Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 46

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

Urban explorer's photos

Hello,

I report a problem with these 3 files below. These photos have been shot in an old abandoned building which the access is forbidden for security reasons. I contacted the contributor and explain him that it was irresponsible to publish it in WP but he doesn't seem to understand it's a violation of property and this can lead to accidents and engages others to do so. It is a dangerous place and these pictures should be deleted by precaution.

These 2 photos below has been shot in a unsecured abandoned explosives underground store that is now a private property and have not been secured. It violated law on a private property and can lead to accidents for the same reasons. The contributor explained me he was an urban explorer and he had the right to do so, without any authorization from the owners.

I feel concerned because these places are potentially hazardous and forbidden to public. As the creator of these articles (Puits des Combes, Puits du Marais) I wish not to give these informations that can threat people's security.

Thank you --KidA42 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I answered in French to his talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
How does the OP here know that visiting these sites is in violation of the law? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots07:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
KidA42 -- I'm not sure that's any kind of commonly-recognized reason for image deletion. It certainly doesn't affect the copyright status directly. AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI, KidA42 does not ask for deletion. S/He asks that the images should be removed from the article in the French WP. I explain that this should be discussed on WP, not here. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Problemas

Olá, por favor me ajudem, têm um sujeito que está usando ilegalmente o meu nome em uma conta suspeita!!! Eu não sou sockpupter! Ele é que deve ser!!!! Por favor, excluam essa conta ou bloqueiem ele do Commons!!! Por favor!!! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Gustavo_neto1 --Gustavo neto (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Agradecido (Please, translate Portuguese to English)! --Gustavo neto (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As per Google Translate: "Hello, please help me have a guy who is illegally using my name in a suspicion account! I'm not sockpupter! It should be!! Please delete this account or block the Commons it! Please!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots07:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. --A.Savin 09:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. The latest sockpuppet in this long line of accounts is User:Fallout perfection. I've blocked the account on enwiki on the basis of identical behaviour. The latest image File:Cesaro vs orton.jpg is a copyvio from somewhere on wwe.com - tineye reports a few hits. Can someone do the honors ? - Peripitus (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File gone + blocked. --Denniss (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response - Peripitus (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Confirming this. --Martin H. (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Jhalvico, Latironicoec, Pablo685002

Hi,

I suspect Jhalvico (talk · contribs) to have several sockpuppets used to upload copyvios and remove warnings. May be a checkuser is needed.

Regards, Yann (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Latironicoec is Likely; Pablo685002 is Stale. I've blocked Latironicoec. As you're familiar with the situation, you can address Jhalvico based on behaviour. (Please also try to use COM:RFCU for these in the future.) Эlcobbola talk 14:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I was not sure if there is enough evidence to request a formal CU. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Yann -- for a highly experienced Admin such as you, I would say that any suspicion is enough to ask for a formal CU. It is easy to do a check and if it turns out negative, no harm, no foul (while I know that some feel strongly that a CU check is an invasion of privacy, the fact is that we don't make a note of negative results and I, at least, can't remember an IP address for more than a few nanoseconds).
And, as we see above, your guess was good. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Iop sm, Palosirkka

Resolved

Hi,

These users seems to be related:

Regards, Yann (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If this were at COM:RFCU--where it should be--I would be inclined to say Declined. Iop sm has only edited in Chinese (whereas Palosirkka has 18,769 global edits, primarily on en.wiki, fi.wiki and the Commons, and not in Chinese), the single deleted upload is not at all the same subject matter as uploads by Palosirkka, and the two have no overlapping content/subject interests on other wikis. The edits to Palosirkka's pages appear more likely to be random vandalism (per Google translate) than a link between the two. Эlcobbola talk 21:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I deleted this edit, and blocked Iop sm for spamming. Yann (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. The latest sockpuppet in this long line of accounts is User:Hunter Pedigree. I've blocked the account on enwiki on the basis of identical behaviour. The latest image File:DiBiase dream street.jpg is a copyvio from wwe.com as can be seen here. Can someone do the honors .....again ? - Peripitus (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Disactivation of Central Notice

Stefan4

Yesterday, I reverted the following three images back to previous versions of themselves due to historical inaccuracy. Before I reverted them, they were shown to be displaying the Korean peninsula as part of the Mongol Empire, which by all accounts was historically untrue. To explain further, the Goryeo Dynasty which occupied the Korean peninsula at the time was at best a vassal state, never annexed by the Mongol Empire at any point in its entire history. Cartographic convention is that vassal states are not to be included as part of the territory of any overlord country, rendering the versions of the maps that User:Tm reverted the images back to historically false. These are the three images in question:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mongol_Empire_map_2.gif https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mongol_Empire_map.gif https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mongolia_1500_AD.jpg

User:Tm continues to edit war based on historically inaccurate claims and has even gone as far as calling my reversions "vandalism." To those of you who end up looking over this case, many thanks in advance for your consideration. Flamarial (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Flamarial: en:Mongol invasions of Korea seems to disagree with you. Considering that that article is well sourced and you haven't provided any sources to back up your claim, I'd have to say that "all accounts was historically untrue" is a dubious assertion. Regardless, you are both edit warring, and it needs to stop. The files have been restored to how they were before, and if you object to them, upload your version under a different name. See Commons:Overwriting existing files. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


