Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 3

I put a note on the Village Pump asking about the TIFF file restriction, but haven't gotten much feedback. Any input? --Spangineer^en ws (háblame) 01:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This image is faked, and finds itself occasionally reinserted into w:Emma Watson. Can we dispatch this, please? Thanks. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been marked {{Nsd}}. However, images like these normally just go through COM:DEL. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place to report this (I'm not so familiar with Commons). I suspect that images uploaded by Special:Contributions/Chemy are not PD-self, but rather lifted from somewhere. Actually, I can verify that Image:Arkan.jpeg is lifted from BBC; yet others smell like theft. What's the procedure? Duja 13:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For those you can verify, you can tag them with {{copyrighted|url}}. If you're not sure about where they came from but think they're copyvios, then nominate them for deletion. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a bit of images that don't have categories. Ultimately I see why. Certain editors demand that pictures only be categorized their way. So, I go in and spend half a day categorizing pictures of plants that are natives of California, then another editor comes by and decides he only wants his images in lists and their own family galleries, not on the Flora of California gallery and undoes my work.

Exactly how am I to do something if every editor does it a different way? There are pictures that could be used all over Wikipedias the world over, but don't have categories. And they won't, because no one will deal with Wikimedia Commons. Twice I've seen big blow-ups on Wikipedia (en) because some other editor uploaded a picture to Commons, blow ups by photographers who did not want anything to do with Commons. Now I see why.

Please, please, please, alert potential users to run, don't walk away, because anything they try to do will be undone by someone who possesses part of what they are doing. I can't categorize Malvaceae because one editor wants it done his way. What if another editor wants Polygonaceae done a different way? And Orchidaceae a third way? Gee, why so many images without categories?

I would like all of my pictures removed from Commons. This will never amount to anything but extreme frustration, because no one here intends for Wikimedia Commons to be a commons that anyone can use, especially anyone who doesn't do it their way.

KP Botany 16:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't want this. Please categorize your images as you see fit, and let us know when you are encountering problems. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 17:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's what happened and user Franz Xaver is adamant that it can only be categorized his way. The way I categorized it, when you get to the image page, instead of the galler, it lists its categories, Flora of California, and Malvaceae. Apparently Franz Xaver is totally against they categories being listed with the image, since they're already listed with the gallery. However, since every single person who comes to Wikimedia doesn't speak Franz Xaver, every single person might not find the image if it is classifed so ONLY users who think just like Franz Xaver can find it. It's NOT redudant, since it currently now stands with the image page not listing that it is in the categories Flora of California and Malvaceae. This is absurd, that it's redundant to have the categories listed on the image page, also, or have the pictures show up in the big galleries as thumbnails also.[1] [2]

It's very clear that Wikimedia Commons is not a commons, but a closed community of random users doing whatever they want with images they own. What if I go to the Flora of California, I don't speak English, and I'm not Wiki-Obsessed, and I just want to scan the gallery for pictures to use? Well, all the families categorized Franz Xaver's way won't be available to me because Franz Xaver decides and controls access to members of the Malvaceae.

His biggest argument is the page might get too big, the Flora of California category gallery, might wind up with 500 pictures, apparently not realizing that his pet family, the one he owns and controls, has well over 500 species, and probably that many cultivars, too.

I really think Wikimedia Commons needs to take time to try to make this user friendly. It's a great idea, but it's not going to go anywhere if it is designed in a way that effectively sends willing contributers running away. There's no way I can use it. I just want my whole account deleted. Franz can have it his way. And, the other categories that don't satisfy Franz ought to be deleted so others don't run into him and set him having to square them also into the Franz's way is the only way of using categories. KP Botany 19:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello all! Probably, for everybody who is willing to get involved, it is necessary to have more information on what happened. So, I have to point at the edit history of Abutilon palmeri and the talk incented by this action at User talk:Franz Xaver#Abutilon palmeri. In my opinion, Commons:Categories#Over-categorization is relevant here. Please, tell me, if I really did something wrong. Regards --Franz Xaver 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Over-categorization is not relevant to the example you give; it's not a question of removing redundant categories, but of removing all categories in favour of galleries. Since there is no consensus in the categories vs. galleries question, using both methods of sorting on the same image is accepted, even though that too leads to a form of redundancy. Cnyborg 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So, I have to accept that I was wrong. KP Botany has won. Moreover, I have to be consequent and will stop to make any changes in the way, how the stuff is organised on Commons. I do not want to take the risk to offend any other user like KP Botany. Where is the place to ask for being de-sysoped? I will continue to upload some photos to Commons. There is nothing more to do here. --Franz Xaver 23:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does this get turned into a question of all or nothing, and of winning and losing? Commons, and the other Wikimedia projects, are co-operative projects, and that means that we can't all be perfectly happy with everything. We're making the road as we go here, and a few bumps and unexptected turns are unavoidable. Cnyborg 23:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did many edits like this and I was thinking to do right. So, I have to admit, that I am unable to know what's right or wrong. I did not make much use of sysop options during the last months. Making use of it, needs persons who know what they are doing. Probably I am not the right person for this. It is not a question of all or nothing. Uploading images was my most important contribution I did here. Anyway, this will continue. Regards --Franz Xaver 00:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you also check my talk page? Obviousely, KP Botany made it to a matter of winning or losing? So it got to be one. --Franz Xaver 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you just ask me on the image talk page? Would that really have been too much to ask after I spend two months here trying to figure out how to categorize anything in the first place, to simply discuss the issue before editing, that you felt it should only appear in certain areas, not in others? I did a handful of edits of uncategorized images, but only this one was changed.

