Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 4

Can you please check that users contributions? He is uploading files like a mad man. None of them has source information and I doubt, they are self made. I am tired of tagging his files. --Enricopedia ⇄ 01:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Most (or all) of those crappy images come from campobelonline.com since they have a watermark. I don't know about the copyright on pictures from that page but he still doesn't tell the source and the pictures are downsized! --Enricopedia ⇄ 02:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted all his uploads because they were simply pulled from multiple websites with no evidence of an effort to secure copyright or otherwise conform with our policy or the law. We've tried to communicate with him but we had to block him to stop the uploading.. I see no reason trying to waste a lot of time attempting the justify and preserve the submissions of someone like this. --Gmaxwell 03:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you and I'm lucky you did that. I would have done the same, if I could.  :) The images where crap and there was no reason to keep them at all. --Enricopedia ⇄ 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody check the spanish page for me and check whether the copyrights are okay? If not, please leave the user a final warning, and post a message here so that the images can be deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked the site and Todos os direitos reservados (all rights reserved) at the bottom of the page is all I could find. But I'm not sure if the images are still from that page. I guess that was only the old source. Felipeteo put another source under his uploads till first of January, which is http://www.campobelo.mg.gov.br/ . Redux already said that on the gallery there are no copyright or copyleft remarks. From the 5th of January he starts to use other sources:

Warning: This table contains some of the ugliest web-pages I've ever seen.
Image:Poços de caldas.JPG	Copyright © Revista FHOX. Todos os direitos reservados. [1]
Image:Bondinho.JPG	No copyright remarks found on [2]
Image:Poços de caldas 2.JPG	© 2003 - PORTAL POÇOS NA REDE.COM - TODOS OS DIREITOS RESERVADOS [3]
Image:Poços de caldas 3.jpg	Private Blog, no copyright remarks found on [4]
Image:Poços de caldas 4.jpg	BússolaNet Ltda ® 2007 [5]
Image:Teleférico.jpg	No copyright remarks found on [6]
Image:Poços de caldas 5.jpg	Direitos Reservados © Dinâmica Internet [7]
Image:Bento gonçalves.jpg	No copyright remarks found on [8]
Image:Bento gonç.jpg	same [9]
Image:Sao caetano do sul.jpg	Private Homepage? No copyright remarks found [10]
Image:Bento gonc.jpg	same as two above [11]
Image:Curitib.jpg	Direitos Reservados [12]
Image:V porto alegre.gif	No copyright remarks found on [13]
Image:Avenida são caetano.jpg	Todos os direitos reservados à BBZ Solutions [14]
Image:Avenida são caetano 2.jpg	No copyright remarks found on [15]
Image:Prédios são caetano.jpg	Copyright ©2000 - 2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. [16]
Image:Vista são caetano.jpg	No copyright remarks found on [17]
Image:Brasao campo belo.jpg	Copyright 2000/2005 - Todos os Direitos Reservados [18]
Image:Bento a noite.jpg	No copyright remarks found on [19]
Image:Cruzamento bento.jpg	No copyright remarks found on [20]
Image:Cruzamento bento gonçalves.jpg	same [21]

Since today he is uploading new files again. THANK GOD they are all from http://www.campobelo.mg.gov.br/index.php so far. Thanx to Felipeteo I have seen some web-design I thought would have been gone for ages. Enricopedia ⇄ 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am going to delete all of them. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Odder (talk · contribs) went on something of a deletion spree yesterday, summarily deleting unused penis images with the summary "commons _is not_ a free porno server ("just useful images"), not used anywhere". I know we have a lot of penis images, probably a lot more than we really need, but none of these images were pornographic (not that pornography per se is prohibited on Commons anyway), and some of them illustrated various medical conditions such as hypospadias, lentigo, and anorchia/cryptorchidism, or processes such as testicular self-examination; there's already one undeletion request for the one illustrating lentigo. I don't want to start a wheel war, but I do think there should at least have been discussion before the images were deleted. —Angr 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked through all the articles you claimed used these images, but I couldn't find that any images had been on the articles for quite a while. Am I missing something? / Fred Chess 22:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought Commons hosted any files which could be used in Wikimedia projects, not just ones that currently are being used or were recently. I just uploaded a number of engravings from a Charles Dickens novel. I don't think they'll be used any time soon, but nobody is going to go and delete all of those are they?

I strongly disagree with Odder's deletions. He did not provide a valid reason for deleting the images. ~MDD4696 23:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Commons scope is for images that can be used on foundation projects. Some of these images actually illustrate something (unlike most penis pics), so shouldn't have been deleted without discussion. Being an orphan on other project isn't a deletion reason. And Angr why did you bring this here and not ask Odder about it first?--Nilfanion 23:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred, I didn't say they were being used in those articles. In fact I said "summarily deleting unused penis images". The point is that many of them could be used for encyclopedic purposes. And I brought it here first to see what other people thought; I thought the issue needed wider discussion than just me and him. —Angr 10:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, lets restore them then, and discuss them one by one.

Fred Chess 16:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's make action in MediaWiki:sitenotice: support Commons - upload your own penis!. If those images were so important, why they weren't linked anywhere? We are not talking about steam engines or roses, but penises - You can say, that xyz.wiki would like to have gallery of different penises, but if so let it be gallery of high quality penises and not this pseudo-porn that was deleted! --WarX 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with having a self-taken images of a penis to illustrate a particular condidtion (such as those described by Angr), if we don't have any better image that could replace it. We are after all an image provider, so as long as there is potential for an image to be used, I don't see why we should delete it just because it is a bad quality. If some kid happens to have an interesting penis, and he wants to take a photo of it and upload it, we might as well use it. In a way, deleting it would be like censorship. / Fred Chess 21:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How can one change their username on Wikimedia Commons? -- Clevelander 15:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

See Commons:Changing username. --EugeneZelenko 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not familiar with Commons' deletion procedures as they may differ from the English Wikipedia's. I tagged the image Image:JosephineBakerBurlesque.JPG for deletion as a probable copyright violation over a month ago. Why is it that it has neither been deleted or OK'd in that time? What is the procedure here for closing out old deletion requests or potential CPvios? Dgies 19:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we have a two month backlog for deletions ATM. Sorry about that. / Fred Chess 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: It seems the image was deleted, then re-uploaded with better sourcing information, including that the photographer/original copyright holder died more than 70 years ago, hence it is apparently of usable copyright status for Commons. -- Infrogmation 04:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. / Fred Chess 18:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I uploaded this file Image:Kodak.jpg a little bit too quickly : the name is not right, it is much too generic (kodak.jpg), it should be something like "Kodak_postbox_paris.jpg". Can somebody correct this for me ? (sorry) Jean-no 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Images can not be moved. You will need to upload it again. After doing that, tag the old version as a {{Badname}}. Kjetil_r 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So I dit. Thank you very much. Jean-no

User:Aliman5040 has created the category Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of the canton of Grisons with an obvious badname (see: en:Municipalities of the canton of Graubünden) and wrongly deleted the category with the correct name Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of the canton of Graubünden on 08:07, 22 January 2007.

