Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: [[:]]

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
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
23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	118, 117, 116, 115, 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	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	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

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~172
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~0
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-12: ~227

Other:

• Duplicates: ~29
• Advertisements/spam: ~0
• Personal photos/selfies: ~7
• Other speedy deletions: ~20
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~1
• Requests for unblock: ~3
• Undeletion requests: ~7

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~19
• Interface admin: ~17
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~9
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

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.

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.

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.

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.

User:Jellobie

Jellobie (talk · contribs) has tagged all his uploads as {{Copyvio}}, after having uploaded an image saying "deleted" over his original uploads. I've only spot-checked Image:Candle and rose.jpg; this image was licensed as {{Cc-by-3.0}}. One of his uploads apparently has already been deleted: Image:Bridge.jpg. (Note that the file deleted on February 16, 2007 was some other image.) What's going on here? It seems to become fashionable to try to retract CC licenses on own works... :-( Lupo 12:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, something legitimately published under a free license remains under that license, but if there was some sort of mistake in the original upload and for some reason the original license was not valid, corrections should be welcome. I have asked the user for clarification on their talk page, which perhaps should have been the first step. -- Infrogmation 17:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jellobie replied on my talk page saying:

"Since recently I work at a photographers group. Due to the inner regulations within the establishment I am obliged to make sure non of my pictures are accompanied with a free license. My pictures should be licensed under the following license: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Belgium (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/be/deed.en_US). Scince this is not compattible with this site I asked for the removal. I'm using the copyvio because the license mentioned above is already placed upon the images. Your sincerely, Jelle Verheugen Jellobie 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)"

Opinions on the best way to take care of this? -- Infrogmation 18:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that Jellobie joined that group after he had already freely licensed the images he had uploaded (and of which he was the author, and presumably also the rights holder)? And then he joined that group, and as part of that, they now want him to retract free licenses granted earlier? Frankly said, that strikes me as preposterous. I should think they can make rules about how he should license his works published since he joined this group, but they cannot make him retract free licenses he has granted earlier, as that would make him violate the conditions of these free licenses, which are non-retractable. Lupo 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I joined the group as of august 21st 2007. I have but one image uploaded before I joined. Jellobie 14:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Oh well, let's delete these 20 images. They don't appear to be used anywhere; several have an artistic flair to them that makes me wonder where on a WikiMedia project we might use them, and the portraits might need to be tagged {{Personality rights}} anyway. Image:Woodblock on fire.jpg might have been useful, but a similar image can be recreated easily by someone else. Lupo 10:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere we should make clear that {{Copyvio}} is not to be used to try to get own uploads removed. The tag is reserved for obvious cases, and removal of own uploads is never obvious (except for the uploader). Lupo 10:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to delete these we should hurry up before they start being used. Rocket000 11:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicated images

Hi. I have created a list with (du)(tri)(...)plicated images. Check image usage before to delete. Enjoy. --Emijrp 11:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --Boricuæddie 14:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

For those who just can't get enough!! Siebrand has a bunch here too :) ~ Riana ⁂ 16:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nasty list. As you are displaying the images, they turn up in CheckUsage. Now it is harder to decide if a duplicate has actually been replaced :( Best only use links... Siebrand 23:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a cat naming misunderstanding

Not put on /User problems since it isn't vandalism or a negative problem, just a misunderstanding I believe

This is a case that just needs someone to talk to a user, but if someone can handle it I'd be grateful. Simply another case of category renaming and a misunderstanding of category naming guidelines.

Categories titled "SVG -- whatever" are being created, and a user is moving all kinds of SVGs into categories titled that way that haven't been created yet. As far as I know nobody decided to separate filetypes into separate categories, and all filetypes should stay in the same umbrella category and then svg-specific categories can be added to the svgs as well.

You can see here, there are many "SVG -- " categories that were created and images were moved from standard cats such as "Electrical components" into "SVG -- Electrical components" categories. Many many images have also been "moved" to nonexistant cats.

Now, IF I'm missing something and there was a discussion about this and this category naming structure was decided on I apologise for bringing this up, but to my knowledge it wasn't and this is more of a self-initiated effort which is noble but not within cat-naming guidelines :) If someone can talk to the user (nicely! ;) In Ukranian would be great too, I believe that is their mother tongue) and explain things and sort stuff out that would be great.

I apologise for dumping this on the rest of you and leaving, but I can't really handle it right now - if I could I would! Thanks to whoever looks into this. -- Editor at Large • talk 02:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you are talking about User:Albedo-ukr, they seem to have a reasonable grasp of English. I agree that the different branches of the category structure shouldn't be inter-twinned in this manor. The users intentions and thinking are clear, and not unreasonable, and this isn't the first time this approach has come up. Can we suggest a better approach to him? --Tony Wills 12:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Some clean up

What should I do with all the useless pages like in Category:Deletion requests April 2007? They are very old deletions requests that were done wrong. The subpages only have deletion templates on them. Rocket000 02:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems most of the DR's in that cat were created by accident, and could be deleted or fixed so that they are an actual DR. Takes time and patience, of which I have minimal supplies :) — Giggy 08:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

After watching all pages I decided do delete all. ChristianBier 15:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Rocket000 16:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

More clean up

Can someone possibly make a bot to delete all these (mostly) empty and entirely useless pages? I was going to close the few noms. that were still open (some are older than a year!) but then I figured what's the point? The whole superseded deletion thing is over. Also, no one answered my related question here, but I decided to delete the cat. Rocket000 06:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

png unwanted file type?

