Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 18

User talk:Misatur

User:Misatur has uploaded loads of images that are not within the scope [1]. --08:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Time to break out Special:Nuke. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

All gone; user pointed towards Flickr as a better outlet. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to advise "Misatur" of the fact that his files do not meet the Commons' scope. Well, problem solved effectively. --High Contrast (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thumbnails of non-animated GIF images

Hi,

The bug 16451 GIF scaling limit should be applied to animated GIFs only is marked as "fixed" since August, but non animated GIF's on commons are still not being scaled. When I asked about it on bugzilla, I was told that "somebody needs to activate it on Wikimedia". Anybody knows how to do that? --Jarekt (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting picture

Hello,

Could someone be so kind to delete the useless versions of File:U1 Renminlu Suzhou.jpg created by me. I'd like to completely get rid of the first version, as a person is visible there and might be identified against its wish. Two of the three other versions are redundant - they are all the same (my computer showed me the wrong result because I forgot to refresh cache) Sorry for the circumstances. User:YYK

 Done, Deleted the first version. --Martin H. (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist User talk:CategorizationBot please

Hi everyone, I moved most of my categorization jobs to a new dedicated bot account. The categorization bots produced a lot of feedback on my talk page (too much for me to cope with). I hope user questions will now end up at User talk:CategorizationBot. I would really appreciate it if people watchlist this page and help answering these questions. Multichill (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphan bots

Does Commons have a policy on how to handle orphaned bots? User:FlickreviewR appears to be still active eg[2], but there is no one maintaining it apparently. User:Bryan now says

I am no longer part of the active Commons community and do not intend to become so in the foreseeable future. I won't check this page regularly, so in case you need me, send an mail. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So we have an orphan bot that will no doubt continue to trawl the seas until it hits a reef somewhere. The problem is that while it can no doubt do the job it was set up for, the environment changes and it needs updating. There is already a note on its talk page complaining that it doesn't recognise {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}, and now with User:MGA73bot2 marking everything that contains "flickr.com" for flickr review it is marking derivative images as having bad licenses as it was never designed for that (it should obviously just be checking the source image, which may well have been flickr reviewed long ago and found to have a good license then). --Tony Wills (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bryan is not completely gone thankfully, so in an emergency we can still contact him. That in turn means FlickreviewR is not technically orphaned. That said he is likely to be slow to respond. I got him to carry out a feature request and he also fixed the "no known restriction" problem (both in late July). Of course, future changes are a problem especially if he goes completely. Given the extreme importance of that bot to the project, I think the best solution here is for us to find another bot operator willing to do support - either from taking over/supporting Bryan with that bot or by setting up clone bot(s). The same goes for his other bots (DRBot, BryanBot, CommonsDelinker).

As for the broader question, I'm not aware of a policy on orphaned bots.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Bryan is well aware of this "single maintainer" problem, and has asked before for co-maintainers.[3] Lupo 22:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear that there is some support there still from Bryan. This seems to be a general problem with bots and other tools like Mayflower. Useful additions that need maintanence but people have moved on. I mentioned the same concern at Commons:Bots/Requests/FPCBot, it would be nice if we had some sort of adopt a bot program, or some sort of buddy system for operators of bots that perform ongoing functions, it would save re-inventing the wheel at regular intervals. I see that User:MGA73bot2's owner is very responsive and has updated his bot to avoid some bugs and limitations in User:FlickreviewR so we're ok until the next bug pokes its head up :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We have the multi-maintainer projects at the Toolserver. User:CommonsDelinker for example is run by multiple admins in a multi-maintainer account. Multichill (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So we should push other bots to become part of this? --Tony Wills (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should identify bots and tools important to Commons and encourage more than one maintainer. Multichill (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ps. I'm still looking for one or more co-maintainers for CategorizationBot

Revised image not reflect to article

The height of en:Tokyo Sky Tree is altered to 634m from 610m in design and in under construction. The image file File:Tokyo Sky Tree - Silhouette & Cross section.jpg is up dated to 634m [4]. This update image, however not reflected to article such as en:Tokyo Sky Tree, ja:東京スカイツリー and other articles. This topic is also posted to Commons:Village pump#Revised image not reflect to article November 3.--Namazu-tron (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see en:Wikipedia:Purge. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved by purge. Thanks a lot.--Namazu-tron (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Concern over admin actions and possibly collusion on voting

I am concerned about Lycaon's behaviour as indicated here. It seems quite likely to me that there has been collusion between him and his now acknowledged wife on some issues, particularly voting. His wife's contributions, while appreciated, are rather focussed and at times on the same subjects as her husband's. Whether this is called puppetry or not is rather academic as the effect - removing transparency from voting and colluding - is the same.

As can be seen from the CU page the indication was that Lycaon would be available for comment last Friday. Given his long standing involvement in Commons it seemed appropriate to allow a little more time. However I posted yesterday on his talk page and there is still no response. It may well be that he is away again however this cannot be merely left in abeyance and I feel the community must review this. Lar has cross linked the two user pages now so transparency is now there however I certainly feel that the community was mislead by their voting.

I feel it is now appropriate to seek comments from the community. At the very least I feel any pages/images affected by this collusion should be re-run/reviewed. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see that it matters so much, unless it would be voting on adminship. And even then, "one man one vote", but women may vote too. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand there were a number of FPs that failed because of these two votes (with only one of the votes they would have passed) or because these votes turned a tide. Given that his wife did little else than support his positions (contrast the activities of my wife, for example, we are both contributors of some significant history with far different interests, and participate on different wikis to different degrees) that's not really fair. Per Herby, I think the right thing to do is run these FPs over again but without their votes. If they fail again, so be it, but they deserve another chance, in my view. The larger picture here is that an admin and long time trusted member of our community is not being sufficiently communicative... just blowing the whole thing off isn't an appropriate response. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Estrilda' gallery shows that she contributed over one hundred photos. That should count as a significant history. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is denying the good contributions of either user.

However because their association was unknown to the community, the community has been mislead.

I agree with Larry - I think that people who are not involved in this should consider whether the voting. If the votes affected or influenced the outcome they should be re-run without participation by Lycaon or his wife.

I think there has been effectively harassment by these two accounts which were seen as quite separate personally but that is why others in the community should look at this.

Based on all I've seen so far and the sad lack of response from Lycaon I personally regret nominating him as an admin here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"I appologize for the voting (supporting my husband). That will not happen again." (statement by Estrilda from the CU page). That's reason enough to rerun these votes, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Herby and Lar. As a minimum I think

• Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kalapana May 2009.jpg

should have its FPC status reconsidered as it failed just by one vote and both Estrilda and Lycaon opposed and Estrilda has acknowledged some kicking back in the form of oppose votes in that time frame. I think there is one more FPC which is affected in the same manner (mila probably knows). Personally I consider it very unlikely that Lycaon has not seen the recent posts both on the RFCU and on his talk page, and I am dissapointed by this lack of response from a user, which I have hithertoe had great respect for and has perceived as a Commons friend. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RE:Response: As of what Estrilda wrote[5], he might be on a field trip/excursion without online access. --Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like conflict of interests for me. It'll be good idea if both persons will contribute to different area of Commons without correlations. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Pieter Kuiper's comments, Lar and his wife are a good example of how two people from the same household can contribute productively and appropriately. The difficulty is how hard it is for the rest of the editing community to know whether it's really two independent people, or one person with two accounts, or two family members acting in deliberate collusion. Lycaon is an experienced administrator; it would have been easy for him to have avoided suspicions with proactive disclosure. Yet he didn't, and has hardly responded after Checkuser was run. Estrilda posted to say that Lycaon would be unavailable until Thursday or Friday of last week. We've been patient; Lycaon still hasn't followed up. I don't want to think badly of him, but it would not be good to institute a double standard. Potential vote stacking is a serious matter. Durova (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured-picture votes are hardly a serious matter. This cannot have been the only example of collaborative backbiting or reciprocal backscratching. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We all contribute for our own reasons and for our own enjoyment, and while they may not be a serious matter to you, or to me, I am not sure we should make such a blanket pronouncement, and I personally would not presume to. There is a pattern here, it's a bad practice to allow to let stand. I think it is not going to hurt us to rerun some of these and see what happens. I would hope that on a rerun people would put the past aside and comment solely on the merits (that is, neither vote "against" because they were upset about the rerun nor vote "for" out of sympathy or merely because they were upset about the fairness aspect). ++Lar: t/c 15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

One cannot reverse the clock and the context, but it seems evident that there is a simple way of redoing specific FPs if a user request for it. I am more worrying about the silence of Lycaon, although a seaman is never completely predictable. --Foroa (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A featured picture usually represents considerable effort on the part of the editor who contributes it, and sometimes also involves nontrivial outlay for equipment, software, books, etc. from the volunteer's personal funds. Lar's suggestion looks like a good one. Durova (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that anything involving voting should be re-run.

I am happy to acknowledge that a sailor's life may well be unpredictable. However if his wife felt he would be available for comment last Friday the lack of comment concerns me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

An alternative to revoting could be to simply disregard one of the votes, e.g., Estrelda's on FPCs whose outcome is determined by both users opposing them. That is, an administrative post-promotion of the one I've mentioned and others if such ones pop up. --Slaunger (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, and possibly better because it would resolve the matter without prolonging any conflict or bad feelings. Provisionally, I'd be willing to regard this matter as resolved on that basis, if we close this with an understanding that Lycaon will follow up with a statement when he returns. Sounds fair? Durova (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with that if others are. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Arothron hispidus is kissing my camera at Big Island of Hawaii.jpg is another one of milas which was not featured by one vote and where the two users both opposed the nomination. This one goes back to May 2008 though and I am unsure whether the two oppose votes are due to a deliberate campaign against the nominator at that time or a more objective oppose due the mertis of the photo. However, for the benefit of the doubt and to clearly signal that the accounts should have been cross-linked and that this vote pattern is unacceptable I think this one should be reconsidered as well and administratively promoted. There are some Estrilda votes on Lycaons photos in POTY 2008, but I do not think that reverting those votes would change anything (now) and I cannot see a point in going through the trouble of reverting those. --Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As a non-involved user who just happened upon this discussion, I was dismayed at what I read and, being who I am, could not move on without giving what I would hope is the neutral view of an outsider.