So, I request the undeletion of this category. --Juiced lemon 12:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you discuss this with Aliman first? If not, please do so. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I had put move templates in most of the added (“from”) categories in User:Orgullobot/commands by User:Aliman5040 (see [22]). So, I suppose that Aliman made a mistake when he established the list. --Juiced lemon 15:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In German Wikipedia and in English Wikipedia the name is Graubünden so we should use this -- Rüdiger Wölk 15:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It appeared to be a simple mistake which I have corrected. The correct category is now existant. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Could someone add a line to Commons:Deletion guidelines or another suitable place about having more informative deletion comments. The deletion comment duplicate or superseded doesn't help a non-admin find the image that superseded the deleted one. Similarly just copyvio doesn't say anything specific about why the image was deleted. This is especially important since more and more admins relly on Commons Ticker to inform lokal wikis about image deletions. Mostly (but not always) the admin who forgot will gladly give the information once (s)he has been asked for it, but that shouldn't really be necessary to start with.
It would also be good if it was routine to check the talkpage of an image before deleting it. Many times I have seen comments regarding a deletion or copyvio tag on the talk page of a deleted image which I in good faith will assume that the deleting admin simply missed to read. I realise that many of these comments will be completly redundant such as "this is fair use" or "my birthname really is United press I promise" etc. but to always just disregard the talk pages means that images end up being deleted eventhough a user might have added the information/comment which invalidates the deletion tag. /Lokal_Profil 02:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

About deletion comments: in general I agree, but in practice I am guilty of poor explanations too. I guess this is because 1) only a small number of admins do routine deletion, and those admins tend to do a LOT of it, and 2) deleting masses of similar copyvios from one user doesn't inspire long comments, and 3) one has the feeling the reasons are never heeded. Sometimes I put comments like 'LOGOS ARE NOT FREE USE, PLEASE STOP UPLOADING THEM' in a plea to the uploader, but I have never noticed that they paid any attention to this. :)

For duplicate and superseded deletions, one should always put the replacement image, but these should not show up on CommonsTicker because such images shouldn't be deleted if they are in use. So I would write to these admins and ask them why they didn't use CheckUsage before deleting.

Talk pages should be read before deletion too of course. Lokal Profil, what you say is reasonable of course, but I have to suggest that it would probably be more effective to personally address the admins you see making these errors. cheers --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If there was a deletion request I always put "as per discussion on [[Commons:Deletion requests]] (THE REASON)" in deletion comment. But in general I would say: There is so much to do and so little time and only few helpers. So please do not be so hard on the Admins. They do importanat work. And images can always be restored if the deletion was not ok. --ALE! ¿…? 09:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we could add readily copy-paste-able deletion comments to templates like duplicate and superseded. Not being a typist and not having English as my mother tongue, I often feel that the writing an explanation is too big a burden. "Copyvio" (especially with a URL) or "logo" aren't that bad, atleast if you inform the uploader.

And what Pfctdayelise said about comments being noticed, is very true. I only check the deletion log to be sure that no one re-uploads things I have deleted. Samulili 10:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a change in the duplicate-template. Samulili 10:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I take pride in writing descriptive deletion comments, as you can see from the log, partly because some people on some Wikipedia consider me the incompetent Über-Witch of Commons, so I have to be careful. Of course it is much faster just to write "Copyvio". Just like the eminent en:user:Curps used to indef-block people with the description reason "User..." (and he was very fast). / Fred Chess 17:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that everyone can forget and that to detailed descriptions will obviously take a long time. Didn't mean to be harsh it's just that little by little this has starting to get to me. Samulili's addition to the template (and possibly other templates) is probably the most efficient cure since it makes it quick and easy to add the deletion comments without any additional burden to the deleting admin. /Lokal_Profil 16:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The User:Nyo refuse to indicate image source for Image:BerlusconiNo!.JPG, Image:RatzingerNo!.PNG, Image:RatzingerDemon.PNG and Image:RatzingerRedEyes.PNG, and rollback every modify to these pages. He only quote an italian law that say "upload this image is not a crime in italy", but imho isn't enough for copyright law. He mark it with {{PD-ineligible}} but who take the original photo? Can you verify the images? (If they are PD-Italy, they are candidate to speedy delete if i remember well) --82.52.30.136 13:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

He's wrong. They're clearly derivative works of the originals, and unless the originals are public domain or freely licensed, they can't be added here. He could make such images using one of the photographs at Silvio Berlusconi or Benedictus XVI as a basis, though. —Angr 13:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The italian wikipedia's administrator delete Image:BerlusconiNo!.JPG and Image:Tenzin_Gyatzo_no!!!.jpg (and probably are the same for the anti-ratzinger photo) with the reason that is illegal to public expose those images (according with the Article 97 of the Italian Law) , they still be used in italian wikipedia? --195.226.230.58 14:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The law saw The portrait still can not be exposed or commercialised when it exposition or its commercialisation brings prejudgment at honor or reputation of the subject person. --195.226.230.58 14:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Clear unfree, copyrighted derivative work. I have deleted them. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether Italian law permits derogatory images of a person to be displayed or not isn't an issue that's relevant to Commons. What matters here is the copyright status. If you take a copyrighted image and modify it in some way, it's a derivative work of that image, which still retains its copyright status. Image:Tenzin Gyatzo no!!!.jpg is allowed here because it's based on a public-domain image. If Nyo or anyone else wants to make an image of Berlusconi's or the Pope's face crossed out, they have to use a free image as the base, such as the ones found on Silvio Berlusconi and Benedictus XVI. (That said, however, Commons policy is also to include only images that are encyclopedic, and such images might well be deleted on the ground that they aren't encyclopedic, rather than the grounds that they're copyvios.) —Angr 15:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Posso sapere chi sei, caro 195.226.230.58?? Per quanto mi sembra di capire sono certo che tu sia italiano. Immagino tu sia Senpai o uno degli altri utenti che fino al ridicolo hanno fomentato la mala interpretazione di quelle leggi. Smettila di dire che non è possibile pubblicare immagini di personaggi famosi in Italia, perché non è affatto così, e l'immagine di Silvio Berlusconi è rimasta in utilizzo sulla Wiki italiana per più di un anno, senza che nessuno dicesse nulla. --Nyo 15:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

PS - Brian, please, delete also the photo of the Dalai Lama. --Nyo 15:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether the images of Ratzinger are free or free to use, I can consider four other very good reasons to delete them, all four of which are well within our purview to consider; and I think taken together make a compelling reason to delete them and any image like them:
  1. The images have no useful purpose. See Commons:Project scope.
  2. The images will be used to attack or inflame, and will undoubtedly offend any of his followers who edit.
  3. As the subject is a public, living person, he may, in fact, discover his likeness being used here.
  4. The images are of extremely poor quality.

