Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 32

Category:Elevador do Lavra

Hello, I've just removed this page from Category:Elevador do Lavra because as far as I see this page doesn't fit the category. If somebody feels otherwise, plz let me know. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC).

It was merely a sintax problem. Tm (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

 Thank you. for the clarification. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC).

Sanjosefano

Sanjosefano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of copyvios, and a lot of them are still on Commons. --Ralgis^talk 02:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

He also altered metada, for example in File:Ceramicachulucanas 3.jpg. --Ralgis^talk 03:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked INeverCry 03:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment User is now blocked for a week. --cyrfaw (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Lobotras

• Lobotras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has continued to upload copyrighted works under false licenses after a last warning. Would an administrator please block this user, or could someone who speaks Russian have a word with him? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Morning ☼ (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment User is now blocked for 1 month. --cyrfaw (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Tm (talk · contribs) continues edit-warring without discussion

See [1]. More severe action needs to be taken as short blocks don't seem to have an effect. Badzil (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

And see what hapenned to the so called redundant category ([[:Categories:Trains of Portugal])] deleted by User:Tuvalkin, and readded by me. Why if it is redundant? Not so much as the same editor (with whom i apparently are in a edit warring), two hours after you reported mine edit ]https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ACP_Lisboa_unida_%283698118649%29.jpg&diff=84128356&oldid=84108903 added Two categories (yes Two, not one)] of Portuguese train types suncategories of the category Trins of Portugal. So am i edit warring, did i reverted his edits?

Also my last block was totall unfair. The image File:Entre o verde e o Azul - Elevador do Lavra.jpg was properly classified into category:Elevador do Lavra as this building is inside the classified area of this monument. I was [ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_31#Block_Tm_.28discuss.C3.A3o.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_for_continuous_edit_warring blocked] Without being able to defend, justify, etc, denounced by Badzill as being made "actions and lack of discussions about File:Entre o verde e o Azul - Elevador do Lavra.jpg". Wel, if he losted some time and new how to read portuguese and read the discussion page of this file were it says by tuvalkin "this tower, and thus any photo showing it, should be tagged as above only if it is included in the said monument protection area — research is necessary. Regardless of the above, the Category:Elevador do Lavra should be reserved for media showing the funicular itself; if necessary an upper category could be created including it and also media about nerby buildings, to be named Category:Elevador do Lavra national monument area or some such." (should only be in Category: Elevador do Lavra or an upper one reserved to the monument area). And so i did the research and with one edit with a description linking to the law that showed that this was indeed inside the Elevador do Lavra. What Tuvalkin made? he said in the image discussion page at 14:07 of 17 November

"This is a link to a Portuguese republic official journal, which reads on p.1366 as part of Annex I of Decree 5/2002 of 2002.02.19, under the heading «Distrito de Lisboa »« Município de Lisboa», describing the consist of the National Monument protection area:

Ascensor do Lavra e meio urbano que o envolve, com entrada pelo gaveto entre a Calçada do Lavra e a Rua de Câmara Pestana, na Rua de Câmara Pestana, 43 e 45, e na Calçada do Lavra, todos os números pares e ímpares do 1 ao 11, Lisboa, freguesias de São José e da Pena;'

So, apparently, the buyilding whose towertop this photo depicts lies within this area. As said above, what should be done is to create a separate upper-level category to gather media about this urban area. (The same should be done for the other two funiculars and the lift in Lisbon which enjoy the same kind of legal protection"

And so he created an upper category to this image. And what was my reaction (i thought of aswering favorely to this edit in the discussion page)? None as i was previously blocked as supossebly making edit warring in this image. Tm (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Has there been any discussion with the user regarding the behavior? It looks like the user's English is limited; are there any Portuguese-speakers who might be able to address the situation? Powers (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Tm (talk · contribs) writes perfect English: [2]. There was already discussion with him about his behavior but it doesn't seem to change. Badzil (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's perfect though. Multiple grammar and spelling mistakes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

He is obviously able to articulate complex ideas in English. We are not here to discuss his level of English, but his recurrent edit-warring behavior. Badzil (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that LtPowers' recommendation that we get a Portuguese-speaking admin is still a good idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

My experience is that he is perfectly capable of defending his opinion in English when he needs it, but he hides often in silence or English problems when it being contested. --Foroa (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You should then provide credible and irrefutable evidence of this claim about the user from your personal transaction with him/her. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC).

perhaps Waldir (talk · contribs) can help us. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC).