As I see it, there are a couple of pointes being discussed all at once:

1. The accounts of Lycaon and Estrilda, with reference to sock puppeting and the questions regarding their relationship.
2. Voting collusion on Featured Pictures
3. Harassment of another user

Of account 3 I have little knowledge and, while it seems to be the more serious claim, it is the one that bothers me the least, since it should be easy to prove or disprove with the relevant diffs. What does bother me is that it seems decided that users are obliged to reveal relationships to other users on the top of their user pages (what "privacy"?). I am not as prolific a contributor as Lycaon and my husband even less so, but I will definitely view it as a gross invasion of privacy if something similar was done on my user page or if it was, gulp!, mandatory. Frankly, it's ridiculous. Sure, when a user is prompted and questioned about suspicious similarities he/she should come clean, but that should not mean that they are obliged to have that acknowledgement be splattered over their userpages if they do not wish it to be. (I can just hear Jack McCoy's voice: "Those cases are sealed, your Honor!")

Too further suggest that married couples focus on different areas on Commons or Wikimedia is just as ridiculous, never mind discriminatory. ("Sorry, ma'am, married couples aren't allowed at the Village Pump...")

Any "collusion" on the picture voting simply cannot be proved and it will be unfair to revert; especially in cases like these. Just because she's his wife and agrees with him makes her vote no less valid than the users who also agreed with him. What about the users who voted for the pictures? How do we know that Mbz1 voted for the picture because it is really good and not because it's *his* picture? What about the other users who didn't provide reasons for the support/opposition? Btw, I'm only using Mbz1 here as an example (since he was both the photographer/nominator), I'm not implying that he did anything improper. I can hardly imagine Lycaon pointing a gun to Estrilda's head, forcing her to vote for a picture she actually doesn't like.

The only problem here - insofar as there even is a problem - is with the voting system itself, but that is a well-known one. As long as it remains a "most votes wins" affair, the motivations behind these subjective votes remain unclear and can only be guessed at. But that is another thing entirely. A bit more than 2c, but there you have it. Anrie (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Anrie on this. -- User:Docu at 19:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think you two are in the minority here, and I advocate doing as Slaunger suggests, striking the double votes in a few cases (the ones suggested so far) and seeing what the result would then be. There is no perfectly fair solution but in view of Lycaon's complete lack of explanation or even engagement, this strikes me as sending a good message. ++Lar: t/c 12:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am as apalled as Anrie. That makes three of us. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Which only means that the three of you did not learn the the subject well enough to comment on it.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think it is a conflict of interest and a betrayal of the common sense that we expect of our administrators to act as Lycaon is alleged to have done. While it is important to be sensitive to the issues that Anrie raises, I don't think it is burdensome not to comment on issues that involve others with whom you have a relationship. My impression is that there are always plenty of pictures to review. It should not be necessary to comment on the same picture as your spouse. Even if a relationship is public, we expect administrators to use good judgement. If it is not public, it is wise to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. I think FP, QI, VI, RfA, and similar pages are ones where care need be exercised. VP would not normally raise this sort of concern. But, if the FP designation has significance, it is only because the selection process appears to be fair and honest. I think any pages/images affected by collusion should be rerun or corrected administratively. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Disappointed at the lack of a follow-up thus far. Estrilda, any updates? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not an admin, but I have been bold and silently (i.e. without reopening for a new review) post-promoted File:Arothron hispidus is kissing my camera at Big Island of Hawaii.jpg and File:Kalapana May 2009.jpg to Featured Picture status. Oppose votes by both Lycaon and Estrilda were decisive for an original decline of these two FPCs. I have cancelled Estrildas vote, and updated the results based on new vote counts which flipped these FPCs to a featured state. I have to the best of my abilty completed each step in the manual FP promotion instruction at Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. I consider the concerns raised by Docu, Anrie and Pieter Kuiper as non-substantial as it is common practise at Commons to cross-link when family members share the same IP in this community. I do not think we have a clearly written suckpuppet/meatpuppet policy at Commons, but at least en:Wikipedia:FAMILY#Sharing an IP address spells it out very clearly as already mentioned by Mbz1. --Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • This is not enwp. It is the FP charade that is without substance. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Written policy on Commons or not: Any regular (including Lycaon) in the FPC circuitry knows that any votes just vaguely resembling meat- or sockpuppetry at FPC is a clear no-go. It has been such the last 2-3 three years I have been here. Lycaon has been active there even longer, and has been one of the most active defenders against meat- and sockpuppetry, which is why the complete absense of especially Lycaon in this discussion is so alarming and dissapointing. --Slaunger (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Besides you, there isn't really any support for this re-count. I suggest you undo this and re-list the images. -- User:Docu at 01:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Docu, even though I don't quite follow how you draw that conclusion based on counting alone, it is for me more substantial the weights of the argument and my perception of the judgement of all those other users. Lar and Herby are on my top five of users with the best judgement here on Commons. Adding to that the always wise comments by Walter and a heavy duty FPC regular and admin Durova, it strikes me as a bit odd that you insist on us not having an overall consensus on this, especially considering that your own judgement has been seriously questioned in another recent COM:AN thread, that you have had recent disputes with both Lar and Mzb1, and that you are not active in the FPC circuitry. Even if you disagree on the meatpuppet issue, Estrilda has on top of this admitted that some of her oppose votes at COM:FPC on mbz1's noms did not reflect a review of the merits of the nominations but rather an oppose with the objective to 'kick back'. Meatpuppet or not, that is totally unacceptable when dealing with the promotion of the most prestigious and exposed content on Commons. And Pieter Kuiper's past comment "Featured-picture votes are hardly a serious matter" gives for me a pretty good indication that Pieter is in a domain, where he has not much experience. Adding to that the well-known ongoing friction between mbz1 and Pieter it seems odd to me exactly how enthusiatically Pieter defends meatpuppetry. --Slaunger (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
            • If you re-read some of the comments, you will notice that most participants suggest to re-run the votes, not re-count them. Even Lar (in his last post) only lent conditional support to your proposal. I don't think Pieter (or any participant) defends meatpuppetry, even if I don't share his general view of the process. While I agree this was not exemplary conduct, I think we have seen worse. In any case, if the only result was that two pictures of a user that is known to make questionable use of multiple accounts on FPC, I don't think it's worth all that fuss. -- User:Docu at 09:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
              • It is a lie, docu. I have never used multiple accounts. I used only one account at the time, and I did it not from a good life, but to avoid being harassed. As we could see from CU case the harassment was not imaginary, but a very real one.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
                • Hmmm, I actually interpreted Docus last post very differently and not as an accusation about you socking, but rather an understanding that some kind of reopening of affected FPCs was OK and not something to make a big fuss about. As I see it the only disagreement left with Docu was whether they should be re-opened for review or administratively promoted as I have done. I did the latter to avoid anymore fuss and to send a clear signal. One could also have reopened them, but I think it would have been hard for the reviewers to stay focused on the merits of the images and not on the circumstances of the reopening. Thus, I do not think reopening them would have been fruitfull, rather a further waste of time. --Slaunger (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Docu, what happened with your arithmetic? You did rather well here, when you counted how many children, men, women, kites and so on were at the image--Mbz1 (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
            • So how do you count? -- User:Docu at 03:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
              • I am not sure I follow your question. I count exactly how I was taught in kindergarten :)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
                

Peace, please. --Túrelio (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not in the habit of repeating myself, but above I said, "I think any pages/images affected by collusion should be rerun or corrected administratively." Consequently, I support Slaunger's actions on the two VP discussions that he cites. Herby, at the beginning of this discussion, says essentially the same thing. D/urova and Lar support Slaunger's proposal also, if I'm not mistaken. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Foroa too. Thank you, Walter.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I haven't commented in this discussion since I don't have anything new to add to the arguments/observations already expressed, and we certainly shouldn't turn COM:AN into a "most votes wins" affair. But for what it's worth, I endorse Slaungers actions and overall agree with the arguments presented in support of these. I also share the concern expressed by several over Lycaons continued absence. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Per Walter, et al, I endorse Slaunger's action, with thanks for acting wisely and decisively. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems with duplicate image

A while ago, User:Dan Pelleg made a change to the Wikipedia file w:File:EpitrochoidOn1.gif but instead of updating the image he created a new one File:EpitrochoidOn1b.gif on the commons. I am now trying to get these merged with the proper attributions to conform to COM:GFDL. As a first step to this I uploaded the original file to the Commons (File:EpitrochoidOn1.gif) and submitted a deletion request for the duplicate file with a note to merge the histories so neither the creator of the original file or Dan Pelleg lose their attributions. The deletion request was denied however so there are still duplicate files and some versions violate the GFDL. What there should be is the current version of EpitrochoidOn1b.gif on the commons with the name EpitrochoidOn1.gif with the an upload history listing w:User:Sam Derbyshire as the original uploader and listing User:Dan Pelleg as uploading a modification. There shouldn't be any duplicates of this file other than the mirror of the updated EpitrochoidOn1.gif on Wikipedia. I have been discussing this with Dan Pelleg on his talk page and have asked him to re-upload his edit to the original file in order to get a step closer to the goal, but it would probably be much easier for an admin to merge the histories and remove the duplicates. This request is reposted from w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--RDBury (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion about satisfying attribution and GFDL requirements. There is absolutely no need for the file to be uploaded by the image's author (although that helps as far as provenance is concerned and means that it is in the authors upload gallery). There is also no problem with having a derivative uploaded as a seperate file. It is not as though having them uploaded with the same filename saves any space etc. Although it is 'tidy' to have them uploaded with the same file name, it is also quite reasonable to have a new version uploaded seperately when there is some doubt that it will be acceptable as a replacement. In this case the derivative version just needs to cite the original and its author as the source. The original can then be marked as superceded, and replaced in the articles as appropriate. It would be nice (although not required) if User:Dan Pelleg also added the CC license to his version himself. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Now sure how it works on the Commons, but I was going by w:WP:MOVE which states:

Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.)