When I ty to upload >Gdp ops.de 300.png< (a second version) I got the error message "Upload file From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository Jump to: navigation, search Upload warning

".png‎" is an unwanted file type

   List of allowed file types: png, gif, jpg, jpeg, xcf, pdf, mid, sxw, sxi, sxc, sxd, ogg, svg, djvu "

It is a png file! What is wrong?

--[[User:Createaccount|Antipatico]] 10:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Known bug. Your filename has two periods. Try uploading at as "Gdp_ops_de_300.png". Or even better, give it a truly meaningful name! Lupo 10:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Known bug, since when? This file already exists, he was trying to upload a new version:Image:Gdp ops.de 300.png. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I thought to remember I had problems such as this with filenames having two dots. Oh well... Lupo 11:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Any way, I got it. Btw, I named it "Gdp_ops.de_300.png", but it was changed to "Gdp ops.de 300.png" by the system, because for wiki "_" (underscore) is a " " (space). Lesson: do not use " " or "_" for names. One point for Lupo!. --[[User:Createaccount|Antipatico]] 06:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested change in MediaWiki:Uploadtext/hu

Hi! I would like to ask you to change a line in MediaWiki:Uploadtext/hu, from:

* ''Date'': A készítés vagy publikáció '''dátuma''', lehetőleg ISO 8601 formátumban.

to:

• Date: A készítés vagy publikáció dátuma, lehetőleg ISO 8601 formátumban (pl. 2007-12-16).

Thanks --Dami 19:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

done. ChristianBier 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Dami 22:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Commons:List of administrators by adminship status in other Wikimedia projects

Hi all, after talking to Lar, I've created Commons:List of administrators by adminship status in other Wikimedia projects. It aims to show the adminship status of the Commons administrators in projects other than Commons. I think it might be useful if a direct action in a given wikipedia is required by us. I haven't modified Commons:Administrators/Lists of administrators since I think that some kind of "approval" is needed. On the other hand, I've only included information that is available in the admins' user pages here, without further investigation in other projects. Therefore, the list is likely incomplete (please, update it if it's not accurate). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as nobody has objected and people has begun to update the list, I've decided to include a link in Commons:Administrators/Lists of administrators. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Now that we have 4 (!!) lists, I'm wondering if some of them could be consolidated by judicious use of sortable tables. I think the "by name" (alpha order), "by date" (date order), and "by primary language" (language code order, with name as secondary key) might all be doable in one table if we have sortable table support (I think we do but I have never done one myself). The new one listing other projects where admins hold adminship probably not, as admins can be in the list multiple times. But maybe this would reduce the maintenance burden in updating? ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Dhadden

The above user is continuing to post obviously copyrighted or trademarked images as self-licenses. -- Avi 22:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

 DoneCopyvios deleted and user warned. --GeorgHH • talk   22:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi 02:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

information template reverts by an admin

I try to start adding the information template to some coat of arms, but the User:Notschrei reverts it (see here), because in his opinion the template isn't usable for coat of arms, because of heraldic problems like date or author. In my opinion it is usable (for general data like source or description). Because Notschrei don't want to communicate, I want to hear your opinions for usage of Template:Information in Coat of Arms. ChristianBier 18:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think all images should use {{Information}} regardless of the subject. I don't like that Notschrei is reverting these improvements. Rocket000 18:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is my opinion. But what should we do now? De-Admin-Request, Block for 1 week (so he has time to think over), or something else? ChristianBier 19:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The only valuable quality of {{Information}} is its wide usage and its being a de facto standard. It's otherwise a pretty lame template in my opinion, so I wouldn't throw too many stones at Notschrei, though I admit his is not a very constructive behaviour. My advice would be to scold him for his reverts, then ask him to design a specific template for coat of arms, based on Information. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Template for Coat of Arms was discussed long time ago but no one designed it. I ask him, because he said, there have to be an special template. Maybe he could design it now. When the template exists, I would use it in every image which shows a coat of arms. But when there is no special template created in the next days, I think we should use Information. ChristianBier 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, {{Information}} has its flaws, but reverting people for using this, as you say, de facto standard is not a good practice especially for an admin. Making an alternative template (or hacking the existing one) would be better. As for dealing with Notschrei's actions, I'm unsure myself. BTW, I asked him to comment here. Rocket000 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW: In the head of every page, MediaWiki shows the Message: "Please consider adding the {{information}} template to your previous uploads. Thank you!". ChristianBier 20:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Where I have felt {{Information}} was not sufficient, I have added additional material before or after it as a supplement. If the template removal results in loss of important information about the image that is very bad. If it merely results in reformatting of information (what it appears to be here), that's not as bad. But it still seems like a discussion ought to be held on whether using the information template is a good practice or not. I think Jastrow puts it fairly well... I hope Notschrei chooses to comment here. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not as bad, but reverting something that every page tells you to do and something that is auto-generated when uploading is definitly a problem. Even if he disagrees with it, which is fine, he's still going against the apparent consensus. Rocket000 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So he decides to revert the information template again. I think, we could delelte the information template message on every page when he decides in the right way. I tell him, that I will block him if he reverts again, but he only said, that he will remove the block himself and will block my account. This is not the way we should communicate between admins. ChristianBier 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