I was actually just reading that article a few minutes ago. Respectfully, I don't see where in that article it says that the Goryeo Dynasty was annexed by the Mongol Empire. In the very first paragraph, in fact, it states that "There were six major campaigns at tremendous cost to civilian lives throughout the Korean peninsula, ultimately resulting in Korea becoming a vassal state and compulsory ally of the Mongol Yuan Dynasty for approximately 80 years," which supports my claim. Vassal states and allies are not included in the territory of overlord countries on maps by widespread cartographic convention.
Other parts of the same article further support my claim that the Goryeo Dynasty was never annexed.
"Although they reached parts of the southern peninsula as well, the Mongols failed to capture Ganghwa Island, which was only a few miles from shore, and were repelled in Gwangju. The Mongol general there, Sartai (撒禮塔), was killed by the monk Kim Yun-hu (김윤후) amidst strong civilian resistance at the Battle of Cheoin near Yongin, forcing the Mongols to withdraw again."
"In 1238, Goryeo relented, and sued for peace. The Mongols withdrew, in exchange for Goryeo's agreement to send the Imperial Family as hostages."
"With the death of Güyük Khan in 1248, however, the Mongols withdrew again."
"The Mongols agreed to a cease fire in January 1254."
"When the Goryeo court sent the future king Wonjong as hostage to the Mongol court and promised to return to Kaegyong, the Mongols withdrew from Central Korea."
And one of the most relevant sentences from that article states the following:
"When the dictator Choe was murdered by the literati party, the peace treaty was concluded. The treaty permitted the maintenance of the sovereign power and traditional culture of Goryeo, implying that the Mongols gave up incorporating Goryeo under direct Mongolian control and were content to give Goryeo autonomy, but the king of Goryeo must marry a Mongolian princess and be subordinate to the Mongolian Khans."
I'd like to ask the moderators to please consider this information and to perhaps consider reverting the three aforementioned images back to the historically correct versions. Flamarial (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 Note to other admins ((Edit conflict)): I didn't pick up on it until I read some of the older edit summaries, but this has all the markings of a nationalist battleground issue. Historiographer's involvement (in the 2010 edit war in the middle file) puts this beyond a doubt for me, not that the edit summaries are not evidence enough. I've locked all three files for a week to let this cool down, but it might be a good idea to lock them permanently. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you beyond a doubt that there was a massive edit war between User:Historiographer and other Wikipedians. However, I would like to throw out the notion that the fact that there once was an edit war is irrelevant when it comes to selecting files based on historical accuracy. By reverting these images to their historically accurate states, I am not editing from the vantage point of a nationalist but rather as a scholar in East Asian history simply trying to correct an error on the Wikipedia Commons. For these files to be locked down permanently in their current state would be to lock in a historically wrong map plastered in multiple places on Wikipedia. I would urge you and other moderators to consider the history behind the Mongol Empire and its territory before making such a final decision. Flamarial (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Parabolooidal

I repeat here what I wrote in the village pump 5 days ago:

Parabolooidal (talk · contributions · Statistics) seems to be well intentioned, but he keeps doing a big mess with categorization, removing right categories, putting redundant ones, creating duplicate categories and others with poor or wrong categorizations, etc. I contacted him the 8th of July and someone had already had done it the 30th June but it didn't solve the problem, which is aggravated by the fact that he changes a lot of photos

Some typical examples of wrong actions (which are worrying because are recurrent):

Duplicate categories (usually poorly categorized):

  1. Category:Langtang range <=> Category:Langtang
  2. Category:Gosainkunda Lake <=> Category:Gosainkunda Lake, Rasuwa
  3. Category:Big Bell <=> Category:Taleju Bell (Bhaktapur)
  4. Category:Bhaktapur Durbar Square <=> Category:Bhaktapur Darbar

In Category:Badrinath Temple, Bhaktapur removed Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Bhaktapur District and replaced it with generic Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Nepal. --Stegop (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment from Parabolooidal

I'm using the tags supplied by the Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Nepal with known IDs and categorizing image accordingly. See the following examples:

  • Big Bell {{Cultural Heritage Nepal|NP-BT-53}}
  • Badrinath Temple {{Cultural Heritage Nepal|NP-BT-122}}

I apologized to Stegop for my mistake on one day on which I confused "natural" and "cultural" and asked several times on my talk page for information on how to handle these ID tags, but he ignored my questions, just threatening to have me blocked. [5], [6], [7]

Stegop has taken the ID tags I had placed in categories when he changed the category names, putting them in categories he has chosen. If he had discussed the issue of ID's and how to handle them on my talk page, as I asked, then the issue could have been explained to me. Before I started placing the ID templates in image categories, they weren't being used for the upload Nepal images at all. Further, I found many wrongly categorized images, which I corrected and he must have agreed with as he did not change them.

Also I'm unclear if it is correct to change the name provided on the ID in a misleading way. For example am image with the template

English: Bhote Koshi River

{{Wiki Loves Earth Nepal|NP-SIN-04}} is on the image File:Rafting at Bhotekoshi River (10).JPG. But if you look at the bottom of this image, and look at categories this image is in, it looks like the category Category:Rafting on Bhote Kosi is in the category Category:Natural heritage sites in Nepal with known IDs, when there is no known ID specifically for these rafting images, only for the river Category:Bhote Kosi

Incidentally, in going through these images I found many mis-categorized images, so in any case, these need to be checked. Also, in Category:Langtang, I created some of the subcategories using the ID's. However, now with the ID tag moved, there are categories under that ID that don't belong there, so the ID banner for the category does not correctly reflect the subcategories that don't have ID's. For example, none of the images in Category:Langtang Lirung have any ID.

