Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

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

Template:Skiptotoctalk

Shortcut: [[:]]

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page
English: This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention.
العربية: هذا هو المكان حيث يمكن للمستخدمين التواصل مع الإداريين، أو الإداريين مع بعضهم البعض. يمكنك الإبلاغ عنه التخريب، المستخدمين الذين يسببون مشاكل، أو أي شيء آخر يحتاج للتدخل من قبل إداري.
Deutsch: Dies ist eine Seite auf der Benutzer und Administratoren, oder Administratoren untereinander kommunizieren können. Du kannst hier Vandalismus, schwierige Benutzer oder andere Sachen, die den Eingriff eines Administrators benötigen, anzeigen.
Ελληνικά: Αυτή είναι μια σελίδα στην οποία οι χρήστες μπορούν να επικοινωνήσουν με διαχειριστές, ή οι διαχειριστές με κάποιον άλλο. Μπορείτε να αναφέρετε βανδαλισμούς, χρήστες που προκαλούν προβλήματα, ή οτιδήποτε άλλο χρειάζεται την παρέμβαση ενός διαχειριστή.
Español: Este es el sitio destinado a que los usuarios puedan comunicarse con los administradores, o viceversa. Puede notificar un vandalismo, reclamar atención sobre usuarios problemáticos, o indicar cualquier otro asunto que requiera la intervención de un administrador.
Français : Cette page est destinée à permettre aux utilisateurs et aux administrateurs de communiquer entre eux. Vous pouvez utiliser cette page pour signaler des actes de vandalisme, des utilisateurs au comportement problématique, ou tout autre fait nécessitant l'intervention d'un administrateur. Si vous ne maîtrisez que le français, la page Commons:Bistro reste cependant utilisable et vous y trouverez des administrateurs francophones.
日本語: このページは、管理者同士、あるいは、利用者ユーザがJA:管理者,EN：administratorsと連絡を取るための場所です。問題のあるユーザを報告したり、荒らしユーザを通報したり、管理者の協力や仲介を必要とする事項などにご利用ください。
Polski: Jest to miejsce, gdzie użytkownicy mogą kontaktować się z administratorami lub administratorzy ze sobą nawzajem. Możesz zgłosić tu akt wandalizmu, problematycznego użytkownika albo cokolwiek, do czego potrzebna jest interwencji administratora.
Italiano: Questa è la pagina dove gli utenti possono comunicare con gli amministratori, o gli amministratori fra loro. Puoi segnalare qui vandalismi, utenti problematici, e qualsiasi altra cosa richieda l'intervento di un amministratore.
Română: Această pagină este destinată comunicării dintre utilizatori şi administratori sau între administratori. Aici poţi semnala cazuri de vandalism, utilizatori cu comportament problematic, precum şi alte situaţii care necesită intervenţia unui administrator.
Português: Este é o local no qual os usuários podem se comunicar com os administradores, ou onde os administradores podem conversar uns com os outros. Aqui você pode relatr casos de vandalismo, usuários problemáticos ou tratar de qualquer outro assunto que requeira a atenção de um administrador.
Suomi: Tällä sivulla voit keskustella ylläpitäjien kanssa. Voit esimerkiksi ilmoittaa meneillään olevasta vandalismista, ongelmakäyttäjistä tai mistä tahansa muusta joka tarvitsee ylläpitäjien huomiota.
Nederlands: Op deze plaats kunnen gebruikers communiceren met de beheerders, of de beheerders met elkaar. U kunt hier vandalen, of probleemgebruikers melden, of andere dingen die de aandacht van een beheerder nodig hebben.
Српски / srpski: Ово је место где корисници могу да комуницирају са администраторима, или администратори са другима. Овде можете пријавити вандализам, проблематичне кориснике, или било шта друго што тражи интервенцију администратора.
Tiếng Việt: Đây là nơi người dùng có thể liên lạc với bảo quản viên, hoặc giữa những bảo quản viên với nhau. Bạn có thể báo cáo phá hoại, thành viên có vấn đề, hoặc bất cứ điều gì khác cần đến sự can thiệp của một bảo quản viên.
中文（简体）：这里是用户与管理员或管理员彼此间的联络地方。您可以在此回报破坏、有问题的用户，或其他需要管理员介入处理的事情。
中文（繁體）：這裡是用戶與管理員或管理員彼此間的聯絡地方。您可以在此回報破壞、有問題的用戶，或其他需要管理員介入處理的事情。
Shqip: Ky është një vend ku përdoruesit mund të komunikojnë me administruesit, ose administruesit me njëri-tjetrin. Mund të raportosh vandalizëm, përdorues problematik dhe gjithçka tjetër ku ka nevojë për ndërhyrje të administruesve.