  They should be deleted as soon as possible. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 14:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• The last versions I uploaded were free, because to make them I used photos already uploaded here. They were only satirical works, and this deletion is a censure. --Nyo 15:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The aim of Commons is to provide an image repository for Wikimedia projects. Your images serve no obvious purpose in this scope and their removal is perfectly legitimate. These images should be on your blog and not here. Rama 16:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• One of the Ratzinger's caricatures was used in the Italian article about satire. --Nyo 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Lawrence78 has uploaded 20+ images, presumably of himself and his friends. None of them have source or license information, and none, as far as I can see, have encyclopedic value. Can these be speedy deleted? What is the easiest and fastest way of removing them, within our policies? Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 20:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say delete per Commons:Project scope. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Yann 13:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Commons:Picture of the Year/2006 is soon to be chosen. Apparently very few people seem to be aware of this. We will of course post a message to all relevant Village pumps and mailing lists, but my question is, can we put a message in the site notice? Or is that only meant for really important messages? -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think sitenotice is a good idea. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Are the images at User:Terraprints/gallery legal? Those prints are being sold at the source, so unless they grant the authority to reproduce when you purchase the item, all of these photos need to be deleted. Prodego ^talk 00:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If the original image was made by NASA, then they are PD, and it's fine to have them on commons. If someone sells prints of PD work, that does not imply they have any rights to reproductions you make of their prints. This does NOT apply to ESA images, or images made by private universities/institutes in cooperation with NASA.

This being said: the images would be much more useful for Commons/Wikipedia if they where cropped to only show the sattelite image, without the frame and the text at the bottom. (The text at the bottom might also be copyrighted, but as far as I can see, it's too trivial for that). -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, SB Johnny and a couple of other Wikipedia editors asked me nicely some time ago to reconsider my position on uploading images to Wikimedia commons. So, I figure, okay, I've had some time to breathe, I have an assortment of images that I can upload from when I first listed California plant articles that need some image enhancement. I have a couple of hours this evening, but here we go again, other Wikipedia editors are removing my categorizations from images that I have bothered to categorize in a useful manner. So, what exactly is it I am supposed to do about this, get into a revert war? Ignore it? Assume that it will always happen, no matter what, so just do whatever the heck I want? Isn't there ever going to be a consensus that the thing to do is solve the issue once and for all, instead of just allowing it to arise over and over again? [23] I give up, permanently. Wikimedia Commons will never be usable, and I'm more the fool for evening thinking of giving it a fifth, a sixth, a seventh chance.

Doesn't anybody ever just say, "Wikimedia Commons is a good idea, let's make it work for its intended audience, anyone?" Rather than, "Oh, my, this snappy little club full of people who do whatever the blazes they want without regard to other editors?"KP Botany 01:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

On English Wikipedia we deal with British and American spellings, among other things, by a pretty useful compromise: unless there is an extremely compelling reason to change it, leave the style in the way the article creator made it. Now, I have asked (desiring no particular answer either way) whether the preference was for using media in categories, or media in pages in categories, and I was told that this was an unresolved issue, do it as I please.[24] That's fine. But perhaps our policy here should also be leave well enough alone until a decision emerges one way or another. I think it's fine for such reordering to occur as KP Botany points out in that diff, after a consensus comes up to use one or the other and this gets noted for all users to be aware of. If KP Botany had been violating some organizational guideline, that had been made clear to all new users and which we might expect everyone to be aware of, then that diff would be understandable. As it is, however, it demonstrates something fairly arbitrary. This is not any indictment on the editor who made that change. Rather, I think that it needs to be made clear that editors should leave decent organization alone (like w:WP:ENGVAR) until a decision is made about more clear guidelines. KP Botany didn't do anything wrong, and the changes were not necessary. Since it becomes a matter of feeling wasted energy and effort to see one's own decent work be quickly arbitrarily reverted, we need a way to encourage editors to take pause instead of assuming that they "know better". Again, not an indictment of the other editor, more of a wider observation. I'm bringing this up because I've encountered KP Botany plenty of times on Wikipedia, and this user is never so close to wit's end over there. KP Botany is not one to exaggerate frustration or throw up the hands and declare defeat prematurely. I'm concerned about the processes that are causing this. What would it take to achieve a détente? — coelacan — 06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are some users who are trying to make at least the Categories Animalia and Plantae “work” and look nice to the visitors who have been guided here by the little Commons-templates on the wikipedias... by creating articles for the species with descriptions for the pictures, sorting them in a nice looking order... and remove them from the family-category. --BerndH 07:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Why remove them from the family category? Not everyone uses Wikimedia in precisely the one way. When multiple systems are available, and things have already been classified one way, why wholesale revert others' work? I just can't understand this. Coe, I'm a hothead at Wikipedia, too, but overall there is a knowledge at Wikipedia that people approach things in different ways, and enough people really try to acknowledge that and make it work for everyone that I can't stay too steamed up. Here, there really needs to be huge bold announcements that people should not go in an undo others categorizing. KP Botany 18:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

KP Botany, there is a reasoning behind it; there is an attempt to keep media from being in both a gallery and that gallery's parent category, to avoid overcategorization, because the sorting software borks on very large categories (Category:Dog breeds sorts wrong after "H"). And thank you for bringing that up, BerndH, it's good to have those Wikipedia-to-Commons links go somewhere useful. But here's the thing. If there is now an agreed upon "right way to categorize" then that should be made clear upon uploading, in a big bold announcement, so that everyone can get it right the first time and not have their work undone. This is not about territoriality and getting one's way. It's about wasted time and effort. Who wants to bother trying to make something work right if someone else immediately comes along and undoes that work? Why take the time to do it in the first place? All the time one took trying to find the correct subcategory was just wasted. So if there is a right way now, then it needs to be made very clear. And if there isn't a community consensus right way, then all such changes are arbitrary, and the original work should be left alone. KP Botany and others do not deserve to see their time-consuming work come to naught. If KP Botany did something wrong, then the right way needs to be made more explicitly clear. If nothing was "wrong", then the work should not have been undone, wasting that user's effort. And if that means that we are ending up with overcategorization, then that means we need to bring the discussion up again and see if we can finally decide on a "right way", so that such changes do not seem arbitrary, and so that all new uploads can see the policy on the upload page and get it right from the beginning. — coelacan — 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the categories were not actually wrong in KP Botany´s example [25].

But he used the category for both the family Aristolochiaceae and the genus Aristolochia. Aristolochia would have been enough. And since the species has been identified as Aristolochia californica it might as well be placed in a gallery of its own.

Another thing: Some uploaders don´t even bother to look for the right categories. They just add categories to their images that do not even exist and appear then as a red link. --BerndH 19:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, I'm not "some uploaders," I'm one editor, this isn't my image, it wasn't categorized in Aristolochiaceae, and EVERYONE PLEASE LOOK AT THE PAGE. On the page Category:Aristolochia you have two headings, one says "Pages in category 'Aristolochia'" and the other says, "Media in category 'Aristolochia.'" Now, I don't live in cyberspace, I merely use it as a tool, and I don't have a lot of time to do that. When I first went to a page like this, I assumed that these were two different labels because they directed the user to two different resources, one for pages and one for media or images. I wanted an image so I looked at the images, and the image I wanted wasn't there. So, I didn't use anything.