I'd appreciate any clarification on this. I also request that Stegop try to deal directly with me first in an informative manner, or point me to a forum where I can get the information I need regarding the IDs and categories, rather than reporting me, twice now, without attempting to discuss the specific issues first. Parabolooidal (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Maintaining categories is not easy on Commons. Mistake are going to happen, even very experienced user make them. I would like to ask Stegop to help Parabolooidal with his work. If run into problems please don't hesitate to contact any admin or experienced if you feel there is no time to waste. If the issue is not time sensitive, please ask here: Com:VP Thanks guys! :-)) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The problems go on and I am not the only one complaining (see the user's disc. page). How can one explain the obvious things like relevant categories should not be removed when one adds another one (like he did in many cases in Ghana) or many other recurrent mistakes? --Stegop (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jab7842 and strange machinations at Template talk:Speedydelete/en

For the second time, User:Jab7842 has modified Template talk:Speedydelete/en in a misleading way, and afterwards marked is as a “Housekeeping or non-controversial cleanup” speedy, after which an admin deleted it. Prior to Jab7842’s edits, the talkpage was not a redirect and had proper real content (for a template talk page, anyway).

I have no idea what is going on and what is Jab7842 trying to achieve (also, cf. Commons:Requests for rights/Denied/Confirmed#Jab7842), but I don’t see any reason to delete a valid talk page with a fulfilled edit request (I don’t think those are commonly deleted), and I suspect some shady business might be involved somewhere, so I’m just mentioning it here and recommending to be cautious.

--Mormegil (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Do to his edits he seems not to be a new user and user is bocked for abusing multiple accounts on enwiki. Because i see only vandalism edits and one previous warning i have indef. blocked the account. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Same editpattern: Special:Contributions/SLV100 (blocked atm), a sock? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
A block definitely needed. I was misled by this account in deleting this page. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There seems to take place war of edits in file East Ukraine conflict.png. The question is whether I can upload the earlier version of the file under a different name (of course after registration)? The file was licensed under GNU Free Documentation License and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. However I don't know thether the license is applicable to previous versions of the file. --195.50.31.213 19:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the map is getting updated several times a day, as needed(?) @EugeneZelenko and Ahonc: Can you have a look at the sources, please? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
This map and sources reflects official Kiev POV. File renaming will be reasonable since it's hard to claim truth only by one side POV. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

User-problem with aggressive deletion behavior

I have to complain about the behavior of the User:Parabolooidal. His manner is equate to an "ulcus cancer", because around his appearance dies the existing category trees how the flies. There are deleted important categories, which shall serve as collection and base point for further subcategories. In this special cases it concerns the city-categories in the Ghana portal. Here were destroyed structures how "markets by city", "housing by city", "commerce by city" "city by time" and the displaced pictures to great parts placed in "shops by city..." and "street vendors by city" and other unexactly categories of an own creation for Ghana. At that are deleted my own deletion-applications without any explanation and categories which were deleted by administrators are presently again a half hour later. The single result is a contribution to the creation of the state of a greatest-possible chaos under hundreds of pictures which were already categorized on order structures so that one can find searchrf pictures rapidly beside of a contentual points of view. After this manner were destroyed several weeks work in only two days and that without of any communication in the prefield about sense or nonsense of faulty categories. Is that the professional policy of Commons co-workers with administrator rights....?

In special case it concerns the categories:

That all concerns mainly the cities: Accra, Elmina and Cape Coast, where the mentioned "...by city"-categories were deleted at the single pictures. All this categories were created after the categories in other country-portals - So, there is no cause to destroy these in the case of Ghana. Has the deletor ever studied at all? If yes, then the subject of his studies was neither architecture nor economy nor urbanization and urban structure planning or so similar nor he is an entrepreneur which have to pay the working times of other persons nor he has a view on the present result of the work of others . Please, stop User:Parabolooidal in his destructive behavior! We can speak about all, but arbitrary destroy and deletions can not be the serious policy of the Commons. --Katharinaiv (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Moved from COM:AN. Here looks more appropriate. Revicomplaint? 06:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Katharinaiv, seems you’ve been doing a great job at categorizing and creating categories, but it would be useful if you linked to examples of the behaviour you’re complaining about. Parabolooidal should also offer his view (which I really hope is not the inane and miopic excuse that «those categories were empty or underpopulated», favored by cat tree vandals — a few admins included). -- Tuválkin 13:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Reply from Parabolooidal
I think Katharinaiv should have tried to discuss and compromise with me on my talk page first before posting about me at other forums. I was trying to use categories in a way that is similar to their use in other countries and to follow their examples. I believe the Commons should use categories that the common user of various background and education can understand. I started by trying to find images of specific towns, villages such as Winneba and Category:Busua but I found almost none. Then I found that almost all the images were hidden away by being categorized under huge Ghana global categories. For example, images for beaches for various places were all in a huge category Category:Beaches of Ghana and were not broken down to location in Ghana such as Category:Beaches of Winneba, and Category:Beaches of Busua; e.g. the 35 images of beaches of Busua were all in the huge Category:Beaches of Ghana.(I added those subcategories; I don't think huge categories, not subdivided are useful. Busua had two images before the beaches there were added, and someone looking for images of Busua had no way of knowing that 35 Busua images existed elsewhere, and maybe in other global Ghana categories as well.) Also, other countries don't use German language translations of words as a rationale to determine sub category names: e.g. the rationale that the term "housing" shall correspond to the German "Wohnungswesen" used by Katharinaiv above. "Retail" is only used for meta categories in other countries e.g. Category:Retail by country. There is also a meta category Category:Street vendors by country I was willing to discuss the use on my talk page, after Katharinaiv sent me a hostile message there, but that editor chose not to discuss with me.

I did not delete Category:Beaches of Ghana, Category:Housing in Ghana and or other accusations made above. I tried to break down a huge category into subcategories. I also removed parent categories from categories, per instruction that the least number of categories should be used for each image, and images should be be in both the parent category and the subcategory. Is there a rule somewhere that German translations should be used as category names. (Ghana was a Portuguese colony so I don't understand this rationale.