Images from bad flickr users

I've noticed that many of the flickr accounts listed at Commons:Questionable_Flickr_images still have uploads on commons. These generally arise from flickr user accounts used to store images from many sources with false copyright status. Generally if we find a flickr account full of obvious copyvios we should not trust the copyright status on any image sourced from that account.

I'm going and deleting ones which are unused but there are some cases where the images are in use. In the slim chance that an error was made in the original classification I'd like to get a second opinion. These should be reviewed by considering both the user's photostream as well as the individual images. Thanks. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have FlickreviewR and all upload bots been fixed yet so that they reject images from accounts listed on that page? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I've pinged Bryan. giggy (:O) 09:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of work on Commons:Questionable Flickr images. If I've succeeded with what I intended to do, it's easier to read for both humans and bots, and hopefully it's easier to add new entries in a consistent manner. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gl translations

I have translated some MediaWiki messages. Would you update it, please?

Thanks a lot! --Toliño (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get on with it. Thanks, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done and thanks again for making those translations! Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the list of talks where you can find the translations/updates/corrections:


I haven´t finished yet. Thanks! --Toliño (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged like this has been added. Thanks, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have translated the help messages that remain:

...and ✓ Done Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More updates:

And you have to create the gl version of the form to upload from Flickr, from another Wikimedia project and from de government:
I saw you were creating message called "See also", the Galician version is like this (and must be here):
Véxase tamén:
  • Thanks for update my language! --Toliño (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ✓ Done I think... @Toliño, if there more are changes/ new translations please leave a message at my talkpage, I missed this posting (the ones I fixed earlier was on my watchlist) and it doesn't seem too many other admins respond to these mediawiki:message questions. Thanks for providing these translations and happy editing! Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate, although NOT an exact duplicate

Recently many files has been universally replaced and then speedy deleted using the reason "Duplicate, although NOT an exact duplicate". If that should be a valid reason for deletion this needs to be discussed and the deletion guidelines updated. Currently the guidelines say that speedy deletions should only be done for exact duplicates or scaled-down versions. As far as I can see the parts of the guidelines realting to duplicates or redundant files has not been changed significantly in 2008 or 2007 (. One reason to not delete not exact duplicates is that it is not the task of Commons to decide which version of a file is better, and to force Wikimedia projects to use specific versions of files. Another reason is that reusers of Commons files often link to the description pages here as source information and deletion breaks such links. I think a much better soultion to redundant/lesser quality files is to mark them as such and link to the better files. That will encourage use of the better files without forcing use of specific version or breaking links.

So, does the guidelines need to be changed, or should you admins just start following them? /Ö 21:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the images are not bit-for-bit identical (ie identical hashes) then it will say "although NOT an exact duplicate" -- this is somewhat misleading as the fact that it is not bit-for-bit identical doesn't mean it is not identical to human eyes. As well, this does not cover scaled-down versions. In both cases, the hashs do not match, but I would say deletion is fine (and have done so myself).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the images is a scaled-down version, that should be mentioned in the delete comment. But that not the kind of duplicates I am talking about. Many of the non-exact duplicates are very different from the images they are supposed to be duplicates of. Here are some examples of images that has been replaced:
  • Universally replaced
    Universally replaced
  • Who decides that this is better?
    Who decides that this is better?
  • Was actually deleted
    Was actually deleted
  • not deleted or replace yet
    not deleted or replace yet
I am sure that many such "duplicates" has been speedy deleted. Such speedy deletion is just a new process for Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded, which was closed for good reasons. And this is almost worse, since all information is now in the deleted history of the deleted image or almost immediately removed from User:CommonsDelinker/commands. On COM:DEL/S the images were at least listed for some time before and after deletion. /Ö 08:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're not going to met any opposition here. It seems to me that someone's not checking the images too carefully before passing the commands to Delinker. They were tagged by IPs who probably think one copy of a painting is all we should have. "improved version of the png file. Duplicate should be removed"—Clearly doesn't understand the definition of duplicate. Rocket000 (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how do we prevent that from happening so often? Better instructions? Technical measures? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I bolded and added some text in the duplicate categories and templates. Maybe a note about non-exact duplicates can be added to User:CommonsDelinker/commands. /Ö 15:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the problem is only the IP:s or inexperienced users tagging non-duplicates. They are not really expected to know much Commons policy, and a incorrect duplicate tag can easily be removed by any user who notice it. The admins ordering replacements and deleting the files are expected to know and follow policy. The replacements and deletions are also more difficult to revert if they are wrong. Therefor the admins who do this has to be more careful. /Ö 15:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PD-India

