Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: [[:]]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/mld

Referring from here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dagonweb#.7B.7BAutotranslate.7C1.3D.7Cbase.3DPlease_link_images.2Fheading.7D.7D I have been asked to make some kind of comment on my additions. I have no idea what exactly to do and when I click for more information I am supposed to read 6-8 pages of highly dense text. This won't do. Please implement a simpler point and click system, instead of this ... mess. I love contributing my work but if this system is put before me as a hurdle, I have very little issues with not making the contribution and not using wikipedia. I though wiki was free to use, but the current byzantine infrastructure clearly serves to keep out contributors.

I recently made acquaintance with Quentinusc (talk · contribs), who had this to say about my tagging of his copyright violations. It then came to my attention that he has a sockpuppet account, Quentinusc35 (talk · contribs). I don't know if this counts as abusing multiple accounts, but it looks like there are some copyvios under that account as well. It would be good if someone else would be willing to review them. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping?

If the reason this hasn't been dealt with is that it wasn't specific enough, let me try to elaborate: File:Rck.jpg, the scale-down duplicate File:Rck91.jpg and File:Unvez kelt.jpg have big watermarks suggesting they were taken from http://rck1991.org/site/photos.php, and File:Paris 2.jpg has a big "SRP" watermark. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please comment on this? Is this a valid use of multiple accounts? I would normally tag the aforementioned images as problematic myself, but given the user's previous response, I chose not to because I didn't want it to appear like personal bias. Should I interpret the lack of response here as an indication that my suspicions are in fact the result of such bias?

Basically, if there is an actual problem, please address it. If I'm out of line, please tell me so I can get my head screwed on right. As it stands, the two weeks of silence is a bit hard to interpret. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they're at it again. For example, File:Église berthierville.jpg is taken from http://www.pbase.com/jbnd31/image/62755952. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked User:Quentinusc for two weeks, and I'll be watching User:Quentinusc35 for block evasion. I also deleted the obvious copyvios from both accounts, and tagged the less obvious ones with {{Nsd}}. Thanks for bringing this up. –Tryphon^☂ 13:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Is it possible to undelete pictures? I posted a bunch of pictures for astronomical objects that were missing for use in their articles about two years ago. Then, last April, they were deleted due to concern of permission, but since I don't log on here often, I only noticed this a couple weeks ago. The owner gave permission via email which I believe I provided back when they were first posted. I no longer have that email account, nor the photos. The supplier would probably be annoyed at having to provide them again and give permission over again. The deleted pictures are:

• Image:NGC281.jpg
• Image:NGC 2174.jpg
• Image:Rosette nebula.jpg
• Image:NGC7000.jpg
• Image:Lagoon Nebula.jpg
• Image:NGC 7538.jpg

Please assist.

Thanks.

WilliamKF (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't happen to remember where you provided the owner's permission, would you? I couldn't find any indication of it in the deleted image histories, nor in your contribution history here on Commons. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forward your permission to OTRS? If so, we can ask a volunteer to find them. --Dereckson (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just searched the OTRS system and I was not able to find any reference to "User:WilliamKF" or any of the image names. If it was sent to OTRS I might be able to find the e-mail if you can let me know what the e-mail address the permission was sent from was. --J.smith (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sent email to J.smith with my old email address. Who was the author of the photos? I don't recall, but will ask for permission again from them if you can look it up for me. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For information there is a request here. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also the village pump concerning this kind of advertising. Kanonkas (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate you withdrawing that tone - it is considered courtesy to announce such requests & has been for some time. Not what I would expect from you. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply anything bad and/or arrogance with my tone, sorry if it sounded as such. However, I do see this as "advertising" the community to vote. As long as I've been here, I've never seen a CU request being "placed" as this on AN and VP on Commons, which is why I was surprised to see one now. However, I wasn't aware that such notes were usual to do during CU requests on Commons. I guess this was a misunderstanding on my part, but calling it lack of courtesy is harsh, IMO. I'm entitled to make mistakes/misunderstandings, so are others. --Kanonkas (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) Hmm, the recent election of WMF board trustees was "advertised" on every single page over all Wikimedia projects. So, why should it be a problem to invite the community for comment about a request for a job that really needs to have broad support in the community? --Túrelio (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps going forward we should make it a practice to more widely publicise (including here, the VP, and elsewhere) 'crat, OV, and CU elections, as they tend to be somewhat rarer than admin elections. ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the practice. It has been here, it was on Wikibooks over two years ago. It is on all other wikis I have been active on. En wp even intrude on watchlists with it. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people are forgetting it's the practice (I did) and suggesting we make it the practice, maybe we need to note somewhere (on the guide to requesting the perm?) that it's the practice? ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. However, I think only for CU/OS requests. Maybe we should ask the community for their view on this, or should we try being bold? The latter is probably less bureaucratic, IMO. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been policy for longer than many people have been here, in the event of doubt please see the Meta page particularly here. The user requesting CheckUser status must request it within his local community and advertise this request properly (village pump, mailing list when available, ...). That section goes back to 2006 at least. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. No worries on that part, however this is only for CU/OS, right? So.... I'd say just do what Lar said above, that we should note this. As far as I know, RfB's do not fall under this clause. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why it should not apply to anything other than admin requests. Particularly when pages get moved around and so may be hard for people to find (unless it is pointed out to them).

