Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention

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

Shortcut: [[:]]

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports@wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency@wikimedia.org.

Vandalism
[new section] 		User problems
[new section] 		Blocks and protections
[new section] 		Other
[new section]

Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.


Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.


Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.


Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.

Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Translate this page

This page is for any user to request administrator attention. Please feel free to post a new request. Remember to sign and date all contributions, using "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp.

Admins: once you've dealt with a request, please make a note of it to save other admins the time.

State Religions SVG is incorrect

Not sure if this is the correct place for me to post. The file 'File:State_Religions.svg' is incorrect as it shows Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland as having a State Religion. These do not have a State Religion, only England. The SVG is based on 'State Religions.png', which is correct.

I've created a new version, 'File:State_Religions_new.svg', which is correct. Could someone with the authority update the orginal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen P Simpson (talk • contribs) 14:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, long time ago by someone else. --Martin H. (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BoomBoomPow (talk · contribs)

All uploads to date have either been deleted as copyvios or are tagged as copyvios. Has been warned, but continues to upload since the warning.

Note that I believe this is the commons account of an editor who is indefinitely blocked on en.wiki yet continues to operate sock puppet accounts; I have little confidence that a block will at commons will permanently stop this editor, but it may make tackling its behaviour easier.

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - no obvious puppets, thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like YesYesYesJAIHO (talk · contribs) is a new sock of BoomBoomPaw - uploads are similar topics, one's already been deleted as a copyvio, I suspect the other upload is also a copyvio but haven't had time to look for it yet, and the uploaded images are being user by socks of the en.wiki user "Nimbley6" - as BoomBoomPaw's uploads were previously. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and BoyzDaQuerchoclate (talk · contribs), based on similar uploads (album and single covers) and the poor spelling at Category:The Macdoanld Brothers. I'm not sure why the sock puppeteer has created a new username; YesYesYesJAIHO (talk · contribs) hasn't been blocked. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SUPERSEDING IS NOT ALLOWED

(all caps, i know, this is like the third time i post it here and some people still don't seem to get it)
I'm getting tired of admins not getting the fact that superseding is not allowed. Please stop doing this. Multichill (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, in some cases, superseded images can be deleted I believe (like an unused, low-quality photograph superseded by a similar photograph of the exact same thing, after a decision taken in regular DR). What you point out is superseded images used as source for other images, or where the superseding version is in another format? Also, your title is misleading, it is encouraged, I think, to "supersede" an existing raster with a good quality vector image, that's the deletion which is not allowed, right? --Eusebius (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Multichill is talking about the deletions, not the superseding itself. Of course it's nice to do a vector version of a raster and use that on Wikimedia projects, we shouldn't however delete the raster version because it is notoriously hard for many reusers to use a vector image (copy-paste into a Word document doesn't work, for example). Multichill, here's something for you, relax :). Patrícia msg 09:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm talking about the speedy deletions. Take for example File:Wappen Gutenswegen.jpg or File:Wappen burg.jpg. Multichill (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a regular deletion process is required for superseded images. There are many non-trivial cases in this area which make a discussion necessary. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems really strange to me to not delete a manifestly inferior version of a bitmap after a new version is uploaded, especially considering the general slowness of our deletion process. Nevertheless I'll try to stick to this... Dcoetzee (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a thread at AN requesting that more admins step up and do their share of drudgery (now at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 14#Admins), I started servicing {{Badname}} requests. Not {{Superseded}}, {{Badname}}. In the very first batch I did, not being experienced in this area, I fell for a misuse of the badname template. The result of my newb error: a nasty, highhanded lecture on my talk page, and some shouting over here for good measure. I certainly won't be making that mistake again... you can guess why. Hesperian 13:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Farid (talk · contributions · Statistics)

copyrighted maps (again)?