Can anyone update the {{PD-India}}-template as per this edit? —Gabbe (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done—Giggy 02:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008 has one DR left

If anybody could take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/2008/01#Image:Basedow-vor-nach-RIT.jpg and vote/close it, it would be the last DR from that month. —Giggy 07:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done →Christian.И 08:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally requested deletion

Hi, I accidentally requested deletion of Image:Spikesfront.jpg. I removed the tags and tried to undo my mess but I don't think I caught all of it. Can an admin clean it up. Thanks! 71.112.238.158 09:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All should be fixed up now. —Giggy 09:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated image uploads

This image Image:Hombre templo.JPG has been uploaded as Image:Fmedht.JPG and Image:Htfm00.JPG by 2 different new users. I suspect a copyvio because of it's small resolution size (381 × 605 pixels ) but haven't been able to find it yet. I don't know how to tag duplicates.-Paloma Walker (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the newer ones as dupes. --Túrelio (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New upload form

As I have no idea where else to post this, I've come here to gripe about the new special upload form. Don't get me wrong: I like the new form. However, what I don't like is that when I'm trying to reupload the same image, it is required for me to fill out the license and author field when these fields won't even show up on the new upload anyway. This is a problem for two reasons: 1) it's a pain, and 2) it might confuse new users who try to reupload a new file with a new license. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The form shouldn't require you to enter the information again when you are uploading on top of an old file. Do you get an error message if you don't? If you press the Upload a new version of this file link on the image page the source field shouldn't even appear. /Lokal_Profil 01:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new form does not require any input if the destination filename is the same as an already existing file if it can detect that.
  • It can't detect overwrites if Ajax is disabled.
  • An early version of the upload script had an error and could not detect overwrites for filenames containing parentheses. That has been corrected long ago.
Try a forced reload (go to the new upload form an do a shift-reload (Firefox) or a ctrl-reload (IE)). If that doesn't cure the problem, give me the details (which filename?) on my talk page. Lupo 06:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot a third case:
  • If the destination filename is set through the autocompletion dropdown in Firefox 2, no overwrite detection occurs. This is due to a bug in Firefox 2 and also occurred in the old form. The bug is fixed in FF 3. If this happens, manually delete and re-add the last character of the destination filename. That will make Firefox 2 run the overwrite detection. This only happens in Firefox 2.
Lupo 07:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Account Assistance

I would like to merge my accounts, however I have a different username on Wikicommons than on Wikipedia (El Greco). Now, I have tried to register El Greco here, however someone has already registered El greco (with a lowercase g) and the system won't let me. Anyway to help me get El Greco here? El Spartan (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able merge accounts without having a username here, unless it's a bug. If it's a bug, you can get renamed to El Greco at Commons:Changing username, or if you don't mind having a few edits on this account, you can reply to my e-mail I just sent you so I can create an account for you. :) (If you do not wish to create an account, ignore my e-mail, please.) Maxim(talk) 23:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be creating/recreating the account I desire (El Greco) or an entirely different one? I tried that merge account function on Wikipedia and it says that you can merge accounts if the email and the passowrd are the same, but this account won't show up which is why I brought the request here. (Note: I corrected the wording in my first post as it seems I didn't proofread it). El Spartan (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Signle-User Login create a global account; you have different usernames, so Spartan will not be connected to Greco. Maxim(talk) 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

Dear admins, I need to get in touch with a commons admin IMMEDIATELY as a result of a stalking incident resulting from the use of one of my photos. This is quite serious, and I want an admin/office to contact me asap for removing a photo I have released previously to commons. Please leave a note in my talk page or in my en user talk. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done It looks like this was handled on enwiki.[4] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. But I have emailed Jimbo as well as OTRS volunteers to handle this. If I don't get a reply, I'll get back here with details. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Requests for unblock

As a reminder to admins, please try and stay on top of this category. If you use something like User:Giggy/CatWatch (based on Commons:Administrators' Category watch; see User:BryanBot/CategoryWatch for more information) please consider adding that category to your patroller. Unblock requests have only recently started to appear since I added a note about it to the blocked text.