If you click on that image in an article in Wikipedia, it won't say at the bottom, that it is categorized in the Flora of California, and the Malvaceae, in addition to its species--and, when I edited it, it changed that--this is useful categorizing of an image. So, if its used as a featured image or anything, the categories are lost. Whatever, is it really too much to have assumed that I might have had a reason for it, when in fact your edit was a matter of personal style? KP Botany 01:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Woaßt wos, du konnst mi gean hobn. --Franz Xaver 03:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

All I can say: Here we go again.... --BerndH 08:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Since both user have a point, I propose compromise: to add images into species category, which then be included into family, country, state etc. categories. I hope both parties could be happy. --EugeneZelenko 15:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt we make it a policy then, in order to avoid such problems in the future? -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you are able to do, go ahead and make a policy. However, I am not at all interested in fruitless discussions. So, when there will be a consistent policy - not a "mixed system" favoring cluttering and redundancies - in the future, I will be happy to go along with it. Until that moment, everything that could be connected to this matter, for me is a no-go-area.
I never had problems in licensing and categorising my own photos. So there is no risk to waste time and quality of life, when I restrict my activities to uploading of photos. Regards --Franz Xaver 17:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in terms of the old vote on categories vs. galleries, this new proposal of Eugene would not be a compromise. As far as I see, a policy could not be established by consensus, but requires some kind of majority decision against another part of the community. Anyway, I prefer to have a clear policy, that is based on one of the two "basic option". Forget about the "alternative options". The "merged system" probably never ever will come, and the "mixed system" is that confusing bullshit we have now. --Franz Xaver 20:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This issue seems to have come up on multiple occassions concerning which language to use for categories? Is it only in English or the local language of the place and country for example? Please comment here Commons:Language for categories. Gryffindor 13:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Since this wiki supports wikis in so many languages, categories in many different languages seem to make sense. It would be neato if a wiz-bang programmer might help with this by somehow incorporating the information stored in the Wictionary project. For example, it would be nice if a category for "Rope" somehow incorporated all the translations of "Rope" for everyone's benefit. Rklawton 14:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I remember User:Duesentrieb tried to implement localization based (display only) on interwikis and user preferred language. I don't know status of this feature, but you could ask directly. But categories redirects still not working (bugzilla:3311). --EugeneZelenko 16:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The patch I made for automated title-translation has grown stale, and sadly I don't have time right now to work on it. I hope I can make this work in the future, see bugzilla:5638 for the existing code and more thoughts on the matter.

Please keep the category system in english only for the moment, categories in multiple languages would cause a major mess, and would also wouldn't work well with tha patch I proposed. This is also stated in Commons:Categories. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 22:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is being developed. Multilingual MediaWiki and Using Ultimate Wiktionary for Commons would be follow-ups on the WiktionaryZ project, which allows exactly that. From what I understood reading all these links, there have only been problems funding said wiz-bang programmers. I was unable to find any current status updates, but reading through their blog would probably clear things up. --Para 23:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a wiz-bang programmer (especially when it's cold and grey outside). Where do I go to learn more about wiki programming? Rklawton 01:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

svn.wikimedia.org -- ∂ 10:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes but what does "using English name" in this case mean? So it should be "Munich" instead of "München"? Is the technical problem based on non-latin script and fonts or general use of English? Gryffindor 12:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories is in English as for now. If you allow Latin alphabet extensions, why don't allow Cyrillic, Arabic, Chinese etc scripts in categories names? Are you sure that anybody will understand what is category name mean in that case? --EugeneZelenko 15:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not the answer to my question. My understanding from Duesentrieb is that the patch at the moment is not working, correct? So what do we do with categories like Category:Île-de-France, Category:Midi-Pyrénées or Category:São Paulo city, which are clearly not using "English" signs and symbols? Is the problem here of technical nature because certain signs cannot be read, or it really necessary to move something like "Praha" to "Prague", both which use purely Latin script? Gryffindor 21:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: this has nothing to do with alphabets or characters; the technical problem is that category "redirects" do not work as expected (they would need to work like aliases, not redirects), and that also my "automatic translation" patch is currently not working (which would be an alternative to using redirects/aliases for internationalization). This means that we cannot have more than one name for a given category - and to avoid a complete mess, we follow the convention that it should be the english name. In case of geographical names, especially of places that don't really have an "english name", I would suggest to use the english transliteration instead of diacritics/native script - the simple reason being that basic latin (ASCII) characters can be produced easily on almost any keyboard; but that is not critical. It is critical to avoid parallel categorization structures in different languages.