It seems like you're saying that this doesn't apply here but apparently I'm still not understanding something. How is this situation different than what they are talking about in WP:MOVE?--RDBury (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That is good advice and particularly pertains to text articles. The same idea holds true for images and other media in the respect that we have to maintain those links, those author attributions etc. Any image either needs to be declared as original work, or have attributions back to its source. But generally that information is not just part of the page history, it is part of the image page itself - it is like every wikipedia article having the credits for each bit of text right on the article page! Of course there are generally few revisions to images, and if there are a series of derivative images each only really needs to link back to its immedite predecessor for all attributions to be readily found. If the chain is ever broken then it calls into question the validity of the license on the derivatives, therefore we keep all revisions (much to some peoples annoyance ;-). Great care must be taken when moving images from en:wikipedia to Commons as it is easy to loose source and revision information as the original on wikipedia is then deleted, but there are now automated tools to help in that process. Of course if the author re-uploads the image here themselves, then that wikipedia history isn't as important (because the author has effectively licensed it here independantly anyway). Does that help? --Tony Wills (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's PD but can't be used for commercial purposes?

I just noticed something on the boilerplate for File:Escaping from Prince of Wales.jpg after tagging it and other AWM images for watermarks:

The copyright has expired because this photo was taken prior to January 1, 1955. The AWM record for this photo states that the copyright status is 'clear'. The AWM, however, requires that the AWM watermark is not removed and that permission be sought for commercial use. Higher resolution versions of this image may be ordered through the AWM Website at www.awm.gov.au

Now correct me if i'm wrong, but if this is true, then all AWM images uploaded to the commons by default have already violated the [policy] and the purpose and spirit of Commons by offering free media for any use. Can I get a second opinion?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the copyright stated for that image (P02018.055) on their site[6] is "Copyright expired - public domain"[7].

The site copyright page[8] spells out what public domain means:

"Copyright expired - public domain

    This term describes material held in the National Collection
    that is clearly out of the period of copyright protection.
    Material that is out or beyond the period of copyright protection,
    is known as being in the “public domain”. 

    You do not require permission to reproduce or publish this image.

.

So yes, the statement on the image page "The AWM, however, requires that the AWM watermark is not removed and that permission be sought for commercial use" is in fact wrong, they do not make any such demands for public domain images, do we have any non-public domain AWM images? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether they deliberately are including PD images in their terms of use, but a link under each image goes to the same pop-up help pages[9], regardless of copyright status, that make all sorts of stipulations, that contradict their sitewide copyright statement linked to above. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I see there has been correspondence of a sort on this matter email from the AWM to Nick Dowling 6 January 2006. There is a "terms of use" statement [10] that users presumably agree to when using, or downloading images from the AWM (assuming they have noticed it before downloading?), but that is between them and the AWM. It is not an agreement that involves wikimedia and has no effect upon the copyright status of the images. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well under the Australian law they are in the Public Domain (Even if the AWM places a watermark and says it still hold right over the image). No one can hold any rights to the image of a PD image (Whether it is a poster, photograph ect) however some debate that by digitising (Same issue that is popping up World-wide) an image that they own rights to it however it is seen that is not the case as no creativity has gone into the image from the original time it was published. It is one of the issues which at GLAM-WIKI in August is trying to work out which will take time. I'll be meeting with the AWM on another matter later this month and if I get time I'll try and raise this issue with them. Bidgee (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Move File

Please move http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rework.jpg to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cafe_Seelos_Werbung_rework.JPG. Thanks! --LSG1 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

{{PolishPresidentCopyright}}

Could someone who knows well how license templates work please check {{PolishPresidentCopyright}}? In the gallery view of users this tag produces a misleading "no license tag" displayed. See e.g.: http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&img_user_text=Kimodin --ALE! ¿…? 07:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be aproblem with the external tool on the toolserver. I don't think there is anything that Commons admins can do about that. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We can separate the license into a source information and a standard license template. An example is Template:BArch-License. That will reduce the number of custom license template (without any special license terms) and will resolve the problem. --Martin H. (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done I added {{GFDL 1.2}} to {{PolishPresidentCopyright}} --Jarekt (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you do something like this also to {{PolishSenateCopyright}} ? Thanks in advance! --ALE! ¿…? 08:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW; I changed the template to reflect the actual statement of the copyright notice: It does not talk about GFDL 1.2 only, it talks about the GFDL in general. According to the GFDL: If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation., so we can migrate those images. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

But it does specify 1.2, in the original release[11] it specifically links to version 1.2. -Nard the Bard 16:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am asking again: Could soemone do something like this also to {{PolishSenateCopyright}} ? Thanks in advance! --ALE! ¿…? 16:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Require template for Indian Air Force and Indian Army websites

There is a requirement for templates similar to the U.S military websites for Indian Air Force and Army websites. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There is the difference that photographs created by U.S. government employees, including the U.S. armed forces, are public domain whereas works created by the Indian federal government are not public domain. So on what permission or law should a license template build on? All U.S. government tags are only subtemplates of {{PD-USGov}} - the legal basis of this license templates. --Martin H. (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not asking templates exactly like the U.S but the Indian Armed websites has been revised. Now the copyright statement reads like this "Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site, which is explicitly identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned.". So instead of pointing to this information for each and every time a single template will be better.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't mention derivative works and commercial usage so this permission is not sufficient for Commons. Multichill (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Commercial use is implied, but the situation with derivative works in general is unclear. Also some types of derivative works are explicitly prohibited. Sv1xv (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd coincidence of Azeri uploads

User:Narimanaliv, User:Malahatnajafova, and User:Nitsvbl (and, for all I know, possibly others) are uploading entire articles from the same Azerbaijani architecture magazine, each uploading articles of which they claim to be the author. It is possible that several Azeri academics have all decided to give us their articles, which would be cool, but it seems like quite a coincidence. I would at least consider the possibility that this is one person with several socks, quite possibly unconnected to any of the actual authors. Someone should probably look into this further. - Jmabel ! talk 20:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of deletion denied

As suggested I move the debate here. The story short:

• A DR was closed as a speedy.
• I made an undeletion request here Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-11#File:Bonnie_SG.jpg objecting against closing it as a speedy + that closing admin was not objective since he has been very active in the deletion request.
• I made a note on Village pump because I felt it was a matter of principles.
• The undeletion request was speedy closed leaving only the discussion on the Village pump open.
• After a debate on the Village pump it was suggested that COM:AN was a better place.

So here we go:

• We have a rule that a DR should be open for 7 days unless they are very clear. If it is disputed then it will often stay open for a longer time. Also an involved admin should not close the request.
• On the pump the main issue turns out to be that the undeletion request was speedy closed and thereby denying discussion of a deletion.

I would like to hear other opinions about both matters since I feel it is bad if we start speedying just to "win". --MGA73 (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The pump discussion is good for talking about the general case, in my view... there are times when a speedy is appropriate. They are, and should be rare. I think we need to endorse that principle. To this particular case, MGA73 raises two concerns, first, that the debate itself shouldn't have been closed early, and shouldn't have been closed by an "involved" admin, and second that the UD/DRV shouldn't have been closed by an "involved" admin or closed early either.

• On the matter of whether Zscout370 is "involved", I think that's a spurious claim. The sum total of Zscout's involvement was to communicate with the model, establish bonafides and track the matter in OTRS. Zscout did not opine one way or the other on the deletion itself. So Zscout hardly was ineligible to do the close. Even if Zscout HAD commented it wasn't necessarily an ineligibility, if the discussion was very one sided (it wasn't in this case, but IF). But he didn't participate substantively (gathering information and working OTRS is NOT participating substantively). NOT involved.
• On the matter of whether the deletion discussion was closed early, I think perhaps it was. This matter could have waited a few more days. But it's marginal, there wasn't really a lot of harm in closing early but also the OTRS discussion mainly focuses on identity validation, and confirms that this was a request (i.e. Commons was within rights to keep the image, there was not a copyvio or other issue that required deletion (minor, lack of model release, etc... for reference here's a link to the ticket correspondence, viewable by those with OTRS access: [12]) rather than a requirement, so that argues for it running to the end. Zscout should be reminded of this.
• On the matter of the close of the UD/DRV by Mattbuck... again I don't see Mattbuck as TOO involved to have done a close (although in this case, unlike the original DR which Zscout did NOT participate in substantively, Mattbuck did comment...) given how one sided that discussion was. He was involved though, so if it had been marginal, no.
• On the matter of whether the close was early... Again, maybe. But in this case with how one sided the discussion was, probably not. For the sake of proper procedure probably should have run anyway, even if not needed. Mattbuck should be reminded of this.

That's my analysis. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I support MGA73's concerns of general character. With this particular photo, I don't think we lost anything (I guess it is replaceable and I don't think it was used at time of deletion). In general, I think it is wrong to close DRs fast, however - especially when an established user like Pieter has voted keep. Why the rush? It could have been closed after 7 days just fine. I'm especially concerned with the fast closure of the undeletion request. Again, what is the rush? Ordinary users (including "foreign" admins) don't have a chance to comment because we can't see the deleted photos. When using speedy closure too much, the transparency is lost. That's bad and it does indeed shed a bad light on Commons - seen from the viewpoint of other Wikimedia projects. Nillerdk (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Once the identity of the person had been confirmed by Zscout370, I was willing to change my vote if also images more likely to cause distress would be deleted. The speedy decision minutes after Bastique's intervention stopped that process. Encouraged by Túrelio, I tried to reopen that case in this DR, which MGA73 closed immediately. I find it very ironic that he is complaining here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

@Lar Thank you for the comments. There was also some discussion on IRC regarding this image and I was never in doubt, that Zscout370 wanted the image deleted. That in combination with the speedy made me conclude, that he was too involved. Im not sure if this is the correct word but in my view disqualification (Danish: inhabilitet) or "involved" is not only a matter of you ARE to close to be neutral but if others with some reason could asume you are.

Image was in use on dewiki - sere they were informed?