Thanks. —Giggy 10:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help keep an eye on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me about catwatch. However, your page is deficient - it needs an image of a cat watching something. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is special

Of course I have always known it however I now see that God is with us. Possibly rather more importantly I also see that he has a reputation. Personally it doesn't worry me but...? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This name might be offensive to many users of several different faiths. Perhaps it should be blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, after enjoying Herby's note, I had the same thought about that user name. --Túrelio (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He jumped quite lately on the wiki train, did not a lot of work and is blocked for infinity on a couple of wiki's. Even for a god, infinity is a long time. So to prevent a username to be used, create a SUL account with that name and forget the password. Life can be simple (sometimes). --Foroa (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I SULed it. Even managed to merge some of them by inadvertently using the same password! (for my initial, non-scrambled password). So for future reference: I am now God. (As if there has ever been any doubt...) --Gmaxwell (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you are now blocked. :) —Giggy 08:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about your ultimate "role account"! ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Breadandsocks uploading numerous copyvios to promote company on en.wiki

Please see the Wikipedia ANI for more information, but in sum this user has gone crazy in the past hour uploading numeous copyvios or incorrecly licensed images from flickr to promote their business on Wikipedia. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked. If it goes on prod us again & I'll (or someone) will block the account. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Author missing/de

Hello everyone,

please lock Template:Author missing/de. It is an Template that was vandalized. Thank you, ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 19:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected it, don't see a need for anything more. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that's enough! Thanks. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 20:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user making racist comments, vandalizing, and using sockpuppets

user: Executioner often tries to delete or change images I upload. A few days ago he did it with his IP so that he doesn't get into trouble for it. I know that this is his his IP range because it is this IP that he uses when placing the images he uploads on Commons onto articles in EnWiki. Here is the diff where he tries to delete an image that I uploaded. Executioner often puts "cleanup" in his edit summaries, here he puts cleanup in the edit summary but does not do a cleanup at all. Instead he puts a deletion tag on the image. He has tried deleting images I upload many times. Also, just a few days ago he also made racist remarks about Persian-Iranian women basically calling them ugly on his talk page, see here. He clearly shows he is racist toward Iranian women so it makes sense that he would try to delete their images from Commons. Due to this evidence I am sure this IP is him vandalizing the image of the Iranian woman I uploaded. Editing with an IP is ok, but using your IP to get away with racism inspired vandalism is sockpuppetry. Le Behnam (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I (of all administrators) got a duplicate of this on my user talk page. My proposal is to block both users for three months. Any objections? Involved parties need not comment. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is strange to me is that you are suggesting blocking me for 3 months. Why would you do that? Because I placed this on your talk page? I placed it on your talk page because it was being ignored here. I don't see why anyone should be blocked for trying to get attention of an admin. Le Behnam (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd object, but I do wonder if such harsh measures are called for. BTW, I went through all upload by Le Behnam and I couldn't find any occasions of Executioner vandalizing images. As for IP's, I don't have CU rights. Samulili (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but I am certain that is his IP. Can an admin with CU rights please check? Thanks. Le Behnam (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The users seem unwilling to stay away from one another in spite of numerous requests, and it's difficult to mediate in a conflict that's centred around something as pseudoscientific and fruitless as racialism and scientific racism. I'm personally not willing to spend more time trying to convince the users to end the disruption, but I'm open to other suggestions. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the one classifying people with race or ethnicity. It is Excecutioner who is classifying people as Pashtuns and on a few occasions I've provided evidence that a few people were not Pashtuns and I removed the category. I don't see anything wrong with that. On one occasion I was asked by an admin to stop and I did stop, even though the evidence was in my favor. Le Behnam (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:LX, why are you threatening of blocking me for 3 months? What did I do? I wrote to you nicely on my talk page that I want to be left alone, which means I am not interested in bothering anyone. After this, you decide to come here and make threats of blocking me for 3 months but refusing to explain the reasons. It is not my problem that another user reports me with false and bogus charges. Can you just do me a big favor and that is to avoid listening to what other users may say about me? Instead look for my wrong actions and point them out, or let another administrator who has a sense of understanding to decide what to do in this case. From what he has been writing to me and about me, I find that User:LX is very hostile to me because I have not done a single bad thing here and he/she wants to block me for 3 months. I find User:LX symphatic to Le Behnam. I am not here to start trouble with anyone but others are starting trouble with me. I have the right to revert obvious vandalism by any user here and should not be threatened or intimidated by administrators. Please try to treat me with respect here, without judging me by my race, skin color, nationality, ethnic background or other. I say all this because I made it clear to everyone what I am on my user page and someone is seeking to get me blocked for no good reasons. User:LX also wrote at the top, in his first message "Involved parties need not comment.", what kind of rule is that? If that's a rule then the first message by Le Behnam be removed because Le Behnam is the involved party. If his message is kept then I have the natural right to defend my self in any and every situation where there is false and bogus accusations against me.--Executioner (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The last time User:Le Behnam contacted me was on June 25, 2008 [5] and since then I have not had any other messages from him/her so why is User:LX stating that "The user[s] seem unwilling to stay away from one another in spite of numerous requests"? I just want to say again to stop making false accusations against me, and if you want to block someone then that would be User:Le Behnam for failing to follow administrator Rocket000's final warning. [6], [7], [8]--Executioner (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rocket000's warning to me was on that image, and I followed his warning and did not touch that image again even though the evidence was in my favour
You created that ethno-nationalistic page for Pashtuns, all the admins can see that. I removed Ahmad Zahir from there because there are major disputes and uncertainties over his ethnicity, not only here, but also on the EnWiki (link) and elsewhere, even among scholars. I am telling you that it is best to keep out his ethnicity since we don't know and he never declared his own ethnicity, but you insist on classifying him by ethnicity. Le Behnam (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the removal of categories