This project is a community one - it should be treated as such by those who seek to be influential in that community. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could say the same thing about RfA's, yet we do not advertise those. I hope we won't start advertising RfA's. In particular, CU/OS are more sensitive, which may be one of the reasons why we should advertise those requests. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 16:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you didn't actually read or maybe understand what I wrote above. I fail to see why it should not apply to anything other than admin requests. in other words I do not see it should apply to admin requests. However it would seem courteous to the community to ensure they were aware of any other requests so that they could comment if they wished. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, announcing things like RFBs would be a good thing I think. Or do similar to Meta/Simple WP, and link them from recent changes. For example, I missed your RFB, Kanonkas. Majorly talk 22:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it was or wasn't a practice before, let's agree to make it a practice, going forward, for all requests other than admin, that is, for 'crat, OV and CU requests, that these be advertised. If common practice pages (like "how to make a request" pages) need updating, let's do that too. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Lar/Majorly - looks like good practice to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about we create a template with links to all current votes and important discussions? This could then be included on many pages. At least that's how it's done over at de.wp, see de:Vorlage:Beteiligen. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, I'd say just put them in a closable sitenotice. Requests for Crat, CU and Oversight are important, and telling from my own experience, I haven't even discovered the usual admin requests for a long time, unlike the Board of Trustees Election, the Relicensing or the Poty, which were in the sitenotice. And if the people don't care for it, they can just close the sitenotice. -The Evil IP address (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always liked the Meta approach too. RfAs and any others are shown on recent changes (for those of us who are that way inclined ;)) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really fond of putting too much stuff in the sitenotice and bugging loads of people who don't really care about this stuff. Putting this in the Sitenotice makes the Sitenotice pop up every time another candidate comes or goes. People who don't want this will have to close the Sitenotice over and over. I think people should decide on their own whether they want information about what is going on and getting this information should require activity by the person interested in the information. We should just facilitate obtaining information and providing it in a centralized place instead of having users go through a handful of pages where changes are announced. One single page (or template, doesn't really matter) featuring all the main community discussions is IMHO the best way to do this. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Chris on that point. However, don't we already have such a page (Commons:Requests and votes)?— Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 07:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that page is rather large and its structure is not really optimal for checking whether something has changed. Also it does get quite some non-vote-related edits so watchlisting this will alert you more often than neccessary. I was thinking of a pretty small page wich is only updated when new votes are started. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think notices on MediaWiki:Recentchangestext would be useful, but I don't know how people actively check the RC. I would help update a type of template like {{Maintenance announcements}} if others think that would be better. This could be used for all important discussions too kinda like en.wp's RfC/centralized discussion thing. Rocket000 (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all!

I have not enough understanding of the technical side of the renamings of DjVu files, I have made mistakes twice in the last 24 hours, so it is better that I ask for your advice about remaining or not an admin here. I am a literary person, what I can be useful for is the cultural side of renaming, the creation of rules to name djvu files (I know well that field and other fields on fr.wikisource, en.wikisource, multilingual wikisource, I am an admin on the three of them, a crat on one of them, and I have participated in the building of lots of portals or in the creation of lots of books in the Page mode). But yesterday I renamed two books of 400 pages each without understanding clearly that the 800 pages would have to be renamed too, somebody stopped that in time and somebody explained the mistake to me, but it is better that I don't do these renamings any more. --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that Zyephyrus has done over all a good job as an admin. The errors can be corrected, that's not a big deal. So I proposed that he stays admin. Yann (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyone who realises that they make mistakes is unlikely to go far wrong as far as I am concerned. Please stay & help out where you are happy to. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• We all make a few errors in good faith. No one seems to have been harmed by this. A learning curve is natural. Durova (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all of you for your encouraging words. --Zyephyrus (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you seriously don't want to be an admin at Commons anymore, you can ask at the Meta page for adding and removing permissions or drop any steward, including me, a note privately, and your bit will get removed. But in my view, what is required of a good admin at Commons is not perfection, for we are all of us human and none of us perfect, but rather the willingness to learn from experience and to clean up any inadvertent messes one causes, as others above say. Thanks for bringing this up. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lar, so I will stay. --Zyephyrus (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the copyvio revision of File:Ashley Roberts.jpg uploaded by Pedro Ivo Caldas (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) block user and re-block the user, who apparently failed to learn from their previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Martin H. (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the contributions made by this User. Probably not own work. Thanks. --Fabiano ^msg 23:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Martin H. (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.: Evidence for sockpuppetry of a user I blocked before, thanks for the note. --Martin H. (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem in two images of German Mark coins here and there that needs to be fixed. Probably due to little knowledge of the English language the template {{PD-Deutsche Bundespost stamps}} was used. Therefore the images are wrong licensed and wrong categorized at the same time. -- Ies (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the right license for these? (sorry that this sat for a bit...) ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A coin is a 3D object, so the photographer gained copyright. License from uploader is missing. Im unsure about copyright of the coins but I think they are public domain. So {{subst:nld}} at the moment. --Martin H. (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ResolvedLupo 07:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I often create image description pages before I upload - For one thing, if you have a list, say:

• File:Related file 1.jpg
• File:Related file 2.jpg
• File:Related file 3.jpg

And click on them, you get an edit page, not the upload page (Try it!). So it makes more sense to set up the information first.

Until you go to upload, and our idiotic scripts are unable to take into account that the page is already created, so filling in the blanks is pointless.