Non admins can see Bonnie here. --MGA73 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No longer: "The photo you were looking for has been deleted." --Túrelio (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

@Pieter, Now that you bring that up I have two questions. You tryed to get the Burning Man-image deleted first time and second time. In the Bonnie-case you voted keep but you also said "... However, I can change my !vote when you delete those two photos of the dancing girl at Burning Man. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)" Shortly after the deletion you nominated Burning Man for the third time only one week after it was closed the second time. And now you are trying every way possible to get your will with the Burning Man-images.

First question. Was your "keep" in Bonnie-case ever for real or was it just a game to get the Burning Man-images deleted?

Second question. Do you really think it is OK to keep nominating images to get what you want? Or for me to keep starting a undeletion request for the Bonnie image untill you get tired and do it? I really hope not. --MGA73 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well now the Burning Man are open again reason "I think it was closed in haste, and there is always room for more discussion in these matters". I expect the Bonnie-images to be reopend with the same reason! Thank you Bastique! --MGA73 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

At first I did not quite believe that it was the model who asked for deletion, and that was my main reason to oppose the request. Now that identity is accepted by OTRS people, I am quite neutral. There is no censorship behind this deletion, that is the main thing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record... I closed the DR mentioned above after 1 hour. That was too soon so it was reopend. Now it was closes after 1 hour as deleted... And the deletion of the Bonniw was not reopend... End of story... --MGA73 (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why the undeletion request should have been closed so quickly. That's what that forum is open for; if we wanted to have such undeletion discussion on the Village Pump, we could delete that page altogether. Letting it run until the arguments have stopped makes sure the participants get heard, and continuing arguments into the Village Pump and Administrators' noticeboard will clearly be inappropriate. Here, the issue has spilled over into two other boards because the appropriate forum was closed prematurely.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speaking of the general case: I don't think it is bad to close a deletion request early if the image is doing harm to someone, the sooner deleted the better. But I feel the opposite in the case on an undeletion request, especially in the circumstances of a premature closing of the deletion request. As a matter of due process the undeletion request should be left to run its natural course. In fact it could be a matter of policy that "in the exceptional case where a deletion request is closed early (for reasons other than obvious copyvio or vandalism), any further discussion should be carried on at an undeletion request for at least the period allowed for a normal deletion request" if that makes sense :-). ie if the deletion request is closed after 1 day, any further discussion by way of an undeletion request should be allowed to run at least 6 days. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

New logo for COM:AN

--Túrelio (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing issues at CfD

Hi all. I mostly admin over at enwiki, so I'm not nearly as familiar with the machinery of Commons processes. I raised some concerns about a category at Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/Category:Upstream fitness about a month ago, but there hasn't been any movement since. (The category is for a made-up exercise program being promoted by a single editor, and links to it are being spammed across a large number of Wikipedias.)

What's the procedure for asking a Commons admin to close the discussion and go ahead and delete the category? TenOfAllTrades (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There is none but you could probably stick a backlog tag on the main CFD page. Bear in mind there are requests still open from 2008. Majorly talk 17:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As you were the only participant, you might as well close it yourself. If the conclusion is deletion, just split the category and add {{Speedy}}. -- User:Docu at 18:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Eccentric uploads from User:Ycco

I'm unsure how to proceed with User:Ycco, a new contributor. He has uploaded a variety of pictures of contemporary pagan activities, all of which I would consider encyclopedic. But instead of using OTRS to record permissions he's uploading screenshots of Flickr dialogs, like this. And some of his uploads (such as this) don't have any recorded permission at all. It's all a bit of a mess but I think he's acting in good faith, his screenshots are in all likelihood authentic and the pictures are—if permission can be adequately verified—valuable. Could someone Flickr-savvy take a look at this? We've already told him, twice, that he's supposed to use OTRS but according to him "this system doesn't permit to forward the message exchange". Haukurth (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would call the permissions from the Flickr users incomplete and invalid. It is a good idea to name Wikipedia/Commons to promote a free licensing, but in my opinion you must tell someone who has no idea of what licensing means (and I assume this for everyone) that the licensing not only goes for Wikipedia or Wikimedia but for everyone and every purpose. I bet: If you ask ~U~ now if it is correct that he/she gave permission for commercial reuse with File:Permission for Druids in Avebury photo from Flickr user ~U~.png for his flickr images he/she would say: NO, I DONT WANT THIS - and you can say "haha, thats your mistake". Thats bad and evil.

Additional, per File:Asatruar people.PNG user Ycco (talk · contribs) is a comeback of Nyo (talk · contribs), a link collection with problems caused by this user is very long. --Martin H. (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that File:Permission for Druids in Avebury photo from Flickr user ~U~.png is borderline. Haukurth (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion...

User:RecoveryMinded uploaded File: Sexy pussy licking.jpg as own work but nominated it for deletion with “I thought this pic was public domain but it's not”. I checked a few of the users other uploads with tineye and two gave no hits but File:Spaghetti and meatballs.jpg gave three hits and File:Roast turkey 02.jpg gave one hit. The images are not all excact the same and they are smaller but I’m a little worried. Can someone help me check? --MGA73 (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Found a few more that I felt comfortable enough to tag. All things considered, it's not looking good. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Phrasia (talk · contribs)

This user has uploaded several images which are described as self-portraits, but are used on en.wp as album covers for Quinton Caruthers albums. That would make them copyright violations, but as you can see, it's highly doubtful that Mercury or Universal would have such low-quality album covers (not even the correct aspect ratio). So it seems to me that it's all a hoax (a quick search returned no hits on http://mercuryrecords.com, no album on http://amazon.com, 3 plays for one song on last.fm and one youtube video of his appearance on American Juniors).
So I think it would be best if someone who's an admin both here and at en.wp could look into it, so that the articles and the images can be dealt with at the same time. I think all four articles in en:Category:Quinton Caruthers albums should go, and en:Quinton Caruthers should be edited accordingly. –Tryphon^☂ 11:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

File:T64 21.jpg

Can someone have a look at the image? The author\uploader loaded it as cc-by-sa-3.0, but reverts uploading of a new version without copyright on image. I suppose that noting someone as an author in picture description is quite enough and reverting of new version is bad. Rubin16 (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note to Чобиток Василий explaining the situation, and reverted the image to the version without watermark. If they revert it again, I'll protect the image. –Tryphon^☂ 14:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I just realized: the original uploader is not the author. Do we have any proof that the author licensed this image as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryphon (talk • contribs) 14:04, 2009 November 12 (UTC)

{{Copyvio}} The copyright status of this image has become more clear now. Sv1xv (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DR closed, and what's the final decision? Keep the version with copyright or not ? Rubin16 (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:UserMessages.js

Could somebody do this if possible? I'm not sure if anyone watches that talk page so I thought I'd post a note here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've done this in this edit. Maybe you need to bypass your browser cache. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Move files

Can somebody rename the following five files?

File:Royal Canadian Air Cadet 1.png

File:Royal Canadian Air Cadet 2.png

File:Royal Canadian Air Cadet 3.png

File:Royal Canadian Air Cadet 4.png

File:Royal Canadian Air Cadet 5.png

They should all be renamed "Royal Canadian Army Cadet #.png", not Air Cadet. Sherurcij (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Picasa web

The uploading option from Flickr is a good one. It need to be extended to images uploaded from Picasa web.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the licensing is valid, there is no reason why you can't upload an image from picasa. Just mark the source and report the license properly. J.smith (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Animated GIF resizing bug. Fix awaits implementation by admin

Please see:

• Commons:Graphics village pump#Animated GIF resizing. Last.fm resizes them. Why not MediaWiki?

The problem has been fixed, but needs to be implemented.

"Yes, for ordinary GIFs to render properly somebody needs to activate it on Wikimedia."

Above quote is from the bugzilla thread:

• https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16451

You can test to see if the fix has been implemented by checking the kilobytes of the thumbnails here:

• Category:Animations of geometry

Right-click any thumbnail and check its properties to get the kilobytes of the thumbnail. The kilobytes for the thumbnails are currently the same as for the full-size animated images. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See also here and here. --Jarekt (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I left another message at:

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16451

--Timeshifter (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And there is an reply:

// Disable server-side GIF scaling 

$wgMediaHandlers['image/gif'] = 'BitmapHandler_ClientOnly';
 
in CommonSettings.php which need to be removed. 

Anybody knows where is CommonSettings.php. --Jarekt (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs a dev to make that change. We may need another bugzilla to get that turned on here, not sure. Is there anyone who has an objection to the change? ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think, reading through the bug, that there may not be a need to open another bug to get it enabled here but I will ask for clarification. ++Lar: t/c 05:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, you need a sysadmin, not a wiki admin. And a copy of Wikimedia's CommonSettings.php can be found here: http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/ --MZMcBride (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! meta:System administrators#List says "Do not contact random people on this list if you want something done. Instead, go to the #wikimedia-tech channel on irc.freenode.net."

Can someone contact them? I see the part that needs to be removed:

// Disable server-side GIF scaling 

$wgMediaHandlers['image/gif'] = 'BitmapHandler_ClientOnly';

It is found here:

http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=CommonSettings.php

I left info about this in another reply at the Bugzilla thread. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

IPs adding redundant categories

Is there anything I (or you) can do at File:Seattle - Idriss Mosque - 01+02.jpg where one or more IPs seem insistent on redundantly adding Category:Mosques in the United States, which is redundant to Category:Idriss Mosque? - Jmabel ! talk 01:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Instructions on the user talkpage, reverted the edit. I also added the image to my watchlist. --Martin H. (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been a different IP address each time, so I hadn't bothered hitting the user talk pages. Royal pain when non-registered users start messing with stuff. - Jmabel ! talk 08:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical error in the upload form

I just observed that if you try to upload a file under an already-used name at Special:Upload, the message it gives you includes the word "Dont". Can someone add an apostrophe here please, so that it reads "Don't"? Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I should note that the complete sentence is "Dont overwrite a file with a different image of the same topic". Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Changed dont in Don't Huib talk 14:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Backlog Notice

This is just a friendly reminder that admins are always needed at CAT:Unknown. Category:Media missing permission and Category:Media without a source are both severely backlogged and any help that could be given there would be excellent.

