins to get a bit complex to interpret, especially when we don't have access to the request that was made to him. He wrote that the Mint is the "titulaire unique et exclusif des images des pièces de monnaie émises en Belgique". (The Mint is the sole holder of the images of the coins issued in Belgium.)
    • 3A. The expression "titulaire des images" sounds incomplete. It strongly suggests holder of a right. But it leaves the reader guessing and taking the responsibility to mentally add holder of "the copyright on" the images. It's annoying that the correspondent does not state clearly "titulaire des droits d'auteur sur les images" (holder of the copyright on the images). But if you are satisfied that it's what it actually means, then go to step 3B.
    • 3B. Assuming that the Mint is the holder of the copyright on "the images of the coins issued in Belgium", what does the correspondent refer to exactly by "the images of the coins issued in Belgium"? This might be interpreted in different ways depending on the context, or the absence of context. Taken by itself, the phrase "the images of the coins" can seem to refer to the coin designs in general, especially because it adds "issued in Belgium". However, from previous explanations by user Delsaut, we seem to understand that apparently the Mint sent to him a large number of photographs of coins. So, when the correspondent writes "the images of the coins", is he referring specifically to those photographs, i.e. is he saying that the Mint is the holder of the copyright "on specifically those photographs, which we sent you and which show coins issued in Belgium"? In short, there are three possible basic interpretations of what the correspondent wrote:
      • 3Bi : The Mint holds the copyright on the artists' designs of all coins issued in Belgium. (Not implying anything about the photographers' works in any photographs that could be taken of the coins.)
      • 3Bii : The Mint holds the copyright on the photographers' works in the photographs sent by the Mint to the Commons user Delsaut. (Not implying anything about the ownership of the copyright on the artists' designs on the coins pictured.)
      • 3Biii: The Mint holds the copyright on the artists' designs of all coins issued in Belgium. And the Mint holds the copyright on the photographers' works in the photographs sent by the Mint to the Commons user Delsaut.
Make your choice, then go to step 4.
  • 4. What is the scope of the authorization given in the second sentence of the mail? It depends partly on the interpretative choice you made at step 3, partly on the interpretation of the relation between the first and the second sentences of the mail, partly on the interpretation of the wording of the second sentence itself, and partly on what might be gathered, outside of the mail, from the context. The authorization reads: "Au nom de la Monnaie royale de Belgique, je donne mon autorisation pour publier les photos des pièces de monnaie belges sous la licence cc-by-sa-3.0" (In the name of the Royal Mint of Belgium, I grant my authorization for publishing the photos of the Belgian coins under the license cc-by-sa-3.0.) Note that, even in the case where the Mint would own the copyright on the coin designs, this mail does not say that the coin designs are offered under a free license. Many different interpretations are possible, but here are only two examples:
    • 4A. Any photographer can take his own photographs of any Belgian coin and can publish his own photographs under a license CC-by-sa 3.0. This applies to any photograph taken and published by anybody. We're fine with the notion that the designs of the coins can be plainly visible on such free-licensed photographs and that the photographs in question can be modified.
    • 4B. The photographs sent by the Mint to user Delsaut are offered by the Mint under the license cc-by-sa 3.0. This does not extend to any other photographs. We're fine with the notion that the designs of the coins are plainly visible on those photographs and that those photographs can be modified.
The development of other possibilities is left as an exercise for the reader.
-- Asclepias (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the comprehensive answer. Luckely the ticket does contain an email address of the Mint employee. And even more luckely, his native language seems to be Dutch. (My French is a disaster, but unfortunately already for a long time nobody else seems to be processing French permission tickets.) I will try to contact the Mint employee. Jcb (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:RM Moulis (tugboat, 1983)

User:Auntof6 is continuing defaultsorting categories like this one the wrong way. I asked the user to stop already with Category:BP 24 Bad Bramstedt (ship, 2002), but now even Category:RMS Rahm (ship, 1995) is defaultsorted the way that RMS is a prefix. It belongs to the shipname. --Stunteltje (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I have stopped doing this, because I realized that I didn't understand some cases correctly. However, "RMS" is a prefix for "Royal Mail Ship". The overwhelming majority of categories in Category:Ships by name are sorted without the prefix, even if the prefix is painted on the boat. May I ask how this one is different? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by changed

A few minutes ago, I boldly changed Template:Cc-by from a redirect to an error message. Previously, it had redirected to Template:cc-by-1.0, however a large number of files that were tagged {{Cc-by}} were, in fact, mislincesed. I am still going through them all, but my best estimate right now is that upwards of a third of those licenses (around 350 out of 1,100) were mislicensed.

The mislicensing took two forms. In the majority of cases, it was people uploading works from Flickr and using the cc-by template. Flickr uses now and has always used the 2.0 license suite, so using the cc-by template, which redirects to the 1.0 license, is incorrect. In a smaller number of cases, images that were processed through OTRS were tagged with cc-by, when the rights holder indicated a different license, generally cc-by-sa-3.0+GFDL (the standard option). It should be rather obvious why this is wrong.

This change does not effect people's ability to use the cc-by-1.0 license, it only means that in order to use it, they have to type in the "-1.0" at the end. The error message includes instructions for fixing the problem, including examples, so hopefully new users that run into the problem will be able to work their way out of it. Any image tagged with cc-by will also appear in Category:Creative Commons licenses without a version number, which I intend to periodically check for problem files.

I don't expect this to be controversial, since it's a low visibility change designed to ensure that people are using the correct license, but I did want to alert the admin corps. to the change. If this does prove to be controversial, I will of course undo the change.

Sincerely, Sven Manguard Wha? 22:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Although I'm not an admin, I would have preferred it if you added a problem message and category instead of replacing the license with it. Uploaders who used the redirect instead of the full template name, which is/was perfectly fine, now end up with having no license at all on their filedesc pages …    FDMS  4    00:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
That's certainly something that's worth considering, and if it gets traction, I'd be willing to make that change. Before making the change, I moved everything that was cc-by to cc-by-1.0, so there are only three files at the moment that have the cc-by error message, two that were uploaded today and will get fixed when the OTRS permission for them comes in, and one that I created as a test. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Sven. Most uploaders using {{Cc-by-sa}} / {{Cc-by}} think they are choosing {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} / {{Cc-by-3.0}}. I don't expect anybody apply a CC BY/BY-SA 1.0 for their new works. Jee 03:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Sven Manguard, {{Cc-by-sa}} also need to be corrected in this way. Jee 03:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't even looked at that one yet, as I still have to finish going through the cc-by files to check them for errors. I had planned to do that afterwords though. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

If one doesn't specify a license vesion it automatically has to be the lowest possible version 1.0 thus this change is somewhat problematic. Adding a problem message instead of removing the license would have been better. --Denniss (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. Most other licenses without version number mean their latest version. but for CC, it only generate a warning. Jee 12:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, this seems like a good move. Thanks, Sven. Anyone today using the bare cc-by license probably means "the current license", and we should either autofill that or ask them to clarify. --SJ+ 19:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
No, with CC licenses and their myriad of variants you can't assume anything, defaulting to version 1.0 was already a compromise (it could have been a speedy deletion reason). --Denniss (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
If the copyright holder doesn't choose a version number, then we do not know which version number the uploader meant, so there is no way to satisfy the requirement that we must link to the licence. In that case, the file should be deleted due to insufficient licence information. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, there was a bug on Commons mobile app relating to this issue, bugzilla:52967. — Revicomplaint? 10:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing many problem files that are that recent, nor am I seeing many with mobile upload tags. Most of these were uploaded in the 2007-2012 range. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

logo deletion

Hello , apparently my logos are going to be deleted and i dont know why it says something about copyrights but i have all of it copyright legally,what do i do, here is the page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghost_Detectives_tv#File:Ghost_detectives_logo.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost Detectives tv (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 July 2014‎ (UTC)

They are not being deleted because of copyright. The nomination says "Unused, user created logotype. Out of scope.". If you think this is wrong or inappropriate, you should explain here or here. No More Cats (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
And to learn more about Commons' project scope, see Commons:Project scope/Summary#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Greater Germanic Reich.png

some user is wanting to impose his unreliable version of this file by force, can anyone stop him? there is no sources to prove that the nazis wanted to give away karelia to finland and neither about including greenland Enbionycaar (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Why have you not attempted to discuss this with the user? The image's talk page is a redlink (File_talk:Greater_Germanic_Reich.png) and you've made no edits to his talk page... Эlcobbola talk 20:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
If you warn somebody to «stop edit warring!» while making a second revert, and the other editor has only made one revert, that does not look good. But the current map is more like what this source says. Shabratha (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

File:The Legion of Boom 2014-07-11 20-47.jpg

re: File:The Legion of Boom 2014-07-11 20-47.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I'm not familiar enough with Commons to remember the correct tagging for the image on this project. The claim of "own work", while potentially true, likely needs to be verified in this case. Can someone help with the appropriate tagging to request the necessary OTRS confirmation (or whatever this project requires)?

The issue I see in the image, is that the angle of the image suggests someone with close access to the players (ie: professional photographer). The people in the background suggests this was from some sort of publicity or fan event - but notice all the other photographers in the background are behind a rope. Also, a quick Google search did turn up the image on other sites (such as Pinterest, which in these cases seems to fail to link to the original source) - so the original source and copyright remains unclear for this image. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/Allow transferring files from other Wikimedia Wikis server side

Could an uninvolved party please close the Request for Comment about allowing transferring files from other Wikimedia Wikis server side? Thanks in advance. -- Rillke(q?) 21:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I was previously unaware of this discussion, and I left a comment. I would appreciate if people could take the time to respond to it before we formally close it. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Cup of Fifa world cup.jpg

Can an admin add :
{{Delete |reason= [[:COM:DW|Derivative work]] of modern 3D sculpture that is copyrighted by FIFA. The trophy was designed (1971) by Italian artist [[:w:Silvio Gazzaniga|Silvio Gazzaniga]], who is still alive. - [[User:Fma12|Fma12]] ([[User talk:Fma12|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC) |subpage=File:FIFA World Cup Trophy.jpg |day=11 |month=July |year=2014 }}

to this file. LGA talkedits 08:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Bidgee (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if it's the right place for this kind of request, but some of my "private" gallery pages are no longer needed as I made some rearrangements. I think it would be much easier if I insert links here than if I pasted a proper template to each one.