After he said, he isn't able to create such template, I offered him to create such one. In his opinion, Uploaders and Workers in the Coat of Arms section here at commons should decide about usage of Information-Template. But this ist not the way our "de facto" standard works. I don't know why he isn't able to give a small comment here. ChristianBier 00:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be best that you not block, as you're an involved admin. It would also be best that anyone who IS blocked (or told they would be blocked if behaviour did not change) did not respond by unblocking themselves and threatening (or actually doing) a block in retaliation. That would be completely unacceptable wheel warring. I hope that this was a misstatement. I am going to suggest directly to the user that they should participate in this discussion. Christian, I suggest that since you're a relatively new admin here that you look to your peers to help you resolve this matter. (see meatball:DefendEachOther) ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I must second that - Christian, please don't use the admin tools in this issue before Notschrei has commented here - as far as I can see he hasn't. Keep it mellow - that seems to be our motto around here. — Giggy 05:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, being also a newby admin, I'd like to say that I don't see any problem in the initial reversions. I mean, it's only a way of formatting information. However, once it turned into a disagreement point, it should have been mandatory to ask for the community opinion, in order to determine whether there is (or not) a consensus. That's much better than involving in an edit war (this is an edit war). --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 06:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC) PS: a comment, whenever a potential conflict between administrators is discussed by them, please use English so that the rest of the community is able to understand the discussion.

And now? The discussion is very quiet since I stop to set Information-Template. Notschrei ignores my offer to create a correct template for CoA. What could we do now? In my opinion, there are three possibilities: 1) Create a special information template for German(!) CoA. -or- 2) Set information template everywhere -or- 3) Revert User Notschrei, Block, De-Admin, and set information template everywhere. ChristianBier 11:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we're all waiting for Notschrei to explain himself here. Lar urged him to so some hours ago, so a little patience is all we need since there doesn't seem to be any urgency. If there is real need of a specific template for COAs, COA-related users should design one, or at least set specifications for someone to design one. The COA community (if any) may launch a Wikiproject to discuss it. If Notschrei persists in keeping silence, we shall have to deal with it, but discussing sanctions now would mean escalating the issue unecessarily.Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that discussing sanctions is way premature. Christian, not to put too find a point on this, but you've been calling for sanctions from the very get go, over what is a matter of a few reverts. That's a bit over the top and it's not how we do things here. Please just relax and let this process work.

I'd suggest to you that you develop an "information supplement" template that could go below the regular information template. Work with other heraldry/shield/coat of arms editors to determine what is needed. Then apply it to a few pages and see what happens. If you have consensus behind you for the changes and they get reverted, THEN we can decide what to do... the first step would be just to firmly state that was not acceptable. But even this is speculation that is ahead of ourselves. This is a hobby. sometimes people go away for a while. It's weinacht after all and Notschrei hasn't edited since the requests for him to participate have been placed. Waiting is the thing to do now. There is no rush. ++Lar: t/c 11:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually he has made edits since my request. Looking at the history here, I understand ChristianBier's eagerness to resolve this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't {{Information}} have consensus? If not, we should take the suggestion off of the top of every page and stop auto-generating it when people upload. Rocket000 12:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, {{Information}} has consensus. Even if there are exceptions where it should not be used, I think that taking the suggestion off and not autogenerating is not a good idea. That's just crazy talk. It's not either or, here guys... Ping Notschrei again if you want but I just don't think we need to act rashly here. Talk of deadminning someone over this matter is just way over the top, which is what I want to see stop. Peace, love and images, everyone. :) Again, develop a supplement for this special use, try it out and see what happens. That's my suggestion. ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rocket, you're raising two different issues here. We need to organize image descriptions, so autosuggesting a basic, all-rounder template is a good move. Encouraging the general public to use it proceeds from the same principle. However, I wouldn't say {{Information}} has consensus. There are better description templates on Commons, such as {{Painting}} or the ones derived from {{Meta information museum}}. There's been a whole debate about this on the mailing-list, see here. Back to the matter at hand, I think that {{Information}} is better than no template at all, but there really should be a discussion about this, because Notschrei's not the first one I see stripping away {{Information}}. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just like to point out that {{COAInformation}} exists. It was created some months ago to use the information template and to deter the inclusion of categories in templates (since this makes it hard for other users to recategorise them). /Lokal_Profil 17:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was more or less totally unaware of that mail thread. Gah. We need to remember that not everyone subscribes to the mail list, or has time to read it and summarize back from time to time if there are important decisions arrived at. There are a number of important points raised there. Can someone summarize the outcome? ++Lar: t/c 17:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

{{COAInformation}} is a fine try for creating such a template, but when I looked at the templat, I don't think tat it will be the right one for German Coat of Arms. I will try to ask User Notschrei. ChristianBier 19:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A special template for german COA can be created (like {{COAInformation/fr}}, which looks like {{COAInformation}}, but presents some options for French-speaking COA-project). But I don't understand what is the problem of Notschrei with Date and Author. Zigeuner 00:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:YummyCover.JPG

Cover image. I would think that it is fair use because it's a cover, but I can't check OTRS. Could someone look into it? Mønobi 02:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket is about these images, so the image at hand is not covered (hehe) by it. Should be speedied. Jon Harald Søby 02:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Senang Hati

FYI: It seems a wikipedia squabble may have spilled over into commons. See [1] and [2]

As far as I can tell, Senang Hati is the old user name of an en admin and another user has started using it, and has been blocked, and has brought their discontent over here. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 14:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Milevand gaard Sør-Aurdal (1927).jpeg