I don't understand this from Katharinaiv: "Has the deletor ever studied at all? If yes, then the subject of his studies was neither architecture nor economy nor urbanization and urban structure planning or so similar nor he is an entrepreneur which have to pay the working times of other persons nor he has a view on the present result of the work of others ." Are such studies a requirement to categorize images on the Commons? Also, do "Portals" make the rules? No one has ever mentioned "portals" to me before and I didn't even know they existed on the Commons. (I know Portals exist on Wikipedia, but the Commons isn't Wikipedia.) Parabolooidal (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Poking fun at Katharinaiv’s difficulties with English is not a good approach to the matter, especially when including statements such as «Ghana was a Portuguese colony» (hint: it wasn’t).
While creating subcategories under a given category and dissiminating its content there-to is in principle a good thing, nobody can really have an opinion of the claims and counter-claims here invoked without clear examples (esp. diffs). Only adequate documentation can dispel this complain as unwarranted, or enable corrections and repairs that would be positive for all. From Parabolooidal it would be neccessary to see a few examples (diffs) of the described clean up of COM:OVERCAT. -- Tuválkin 20:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry as I didn't mean to poke fun at Katharinaiv’s difficulties with English. Here is an example with the problems of Katharinaiv’s approach. Katharinaiv is using a portal on the German Wikipedia to determine categories on the Commons: Portal Ghana. The Commons is not organized in the way the various wikipedias are. Katharinaiv has put up for deletion Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Shops in Ghana. However, Category:Shops in Ghana should be kept because Category:Shops by country is a Meta category on the Commons with hundreds of subcategories for other countries. Shops in Ghana should be listed there also. Further, Category:Shops in Ghana is part of the Meta category on the Commons: Category:Retail buildings by country. Ghana should have a subcategory in that Meta category like the hundreds of other countries that do. Ghana should follow the Commons category methods of other countries. Commons categories shouldn't be deleted because they don't fit the categories derived at Portal Ghana. Commons categories should be used, not those from a Wikipedia "Portal Ghana". Parabolooidal (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see section below about problems with categories in Ghana, "Problem with categories in Ghana" for some specifics. Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. Category: Kumasi in 2010
  2. Category:Newspaper stands
  3. Category:Men of Ghana
  4. Category:People at work in Ghana
  5. Category:Street vendors in Ghana
  6. Category:People of Ghana in 2010.

However, if an editor is looking for Kumasi, none of those categories lead there. The images of Kumasi are pocketed away in these categories. I cleaned up many of these. (I just stumbled on this one now, but it is typical of the way Ghana images are categorized.)

Category: Kumasi in 2010 is categorized by Category:Kumasi in 2010s, Category:2010 in Ghana, and a meta category Category:Kumasi by year containing 10 different years. This is in a meta category Category:Cities in Ghana by year etc. Finally, I added some categories to Category:Kumasi so that any editor wanting to see images of Kumasi by anything besides years could see some categories. I started re categorizing Ghana images because I couldn't find any until I accidentally found all the "by year" categories. Stuffing individual places discourages building the identities of towns and villages. It's as if Ghana only exists in history and aren't living, breathing places. Parabolooidal (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Another typical example of overcategorization:

I tried to fix Category:Roads in Ghana by re categorizing many images more specifically elsewhere, but the category is still huge and makes little sense. Why is File:Washerwomen Ghana.jpg there? That image is in:

  1. Category:Women of Ghana
  2. Category:Washerwomen
  3. Category:2006 in Ghana
  4. Category:Headcarrying
  5. Category:Roads in Ghana
  6. Category:Northern Region (Ghana)
  1. Category:Elmina in 2009
  2. Category: Benya River
  3. Category: Bridges in Ghana
  4. Category:Housing in Ghana
  5. Category: Roads in Ghana
  6. Category: Boats in Ghana

The fact the bridge is located in Elmina is only found in Category:Elmina in 2009, making it difficult to find images relating to Elmina. This is what I mean by unhelpful over categorization. Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem with categories in Ghana

The category Category:Shops in Ghana has been deleted even though the nomination has not reached consensus. See Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Shops in Ghana. The category should not have been deleted because it is part of a Commons Meta category Category:Shops by country and the Commons Meta category Category:Retail buildings by country. Each of these categories contains all other countries, so Ghana should be there also. The category Category:Retail in Ghana is not a replacement for this category. "Retail" is a vague term. I don't mind if the Category:Retail in Ghana" exists, but Category:Retail by country is a relatively small meta category on the Commons, without many entries from other countries and doesn't replace the Shops category. I don't understand why Category:Shops in Ghana was deleted without consensus. I spent a lot of time refining the Ghana categories because they were confusing and not in line with the way other countries use categories. A huge number of images were in Category:Commerce in Ghana, not categorized as to place or type. Almost all images were also placed in Category:Roads in Ghana, consequently also a huge category, so I removed images that didn't belong there and categorized them as to place and type of image. I created such categories as Category:Malls in Accra and Category:Malls in Ghana, Category:Buildings in Accra and many other specific categories. I think subcategories should be as specific as possible. I did this because when I tried to find images in Ghana, they were not categorized as to place and type. I also created Category:Street vendors in Ghana, as Category:Street vendors by country is a common Meta category. Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  • See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 46#Parabolooidal. I have spent several hours correcting wrong categorizations in categories and files done by this user after having contacting him to be more cautious doing it. I didn't analyse thoroughly his work in Ghana, but I remember noticing the removal of relevant categories in many files, namely those related with years. In many cases he replaces every category with just one, which may be right but it is not the only relevant cat. --Stegop (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Since Stegop is complaining here also, and I'm receiving no response in the way of help or suggestions here regarding Ghana, I will undue all my edits to Ghana categories, so that I will no longer be labeled an "abusive user". Parabolooidal (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say that all that you do is wrong. Not in Nepal and even less in Ghana, which I didn't analyze, but you should be more careful with what you do, namely by understanding the corrections done to your edits. Because mass categorizations, even with seemingly "little" mistakes are doubly costly because it involves much work of at least two persons: the first, that did the not so good categorization, and the one that comes after him/her. Note that when you replace a specific category you are often making useless the hard work of someone else. That happened in many cases in Category:Kali Gandaki Valley and related. --Stegop (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I have removed my edits to satisfy User:Katharinaiv and restored that user's categories. I won't categorize anymore images in Ghana nor create anymore categories there. I have requested that the categories I created be deleted. Parabolooidal (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Could someone who reads/writes Japanese please make contact with User:Poohmama2950 and try to orient him/her on what Commons is about? Probably well-intentioned, but every single edit so far has been either a copyvio, breaking a template, incoherent, or two or more of these at once. - Jmabel ! talk 15:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Whym, Miya, and Yasu: Can you please help out here? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 Info Although not being an admin, I dropped a quick note on his/her talk page. Yasu (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I hope that will do it. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Two questions:

  1. Is it normal when een nominator/administrator is corrected by a fellow administrator (see here and here) the first administrator then used her competence as administrator to remove this three images File:EYE en toren Overhoeks Amsterdam.jpg, File:Toren Overhoeks Amsterdam.jpg, File:Amsterdam 42.JPG and replaced them by a blurred version with the comment "blur out copyright violation"?
  2. Is that a correct use of her authority?

Gouwenaar (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's not invent too much drama here. While it is true that the creative buildings in File:EYE en toren Overhoeks Amsterdam.jpg are very likely covered by FOP-NL, the large exhibition poster on one of the buildings (File:Toren Overhoeks Amsterdam.jpg) is rather not covered by FOP-NL, as it does not fulfil the requirement " permanently". So, blurring-out the possibly infringing part is a clever solution to avoid deletion of the image. --Túrelio (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
See also the discussion here. Natuur12 (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Túrelio, I prefer deletion instead of mutilation. Gouwenaar (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Using admin rights to push one's own private view in an edit war is a kind of rights abuse that should not be played down, but sternly dealt with. While File:Toren Overhoeks Amsterdam.jpg may indeed not be covered by FOP-NL, the images File:EYE en toren Overhoeks Amsterdam.jpg and File:Amsterdam 42.JPG certainly are and these photos should therefore be restored to their original versions. Wutsje 14:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I really wonder why you and JurgenNL think that the latter 2 images are covered by FOP-NL. IMO they are not, as the exhibition poster on the building is hardly permanently installed, which is a requirement for FOP. Of course, the image/artwork on the exhibition poster might be in the public domain. But I see no evidence of this. --Túrelio (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe that they argue that the buildings are covered by FOP and that the poster is DM. Am I correct Jurgen and Wutsje? Natuur12 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
That's correct. Gouwenaar (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Wutsje 17:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I created a DR for this image: Commons:Deletion requests/File:EYE en toren Overhoeks Amsterdam.jpg‎. At least, if it appears that it is OK, we can keep it as a reference. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Túrelio: You're dodging the question whether it's allowed for an admin to use her admin rights to push her personal view in an edit war about an image which clearly shouldn't have been blurred without any form of discussion. @Yann: thanks. Wutsje 17:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Wusje, in order to evaluate the claimed rights-abuse correctly, it's relevant to have its premises clear, i.e. copyvio or no copyvio. Anyway, as I am busy in RL and can't help to guess some possible underlying inner-NL conflict, I retire myself from this discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no underlying inner-NL conflict so don't worry :). Natuur12 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


User:Tm is harassing me and has accused me of vandalism.

This user has consistently edit warred to include an incorrect version at File:East Ukraine conflict.png.

He has edit warred against: User:Merecive, User:Alex1961, and now myself. He did so after I politely asked him to stop edit warring and to use the talk page, which he ignored completely. I provided a solid source showing that the rebel leader admitted the DNR is surrounded, and that several towns were now the site of heavy fighting between the sides, but he reverted to an incorrect older version anyway.

I ask that this user be blocked on account of continuous edit warring/COM:OWN issues, refusing to discuss his changes, and (of course) adding incorrect material. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - 1 week. User was warned. Doesn't respond to messages but continues to revert. If he continues after this block he will be blocked for a longer time. Natuur12 (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit war over football kits

between Rizky Iconia (talk · contribs) and apparently various sockpuppets of blocked user Futbase (talk · contribs). Somebody please deal with this pointless back-and-forth. Lupo 10:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked some socks. I am protecting the file. I can be opened upon request without any problems. Rizky Iconia got a warning on his talk page as well. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Blocked some more and added one more waring to the conflicting parties. Also in general a kit created without Logos should not be overwritten with a Kit containing Logos as not all projects permit this under fair use. --Denniss (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Afghansia

Goes around creating useless categories with bizarre non-English names (see Special:Contributions/Afghansia). Needs a warning (possibly in his native language, if anybody can figure out what that is), and deletion of the bogus categories... AnonMoos (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories nuked, referred user to the sandbox. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing my username from முஹம்மது அம்மார் to Mohammed Ammar

My account is unified login account. As I renamed my account in other projects, please rename it as "Mohammed Ammar". Thank you--முஹம்மது அம்மார் (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

User:NigelHowells

This brand new user is creating nonsense DRs, probably just trolling. Ultra7 (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this is already solved. Natuur12 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