-- 85.177.42.26 05:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much probably copyvios. Yann (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template loops in transcluded Info Pages

The Info Pages (Category:Info Pages) seem to be messed up in the image pages that are using them. E.g. File:Yamatotrials.jpg, File:Britannic hospital.jpg, File:Sixteen-inch guns of the USS Iowa firing.jpg. Basically, a template loop is detected in their transclusions. Can anyone fix this please? Jappalang (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchians (talk · contribs) has had multiple upload issues on en:Wikipedia, and I notice that many of the images we are deleting were also uploaded here. I don't know my way around Commons well enough yet, but the uploads should probably be checked out by someone who does. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed at File:Jeffrey Earl Habay.jpg

I uploaded a CC-By image I found from Picasa, and I am not sure if there is something else I should do.

I know if you upload a free flickr picture, you can tag it as such for the flickerreviewbot (or whatever). I can't find a similar one for Picasa pictures. As you can see here, the image is freely licensed. Can an administrator or trusted user do something to certify that this was uploaded properly? --Blargh29 (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, license is ok and the Picasa user is certainly the author. I just saw on Picasa the photo information on the left side and that there is a 600px version. We dont have a review process for Picasa yet. --Martin H. (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miarchivo40k.jpg

I think it is pretty obvious, the image has watermarks that say "all right reserved" and the copyright holder's name too.

Creo que es bastante obvio, la imagen tiene marcas de agua que dicen "todos los derechos reservados" así como el nombre del portador de los derechos de autor.--Darolu (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

half closed deletion request

Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Aircraft carriers of Invincible class.jpg--85.177.47.53 06:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some bug with the "my preferences" page

ResolvedI no longer see the error, and the options are retained. Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing

* TypeError: tabs[JSconfig.meta[key].page] has no properties http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=-&action=raw&smaxage=0&gen=js&useskin=monobook (292)

at the top of the page, and I cannot save the options in my Appearance tab (to be clearer, the interface says they are saved but when I return to the tab, the options are at default again). Jappalang (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Profsherman claims that File:Atlantis City wall.jpg is "Own work by uploader". However, the figure is clearly part of the "Discovery of Atlantis" web page at Sonar Images of Atlantis figure. Profsherman fails to provide any documentation that he is the either owner of or otherwise connected the "Discovery of Atlantis" web page in a manner that he or she can claim ownership of this figure.Cristellaria (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for deletion, I hope we get some feedback from the uploader. Sv1xv (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After I blocked him for edit-warring and personal attacks, he emailed me asking for help. If he is who he says he is, then there is no problem but I don't know what exactly he has to do to - other than change his behavior completely to avoid an indef block, his unblock request was another attack on an editor, and his edits besides being COI were pretty dire, he clearly didn't understand what Wikipedia is. Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he does not want to show his full details on the image description page, he may use the OTRS system. He only needs to send an e-mail message from his business address under his full name and explain the situation. Sv1xv (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history undeletion

Would someone undelete the history of Category:Ticino and Category:Lake Zurich? I'd like to see how it was renamed. -- en:User:Docu/User:Docu 18 June 2009

Deletions requests...

There's about a six month backlog of deletion requests for images. I posted a request May 14, and it's still there, along with at least 50 requests from May alone, plus stuff going back to January, IIRC. Could an admin or twenty start clearing the backlog? Thanks! MSJapan (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There really ought to be a way to "relist" requests to the most recent log, like they do at enwiki AfD. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All that's done there is to change which page is transcluded to - why can't the same be done here? Wknight94 talk 18:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Possible Copyright Violation with [Robert Sarmast] article

I had a few minutes and out of curiousity, I did a Googles image search for "Robert Sarmast". On the first page of the Google Image search results was the image that User:Profsherman claims to be his "Own work by uploader" at File:Robert Sarmast.jpg is exactly the same picture found in Robert Sarmast Biography and Robert sarmast Picture. This appears to be another copyright violation by Profsherman in the [Robert Sarmast] article Cristellaria (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock puppets abusing wp and commons

Please see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarahjjohnson123. Indef blocked on wp. LeadSongDog (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Abdominoplasty also. Both socks and their master have edited here on Commons too. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 13:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank15 (talk · contribs)

New user is uploading copyrighted photos from panoramio etc. with interesting licensing. feydey (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious uploads, at the very least. Yann (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardoaguilarcubillos (talk · contribs)

Anyone want to go though all the "own work" by the user... feydey (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious uploads, at the very least. Yann (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement of content