IF PAGES AND MEDIA ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING DON'T OFFER BOTH. If they're not, stop people from treating them as exactly the same.

It's really past time to decide if Wikimedia Commons is built entirely for the few people who understand its funky intricacies, or whether it is a commons. If it's a commons, it needs to be designed as one, not have a locked gate of complexity designed to keep the vast majority of sheep from partaking of the grass, so the limited few already on there can do whatever they want.

And saying that classified by genus would have been enough fails to realize how plants are classified. If the system is utilized in a way to keep those with systematic knowledge of botany away, in addition to those without systematic knowledge of commons away, exactly who and what is it for?

You've designed a system that requires people to know how to use it before they can use it, then prevents them from using it in ways its designed to be used. How many more people are going to undo the categorizations I've done? I think my initial request was quite reasonable: just delete me and any work I've uploaded or done entirely from the system, instead of making me exist solely so some new person can come along and trash anything I've attempted to do.

Both Galleries and Categories exist, either allow them both, and stop people from foisting their preferences on any other user who comes along, or get rid of one, or make some sense, somewhere, that doesn't involve people getting stomped on for simply trying to organize commons in a way that is available in a way that they use it.KP Botany 20:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are overreacting. And I didn´t call you "some uploaders". --BerndH 21:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

supplement: There were a few who were trying to clean up the Animalia and Plantae areas. After several not so nice discussions they have given up and there is still a... let´s say... mess. --BerndH 21:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

@KPBotany: Things would be quite nice, if you did not regard edits of other users, as if they were meant to be personal insults. You added category tags to photos. That's OK. BerndH does maintainance work in these categories. Over-categorization is regarded to be a problem - see Commons:Categories#Over-categorization. So, BerndH removed some redundant category tags. The photo still is found in the category tree, as it is included in Aristolochia californica which is categorized in Category:Aristolochia. So, not a single bit of information has been destroyed. The only thing that happened was improving organization of the stuff by removing of redundancies.
KPBotany, you should know, that your photos are valued very high. Editing category tags is not at all meant to be a critizism to your way of uploading. Please, assume good faith! This applies also to users doing maintanance work in the categories. Regards --Franz Xaver 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith? How? There are multiple ways of categorizing things, every time I categorize them one way, someone comes by and says, "overcategorization." NO! That's not what overcategorizing is. People use Wikimedia different ways, and Wikimedia offers different ways of using it. If that is the case, then leave my damn categorizations alone, or remove alternate ways. Just stop. Just stop removing my categories, or don't make it possible to categorize in multiple ways. I don't think any of you editors reading my posts actually see what is going on, because you use Wikimedia one way, but don't have any honor for people who use anything in any way differently from you. In which case, don't offer it both ways. As long as I, as an editor, am subject to having everything I do randomly undone at any time, there is no respect for me as an editor. The reason others don't complain? They're a lot smarter than me and see reality clearer: you don't respect other editors, so they just leave.

Stop undoing what I've done as if it is a personal insult for me to have made an edit, and I will stop considering it such. Actually, for now on I will ruthlessly undo anyone who undoes my edits, and I expect to be left to do this. KP Botany 22:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

KP, it's not a personal insult to you. here are ways of doing things at commons just as there are ways of doing things at en.Wikipedia, and what works there might not work here. One thing the projects hold in common is a preference for not having overly large categories, and it seems to me that some people have been trying to explain this to you. Just try to keep in mind that while wikipedia can have only so many articles on (for example) Aristolochiaceae, commons could potentially have thousands or tens of thousands of images and other files related to this, and we need to keep a lid on it. Long-term thinking is absolutely critical here, in a way that simply doesn't apply to Wikipedia. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 23:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So KP, what do you want the rule to be? If it's "don't touch anybody else's categorization", then what you do when the uploader categorized obviously incorrectly, and hasn't responded to queries after a month? Are those still sacrosanct? What if a nifty new scheme has become possible because of software changes? Are your images going to be the only ones that can't be changed? The rules of "merciless editing" are exactly the same at commons as at en:, I don't get why you're OK with it on en: and get into a towering rage over the identical activities here. Stan Shebs 02:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's not shoot the messenger, please. This needs to be resolved. The status quo isn't "categorise pages and media"; it isn't "categorise only pages and media not in pages"; it isn't "category only pages"; it isn't "do what you want and leave other people alone". As far as I can tell, there is no status quo; there is no uneasy peace. There is warfare, and people are leaving because every time they try and impose order on some little corner of the Commons, they end up in a bunfight. I'm with KP Botany on this: we need a policy, and we need it enforced. This has gone on too long. Hesperian 11:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want the policy to be 'no one can change what you do', I hate to break it to you, but that's really unlikely. Like all editing on a wiki, we try and find mutually acceptable solutions. Look at the discussion that KP Botany had with the user in this case -- I can hardly imagine a more agreeable response, and have no idea how it prompted the reaction above.

The policy is 'all media must be accessible via at least one gallery or category'. There is no policy beyond that. If you want to propose one, you are welcome to. We will see what acceptance it might have. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be too strange to just have separate categories for media and descriptive pages? E.g. a "Category:Images of X" that would be separate from "Category:X"? This would allow for the categories to be used for media without spreading other sorts of pages over 2 or more 200-item category pages.--SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be an incredible amount of effort to work around what is a known software bug, so I would say yes, it would be too strange. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The debate is not just pages vs categories, but how many categories to use. De: loves to put things in both category and supercategory for instance, while en: hates it. Put the two groups together on commons, gets hard to imagine how they are going to negotiate something that accommodates both attitudes. Stan Shebs 14:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't accomodate both. And, SB Johnny, it was very carefully explained to me and others before that putting a plant in both its genus and its family category is emphatically NOT what is meant by overcategorization. But, since there are no rules, no established procedures, and no communication, half the people here think what you think that correctly categorizing a plant by both genus and family is overcategorization. It's not. In fact, it's so botanically correct that floras often have indexes by family and alphabetically by genus and common name. And, this is absurd: "Images that are known with certainty to represent a particular species should appear in the species article, and not be categorized in any of the taxa categories." It winds up meaning that in articles about families and higher taxa, one is only allowed to search on commons for species unidentified to genus or species level. There is no point in this. This is about how botany is done, and it's not done differently in Denmark than in America, because I correspond with a Danish botanist.