The images from the website GalleriNOR are owned by several museums and persons. Images by en:Anders Beer Wilse is owned by en:Norsk Folkemuseum, which has said that they don't want to have the images removed from commons as long as the images are not work of art. As long as the images are not such images, that is work of art, they fall into the free (sort of PD) 15 years after the photograper has died or 50 years after they been created. See also Template:PD-Norway50. The actual image is mistagged as PD-old. Btw, all images from this site should be retagged. I'm not sure if any other images are deleted that belongs to this website. Note that to my knowledge there are no work of art on the website GalleryNOR. Work of art by Anders Beer Wilse is protected until 2019. In Norway there are very few court cases on the distinction between a photography and a work of art. They flagged a very strong wish that any images should be linked back to the site and the photographer should be given credits and due respect. The simplest solution to this would be to use a specific tag which organize the images in a category as in Image:Reinli stavkyrkje.jpeg. en:Axel Lindahl is another of the photographers at GalleryNOR. Jeblad 15:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC) (Note that his is also a request for undeletion) (Also Image:Heen_NBR9404-08821.jpg and a whole bunch of files deleted by User:Giggy[3])

See also no:Wikipedia:Tinget#Anders_Beer_Wilse. Jeblad 17:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The 70 year rule frees all of Lindahl's photos. Should the Wilse photos be reintroduced, use a proper licence. Crazysuit 21:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else have opinions on this? I'm reluctant to undelete and then see a counterargument in favour of deletion. — Giggy 04:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion seems fine, as simple photographs by Mr. Wilse are in the public domain in Norway. But I am very skeptical about the bloated template {{Photos by the Norwegian Museum of Cultural History}}. I have created two alternatives, see User:Kjetil r/temp. Kjetil r 13:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions are has the work become PD in Norway, has there been any legislative/treaty changes that could have revived the copyright in Norway or US. Gnangarra 05:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

First things first. Unequivocal evicence that Wilse's work is PD (e.g. the statement from Norsk Folkemuseum referred to by User:Jeblad above) should be posted here. In the absence of such a confirmation, the photography/work of art distinction needs to be worked out individually for each of the photographs. Generally speaking, Wilse is considered a true artist. Crazysuit 18:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very found of mr. kjetil ree's alternate templates and his continued arguments against such templates. When it comes to work of art, Wilse's photos, nor any other photos of any photographer in Norway are work of art per see. Some photographers claims this from time to time but as it stands in Norway, it does not seem likely that any photographer will get a statement that all of their works are eiter work of art or simple photographs, neither from any official authority nor from any publishing house. I am not going to consult Norsk Folkemuseum about such a statement, simply because they can't give such a statement, and I am not going to upload those images again because the removal of the images are plain vandalism by the admin that removed them. What Commons do for the moment is to destroy any attempt to broker a deal with those that are willing to let us use such images. This I find very disturbing, and I seriously regrets that it seems impossible to get such deals. I believe this comes down to the simple fact that commons admins don't know what is the current state of law in the countries they attempt to make statements about. Just take a look at "public domain", we don't have public domain in Norway. Images "fall in the free". This is a direct translation. The only thing that become "free" is the exclusive rights to make copies of a work for sale. You can't even change it if that isn't "respectful". I can't even release the rights to be attributed so strictly speaking I can't contribute under GFDL, neither in text or with photos. Jeblad 23:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We (both the Wikimedia Commons and the Norwegian Wikipedias) are American projects, and the public domain exist in the U.S. Trying to brand Norwegian photos as "fallen in the free" makes no sense in an American context. However, the Norwegian translation of the template (i.e. {{Photos by the Norwegian Museum of Cultural History/no}}) should use Norwegian terms (i.e. avoiding the use of the term "public domain"). Kjetil r 03:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Questioning this deal also makes it necessary to delete all other images from GalleryNOR that originates from Norsk Folkemuseum as the deal was that they let us use digital copies which they clearly own. The work of digitalizing photographs has its own protection even if the images as such are older than 70 years. That means the digital reproduction of Axel Lindahls photos are not free to use. Jeblad 21:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, you seem to take the completely opposite stance when discussing Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Jorunn (uploaders request). Have you changed your mind? Kjetil r 00:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! The longer I read, the heavier becomes the mind-fog. To refumble a little: Both common sense and the Norwegian Åndsverklov agrees that a snapshot may be anything but a work of art - but in some cases may be so, mostly, but not always, depending on who snapped the shot or who fixed it in Photoshop. Even for simple snapshots, there are some rights to respect, like selling to a news agency. These rights expires with the exeption of the right to be mentioned as creator - and the work not to be edited to some ridicule - which seems either to be for 15 yrs, 50 yrs+ or 70 yrs+ or eternally. To digitalify starts a new process, probably depending on what expertise is necessary to get good reproductions. (My old HP does some OK work, but even copies of my ovn pencil-drawings could be better if I went to an expert.)