Try doing a large batch upload under these conditions. PLEASE FIX THIS. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be looking for MediaWiki talk:UploadForm.js. Lupo (talk · contribs) appears to be the usual maintainer of that page. With any luck, he can suggest an override you can put in your personal Monobook.js. Wknight94 ^talk 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a temporary fix, all you can do is go the way over JavaScript hacks. AFAIR submitting the form manually (not using the button) should work. If it does not, block JavaScript for Wikimedia Commons. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 02:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, if you write [[File:Related file 1.jpg]] instead of [[:File:Related file 1.jpg]], you do get the upload form instead of the edit page. –Tryphon^☂ 09:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but when it is uploaded, you get the full image showing up on the other image's page. Not good! Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about reupload links like

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=File:Related_file_1.jpg&wpForReUpload=1
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=File:Related_file_2.jpg&wpForReUpload=1

You must give only a description like "upload" or at least one letter. --Martin H. (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue with Martin's solution is that the re-upload link doesn't appear anywhere when there is no image. If you add

importScript('User:Pruneau/ReUpload.js');

to your monobook.js, you'll get an extra link in the toolbox in the left column to (re-)upload the file in all cases. Pruneau^talk 17:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done This problem is fixed. Going to the upload page and then clearing your browser's cache will fix it for you. Lupo 07:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user [1] uploaded pictures seems to be in exif-data HP psc1600, what are scanner / printer, please check the pictures--Motopark (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1970s photographs can hardly come directly from digital cameras ;) --Martin H. (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Scanning software can also produce EXIF data. You'll notice there are no fields for camera parameters, like focal length, apperture etc. Sv1xv (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK to me--Motopark (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

person who are in the picture, are marked an author in next pictures, what are your opinion about those pictures.--Motopark (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that part of those pictures are published in Picasa album and author are TKrisa--Motopark (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note of inquiry and have watchlisted Fugue II (talk · contribs) talk page. His/her contributions look like copyvios to me. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is in the topic. Since the feature was activated recently, and since most notes added by new users/ips are either:

• Blatant vandalism or 'I was here' tagging. (eg: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:DholeT.zoo.jpg&action=history )
• Non useful note. (eg: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Panneau_south_park-b.svg&diff=27417795&oldid=23475096 )

Of course, some edits are legit, but still the tool just can be abused.
As Commons don't have specialized antivandalism bots, and as it would be difficult to prevent annotating since any language could be used, can the opportunity of disabling the gadget for new ips or users be discussed.
Esby (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to endorse restricting the add note to autoconfirmed users. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd put this on the same level as editing a page. The damage caused is similar and the ease of revering is the same. It also has the advantage that the editing is more complex and a little slower so the speed at witch vandalism can occur is slower. --J.smith (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Technically, yes, it's just like editing the page, but I think this is a little too tempting for anons not to vandalize. I'm seeing some of the same kind of "test edits" that use to plague Wikipedia when the wiki thing was still a novelty (well, I guess some wikis still get a lot of that). I'd support enabling it for users only (i.e. anyone logged in). Autoconfirmed is ok too. If some IP really wanted to they could add a note manually (where the tempting new technology would be absent). An alternative would be to get some good abuse filters in place. Rocket000 (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing you said doens't already apply to -almost- every page on the wiki. What is different about this tool that makes it more risky? As I've already stated I think it's even less risky. Edits to regular pages can have an impact across multiple pages (templates) or be done rapid-fire. Does semi-protection apply to this tool? If so, we already have a tool to protect high-risk images as needed. --J.smith (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, high-risk images only really need to be protected from changing the image itself. What goes on on the description page doesn't need to be protected unless for the normal reasons (repeated vandalism and edit-warring). What's different with this tool is it makes it more attractive for vandalism/test edits. There's nothing "risky" about it. It's just a lot of the edits I see are useless and reverting wastes the time of contributors that normally improve Commons not just maintain the status quo. I'm looking at the net benefit. I was just adding my say in order to help establish consensus if one existed (which it doesn't, and that's fine too). Rocket000 (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot to mention one factor. It is currently holidays for most school with inet access (at least, here in France), the vandalisms on the fr wikipedia from those are kinda low in this period, but this will not be the same in september / october when they'll start having school again. I'd assume it's the same thing for the whole european area too. Esby (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. There are already more than enough tasks for serious users here. No need to add patrolling for vandalism invited by this tool. A look at recent changes filtered to show anonymous users will clearly demonstrate the negative net utility of enabling it for anonymous users. And if it really is just like editing a page, removing access to the tool shouldn't be a big deal, since they can still edit the page. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to wait with that until the novelty factor has worn off, and I'd be very reluctant to restrict editing rights. This is a Wiki where anyone may edit. Besides, I just looked at the log:

• 2009-08-25, 00:00 - 06:23: 22 edits by new users to 18 files. 2 tests (4 edits, self-reverted, an IP and a new user), 2 edits that could be vandalism (or maybe just tests), 1 clearly good note (identifying a ship). The rest are mostly not obvious vandalism (and some vandalism, too, of course), rather just inappropriate uses of the tool (adding URLs to one's own homepage, misusing notes for talking, non-informative notes repeating info from the {{Information}}.
• 2009-08-24, 00:00 - 24:00: 192 edits by new users to 109 files. 22 tests (44 edits, self reverted). I then got tired counting, but I see several well-intentioned but inappropriate notes (such as repeating the {{Information}}), some good notes, some stuff that might be testing, and of course also some vandalism, but not overwhelmigly much. I also see one IP reverting some other IP's vandalism.
• 2009-08-23, 00:00 - 24:00: 143 edits to 61 files. Didn't look what they were, but from a quick glance, it's about the same picture: some tests, some good, some bad.