There they go:

and also some redirects...

Thanks in advance, Best greetings, Misiek2 (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Separation of advanced user privileges

Hi admins—this is just to let you know that earlier today, I started a request for comments on the idea of separation of advanced user permissions here on Commons. The proposal aims to prohibit users from holding more than one of the following functions on Wikimedia Commons: bureaucrat, checkuser and oversighter. Your comments and your involvement are welcome; thanks in advance for your time :-) odder (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please delete

User:MetalexCryogenicsLimited, out of scope, user removed twice speedy deletion tag.--Motopark (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The user seems to believe this is Wikipedia. Having said that, I just noticed that this is a user page. There should be some leeway with a user page. A note on the user's talk page (rather than a template), explaining that they are not actually creating an encyclopedia entry, could potentially solve the problem.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Some leeway, yes, but using one's user page solely to promote a company is not allowed, and such user pages should be speedily deleted. Stuff like "Our logo represents the solidness of our commitment" doesn't belong in an encyclopædia either. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) I'm not sure why you reversed your deletion. The content is promotional, and wouldn't be accepted on Wikipedia as an article either. That coupled with their promotional username = deletion. Tiptoety talk 14:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
First, they are not actually trying to sell compressors and other equipment through their talk page. Second, it isn't up to us to decide what belongs, or should be revised, over at Wikipedia. Have that discussion over there. Third, we have a process for promotional usernames - feel free to initiate that. In the meantime, my approach was to assume good faith and to actually communicate with the newcomer, and try to explain what Commons is, rather than to bombard him/her with violation templates. They are clearly confused, so not clear how the matter is better resolved by stamping "Speedy Delete" on their work, especially given that it is a user page. If they do respond, the page gets deleted and we won't have bitten the newcomer. If they don't respond, we can speedy delete to our heart's content. Unclear what is on fire that requires us to act with lightning speed. In the meantime, nothing is stopping either of you from nominating the page for deletion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I never said anything was on fire. I never said that your message on their talk page was inappropriate. Instead, I was suggesting deletion in accordance with our deletion policy. Additionally, they may not be actively selling compressors they are using the account as a "business" account, note that they used "we". Additionally, Wikimedia sites are quickly moved to the top of Google search results. Leaving promotional content on our projects not only damages our reputation but encourages others to do the same when they see that their companies name is now one of the top Google hits. I simply suggest deleting the userpage, as is allowed under policy and engaging in discussion with the account. Tiptoety talk 15:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. If nothing is on fire, then what is with your incessant need to delete it now. They are clearly trying to do an article. They removed the speedy delete templates. They obviously do not understand what Commons is. It's a user page for chrissakes. Nobody is suggesting we keep it for any length of time - just that we try using our words, rather than our templates, to talk to this guy, and that we not delete his or her work while we do so. Let's not get into an edit war adding and removing speedy deletion tags with a newcomer - surely, policy notwithstanding, there is a more mature way to deal with this. Rather than thumping the deletion policy, why not just leave things as is for a moment and talk to them? No reputation is going to be damaged because we spend a day talking it out instead of deleting someone's work with lightning speed. We actually do more damage to our reputation by biting newcomers and throwing policy at them. I'd feel differently if the user page were a website address promoting great new ways to make money at home, but it isn't. it's someone's novice attempt at creating a Wikipedia article. Let's be gentle for once. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
It's actually a direct copyright violation of this page. Tiptoety talk 15:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Then delete it as a copyvio. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm clearly naive. The user ignored the comments left for him/her on his/her talk page, but did remove the deletion tag added by Túrelio. Speedy delete. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion to close

Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/07/Category:Photograhps by Fjellanger Widerøe.--Humatiel (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no need to have three open discussions on this topic at three different forums. Direct all further comments to the thread on COM:UD. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This image were nominated by Jim (talk · contribs) and therefore deleted by Steinsplitter (talk · contribs), argumenting than w:en:ArcSoft is the copyright holder die to a copyright notice in the EXIF. I opened a thread in the Village Pump to discuss this huge copyright problem.

So please restore this image inmediatelly until the discussion closes, because an imaging company can't take the copyright of the images made by end users using their products, that is ridiculous. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

COM:UD is the right place. Jee 06:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Posted in the COM:UD. Amitie 10g (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Special:MergeHistory

Hello, FYI: We have a new special page (gerrit) that makes it possible to automatically merge the history of two pages. --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Bitte Dateien von User:Petrarco wiederherstellen

Hallo, in Ticket:2014070810019491 gibt es eine Freigabe der Künstlerin für insgesamt 46 Fotos, die sie ebenso wie die Arbeiten selbst gemacht hat. Sie ist als Petrarco (talk · contribs) angemeldet, siehe Special:ListFiles/Petrarco. Kann die bitte jemand wiederherstellen, damit ich den OTRS-Baustein einfügen kann? Danke, --Emha (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ist diese Künstlerin relevant? Uploads sehen wie personal alt aus. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: , "Personal alt" verstehe ich nicht, sorry. Nach den de.WP-Relevanzkriterien ist sie sicher relevant, siehe [8]. Grüße, --Emha (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Wiederhergestellt (waren gefühlt aber mehr als 46 Fotos & bitte bessere Dateinamen geben). --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Danke, ich habe nachgezählt: es sind "nur" 39 Stück. Ich werde die Umbenennungen vornehmen. Danke auch für die Rechtevergabe. Grüße, --Emha (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem with uploading

When I try to upload and click the link that says "use the old form" this is what's there instead of it. It was fine earlier and I'm not sure what the fix for it is, but think someone here does. Thanks, We hope (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This is now back to normal. We hope (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

File transfer to Commons

Hello, could someone transfer this file [9] to Wikimedia Commons? As you can see the copyright has expired, it's in the public domain. I would really appreciate some help, Gtrbolivar (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure it is PD? The file source no longer exists (no archived version either), no information about the author or the date of publication. How is it possible to state that the author died more than 70 years ago? Green Giant (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
See also Commons:Help desk#File transfer to Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
ResolvedResolved here.

Please avoid making duplicate postings. --Leyo 23:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:NoFoP-Japan

Based on Commons:Freedom of panorama#Japan, I created Category:NoFoP-Japan and Category:Japan law deletion requests and also modified the template {{NoFoP-Japan}} to use the category, as the same style as Category:NoFoP-Russia. If any administrator has an objection, please feel free to correct it. Regards, Humatiel (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed to Category:Japanese law deletion requests.--Humatiel (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that the 70-year copyright has expired on these Ernst K. images; I believe they are now in the public domain; additionally, they are now featured on wikimedia sister projects. I uploaded them recently but I want to make sure they aren't on grounds of being removed. They are also featured on wikipedia. Any admin check would be nice. Thanks in advance and I hope to hear back from some admins. - Zarbon (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And I deleted them again. First, there is no author named "Greater German Reich government", that claim - written without any source... - does not make any sense. An author is a person, in Germany we have no corporate/government authorship. Second, a work enters the public domain on January 1, 70 years after the death of author. Every work has an author, otherwise it would not exist. So evidence is required that the author died >70 years ago.
p.s.: The photo File:ErnstKaltenbrunner-12.PNG (and a different color version) is by Walter Frentz and will be public domain on January 1 2075, 70 years following Frentz death in 2004. One of the versions has different collors, so maybe someone has to be credited as an author for editing the photo and a longer copyright term for that second author will apply. --Martin H. (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh. That makes sense. I didn't know that it was 70 years after the death of the author of the work. I thought it was 70 years after the death of the person in the image. That was rather confusing to me. However, are you certain that the authors of the other three images I had uploaded were not deceased at the time of 1945? Some of the photographic work may have expired and is in the public domain. I checked the other 3 and they were all stated as "Greater German Reich government." Can you please help find the original authors so as to specify if any of those 3 may still be used here on wikimedia commons? - Zarbon (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

expunge

the email address e-mail removed needs to suppressed, deleted, purged and expunged from the history, page, and any other pages, and now this page, because the email address is mine. The following are the pages that I could find which have my email address:

174.3.125.23 06:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the archive. If someone decides to hide the history, they may want to hide it on Talk:Main_Page as well. -- Rillke(q?) 07:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is the first instance of the email address. All the subsequent versions have the email address. Can't these versions be suppressed?174.3.125.23 04:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I note you said that it is up to someone to decide to hide the history. Isn't it a policy that when someone requests private information to be removed, or redacted, that it is done? I don't see any other avenue to request or do I have to get this done, and requested first?, at Wikimedia Meta-Wiki?174.3.125.23 13:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
@174.3.125.23: If you want suppression, then you will need to address this to someone with oversight rights. Instructions for this are at Commons:Oversight for Commons, and for those at enWP w:en:Wikipedia:Oversight. The best that administrators can do is to revision delete intermediate versions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The issue here is:
  1. The email address was publicly visible for a very long time (8 years).
  2. I cannot address your en.wp request at all.
  3. You have written down the email address here again so I doubt it's about privacy.
  4. We would have to delete huge portions of the complete history of the main page talk page. This is unacceptable.
Thus:  Oppose suppression. -- Rillke(q?) 14:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
My ignorance of the process for such requests on this forum required me to explain exactly what I want removed. It certainly is about privacy when a lack of complete information was given.174.3.125.23 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Right to Vanish

I recently came across a discussion at QI about user who had exercise a "Right to Vanish" now Commons doesnt have a specific policy on this... but IMHO we should consider it. Currently a crat can change a user name change when a request is made, which in principle is fair enough. But what happens to person right to attribution under the medias license and our ability to provide providence of the upload, especially where the user has use the {{Own}} and the page now refers to uploader as VanishedUser both in the info template and the upload field. As its now the work of VanishedUser has the work become an orphaned work, because that is how most reuser will take such a user name. Then what about some who has already reused the work how can prove providence in author if we are breaking the record. Gnangarra 10:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