The most recent discussion over at Commons:Village_pump#non-TOL_v._TOL.3B_categories_vs._galleries has inspired me somewhat. I believe we've tolerated the disruptive complete removal of categories for far too long now. So from this point forward I'm going to begin issuing warnings, followed by blocks, for users who persist in this disruptive behavior. I encourage other administrators to adopt a similar position. Hopefully I won't have to issue any blocks, but if I do, I hope and expect that I'll have the support of others here. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good on ya mate. This has been going on for way too long. Hesperian 05:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been going on? And we put up with it? I certainly wouldn't have if I had seen this!  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, agree with the above. —Giggy 12:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes Mike, there was previously a "TOL" policy page that instructed people to do it, and for a long time TOL editors simply outnumbered anyone else who cared. :) In any case, their reason for doing it has merit, but that can be accomplished some other way. Seems clear enough to me that the winds have shifted enough on this issue. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in its right place, and the right place is a category. Galleries are too much fuss to maintain. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who wants to create and maintain galleries should be absolutely welcome to do so. However galleries are a secondary access/catalog mechanism, not a substitute for good categorization. Our primary mechanism for cataloging and aiding in finding is the consistent use of categories. I support Gmaxwell's efforts in this regard. Do we need some additional templates created, translated, and added to Commons:Message templates or do we think that those are enough? I am thinking that we need another one in the Process section with the title "Please do not remove images from categories" or similar. Note also that Bryan's category watching bot may be of some assistance... not sure exactly how but maybe? ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
galleries are useful for provideing selected highlights or where the cat contains nothing but subcats.Geni (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, absolutely, Geni. I LOVE galleries, they are teh awesome. I'm just saying that they are (now by defacto policy) not to be used as a primary classification scheme and presence in a gallery is not justification for removal of a category used for cataloging. Every image should be in at least one (or more) topical category. Removing images from categories without moving them to other topical categories should be considered a blockable offense. Hopefully it won't come to that but still. ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on both counts: the galleries are a good way to present files in a descriptive manner, but categories are by far the stronger tool for keeping things together and easily found. Full support on my end, Greg. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ho Hum - Images being de-cat'ed. --Herby talk thyme 17:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If "at least one category" has finally become policy then Commons:First steps/Sorting needs to be updated for all languages. /Lokal_Profil 19:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I took a cut at the en version (it had some other awkwardness in that section that I also tried to fix). Let's get that right and then get it translated... See you on the talk there? ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: There is a lot of bio-material, which is now organized with species galleries only all linking to a higher level genus category. Material organized in good faith and without any conflict with other editors following long-standing instructions on COM:TOL. See for example: Category:Saxifraga. As I understand the (in my opinion premature) conclusion on this discussion, a non-tolerance policy to galleries only will now be reinforced. That means all the good faith work and organization, which has been made without controversy is now incorrect. (I am not speaking of brute force removing of existing cats, I agree this should not be accepted, and I have never done that.) What do you "always categorize" users envision should happen to these currently well organized genera cats? Should species categories be generated for all the species? Who is going to do that? I am not. Quite frankly, I feel alienated by this decision. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please prove that there is a particular paragraph of the Commons policy that declares that any image always, in any circumstance and without any exception must be categorised and prove that this paragraph is pointed out at any appropriate help page and upload form so that for any user clearly and without any doubt is visible how to act. As long as you can't prove that you should procede very carefully. -- Ies (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is premature to change Commons:First steps/Sorting. It gives the impression that this change is being imposed without the support of a significant portion of the community. It's only been 4 days since Bossi's brought this up on Village Pump. The matter is being discussed at Commons_talk:Categories_vs_Galleries. It's been debated for years. Why the rush to resolve it this week? Give people a chance to comment, please. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Walter Siegmund. I think that it is important to realise that today, we have a backlog in categorisation of many hundreds of thousands of images. Per day we seem to receive between 300 and 1000 uploads of uncategorised images. All this is well above our handling capacity so that we need to think on improving/simplifiying the categorisation/organisation process. One of the improvements is simpler and more consistent categorisation rules, partly subject and cause of this discussion here. --Foroa (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset tabs because my old eyes have trouble with that many colons) I think the issue here is the removal of categories, which Commons:Categories#Categories_in_Wikimedia_Commons does address. It's fine to make galleries, or to stay clear of the categorization system altogether, but one shouldn't remove them once they're there. Relpacing wider categories with a more specific one is certainly good, but simply removing the subject-matter category altogether is unhelpful. --SB_Johnny | talk 19:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kaltenbrunner.jpg, again and again