This will never end being a waste of bandwidth until a policy is settled. If the worry is we'll have thousands of images somewhere, then someone needs to kill the Flora of California, because there are over a thousand different species native to the state. You're asking that natural categories not ever be used on Wikimedia if they're natural categories that are large, only artificial categories can be used. And, if Wikimedia tends towards artificial categories, they have to make, define and regulate their usage. You can't have it both ways: ditch natural categories, natural, accepted and used methods of categorization, AND not regulate/define/describe an alternative. Which is exactly what is going on. KP Botany 18:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just curious: Do you know what happens when you categorise a picture? It appears in the Category. For instance: Category:Asteraceae. How many species are in that family? How many pictures of species from that family are on Commons already? How many will be in the future? --BerndH 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's say there are 100,000 pictures in Category:Asteraceae, a very plausible number. Is that really a problem for anyone? Note that unless Brion allows you to, you can't say anything about server loads or other implementation details. Stan Shebs 20:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the thumbnail of the picture appears in the category--that's my point, entirely: Wikipedia has categories set up so that thumbnails appear in the category if the image is categorized there, and when people go to the pages to look for images, they see first a list on top that have their own pages, then the thumbnails below that. And many people are visual users of the internet, and look at the images first and only. So, when someone decategorizes an image, it removes the image thumbnail from that category, and makes it appear to those who want to search broad categories for groups of related images, or select the best image from the category (a representative legume from the Fabaceae, for example), the images are not there because someone has decategorized it. So, either do away with the option, or stop people from individually and selectively making higher categories only categories of unidentified species. Duh, duh, duh, Asteraceae is a category of things used extensively by botanists (although most Asteraceae specialists work with tribes, not the family), and it's a huge category, so is it that Wikimedia can only handle small categories, and larger categories of things need to be done away by scientists to accomodate Wikimedia's world? That's absurd. A modestly well-filled category of Asteraceae should indeed have somewhere in the vicinity of 100,000 pictures, probably more to make it a usable source on the web.

So, decide what Wikimedia is, something for right now for a few, or something for the future? Because scientists are not going to make up different taxonomies for the evolutionary history of the Asteraceae to accomodate us. KP Botany 20:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're saying it's against scientific doctrine if we avoid categorizing things in both daughter and parent categories... for example, we wouldn't put a picture of a dandelion in Category:Plantae either (since this would make that category so large as to be truly useless). Images of dandelions are actually kept in Category:Taraxacum, which is a subcategory of Category:Cichorioideae, which is a subcategory of Category:Asteraceae, etc. So it actually is in the family category (and in Plantae), so we don't really need to repeat the entire taxobox in every step (en.wikipedia follows this guideline too, as you know). Besides, wikimedia categories aren't used as a research tool or an instructive as much as an organizational tool. Commons is a "media warehouse", our images and other files are meant for use in instructional materials, but the project itself isn't instructional (it really can't be actually, because of its multilingual userbase and mission).

Just an aside: is this really the best place to have this discussion? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 21:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not "against scientific doctrine"--but scientists discussing members of the Asteraceae also don't include the supercategory "Plant." A picture of a dandelion in the category Plant would be appropriate, it's a familiar, cosmopolitan and culturally familiar member of one of the largest, most derived, and complex families of the most succesful modern group of plants--not only appropriate, but almost necessary. What exactly is in plant for images, if not a picture of a dandelion?

I don't seem to be communicating at all. Do you see that when you go to the Category:Asteraceae:Asteraceae page there are multiple kinds of information there, two of which are the main kind of information found on other plant family categories, namely "Pages in category 'Asteraceae'" and "Media in category 'Asteraceae?'" In the former are lists of images with their own article pages, in the latter are images which are classified as Asteraceae. Not everyone uses the internet the same, when they come to this pair of choices, the average user may not realize that the "pages" includes images also, or that they're only sorted like this because of some behind the scences determinator battle to reduce the family Asteraceae or for whatever reason. I keep classifying things so they're in BOTH--so that people may look for them in both, not only one or the other. It's not obvious looking at the page that I may find what I need in both pages and media, in fact, the way it's set up it looks like I get a choice: either a page or media. What if what I want is listed only in one or the other, and not the one I want, and I think that that means it's only available in that format? Then I leave Wikimedia without getting what I want. Systems with an end that isn't computer training of people should not be designed for that--the end is free high quality usable images that are correctly identified, not Wikimedia user savviness.

If it doesn't belong here, move it where it does belong and put a note on my talk page. KP Botany 18:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

?

You touch on a debate that is wider than ToL, which is what categories on commons are supposed tobe for. The more I work with commons, the more I come to regard it as simply the giant shoebox of media for wiki projects. In that light, the focus of things like categories should be to facilitate editors working on WP articles or wikibooks or whatever, rather than random readers who ended up here. Mine not a popular opinion though. Stan Shebs 03:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading the above, all I can say is that if I catch people removing valid categories from images they are likely to get blocked for vandalism if they do not stop. Anyone can feel free to direct me to someone who is engaging in such an activity. Yes, big categories with children are hard to browse because mediawiki is weak as image management software, but categories are the only machine readable classification that we have for images. Correct categories should not be removed and replaced with nothing, instead we should simply get the software fixed. --Gmaxwell 03:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, wheel war a'comin' ... :-) A bunch of the removers are admins too, and vehement about the removal, so it's not quite that easy to resolve. Stan Shebs 15:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yes, my major encounters have been with admins who swore up and down that putting a plant in both Asteraceae and Senecio was overcategorization. Other admins set them straight. But, there were some seriously hurt feelings about it. It's really such a waste of time, though. There are thousands of unidentified, uncategorized images all over wikimedia commons. I had even got my assitant to agree to do some as a learning exercise, when the whole idea that anyone could edit blew up in my face. But no matter what work anyone does, their work will be undone, eventually, arguments and discussions will consume bandwidth, and thousands of images will remain uncategorized. And, again, all of the energy that could be used sorting and categorizing wikimedia commons will be wasted discussing the problems with wikimedia commons. Again and again, all that energy, people will leave, people will get upset, the categories issue will not be straightened out, and energy spent categorizing will be wasted when someone uncategorizes. I'll post warnings on mine for now on.KP Botany 00:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Shoebox And what a shame that with all we can do today that we couldn't do 20 years ago, we're down to shoeboxes. KP Botany 00:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My account is blocked from uplodaing images as the IP is a "possible open proxy". It's not; its from the Unviersity of Durham. I've got the full details on my talk page. --Robdurbar 13:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot find a block for this ip. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, don't know if this is the right place to put this. If not, sorry, I just want to point out a bug with the Wikimedia Commons search feature in internet explorer 7. If a user adds the wikimedia commons search to his/her search providers, then it lists it as "Wikimedia Commons (Engli" due to character limitations. Then, when visiting the page again, the bar shows that a new search providor is present on the page, despite the fact that it has already been added since it does not recognize "Wikimedia Commons (Engli" and "Wikimedia Commons (English)" as being the same thing. The name should be shortened to "Wikimedia Commons" or "Commons (English)" to prevent this bug.