Frankly said, if O(100) edits per day by new users are considered overwhelming, then we've got a systemic problem, and it's not going to be solved by restricting access! If at all, let's try other approaches first. Maybe start by giving more people rollbacker rights. Or, if longer-term experience shows that despite our best efforts, we can't deal with it, try making the buttons less prominent by turning them into simple links (possibly only for non-autoconfirmed users). Finally, I strongly oppose any restriction of editing rights up-front due to fear-mongering ("school will start again"). It is a Wiki. Lupo 06:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the basic wiki philosophies is that "anyone can edit". We should only move away from that with sufficient reason. J.smith (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone look through the contributions of User:ELMER1071? There seem to be some unlikely claims of "own work," such as File:Municipalidad Antigua.JPG and File:Tru-metro.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 00:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looked through, several copied from elsewhere, I nuked the lot as a precaution. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

same name for DIFFERENT pictures may someone FULLY separate File:Husarz.jpg and File:Husarz1.jpg ? in history File:Husarz.jpg has the same picture as File:Husarz1.jpg - so I'm afraid that some one will revert File:Husarz.jpg to its older version :-( both pictures are important just one picture is the first quarter of 17th century (File:Husarz.jpg - new version), and the second is the third quarter of the same century (File:Husarz.jpg - old version) please, solve the trouble! 212.116.227.156 01:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not exactly unusual for files to have been over-written by different versions, even with completely different subjects. Obviously this was corrected in this case by uploading the original again under a new name, File:Husarz1.jpg. The original image upload is just history, there is nothing that needs correcting. (The revert button just uploads a new copy of an older image, the previous uploads would not dissappear, so no risk of loosing anything :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, can someone with a little more filter-writing skills take a look at filter 9. The extension must have been updated since the creation of this filter because I don't know how he got it to save with syntax errors.

Second, does anyone know how to remove tags from Special:Tags? I guess these are automatically created when you type something in the tag field while creating a filter. The problem is that even trivial changes such as renaming a tag from "image_annotation" to "image annotation" creates a brand new pseudo-system message. I say "pseudo" because it doesn't exist at the MediaWiki page (unless you change it from the default) yet is somehow linked to it. You can change the tag directly without using the abuse filter interface; I have no idea what would happen if done this way. Would it change the tag's text already present in the logs? Would it create a new tag with the same name? Obviously, we don't need to delete these non-existent system messages (I guess that would mean removing it from the logs/page histories which we don't want) but there should be a way to delete/hide all references to it if the filter that applied it got "deleted" (i.e. hidden, these too can never be deleted it seems). They should also magically disappear if they were never applied to any edit and someone removed it from the filter. Otherwise, Special:Tags will start to become quite a mess.

And lastly, I created this template to standardize tag descriptions and (hopefully) help us maintain the tags in general. The idea was taken from en.wp. Please use it if you create a new tag. We need to be cautious with these filters if they are undeletable. Rocket000 (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like image 1L122-2E.jpg but this filename is blacklisted. I'm absolutely sure that this is the best name for an image so plz smb whitelist it so that I could upload an image. Thank you, SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 18:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same about 9M334.jpg. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 18:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same about R-416G-MS.jpg. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what the images depict and why a more descriptive name wouldn't be better? Pruneau^talk 19:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Almaz-Antey's stuff from MAKS-2009 airshow. These filenames repsesent names of these vehicles. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 19:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more descriptive name, then, might be "[Manufacturer] [cryptic vehicle name] [vehicle type] at the MAKS-2009 airshow.jpg". —LX (talk, contribs) 19:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. Those names are way too cryptic, glad the filter's working to stop them. ++Lar: t/c 23:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this because of the recent RfA at which this admin was the nominator. In it he suggested that his friend was asking for deletions as part of the rationale for the nomination. However there seemed to be few deleted contributions - unusual if someone is finding stuff to be deleted so I looked at Wadester16's deletion log. The fact that is is so short made the task quite easy. I found the first two admin actions taken were to delete two images he had uploaded which had been to DR & been closed as kept. I will now undelete these (& they must remain so unless or until the community decides otherwise). The images are now here & here and the DRs are here &here.

I have not reviewed the log in detail but some further deletions stood out. I'm sure many people upload copyvio (that is why we have so much work to do) however I'm much less happy with copyvios uploaded by admins who really should know better. I felt this was something that required dealing with and emailed Wadester16 seeking clarification. When I got an answer my worries increased & I felt the community should have the opportunity to comments.

Primarily my concerns are -

1. A lack of understanding of irrevocable licensing & apparently a sense of ownership
2. A lack of understanding of DRs. They are not decided on consensus.
3. The copyvio suggests further lack of understanding of licensing
4. The email suggests to me that this user considered admins may delete images out of any sort of process if asked even on "user request" without concern for licensing.

Broadening out from solely this user I would just comment that I think we should be rather more careful in accepting users who have admin rights elsewhere - some are absolutely great but Commons admin role is not the same as the role elsewhere. As a more minor issue this admin seems less concerned with helping the community than dealing with their own errors.