Note that a similar problem exists with image names, though we are not that strict there. Gallery pages, however, should have a "native" name, with redirects/disambiguations pointing to them. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid I still don't quite follow, please bear with me. I understood the part that there should only be one language used for one category. So if all the names of places concerning the Czech Republic for example are in the native names, do they still have to be changed to English or is it alright as long as one category consistently uses one language, in this case Czech? Or that for example places in France keep their names consistently in French, therefore the Category:Île-de-France and not "Ile-de-France"? If the point is to use one consistent language for one category, then this should be elaborated upon. And do you know when is this patch going to function again? Gryffindor 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

hallo, Gryffindor invited me to state something for German speaking users: Naming conventions (Namenskonventionen) gives policies for problems concerning personal and geografical names, literatur etc.

• de:WP prefers habitual language use (de:Rom for it:Roma, en:Rome, de:Vereinigte Staaten en:United States of America, de:Konfuzius for Kǒng Zǐ | 孔子, de:Öresund for da:Øresund), but only if http://wortschatz.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/ (German word pool, University of Leibzig) gives some significant usage, otherwise we use native language (de:Winston County, Alabama), refering to the artice of the corresponding i18n:WP
• correct (local) writing in cases of common diacritical signs included to ISO 8859-1 ~ Windows-1250/1252 Codepage: de:Ærøskøbing, de:São Paulo
• special conventions about transcription of other scripts, worked out by our particular language sections, eg. following Duden-standard lexicon (cyrillic), using Pinyin (ch), ..

thus you'll find de:Île-de-France/de:Kategorie:Île-de-France, de:Midi-Pyrénées/de:Kategorie:Midi-Pyrénées, de:São Paulo/de:Kategorie:São Paulo

• other common writings will be redirected: de:Sao Paulo (we recently had an survey about redirecting original scripts of synonyms like de:孔子, which gave no decision because of doubts about vandalism i.e. redirecting dirty arabic words to certain persons' article ;), thus we'll try to write some kind of verifier-tool of valid redirects)

of course, english is accepted as "lingua franca" at Commons, no de:user will be surprised finding category:Île-de-France nor category:Maps of Île-de-France, category:Maps of Sìchuān - and articles specify alternative writings, thus even category:Maps of 四川省 seems acceptable - but, an question about naming commons:category:Tirol vs. category:Tyrol is not finished yet, so maybe its not de:consensus

to my opinion it works at Commons too: the article uses english with correct local names (Maps of 四川省, 孔子 and will "collect" all the language-redirects Maps of סצ'ואן, Maps of Сичуан, Confucius, Konfuzius, কনফিউশিয়াস (but, as Duesentrieb stated above, not Cartes de la région Île-de-France, completely fr) and will leed into "correct" usage of categories like category:Maps of 四川省 - so you can navigate thru articles in your own language to reach a certain category

resuming, we should expect any user beeing able of basic vocabulary in english, but we should expect any user having installed UniCode-fonts and beeing willed to learn basics of foreign languages --W!B: 13:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this user is an odd ball. User seems to be recategorizing every image with a child on it under Category:Children. Some are acceptable (though I reverted most) but others such as this is not IMHO.

Same user also seems to be trolling on at least two occasions: Astrogeek userpage Image:Bill_Clinton.jpg. I have warned the user for this.

I am considering reverting the rest of the users contribs but wanted second opinion before proceeding.

--Cat out 01:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I already found his behaviour strange when I was checking this. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

We should better keep an eye on this new user. He seems to be uploading images from the English Wikipedia left and right without any regard to whether they have been tagged as fair use, or already exists in some form on Commons. See User talk:Patricksheridan#Copying from Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 19:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted ca. 50 of his uploads, articles, etc. everything was copyvio! I'm tired to delete rest of it :( --WarX 14:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

doesn't react on talk page, doesn't stop uploading unsourced images :-/ --Überraschungsbilder 13:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, since he was active uploading unsourced images right now. Cnyborg 18:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the most infamous vandals on Wikipedia, Primetime, has not too recently used the account name "w:User:HQCentral" to perpetrate his vandalisms: Wanton and malicious violations of copyright and plagiarism, as well as personal attacks and harassment of people who deal with his invasions.

Interestingly... there's a Commons account User:HQCentral ("HQC" from now on), and some "Damnning evidense":