Hope this helps - 71.29.28.149 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just tried to replicate your bug. Where did you have the option to add Wikimedia Commons automatically?? I couldn't find it. I had to add it manually. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I superseded Image:Crystal_Clear_mimetype_recycled.png to Image:Crystal_Clear_mimetype_recycled.svg, can anyone update the image of the {{SupersededSVG}} template? Bye =) --Krdan Ielalir 22:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Done on {{Superseded/pl}}. PNG was not used in other templates. --EugeneZelenko 15:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A certain user is trying to delete one of my images based on his conservative moral beliefs. It is an artistic picture of a prostitute, who is fully clothed, standing on the street. He flagged the photo based on his "ethical beliefs". We live in a modern world, not that of the Spanish Inquisition or Taliban.

Is this the new standard for moderating wikicommons? To delete a photo based on a moderator's individual moral insecurities?

I am attempting an appeal but obviously an administrator has great power to influence other admins to follow his lead. Friends support friends, rather than look at an issue with an open mind.

I'm asking all admins who sincerely believe in free speech and artistic rights to please help me keep my photo online. Allowing one "morally objectionable" photo to be deleted sets a dangerous precedent for all future cases.

Please show your support for free speech and artistic rights at my appeal page:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Prostitute-from-lviv-ukraine-speaks-with-her-pimp-highres.jpg

Best Regards, Graham Wellington 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this photo is that free speech has to be tempered by a respect for the law. Your picture claims that the male in it (who is clearly identifiable) is a pimp. You have not provided evidence to prove this serious accusations. As such the photo is very likely to be libelous. Hosting the photo under its present title and description thus puts Wikimedia at risk of legal action. WJBscribe 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of (recognizable) people are only allowed with their consent, or if they are making a public appearance. No room for discussion -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: blurring his face would help. I still doubt the image would be very useful, but i would not see a compelling need for deletion any more. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2007-January/001287.html guillom 10:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Take for example http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/370027865_d72262821b_s.jpg. The first digits of the filename is the so called photo_id: 370027865. The goto [26] and enter the photo_id there. You will then find at the tail of the xml that is being output: <url type="photopage">https://www.flickr.com/photos/bryan-tongminh/370027865/</url>. And that is where the picture is located :) (also sending to the mail list) -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I shall not send any emails or make any comments before i am fully awake. I actually only read the first paragraph of the mail. Well at least guillom's way is lot simpler than mine. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:P guillom 13:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This should be added to Commons:Flickr. Jkelly 18:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. guillom 22:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia there is a strict policy on foul language, is there anything likewise here? I just found this comment, I am kinda speechless at the tone... [27] by User:Diligent. Gryffindor 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I really hope that we don't ever go to the lengths that en: does in being the manners police. If someone is being disruptive, they're being disruptive, regardless of the "foulness" of their vocabulary. Jkelly 21:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Keep in mind we are a multilingual community and if people are using English as a second language, they might not be precisely aware of how offensive a term is. For that matter offensiveness already varies among varieties of English. (So -- What Jkelly said.) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 23:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the information at Image:Norton-Selma 15.jpg goes into to much detail, looks more like a Wikipedia article about a non-notable person. --Ezeu 23:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The image description page could certainly use some editing. I deleted three newspaper scans related to this person. Jkelly 17:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

One user has asked on the Hungarian VP of Commons (Commons:Kocsmafal), and I agree, that the current Captcha message: "Írd be a képen található szöveget a mezőbe" (~Write the text seen in the picture into the editbox) be changed to "Írd be a képlet eredményét a mezőbe" (~Write the solution of the formula/equation into the box). Thank you --Bdamokos 09:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please change the message displayed after article creation to the translation I've placed on the messages talkpage: MediaWiki talk:Welcomecreation/hu. This change is to reflect the change in the English version. Thanks --Bdamokos 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been done. I hope all the links point right. / Fred Chess 21:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure this page needs translating. Because you only see it once - right after you create your account. And it's not possible to create an account here with the language set to anything but English, is it?? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think of that, the translated message assumes, that the interface is still in English, and explains how to change that. Isn't there a line atop, where you can change the language of this message? --Bdamokos 13:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please change MediaWiki:Mypreferences/huto "beállításaim" , than I shall try to revise the WelcomeCreation message to explain that they are seeing the interface in Hungarian, and if they want it to stay that way, they should change the interface language. Also I'll have to work out the ambiguity that while the "my preferences" link would take a new user to a English page, the Special:Preferences link can be tricked to take a user to a Hungarian one...--Bdamokos 13:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I updated Mypreferences/hu. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I revised the message at MediaWiki talk:Welcomecreation/hu, it now reminds users, that if they want the interface to remain Hungarian, they should change their interface language, and the relevant parts of the interface (The Language: field, the Save button) are given in Hungarian and English as well. --Bdamokos 13:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Updated. You need to ask a HU.wp user to sign up for an account here, and see how they find it and if they update their language settings. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

First I'd like to figure out the whole signup process interface-wise. Just an example: if at the login page you click on "magyar", you have a duplicated language bar, in one of them, the "Language" isn't translated, and also I don't know if this is unique, but the name "Commons" is translated there. In current Wiki-jargon on Hu.WP we just use Commons, so I would like your help finding the "path to registration" in the MediaWiki namespace. --Bdamokos 15:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for bothering you this much. Please change the text of MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext/hu to Fájlok feltöltéséhez {{L2|hu|Special:Userlogin|be kell jelentkezned}}. . The original word "beiratkozni" means to sign into a library or other institution, the word "bejelentkezni" (the be part comes from two word behind) means to log in. Thanks--Bdamokos 23:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure. / Fred Chess 23:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look here. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings!

Because licensing has been an active topic in the community, the Board
has discussed the issue at its recent meetings; thank you to those
whose thoughtful input furthered the discussions.

A formal declaration in the form of a Board resolution has not yet
been made and will be forthcoming; however, we hope that this longer
message will provide the explanation behind the resolution. The
resolution will seek to clarify something that has been true for some
time but may not have been stated in a clear enough form as guidance
for the various communities to follow.

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to develop educational
content under a free content license or in the public domain. For
content to be "free content", it must have no significant legal
restriction on people's freedom to use, redistribute, or modify the
content for any purpose.

It is therefore vital that all projects under the Foundation umbrella
use these standards, not only because of our desire to enable the
creation of free reference works, but also because of our commitment
to allow those works to benefit everyone who wishes to use and reuse
them. Because of this, all media we allow on our projects must be free
for all users and all purposes, including non-Wikimedia use,
commercial use, and derivative works. (Some media may be subject to
restrictions other than copyright in some jurisdictions, but are still
considered free work.)

There are many different licenses that allow these freedoms. The
licensing page on the Wikimedia Commons,
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing>, discusses some
of these license terms and gives links to the many licenses that are
acceptable to use.

While we appreciate the goodwill of those who give special permissions
for Wikimedia to display a work, this does not fulfill our greater
purpose of giving others the freedom to use the content as well, and
so we cannot accept media with permission for use on Wikimedia only.
Derivative uses are also important. The value of allowing
modifications becomes clear to anyone who edits the projects, as new
work builds on the work of others, and work you cannot change to meet
your needs and purposes is not free.