But back to timing: Photography is a relatively new techniqe, and started out as expert-work with no art-label. Later there seems to have emerged an understanding that some photos simply were works of art, and some artphotoproducers were artists on even ground with painters and sculptors. Their respective unions infallibly forwarded claims of equality e.g. Bad work and bad artists are non-existent. Lawmakers then had to make some compromise - and in Norway we got the Åndsverklov. As I understand these rules: If the expertise, and the copymakers agree that an old B&W photo is no great art, but good illustration, the protection of that pic is moderate after some yrs, (but NOT quite equal to PD). If then the digitalizer gives a right to have these pics in the Commons files, I see it as a question of what label has to be chosen - to give them exactly the right kind of protection. Seeing so many good legalese-writers and interpretors at work here on Commons, I see this as no big problem. Flat-out deletion is, as I see it, no good answer, but an easy way out. --Bjørn som tegner 11:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Big can of worms here, what I understand as being said is that because Commons is based in the US and images are stored in the US and displayed/published in the US they are subject to US laws. We are then also adding a copyright for the country of origin, in this case Norway as that is the source country and most likely place where the image may be used outside of foundation projects. In reality while the image maybe considered free its usage may be restricted by local laws and that its the responsibility of the uploader and end user to ensure they have complied with any such laws. So while the image may be PD in the US if its copyrighted in the country origin then it cant be uploaded and should be deleted if it is. Gnangarra 16:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

this case in point what is the copyright status of the image, is it a "free license" with or without attribution. If its not free do we have the necessary permission to host the image? Does the copyright tag clearly explain the images status as applied at source and in the US. Gnangarra 16:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done I have now undeleted the ten Wilse photos, so that the users who mean that they were wrongfully deleted can retag them as template:PD-Norway50. I will delete those which aren't retagged in three days or so. Crazysuit, you should now wait and see which photos that are tagged as PD-Norway50. You may than open individual deletion requests (see Commons:deletion requests) for the photos you consider works of art and thus protected for life+70. Kjetil r 09:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Change nickname

I'd like to change my nickname to User:Vyo. --Uyu 10:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You can request a rename at Commons:Changing username, where a bureaucrat will do it for you. RedCoat 10:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Hi all. Upon suggestion from Bryan, I've begun to review old backlogs. August has been the first one, but as I told Bryan, I don't dare to close all of them since some of the requests seem to require a high degree of expertise that I don't own yet. There are seven request waiting to be closed. I'd like to ask any administrator to finish my work in the August backlog. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah for some of those old requests I don't think anyone knows what to do with them. That's why there still open. I was thinking of starting to close some of the inactive ones (like no discussion for 2 months) as "No consensus". I hate doing that when copyright status is the issue but they can always be re-nominated. That would at least bring about fresh discussion. Rocket000 05:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've closed quite a few old DRs as No consensus (with a bit of backlash in some cases) and a strong suggestion to re-open the discussion - this should only be saved for cases where there has been no comment for months, not weeks. — Giggy 00:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism deletion requests from IPs

I've been noticing an increasing amount of invalid/vandalism deletion requests from anons. Most of these are incomplete so not all show up at COM:DEL. Sometimes just the image page gets tagged. If the page is protected, they can't tag it but they can still nominate it. Yes, we can protect both the image page and the respective nomination sub-page, but that's not ideal and the image's uploader still gets the deletion warning. Our deletion pages are already somewhat of a mess - we don't need this. I think the "Nominate for deletion" link in the sidebar makes it too easy. Maybe we should only allow registered users access to the function. Or at the very least, disable it when the page is protected (they can't tag it anyway). Thoughts? Rocket000 06:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The nominate for deletion sidebar link is part of the sitewide Mediawiki:Monobook.js (as part of Mediawiki:Quick-delete.js). Removing it for anons would also remove it for logged in users. One option would be to strongly encourage anyone who wants that button to install Quick-delete, and then to remove the parsers (or whatever they're called) in that JS so that everyone gets the DR, NSD, NLD, etc. options, not just those who have it viewed twice (in english: Those who have it in their monobook and the sitewide monobook). But AFAIK there's no way of having it only appear for logged in users but not anons. — Giggy 00:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

*cough* Bugzilla *cough* --Boricuæddie 00:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be possible to chech the variable wgUserGroups in javascript. I think it is null for user who are not logged in, and something else for logged in users (admins, autoconfirmed, ?). /90.229.135.159 00:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/41.235.129.229. This user left a deletion request notice for Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg, which I had restored to a previous version after vandal Learnsales uploaded another picture on top of it, at my talk page. (I'm not the original uploader). I reverted and semiprotected Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg for a month and blocked the IP for a week. Mentioning here for the sake of transparency. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked another IP for a week and the range for 2 hours. ^{__ ABF __} ϑ 21:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sebjarod

For your Information: I blocked User:Sebjarod for 3 days because of this. User don't want to accept better versions, replacements and Uploads of Images which were cleaned up when he was the original uploader. ChristianBier 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, touchy subject there. If the original uploader doesn't want to accept a "better" version, then the new one should be uploaded under a different name. I'm sorry, but I oppose your use of blocking. A single personal attack on your talk page is not a good reason. Especially because you are involved. As an admin, you got to have tough skin - many users will become upset with you for just doing your job. Unless there's more to the story, I would unblock him. Rocket000 22:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't use your powers where you're involved. IMO, the remark should have earned him a "bad boy", at best. I suggest you unblock and upload the new images under a different name. --Boricuæddie 22:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, there does appear more to the story. I'm unblocking him. I suggest undeleting those images too and putting through COM:DEL like there suppose to be. Please don't abuse your powers. Rocket000 22:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For future, I strongly suggest against blocking for a single personal attack; revert it if you feel like it. Otherwise, one attack is nothing, as I do image deletion on en wiki, and lots of it, and I get users showing almost daily sometimes and demanding that I restore, saying that I'm abusive, why the hell/fuck I did what I did, being arrogant or ingnorant, etc. Maxim_(talk) 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I undelete Image:Timbre Allemagne 100pf Therese Giehse 1988.jpg especially for the User. So, he could do what he want with the image. ChristianBier 22:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ChristianBier. I'm sure he appreciates it. Cheers, Rocket000 22:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I offer him now to do some philatelic work together. Maybe he wants to. We should try to find good pictures together. I've got over 20000 stamps in my collection and I only tried to help with clean images and Scans but everything I earned, was such a personal attack. ChristianBier 22:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

PD-Flag

Hi could an admin please take a look at the "edit protected" request on Template talk:PD-Flag? Thanks. /Lokal_Profil 00:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done A fine example of why I hate page protection. Thanks. Rocket000 15:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Upload error on Image:3D crystal structure of cholera toxin.png

Hi,

I've uploaded the bad file in Image:3D crystal structure of cholera toxin.png, and then reuploaded the right one.