I hope the community considers this as important as I do and agree with me bringing it here & I look forward to reading the comments. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his deletion log, I didn't see one deletion made following policy so far; no deletion request, everything is done behind the scene. And as you noted, use of the admin tools is almost exclusively for managing his own images (and he really seems to think he can do whatever he wants with those, because the belong to him, without any sort of community interaction). I would just like to present one more example, which I find very representative of the problem at hand. File:AlbanyNYCityHall.jpg has been deleted with the rationale: User request: to be replaced (the user requesting deletion, the author and the deleting admin are in fact the same person). And why not just upload the new version without deleting the whole file history? Anyway, the 3,895×5,140 pixels image was replaced shortly after that by a... 320×400 pixels image (and there are at least five other cases like this one). Now was this admin action aimed at improving Commons and serving the community?
So yes, I think we have a very serious issue here; Wadester16 uses his admin rights to bypass our deletion process and to serve his own interests, which is quite the opposite of what I would expect from an admin. I'm curious what other people think of all this, and I hope Wadester16 will also comment here. –Tryphon^☂ 09:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share this concern. I have been aware of it for a while now, as Herby consulted with me about it before taking action. Herby's first steps were to contact W privately, seeking a drama free resolution, and there was an exchange of several mails. I've seen some of W's responses and I am afraid that I think they miss the mark, they started out somewhat dismissive and then moved to obfuscation, he just doesn't seem to get it.

The issues Herby raises, and the issues Tryphon raises, are very serious ones. I am fine with admins who don't focus on Commons as their sole vehicle for contribution to WMF projects, it's OK if they are primary contributors elsewhere, but we do expect some participation and we especially do expect following norms. We really don't need admins here who don't want to follow process because the images are "theirs". (reminder, images once uploaded are NOT "yours"... you've licensed them freely, which is irrevocable, and it's a courtesy to you if the community chooses to delete them) It is one thing to delete something right after you uploaded it, because you goofed or whatever, and then replace it with the correct thing, but if there's a deletion request, and it comes out that the image should be kept, deleting it anyway out of process just seems wrong. These images are not the same as their replacements, and both should be retained.

I think a detailed explanation, and a vow never to do that sort of thing again, are the minimum required actions from Wadester16. Color me very concerned. ++Lar: t/c 13:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the above, I have retored and reverted the images to their highest resolution. Yann (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why Herby didn't post my rationale from the email, but here is my previous explanation from the other day, regarding the DRs:

"I was weak on policy at the time, though soon discovered that the system is broken in many ways, which is why I don't place myself in those arenas as a sysop on Commons.

First off, this was closed against consensus (I consider the nominator to have an implied vote, making this 3 against 1; if you disagree, this is still two against one, which is undoubtedly consensus). I don't question the outcome per votes on the other, though the last two imply that I nominated for deletion because I claimed it was "duplicate", which I did not; these votes have little weight because this file was a redundant copy (not duplicate) of another, and their votes are based on duplicity (policy states that redundancy is a very legitimate concern and should be considered by voters; it is the responsibility of the voters to know the policy. Most ignored this statute.). Secondly, my objections to the outcome to both DRs were undone by User:Tryphon, an administrator of high esteem, I'm sure, but one who should be ashamed of censoring another user. I did not change the DR, only added an objection at the end. (S)he had no right to remove those statements.

That said, the system is relatively flawed because these images had no use to anyone and were superseded by superior versions; it's not like I wanted to remove the image completely. Any change to these images could be done to the superior versions, making those arguments moot to me, but apparently not to DR closers. If I had known sysops here, I could have easily just asked one to delete an image and no bureaucracy would have been needed, making DR moot to begin with. One can easily look at it as "Why even do that? I could go right around it by asking a friend(ly) sysop." Hence our system is broken.

My reason still stands that these images were unnecessarily clogging my user category and served no positive purpose on Commons. If the images exist, I want my template on it, but I don't want them clogging my category. Solution? Don't have those images, so I won't feel the need to use a template, which therefore won't clog my category. Again, it's not like I'm getting rid of the image, only a defunct version of it.

These deletions were indeed my first as sysop, though I have never done something like this again nor will I ever. I was righting a wrong and will claim IAR if I must; I was doing my small part to clean the system. If you look at my admin actions, you will see that I've never done something like this again and I typically only use my tools to work on my own projects and to fix errors by me and other users that I trust."

This may indeed offer proof of misunderstanding of policies or guidelines, though I felt and still do feel confident in most policy. I was unaware that DRs are not based on consensus (as indicated by Herby above), and if this is true, I ask the community why, then, do we have DRs to begin with? The smaller res photos were replaced out of respect for a man I had been selling my photos to, to sell to the public. He hadn't asked me, nor does he know they are posted online. It didn't need to be done, but I still felt it the right thing to do overall, even if it may not have been the right thing to do here. To do a small bit of wikilawyering, photographers upload small-res photos all the time and save the high res for themselves. At the time of upload, I had not been selling my photos, so didn't worry about the high-res version being there. I replaced the high-res with a small-res, in much the same way other photographers reserve their high res photos; it was just a backwards way of doing it. Granted that doesn't make it right, and I won't venture into doing that again. If you feel I have legitimate issues with policy, please feel free to list the policies you think I should review. I will read them word for word and take some time off from sysop actions here at Commons until I finish reading up. I do sincerely think the process here is broken, seeing that every action I took (save for the replacements) did help the project; sometimes a little cleaning is necessary and our policy for redundant copies needs community attention, or consideration from !voters at DRs. These two files are wastes of space and have no purpose here. The way I dealt with it was not right, admittedly, but it was a one-time thing. You have yet to see me venture into DRs since; I could jokingly call it a COI. As for this "copyvio", it was a sign outside an historic site, which I thought had been printed by the US Park Service, which would make it PD. In fact, it had not and this was not easily evident because I actually had to return to the sign and read the back to see that it was made by the local historical society. This was a minor error and really not a big deal if you know the backstory. Another user clarified its source to me (discussion), one that is well-versed in historical landmarks in my hometown. Overall what I did was wrong or gray, and I'm sorry for causing such strife; I won't be doing things like this again. wadester16 16:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really do worry about the fact that someone can become an admin on Commons with so little understanding of licensing & Commons generally.