Commons account uploaded Image:Marina at Koror, Palau.jpg at 6:36 on August 3rd, and WpA HQCentral added it to the page w:Palau at 7:26 on the same day. The same can be said of Image:Sailboat Diagram.gif and w:Sailboat on August 5th, with a time difference of about 9 minutes. I strongly suspect there are that many more exact linkups. Now, HQC on WpA has been proven to be Primetime via CheckUzer. The edits and uploads shown above make it EXTREMELY likely that this HQC is ALSO Primetime. As such I recommend all his image uploads be deleted as he is a serial and unrepentant copyright offender. Note that on WpA he was notorious for coming up with totally fraudulent sources when confronted with evidence that he stole his contributions from the OED or EB, so none of his "PD-self"s can be trusted. 68.39.174.238 04:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A further example, Image:Palau Supreme Court.jpg is likely ripped off from www.galen-frysinger.com/graphics/palau9d.jpg off of www.galenfrysinger.com/palau.htm . 68.39.174.238 04:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed; HQC has indeed used the same set of IPs as Primetime, and the above image was a copyvio from the above sourced (and I've deleted it as such). Other contribs will need to be sanity checked for sources. Alphax (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've filed a deletion request against the rest of these noxious images. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Artifact from WWII in Palau.jpg. 68.39.174.238 22:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Read this thread, please. User 68.39.174.238 has been following me around on all of the WM projects that I've edited on, and has been adding petty, nasty, pointless banners on my user pages and has been trying to get me banned (with success) from all wikis, 7 months after I was banned on Wikipedia. As you can see from the link above, he admits that he's doing it because I insulted him. I can tell that he's in his teens (possibly early teens), so he doesn't understand that bullying people is wrong. On this project, he's nominated all of my contributions for deletion. He badgered administrators on other projects into locking my userpages so his banners can stay there. He knows that I hate being called a vandal and I doubt he cares at all about copyright violations.--Temp 04:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, also previously reported at /User problems. "Sockpuppet" banners are not petty, nasty, or pointless, rather they are necessary means of identifying banned users. If banned users would stay away then they wouldn't be needed. -Will Beback 07:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record "nominated all [his] contributions for deletion", "locking [his] userpages so ["my"] banners can stay on" are, in less loaded terms, entirely appropriate: Bad-faith plagairism should be shot on sight and banned users who sockpuppet to remove ban/block notices should expect to have them protected. All of these are completely standard on eN, where he no longer attempts such things because he knows he just gets shot on sight. 68.39.174.238 07:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, this and this prove to me why you're here. Why else would you try to get me blocked on Meta?? Is it even possible to post copyvios to an administrative site? Take it as a compliment, but I seriously doubt that you are that bored. You are indeed bored, but there simply isn't any legitimate reason to go after me there. (My last edit on Meta was translating a complaint for Angela!) Further, if an account is blocked from editing, why would there need to be a notice on their user page? If anything, the notices you place on my pages misrepresent who I am. I spent two years editing Wikipedia, and you never worked with me or met me in real life. Maybe this is why those tags aren't used outside of Wikipedia. The only person who seems to care if I am using a sockpuppet on a site like Meta is you, given the delayed, reluctant reception you get wherever you troll. Finally, those aren't your pages. I don't know if you're working right now, but how would you feel if your boss fired you and then one of your coworkers who has a grudge against you put a huge red sign in the cafeteria saying that you were fired? It's hard to imagine, I know, because such a person would certainly end up getting fired himself! It's called libel. You probably don't realize it, but posting poorly-researched comments about people accusing them of being liars and criminals and then giving out personal information, like their IP address, home town, and school name, and then writing to everyone about them who will listen can conceivably hurt their reputation in the real world (Wikipedia isn't real life), which is the reason such libel disputes occur. I haven't been hurt in real life by your poorly-conceived actions yet, but if I could say, "I was fired from Job X and as a result, lost a projected lifetime income of $500,000" then the basis for a tort (civil offense) is established. Another condition for such disputes is malicious intent, which is so obvious in this case that I'm surprised you're arguing with me. So, since you pretend to love WMF policies so much, I would encourage you not to try to provoke me (which is one policy violation) and then not to libel me (which is another).--Temp 09:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) I encourage anyone who thinks that this user should be unblocked to read the evidence presented at w:en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime. Alphax (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I may also point people to Image:Marina at Koror, Palau.jpg, which is stole from the Encyclopedia Britannica's website, then claimed was his own and "released" it into the Public Domain, and sabotaged its deletion attempt. 68.39.174.238 13:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That image has been re-tagged as a copyvio, with supporting Britannica URL. --Fang Aili 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted all of the uploads by HQCentral (save one) because it's clear that he has been uploading with complete disregard for the law and for our copyright policy and generally behaving in a way which is misleading. We are not obligated to keep anyone's contributions, and especially not those from blocked users. If indeed a couple of his contributions were good, someone will manage to make them again in the future. It is simply not worth the effort or risk to confirm the claims of someone with such a track record. --Gmaxwell 16:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry. Support. Images can be undeleted if need be. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanx dude. I'm pretty certain the sailboat one is legit, I don't know about Fort Collins. And can someone block/checkuser this sockpuppet? He's clearly violated at least points 3 and 5 of COM:BP as he's a proven copyright violator and he's definately trying to avoid his block/ban. I don't know what the banning policy here is, but I'd support one so future invasions like this could be dealt with in a very expedited manner.

Also, I don't know what the Commons policy on tagging sockpuppet accounts is, but he's continuously removing such notices from his puppets userpages here. If these should stay, I recommend they be watched to prevent this. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 22:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If there are tags being removed, protecting the pages may be in order. ++Lar: t/c 22:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Temp was blocked he seems to have moved on to Wikiquote, q:User:Primetime, with more of his noxious trollery. 68.39.174.238 22:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Three obvious copyright violations that I tagged more than a week ago (Image:Downbaby.jpg, Image:Downsyn.jpg and Image:Downsyndr2.jpg, which were uploaded by a user who mistakenly believed that Flickr was "an open-source site" and that a photo marked "public" could be arbitrarily assigned a free license by a third party) have yet to be deleted.
I assume that this is due to a sysop shortage and resultant backlog of administrative tasks. While understandable, this delay is unfortunate. (I feel sorry for the parents of these children, whose images are being used without consent.) If truly speedy deletion presently is unfeasible, I suggest that the name be changed to something different for the time being. —David Levy 16:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is how to handle Flickr images; Flickr allows users to change license, so images might have been available under a free license when uploaded here. In such cases, they need to be handled more carefully than other copyvios, taking in factors such as who the uploader is (a user with lots of problems, or a user who has followed the rules previously), how much time has passed between upload and tagging (in this case about 1 1/2 month, more than enough to change the license) and so on. In this case I'm inclined to think that they were not available under a free license when uploaded here, since GFDL is not a standard license on Flickr. Cnyborg 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the uploader (for whom English is not a native language) expressed on my talk page (as linked above) a belief that Flickr was "an open-source site" and that the word "public" in the description was an invitation to attach the free license of one's choice.