Repoulis (talk · contribs) had replaced images, like File:Violinist.jpg and File:Clown.jpg, disrespecting the previous content and upload images that may not be in project scope. This user has a long list of uploaded files missing a license tag. Please check this issue.--Sdrtirs (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted and deleted his out-of-scope drawings, and warned this user. Yann (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This problem surely resulted from the extremely generic filenames of both images. I've ordered both to be renamed. --Túrelio (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Legrain files

This user have uploaded a lot of screenshots of their accounting application, Epicea plus some Windows screenshots (with some copyrighted material like icons) for configuration issues software-related, writing them sometimes on the top of older pictures.

Are they in the Commons project scope? I doubt of they educative value.

Why they've uploaded those pictures is to use on their own wiki, so they use Commons as personal images hosting service. --Dereckson (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yohanna.jpg

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I would be very grateful if any Admin could help me with uploading an image since I am new please! You visit this page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ashanm10 where I am desperately in need of help. If you could just upload this image and put it on the wikepedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yohanna

This is all I want Thank You

If you want my password as well ask me!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashanm10 (talk • contribs) 21. Juni 2009, 13:28 Uhr (UTC)

Hi Ashanm10,
sorry, but this image is a copyvio from here. Images on MySpace are not free, as they need to be to be uploaded to Commons. In addition, this image carries a clear in-image (C) note from a professional photographer[1]. So, either you get a written permission from the rights holder or it will be deleted soon. --Túrelio (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So where could I find a permission or should I find the same image from another site and upload again so you could see please. Does this mean I should get a permission from the photographer in some way? How do i get this written permission? (I know I am aggravating you sorry). Can I edit it in like photoshop or something to make it my own image? Could you help me?

(moved to here from my talkpage to keep the discussion at one place)
@Ashamn10,
no, it would not help to find the same image somewhere else, because now we know that it is copyrighted. We would have assumed that anyway, because it looks like a professional-made promo photo. Of course, you can try to ask the photographer if he grants you the image in a lower resolution under a free license - though it is unlikely. Under Commons:Email templates you can find a text template to ask a rights holder for permission. But it would be more promising for you, to go to a concert and shoot a photo of the artist by yourself or to look if there is a free (licensed CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, but not CC-NC or CC-ND) photo of her on Flickr. And please sign your comments with --~~~~. Cheers. --Túrelio (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Can I edit it in like photoshop ... to make it my own image" - oh, oh, oh. @Ashanm10, when you take an image originally shot by someone else who didn't release it under a free license (and being in the internet does not translate into "free license"!) and upload it to Commons claiming it to be under a free license, you are commiting a criminal act and in addition you are endangering Commons and anybody else who believes you and re-uses this image somewhere else, only to be sued for copyright infringement by the rights holder. Please study Commons:Image casebook very thoroughly to understand what you can upload here and what not. --Túrelio (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You :P Very Sorry for everything By the way this artist has some photos of her own on myspace. Could i upload those? I might find on Flickr too but I will have a problem with the licencing so I will upload and show them to you my friend and then you could help me if everything is ok. tHANK yOU I will upload soon!

MySpace is not a good idea, because the content of MySpace is generally copyrighted and images on MySpace usually don't have any information about copyright (your image was an exception) or licensing. Remember, missing information about copyright does not mean "it's free", but to the contrary. Of course, you could contact the artist directly, say that you need a good photo of her to illustrate a Wikipedia article and ask her if she could provide one under a free license (not just "for Wikipedia"). That would require that she really has the rights of that photo and would then send a written permission as explained above. And please sign your comments with --~~~~ --Túrelio (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Ok here is another image http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=109198477&albumID=483668&imageID=2332257 Could you tell me if this is ok and if i should upload iT SO I CAN proceed to uploading

@Ashamn10,
do you ever read what I wrote?
In doubt, read again what I wrote above about MySpace.
Did you see anything like "image licensed under Creative-Commons-BY" or similar on MySpace?
Or did you read the note "©2003-2009 MySpace.com. All rights reserved" at the bottom of the MySpace website?
And for the third time now: sign all your comments with --~~~~
--Túrelio (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent this artist a direct message but it will take a few days so i will proceed with other photos until then. There is a promo image of hers on Flickr by someone and I would like to ask If could use that one maybe? http://www.flickr.com/photos/26777958@N05/3292581124 This is it Thank You