I continue to worry that they still do not really understand the concept of free & irrevocable licensing & consider they have some sense of "ownership" of the images they uploaded. There is nothing personal in this when I say I sincerely hope they would not succeed at an RfA now & I do have some concerns about their continuation as an admin here sadly. There are few of us really active & we do have plenty of work to do without wondering what others are doing.

Among other issues concepts such as Ignore All Rules (IAR) are extremely dangerous when applied to the legalities of copyright & licensing. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this thread I think it would be best if Wadester16 stopped being an admin here. Multichill (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage Wadester16 to voluntarily give up the tools, if for no other reason than he's barely using them. Using them only for deleting your own images, then deleting inappropriately anyway... that's an easy call. You take great pictures, Wadester16, give up the tools that you don't need anyway, and everyone can get along fine and close this issue quickly. Wknight94 ^talk 18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Sorry Wadester16, but your behaviour shows a complete lack of policy knowledge. I don't think this can be fixed by just reading a few pages, you will need to demonstrate that you understand policy by acting according to it and this phase should be worked through as a user without the tools so not much damage can be done. This is especially critical at Commons as the community here is not big enough to follow up on every admin action. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded, it probably would be for the best absent a full and freely given promise to research the matter more closely and a vow to ask for help in future and avoid deletions like these. As a note, you can voluntarily resign your adminship via a private message to any steward, or via a request on the the steward request page on Meta. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Though my concerns with the DR process, me being censored, and ignorance to "redundancy" are all still real issues that you all should not stick your noses up at. wadester16 01:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good judgement call I think (and already one point for you in my book if you ever decide to run again). Contrary to what it may sound like below, I agree our system isn't perfect. We end up erring on the side of caution and unfortunately that means we keep a lot of redundant junk we don't need. It can become a real issue in the future because it just keeps accumulating. It doesn't need to be said that quality is directly proportional to quality control, and that's something wikis in general have issue with. You are not wrong for having your views, it was just lack of understanding of established process/policy that made you a not-so-good admin (not a not-so-good user, let alone person, since it wasn't done to intentionally hurt the project). To reverse a validly closed DR by yourself without any kind of discussion is not ever a gray area. It's not an unforgivable offense but it is quite serious because it shows that you're willing to ignore policy/process if you think you know better. Maybe you do know better, but that doesn't justify actually doing it. It's like continuing to edit-war/wheel-war when you know the other user is wrong and going against consensus. Yes, you may be on the right side but you're doing it the wrong way. As an admin, the latter is of special importance. Rocket000 (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the claims by Wadester16 is that

...making DR moot to begin with. One can easily look at it as "Why even do that? I could go right around it by asking a friend(ly) sysop." Hence our system is broken.

which needs to be addressed. How routinely does this happen, how can it be monitored? --Tony Wills (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it happens all that often. The way to monitor it would be to examine the deletion log and make comparisions (but it would take some analysis). I don't think "our system is broken" so much as our sysops are stretched thin, there is a lot of work to do and maybe some systematic review of the work and processes is needed to find areas for process improvement and increased efficiency... DR is chronically backlogged as are other tasks. I'd prefer this section stay focused on the issue at hand though, perhaps this question could be raised elsewhere if that answer doesn't satisfy. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't happen often. I think Wadester16 is misinterpreting certain things he sees other admins do. For example, if some user comes to my talk page asking for deletion of some file they recently uploading by mistake or some inferior/redundant image they uploaded, and there was no reason whatsoever to believe anyone else cared if it was deleted, then I would considered doing them a favor and speedying it. If the file was in use anywhere, had previous discussion, other editors, etc. I would suggest a DR instead. This is one of those areas that takes good judgement, experience, and a deeper understanding of the ways and expectations of the community, not just knowing written policy. Good admins barely need to even read policy pages (and even then it's usually only key parts at a time for related discussions or when helping to write/update them). I'm afraid Wadester16 lacks these traits and by the sound of his comments here, I don't think things will improve. An admin is expected to do a lot more than just not violate policy. Rocket000 (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It happens more than you may think and comes down to a trust issue from sysops to normal editors that do good work; and I'm specifically not talking about goof ups and misnames. I don't think it's a bad thing as long as a version of the image still exists, because it keeps the place clean. Issues that sysops here should really consider are DRs and consensus; if consensus does not apply, why do we have DR? Redundancy should really be considered. I'd ask you all to tell me why the images that were kept per DR should be kept? What does it add to Commons? What can someone do to one version that they can't do to another (the differences are negligible crops)? In what way did they add something educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject? Sometimes sysops need to venture into common-sense land and consider the circumstances and not go word for word by policy. There is a such thing as grey issues; not everything is black and white. wadester16 01:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're somewhat confused about the relationship between policy and consensus. There are certain policies, some handed down as fiat by the WMF, some broadly accepted as the way we do things by long practice, that local consensus cannot (and should not) override. DR is a chance to discuss a particular image and decide what to do about it. If there is no overriding policy that applies, then yes, the DR should follow the local consensus. But sometimes, what the DR establishes, by discussion, is what the applicable policies are. Two examples:

1. An image that's a clear copyvio but that wasn't speedied for whatever reason, (it happens... maybe the copyvio wasn't known when the DR started) isn't going to be kept by a closing admin worth their salt, regardless of consensus... the (handed down by fiat, as well as long term accepted) policy that says only free images are eligible here governs and overrides any local consensus.
2. An image that's freely licensed, and which is used in a number of projects, and doesn't have any particular issues with things like model permissions or subject ages, copyright of the item photographed, or the like, usually isn't going to be deleted, regardless of consensus. It is not enough to keep "a" version... the source of a derivative version should be kept as well. We make limited exceptions on deletion of images when the author asks, and where there is no overriding reason not to grant the request. But those are a favor by the community, not something an admin should blithely take for themselves in the face of a DR that was a keep.

What I'm getting an impression here is that you perhaps weren't ready to be an admin here when you became one, and aren't now evidencing the willingness to take feedback that's part of collaboration. Here's a key point which I think you haven't internalised yet: Once you license something here, it's no longer "yours". If you're not willing to abide by that you shouldn't have licensed it (at the resolution and quality/compression level given) in the first place. Your actions to take back unilaterally what you freely gave go against the spirit of the project. That's not what I wish to see in our admins. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very clear on the fact that these images are no longer mine; it is one of the basic points of Commons and I needn't be treated like a child and assumed to not understand the fundamental premise of this project. I did not take anything tangible away from the project when I deleted the images that were so queerly voted keep in their DRs. If I had, say, deleted all subsequent versions, then yes of course, but that's a completely different story. As for the downsampling, for use in other projects, the sizes reuploaded were more than enough, though I admit I did take from the project in those cases, for which I've apologized. I don't really know why arguments at Commons seem to be based on the simplest of examples (copyvio discovered at DR→ignore consensus); you can come up with a better example than that to tell me why consensus is ignored in DR. Why was consensus ignored in this one? There were no licensing issues. In what way did the image add to the educational value of Commons that wasn't already represented by the derivative? Please address this; if you say "it isn't going to be deleted, regardless of consensus", why don't you make that known to people in the policy? Why did I have to go through a waste of time to discover this inadequacy? This is why the system here is flawed. wadester16 03:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're still somewhat confused. Again, the scenario here was that a DR was run, during which you didn't ask for a courtesy deletion, but gave reasons that were contra-policy, and then when the DR didn't come out as you wanted, you just up and deleted the images anyway. That's unacceptable, and until you, without prevarication, acknowledge that, we're not going to get very far in resolving this. ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent and ec'd) Third parties had notified me about this thread, and due to history at a sister project I had recused from any comment onsite or offsite with the editors who participated at this thread. Am posting to commend Wadester16 for a graceful resolution to this situation. It raises my esteem of him to see him handle this with poise and dignity. At a future time when he is better prepared for Commons adminship it would be an honor to nominate his second RFA at this project. Best wishes to all, Durova (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite resolved yet I don't think. Perhaps I'm not the only one not yet clear on what the resolution is? ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wadester has resigned his admin ops, and appears ready to gain more experience before seeking to regain the flag. He may disagree upon the basis of his actions which led to this point, but that type of discussion could be continued at user talk. Unless I misunderstand, this has ceased to be an administrative matter? Durova (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thank you for reading this entire post, Durova. wadester16 03:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova: Where did he resign? I see no sign of a request from him at m:SRP,w nor of a change in the log Perhaps you saw something I didn't? All I saw was a "done" put on a comment without a crisp statement of what exactly was signified, followed by somewhat unclear allegations of a fair number of things. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can give me the dignity of assuming good faith that I'm not lying to you. Per your suggestion, I sent a private message to a steward, User:Bastique, the first en-4 steward I saw on the admin list. Her schedule is not my concern and I assume as a steward, she will get to it as soon as she has time. In the meantime, you can watch and prove to yourself that I won't use the tools before being desysoped. Please have some trust in your fellow man. wadester16 04:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for misconstruing what you were saying, I was confused. I regret any insult you may have perceived. ++Lar: t/c 04:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I misread the subthread above this? If so, apologies. Durova (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea one way or the other, actually. But my first read of the comment was that "done" was an agreement... as in "a full and freely given promise to research the matter more closely and a vow to ask for help in future and avoid deletions like these" rather than a resignation. Sometimes it is a good idea to crisply say without any equivocation what one actually means, it can avoid confusion. ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wadester, Bastique is Cary Bass. He is employed by the Wikimedia Foundation as volunteer coordinator and is almost certainly very busy with Wikimania in Argentina right now. Lar is also a steward; he could fulfill your request and knows the best formal procedure for submitting it. Durova (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't keep up on WMF that much. Lar, would you do the honors? wadester16 04:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have turned off your adminship at your request, and I thank you for your service, and for your decision to stand down. ++Lar: t/c 04:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this edit by me at Commons:Bar. I did add the last sentence to the discussion, but I am quite certain I did not edit any discussion prior to that last sentence. Have anybody seen similar text scrambling before? --Jarekt (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar happened to me a while back on en.wp because of a small bug in en:User:Magnus Manske/less edit clutter.js. Have you added any gadgets recently? Pruneau^talk 19:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No no new gadgets. --Jarekt (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This little message to report an escalation in naming that is getting out of hand. When looking for example in Category:Churches in Blansko District, Category:Churches in Prague, Category:Saint Wenceslaus churches in the Czech Republic and Category:Saint Mary's churches in the Czech Republic, one will notice a strong trend in using more and more Czech names (which of course, will be claimed as proper names). If one spends some time, or looks in look here, one can decode the structure of the 300 or so Kostel/churches. Frankly, I don't know how to respond, but I think that we have to do something.