An attribution statement is a legally meaningful record independent of how Wikimedia Commons works. I would interpret RTV in such as cases as taking reasonable steps to not retain links between the identities used in attribution statements and any new names (or randomly anonymized names where Commons pages can be changed in a RTV request), but there being no requirement to change attribution statements. This does not appear an immediate concern for Commons, but should RTV proposals get traction within Wikimedia, this would be a useful area to add guidelines for Commons administrators and oversight, probably with some legal advice.
We do have past cases of courtesy changes in identity of this type, however this was as a reasonable courtesy, normally in relation to Photographs of identifiable people, not because it was perceived as a legal imperative. --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to find out how other projects handle this issue and what their experiences are. Green Giant (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
other projects just rename the user upon request, the issue for us in the use of {{Own}} when the user name is changed as it puts the author field in {{Information}} box in direct conflict with the upload information which gets changed along with all the files history which is also changed to the "generic" name, such inconsistencies are enough to deny the potential for re-use. More I think about it the maybe the text of {{Own}} should be changed from "own work" to "uploaded by author" Gnangarra 12:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
What I mean't was how does RTV affect edits to Wikipedia articles made by the vanished user. I've always undertood the situation of articles to be that each edit on an article is effectively an attribution to the editor who made the change. So if a user vanishes, does it change the legal situation for that person's article edits? Green Giant (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
not as dramatically as it does here because while user may upload works under a "free" license they still actually own those works. Gnangarra 09:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
But the file you're talking about is not initially uploaded by the "original author"; it still contains the name of original author in the "author" field. So a failed to see any "right to vanish" is applied there. Jee 12:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The specific file in question is what trigger my thought about how its handled, but its not the basis for the question. I know a crat originally uploaded the image via an OTRS ticket they processed and the user then came in and uploaded another version over top with the crat deleting the first upload so that the image could go thru QI. In that particular case the OTRS ticket provides the providence necessary for licensing. I just think that we create a potential for ambiguity(conflict of information about the author) that will prevent reuse if we actually enable RTV without a clear guideline as to what needs to happen or whether we can even provide a RTV as would be expected from the user when we need to also ensure that we have sufficient information available for all reusers should they need it now or in the future. RTV is already being exercised on a regular basis based I presume following en policy but there they dont have the issue of ownership and licensing nor will they have to deal with what could be considered orphaned works. Gnangarra 09:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gnangarra: The RtV should not be considered at a single wiki level, especially not with enforced global SUL being the ultimate goal of the WMF, and the ability to rename users progressing towards stewards. RtV needs to be looked at holistically, and the view of Commons to this aspect will be vitally important.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Gnangarra, weelll what you say about Wikipedia is not strictly true. In fact English Wikipedia has a dark and foreboding secret - tens of thousands of files with Commons-compatible licenses, but which for various unholy reasons are hosted at Wikipedia rather than Commons. Please see Category:Wikipedia free files and in particular its subcategories at Category:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 files‎ which has 120,000 files and Category:GFDL files‎ which has 80,000 files, although doubtless there will be much overlap and undoubtedly some will be copyvios and their ilk. As you can see RTV would affect Wikipedia too but I haven't found any particular discussion of this phenomenon yet. Green Giant (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

ImJasonRivera has continued to upload copyrighted images from various websites despite repeated warnings not to do so. Magiciandude (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked 2 weeks. — Revicomplaint? 08:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

User removed deletion request tag

User:Khijee2 User removed deletion request tag and speedy deletion tag--Motopark (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A diff or link to which page your talking about would be helpful. But there is definitely some weird interaction going on between User:Khijee2 and User:Durgasunuwar1. I don't know if one is trying to impersonate the other or if it is one person abusing multiple accounts, but someone with access to deleted revisions and/or checkuser tools should probably look into it. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Durgasunuwar1 (talk · contribs) was already blocked for copyvios.
I just started a DR on Khijee2 (talk · contribs)'s files, and added a last warning. Yann (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Link was in user page history, now deleted, thanks.--Motopark (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The file Ethnic Composition of the Americas violates Wikipedia's guidelines

I stumbled upon this file [10] some days ago and i found it to be considerably misleading for various reasons, the file itself breaks wikipedia's guidelines of not synthetizing two or more sources to advance a position and say something the original materials didn't intended, one of the sources in turn is the "CIA world factbook" A site/publication that is far from being accurate or the most ideal source. Other guideline the uploader broke with this file is the original research policy. Citing the blocks of text found in the bottom left corner of the image:

"In the United States there is 15% of Hispanic and Latin Americans roughly half of them are mestizo, mainly from central American/Mexican origin. There is also an African American group consisting of blacks and mulattos, each group accounts for half of the total of African Americans"

"In Canada 26% of the total population figures as "Mixed Origin", almost all of them have European heritage: Here, half of them will be considered mestizo and the other half mulatto"

"in Argentina, 2.9% of the population are from "Asian origin" Among them, east asians and middle eastern arabs, from that percentage, half of them appear as east asian and the other half as white and arab."

As the creator admits on the image itself, many values in the image are mere guesswork, with the ethnic groups of Canada and United States being the most blatant cases, there the editor splits African Americans in half mulatto and half Africa and in Canada splits the mixed origin population on 50% mestizos and 50% mulatto without any source at all. This image is too imprecise and misleading to be used on wikipedia or for any educational porpouses, so i suggest to delete it. Wikipedia is meant to aim for encyclopedical-level quality, not guesswork. Varitia (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Varitia: Hi,
Please note that you are on Commons, which has a different policy than Wikipedia. Then you are free to upload an other version of this image and use it instead of the present one. You can also ask the creator of this one for a change. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Yann: I know that this is commons but the image is being used on wikipedia, and i doubt that commons allows this kind of original research to be present on the files they host. I could try to correct the image, the problem is that among the countries in the continent there isn't an universal standard on classifying race, and some (most in reality) don't have official racial census at all. The concept on which this image was founded upon is flawled from the start, this is why there is no such kind of maps attemping to classify race for the European, Asian or African continents. Varitia (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Varitia, on Commons we can have original research, a very different situation to Wikipedia projects. The key policy document to check is scope. If the image is potentially misleading or flawed, then I suggest the description on the image page explains what these issues are so that re-users understand any controversy that exists. As Yann highlights, we must be able to host non-neutral images in order to present a range of viewpoints, we would hope that all significant views can be illustrated with images on Commons; this actually provides the assets to ensure that Wikipedia articles can themselves illustrate all views, including fringe ones.
If you still are convinced that this image cannot serve an educational purpose, feel free to raise a deletion request so that interested community members can put the case either way. --Fæ (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Didn't knew that there could be original reasearch here, thank you. Varitia (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

User-problem with aggressive deletion behavior

This thread has been moved to COM:AN/U#User-problem with aggressive deletion behavior. — Revicomplaint? 06:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete history - Edit request+

I suggest to create a Template:Delete history for such requests, like {{Edit request}}!? Is there an easy way to do such?

I've done here a mistake please clear the upload history, thanks for do so. → User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 11:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

If you meant second revision of the file, ✓ Done. — Revicomplaint? 06:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
@Hym411: Thank you, but the last and first version are the same, can you not delete this or must a new version alway stay ? (Then I would upload a more fixed version). → User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 09:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected copyvio

This file 2014 07 30 高雄 氣爆 事件7.jpg is almost certainly a copyright violation from this link or an earlier source. I tried to report it, but the page is protected.--Underlying lk (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Nominated for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - IDF Soldiers Treats Palestinian Man.jpg

The attack against IDF files still ongoing.

Taken care off. Natuur12 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

Spanish speaking help

Could someone with a lot of patience and good Spanish take over this discussion, please -- User_talk:Jameslwoodward#Afiche_Sin_Se.C3.B1al.jpg? I'm not sure whether the guy really does have rights to the movie and to upload the posters or not, but he's using Google translate and is missing the point. Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - if he responds and can't figure out how to ping, let me know, please. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I put a category in itself, two categories are merged. How to undo?

Dear Admin,

Late Friday I unfortunately messed up the categories

  • 1 Category:Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Institute_for_Housing_and_Urban_Development_Studies

and its subcategory

  • 2 Category:Images from the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_the_Institute_for_Housing_and_Urban_Development_Studies

2. is meant to give an overview of all images and should be contained in 1. which must be overarching, but should not contain the images in 2, only their category 2.

As of now, the images reside in a strange type of double category Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies|Images from the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies" that i cannot change apparently. For example image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baroda-India-slums-1979-IHS-89-10-Clothes-line.jpeg

These images now resides in this double category. They should only reside in cat 2, "Images from the..."

    • Can you help me out?

Thanks!

Hansmuller (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC), Wikipedian in special residence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Wikipedians_in_Special_Residence_in_the_Netherlands_2013-2014

✓ Done Hello Hansmuller. I think the problem was this edit where the upper category was added to the template you are using for the images. I have removed it from there and the images are no longer categorised in both categories. Green Giant (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Renaming

Hi, is somebody here, who is willing and able to rename this file https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Guido.jpg&diff=next&oldid=130740991 as proposed, so that I can put it in his obtuary on English wikipedia? Or rename the different second file en:File:Guido.jpg on English wikipedia? Thanks 91.65.49.9 20:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks 37.5.4.208 17:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Patrolling

[11] - Maybe more active patrollers is needed to eliminate the current backlog. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 13:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Block of rtc

Following this editing pattern, I left a message on User:Rtc's TP: [12]. As his editing on said DR continued, I decided to blick him for 2 hours for disrupting Commons collegial atmosphere, as stated in the Blocking policy. rtc is arguing that the block was not legitimate nor "legal".

May I have your advice on this point ?