Didn't you see the (C) All rights reserved to the right of the image on Flickr? And there is the same problem with http://www.flickr.com/photos/olafur/3487619148/. You are allowed to upload to Commons only Flickr images that are licensed CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. --13:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)~

Ok First of all what is this for --Ashanm10 (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC) and where do i put it?(I will put it at the end) Sorry for bothering you. However I will still send you some more images and tell you to check them kindly please. If none are ok I give up or if I could compensate you sometime you could be very grateful to go through this artists photos (you can enjoy I ensure you :P) and find me the ones that are ok for uploading[reply]

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewAlbums&friendID=109198477 http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=J%C3%B3hanna%20Gu%C3%B0r%C3%BAn%20J%C3%B3nsd%C3%B3ttir&w=all&s=int

How about from Google Images or from some random site?

Is this why you havent uploaded any images for some pages and this artists? Because you couldnt find non-copyrighted? Thank You A lot --Ashanm10

I would also like to inform you that in the past when I was on the wikipedia page of this artist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3hanna_Gu%C3%B0r%C3%BAn_J%C3%B3nsd%C3%B3ttir there was this image from myspace which was approved 3 months ago http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=109198477&albumID=2136265&imageID=34419030

Thank You --Ashanm10

Just in case you dont answer Mr.Turelio thank you for everything and all the time you spent trying to help me. I think I might just stop trying to upload an image of this artist unless I dont find something and if you tell me that all those images dont work. If I need something I will contact you. Thank You very much --Ashanm10

✓ Done - finding free imagery of one particular artist is realy nothing for the Administrator noticeboard. @Ashanm10: You must find a photographer who is willings to release his/her economic rights on his photographic work under a free license with the wording you can see in Commons:Email templates. That means: No Google Images, no random images from other sites without this permission. Ok? And now EOD, this is not the place for discussion, go to COM:HD in case of questions. --Martin H. (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Backlog

this is a small backlog for approving users to use MediaMoveBot (Aka Image renaming) Betacommand 12:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foto Kikillo FS Zamora - Alberto Peña 2009.jpg

Hi! This football (soccer) player photo has logos on his shirt, which most probably copyrighted but I'm unsure if it meets Commons:Freedom of panorama, if is needed to add {{Trademarked}} or it's a copyvio.--Sdrtirs (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with freedom of panorama, but de minimis seems to apply in this case. –Tryphon☂ 08:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is de minimis, FoP does not apply. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Logos are not the problem. This user had uploaded files from 4 or 5 different cameras, I found two of them on other websites and delted them including this one, therefore marked as missing source. --Martin H. (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restricting library of pics

I gave permission to someone to use my pictures on wikipedia as he wished. (EG http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mark_Schwarzer.jpg&filetimestamp=20080905014403#filelinks) However because of changing commercial circumstances, I now wish to restrict that to pictures taken before January 1, 2009.

How do I got about changing my CC approval accordingly?

Thanks,

Kevin Airs 203.214.54.133 04:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin, you don't. CC licenses are irrevocable. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any image which has already been released under a Creative Commons licence is now irrevocably under that licence, so you can't change that. What you can do, however, is stop licencing your new photos under a CC licence. To do that, send an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and tell them that the previous agreement won't hold for your future photos. Pruneautalk 13:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for your help, pruneau. Email sent and advice greatly appreciated. ChrisiPK, you were no help at all. Thanks. 124.168.251.93 16:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect deletion of photo in very timely en:Neda Agha-Soltan article

Later note: The article in question is now called en:Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. I updated the wikilinks below because en:Neda Agha-Soltan is now a different article. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns an ultra-high profile article: en:Death of Neda Agha-Soltan

Please see

The following is copied from there:

File talk:آقا سلطان.jpg

Hello. Did you read the talk page? This is a different photo from the BBC one. People must have visited the grave site, and the uploader said they took the photo. The uploader also wrote a description in the Persion language. The photo was being used on this article page: en:Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. See this version of the article:

This is a different photo than the photo in this BBC article:

Look at the top left side of the BBC article photo. It has an additional gravestone than in the photo you deleted here. The photo here is larger, and so the BBC photo can't be a cropped version of this photo.