I personally have been working off the deletion backlog template (on my userpage) and didn't know until tonight that the template's code didn't reach far back enough (chronologically) so there was much more older stuff I was unaware of. I've since extended the reach of that template, but I still need to make it go back further due to how the backlog looks right now. Killiondude (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Also Category:Duplicate has now 872 files. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the {{Badname}} and {{Duplicate}} put files into two separate categories (the badname ones as a subcat). As in my experience most {{Badname}} marked files are indeed duplicates (re-uploaded under a correct name) and there is seldom much difference in the information contained on the image page (as both were uploaded by the same person) - so these can be swiftly dealt with. But {{Duplicate}} is often mis-used (eg for crops or different versions of the same image), and the two images are usually uploaded by different people and therefore the description pages are often different and need merging before the duplicate is deleted - so much more careful consideration is required. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tony Wills on this point. —Dferg ^(disputatio) 12:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Good suggestion from Tony Wills here, I expect a subcat for badnamed files would be easily manageble, and keep all those upload-typos from crowding the duplicate category. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have thought of the same. But instead of asking users to upload again why not ask them to use {{Rename}}? Or maybe a new template just for "I'm the uploader and just gave file a bade name". Re uploading wastes a lot of space. --MGA73 (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note on {{Rename}}: If you make use of this template, the file actually gets re-uploaded as well, but under another user name! Now this file won't be listed on the user's gallery ... :( axp_de^Hello! 13:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, {{Badname}} is the template for "I'm the uploader and just gave file a bad name". Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, using rename an admin will move the file. Badname is used when uploader has uploaded file twice (or more). --MGA73 (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I'm not sure if rename would be the preferred action for a user who makes a bad name upload though - if the user makes a new correctly named upload all we have to do is delete the first one - no links to fix at other projects + the file will be be listed in listed in the correct usergallery as Axpde points out above. Are there really advantages of rename compared to this? Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

← Is there a category like w:Category:Administrative backlog here? I'm still finding my feet as a commons sysop and would like to help, but am not always sure where to look. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

@Finn Rindahl Well... Advantage is that it takes less space. But if it takes 6 month to get af file renamed I can understand that users can't wait. When renaming all we have to do is check usage. Move and remove the template. When deleting we have to check usage. Check all info is transfered correct. Then delete. So it is not "a clear cut".

@Stifle It would be nice with an admin-backlog. But I guess every admin has his/her own little favorite :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I just made Category:Duplicate - bad name - lets see if that makes it easyer. --MGA73 (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin closures

What's the policy on this? A user closes deletion discussions he participated in and where there's no consensus to conform to the result he prefers, I'm talking about this and this and more than I can count in his contributions. Isn't the purpose of admins looking at this some non-biased review? He's closing discussions like he's an admin. Hekerui (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There is an enormous backlog of category:Deletion requests. I am trying to help out to the best of my ability. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think admins are any less biased? I personally have no problem with these closings; Pieter is a very experienced user, and his judgment is as good as any admin's. Besides, these are very old DRs which need someone to finally make a decision one way or the other; I see no point in letting them languish there waiting for an admin to do their job. –Tryphon^☂ 18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin closure is obviously slanted towards keeping things, because it's the only option. Hekerui (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, nominate me for adminship, and I will delete too :) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

At a meta level, yes, it is acceptable for non-admins to close uncontroversial deletion requests. Not speaking as to the legitimacy of the examples you listed, but it isn't inherently problematic to the best of my knowledge. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We can always need help. But non-admin closure can be a problem. Admins have gone through a process and is "trusted". Non-admins have not. So we should check who closes what to make sure that closures are not made by someone who does not know the rules or policies.

So I prefer that admins help to close DR's faster. Easier said than done - I know. --MGA73 (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem if non-admins close DRs every now and then. Since they're all logged at User:DRBot/non-admin one just has to check this page to see if the closings are legimimate. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Leyo 13:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The instructions at COM:DEL explicitly state that this is fine: "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial. If in doubt, don't do it." Of course, the conditions of understanding the process and being sure of the decision apply to administrators as well. (I disagree somewhat with the wording in that I'd argue that non-admins can close controversial requests as well, provided that there is clear consensus. For example, despite the continued controversy over depictions of Muhammed, there is clear consensus to keep such illustrations, and non-admins who know what they're doing can safely close the frequent censorship-driven drive-by deletion requests that we see for these.)

That said, I would expect that all admins active in deletion request handling also have User:DRBot/non-admin on their watchlist. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed Commons:Deletion requests/File:F minor chord for guitar ( barred).png, which looks like a good idea to me: closing DR's by changing them into speedy. Would this be uncontroversial? There are lots of DR's in the backlog that are blatant copyvios or simple exact duplicates, and this would be a way of handling such cases. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that several admins have User:DRBot/non-admin on the watchlist so lets trust that no mistakes happen (or they are spotted). If DR's are changed into speedy and not deleted "at once" I think that DRbot will take them for kept and put a notice on the talk page? --MGA73 (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation

File:GLEE-ECCLESINE.jpg

Glee promo photo

This is obviously from the series and permission not freely given and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.24.125 (talk • contribs)

 Done. Killiondude (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Inactive admins

For admins listed at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section, who should place a steward request for removal of access where users have not requested to keep their access? Stifle (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stiffle,

You mean the inactivity list for aug-sept? Those list is completely done, I requested the removal on Meta and all those people that didn't sign have there access revoked.

Best regards,

Huib talk 11:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that!. If we are all done, it's not current any more perhaps... Maybe we should move that list to "prior" (leaving current empty for now) ? Not sure. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have emptied the page, and I have hide the part about the signing so it isn't so confusing anymore. I will send a note round to the current inactive admins this month with the message that they need to preform some admin actions otherwise they will get in the inactivity process in February.

I think its a good idea to warn before starting to process, its more mellow that way. Huib talk 16:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see; there was just nothing there to say it was completed. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I asked for removal on meta, left a thank you message on all talk pages, removed all the admin templates from the userpages, removed them from all lists but forgot the most important part, marking the page as done. Silly me, how could I forget that :( Huib talk 20:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Not sure if we should have revoked Cary Bass's mop. Heh. -Andrew c (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure he can resysop himself if he really needs to (: Stifle (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Contributions of User:Roman n k

Hello!

Can somebody with russian/ukrainian language skills check this user's contribs: [13]. This user uploaded several images of ukrainian homepage. Thanks. --High Contrast (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Permission is needed. Website legal page [14] states:

"Настоящий веб-сайт, а также авторское право на текст, графику, изображения, программное обеспечение и прочие размещенные на веб-сайте материалы, являются лицензированной собственностью СКМ. Использование материалов настоящего веб-сайта разрешается только в личных некоммерческих целях. "

"This webpage and author rights for the text, graphics, pictures, software and others materials hosted on this website is licensed property of СКМ. Use of materials of this website is permitted only for personal non-commercial purposes." --Justass (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

MS certificate copyrighted/able?

Does the original shown in File:MCAS Excel 2007.PNG have enough "creativity" to be copyrightable (by MS)? What's your opinion? (It's the uploads's own certificate; but he doesn't own the design, of course.) --Túrelio (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's copyrighted. Should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Out of scope images by Joymaster

Can someone close Commons:Deletion requests/Out of scope images by Joymaster. I think we are done discussing it. --Jarekt (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for going through all these files. -- User:Docu at 16:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Cbf--PD--.jpg

File:Cbf--PD--.jpg has been deleted, but there are still 9 pages using this file. CommonsDelinker hasn't been active on Monday, Tuesday and Friday. So there are probably a lot of deleted files which were not delinked. -- Common Good (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange template

Hello Administrators!

I am a quite new User on Commons, this I have not enough experience and information about deeper regulations of Commons. There is a quite strange template for media files. This case is discussed in a deletion debate here. The creator of this template brings very curious and non-verifiable reasons. I think professional help is needed here. Thank you! Greets, A.Hakansson (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

toolserver.org Gallery pages

I've noticed that when one does an "Upload a new version of this file" even just for a minor edit like removing a watermark (which I've been doing several of recently), the file appears on my gallery, and more importantly, disappears from the gallery of the original uploader. On principle, I don't think this is right; the file should stay on on the gallery of the original uploader, so that they can e.g. keep track of what they've posted. I'm also uneasy about images appearing on my gallery when I don't deserve any credit for them. Can the gallery software be changed so that the file remains on the original uploader's gallery, rather than the editor's? - MPF (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not something that administrators in general can assist with. The Gallery tool is maintained by Duesentrieb (talk · contribs), as stated at the bottom of the page. I agree that files should still be shown in the gallery even if it's not the latest revision – I hadn't realised they weren't. I think showing updates is fine, but it would be good if the results could be filtered to show original uploads, update uploads or all uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll cross-post there - MPF (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This exact topic was discussed few year back at Village pump. At some point I was working on watermark removal, after re-uploading about 1000 files, my gallery page for my older files is quite useless and I am regularly getting automatic messages about deletion requests or requests to categorize "my" images. Also original uploders of the images were not happy I have seen cases of them reuploding the exact images I uploded just to get them back in the gallery tool. It would be good to have an option in toolserver.org Gallery pages to show either the original, last or any image upload. --63.167.255.155 13:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point (or at least imply it) in that the issue may be broader than the Gallery tool. I think it would be a good idea to have the various scripts and bots message not only the latest uploader but all uploaders when concerns are raised. Is the current modus operandi the result of afterthought or technical convenience? Would a change be desirable and if so, what steps would need to be taken? —LX (talk, contribs) 15:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

File:ISS_Lunar_Outpost_Detail.jpg

Could someone track down the OTRS for this? I just realized I sent it originally to permissions at wikimedia, and I'm not even sure that's a valid address, so I just sent it again to permissions-commons at wikimedia. Thanks a million -Nard the Bard 18:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Best to post questions like this at COM:ON. permissions at wikimedia.org as well as permissions-commons, permissions-en, and an assortment of other addresses all end up in the same queue. I've just searched the mail queue for this but it hasn't shown up. Can you give us some fragment of the email address it was sent from or the subject line? Stifle (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll send you a private email, thanks. -Nard the Bard 20:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Derivative of Wikipedia ball

Would this File:Adults in Halloween Dress.jpg be acceptable with a "Wikimedia copyright" tag? --Túrelio (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Or even without it, not unlike the cosplay images. –Tryphon^☂ 15:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn, somebody had it already been deleted for copyvio[15]. --Túrelio (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

undeleted until this discussion ends, I think the wikipedia logo isn't the minimums here. Huib talk 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Is persecution of members legal?