Commercial and non-commercial use is more controversial, as many
people are concerned that allowing commercial uses allows others to
abuse their generosity. But ultimately Wikimedia's longstanding and
carefully considered position is, as with many other organizations
devoted to free content, that disallowing commercial use does not
provide significant benefit to the content creator or to the public.
Non-commercial licensing stops many valuable uses that help distribute
and support free works, and hence does not further our mission. Where
commercial use spreads the works without taking away others' rights to
use and distribute them for free, it helps our purpose of making the
content as widely available as possible. This is a long enough message
without going deeply into detail, but Erik Moeller's essay at
<http://www.intelligentdesigns.net/Licenses/NC> is a thorough and
clear explanation of the reasons why the harm is more than the
benefit, and so why non-commercial content is not something we use.

It is for these reasons, which we have long supported, that all media
on Wikimedia sites which are used under terms that specify
non-commercial use only, no-derivatives only, or permission for
Wikimedia only, need to be be phased out and replaced with media that
does not have these restrictions.

Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a
doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works,
primarily historically important photographs and significant modern
artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a
free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational
context without including the media itself. Because the inability to
include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many
jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions
without having license or permission. Some works that are under
licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these
conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free
media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace
with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.

Since individual projects have differing community standards and there
are potentially legal issues in different jurisdictions, individual
projects may choose to be more restrictive than Foundation policy
requires, such as the many projects that do not allow "fair use" media
at all. However, no project may have content policies less restricive,
or that allow licenses other than those allowed on Wikimedia Commons
and limited fair use.

We hope this clears up some of the uncertainty about what types of
material may be uploaded to and used on the projects as well as why we
take this position.

Thanks to everyone for your input and hard work.

For the Wikimedia Foundation,
Kat Walsh

This message is from Wikimedia Foundation Board member Kat Walsh. I have reproduced it here from the mailing list in its entirety.DVD R W 05:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting message. Thank you DVD R W. Although, stricly speaking, it does not change anything for us on Commons. / Fred Chess 16:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a newbie who just uploaded the following image which I created using image processing software. One component of the image is from a picture I found on a web site that did not list any usage restrictions on the original picture. What to do?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ganesha_fire_barnstar.png

I've deleted it, as you requested on the image description page. Probably the best thing to do . /Fred Chess 10:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I tagged Image:Acapulco Air Show 2005 2.jpg with {{nsd}} and then, as I normally do, I checked the user's other contributions. Almost all of the images in his/her upload log do not have sources. I am continuing to tag the rest of them. I just don't think that flooding the user's talk page with deletion notices will be helpful. Please try a long-term solution in the meantime. --Iamunknown 06:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe not all; but many of them, including several recent ones. --Iamunknown 07:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please DO NOT flood any user's talk page with warnings. Tag one case with Quick-delete, then the rest by hand ({{subst:nsd}}), then write on their talk page all the images that the ONE warning applies to.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. The user continued to upload files after I left an initial message, and I didn't know what to do. I'll take note of that next time. --Iamunknown 19:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems possible that the user would benefit from having a Spanish message placed on their talk, as opposed to English ones. Jkelly 21:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Images of Kamui99 from flickr [28] have been transferred to Commons. Kamui99's cc-by claims seem to bogus, however, and I suggest we delete them all. See for example Image:Rakel_Liekki.jpg/[29] and [30]. Samulili 16:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I had the mixed blessing of reviewing photos like this x.x . All his images show porn stars but I guess they are okay, since they look like they have been made at some kind of exhibition. But if you want to delete them, look through my contributions for reviewed images with numbers as names. They are mostly from him. Enricopedia (talk · contribs) 17:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: Kamui99 (talk · contribs) has uploaded a lot of his pictures himself.[31] There are a lot of {{Flickrreview}} tags missing, though. Enricopedia ⇄ 03:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it impossible that Kamui99 has taken some of the photos himself. But the example given by Samulili is suspect.... / Fred Chess 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

True, the same image (with 82.178 bytes as well) is hosted on a Finnish radio station website.[32] But I don't know the context. Might be a user upload there or might be licensed under CC. Enricopedia ⇄ 21:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think these are Kamui99's own images. And there are clues that indicate that being an eswiki and Commons user he has tried to go through Flickr instead of uploading the pictures directly here just to circumvent Commons licensing policy.

• Many are low resolution images while the quality is professional.
• The images do not have EXIF metadata.
• Info is not given about the place where they were taken.
• Assumming he is a professiona photographer, the pictures do not show signs of using an unified digital development /enhancing workflow.
• In his user page at eswiki he only declares that he is fan of "big boobs", but there are no clues that while living in Mexico he travels around the world taking professional pictures of this topic.

So I advise to ask him to give stronger evidence that he holds the copyright of these pictures, and if he does not, just deleting them. Barcex 18:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know enough Turkish to communicate with User:Ozyurekli? I'm pretty sure he's passing off Turkish government work as his own. Stan Shebs 15:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Many of the images uploaded by Marciosca (talk • contribs) have the term "Todos os direitos reservados ©, sendo proibida qualquer divulgação," which I interpret to mean "All rights reserved, you are prohibited from redistributing this image," yet all the non-duplicate images are tagged with some sort of free license. Furthermore, they are from the photo gallery at http://www.saocarlosagora.com.br/ (which mentions "todos os direitos reservados" or "all rights reserved"). Could a Portuguese-speaking administrator please consider looking through the images and communicating with the uploader? Thanks, Iamunknown 17:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I already did it two days ago, but so far he has not replied. If nobody oposes I'm gonna delete all files in which he states "todos os direitos reservados". Dantadd✉ 19:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't know how I missed your previous message. --Iamunknown 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You may notice that the server is not correctly updating pages at the moment. That is because a change was made to the GFDL-language template, making the job queue increase to over 6,000,000 (at time of writing). It would be nice if we could just write all GFDL template and them add them on one occasion to minimize this issue in the future. Could people start working on gathering GFDL templates in all languages? Please add new templates to Template_talk:GFDL.

I think we should wait a while and then add all languages that use Commons. The more languages added until then, the less red links.