Could another admin please undelete this photo right away, and add back the photo and caption to the article. Please see this diff:

The photo and caption wikitext are in that diff. It goes at the top of the "Aftermath" section. See:

The deletion looks legitimate because the image uploaded here is derived from exactly the same photo as the BBC have. It isn't a different photo, rather a different crop of the same photo. The question we need to answer is where does the BBC photo come from. Adambro (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not sure but I don't think we can really say with any confidence whether this uploader can release this image under a free licence. Adambro (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this article:
Family, friends mourn 'Neda,' Iranian woman who died on video. By Borzou Daragahi. Los Angeles Times. June 23, 2009.
It is very dangerous right now in Iran to speak out concerning her. Relatives and associates are very afraid to publicly talk to the media.
So when someone uploads a photo we should believe them when they say took the photo unless we have proof otherwise. That is what we normally do anyway for almost all other photos uploaded to the Commons. This is not the BBC article photo. The uploader used both Persian and English in their description. That adds some more credibility. So until it is shown that this is a copyrighted photo, then it isn't a copyrighted photo. We shouldn't be discouraging people from uploading at this critical time.
Also, on Wikipedia we can't use Fair Use unless it is a copyrighted photo, or otherwise non-free photo that can't be used on the Commons. Since it is not a copyrighted photo or non-free photo, then we can't use Fair Use.
Normally deletion requests take at least 7 days, and this speedy deletion was unjustified. We need to give this person time to figure out CC licenses. But when there is war/revolution/repression occurring then we need to use our normal weeks-long deletion process.
And most importantly, we shouldn't be discouraging people in Iran from uploading their photos!!!! --Timeshifter (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the other image this user uploaded (File:Neda2.JPG) is quite clearly a copyright violation, I am less inclined to believe they are in a position to release this image. Adambro (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose quite clearly a copyright violation isn't completely accurate. I don't know who made the video that File:Neda2.JPG is a screenshot of but I suspect it was probably a citizen journalist rather than CNN so their logo doesn't mean that much. However, if the uploader was the copyright holder of that video, why didn't they upload that screenshot without the CNN logo since they'd have the original? Adambro (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Video stills of those videos are everywhere. We shouldn't assume that an uploader's ignorance of all our licensing rules means that some of the stuff they upload isn't their own. They claimed this photo as their own. Did they claim the video still as their own? If so, then that is a mark against their credibility, for sure. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the video screenshot was licensed {{PD-self}} and marked as own work by uploader. –Tryphon☂ 11:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/78.49.147.105

This IP (I wonder who's behind it) is using edit summaries to spread links to various discussions about Mutter Erde. I'm not sure what can/should be done about it. –Tryphon☂ 11:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who's behind it. Looks like he stopped, but should he continue, just block for a few hours (block evasion). Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I know who, and I'll follow your advice. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 11:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Continued with the same edit pattern; blocked for 6 hours. Feel free to modify the block duration to anything you see fit. –Tryphon☂ 11:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted Image (Yohanna Image.jpg)

If I give the artist the permission template to fill in could I then upload the image which is a promo one or the photographer gives the permission? Could I simply ask for permission from the artist saying I "ARTIST NAME" allow my image etc to be uploaded on wikipedia etc ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashanm10 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Hi, permission "for upload on Wikipedia" or similar is not sufficient. The photographer needs to give the permission by filling out the permission template (see Commons:Email templates). You then need to send the permission template to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) and upload the image. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that means I cant ask the artist(singer)? I have to ask the photographer? And how about her own photo then which is not promo could I ask only permission from her? --Ashanm10

You always need permission by the copyright holder. When a photographer creates a photograph, he's the copyright holder. He might, however, have sold his copyright to a third person, e.g. a singer who hired him to shoot promotional material. I don't know whether that is the case with your artist, you will have to ask. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that this depends on jurisdiction. In Australia, for example, the client automatically gains rights to the photographs barring any other prior agreement. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need an image moved/renamed if possible, else deleted