Pleclown (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems a little quick, but you did ask rtc to stop (exactly as I was about to do when I came upon the notice of the block) to absolutely no response. At that point a brief block to get the user's attention and put a sure stop to the tendentious behavior is absolutely warranted. I was just about to decline the unblock request when I saw this thread. Powers (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the block is gone now. Let me point out some things: 1. The rules clearly say that "cool down" blocks are not condoned. "cool down" was precisely the justification given in the block. This alone makes it completely clear that this block was against the rules. 2. The "ask to stop" Powers points to was not a warning. Neither does it point out the message was from an admin. It was, precisely, asking me to stop. And it was doing so with a justification that ended with "delicate case". What this is saying between the lines is that this is a political issue because I am arguing against the opinion of the WMF and should cease to freely say what I think. This is inacceptable and it is a reason to ignore what he is asking for. Heated debates are not forbidden. They are even protected by the prohibition of "cool down" blocks. 3. Blocking was certainly not the last option. 4. A short block is unlikely to be reverted, and it seems to have worked out that way, it ended before anyone made a decision. Pleclown said on IRC I should request deadmin if I think his decision was wrong. I won't do that this time (next time I might). but I request a formal decision that the block was against the rules and illegitimate and this to be put into my block log, because the block otherwise lowers my reputation. It is a very bad sign that blocks are increasingly used to cease discussion in "delicate cases". PS: Of course I disagree I was "disrupting Commons collegial atmosphere" I think there's a great difference between heated debate in which one respectfully disagrees, and disruptive behaviour. Now that I stopped commenting while blocked, others continued challenging voting comments and discussing them just the same way as I did. It clearly shows that this more recent justification (which differs from the "cool down" justification in the block log) is completely inappropriate. PPS: Concerning "brief block to get the user's attention and put a sure stop to the tendentious behavior": This block was done more than 20 minutes after my last activity on that page! There was obviously no need to "put a sure stop" at that time, because there was nothing to be stopped --rtc (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The fact remains that it's not acceptable to respond to virtually every person who disagrees with you in a deletion discussion, particularly when you're just repeating the same argument each time. Looking again at the discussion and the timestamps, I suspect the main reason for that 20 minute break was because no one posted a new keep !vote in that period. Powers (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
What you say is irrelevant and wrong. This was a political block and clearly against the rules and illegitimate. It cannot be justified. I request a formal decision, to be recorded in my block log, because the block otherwise lowers my reputation. --rtc (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

False reviewer info in userpage

see user page User:Kenny Boyle where are information about reviewers but if I verify, I don't find any information.--Motopark (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Most probably copied it from somewhere. -- I'll watch the user contributions. -- Meisam (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename request

Please rename this file so no personal name/surname appears, as requested by the bearer in my discussion page in el.wikipedia. Same applies also for this file in which appears her name/surname. Thanks in advance. --Ttzavaras (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Actually, I think this is out of scope. Some other issue now. Can't see the image. Yann (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm the bearer. The name might have been changed, but there's still a link to an interview I gave an lgbt magazine 8 years ago. This is a clear attempt at identifying me on the photo for fascists to get to me (again).

Ελληνικά: Λεσβιακή Ομάδα Αθήνας (ΛΟΑ) [2]

Could you please act according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information and remove the link to my personal information? Also, how can I report the account doing this meticulous harassment? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.190.78.18 (talk • contribs)

OK, link removed. Sorry, but the request was renaming the file. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly Yann and Ttzavaras

File:2014-07-20-donnerloch-helming-prof2.png

Hi, via OTRS-ticket:2014072710006182 we have an approval for this deleted file. Please can you restore it? Kind regards, --Emha (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Emha: - ✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! --Emha (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Tyfelstei Filmplakat 2014-08-07 13-11.jpg

Hi, via OTRS-ticket:2014080710014771 we have an approval for this file. Could you restore it, please? Regards, --

Done Natuur12 (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again, --Emha (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

False information in user page

Userpage of User:SABRINA ELEXA will be false information and he upload same poster thatuser User:Kenny Boyle also upload--Motopark (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually poster is different, although movie is the same. And I deleted the misleading userpage and warned Sabrina on her talk page. Taivo (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please delete

File:Mumbai 125Km 3D new.jpg some Ip and uploader will remove OTRS-request, false rewiever and soutrcelink don't work, poster which need OTRS-permission.--Motopark (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Deleted Bidgee (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Links in user page

I would like that some administrator ask to user Discasto to delete these links because those pages in Meta are using as dedicated attack pages to some Spanish Wikipedia users. As a matter of fact, right now there is a request for deletion of those page in Meta, where you can read why several users are asking to do it. I really don't know if this behaviour in Commons should be considerated as harassment or if a warning to user Discasto is necessary. Anyway, if it is possible, what I really want is to delete these links. Regards Jaontiveros (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Stating that these links are dedicated attack pages does not make it true. Although in Spanish, I encourage all of you to read them in meta. It will help you to understand the reign of terror existing in there (unfortunately, in Spanish... translations coming soon). Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 11:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

main page

Please have a look to Commons_talk:Media_of_the_day. Today we have no MOTD on the mainpage.... --Pristurus (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for unprotection of discussion page of Macaca image

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've made this request here and it isn't moving forward. I'm concerned this will have the result the admin will simply have used their powers to stifle discussion for seven days. Tried to find out what to do next but there is no obvious information. Meerta (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

So I've had some more input but still no advice as to next steps? Meerta (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections is the appropriate place to discuss page protections. Please don't forum shop or crosspost. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Closed the request. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


User:Jafarmmm

All of his uploads are copyright violations. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 13:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted and user warned. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

WLM 2014 upload campaings

Upload Wizard campaign editors seem to have no special noticeboard.

Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2014/Upload campaigns is not created yet, that's why I put some remarks at Commons talk:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013/Upload campaigns. However, they stay totally ignored for several weeks and Template:Upload campaign header Wiki Loves Monuments August header is not set in the year-round monument upload form yet and the used Template:Upload campaign header Wiki Loves Monuments finished is a bit outdated now. Could somebody help to rectify this neglecting? --ŠJů (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, {{WLM-is-running}} is incorrect or neglected? --ŠJů (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

File a CFD, please

I'd like to file a CFD, but I can't. Please file a CFD for Category:Octagonal houses with the following text:

The term is "octagon house"; see the en:wp article for an example, or the child categories and files such as File:Octagon House, July 2012, Westfield MA.jpg or Category:David Cummins Octagon House. It was previously at the proper title, but Foroa moved it along with many other correctly named titles, and we've had to be cleaning these up for a long time; this discussion is a comparable example. This nomination also includes the child Category:Octagonal houses in the United States and all its state-level subcategories.

The "creator" was SieBot, and because the bot's talk page is protected, there's no way to notify the bot of the move, and the script refuses to proceed if it can't notify the creator. Nyttend (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done See Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/08/Category:Octagonal houses. INeverCry 19:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

False userpage

User:Luigi663339 says that he will have admin rights but verifying fails.--Motopark (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Removed admin userbox and statement, and warned user. INeverCry 22:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Unblocked IPhonehurricane95 sleeper account

Can an admin please indef block User:IPhonehurricane96? It's obviously a sleeper account of IPhonehurricane95. Also, the blocking admin should probably remove his talk page access and disable the email, because this sockmaster is notorious for posting degrading personal attacks/vandalism on his talk page whenever he is blocked. BlueHypercane761 (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Denniss (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much!! It is such a relief that we cut off the sleeper before he could do anything with it. BlueHypercane761 (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Visa requirements for Turkmenistan citizens.png

There is an edit/upload war going on at this image between Whisper of the heart and Twofortnights which now makes the map change back and forth every few hours. There are a few heated discussion on either user talk page including archives but I can't see any tendency for this to be resolved. I request that the file be locked or blocks be issued to pull the emergency brake in this issue. De728631 (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Full upload/move protected. Considering how long this edit war has been going on, I've put in place a 6-month protection. INeverCry 23:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please delete

See discussion User talk:Kwangmo, can we delete all pictures where are source as Facebook--Motopark (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be almost all of them it seems. In progress. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Mary Poppins3.jpg

This was overwritten with a completely different photo some time ago. I've reverted to the original but need someone to delete the most recent photo. Thanks, We hope (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 00:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! :} We hope (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 04:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Photos from Fotopedia - license review needed

Hi all, Tuvalkin has uploaded a lot of images from Fotopedia. The most of them have already been reviewed, but there are still 130 files what need to be reviewed. But there is one problem: the source (Fotopedia.com) is down and the images in Category:Photos from Fotopedia - license review needed aren't available on web.archive.org. What do we need to do with these images? Do we have to delete them because we can't verify the licenses, or do we assume good faith, bearing in mind that the uploader is a trusted uploader and the other uploaded images are already reviewed and confirmed? Please give your input in this case. JurgenNL (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Per Category talk:Photos from Fotopedia#An alternative approach?, the site has been archived. Just wait until the archives are made available by either the archive team or CC. Some at least have been archived by archive.org; see for instance File:ABRUZZOwinter.jpg (which until just now was still pending license review). Lupo 11:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It's starting to appear at https://archive.org/details/archiveteam_fotopedia . Lupo 18:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Usage of staff rights on commons by Eloquence

Hello, Eloquence has abused his staff rights to enable MV by default for unregistered users. The consensus is to disable it for default for all (per RFC). What should we do now? If we revert him he will use his new superprotection right. Eloquence was blocked on dewiki for doing the same ting. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Just block him here too. It's clear the WMF doesn't want to understand the community consensus, so we should take action in another way. JurgenNL (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Then they'll get their super-unblock rights --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The gadget is active only for logged-in users anyway ("rights=purge" in MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition; see also bugzilla:42171), so this edit is unnecessary. In fact, it should be reverted, since the gadget doesn't list a dependency on mw.user. Lupo 08:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This was fixed because Erik's hack was bad. It changes nothing - Erik has used his staff rights to overwrite community consensus. It is not okay that the WMF is ignoring community consensus. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
WMF employees are subject to precisely the same local policies as any other user with the same rights, office powers being excepted. The WMF has clearly stated this is what they want to happen in terms of project governance. If any Commons admin takes action on Eloquence, they can and should use precisely the normal policies to justify their action. There is no need for a special vote or process to be made up on the spot or for extended hypothetical debate, but any sysop that takes action should be prepared to justify it against policy in the normal way. --Fæ (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I've left a note on Erik's talk page about this thread. Bidgee (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi folks,
We've made it clear in our response to the RFC that we would disable Media Viewer for logged in users. This configuration change is still pending. Odder decided to implement it as a local gadget in the interim, with clearly stated intent to disable for logged in users. However, as he acknowledged to me later, he forgot that setting the gadget to default would also impact readers. I made this edit as a staff member since the script was clearly not functioning as intended. I assumed good faith (i.e. I didn't believe this was intentional).
I initially implemented a simple isAnon() check, which works just fine, but the |purge= method that Lego came up with a bit more efficient because that check is performed server-side. Ultimately the gadget should be replaced with a proper config change.
As for whether WMF has the right or not to implement an outcome that differs from a vote or RFC in the first place, that's precisely the topic of a lot of heated debate right now. Lila Tretikov, the Wikimedia Foundation's ED, has stated the position from her point of view on her talk page on Meta. I hope we can have a reasonable discussion about the next steps, and am happy to answer questions.--Eloquence (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd just like to confirm that Erik's description of the situation is exactly right. Given that the Foundation has clearly stated that they do not agree to implement the outcome of the RfC — ie. that they will not agree to disable MediaViewer for all users by default — my intention was to disable MediaViewer for all logged-in editors only.