In general, I think that we should err on the side of caution with Flickr images. A license verification process is in place, and if such verification has not yet occurred when an image is found to be listed on Flickr without an appropriate license, I believe that it should be deleted. Even the most trustworthy editor can make an honest mistake (accidentally uploading an image that lacks a free license), but it's highly unlikely that the same error would be committed a second time (by the sysop who checks the Flickr page).

Of course, it would be very nice if Flickr were to stop permitting users to revoke free licenses. —David Levy 18:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My thanks to Ejdzej for deleting the images. —David Levy 18:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion becomes less speedy without the toolserver. Jkelly 20:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

bcecause of some political problems look like this admin is making POV deletion of any Molla photo's also i gave the licenses for them so plz take care of that - wish you choose better admin's in the future but maybe no one can be without political inclination--Zainab 2006 10:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"well go to hell idiot": [3] may not have been the best phrasing to use when trying to work with this user. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Political problems? Hmmm! You also failed to upload your fake licensed photos here. Just in case you did not check your arwiki talkpage, I granted your Sock puppet an indefinite block back there. Kaveh excellent work.--Tarawneh 04:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Administrator User:Odder has just deleted this category, when we are moving many categories from the form Category:Churches of to the form Category:Churches in. See User:Orgullobot/commands.

We have many target categories to create, so I ask administrators to stop the deletion of these categories, and to restore categories like Category:Churches in Poland which are absolutly needed. --Juiced lemon 16:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the history. If there needs to be another conversation about category naming conventions, then great, that should happen, but I cannot understand why the history of contributions should be deleted, or why a {{Categoryredirect}} wouldn't be put in place. Jkelly 17:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with your comment: now, I don't ask any longer the deletion of categories for an only common mistake. --Juiced lemon 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand! Users on COM:BAR write, that they have moved manually everything to _of_Poland and here I read, that bot is doing same thing in opposing direction! What is going on?--WarX 18:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The move of these categories follows this talk: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Churches in Italy. I spoke previously about the same subject in the village pump on November 7: see the section Category names for religious buildings. --Juiced lemon 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please look at my Userpage. The page cannot be found. Thanks, Koernerbroetchen 19:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot reproduce this problem. Jkelly 19:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I see it just fine. --Fang Aili 20:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had similar problems on eN WpA. I think it's a server affair... 68.39.174.238 21:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention to the important issue of copyright violations: Images that appear to be under a valid license, but that have been taken from some website, or scanned in from a magazine. Top priority concerning copyright violations should be to make sure that the source is valid, and that the copyright owner has granted the license on the image page. Often deletions of these images take second or third priority, superseded by such images as:

• Screenshots
• Logos
• Old images where the legal stuff isn't completely clear
• Bookcovers

I would like to raise awareness about cleaning out images that are fraudulently tagged, and block users who only upload copyright violations. Logos, bookcovers and screenshots should of course be deleted too, but they are obviously copyright protected and in general do not impose a legal problem. And whether old images are or are not copyright protected depending on how various laws are to be intrepreted in various countries, are, in the end, up to the end user to determine.

But images that are claimed to be created by "Mr. Bob of Wikipedia" should not be copyright protected by the website XYZ.com. That'll lead to a major problem, both for Wikipedia and for anyone who wants to reuse the contents.

Thanks for your attention.
Fred Chess 14:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem, very often is to prove categoritaly the copyvio, because some pics appear clearly like uploaded from website but with a changed name and it's very long to find the original website, especialy when the pic is here since few months. It's the case of littles photos without exif. Oxam Hartog 15:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Such seem to sometimes migrate over from flickr and such, where it is incorrectly marked as under a free license. Scoo 23:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to Commons talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Categories.

Ben 17:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please review this and this. A French speaking person should communicate with the user. While it isn't prohibited on commons, I think there are good reasons to discourage usernames resembling ips. --Cat out 00:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We prohibit next to nothing here. The only real user name restriction I can think of is imposter related, im not sure an "on Wheels!" account would be blocked. I feel we could benefit with some more concrete restrictions, this being one of them.--Nilfanion 00:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not endorsing it, his creation of that userpage was a reaction to being instablocked... I also had him unredirect his userpage to the anonymous userpage...which I dont' think he appreciated very much... Why is this thread on the main AN page and not User Problems? Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Because that's where Cool Cat put it...--Nilfanion 11:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a meaning to this ? 86.208.180.81