ResolvedImage tagged for renaming

I used toolserver to automatically upload a file from Flickr, and the bot gave it a name that conflicts with an entirely different image on the English Wikipedia where I intend to use it. (Didn't notice if that process gives you a chance to provide name.) Can the image be moved to another name? I don't know if that's possible, or if it would need to be deleted and reuploaded. It's currently at File:Rock Bridge.jpg and a good name would be something like "Rock Bridge State Park Missouri.jpg". Thanks. Kbh3rd (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a trusted user for image renaming, I've tagged the image for renaming to File:Rock Bridge State Park Missouri.jpg. Be patient. A bot will handle the process automatically. Cheers. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 04:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommonsDelinker is deleting images from en Wikipedia which have not been deleted

The CommonsDelinker bot has been deleting images [[2]] that were never deleted from commons (deletion request is here). Can something be done about this? Preslav (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images were deleted, hence the bot sprung into action, but were later restored. We should perhaps add a message on the restore page to ask admins to check the CommonsDelinker logs for any removals it has made so that the admin can revert them. I'll look into adding a link to the restore message. Adambro (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the recent delink logs and it looks like someone was trigger happy and soon after realized he was wrong: a bunch of images were deleted and undeleted after about half an hour. I assume the resulting mess isn't cleaned up yet. Multichill (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Files without sorce since May

Just noticed the following files have the template indicating lack of sources, but weren't removed in the date ithe template indicated (20 May 2009):

  1. File:Terramoto.jpg
  2. File:Terramoto2.jpg
  3. File:Terramoto3.jpg
  4. File:Terramoto4.jpg

Garavello (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a huge backlog in Category:Unknown. Lots of files still need to be cleaned up, so this is (unfortunately) nothing special. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:H1N1 North America Map.svg

Can someone revert this? File:H1N1 North America Map.svg - The North America map has been overwritten by a map of Mexico. 76.66.193.20 06:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 76.66.193.20 08:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Directory name's side effect

Hi,
I was going to post a msg because one thumb image didn't display while a full resolution is displaying normaly. But I notice the directory of the image was containing "/ad/" in the hierarchy name. In fact, it was blocked by my Firefox extention Adblock Plus, so some images ( all in the "/ad/" directory) will not appears in my browser when this extension is enable. I know that I can disable it (or put " @@|http://upload.wikimedia.org/* " in my filter list), but I think some will not know that this is the cause of the non-display. I just wanted you to know this behavior.
--90.8.6.150 22:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this seems to happen fairly often, but users generally figure it out. A lot of us use firefox + ABP, so there's generally someone around to point out the likely cause. Thanks for the reminder.  — Mike.lifeguard 14:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reported this back in 2006 as bugzilla:5402, but it was closed as "WONTFIX". I keep hoping that it might still get fixed some day, perhaps piggybacked on some other changes to the file repository code. After all, the fix is pretty trivial, it would just break a lot of existing links. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you would think the stupid ad-blockers would be fixed by now. Multichill (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kropki (gra)

Could someone please delete the above. It's a spam page in a East European language. --Kathleen.wright5 (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done — Mike.lifeguard 14:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These 3 files are nommed for deletion process, but posting here in case admins think they qualify for quicker admin intervention (speedy deletion) for (USA) legal reasons. Tagged them for speedy but was removed (hence the current deletion noms)

Thank you. Wp0490 (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange hit and run account. Multichill (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From my viewpoint the two nude ones are speediable & I have deleted them, the "pants" one I've commented on tho others may see it more clearly. Thanks for the posting --Herby talk thyme 18:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However.... A nod to Multichill's comment. Looking at it myself & probably should be reviewed. --Herby talk thyme 18:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Curious how this inspires naming creativity --Foroa (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

????

Someone has taken Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marilyn-by Cronenweth.JPG out of this list Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/07/02 (This DR was the very first). I have no idea, who has done that and for what reason. Also I couldn't find a track in the history 79.194.89.208

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Attention&oldid=23338262"