Erik's edit fixed a mistake I made, and I only changed it later after @Legoktm's suggestion that checking user rights is much more performance-friendly that checking user group with JavaScript. Whether the Foundation has any right to actually refuse to implement the results of the RfC is a totally different — though related — matter. But for the purpose of this discussion, Erik's edit was just fine (in my opinion). odder (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Imho it is NOT OK that the WMF ignores community consensus, talking with WMF is like talking with politicians. The community is trusted enough, no WMF moderation needed. (@Erik, please don't take it personal). --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
+1 --Gruß Tom (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Inactivity run for August-September 2014

Hi admins; this is just to let you know that I have just started the admin inactivity run for August-September 2014.

As usual, all administrators listed in the table on that page have been notified on their talk pages and via e-mail; those listed here have had their adminship removed on Meta by steward TBloemink. Please join me in thanking @Á, @JDavid, @Magnus Manske and @Moogsi for their excellent service to our community. odder (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you! --Dschwen (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
In addition to those four users, @Zscout370 has requested via e-mail that his adminship be removed; the request has now been fulfilled by a Wikimedia steward, and Zscout370 is no longer an administrator on Commons. Please join me in thanking Zscout370 for the many years of his service to our community, and the thousands of edits he performed to make it better. odder (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to you all, especially to Magnus.--KTo288 (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Geneva Convention 1864 - CH-BAR - 29355687.pdf

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T61975

Hi. The preview doesn't work. Is there a problem with the pdf or with the server? It is important to slove that soon because the upload will be communicated thru swiss media. Thank you very much. --Micha (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

How about linking the file: File:Geneva Convention 1864 - CH-BAR - 29355687.pdf. You're an experienced editor, you know how that works, don't you? But more to the point: the file is huge. Nearly 100MB for a mere 8 pages. It appears that it's too large, or too large per page, to be thumbnailed. Try re-uploading with a somewhat higher image compression applied, so that the file gets smaller. Lupo 06:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, unless I'm mistaken, the file contains the pages as jp2-encoded images (JPEG 2000). See bugzilla:59975. Lupo 06:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
As I see you have solved the problem by converting the file to PDF/A. Lupo 20:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Lupo 20:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons admins viewing deleted images at en:wp

Remember the discussion about Commons admins having viewdeleted rights at other WMF wikis? Since it got vetoed on technical grounds (if I remember rightly, WMF said basically "nice idea, but implementation would be impossible"), I've proposed a manual workaround for implementation at en:wp; should it pass, a request for a new userright (view deleted files only) would be forwarded to developers, and should that be implemented, admins there would be expected to grant admins here the userright upon request. So far, there's no been much input, and the only one of our admins to comment has been Ymblanter; it would help if more of you would come and participate. Nyttend (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Deprecated toolserver.org URLs in MediaWiki namespace

There is a list of pages here which must be updated: etherpad:localjs-toolserver.org. --Nemo 18:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Pages:

--Steinsplitter (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rillke: I have removed your toolserver links because on toolslabs 404. We can insert the toolslabs link if you move the documentation. :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
It's already on tool labs: toollabs:rillke/docs/. But I don't intend to re-do the URL-rewriting. -- Rillke(q?) 14:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Rillke, if you can't do the rewriting can you make a request for WMDE to add the redirects? Dispenser's server is ok, as it's just a link (we already link aka, wikiblame etc.). I could not find a bug report for any of the others, except WikiSense; perhaps WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php can be removed from now, as there's already a link to catscan2? --Nemo 06:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done yet, dearchive. --Nemo 15:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please delete

Special:Contributions/MHTech has uploaded plenty of pictures that are not photo, some screenshots, some paintings and so on.--Motopark (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Please report any re-upload which would result in indef block. --Denniss (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Fire.gif

Please delete the middle revision of File:Fire.gif, uploaded by User:Elena lopez navarro. Not only was it uploaded in violation of Commons:Overwriting existing files, it is also a copyright violation of a well-known photograph by Joel Brodsky. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

disruptive editing

This edit: [13] by User talk:Kabaddi kajal was purely disruptive, part of a pattern of edits at the english Wikipedia on this persons article. may need immediate blocking as vandal.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done VOA blocked. INeverCry 05:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
What about warning before blocking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.37.50.248 (talk • contribs) 23:38, August 18, 2014‎ (UTC)
When cross-wiki vandalism targeting a specific article is involved, and the only edits on Commons are supportive vandalism, as in this case, a block without warning is justified. This isn't a game. INeverCry 07:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Strange behavior regarding File:Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer.jpg

Hi all, I recently closed an unopposed second nomination of this DR by Stefan4. This close seems to have since overturned by Otourly without any discussion (or well reasoned rationale) after a UDR was initiated by Steinsplitter, despite an oppose !vote from LGA. There seems to be a considerable lack of accountability here, and so I'd like to refer the matter over to be handled by the community. -FASTILY 07:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up this here. You have ignored the previous deletion discussion and closed as deleted without comment. Otourly revert of your out-of-process deletion looks OK to me. You should be moor carefully with deletions of high used files - this could cause crosswiki drama. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned here there are six images at lest applicable for same rational. So deleting one make no sense. Jee 07:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest to start a mass deletion request (if needed) or a discussion this on COM:VPC. Deleting only one make indeed no sense. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Link to a related discussion. Jee 08:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The image in that discussion seems to be based on a different photograph, so that discussion is not relevant here. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Stefan, can you point me to the 2001 publication of this photo? As I mentioned in the earlier discussion, I haven't been able to find any evidence of publication before 2004. —RP88 (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Was it in 2004 instead of 2001? The deletion request is a bit unclear. It seems that the library obtained the photograph in 2001, and as soon as the library started offering copies of the photo to any library visitor asking for one, it would count as "published". If it was in 2004, then it solves the US part, but not the EU part. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
What's being told us over on en-wiki was that it was decided that theengraving based on it being published contemporaneously to the photo meant that the photo is out of copyright. If that isn't accurate, I'll be quite upset, as I put work into the image on that basis. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

d:Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons

Hello, I have seen the page above. I am not active on wikidata but it seems they want to make a new structure for Commons. Can wikidata user edit commons content via wikidata? If yes, is this really a good idea :/? Someone with more informations about this? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