Anon-accounts have exactly the same permission on Commons as on any other WM project. Anons cannot upload files anywhere. The only difference is Commons primary purpose is to upload files. There are plenty of things people can do here anonymously: categorize images, translate descriptions and other text cleanup. If you want to contribute as anon you can, if you want to upload imagery you can, but you can't upload imagery as an anon. If you have made a decision to contribute anonymously, you accept what that entails: no watchlists, no uploading (and less actual anonymity) for example. If you want an account solely to upload files, just create a username with no significance and link it to your anon userpage; the problem here is your choice of account name resembles an IP (something that is explicitly banned on en.wp).--Nilfanion 11:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this answer. Motives of sysops community end up to be awkward. And see... my IP translated, which achieves this monty-pithonesque situation. 90.1.117.207 12:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the only usernames that should be blocked are ones that are intended to mislead, deceive or offend. In general usernames that resemble IP addresses should be discouraged (if not outright banned) because they are misleading. This case is not too bad, I think, because this user is not trying to deceive. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied from user's talk page:

Cool cat was under the mistaken belief that the username policy at en.wp, about using anonymous addresses as usernames, applied at commons. He was mistaken, and I unblocked you immediately. I asked you not to redirect to this page, however, because the contributions listed under that page as well as all the user buttons were invalid. The redirect was effectively misleading, because all of your contributions are not listed under either signature. I hope you understood why I requested you not redirect and merely link. There is no need for a great cataclismic event over this. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 16:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A random string of letters and numbers is a better username than an IP. IPs can easily change even when static, ones internet subscription will expire eventually after all. So the username in my view is indeed misleading or will eventually be misleading. --Cat out 11:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Not my preference for a username, it's hard to remember. But not against policy, and it's certainly more memorable now than it was. So... no issue. Still, would rather you had a funner name. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi folks ! Actually I had to make a Username change request so as to synchronise both fr and Commons : IP86.208.180.81 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC) — Does the result seem funner ? ;-))

Christmas came early; Toolserver is now up and running again. There are some bits and pieces missing, and the lag is quite bad, but at least it's running again. Cnyborg 01:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Replication isn't running yet, so the lag is not catching up. Once replication gets going it will catch up. --Gmaxwell 06:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:QQQQQQ has accused contributors of "meddling" due to correction of a U.S. Senate map he uploaded, Image:110th US Congress Senate.png. The map he uploaded inaccurately lists (and color-codes) Senator Joe Lieberman (who had recently lost the Democratic nomination in Connecticut, but was re-elected an independent) as a sitting member of the Democratic Party for the upcoming 110th Congress. In response to the change, he reverted without explanation, offering the explanation that "Lieberman's more of a Democrat than an Independent."

User:QQQQQQ seems to feel ownership over images he uploads to Wikimedia under the GNU Free Documentation License ("you went to the Help Desk and asked someone else to edit my image"). This user needs to accept the correction of his image (assuming his misrepresentation was not deliberate), and cease pushing his POV (that Sen. Lieberman is "more a Democrat than an independent") in his contributions. Shem 01:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I kindly request that the Administrators disregard these comments. This user got the best of me, causing me to be somewhat rude due to my irritation with his incessant tactics and vindictive attitude. I would note that this user has run into problems (including a ban) and quite a number of conflicts with other users [4].

QQQQQQ 02:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous IP address User:QQQQQQ links to has been identified as a shared IP (of a microwave wireless internet service provider) by Wikipedia contributors, nor can I vouch for anyone else who edits from my ISP. I kindly request that the Administrators look at the merits of my complaint concerning User:QQQQQQ and the content in question, rather than turn this into a personality dispute, as User:QQQQQQ seems to desire. Shem 03:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

After requesting at the Help Desk that I discuss his actions on his User Talk page [5], User:QQQQQQ is now repeatedly blanking his Talk Page of any discussion whatsoever with edit summaries accusing editors of being "serious freaks." [6] I would ask that an administrator protect the correct version of Image:110th US Congress Senate.png from further reverting/vandalism on User:QQQQQQ's part. Shem 20:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Is User:QQQQQQ going to provide any comments regarding the content, or is he ignoring a constructive debate? -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Although I am not an admin.

I'd prefer the Secretary of the United States Senate to decide this once and for all for all of Wikipedia. The decision should come on January 3 or 4, and I'll work to implement the official word into all relevant articles and images. I think that's about it. QQQQQQ 23:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. A sysop from the French-language Wikipédia has developed a tool to mass-delete images within a given category. The software seems to work on Commons. I think it would be useful when cleaning copyright dated categories. guillom 10:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this :) I am the author of the tool and I need some admins to test the tool and report bugs with Commons :) The login and category retrieval steps work well, but I need to know if the deletion itself is properly implemented when used in Commons. Thanks. Dake 12:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that I'm working on a module to delete the links within the articles. This will be part of the tool but I need to brainstorm these features first. Dake 12:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot :

This is truly what Commons needed! Thanks for such a tool, I'd be happy to help you out with the testing process :) —UED77 15:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, wait does this tool actually give the admin any preview of the images? Mass-clearance should never be done without checking the images actually are deletion candidates. Magnus's tools (which are linked to from the speedy cats) do that already, and include checkusage...--Nilfanion 18:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The convenience lies in multiple deletions with relative ease. While the lack of preview feature is a drawback, this tool could be used in conjunction with preexisting tools (Magnus'), and only used to complete the deletion process itself. —UED77 23:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, I was waiting for such messages :) Nilfanion : I will add the preview, I didn't implement it first because I thought it would take a long time to load all pictures but if this corresponds to a needed feature, no problem. I guess it is necessary to have both the image itself and the description ? I am now working on the links removal in articles which is a complex thing as one has to cope with various syntaxes. Dake 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The tool indeed works, flawlessly, it seems. I deleted a few images at first, then a dozen, then at least a hundred (backlogs from November in Category:Unknown). It is a very efficient tool of mass destruction; one that could prove highly useful in eliminating the massive backlog we still have in deletions. —UED77 16:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I added it to Commons:Tools. I look forward to reading about future developments. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Could be useful next time Primetime strikes with his plagiarisms. 68.39.174.238 18:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question for the admins here. When deleting a picture, are you removing all related links from all articles in Wikipedia, etc, or just on the most important Wikis ? What is the policy here ? Dake 21:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to tell you that my tools are back online now. I have only tested superficially, and only the most important ones (like Gallery, CheckUsage, etc), so there may still be problems - please tell me if you find any. Generally, the toolserver is still a bit slow, and has a massive replication lag. I hope this will fix itself over the next week or so. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 01:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the estimated time until CommonsTicker is working again? / Fred Chess 03:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

When I get around to it, I guess. I'm a bit afraid to try while i'm at the ccc and all distracted - If i mess up, crap is written to dozens of wikis... Maybe i'll do it in a quite hour here, or you'll have to wait a few more days. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 14:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have reactivated the ticker, but there seem to be some problems. I'll let it run for a bit and look into it tomorrow. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 01:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been awhile since check-usage is offline, and deletions can't couldn't wait for it to come back. So, the last two weeks, I've created a replacement. It's still under testing, but it's performing quite well, although it's not that fast.

It's a simple DHTML page with a JavaScript engine; it allows to check within any of the existing Wikis (from the list on Meta), and has quick selection of major ones (I first created the list from meta:Table of Wikimedia Projects by Size, now planning to have the list fetched automatically). Since I don't have access to the Wikis' databases, it just http-requests the Image: page for each selected Wiki, and fetches the relevant info from the "File links" section of the page. The results are stacked in a listbox, and a quick result count is available during the search, as well as a countdown counting the remaining Wikis to check.

Right now, I'm using it running on my home web server, since it needs a PHP http proxy script I've created, to overcome browsers' inter-domain restrictions. As soon as I get the domain I've just registered working, I'll upload it there for you to use. Meanwhile, you can take a look at it here - please don't click the "Search" button, since it's not going to do anything. The page has two banners, so please don't follow this link if you can't stand them.

--ColdShine 23:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I wrote this just one line below Duesentrieb's stating the tools are back online... --ColdShine 23:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I got my domain activated, the tool is online. It's a bit too slow however, so I'll have to change something (some ideas already). Feel free to test it if you wish. --ColdShine 09:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's working now. It's available at http://www.coldshine.net/wiki/giulemani, and its speed is now at decent levels, although it doesn't match Check-Usage. It now automatically retrieves the full list of Wikis from m:Special:SiteMatrix, and the list of the major ones from m:Table of Wikimedia Projects by Size; so it allows to search all the Wiki projects. --ColdShine 12:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please delete the picture Paris_1.jpg that I uploaded; I am going to upload it on Wikipedia as the licensing option there is more appropriate than the current one.--Jink 11:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If the license you have placed at Image:Paris 1.jpg is incorrect ((tl|attribution}}, then it should be deleted. If the license isn't incorrect then there is no reason to remove it as far as I can tell. What license do you want to put it under at Wikipedia? I'm guessing you might be thinking of {{Promotional}} on the English Wikipedia? If so these licenses are not the same at all, and you much chose the one that is the same as the permission you have got. Thryduulf 12:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How can I delete my picture thet I uploaded. Image:Soroush Mesry Pic.jpg

I also would like to delete my old user name. Can you delete User:Soroush Mesry and transfer its edits to mine?

thanks.--Soroush83 15:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is me.--Soroush Mesry 15:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the picture; however, a bureaucrat will hopefully soon tend to your name change request. However, since (as far as I know) edits cannot be transferred, your new username might need to be deleted, and your old one renamed. This is only my guess, but we will see. —UED77 22:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your guide and deletion. Bercause my last username was my actual name and searching it in google or ... would result the pages I had signed or my user page I decided to change my username in all wiki Projects to finish this catastrophy. Of course I don't want any one to go to pages I have signed when they search me on net. Thanks again.--Soroush83 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This category about a famous landmark of Prague (see en:Old Town Square (Prague)) has been excessively deleted by User:Paddy. Please, restore it. --Juiced lemon 18:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kjetil_r 02:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting wars (see [7] for example) are still running and disturbing all non-involved users. Please try to stop them. --Jklamo 05:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to notice, that user Juiced lemon never looks for consensus, he never gives reason of proposed renaming/moving categories to talk page etc. He simply place templates or moves images or categories that created and maintain other users. The only his "explanation" I registred (in summary). Juiced lemon didn't upload there any image but he "arbitrarly" renames/moves files/categories. --Ludek 10:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We have already talked tenths of times about language policy for categories, and the rule still remains: Categories are in English. We cannot redo a new discussion each time we want to rename a category according to this rule.