IP adding election spam to files

This user is adding election comments to files in the Fredericksburg, VA area. Have reverted some but he/she continues to add spam to others. Thanks, We hope (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No longer spamming just these files, but others. Please block-seems to be here to campaign on Commons. We hope (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done IP got a 2 week break. The election in Fredericksburg, VA is on 4. Nov 2014. I changed the block to expire on the 5th. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like he/she won't have any need to campaign here after that! :) Thanks, We hope (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Leopard2014 is likely another sockpuppet of Григорий225. See also COM:Deletion requests/File:Крушение поезда в московском метро 15.07.2014.jpg. YLSS (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - blocked him indef. Looks like a duck to me. Maybe Jameslwoodward wants to do a follow up CU since he did one of the previous CU's? Natuur12 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Marito nico

I blocked Marito nico (talk · contribs) for 3 months for copyvios (2nd block). All his uploads probably need a review. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Soccer kits revert war

There's still a slow-moving revert war going on on soccer kits. See e.g. [21] and check the file histories of the soccer kits there. Also looks like block evasion by Rizky Iconia (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log reappearing as Rizky Shaimoery (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log. Lupo 17:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the main account Rizky Iconia indef, considering this latest sock is atleast the 4th sock he's used. The above sock Rizky Shaimoery had on it's userpage "back soon," so more socking is likely. @Magog the Ogre: , @Trijnstel: , @Tiptoety: CU may be needed here. INeverCry 19:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
See Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rizky Iconia ;). Thanks for changing block btw. Natuur12 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I wonder who's sock Tonse12 is? I also noticed that the post above this one concerns kits... INeverCry 20:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Tonse12 is also a sock. Hold tight - I'm running checks and have a few more socks to block. Эlcobbola talk 21:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Lanuskit, Ficheirokits, Interkits, Jooooooao, Juventusfans, RMFA12, Tinhaleiras, Tubler123, Uruguayana2.0, and Vakovakovako were also socks and are now blocked. Category:Sockpuppets of Futbase should now be populated with all known socks. Эlcobbola talk 21:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Corkythehornetfan

Corkythehornetfan's constantly been uploading copyright-problematic images, whether too complex for PD-simple, PD-USGov not supported by source, or obvious copyvios. This isn't something new, either; the images I linked are all recent uploads, but https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Lyon_County,_Kansas&action=history shows a lot of images being deleted last November after Corky added them, while the last three edits there consist of Corky adding two photos, which then get removed by bots after they're deleted here. The images I linked are unambiguously problems with Corky, and while I suppose it's possible that he was just adding links on the National Register list to bad images uploaded by other people, it's not at all likely. As this user's contributions are full of copyright issues, I expect a long-duration or indefinite block to be in order. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The logos I only upload if they are marked Copy to Commons on the English Wikipedia. Otherwise, I won't do it. As for the photos, it'd be nice if the users here could be more helpful and not rude and just say that it's been nominated for deletion. It'd be nice to have them say "Hey, could you please find a license for this photo, please." If you notice it, just tell me and not report me. I don't intend to do it on purpose, just that I'm not sure. How do I find a license? No one can be nice and help out without me asking... if it is a reoccurring problem, maybe try helping the users out and give them suggestions. CorkythehornetfanTalk 23:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
You're continuously uploading photographs and tagging them as being Creative Commons licensed, or as being in the public domain, when they're quite obviously not that. Remember: in no case is an image CC licensed unless there's a statement with the image releasing it! And we can never tag something as being PD-USGov without an explicit statement that it's a work of the US federal government. The problem isn't that you're failing to identify the correct license: it's that you're claiming that all-rights-reserved images carry Commons-acceptable licensing or that they're in the public domain. Permit me to suggest that you upload no photographs whatsoever, except for ones that you've taken yourself, until you understand the situation better. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. I'll stop uploading photographs, as long as I won't be blocked. Is it okay if I still transfer files from the English Wikipedia if they have a Copy to Commons tag? CorkythehornetfanTalk 02:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I have nothing against you personally; if you're willing to do that, I won't object. Please remember the warnings at {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} regarding eligibility here: you mustn't assume that an image is suitable here just because someone else has tagged it with this template. Please continue uploading things that are just plain text, but please be careful with things with originally arranged text (example), since they really are eligible for copyright protection. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I know, you're just doing your job on here... I respect that. Is the example photo you mentioned Copyrightable? If so, I'll move it back to Eng. Wikipedia and request for it to be deleted on here. CorkythehornetfanTalk 04:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This does, tangentially, raise another issue, which we would need to primarily address at en.wp, but could maybe be somehow helped here, too? (after all, we're all on the same team...)
{{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} is applied by some users on a large scale, without enough care. Yes, there is a subsequent duty of care on the user transferring it, but the combination leads to the horrible scenario, which does happen:

  • Image exists at en.wp and is in use.
  • Image gets tagged "Move to Commons", when it should be best kept as fair use
  • Image is moved without proper consideration of that, by a user who thinks they are helping by moving files in a backlogged category, with "official" looking tags
  • Image is deleted at en.wp as now redundant
  • Image subsequently deleted at Commons (as non-free usually...)
  • Big hole in article, missing image that could still be fair use at en.wp but now exists nowhere.