See mw:Multimedia/Structured Data and their Wikimania presentation. —DerHexer (Talk) 16:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
If i see correctly it is possible to change content on commons via wikidata. Not sure if this is a good idea... --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
(Off topic) As I mentioned at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Multimedia Project - Wikimedia Foundation, File:Cheetah Feb09 02.jpg is a GFDL 1.2 only + CC BY-NC 3.0; so its use in CC BY-SA 3.0 adaptions are illegal. Please arrange an education program for our staff/presentation teams. Jee 16:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You should also not forget about the CC licence termination teams. By using various images without proper attribution, the WMF team automatically had its permission to use those images terminated. In this sense, CC seems to be worse than "all rights reserved": if you made a silly mistake fifty years ago that you are unaware of, it could cost you a lot of money when you try to use the same image again... --Stefan4 (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I just think that the WMF doesn't care about the rights of the content creators, it is quite clear. Bidgee (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, the content creators could choose to sue the WMF for licence violation. I realise that it is often not practical to sue someone in the United States if you haven't registered the picture for copyright, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I am very disappointed that WMDE (=Wikidata Project Manegment) like to include new software on commons without asking the community. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec) How do you come to that conclusion?! Have you read the documents I linked above? The most mentioned word is discussion, of course with the Commons community. Please don't panic. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
We have not even started coding yet. We've started publishing documents and will publish more over the next weeks. We will also hold office hours. We've held several discussion rounds at Wikimania. Let's please not get upset before anything even properly started. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Do you plan to start a COM:RFC before deolying stuff on commons? After seen the documents and job openenings it looks to me verry likely that you plan to do this without asking the community. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I do plan to involve the community at every step. I'd rather not have an RfC. I'd like us to have conversations and do this together. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I request you to establish consensus (RFC!) before deploying things to commons. We need to do the same for new extension and software changes - therefore WMDE should do the same and respect shellpolicy. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hold your horses. Give them a chance! The current way of associating metadata with files, basically free text, some templates, and some hidden spans with custom CSS classes to "tag" relevant parts of that free text, is hideous and utterly ridiculous. It's a huge technical debt we accumulated from the very start of Commons, when a text-wiki was shoehorned into being an image repository. But that's just not the way to do an image bank. You absolutely need structured metadata in a structured database behind it, otherwise you end up with a largely unusable lump of 23 million images (and counting). Something has to be done. So give them a chance to come up with something before harassing them about RfCs and other red tape. And you know what? We're free to participate in the design and (skills permitting) even the development of this. If experienced Commons users do so, it can only improve the chances that the end result will actually be useful to and be accepted by the commons community. (Well, whatever will be coming out of this, it'd be hard to produce something worse than the current state as far as metadata and categorization go.) Lupo 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I second @Steinsplitter's comment that this initiative has all the appearances of a done deal. I was not aware of this program until now — had the community been consulted about this before all the plans, documentation and presentations were made? Because if the community was supposed to be involved at every step, this first step appears to not have included the community at all… odder (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
We have worked with Commons users already on the initial ideas. The next step is to publish them for comments like we've done at Wikimania. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Really? First I've heard about this. Why does this feel like VE, Flow and MV all over again? Bidgee (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You arere here involved before the first line of code was written. The concept was created with help of Commons users, see Commons:Wikidata for media info etc. This is, in fact, different to the examples mentioned above. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
"We have worked with Commons users already on the initial ideas." It seems to me that a clique little group has already been done without the views of other Commons users. Bidgee (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, my intention as a Commons user was to try to get d:Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons going as forum for the community to get engaged and involved before the key design decisions are taken -- so we can have thought about the issues and be engaged and informed participants right from day 1 (which as I understand it is still several weeks down the track).
Hence the essay I posted at Commons:Wikidata/How GLAMs can help the Structured Data for Commons initiative, summarising what I'd heard at Wikimania and read up afterwards, which I clearly flagged up at Commons:VP, to try to get us thinking about this so we can talk about what we as a community want, and what we think makes sense given the data that we know about.
As the essay says, there are basically three parts to this. The first is Wikidata, and regardless of whatever else comes about, Wikidata is here now. So as a community we need to think how we want to use the systematic resource that's becoming available at wikidata -- eg if we want to create a template that can deliver a systematic, fully internationalised one-line intro at the top of categories and galleries, automatically, just by including {{intro}} -- with an automatic "See also" link to the corresponding category or gallery. I think that would be quite a useful option, which is why I want to prototype it and then bring it here to see what people think.
Wouldn't it also be nice just to be able to specify {{creator|<name>|Q891011}} and have it automatically linked to wikidata, rather than having to define all the fields in all the languages? Or similarly an institution? Or any of the other metadata in a lengthy {{Artwork}} template that relates to a real-world object?
I thought so. But if you don't think so, then isn't it good to have a WikiProject set up where we can discuss and prototype things in our own user-space environment? That's why I knocked together d:Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons as a project page -- and announced it at Commons:VP -- because I want the community to be discussed and engaged on this, and to have a identifed forum and locus where we can discuss this, from weeks before day 1, rather than be presented with a fait accompli that we haven't stood up to the plate and become active participants in. Jheald (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
A bit more in response to Steinsplitter's original question. A wikidata user won't be able to edit per-file commons information via wikidata. What they (in principle) will be able to edit are things like the data of birth of the painter who painted the underlying picture, because it makes sense for edits to that kind of information to be updated everywhere.
Separate to Wikidata, it is proposed to create a Commons Wikibase, which will hold things like licensing information, and probably a "topic cloud" to allow tag-like searching. The details of this are totally up in the air at the moment, and for the community to think about. Yes, somebody could edit that information -- or maybe they won't be able to, if they aren't OTRS or the original uploader -- but then people can change the licence on a filepage even today. The point is to get involved and discuss, to be aware of what Wikidata can and can't do, and to think what we would like to included as key elements of such a database. Jheald (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Finally, there's a reason the WikiProject page is on Wikidata, rather than here. It's a technical reason -- it's because prototyping of templates using so-called "arbitrary access" is going to be enabled on a test basis there next week, but won't be available here on a production basis until early next year. It's also useful to have the Wikidata template definitions available, for discussing things on talk pages. But my intention was very much to be establishing, for the Commons community, a corner on Wikidata that I hope could become a home page there for Commons and our community. Jheald (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As wikisourceror I have always dreamt of a better bibliographic metadata management system that would allow us to share all metadata in all languages accross projects (wp-com-ws) and getting rid of the current insane text-based system, that is why I originally got involved in Wikidata. Since then I have seen so many possible applications and still more to be seen. Progress is slow, but for me the most important part is that it represents the perfect opportunity for reflecting about what we do, about how we want it to be, and to grow with the changes to make them much better than if they had been imposed or not had happened at all.

The world is constantly changing and better to grab the opportunities to change with it. If there are things of Commons that you didn't like, or that you would like to be different, now is the chance to discuss and collaborate to find out how the Commons of the future should look like and to make it happen.--Micru (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jheald: , @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Pleas follow the regular process that exists and start a COM:RFC or a proposals before putting new software on commons. It is a NO GO putting new software on commons without asking the community. --Steinsplitter (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: How do you want that they request anything if the project hasn't even started? And shouldn't the community take the initiative and request that someone takes care of making improvements?--Micru (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Normally you ask the community before starting & planning a project. After viewing the presentation and WMDE job opening this looks like a done deal... I ask you only to follow the regular process that exists and not doing thinks behind commons community's back. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: : It's useful to separate out OFFICE on the one hand from people like Micru and me on the other. Micru and me are just members of the community. The pages you have found at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons are just pages set up by us as regular members of the community. Possibily it was a mistake (or getting above ourselves) to give them the same name as the OFFICE project, but there you go.
At the end of the day, OFFICE will do what they like, because it's their wiki. If they see the lack of tag-like searching and the difficulty of machine-interpretability of licence information as existential problems that they're going to throw an engineering team at, then that is what is going to happen. The best we can hope for is to have an educated community that knows enough and has thought enough about the issues to be worth consulting. And these are quite big things to think about, so it's useful to be starting to put together information, and have places where we can start to think about things together.
As for d:Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons, it is also intended as somewhere where ordinary users can come together -- users who don't have extra permissions and aren't installing special software -- where they can come together and explore what is possible for ordinary users in user space now.
If you look at the things being suggested there, it's monitoring how Commons is represented on Wikidata; it's designing prototype templates; it's looking at how information already on Commons in various templates can be put into Wikidata. It's trying to understand what per-file information on filepages shouldn't go into Wikidata, and better educate ourselves as to the full complexity and richness of information that can be here on Commons filepages (which I think people who aren't Commons people can totally underestimate).
Those aren't things that require special permissions. Writing a new prototype template is something any ordinary user can do here on Commons. So is finding ways to extract and check information. So is better documenting systems that already exist.
These are things that don't need permission. The freedom for users to just pick up a stick and just get on and create something -- whether it's a page or a template or a project -- is one of the fundamental pillars of the movement.
The kind of things that do need permissions are mass deployments -- because typically they will need bot permissions; obviously discussion is needed (and damn right too) if one proposes to make systematic changes to lots of pages. But to make that process possible, it is still for individuals to work up a proposal, develop a prototype, and rework it as much as needed in line with things that come out of the community appraisal, before any kind of mass deployment. Jheald (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not believe this project is trying to force anything on us, and while community cooperation would be helpful, by and large the wikidaters will be working on things which we can't help with - we can tell them the way we'd like stuff to work, but they're the ones who know the wikidata systems and can implement them. I was at a talk at wikimania about WikiData and having listened to what they're trying to do I fully  Support their efforts. They are not trying to foist things on us without discussion, they don't have a "thing" they could foist on us yet, even if they wanted to. But there's not that much point in a discussion on Commons before we even know what wikidata can do. This all seems to be scare-mongering. Have a little faith in your fellow wikimedians. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems very odd to me to be creating job proposals out of something that has yet to be put to the community on Commons.
Firstly, I do support the concept and I have seen the presentation given at Wikimania and it certainly is just at concept stage, nothing that I could use on any of my uploads to Commons, nor anything yet agreed that I could adapt my pending uploads to accommodate. I have avoided investing any more of my volunteer time discussing this until something is agreed, I suggest that organizations like WMDE do not pump donated funds into jobs until we actually have some confidence about what is being proposed, and, in fact, something is proposed in black and white that we can discuss. I definitely would expect a RFC before committing to projects, rather than building castles on vague conceptual statements and a handful of people saying how great the idea is (which it may be, but we are in danger of damaging the projects reputation before getting to the starting gate). --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Fae: . Turning on Phase 2, so that we as individual users can writing and designing templates, is something that WMDE can and are happy to do now, requiring zero resources.
Getting ready for Phase 3 (ability for templates to access arbitrary Wikidata items) is also something we can start doing now, by starting to build prototypes, and making sure the data modelling on Wikidata is sufficient to match the sort of fields we want to fill. Ability to support Phase 3 is core development path functionality for Wikidata, so going to happen anyway. It's a question of us as users getting ready to get the most out of it.
You say it is not something you could adapt your pending uploads to. And that's great, you are your own volunteer, and you have your own volunteer priorities. But for myself, if I'm doing a bulk upload, I would like to know how to be interrogating and updating Wikidata as an essential part of that. For example, so I can just update existing Wikidata items, rather than having to create a whole slew of new Creator templates. Or to support categorisation -- which at the moment is a huge job after a bulk upload. I'm still struggling to work through some of the sets I've uploaded from the Mechanical Curator collection. Fine, you don't want to write such tools, but if we write such tools, they might end up being things you found some use for.
What really could use your expertise is looking at the ontologies that have been created especially by d:Wikidata:WikiProject Books and d:Wikidata:WikiProject Visual arts/Item structure to see what edge cases they're missing -- you have uploaded so many images, what you know could be truly invaluable.
Wikidata is for information about underlying objects, themes, painters, things that could have their own Wikipedia article. Those are its terms of notability, it doesn't want to store anything else.
But there is other information, which exists on a per-file basis, which could usefully be stored in a structured format. This is what the Commons Wikibase is going to be for, and it is for the community to scope out with the project team from the Foundation just what we think could be usefully stored on such a system. It is going to happen anyway, because the Foundation is very very keen to make tag-like searching and user tagging a possibility. But how else Commons Wikibase could be used, what should be priorities, how it might be phased -- all that is very much up in the air. But it's the kind of stuff where if we want to have a say, we need to start doing our thinking now. Jheald (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Fae and Steinsplitter: Out of curiosity, can you post the link to the job opening? On wmde page I just found these openings and none seems to mention Commons.--Micru (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
mail-archive --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: It doesn't say anything about any new feature, just "support". In a way wikidata is already supporting Commons through the interwiki links and there might be work left to do for Phase 2 (see below). Honestly I have no idea, but I think is a good idea to open a RFC and sort out any misunderstanding. --Micru (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
As a minor clarification I said "I do support the concept" and "nor anything yet agreed that I could adapt my pending uploads to accommodate", I actually said nothing about my interest in writing related tools. The key point is, I have yet to see any solid definition of what I could do right now, that I might not have to then re-do in a few months. For this reason, it is better for me to defer taking any action until there is reliable agreed advice for Commons contributors to follow. With regard to GWToolset uploads, the metadata is already nicely laid out independently of Commons templates, so massaging that into whatever is agreed for structured data would not seem too difficult. --Fæ (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that some admins started a talk "to include [or not] new software on commons without asking the community"! Clin. You should not discuss about Wikibase on the Administrators' noticeboard. Pyb (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am am admin on both Wikidata and Commons, and I do believe the idea should go through RfC here. We can not really afford to strain the relations between Wikidata and Commons, it would be very much unproductive.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I propose a site notice for all logged in users for the duration of this project. I want to make sure that no one is able to say they were unaware of this project. TheDJ (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