After you have uploaded pictures or writen articles in a Wikipedia project, you cannot claim anymore full control on these pictures or on these articles. To upload image and to organize files in categories are very different activities, which need also separate abilities.

I think that I know how to create categories in schemes that most people can easily understand and use. There are some other Commons users which understand how to organize the categories, not many. So, there is no need for me to upload files. --Juiced lemon 12:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you still do not understand the problem. The problem is: "Why I should believe you?". The problem is that you don't inform about that rule (if exists such one). The template should contain link to the rule, eventually link to results of voting. I believe that your skill of English language is so high to formulate good information/reason about it to the template. (I don't speak English so well.) Why should I believe you, when I received also such information ("There actually is no such policy" <that categories are in English>)? I also create and use English categories (example), this is not problem for me. But I see as problematic changing of existing categories. There should be link to information if (or how) somebody (you?) will edit "national" wikipedies and other projects changing templates commons (for example this one). --Ludek 14:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I generally use the Template:Move, which indicates a proposal. I recently modified this template ([8]) to add the link to the talk page and an optional reason on the page (below); I have used this last feature when I put the template on Category:Karlův most (Category:Old Town Square (Prague) is not concerned, since I created this new category about a new subject in Commons). So, don't criticize me for not discuss about the proposal. If you don't agree with the proposal, you can restore the previous categories, but there is no reason to remove the proposal (the template) and to prevent other users to give their opinion about it.

If you don't understand the reason, ask me: I'll answer. If you want a special template to relocate non-English categories, I'll create it from Template:Category redirect (no discussion with this one). --Juiced lemon 16:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added a few updates in Image:Battle-of-the-Netherlands-WOII-ani.gif. The old versions can be deleted to save space at the wikiservers. Sorry for the inconvenience. NielsB 20:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually unless there is a good reason, images are never deleted. Deleted images do not really get deleted but instead are just hidden from non-administrators. --Cat out 20:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Images hidden from non-administrators as requested (before prev post) :) —UED77 21:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

(moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes) Fred Chess 18:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like User:Kresnik01 is vacuuming everything from a commercial Chinese site; [9]. Some are marked with GFDL, which I find implausible, but I don't read Chinese. Stan Shebs 14:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it has been noted at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems / Fred Chess 18:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of COM:DEL is to take care of deletion requests not here. I ask all admins to decline any deletion request made here pointing the user to the right place. People should learn the right place to post deletion request saving us and themselves a lot of time. --Cat out 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - though in case entire license tags, categories or all contributions of one user are up to discussion, it may be ok or even nice to drop a message here, pointing to the respective entry on COM:DEL. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 13:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Version 2 of Image:Kadomatsu M1181.jpg is a mistake. Can that version be deleted? Version 3 (19:53, January 5, 2007) is the keeper. Thanks --Fg2 10:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If the filenames are the same, version 3 has effectively replaced version 2 on the server already, and you're all set. Hope that helps. If not, please clarify by giving the names of the different files you want deleted and kept and an admin will see to it. ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem for me. All three versions have the same file name and the photo displays properly. Thanks --Fg2 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not remember a discussion on this, however it seems that all villages are supposed to be listed under "cities" now? I think there is a clear difference. Can anyone take a look and comment? cheers. Gryffindor 11:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

See User_talk:Siebrand. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Felipeteo is online again and he is uploading images of worst quality again. Now he tags his images with license tags but I still doubt he has the right to upload them. Please check his contributions. He obviously wants to fill up commons with crap. --Enricopedia ⇄ 23:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

He says he has emailed permission. Somebody with m:OTRS should look this up. But the images are crap anyway. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no outstanding ticket on OTRS for this, either on the permissions queues (which is where he said he sent it to — I checked the queues: permissions, permissions-commons and permissions-en) or on the info-pt queue. If the ticket had been sent but were no longer open, it would mean that someone had handled it and presumably acted upon it. If no modification was made to the image's licensing information, at the very least it means that what he sent was insufficient to establish that the images are free.
Other than that, the image I looked into upon request, Image:Campo belo 4.jpg, seems to have come, as probably did all others he uploaded, from this gallery, on the municipal government's website. There is, however, no notice of copyright (or lack thereof) on the website, so any information as to whether or not the images are free would have to have been obtained by e-mailing the Webmaster or someone associated with the local government/website. Perhaps we can ask him to mail the alleged authorization (considering that he might have misspelled the e-mail address or otherwise failed to send the information to OTRS) to the info-pt queue, in Portuguese, where I would look into it. Other than that, however, as it stands now, the images should be deleted as "uncertain copyright status", possibly not free. Redux 11:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In my personal opinion the images are to crappy to ask permission. I suggest deleting them all. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's my opinion, too. Some of the images are even downsized versions. I don't get Felipeteos intentions. --Enricopedia ⇄ 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'm going to delete them all. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Curiously, though, the images on the website don't look half as bad as what was uploaded to Commons. Redux 22:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pedantic request I know, but could an admin change "an gallery" to "a gallery" on this page. the wub "?!" 17:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

done. --Matt314 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)