User:Jaroslavleff started page to insult User:EvgenyGenkin.

I say it as a arbiter-in-reserve of ru.wiki Arbitration Committee with an access to information related to the suit about his unbanning.

I do not know, if there is any Commons rules to prevent such behaviour? If there is such - can you warn User:Jaroslavleff?

If necessary I can present additional information. Carn (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons has the same rules about respectful behaviour and assuming good faith as any other project. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean I am not assuming good faith in respect with Jaroslavleff, and by writing notice above I show unrespectful behaviour? I should know for sure if the answer on topic if "yes" or "no". Persecution as trolling can look like respectful behavior in each small situation.

I do not want to punish someone, I want to prevent possible harm associated with the resignation of the persecuted members from the project.Carn (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Julica-und-fefe.jpg

Could I get some admin eyes on the edit warring going on at File:Julica-und-fefe.jpg? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. The author has the right to decide how he wants to be attributed, even if it is a link. -- Cecil (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to have a look at Special:Contributions/77.176.210.177. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I will do. --Martin H. (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. But one question: Why cant I (semi-)cascade protect the userpage User:Ralf Roletschek/gallery? Thats the first time I want to use this tool and I cant :/ --Martin H. (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it is not possible to semi-cascade protect per bugzilla:8796 (although in this case it would be extremly usefull). --Martin H. (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting through IP address

At first I thought it was just "accidental" that User:Officer was making some edits with his IP address, and others while logged in - but then I noticed he was actually double-voting on his own Requests for Deletion (all of which appear to be headed for speedy keep, since he was told the day before he made the requests that OTRS was pending on them). See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Afghan Muja crossing from Saohol Sar pass in Durand border region of Pakistan, August 1985.png for example, the "IP" nominated 2 of the 9 images all nominated for deletion...except User:Officer then actually logs in and casts a "delete" vote agreeing with his own IP address. You'll notice the IP address actually used the identical wording in his nomination as User:Officer did in his nominations. Sherurcij (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken, I'm not using IPs. I just happen to come across that IP's nomination and decided to copy paste its words for the remaining ones. The IP is in Germany, I'm else where.--Officer (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If that's true I apologise of course, but the fact the IP has made 7 edits, all to pages you've edited does raise some alarm flags. Sherurcij (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really look like I'm mistaken after all, as this shows, an IP address nominates the file for deletion, and then User:Officer goes back and refines the deletion request. (Also note that he's trying to get a file clearly labelled as Attribution-only on Flickr deleted as "marked all rights reserved" even though it's an ISAF photo, and Turelio overruled the deletion request). When it went to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Medic with the Afghan National Army.jpg by the IP address, guess who the first user to vote (and the only one to vote "Delete" on a clearly PD image) was? Again, User:Officer. There does seem to be some evidence of trying to votestack. Sherurcij (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

At the time I placed the copyvio tag the Flickr page (ISAF) still had "all rights reserved". [16] I saw that ISAF flickr account since 2007 and all their images were protected but they now changed their license. Again, I'm not using IPs. It doesn't make any sense when I have a legitimate account in use.--Officer (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to continue the discussion here. Given the suspiccion by Sherurcij I checked 132.199.211.18 for users, there are no users. The edits on the ISAF Flickr images might be done by mistake or without knowledge of a license change as Officer said. @Officer, please make sure to check the copyright status again befor nominating and be more careful. The doubts in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Medic with the Afghan National Army.jpg are ok, I share your opinion, the discussion was stoped because there is another reliable source saying that the image is PD and not because the Flickr licensing is considered valid always. @Sherurcij: Please solve the problems with the deletion request on Franzen images, e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Afghan Muja crossing from Saohol Sar pass in Durand border region of Pakistan, August 1985.png and obtain the required permission. The images are uploaded 1 year ago and there is no OTRS permission documented, that means they are uploaded outside the regular process and a deletion request is the most harmless way to response that problem. --Martin H. (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Siyer-i Nebi 151b.jpg

I've escalated the page protection due to excessive version-warring (very old painting overwritten by totally different modern photo) to full protection. --Túrelio (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Seconds befor I decided to do the same. --Martin H. (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

CFD not completely closed out

Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/U.S. Routes by state subcategories was closed and the categories were renamed per the result of the CFD, but the original categories were not deleted (see Category:U.S. Routes by state; the old categories are the "U.S. Routes in..." and "U.S. highways in..."). Can someone clear these out? Thanks. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 10:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done using Twinkle. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it, thanks. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

FIle:Heckert GNU white.svg

WTF is going on here? Why are the file revisions deleted, but no entry in the deletion log? And why do I get an "Undelete failed; someone else may have undeleted the page first.

Undeletion will not be performed if it will result in the top page or file revision being partially deleted. In such cases, you must uncheck or unhide the newest deleted revision.

Error undeleting file: Unable to write to file "public/2/22/Heckert_GNU_white.svg": file exists" when undeleting them? --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I reported this in the Wikimedia-tech channel, and I guess somebody is looking at it, atleast there is a note that he deleting en undeleting for that file is broken, to make sure it isn't red I uploaded a version so that its vissible on all wikis.

I don't really know what happend, but I pressed delete for one version and all the versions got deleted, and from that moment I don't had delete or undelete rights for that page anymore:

Huib talk 10:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Living people

(moved to Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/11/Category:Living people)

Please use {{Cfd}} to start a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion. -- User:Docu at 04:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The location of the discussion isn't really relevant (I would notify it here if I had started at cfd). IMO, the nature of this is wider reaching that the scope of cfd (its not about deletion/splitting/renaming but "B"LP). That said, no objection to moving it (done).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There is now a CfD on this category, can people interested in this please go there to discuss...--Nilfanion (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet to avoid deletion request

Users Skibip images were listed in deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monia.2.JPG, after few hours another user Skibip67 started to upload same images, so instead of try to explain where do those photos came in, user try to avoid deletion --Justass (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've indef blocked the sockpuppet and removed all the contributions made by User:Skibip67. Thanks for the note. –Tryphon^☂ 12:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just got a mail from User:Skibip asking me to block User:Skibip instead of User:Skibip67. Should I grant this request? User:Skibip was created before User:Skibip67, and has made contributions before today. It's clear to me that User:Skibip is the "mother" account, and I've no idea why they're requesting the block to be reversed. –Tryphon^☂ 13:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the reversal request is due to fact that pl.wp User:Skibip67 (contributions) is the user's primary account. Given that, might as well reverse it to allow the user to edit under the same name.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, so I've reversed the block. Thanks for looking into this. –Tryphon^☂ 14:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

request by CarstenBorr (talk · contribs)

Hallo liebe wikimedia User

Ich habe einen großen Fehler gemacht und mich hier angemldet. Nachdem ich ein Bild hochgeladen habe und mich weiter auf den Seiten umgeschaut habe, habe ich feststellen müssen , dass ich mit Wikimedia absolut überfordert bin. Englisch kann ich so gut wie überhaupt nicht und auch mit diesen Befehlszeilen komme ich nicht zurecht! Ein ganz großes Sorry, dass ich anderen jetzt arbeit mache. Ich werde mich in zukunft nicht sofort mehr anmelden. Bitte löscht alle meine Daten vom Wiki server, bitte

Viele Grüße

Carsten — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarstenBorr (talk • contribs) 24. November 2009, 01:18 Uhr (UTC)

Hi Carsten, was genau ist Dein Problem und wie können wir Dir helfen?

mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Die Möglichkeit seine Anmeldung Rückgängig zu machen Besteht meines Wissen nicht. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for feedback

Hi, I want to ask for participation by experienced users to get this deletion discussion closed one way or the other. I want to renominate the accompanying Wikipedia article and would like to have some clarity about whether I can include the image or not, and the discussion languishes since October. Hekerui (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done --AFBorchert (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :'( Hekerui (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hekerui, I am sorry that we cannot keep it but it is perhaps possible to upload it to en-wp under a fair use rationale. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe somebody could close that deletion request please better as "kept" :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done --AFBorchert (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azerbaijan Navy.jpg

Would it be possible for an administrator to review this request? It's been sitting inactive since August. Kind regards - Wiki:En:User:Buckshot06.

 Done --AFBorchert (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up categories

• First: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wp_ppo.png&diff=32269844&oldid=32269834
• Second: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:92.230.92.38&redirect=no
• Kopfschüttel 92.230.92.38 22:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The revert of your edit has already been reverted. In cases like this it should be sufficient to notify the other editor as you did. Communication helps to sort out problems like this – even without the involvement of admins. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. Mistaken edits happen to anyone of us. This does not turn us to a "weird user". Please avoid such personal attacks. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Selected wrong license tag when loading image

Looking for help on how to change the licensing information for an image I uploaded. Can this be done or does the image have to be removed and reloaded?22015va (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Change the tag physically. We don't need to delete the image.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 01:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Maradona's pic

 18:29, 23 November 2009 CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs) m (53,324 bytes) (Removing "Diego_Maradona_2009.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by High Contrast because: Copyright violation: source: FIFA.com.) (undo)

It's still on Commons, what is the status on that and can someone add it back to the article? Kiagla (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not still on Commons... —LX (talk, contribs) 16:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for removal private information

Hello, I was wondering if one of the moderators could delete my real name in the comment of the first version of File:VOC ship Amsterdam.jpg (see section "File history") and replace it with my username Magalhães. If this is not possible you can also delete the version of 28 April 2005 of this file (because two newer an better versions exist anyway). Thanks very much. Magalhães (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be done by an oversighter. As there aren't that many nor are they particularly active, you might want to send an email to the address listed at COM:OV. -- User:Docu at 10:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC) (Note: Looks like Rama and Raymond are more active recently than I thought. Please excuse. -- User:Docu at 13:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

(EC) I've done #2, whereas #1 as described by Docu. --Túrelio (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I see it already has been done, thanks very much! Magalhães (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Email sent to you for further handling. Raymond 11:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Change name

Hi, can you change File:WEEKNUMMER552-HRE0000D69A.ogg to De Heiligdomsvaart 1955 Polygoonjournaal - Sanctuary procession

 Done No problem, File:De Heiligdomsvaart 1955 Polygoonjournaal - Sanctuary procession.ogg now. Please use {{rename|De Heiligdomsvaart 1955 Polygoonjournaal - Sanctuary procession.ogg|reason=your reason}} in future, see Commons:File renaming. --Martin H. (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Insistent copyright violation by this user Antonetequintilianob. Please check. Thanks. Fabiano ^msg 01:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've warned him, not trying to be harsh.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 03:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please decide if this CDR (reason copyvio) can be closed with keep after this statement of the uploader? Thanks. --Leyo 07:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Fcogaribay

File:Ardillatecoman.jpg http://www.tineye.com/search/eac7315fdb0a5276393a1ff55f3fe511b686300e

File:Iguanatcm.jpg http://www.tineye.com/search/ee0c5e5ff767daf26beddc6eba6e65dd5741cdaf

probably more copyright violations from this user.