good idea, i also think this is very important. but please make sure, that on the page it links to there is a very short introduction about what this all is about (only 2-3 sentences). it should be understandable for "normal" less experienced users (without obscure terms like "phase 2" or "structured data"), and if possible it should be translated in the main languages before RfC start and sitenotice (i can help with german if nobody else does). Holger1959 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Enabling "Phase 2" access to Wikidata

  • So one immediate thing we can talk about now as a community is whether to enable so-called "Phase 2" access to Wikidata -- the possibility for templates on galleries and category pages to be able to draw information from Wikidata items that correspond to those category and gallery pages.
This is something that, from the Wikidata side, Lydia has now said that she is happy to make possible to us. Note that per d:Wikidata:Notability, Wikidata items should not be created for individual file-pages, and categories should only get items essentially if they correspond to something somebody could write a wiki article about -- so it is only galleries and those categories that could access Phase 2 enabled templates.
Having this "Phase 2" access I think means we could write much better, more multilingual, more easily maintained introduction snippets to galleries and articles; and better, more multilingual, more easily maintained infoboxes on galleries; it would be good for the data on Wikidata, because data which is being used is much more likely to be right; and it would give us as the community a much better idea of what Wikidata can do, how we can use it and get the most out of it, and how we might want to tweak it and make it better.
But sure, turning on "Phase 2" access is a significant software change, so if it's something we feel we should have an RfC about, then let's have an RfC about it. It might be an idea to hold off for a few days, until some prototype templates can be shown to make more concrete exactly how Phase 2 access works, and what sort of things it can do. But as soon as those can be got ready, shall we have an RfC to see whether we want to start playing with these new possibilities? Jheald (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"In other projects" sidebar

Moved to Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#.22In_other_projects.22_sidebar. Jee 02:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Missed one sock of IPhonehurricane95

I know that he apologized on my talk page, and I know that he will probably stop... But I believe that the sooner we block the remaining socks, the better. That way, we can get this over with and move on to more constructive projects. I believe that User:IPhone 4S hurricane 95 is the last unblocked sockpuppet, so can an admin please indef block it? Also, just to be sure that there are absolutely no socks remaining, I would like to request that a Checkuser run a sleeper check on this account and its underlying IP, to make sure that no hidden accounts remain. Best regards, BlueHypercane761 (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked that one and User:IPhone 5S and Chairman Mao, which I found in the userlist. Perhaps @Magog the Ogre: , @Trijnstel: , @Tiptoety: , etc, could do the CU when they have time. INeverCry 05:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you guys so much! BlueHypercane761 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
"IPhone 5S and Chairman Mao" is Stale - not sure about accounts on the IP range of the other. Will consult other CUs. Trijnsteltalk 20:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

American craftsman style in the United States

Could someone please close Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/05/Category:American craftsman style in the United States? It's a request for synchronising category names; of course I know that categories can now be moved, but once the CFD's closed, we need to tell CommonsDelinker to rename categories on lots of images, so admin rights are needed. Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Jorgeroyan

The page need to be protected and information added to Commons:Deceased contributors. His work File:India - Varanasi green peas - 2714.jpg is POTY #9 in last year. A great travel photographer and a big loss for us. Jee 03:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks INeverCry. Jee 05:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Serious deletion error issue

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T71760

I've been getting the following error while trying to do DRs with DelReqHandler, CSDs with DeleteLinks, etc yesterday and today:

API request failed (backend-fail-internal): An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-swift-eqiad

I've gotten this error 100+ times, and it's made it so that I can't continue doing deletions for the time being. I reported it to Rillke, but I realize he's busy, and I don't want to dump the problem just on him. Anybody else around who can help with this? Thanks. INeverCry 19:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Get this problem as well. Staff is probably still sick from Wikimania party so no one reads the error logs over there. No idea whom to contact. --Denniss (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be some serious issues over there, I tried to view/undelete some of my recently deleted images but 'script can't find them' is reported. --Denniss (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As a test, I just now attempted to delete several images at en:wp; all went fine, so I'm going to guess that it's a Commons thing, not something affecting everything with WMF servers. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I had the same error several times during file uploads today. ireas (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's where I've seen it; reported on 5 August at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2014/08, section "Storage backend error". Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It's also occuring on dewiki. We had this problem twice in the last 2 years and what helps is to wait some time or to let another admin try to delete the files. XenonX3 (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Swift seems broken, Swift is a long-term problem --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you perform RevDel at all? If so, perhaps you could upload a one-pixel placeholder image on top of the problem image, and then RevDel everything except the latest revision. "It is considered an additional tool for enforcing other Commons policies, and so for example may be used in all cases where regular deletions are permitted but where just a revision needs to be removed", so I can't imagine anyone complaining that you abused the tool. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Montage containing deleted image

File:Woman Montage (1).jpg contains the deleted image File:Eva peron official state portrait 3.jpg. Not quite sure how you want to proceed on that one, but I guess the montage should be deleted too. Can I suggest that if you do delete it that the description is preserved somewhere so editors can recreate it without the offending item. SpinningSpark 19:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, amend that, the infomation in the image description is wrong, the image has been replaced. It is only the versions in the history that are copyvios and need deleting. SpinningSpark 19:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Old revisions deleted, description updated. INeverCry 21:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I want to move images to the English Wikipedia, since the "licensing" was wrong

In 18 Aug. 2014 I uploaded 38 official photographs from Congresspeople of the Dominican Republic thinking that it was okay since a "license template" said that they were, but it turns out that they weren’t because the one who made the template misinterpretated the Copyright Law, and that template is about to be deleted, so all the pictures that are currently using that template would eventually be deleted too.

[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]

Plus two pictures that already were using it (in this case, two presidents) : [52] [53]

So I request both the deletion and the transfer of the images.

P.S. I hope this is the right place to request it.

Inhakito (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If the outcome of the discussion is that these images are unfree, they are unlikely to be accepted on Wikipedia either. Although English Wikipedia allows some fair use media, images of living people are normally considered to fail point 1 of their non-free content criteria (see w:WP:NFCC#1 and w:WP:NFC#UUI). Unless any of the individuals pictured are deceased, these images would probably be deleted again if they were copied to Wikipedia. January (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted before with deletion request ?

Deleted before with deletion request File:Addie M. Miller, Human Rights Advocate.JPG, could somebody check, see uploaders history.--Motopark (talk) 07:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/File:Addie M. Miller, Women.JPG. Redeleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Matthew Robb.jpg / Commons:Deletion requests/File:Matthew Robb.jpg

Could you please check whether File:Matthew Robb.jpg is a re-upload of the previously deleted file with the same name? ireas (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Same kid in both images, but different image. INeverCry 22:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Thanks, I filed a new DR. ireas (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Terrain from the Aisne to the North Sea (land over 100m above sea level shaded).jpg

Battle of Arras (1914) Map used here was deleted. I thought that the exchange here User talk:Keith-264 had resolved the problem?


cite book=|title=The Times History of the War |volume=II (pub 1915) |author= |year=1914–1922 |publisher=The Times |location=London |url=https://ia600301.us.archive.org/26/items/timeshistoryofwa02londuoft/timeshistoryofwa02londuoft.pdf |oclc=220271012

|author=Staff writer(s); no by-line

I'd altered the template without realising that it ruined the information. Leyo sorted it out - as far as I knew.Keith-264 (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Isle of Man RfC

Can a neutral user (not necessarily an admin) please close the RfC at File talk:Flag of the Isle of Man.svg and judge on whether it was canvassed? If you have time, the preceding discussions are [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Sorry if this is the wrong place for this request; there does not appear to be a Commons equivalent of en:Wikipedia:Requests for closure, and requests for closure have been placed here before. SiBr4 (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done SpinningSpark 01:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I think another discussion is needed to determine what to do next. SiBr4 (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

inquiry

Hello. I have noticed that this user's [54] uploads seem to be entirely violating copyright in one way or another. I do not want to list files for deletion one after another, but they all have grounds for deletion. I am guessing that this user is a forum user who just uploads for his own personal forum discussions. His maps generally are not maps that could be used in wikipedia articles and are generally the kind of maps that generate discussion on how to carve up bosnia-herzegovina. His most erroneous maps were deleted - he uploaded maps from the university of belgrade, claiming that he had the right to release them on the public domain... and it's similar with others - he takes stuff and edits it. (Lilic (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)).

some IP add OTRS-ticket number, perhaps false to poster

some IP add OTRS-ticket number, perhaps false to poster File:Mumbai 125Km 3D official poster.jpg, please delete--Motopark (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