We should probably look at ways to make that scenario less likely to cause harm (even if that harm can be fixed by reuploading to en.wp - that may not be an easy remedy/procedure understood by all good faith users, and requires access to the deleted image or another copy). Begoon - talk 16:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In the past, w:Template:MTC was added to lots of files by bots operated by Commons admins User:Fastily and User:Sven Manguard, based only on templates which were present on the file information pages. Later, User:Piandcompany continued with this bot tagging. More recently, User:Sfan00 IMG has tagged lots of files manually, but errors do not seem to be too uncommon in his tags. For example, some images may be deleted on English Wikipedia per COM:NETCOPYRIGHT.
I think that we have three ways to go further:
  • Continue tagging all files which are marked as free in both the United States and the source country with w:Template:MTC. In this case, the template should maybe be modified to more clearly stress the need for review before transfer.
  • Only tag files which are clearly free in both the United States and the source country, and only tag files after a careful review. Is there any point in doing this? If I carefully review the copyright status of a file, then moving it to Commons takes only minimally more time than tagging it with w:Template:MTC, so it is better to move the file to Commons immediately instead.
  • Remove all "move to Commons" tags.
This is maybe more of a problem on English Wikipedia than on Commons, though. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK bot tagged files set an additional template parameter which adds a red box cautioning any would-be transferees to thoroughly cross-examine the contents of any file bearing said tag. IMO no need for a block of Corkythehornetfan, they don't seem to have acted in bad faith; fwiw borked transfers are easily reversible within a few clicks. -FASTILY 03:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

GilboNormand

In spite of deletions and warnings @GilboNormand: keeps on uploading deleted images, such as this one. Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 06:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked for a week. Indeed, no useful content from this user. Yann (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
GilboNormand asked for unblock in the userpage and I unblocked him, considering his explanation. If he uploads next photo about himself, feel free to reblock. Taivo (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I blocked Gunduu (talk · contribs). He blanked many pages. Before that he seemed to be a normal user. After I blocked him here, he switched to English Wikipedia and got blocked there too. Account might be compromised. Feel free to unblock when appropriate. Multichill (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The block reason seems inappropriate to me. This user always contributed in a positive way to this project and blocking him as a vandalism only account is imho offensive. The block reason given here makes much more sense. Please change the block reason to something more accurate because this is not a vandalism-only account. Using the correct block reason is important and sloppy blocking is not okay. A block is justified in this occasion but the correct reason has to be provided. Natuur12 (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I have changed the blocking reason. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Natuur12 (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User Brucebruce

The user User:Brucebruce keeps uploading copyrighted porn images from various porn sites, marking them with pornographic texts on german (unuseful comments in discriptions field, e.g. "Weil sie geil ist" = "Because she's horny"). No use for wikipedia commons & repeating copyright infringement --Grunpfnul (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Substanciate your accusations instead of hearsaying, and please nominate his images by a DR instead of speedy deletions as you did in:
Tm (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I've undeleted these after Tm raised this on my talk page. I do have doubts about the uploader, some of the images had hits (using Google and TinEye) but just because those sites pick-up lower resolution, doesn't mean that no higher resolution exists elsewhere (if a site disallows search engine bots via robot.txt, then it will not be displayed). I also fail to see a valid argument with these been "educational" (DR]) and I do wonder why the uploader has a unwillingness to email OTRS. I think a single DR for the whole images is needed. Bidgee (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I deleted one. Porn images without proper information raise sufficient doubt to meet speedy deletion. It can be undeleted if permission comes. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Yann, you deleted File:Pregnant woman with shaved vagina.jpg three hours after your fellow admin Bidgee found reasons to undelete it. You guys sure give us the impression that this business of file deletion is way more serious than a coin toss. -- Tuválkin 08:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Brucebruce himself blanked the page, removing all relevant information regarding copyright (the source and the license). Regards, Yann (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Yann, so Brucebruce himself blanked a page — a blanking that can (and should!) be trivially undone by any user. That blanking doesn’t change the fact that Commons has and agreed-on scope and that CC licenses are not revokable. What’s your point again? -- Tuválkin 11:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
He probably blanked the page because the license and source were wrong. Also this image does not have EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I’m guessing that you refer to File:Pregnant woman with shaved vagina.jpg (I’ll move this exchange into the proper place in the thread, then), an image you can visualize and I cannot. I suppose this image is distinctly different from the rest, in terms of model (this one is a pregnant lady while the others’ is not), lighting, etc, so that its lack of EXIF cannot be waived, yes? Those reasons for deleting it after Bidgee found it okay should be recorded somewhere — a closed DR would be fine, if only you didn’t when all speedy on it. -- Tuválkin 01:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The matter of possible copyvio is moot after the uploader was able to produce hitherto unpublished images obviously shot in the same session. That gave us data to research on (EXIF, file structure, and contents of each photo) and makes better proof than OTRS.
Once the copyvio suspicion is dropped, all we have left to delete these on is scope. Now, some people feel that naked ladies are yucky, but that doesn’t give them any reason to misuse AN/U to air their grievances. I suggest Grunpfnul should be given some time off to read COM:SCOPE and COM:PORN, to pen an apology to Brucebruce for dragging his name to AN/U and for calling him a pornographer and a copyright violator, and, maybe, to go over to Conservapedia and consider his options there, where this kind of “smut” is, I hear, severely repressed.
-- Tuválkin 08:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I surely have no problem with naked ladys and you should change the style of your argumentation - the face of the lady is truely viewable, so where is the model release for this sort of picture? Has she agreed to be uploaded on wikipedia commons, spread wide open? You should calm down and think about it. I don't see a model release here for this sort of publication. --Grunpfnul (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Grunpfnul, my style of argumentation is just fine. You, on the other hand, need to not intersperse you comments inside other peoples’, respect previous DRs and file new ones only when and as appropriate, and really not abuse the AN/U for these unrelated matters. You need to close this thread here, and then go and file a new DR for all these images of Brucebruce where you address the lack of expressed consent of the model, instead of bogus copyright violation claims in an AN page. -- Tuválkin 01:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Acceleron124 is a vandal

Acceleron124 deleted the text of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikipedia_Summer_of_Monuments page and replaced it with "wiki look at the poop" and an image of feces. For further information, check the rev history (btw sorry I made a mistake while restoring to the pre-deleted page and there are a few extra edits under my name, ryan5685)