-- 78.50.136.220 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Spam

I've just read some info on spamming, researched after a user initiated a deletion request. I was quite nervous believing that someone was using the image for spam, so I began self-deleting all but one of my images. Having since read the info about spam on wiki, I need to know if I am the spammer. If so, is it because of my over-assigning or requesting searches for image categories in a short period of time, or for doing multiple edits (both of which I've definitely done and see that I shouldn't have), or is it that someone is spamming with the image? If it is me, what else do I need to know as far as what not to do (I realize that may be too broad-based to answer, but what the heck). I know that I've posted questions and statements in two other people's pages until I figured that one out. I'll hold off on uploading the hand and wrist and cardiac surgical scar images until I find out. Thanks for your time and effort. Eng446w4 (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd posted this to my own talk page earlier; also, thanks to Turelio and Martin H for past help. I don't think of myself as computer illiterate, but I may be when it comes to doing all this correctly. If so, I'll again consider closing this account to avoid creating more work for all. As always, thanks for your time and effort! Eng446w4 (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think that the spamming is someone uploading a lot of useless / duplicate images - running multiple searches or large numbers of useful edits isn't going to be called spamming. As for deleting images if someone spams with them, that's rather a step backwards - the way forward is to smite the one abusing the image, as if they can't use your image they'll just get another. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Very well; I had three or four uploads that day, so it surely appears to me that it was I who was the spammer, unless your records show otherwise. I'll keep uploads to a maximum of one or a day in the future. I can see where more than that would be a problem. Meanwhile, I'll wait and see how my deletes go. Thanks very very much for the quick reply! Eng446w4 (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Three or four uploads a day is very routine. I've often had occasion to upload dozens (and occasionally hundreds) of images in a day. If the images are appropriate, this isn't even vaguely spammy. It's only spam if the images are problematic: duplicates or near-duplicates, copyright problems, out of scope (routine pictures of non-notable people), etc. - Jmabel ! talk 08:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking now at what you've uploaded: we do really have quite enough unremarkable pictures of normal human penises. So I can see why these would be described as spam. - Jmabel ! talk 08:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That does make even more sense, so it is just as well that the deletion process was started, as those images don't add value to the to their pages. Thanks again! Eng446w4 (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for deletion of an old version of a photo

I've just found I left in this photo I uploaded last month some unuseful, and quite private, EXIF, IPTC and TIFF metadata. I've just uploaded an updated version of the image without these problems; I would like you to permanently delete the previous version, in order my privacy to be fully guaranteed. The version to delete is this (the older one in here). Thank you very much, and have a nice day! --Raminus (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done --AFBorchert (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo from Panoramio

Resolved

Is the first time I upload a photo from panoramio. Please can an administrator check for correctness and validate the image?--JotaCartas (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I assume flickr reviewers are allowed to review Panoramio photos so I did this for you. Thank you for uploading this file :) Next time, it would be helpful to click the file and bring up the high resolution version so that Commons may archive it. I went ahead and did this for you. -Nard the Bard 04:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Celtic Star-Dublin 31-5-08.jpg

This file has been tagged as a copyvio. I wouldn't have uploaded it unless I was satisfied that it was suitable to use on Commons. May we have a speedy settlement of the issue as I was hoping to upload more photos from the source the file came from. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't allow Creative Commons licenses that have the "NC" or "noncommercial" condition. Just "BY" (attribution) or "BY-SA" (attribution, share-alike). Please see here for more info. Killiondude (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Bah, I hit the wrong deletion summary, since it wasn't on Flickr (momentary brain fart), but it was a non-free Creative Commons license nonetheless. Killiondude (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, my mistake. Will just have to try and find other photos that are useable. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

user uploads

please check user uploads, I have founded some copyvios but all other seems to be taken during 2 days. Could somebody help to check are there copyvios pictures left.--Motopark (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

deletion request

expert19612005 Hallo Könnt ihr bitte meine Bilder löschen? Ich weiss nicht wie das geht. Habe angst das mich jemand von meiner Arbeit erkennt. Habe nicht richtig darüber nachgedacht. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expert19612005 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 18. Nov. 2009 (UTC)

Alle? --Túrelio (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Killiondude (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The remaining pictures from this user are not yet deleted. I can still see (and unfortunately not un-see) them. Someone delete them please. Hekerui (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A week later, and there still seem to be rather a lot of files which, to judge by their filenames, probably should be deleted, especially if the uploader is now worried about their being seen and recognised. I don't particularly want to look at them! I'm with Hekerui on this! SiGarb (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

• User:Davenbelle
• User:Moby Dick
• User:D2C2E798-72EF-4EA6-A746-5B45D9610DCE

I'm going to {{Speedydelete}}-tag the above pages and would like the older history deleted; tag and catagorize the pages, Jack too, as needed.

Jack Merridew 06:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the bother ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Upload protection?

I just wanted to reprotect a file after this request, but there seems to be no more upload protection. Anyone knows what's going on? --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

upload protection should have never gone live as it did not work properly. Werdna removed it once the issue was brought up. Betacommand 12:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Minarettinitiative_2009_de.svg

Hallo, ich wollte kleinere Fehler in der o. g. von mir erzeugten und hochgeladenen Datei beseitigen, aber ich bekomme die Fehlermeldung: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Bdk/de . Könnte mir jemand bitte die Berechtigung zur Korrektur erteilen oder selbst die korrigierte Datei hochladen?

Änderung: kleinere Enklaven (Genf im Waadt, Thurgau in St. Gallen, Solothurn in Bern, Fribourg in Bern, Bern in Fribourg) korrekt eingefärbt.

Danke --Furfur (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done reply (in German) --:bdk: 17:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Move works now so...

User talk:Lycaon/Move requests. That list was last updated 6 months ago. There is much more to do if you go through my gallery. File:Unidentified Damselfly 5390.jpg was also deleted in error. Thanks. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

bad edit

Bot seems to have made a bad edit to Glynn County, Georgia on Wikipedia. 66.177.193.40 02:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See above, #Return of the Mass image and linkspam account, and en.wikipedia en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#mapzones.org. Maybe the deleting admins should include "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#mapzones.org" into their edit summary? --Martin H. (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Return of the Mass image and linkspam account

Resolved

• Special:Contributions/Worldenc
• previous Commons spam case

Returning spammer from this previous case, now attempting to cicumvent administrative actions both here and on enwikipedia by spamming a different domain (search mapzones.org). I've blacklisted the link on the english wikipedia and reverting the users edits. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the account and started deleting but this looks like a job for a delete bot. COM:TWINKLE won't do batch deletes of images I guess? Wknight94 ^talk 19:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And this is surely spam? I mean, user:Worldenc has been uploading scores of these diagrams since days and nobody saw a problem. --Túrelio (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It went undetected last time also, strange. --Hu12 (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And these diagrams (only now I looked at one) are not useful or are a problem due to the link in the source entry (leading to the US Census Bureau, a US government agency)? --Túrelio (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

These should not be deleted at this point. I've been aware of Worldenc's uploads and have looked through a few occassionally. There are some on en.wiki that believe this is a spam sock, and it is being discussed, but images like File:US53A033 Income.png are sourced to the US census bureau! At least the information for Kings County and federal data used in the graph is on the link given in the source, but the state information isn't on the source link. I'm not sure a spammer would use the US government agency's data as a source. For right now, we souldn't delete until we can prove that 1) The information (for the majority) is wrong, or 2) The majority of the files source a spam website (at that point, we should see if the information is reliable, and if the source can simply be changed to the US census bureau's information). Killiondude (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

How does one claim as "own work", yet link to gov site? Even more mysifying...how does one claim as "own work", yet source 25,000 images to a newly created scraper spam site? This is a problem and a very aggressive form of link-building scheme being employed.--Hu12 (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wknight 94, you might be able to nuke the uploads (or alternatively try the gadget "AutoDelete"). --The Evil IP address (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