New account added OTRS-number in poster, please delete

File:Karanvir's Mumbai 125Km 3D official poster.jpg, are this same than deleted poster File:Mumbai 125Km 3D official poster.jpg ‎--Motopark (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am looking into it. Natuur12 (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Blocked the accounts who uploaded the images plus some more sockpuppets. Natuur12 (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Flickr human review backlog

Dear Admins and trusted users,

As you know, we are all volunteers on the Commons project. While Commons has many licensed reviewers, I have noticed that many of them are inactive and don't mark images anymore. When I don't mark images in flickr human review, the backlog seems to grow and grow--and the images are mostly the same unmarked ones that I could not mark earlier. Unfortunately, after September 2, I will have to spend much less time marking images here because I have a job to do in the real world. It is unfortunate that there are not many active reviewers on Commons but if the flickr human review system starts to get overloaded and users ask why their images are not marked, please ask other reviewers to mark images too...or the whole system will break down. I don't know where the other licensed reviewers are sometimes. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It would help if we recognized more automated verification. My experience of verifying uploads by checking the licence on Flickr using Flickr's own API (see User:Fæ/Flickr API detail) was so negative that I abandoned the idea, as it was treated as me abusing our systems by verifying my own uploads, when the point was that it was an automated verification process. This is *exactly* what the normal Flickr approvals do, only mine was working for uploads where the images might be restricted or friends only; normally impossible. I certainly would not want to spend my volunteer time as a licence reviewer approving uploads that could have automated checks.
One day I might return to it, but once bitten, twice shy. --Fæ (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Yes. It would be more helpful with more automated verification. With flickr human review, there are batches of hundreds of images sometimes over 1-2 days and one person cannot be expected to mark them all. That is the reason for my notice here...so that other reviewers and Admins will mark images here. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Category POV-pushing

Today, I Love Triệu Đà (talk · contribs) moved Category:Nanyue to Category:Nam Việt using the summary "Triệu dynasty & Nam Việt kingdom belong to Vietnam history", and then proceeded to manually replace every single instance of "Nanyue" with "Nam Việt". The English Wikipedia uses the term "Nanyue" because it is the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language literature, and although WP:COMMONNAME isn't relevant to Commons, I find the edit summary explaining the move to be of concern. Is someone able to rollback the instances of each replacement and/or move? --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 10:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I support Benlisquare's remarks. Changing Nanyue to Nam Việt is anachronistic and represents a nationalistic Vietnamese point of view which is not helpful. Changes like this should only be made with consensus after discussion, and in the meanwhile all related changes should be reverted. BabelStone (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Category rename reverted. However, the gallery rename by this user I found not so controversial as this location is now in Vietnam and gallery names are not required to be in English. Preserving an English-named link is enough, IMO. Ankry (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Twintowers of Deutsche Bank Headquarter in Frankfurt a.M..jpg

Can an admin please nominate this for deletion with the following :

This has a [[COM:Freedom of panorama#Germany|Freedom of panorama]] Issue : the image is taken from the [[:en:Main Tower|Maintower building]] which unless the this building is "''dedicated to the public and publicly-accessible''" which it does not appear to be then the image does not qualify for the exception.

Thanks. LGA talkedits 21:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the article you pointed, there are two publicly available observatory platforms in Main Tower. So it is a public place. Ankry (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
But firstly there is a charge for access and secondly it has limited opening times so does not qualify. LGA talkedits 22:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
you are talking about the whole Category:Views from Maintower, right? Holger1959 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
They need to be reviewed, any showing architecture still in copyright should be deleted. LGA talkedits 22:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Limited opening times is irrelevant for Panoramafreiheit and despite charging for access it's accessible to the public. Although it's debatable if this would qualify as dedicated to the public.--Denniss (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually if your read Freedom of panorama you will see :
"Private property that cannot be freely accessed, e.g. because it is enclosed by a fence or there is some form of admission control, does not qualify for § 59 UrhG."
So as charging for access is a form of admission control the location does not meet the requirement. LGA talkedits 22:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree to LGA. Anyway, his arguments are well-grounded, so there should be a regular deletion request. ireas (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The POTD protection should expire now or in a couple of hours, so that you may nominate it for a DR yourself. (I'm afraid that we have to delete it indeed; as the Germany FoP exception is very restrictive.) --A.Savin 23:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ResolvedProtection has now expired and image nominated for deletion.

LGA talkedits 06:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Peter Damian block

Could some of you please review the indef block on Peter Damian (talk · contribs)?

Apparently he was testing out (on his own pages) how well edit filters understood vandalism, he didn´t know you should not do that on commons, and he has apologised for it. (You can do it on other Wikipedia projects)

He said that he accidentally used the real (first?) name of an editor whom he has had issues with. Now, I disagree with Peter Damian in a thousand things, but I have never known him to lie. If he said he used the name accidentally, I believe him. Is there no policy of "Assuming Good Faith" on commons? Cheers, TheRealHuldra (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

See User talk:Peter Damian#Unblock_request_declined --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
A user has sent this link via mail to me. Off wiki canvassing. See also Peter's CW edits --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
He made an obvious personal attack on Russavia on that page. I've given the link so that other admins can see it. It wasn't accidental, and the idea or assertion that it was, after all his issues with Russavia, is ridiculous. Other than that, if anyone reviews Peter's edits on Commons since 2012, there are no constructive contributions (ie image uploads, categorization, galleries, etc). All he's done is made Wikipedia related edits on his userpage and on various talkpages. Commons shouldn't be used by an editor who's indef-blocked on en.wiki to basically edit en.wiki by proxy or to personally attack a Commons admin he has problems with. I stand by the block. INeverCry 20:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies. However, since you two are the ones who have made the block, I brought it here in the hope that other admins could review it. I believe Russavia is also blocked on English wikipedia; I don´t think we should hold it against anyone if they are blocked on another project, or use it as an argument to block them here. And I must confess I am not that often here, either. I am very active on English Wikipedia, however, and I mostly edit Commons to use it on en.wp (hope you understand what I mean). That people use commons rarely, is not a reason to block anyone, I hope. Cheers, TheRealHuldra (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC) PS: the Peter's CW edits didn´t work just now; it took time-out.
And I get to comment here as well, especially since you're misrepresenting the case, and coming up with block reasons that I certainly didn't use. Nothing you've just said applies to Peter or my block of him in the least. Russavia uploads 10s of thousands of images here, and doesn't use Commons solely as a venue for Wikipedia issue/block-related editing, as Peter has. If Peter had made constructive edits to Commons, rather than using it as a venue for his Wikipedia issues, and avoided personally attacking Russavia, he wouldn't be blocked. INeverCry 21:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Your edits on Commons don't look at all like Peter Damian's; the last edit of his outside of userspace was on 15:27, October 7, 2012, with the September 2013 material all being related to an attack (justified or not) on an editor that had nothing to do with Commons. (There's apparently a deleted upload with copyright problems in that period.) He's banned on en.wp and inactive on any other wiki besides meta, so he's clearly not using this as a tool to advance one of our Wikis. There's simply no pattern of productive edits. I'm not an admin, but from what I can see, I'll take their word whatever was on that page was the final straw.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I am uninvolved, and I support the block and I would not lift it. While I agree that there may be active Wikipedians who are rarely active on Commons and that it is not a standalone block reason, this particular user obviously only appeared on Commons in the last two years to develop user conflicts. Edits withn Commons scope you will not find amongst their contributions since 2013. So, it is not a "less active" contributor, but a ("less active") single purpose account. The advantage of Commons before Wikipedia is the low tolerance for such accounts, and I don't want to see that tolerance get more. --A.Savin 21:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    Peter Damian never made useful contributions here, only fanned flames. Let him stay away. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
While I'm not an admin, I do find at least the revocation of talkpage access unjustified. As far as I can see (i.e. unless something has been oversighted), this was the user's only edit to his talk page after the block. That edit was in no way a cause for justified revocation of talkpage access, it was an entirely normal unblock request. darkweasel94 17:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Restored. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I doubt Peter Damian and me will ever claim to be friends, due to past unpleasantness of a nature that I am unlikely to ever forget. However, saying this, I do think it the right thing to do to allow anyone the potential to appeal against indef blocks, were he able to come back to this project with a credible request explaining how he would like to help contribute to our educational content and how he can avoid past problems, so that this project remains mellow and a positive non-hostile environment for all our contributors.

His use of Commons has been deliberately disruptive, and appears to have included using Commons as a means both to remotely poke at Wikipedia, plus a really stupid jibe at one of our long term contributors which might be interpreted by some as anti-gay. I may have been encouraged to support a block review in the short term, had Peter's reaction not been to immediately attempt to create public drama about his block off-wiki rather than, say, trying a proper apology for the target of his apparent trolling; even if he feels this was a misinterpretation. Given this context, I suggest that Peter is encouraged to reflect on what the Open Knowledge scope of this project is, and whether he can ever really be interested in doing more than using this site to inflame drama like it was 4Chan. I don't know how long serious reflection takes, but considering the upset recently caused, a period where his talk page access remains blocked is probably wise both for him and others affected, and I can't see much point in another unblock request until well into 2015. --Fæ (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Very well, my reading of this is that no-one else would be indeffed under the same circumstances, is that correct? In short: Peter Damian is indeffed because of his history as a critic.
And if one first denies talk-access (Thanks, Steinsplitter, for restoring it!) then one cannot really complain that anyone goes off-wiki, can we? In fact, I would have thought we should expect it. Cheers, TheRealHuldra (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
You're reading is completely incorrect. Anyone who behaves in the same way that Peter has here on Commons would also be subject to the same block. As to your second comment about talkpage access removal being an excuse for Peter's off-wiki posting, you're wrong about the timeline. My original block didn't remove talkpage access. Peter's original post on Wikipediocracy mentions my block only, and not the later removal of talk access by another admin. He posted there before his unblock request here. INeverCry 22:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Peter Damian has a long history of bringing trouble to Commons and not contributing positively. We block people like that, who are incapable or unwilling to contribute productively.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_48&oldid=264578317"