I can't check this myself so I post it here. Is Image:Kaltenbrunner.jpg the same image as was deleted by this discussion? If so, I guess it should be deleted again. Garion96 (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember a colored version, but apart from that it seems to be the same photo. --Túrelio (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth time that has been deleted (& uploaded three times by Zarbon). Deleted & user warned. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've SALTed it for a year.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You should never underestimate this guy (Zarbon).

A block seems to be unavoidable. If you see the talk page of Zarbon, how many explainations he got about these Nazi official photos, AGF seems no longer possible. --Túrelio (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, blocking for a week and deleting anything dodgy. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a stack more potential copyvios here if someone wants to look. —Giggy 13:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, someone else go do it for me :p -mattbuck (Talk) 13:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, we can SALT such things via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, but given the behaviour a block is in order. And I will sort through past uploads now. Don't have time atm, but I'll do it later unless someone beats me to it.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did not realised the history of this image. Glad it's taken care of. Yes, same of the contributions looks fishy. Image:Yagyumunenori.jpg for instance. Garion96 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Languages of Europe no legend.png

There's an edit war going on at Image:Languages of Europe no legend.png. Riwnodennyk (talk · contribs) and Kuban kazak (talk · contribs) keep reverting each other, apparently about a nationalist issue (languages spoken in Ukraine). I protected the picture for 3 days to allow some cooling down. Anybody got any ideas about this issue? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, I'd say that protecting for longer might be a good idea as I doubt (being familiar with one of the parties) that three days will resolve much. —Giggy 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh that thing is always going to be a problem. For example scots galic and welsh are not really majority languages anywhere.Geni (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

images by Michael Jay Williams (talk · contribs)

When I stumbled over image Image:Bilby.jpg I was surprised to read under Source "Own work - "This is my own photograph and can only be used for work on Wikipedia, if you want to use it elsewhere please ask through Wikipedia, remember always give credit. Thanks." [emphasis by me] for an image licensed by the uploader (and claimed author) under CC-By-SA-2.5 and GFDL. This restriction and the request to ask through Wikipedia IMHO is neither compatible with the license of that image nor with our policy. Furthermore, the uploader's request could hardly be complied with as he has no user page here and no link to a Wikipedia user page. At least on :en there is no User:Michael Jay Williams and I assume this one is not him. I was even more horrified to see that all (6) contributions of this user carry this license-incompatible request. It would be sad to loose this images. Any ideas? --Túrelio (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In between I've found that in once upon a time there was a User:Michael Jay Williams [9] an :en who requested a username change to en:User:The Pharmacist in 2006, but didn't edit there for more than a year. --Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That image is incompatible with COM:REUSE, and as the guy is pretty much inactive everywhere, I'll delete it. :-( I'll try and find some free replacement images via Flickr. —Giggy 02:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"can only be used for work on Wikipedia" is all you needed to see to delete it. I should mention it also had {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}. See Giggy, it wasn't just one case. Licenses don't mean anything anymore. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quiet you! OK, all deleted. In all cases bar one, I found a free replacement and replaced it myself universally. Couldn't find a replacement for Image:Quenda.jpg anywhere (flickr included) unfortunately. —Giggy 03:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded rfd