Please ban him and his ip address. Thanks! Ryan5685, 23:49, 4 September 2014‎

✓ Done I've blocked Acceleron124 and semi-protected the page. The IPs are dynamic, so blocks aren't really worthwhile. INeverCry 01:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Almost all edits from this account since it was created on 27 August have been clearly disruptive. This includes using image annotations to make unhelpful comments which have had to be reverted by others and two false deletion requests, one for a non-existent copyright violation and another claiming an image is an attack page. -- (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done User blocked, DRs speedy kept/closed. INeverCry 07:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Keeps uploading copyright violations and adding them to IT Wikipedia, even after more than 10 warnings, one for to each copyright violation. Tm (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And to add up even tried to delete this thread. Tm (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I've nuked her uploads and will leave a warning message on her talk page. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this an ok edit? On one hand, the user is free to think what they want; on the other hand, to me it sounds at least borderline offensive, and Commons is not really a place to demonstrate their political convictions, so that I am really in doubt. The user was previously blocked for a month for harassment.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the offensive statement and warned the user. INeverCry 22:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh great. If it is a minor issue that a regular user uses their page for off-topic soap-boxing, it becomes huge if an admin intervenes. INeverCry, expect to be bombarded by reports of thousands of such user-page borderline misuses — you’ll be expected to act the same way for each of them: Censor and warn, censor and warn, censor and warn — and the moment you stop doing it, you’ll be taken to AN/U. As I said below, it is better to leave it as it is. -- Tuválkin 23:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

This user costumized the Babel box about Russian in his/her profile to say that although he/she has a good level (ru-3) however he/she doesn’t want to use the language of agressors and occupiers. I think this should be left alone: It is true that this could be construed as a misuse of a user page — after all this modified ru-3 babel box gives the same practical result as ru-0 or no ru at all, strictly considering only the interests of the project (in this case, that users are able to select the best choice in languages for p2p communication). However, if this kind of strict enforcement of user-page-as-a-project-tool aganist user-page-as-an-area-of-self-expression is going to happend as a rule, it is going to be bad; if this kind of strict enforcement is going to affect only a few selected users, it is going to be even worse. -- Tuválkin 23:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
My only intention in removing it was to try and prevent Commons from being a hostile enviornment. I would be willing to do the same thing with any similar reported case, regardless of the user's nationality or what country/people is being disparaged. INeverCry 16:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. I just did what I thought was the right thing to do. INeverCry 16:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hemant Shesh

Hi, Hemant Shesh (talk · contribs) has already a lot of warnings for copyvios, and some of the remaining are still suspicious. Help with reviewing would be nice. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hemant Shesh... not easy because he has already uploaded many of his photos elsewhere, mostly to his panoramio –⁠moogsi (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:RomanM82

Resolved

RomanM82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) nominated for deletion photos, which I uploaded. He doesn't like their quality and thinks that it gives him a right for nominate my photos for deletion. I think that the actions of RomanM82 are destructive. Please, try to explain him the rules of Commons. --Interfase (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. From hundreds of your pictures, I nominated some dozen or two of them, which are blurry, ovelighted, or dark etc. We should keep some minimum standard of quality on Commons, or at least i think so. And thank you for telling on me on admin board ;)--RomanM82 (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Where was it written in Commons that the photos with poor quality must be deleted? --Interfase (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:EDUSE. See Commons:Project_scope#Examples, at bottom:

Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.

INeverCry 21:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done No action necessary. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Mass upload of copyvios

Resolved

Hi everyone. I'm hopping over from en.wiki following a user who's just created a page copied from a press release on a town's website. I see that they've also uploaded a slew of images that are all copyrighted to the website (for example, here's one). I'm not familiar with common's policies so I'm just going to leave this here for you. Dusti*poke* 19:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Nuked (c)vios, left info on talk page --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: - I see there are several still up. Dusti*poke* 21:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
True. No hits on google and all taken with the same camera. Do you have evidence that there is copyright infringement? Let me know and I'll deal with the remaining uploads accordingly. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Admin role

Is it appropriate for an admin to, after nominating a file for deletion, but having the discussion not go his or her way, delete a file him or herself, ignoring the discussion points? I think not. (The admin in question refuses to discuss the issue, though I brought it up using exactly those words, claiming that the question is hostile!) --Elvey (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please name the admin and file in question, and notify them on their talk of this AN/U post? INeverCry 01:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I just asked how could I improve one image [22] based on his talk here; and the volunteer freak out, I even tried to call him back [23], but he start to screaming ([24] [25][26]...), saying that I should be blocked, and no sense things like:"Thanks, very friendly, and very friendly with the absurd link."[27] (I explain to him that the link is about his suggestion and is one version of the same image [28]...) "YOU CAN'T DELETE MY COMMENTS OR YOUR COMMENTS" (yep, upper case, and can't I remove my comments, or abuses of public space?), and he his using a request to a evaluation of quality a image to attack me, just because I request better information to improve the quality of the images that I share here... Actually I don't send images for evaluation because of this drama queens, I just send there because no one answered me here.

And yes, I remove his comments (and my) in the Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list, but just his "non technical" comments that is just attacks or scream and do not ad to the discussion. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Forget me, please--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 21:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't saw that User:Smial, I'm very sorry Lmbuga, I receive wikimsgs by email and I just saw this [30], and I came here.
I became so frustrated after I asked one opinion and the person was so aggressive, that I couldn't waste more time on that, so didn't read anything above "Peço distância, por favor: Forget Me. I'm not your guy or your queen. RESPECT"
I was hopping that you could remove that trahstalk on QI page, and move on. Peace. Sorry again, and I will try to follow what you said. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Blackcat