Thank you. / Fred Chess 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, all languages with a Wikipedia > 10,000 articles have been added. Lots of red links to fill, for anyone interested. And please, keep edits to the language template to a minum. If some of the links are incorrect, please just mention it on the talk page.... / Fred Chess 10:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On the map of NSW the town of Morree should be spelled Moree. Cheers Beaver 06:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the main image... however this map has 70-some derivatives. I'll get to work on vectorising and then fixing them. Thanks for pointing it out! -- Editor at Large • talk 14:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Some user with an I.P. created a lot of subcategories, unfortunately all with a typo. see Category:Nobility of Poland. All the families are written capitalised, such as Category:Kubliki Family. correct English however writes nouns in small letters, it should be "Kubliki family". I suspect the user who created it was a non-native English user. Is there a bot that could to the job? Gryffindor 13:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

See User:Orgullobot, you can give it commands. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone point me in the right direction for information about a particular problem that relates to both Wikipedia and Commons. Here's the short of it:

I have an image (several, actually) uploaded here with an Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 copyright. I have recently found a website that mirrors Wikipedia and includes an article featuring one of my images.[33] This alone is just fine. If I didn't want to share, I wouldn't have uploaded the image (etc). However, here's the rub. While this mirror page credits Wikipedia, it doesn't provide any image attribution as required by the image's Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 copyright. Clicking on the image takes the visitor to a higher resolution image on the mirror site, but this image is also not attributed, and there are no links back to Commons where this information might be found. In short, there exist no information and no links to information anywhere on this mirror page that attributes the image or relays its copyright information as required by the copyright.

I think this is a Commons issue because Commons holds the image's source. I think this issue concerns the Commons community because I really doubt the problem with this mirror site extends beyond just my one image - but to anyone who has uploaded images with the Attribution and/or ShareAlike requirements. If someone can point me to the correct channel to address this problem, that would be great. Thanks! Rklawton 18:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This mirror commits copyright infringement. It is required to attribute you as the copyright holder. It does not even have to name Commons or Wikim/pedia; neither one is copyright holder. They also fail the requirement of the GFDL to credit at least 5 authors. I'm going to write them an email. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Coolio and thanks. It looks like the person setting up the mirror just didn't know how to do it properly. Let me know how it goes. Rklawton 22:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Got a response, they said that they have deleted the image and the article. I also informed them about the GFDL compliance, and they responded that they will investigate this matter. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed some discrepancy in Special:Statistics (184 admins) and Commons:List of administrators by date (178 admins) data. Could somebody who good in scripting check lists and made the data coherent?

Also I have question - does somebody run script for detecting inactive admins (more then year of inactivity)?

EugeneZelenko 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is another list which shows who got promoted when: Commons:Administrators/Archive but it's kept up to date by the 'crats, by hand. It is on my todo list (since October.. shame on me) to reorganise it into a table format, I got as far as getting comments on the format, but ran out of (whatever) to get the job done. That probably should be checked for correctness at the same time. I don't know the answer about inactivity scripts ++Lar: t/c 16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is the sysop activity tool, but I don't know the database name for Commons, to see the results for Commons and not the German wiki.--Bdamokos 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin activity tool Commons admins (on my user page as well) - not necessarily completely accurate tho from past usage elsewhere --Herby ^{talk thyme} 21:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for help! Tool is very helpful. --EugeneZelenko 16:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I went to the Bureaucrats' Log but apparently newest admins have been added. Checking Special:Listusers/sysop, there are considerable discrepancies, but cross-checking requires a lot of time.--Jusjih 11:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is my point when I asked help form person who knows Perl/Python well :-) --EugeneZelenko 16:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The discrepancies seem odd - I found someone listed on meta as CU but not on the auto generated list today --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Daniel Mayer (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. maveric149), a meta steward, gave himself sysop rights at some time in 2004 or 2005 but isn't listed among the administrators. There might be other such cases. / Fred Chess 16:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sort & diff yield the following info: User:Arniep , User:Brion VIBBER, User:Daniel Mayer, User:Gmaxwell, User:Lar, User:Shaqspeare, User:Szwedzki are in Special:Listusers/sysop but not Commons:List of administrators by date. User:Rfl (Rafał Pocztarski) is the other way around (perhaps de-sysopped). --Davepape 16:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work, the CU I removed on meta was Cartman02au for info --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!. I added User:Arniep, User:Gmaxwell, User:Lar, User:Shaqspeare, User:Szwedzki. I didn't find data about User:Brion VIBBER and User:Daniel Mayer in log. --EugeneZelenko 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

For those who don't know, User:Brion VIBBER is Wikimedia's CTO; he's one of the people responsible for running this site on a technical level. He might just have given himself admin rights when he needed them to test something. You can generally find him on IRC in the #mediawiki channel. -- Duesentrieb ⇌ 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Daniel Mayer (maveric149) is a steward and was Wikimedia Foundation's Chief Financial Officer. Now he is just a member of the fundraising committee. I think it can probably be removed now (if it was ever necessary). Anyway I will ask him at meta: about it. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

After similar discussions on Wikibooks we added a "category" of Stewards (separated from the others) to the sysops list - it may avoid future confusion. There is a sense in which they are not, and not expected to be, active sysops on this (or other wikis) but have those rights. Equally i think it was pointed out to a new and inexperienced user (<g>) that they could easily give themselves the rights again should they wish to. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I gave myself sysop rights in order to edit the sitenotice for a fundraiser. I honestly thought I immediately de-sysoped myself but obviously that was not the case. Sorry for the fuss. De-sysoped now. BTW, I add content to this wiki through my user:maveric149 account. My real name account is only used for official Wikimedia actions. --Daniel Mayer 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It archives even recent sections. See Commons talk:Licensing#Werdnabot's archiving. Shut it down for now, please. Lupo 16:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked on 1 day. --EugeneZelenko 16:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rollbacked most edits, I think. / Fred Chess 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Roughly six months ago, I tried to reorganize organize images of Japanese art, and as part of that process I tagged a number of categories for renaming or merging. Then, in January, after nothing happened for several months, I posted here: Commons_talk:Administrators#Category_moves_and_merges in the hopes that I could try to get the ball rolling. I apologize if I've posted in the wrong places, or requested admin help in the wrong ways... can anyone please help me to get this taken care of? LordAmeth 16:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I question the validity of some of Lorenzop (talk · contribs)'s images. Most of them appear to be tagged with {{PD-self}}, but there are some clear violations (namely Image:Turin egyptian museum.jpg and Image:Papiro Artemidoro.jpg). Judging by the user's track record, I'm not sure I could trust the copyright tags added by this user. I'm bringing this to the admin noticeboard because I have a feeling multiple deletions could be warranted here. Or should these just go through the regular deletion processes? -- tariqabjotu 23:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Tell me the Usage Rule? (Master English Template and Other Language Template )

• {{Speedydelete}} ---> <includeonly>[[Category:Other speedy deletions]]</includeonly>
• {{Copyvio}} ---> <includeonly>[[Category:Copyright violation]]</includeonly>
• {{Bad name}} ---> <includeonly>[[Category:Incorrectly named]]</includeonly>
• {{Duplicate}} ---> <includeonly>[[Category:Duplicate]]</includeonly>
• {{Delete}} ---> <includeonly>[[Category:Deletion requests]]</includeonly

In each template, there is a Languages Template like "Template:xxxxx/Lang" Looking at the each language page in each template;

- ONLY Some LANGUAGE pages says "This is only Translation Reference. Don't use this." with {{Translated tag}} tag.

- ONLY Some LANGUAGE pages are including the "