Can you delete the first revision? It's http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d2/20071224155210%213D_crystal_structure_of_cholera_toxin.png

--Dereckson 16:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done --Boricuæddie 16:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

PD-old and Norway

The template PD-old is not correct for Norwegian old work of art. A quick fix is to make a ned PD-old-Norway or PD-Norway70 that also makes the notion that the work of art has to be attributed, and that any heirs can object to modifications that does not give the work or creator proper respect. Probably the tamplate should not use the word "public domain" as it is not not a correct description at all. Jeblad 00:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, these works are in the public domain in the United States. The tags are thus correct in an American context. Kjetil r 03:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I may be confused, but... Is it not the policy of Wikimedia Commons to host works of countries other than the United States only when those works are freely licensed in both the country of origin and the United States? --Iamunknown 03:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeblad's point is that there is no such thing as the public domain outside the US & UK, and that we therefore should avoid using the term "public domain" when talking about Norwegian works where the author died 70+ years ago. If so, the same would of course also apply to German works, French works, Italian works etc.

The works in question are freely licensed in both the country of origin and the United States, in accordance with Commons policies. Kjetil r 13:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No such thing as public domain outside the US & UK? Well, the concept of public domain (dominio público in Spanish) is a well known concept outside those countries. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 20:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Any work has an origin, and if the origin of a work is Norway then it does not become public domain in other countries according to American laws except inside US borders, and then only to the same extent as similar works of US origin. This is regulated through the Bern convention. As this is an international project it is very difficult to claim that something is public domain according to US law on an international basis when it originates from another country. The concept public domain as such is not an universal concept, and in fact copyright as such is not even an universal concept. 87.248.6.31 21:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

PD-Old or PD-Art of German Paintings

could somebody please have a look at this discussion.
If User:Thuresson should prevail with his opinion, we would have to delete all works of art originating in Germany which have so far been uploaded to Commons, with the exception of selfmade works.
Also this paragraph has to be reworded in such a way, that the facts about reproduction photography of two dimensional works which also apply in Germany are made clearer even to people that are not native English speakers. --Wuselig 00:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if Germany had messed up laws like that, these wouldn't be deleted. It wouldn't make sense. Our severs are in the U.S. and according to the U.S. government these are copies (not even derivatives) of the original work and thus the original artists own (or owned) the copyrights of these photos, NOT the photographers. It would kinda silly, but if it was illegal in Germany for someone to distribute these because of the photographer's copyright, someone outside the country can just reupload them. As far as we're concerned, a copy is a copy. It makes no difference who made it. At least in sane countries, and if it's PD in the U.S., it's PD to us. Rocket000 05:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

they are PD in Germany according to the links from that discussion they need to have some form of creativity before they can be considered copyrighted. Gnangarra 06:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Germany the images are not free. From Commons:Licensing: "When uploading material from a country outside the US, the copyright laws of that country and the US apply." Thuresson 07:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Germany does not reflect the legal situation in Germany correctly. The wording does, but the tick-mark does not. Let me disect the wording to make things clear:

(a)"A carefully lit and exposed reproduction photo enjoys no protection as a copyrighted work ("Lichtbildwerk"), exactly as in the US."

(b)"Mere mechanical reproduction, such as photocopying and scanning, produces no new rights and is hence not as problematic (BGH, 8. November 1989, GRUR 1990, 669ff. – "Bibelreproduktion"), similar to the UK."

(c)"However, a significant minority opinion holds that reproduction photos may be seen as simple photographs in Germany only (my emphasis) as long as they can be distinguished clearly from mere photocopies, and that this is usually not the case"

(d)" However, Germany has additional exclusive rights for so-called "simple photographs" ("Lichtbild") which, according to the expertise created by German lawyers for Wikimedia Germany, includes reproduction photographies (Rechtsfragen März 2005, II.3.A). The protections is shorter than for copyrighted works and lasts for 50 years after publication."

The last two sentences make clear where the protection of the photographer starts. When the photo can be clearly distinguished from mere photocopies, i.e. when the photographer added some "Schöpfungshöhe" to his photograph. That is the case in all three-dimensional subjects, where proper lighting and the correct point of photography is essential to the outcome of the reproduction. And these, and only these photos receive protection as "simple photographs (Lichtbildwerk)".

I suggest to reword sentence (c) like the following and exchange the red tick-mark for the green one, with a specific warning to three-dimensional subjects, or that it only applies to two-dimensional works of art:

"Reproduction photos may be seen as simple photographs in Germany if (and only if) they can be distinguished clearly from mere photocopies. That is not the case with regards to two-dimensional subjects, but will apply to all photographs of three-dimensional objects."