With "olkmnbvcxzaq2500987654321`jnmnmnnnnnojojhkgfthdhfgddbfhydrgtydfygsthbvjnhknkjnjnkm lkh" as deletion reason IP 83.7.37.148 has requested the deletion of an as of yet uncontested Image:Oebb298205.jpg that was uploaded in 2004 (not by me) and is used on 12 pages within Wikimedia projects.[10] Should such a totally dubious request be reverted directly or has it to be contested in the regular way, aka rfd discussion? --Túrelio (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed - that was not a real DR, so what is there to discuss?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I usually just close them, but reverting works too. Rocket000 (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need help finishing incomplete deletion

I'd like to create this page, since this this image seems to be a copyright violation: Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Vagina-anatomy2.jpg. That page indicates that it is "locked", and that I should ask here for an administrator to create the page so that I can put the relevant information there.

Thanks, Nandesuka (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as copyvio. /Lokal_Profil 00:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global deleted image review

General heads up; the poll at m:Metapub#Global deleted image review (permalink) just closed as successful. Please keep an eye on m:Talk:Global deleted image review#time's up (or wherever that discussion moves to) for the next steps in this process. —Giggy 06:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erase the file

Please erase the file Chiaroscuro.svg. He is unsuitable.--Kandi (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.davidrumsey.com

The above website has many old maps that have been scanned by the site owners, which are freely accessible. However they are licensing them under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic Creative Commons license, which means they can't be used on the commons. However all the ones I have seen so far qualify for PD-Old or PD-Art. So I don't understand if it is OK to upload them here as PD for example ? Many users have already taken maps from this website, just search for "David Rumsey". Can we get into trouble for licensing these images under a free license, when the source clearly says non-commercial use only ? Jackaranga (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rumsey seems to acknowledge that the material is in the public domain: "all pre-1923 material ... is clearly in the public domain (this is the case with almost my entire collection, fortunately)" but then states that "the vast majority of users respect our copyright and work with us to license the images."[11] I don't know if that's supposed to be a cop to section 105 copyright fraud, if he believes it's up to the user to judge whether or not the blanket copyright statement applies, or if he believes that they actually do hold the copyright for some reason. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean what is now Title 17 Chapter 5 § 506(C):
Fraudulent Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
Hm. That would form the basis of an interesting response to people who demand we label clearly PD works as copyright to them, "Sorry, but it would be a violation of §506 to make that claim when we know otherwise". :)
Cheers --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mass speedy deletion tool?

Is there a convenient way that I can run a mass speedy deletion? Long story short, I uploaded PNG page scans of a 400 page book, then someone pointed out that they were rubbish quality, so I came up with another source/processing stream for the scans, and uploaded much higher quality JPGs. Now I've figured out how to cram all those pages into a DjVu file < 20Mb. Thanks to my page scan processing newbness, I now have ~800 redundant images :-( Hesperian 01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dump them with links at User:Maxim/d. I have a script that can easily do that. Maxim(talk) 01:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or just a plain list... I think I might be able to make those into links more quickly with a spreadsheet... Maxim(talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. It will take a few hours for me to get the DjVu sorted out and uploaded.Hesperian 02:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can always e-mail it to me, and I should be able to delete all of it tomorrow morning. (EST). Maxim(talk) 02:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this message was a bit premature, as I also have to move the corresponding Wikisource pages onto the DjVu. I probably won't have a list for you until tomorrow. Happy to email it if you'd prefer it that way. Hesperian 02:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are these all in a category or group of categories? If so, that would make it really easy. Rocket000 (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are all in a category; but not quite everything in the category is to be deleted. Hesperian 02:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=12668661"