@Killiondude, it looks like only the raw data is coming from the census site. The pictures themselves are from this spam site. Someone should put together a gadget to create these, not make a bot to flood this whole site. Wknight94 ^talk 00:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wknight94, do you know for sure if the charts that are on Commons are on mapzones.org? I'm genuinely asking, because then we would have a problem. I don't see File:US53A033 Income.png on [http: //mapzones.org/Kings_County_California.html this page]. Killiondude (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's because you looked in the wrong state. It's Washington, not California. [http: //mapzones.org/King_County_Washington.html Right here]. Wknight94 ^talk 05:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that was my mistake. Well, the uploader swears on en.wiki that the images are theirs... I'm not sure what you guys would like to do. See this comment from them. Killiondude (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wknight and The Evil IP: Nuke won't work here. I can take care of the deletions. Please ping me when we've come to an adequate conclusion to proceed. As to the relation between the two cases - I think this is the same spammer. Look at their first contributions and compare them to the socks in the last spamming case. I'm pretty positive the user used some sort of bot to upload all these images. That and Hu12's evidence gives me the conclusion it's the same spammer. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 11:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I made a comment at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. Now the deletion already started, so don't mind my opinion. I don't see a reason for speedy deletion, the upload was different from the first upload (massive sockpuppetry, massive spam). There is no need to keep the linkspam in en.wp articles, on Commons the impact or effect of external linkspam is supposably very small. It would have been better to wait for the outcome of en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#User:Worldenc and their charts or other discussion. Thats what I suggested to Worldenc (he not followed my suggestion). --Martin H. (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I only barely started deleting and only got < 1% of the way before realizing there were over 25,000 of them - and before seeing there were dissenting opinions. See here for the total list I deleted. Wknight94 ^talk 17:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like pretty clear spam to me. For what it's worth. I deleted about 800 before I noticed this thread. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the same spammer. User is now blocked for sockpuppetry on en.wikipedia. With clear cut evidence of massive sockpuppetry, massive spam, I see no reason for keeping this spam. It's all the same deleted spam as previously, delete them all.--Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said above: Please dont mind my opinion. Now that the Spam case is resolved on WikiProject Spam we should complete the deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with deleting them, and am going to start hacking away at it. Tiptoety ^talk 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely a bot could be created to do it. Kanonkas suggested letting him/her know when this was decided. Wknight94 ^talk 01:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a script, and am running it now. Tiptoety ^talk 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I have the same script, and it was killing my computer, so I stopped. I checked the deletion log, and I think you and I were conflicting with one another, since the end of my deletions were the start of your run. Kinda odd that we both started doing it at the same time. :-) Killiondude (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that remains is to blacklist the site here. MER-C 06:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We've still got some uploads. I'll take care of the rest later on today. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 07:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Bot_flag_temporarily_granted_to_two_users as well... if others are helping out and want flags please advise any 'crat. Thanks to all who are pitching in, much appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The promotional uploads have been taken care of. Thank you Hu12 for reporting this to us. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Great work everyone. Thanks for the flag Lar, it really helped recent changes not look like the deletion log. And thanks Juliancolton (talk · contribs), and Kanonkas (talk · contribs) for helping with the deletions. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! --Hu12 (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Amazing cleanup! Great coordination. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Bot flag temporarily granted to two users

Hi...

Tiptoety (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) and Juliancolton (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) are cleaning up some massive spamming (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Return_of_the_Mass_image_and_linkspam_account above) and asked to have the bot flag granted temporarily to avoid flooding recent changes. I've done so and notified my fellow 'crats via our mailing list... any 'crat can turn it back off again as appropriate. Long term we may want to get the flood flag enabled here. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the note to COM:BN as well. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Flags removed. The task has been taken care of. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 17:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your hard work on this! ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as a personal photo album

(This query also posted at Commons talk:Deletion requests)

Hi all. I have just left a message for User:Fale on his Talk Page and at his hidden category talk page. I have spent a lot of time today requesting speedy deletion of several almost-identical versions of pics of plants that were categorised as Category:Unidentified Asteraceae. I suspected there may be more, so I had a look at his hidden category Category:Files by Fale. It looks as though he downloads almost everything that is on his camera, without bothering to check for focus, exposure, best composition (in those cases where they differ at all) or anything! There are hundreds of them, and they must be occupying many gigabytes of Wikipedia's memory. What is the best thing to do? SiGarb (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Be happy that this user takes the time to upload all these nice images.

What do you think you'll accomplish with deleting this images? Saving disk space? Think again. I'm going to revert you're speedy deletion requests as this is no ground for speedy deletion at all. Move along and find something nice to do instead of bothering this user. Multichill (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for breathing, User:Multichill! I was doing "something nice", some (as I thought) useful work, identifying Category:Unidentified Asteraceae, when I discovered five virtually identical images by this user, and several more sets of near duplicates, which it seemed pointless to go to the trouble of identifying and moving to another category. It also seemed pointless to leave them there cluttering up that page, wasting other people's time. I could have simply removed the category, but it seemed more valuable to bring it to someone's attention. I agree that Fale has uploaded lots of great images, and I've told him so, but I think that you are both missing the point. Have you looked at, for instance, the third 200 of his Category:Files by Fale, where there are 17 almost identical images. He's normally a reasonably good photographer, but these are all out of focus. He's uploaded 2,985 images (with lots of duplicates)! I'm just suggesting that he should be more selective, and choose only his best images to upload. Can you suggest a good use for 17 virtually identical blurry images within Wikipedia? "Move along" yourself. (BTW, I like the "Please be polite" guideline at the top of your talk page – doesn't it apply to you?) SiGarb (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

On one hand, I don't see the blurry ones. On the other hand, while I'm all for multiple pictures of the same subject at different angles, I have to admit this may be going overboard. There are numerous examples of the exact same angle of the same subject where the only differences are the people in the foreground of the tower, or slight light differences in the background of a plant, etc. And the duplicates are 6 or 7 pictures at a time. I suppose it doesn't hurt, but it seems a bit silly. I had to go back and forth quickly between windows just to see what the differences were. At some point, COM:D#Duplicates should probably kick in. Wknight94 ^talk 20:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, different angles would be good. Have a look at these. Admittedly, parts of the image are in focus, but not the flowers themselves.

And that's just four from a set of 17 (the last 10, from File:Fale_-_Giardini_Botanici_Hanbury_in_Ventimiglia_-_129 to 138 inclusive, are almost in focus, but not quite. And all of them are slightly overexposed – why doesn't he at least try some different exposures, say at a third or a half a stop difference?)… The problem with using COM:D#Duplicates is that I don't think they are exact duplicates. There are minute differences between the files, but, as you found, it's a logistical nightmare comparing them. SiGarb (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if you felt strongly enough about it, you could bring to COM:DR. But there must be some precedent for 99.999% identical pictures, isn't there? Personally, I don't care enough to try to get them deleted - and clearly Multichill agrees above. But maybe the community disagrees. If Fale is reading this, my suggestion would be to not waste his/her time and just pick what you think is the best one to upload. If there is a 17-way tie, pick one at random. That's what I do anyway. Wknight94 ^talk 21:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have discussed this with Fale. He's quite happy for the surplus images to be nominated for deletion. He had been advised in some internet chat room to upload everything! But I think he realises that there is no need for so many virtually identical images to be cluttering up the Commons archives in perpetuity. Perhaps the upload pages should include some clearer guidance on this point? SiGarb (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Change name of category

Hi.
Could you please change the name of Category:Råeimsdalen into Category:Råheimsdalen. (no:Råheim is the name of the farms in which the valley (= dalen ) is named after.) I have also asked about this in Category talk:Råeimsdalen without any response. --Hoppedal (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No one is watching that category, obviously. Posting something on talk pages on Commons content will end without answers in >90% of the cases. For rename requests on categories use {{subst:cfd}} with discussion, {{move|target|reason|yyyy-mm-dd}} to have the categorie moved after some time without discussion if no one objects. For obvious typos you may also simply establish a category redirect {{see cat|target}}, if you give a proper reason in your edit summary some one will ask a bot to move the content to the target category. --Martin H. (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

can someone close this case

deleting [request] are waiting closing, can someone help in this case--Motopark (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be patient, this DR has been just opened on 25 November 2009. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait--Motopark (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama issues

Because of finding similar images on the enwiki, I am finding quite a few uploads of US sculptures for which no freedom of panorama exceptions exists per COM:FOP. Many of these images have flickr source, some of which have been improperly licence with a free licence, while others have all right reserved. I have tagged about 25 images by Umapaka Ltalley09 and Lambertr as copyright violations but I am sure there are more such images that look good based on a valid flickr licence but are really derivative works of copyright artworks. Some of these images were tagged on the enwiki and then uploaded here. I get the impression this may be part of an Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis college project because of the locations and article similarity. Perhaps editors would look out for such violations that may slip under the radar. Most of the articles in which such images appear are linked in this template en:Template:IUPUIPublicArt if you can help out. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing a Deletion Request

Hey folks, was wondering if someone wouldn't mind closing the deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Atlantis docking with Mir, as its been open since 8 October and hasn't had any replies for several days. There's an article on en-wikipedia that I'm hoping to take for FAC which uses this image, so if someone could please close the discussion one way or another I'd be very grateful. Thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Closed. Pruneau^talk 08:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Image referesh issue

I uploaded a new version of File:Pusa hispida saimensis at Finnish Museum of Natural History.jpg that is lightened so the seal is more clearly seen. However, it won't display properly. The image still shows as the old dark image in the window and in the revisions list, but if I click on the image itself it shows the lightened one. I've cleared my cache and refreshed several times since I did this yesterday. Anyone know what's up? Night Ranger (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

HEHEHE ... Night Ranger --> night witches .. HEHEHEH (sorry, I also don't know)--JotaCartas (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably a caching issue at the server. It will straight itself out soon. Thumbnails of other sizes than 800px work OK. Fred J (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Press "Purge" in top tabs to reload server side image and Crtl+F5 to reload your browser cache --Justass (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Photo of St John's Cathedral, Brisbane

Kindly restore this image. It can hardly be a copyright violation since I took the photo and have used it nowhere else. This appears to be a case of a bot going haywire. 114.78.31.98 08:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please submit undeletion requests here and please provide an exact filename of the deleted image or tell us which user uploaded it. Thanks, AFBorchert (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I already explained it on User talk:Martin H.. --Martin H. (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Want to Create New Fresnel Lenses Categories

I want to create under de "Category:Lighthouses fresnel lenses" some new Categories, to distribute de 75 images by "Orders", from 1 to 8, as they were classified in the past, and stil are. May I do so ? And if the answer is YES, wich name to use? - "1st order", "2nd order" and so on, or - "First order", "Second order" ...., or any other better way? Thank You.--JotaCartas (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you know what you are doing to classify them, go ahead. Don't worry too much about anything other than consistency in naming the categories; it's easy to rename them later if we have to. - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)