I have personally no problems with church names with a name structure as in English which are easily recognisable (st/saint/san xxx church/kyrka/kirche/kerk) but when the words AND the structure are completely different, I think that we have to react more strongly. I feel that if we don't react, its going to get completely out of hand. A real cooperation from a Czech person seems necessary to tackle this. Any suggestions ? --Foroa (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Foroa's concerns. I questioned a couple recent entries at COM:DL [2][3] but was waiting on responses. Turns out every category under Category:All Saints churches in the Czech Republic uses the "Kostel Všech svatých" wording. According to the interwikis at cs:Kostel Všech svatých, the English version is readily available (en:All Saints Church) so why not use it? Similar question for the subcategories of Category:All Saints churches in Sweden. There are three different varieties under Category:All Saints churches in Poland, including one in Polish, so that further confuses things. And these are just for the All Saints churches - the same goes for other denominations as well. Wknight94 ^talk 18:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try COM:CFD rather than COM:DL. Sorting buildings by their name is rarely the best way to go. -- User:Docu at 19:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note for other Admins & trusted users:

The review bot lately marks only a few images and then stops abruptly. As a result, this backlog of flickr images needing review keeps growing. I hope someone can mark some of them as I have marked many but am busy with work. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [4] -> Special:Contributions/Mvcfalcon. I have reverted some of them already, example: spammed version (contains spam links every bottom of the page) / original version.

I don't have time to look deeper into it, help is appreciated. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 04:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. after he seems to have failed to write an article about his company en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CVISION Technologies, Inc. he seems to put links into the pdf files now everywhere... (it ws: spammed version / original version) --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 04:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 'birdy, I agree this is unacceptable, the user needs to be warned, and the images need to be reverted. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With a bit of AGF, I think it's possible the user just wants to help by compressing our PDF files using a trial version of his product. Anyway, he needs to be told that this is not what we desire. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 05:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which I've done. Left out all the "you're promoting your company" angle and just went with "we don't do that here". Spot check of contribs suggests that Spacebirdy got all the ones that had prior versions but I could have been mis-reading, someone else should take a look. ++Lar: t/c 11:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new uploads he made have still the spamlink in them. If You ask me, I would just delete them.

FYI, I have locked the account, because it made uploads not only here on commons but also on many other projects overwriting many files with the spamlink in it, after his failed article in WP AGF to me is too much. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 20:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I understand the pictures declared as Wikipedia Commons can be used in any article in Wikipedia, in any language.

May such a picture also be freely included in other publications than Wikipedia?

Kind regards

Gunnar

gunnar.backstrom@physics.umu.se — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.239.3.3 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, depending on the image/photographs license you can freely use image/photographs. With public domain licensed images you can use without attribution but with the Creative Commons licenses (Expect for CC Zero) require attribution and if licensed as Creative Commons ShareAlike will also require the image to be released under the same license (If I've confused you see Commons:Licensing). Bidgee (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see COM:REUSE. You can reuse every image on Commons for every purpose including commercial purposes as long as you follow the licenses and not violate any other rights like personality rights or trademark restrictions (dont advertise with the presidential portraits, dont promote computers with photographs of apples). --Martin H. (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in picture File:PTXMII.jpg, are one OTRS-ticket number, can somebody check--Motopark (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See COM:OTRSN for requests like this. --Martin H. (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a deletion review noticeboard on Commons? File:2238516206 6f4b275075 o.jpg was nommed for deletion today - Commons:Deletion requests/File:2238516206 6f4b275075 o.jpg - with the rationale, Likely a Flickr-washed photo. Flickr user was deleted, unable to confirm what other types of photos were in photostream. Unused except on user pages.. With no discussion from other users, it was deleted as Flickr washing by User:Yann. Nothing personal with Yann, just feel this was a bit premature without any discussion from others. Just because a user no longer exists on Flickr is no reason to delete images that have been reviewed by Flickr-bot and a human at the time of upload. Flickr users close their accounts all the time. Without proof that there is a copyvio, "Likely a Flickr-washed photo" is not an acceptable reason to delete an image. Additionally, I shall repost User:Mwpnl's comment below which was done after the deletion and closure of the deletion discussion. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Below comment moved from Commons:Deletion requests/File:2238516206 6f4b275075 o.jpg

I'm terrible sorry, but what made you conclude this is Flickr washing? The Flickr-user was a professional photographer who had a lot of gay and non-gay artwork on his Flickr page before he personally closed his Flickr-account. Other images by the same Flickr-user are still available on Commons. All of his pictures - including this one - are checked by our Flickr-bot (and by me, for what it's worth).

Personally, I don't think "Flickr-user was deleted, ergo it might be Flickr-washed" is one of the strongest arguments available for deletion. Especially not if the photo is made by someone who is photographer for a living. Please restore the image or provide some valid arguments for deletion. Thank you so much, m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 12:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion review noticeboard: Commons:Undeletion requests --Tony Wills (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for that. I reopened the deletion request. Multichill (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. And for future reference, I have bookmarked Commons:Undeletion requests. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]