--Wuselig 09:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is correct and balanced as is and needs not be changed. The mainstream opinion holds that reproduction photos are not copyrighted, but yet restricted by additional law governing simple photographies in Germany, and that no Schöpfungshöhe is necessary for that; Leistungshöhe is sufficient. The argument (d) is a minority opinion and has never been used by any court, and its reach is unclear anyway. (For example, User:Historiograf claims that it even covers some photos of three-dimensional objects – such as decorations, medals and coins –, if only a reasonably equivalent picture could be made by putting the object onto a scanner.) The page only reports the facts, and it is dishonest towards the uploaders to rewrite it it in a biased way such that the complicated situation is hidden. If people choose to upload such photos, they should know about the associated problems, and take the responsibility. I disagree with how you want to change the paragraph. Your new version dishonestly states as a fact what was previously correctly admitted to be a minority opinion. --rtc 17:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

@Thuresson: You are about the uploading thing, that's why I said someone outside the country can upload these. But I think it's pretty clear these are PD in Germany too. Rocket000 20:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for moving a category

According to NPOV-principles I would like to have category:nude photographs moved to category: Female nude in photography in order to be equal to Category:Male nude in photography. The category:nude photographs could then be a head category for the male and female subcategory. The present categorization is very POV and objectifies women. If there are other gender-specific categories with the same POV-categorization they need to be recategorized too. Very grateful for your time and effort. Jorva 19:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: These categories have the same problem:

*category: Nude computer-generated imagery ->category: Female nude computer-generated imagery See below

• category: Nude paintings ->category: Paintings of nude females

Jorva 19:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of renaming the cats (where the resulting redirects would have the same POV problem), I suggest creating new "female" categories and moving all female nudes there. We should keep these non-gender specific ones as parent cats. and to hold images with both male and female nudity in the same image (at the very least, serve as disambiguation pages). Rocket000 20:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, what ever that is simplest and gives the best result :-) Jorva 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, is there a male version of Category: Nude computer-generated imagery? If not, we shouldn't rename it. Seems like the sub-division would be unnecessary because it's too small of a category. We can't help it that so far they all been female. Rocket000 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have checked and searched for any such images now, and actually there isn't, so we could leave this category as it is for the moment. Jorva 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll start moving the others. Rocket000 20:50, 26 December 2007

(UTC)

Great! Could you move category: Nude paintings to category: female nude in paintings instead of the above? Jorva 21:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done Since most were women, I did go head and move the entire category. After they were moved, I went back through them and put the paintings with both men and women back in Category: Nude paintings. I'm sure I missed some, so you may want to take a look at it. Thanks for the great suggestions! Rocket000 21:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of boolos.gif, in spite of all Wikimedia requirements having been met.

An Administrator named LX removed the image, a photograph of George Boolos. I had obtained permission to use the photograph from the Massachusetts Institure of Technology, satisfying all of the requirements under the GNU licensing conditions. In fact, I received an email from an administrator after the photograph was first posted, asking me for the additional information, which I then provided to that person's satisfaction.

Please advise how to restore the image and/or what additional information is required, if any. Also, can anyone question any image and does the admin than just delete it in response to such a question without doing any research (which is what was done in this case)?

See note below posted on LX's talk page and emailed to LX.

Thank you.

Roberterubin 01:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)roberterubin

Image:Boolos.gif I believe you removed this image believing it did not have sufficient permissioning under the GNU license guidelines. Please clarify what is needed, because a previous administrator had told me that it was adequately permissioned. Also, I was not notified of any problems with the license, which I understand is customary policy, as a courtesy to contributors. Please advise how the image can be restored and what permissioning specifically (eg, what language specifically) is required. Thanks, Roberterubin (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)roberterubin

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LX"

Read COM:OTRS. --Boricuæddie 01:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Boolos.gif. It seems permission was asked for Wikipedia use, not for it to be released under a free l and license. Rocket000 02:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

From the permission request: I would like to enhance the existing Wikipedia article on George Boolos with material from his tribute page at...

Reply was: You certainly have my permission. If something from higher up is needed that will take me a few days to figure out.

This image is not allowed (yet). Rocket000 02:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to see my notes on this (I send to all three email addresses to make sure): en:User:Rlevse/Tools#OTRS — Rlevse • Talk • 03:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the responses. If you look at my Talk page, I went over all of this in February, 2007 with GeorgHH. I only need to post the photo on Wikipedia. Is there a way to can be restored with the existing permission I obtained then, or is more required?

Thanks. Roberterubin 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)roberterubin

Protecting non-existent pages

Since the update of Wikimedia's copy of MediaWiki to r28904, a new feature that allows protection of non-existent pages now exists. This is achieved by a new MySQL table being created, which stores the titles of non-existent pages that are protected. Now the question is, what will be the fate of COM:SALT? 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:20, 27 December 2007 (GMT)

I think we should tag it as inactive and start using the new feature. --Boricuæddie 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to generate a list of what's protected this way, or will they just appear in Special:Protectedpages? Rocket000 23:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. I protected User:Boricuaeddie/POTY, but it doesn't appear in that list. --Boricuæddie 23:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the protection type is create, which is unlike move and edit. If someone messes around with SpecialProtectedpages.php enough, create may show up in that list. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:24, 28 December 2007 (GMT)

Bugzilla, anyone? --Boricuæddie 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind—Special:Protectedtitles 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:59, 28 December 2007 (GMT)

For us old fashioned folk - how would we add pages on the new basis? I can see some are protected, I can see how to get them into it - me I'm sure but...! Not sure I would abandon SALT yet? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok maybe I should have looked first :) Whatever else we all need to know how to access whatever we are doing (& I personally like the history that is in SALT), cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. COM:SALT gives the ability to identify different categories of protected pages, its talk page creates a natural and central forum for discussing such protections, and as you mention, there's an accessible history. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• reset

Reflecting. To me spambot pages would be fine with the new method, quicker and no real need for "record keeping". However for other pages maybe the record in COM:SALT of who did it and at least rationale in the form of the history would be good?

If folk agree may be worth spreading the thoughts a bit? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've only skimmed this discussion, but I should point out (if nobody else has) that the create protection is gone when the page is created. Commons:Protected against recreation (COM:SALT) continues to protect even after. Different uses, so we should keep it. — Giggy 08:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Errr - early, brain not working, more explanation required.... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The "protect against creation" option only does that - you can change which usergroups can create the page. Once the page is created, the protection is gone - anyone can now edit the page. With COM:SALT, the protection level (in this case, sysop editing only) applies to creating the page and to editing it once created. So the creation protection is good for pages we don't want now (but may want in the future) while COM:SALT is good for pages we never want. :) — Giggy 08:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with gadgets

Hi all, has anyone undergone problems with QuickDelete and DelReqHandler? Since yesterday, the links in the toolbox (QuickDelete) and the extra links in the header of the nominations in Commons:Deletion requests (DelReqHandler) have disappeared regardless of purging the cache, disconnecting... It's quite difficult to to maintenance without them... Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 06:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, in fact, the following gadgets are not working at all: Quick Delete, Hot Cat, Flickr Fixr and DelReqHandler. On the other hand, Check Usage and Add Information are working. My monobook is User:Ecemaml/monobook.js and my browser is Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071127 Firefox/2.0.0.11. Is there a way to debug javascript? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 13:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This may be also issue with recent MediaWiki update (there was a big delay before). --EugeneZelenko 16:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Also Special:Newpages isn't behaving the way it was - I guess this may be an "update" issue too --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So, is there any fix for it? Doing maintenance without proper tools is really exhausting :-( --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 23:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, I hate closing DRs now. I've come to depend on this script. We really need a fix really soon. Can someone with the skills please take a look at it? Or create a simple temporarily script? Please. Rocket000 03:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On a totally different note, is there a reason popups isn't there? Damn useful...— Giggy 05:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but you can add the following to your monobook.js (or whatever.js):

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js'
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

Works like it does on WP. Rocket000 06:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you already have it. ;) Rocket000 06:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do, but the little people don't :P *hides* — Giggy 07:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think popups as an option would be good - first thing I add on any wiki but I do know some folk aren't keen. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle would be good too... RedCoat 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't that much vandalism, plus we don't have nearly as many template warnings (if any, I don't know about them) so I'm not so sure about Twinkle. — Giggy 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

TW doesn't work here. At all. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 04:29, 30 December 2007 (GMT)

It doesn't work because the JavaScript can't read the interface. It should work with a few local adjustments, IMHO. Maxim_(talk) 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of {{OTRS pending}} tagged files

I ask you admins colleagues how to handle files like Image:Dessel-Kwaadmechelen.png. It was tagged with {{OTRS pending}} on 29. Nov. 2007, but until today no OTRS confirmation was added, so the license status is unconfirmed.
Questions: First, how much time is needed/appropriate to wait before further action? Second question, if no OTRS-ticket number is added after this period, should such images going trough a regular deletion request or can we do speedy delete it?
My suggestion is to wait maximal three weeks after adding {{OTRS pending}} and then, if nothing has done, to speedy delete the file. What's your opinions? --GeorgHH • talk   18:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that depends on the circumstances. Where there appears to be active discussions going on with the copyright owner, images are often left for longer than three weeks. On the other hand, if there is no apparent action a maximum of three weeks seems fine. What I and others quite often do is to post a message after a reasonable time saying that the image will be deleted after (say) a week unless the OTRS permission has arrived by then. That sometimes draws a reply from someone saying that the negotiations are nearly complete. It can take a while, especially if the copyright owner has no idea what is needed and initially sends a permission that's too limited. If the image is a clear copyvio in the absence of permission it can and should be speedy deleted, not put up for discussion. --MichaelMaggs 18:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile examining the possibility of adding images needing OTRS permissions into a category and after 4 weeks, 6 weeks or whatever, looking at deleting all the images which are still awaiting permission. If permission comes in after the image is deleted, undeletion isn't a major problem either. Some clever syntax can be added to the OTRS template showing the date when the image would first become a deletion candidate. Nick 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick's suggestion makes sense to me. We should decide how long to give these and keep track to make sure they don't slip through the net. Undeletion is no big deal if permissions are obtained a long time after upload. Ideally we should really be encouraging uploaders to get those permissions before uploading the image here. WjBscribe 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediawiki login page update request

Hi there,
I've been asked by Consta to add Greek here, but I don't know how to do that. I hope that someone here may be able to do such a thing or let me know how to do it :)
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 21:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (GMT)

Feelings!!

I wish from the respectable Board to remove all the portraits of Prphet Mohamed, peace be upon him, immidiatly from the Prohet Mohamed (pbuh) page . Posting any portray or drawing of the Prohet is considered as hurting Muslims feeling and their faith. As you wouldn't like anyone to hurt your feelings or your beliefe you should also consider the same towards other religions. I konw its only a mistake that was done with no bad intention , so please delete those portrays and drawings immidiatly. Thank you for understanding in this matter.

With respect, if you would not like your feelings to be hurt by the portraits, then please do not look at them. This project is not censored. Videmus Omnia 02:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)