 Comment It's not the first time this topic appears here, so I guess there is a real misunderstanding or problem to solve. I have contacted User:Beria who is Portuguese-speakers (User_talk:Beria#A_little_help_from_you). --PierreSelim (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hindustanilanguage: For the three first blocks of Tm, there was a rather large discussion on his page: 1, 2 and 3. Blocking Tm or threaten him with a block is the only time that he will engage in a discussion about his actions. Otherwise he uses the same technique of silent reverting. Badzil (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there people. Please refrain from do anything until i talk with him. If he is too headstrong, i will block him myself. Béria Lima ^msg 14:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

just send him a message (in portuguese). Let's see if he answers. Béria Lima ^msg 14:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's hope that your efforts are fruitful. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC).

What should one interpret from this page editing history? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC).

There is nothing to interpret. As my edit summary says ("format"), this is merely a formatting action in order to make Tm's addition more readable. There was no text change. Check the rendering of both versions and compare by yourself. Badzil (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC).

Why is it that everytime somebody wants some explanation from Tm (talk · contribs), one needs to threaten him with a block, and then he comes and explains himself? He has done this several time in the past and this behavior only results in further problems down the road. Badzil (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

NOT ME. IN FACT I ALWAYS FAVOUR DISCUSSIONS RATHER THAN BLOCKS. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC).

What's with the uppercase? Have you ever personally dealt with Tm? Badzil (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Uppercase is inadvertently typed because of the Caps Lock key.

I sympathised with Tm because I believe or had rather assumed him/her to be a victim of suppressive adminship like my very own self. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC).

Türküzbiz98 (talk · contribs)

I have blocked this account for 3 months, after I found that he has faked positive "Flickr upload bot" tags[3],[4],[5] for his uploads from Flickr, when in reality the images were (C) All rights reserved (or NC in 1 case) on Flickr[6], [7], [8]. --Túrelio (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You're too kind. Really. There is a difference between ignorance of copyright and deliberate fraud. This user is doing the second one. If he comes back and does it again, I'd go straight for the indef. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that some people poorly versed in technical areas often just copy and paste from previously successful operations (theirs or others'); if they don't understand the meaning of every piece, they may not understand which ones cannot be applied to their own attempts. Powers (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but in this case, we're dealing with a user that understands what they're doing; they're just determined not to participate constructively. File:Mama diouf hannover 96.jpg, uploaded by Türküzbiz98, was added to tr:Mame Biram Diouf by tr:User:Gençfenerbahçeli98. User:Gençfenerbahçeli98 is blocked on Commons for using sockpuppets including User:Soest98 and User:Sasavujacic98. The block of Türküzbiz98 should be converted to indefinite. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Faheem siddiq

The actions of Faheem siddiq (talk · contribs) and Nomi887 (talk · contribs) appear to me as of the same person, who deals with Pakistani maps, uploads smaller images without camera info of Pakistani security officers from various places on earth, of Pakistani aircraft, of modern buildings in various Pakistani cities, and making very similar collages). Compare the following:

• Faheem siddiq Nomi887
• Faheem siddiq Nomi887

I suspect that most, probably all, images loaded by Faheem siddiq are stolen from the internet.--Officer (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Both users have lots of copyright violation-related warnings recently (like a week or a month ago) on their talk page. I think they should be blocked for sock-puppetery. --cyrfaw (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Serial copyvio uploads: User:WildMaria

Could somebody please block and nuke all image contributions by WildMaria (talk · contribs)? I just checked a few of their uploads, and the first five or so out of six were obvious copyvios; somebody else has also been finding others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made similar requests here and been told that I must file a deletion request for the images. So you should probably do that. I suspect that you will not be called "disruptive" or labelled a "troll" as a result of your request, though. Hope this helps! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done User has been blocked, and all uploads deleted. INeverCry 18:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Jamesroi (talk · contribs)

I have indef-blocked this new account on the spot, as all his uploads were blatantly advertising a "callgirl service". --Túrelio (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Rablu1 (talk · contribs)

I have just nominated two latest uploads by Rablu1 (talk · contribs) for deletion. Every other upload (several dozens based on his talk page) by this user have already been deleted previously. Based on the uploads I suspect that this user might be a sockpuppet of The soso. MKFI (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for one week. A Checkuser could check for a match in the meantime. Techman224^Talk 00:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The CU evidence is not that conclusive however the deleted content certainly suggests the accounts are associated. Changed to indef - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass removal of categories

An editor called Mhmrodrigues is removing categories from countless pages without any reason.[9] He must be stopped. --Lecen (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

What's your actual problem with his edits? eg these categories are correctly removed because the file is already in Category:Princess Leopoldina of Brazil, which is in the categories removed from the file. Rd232 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't see you using his talk page, not before coming here, and not to notify of this discussion. Rd232 (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1

This user recently uploaded File:Gertrude Michael - publicity.jpg as if it were taken in 1930s. There is no proof that this photo is out of copyright yet. He has been blocked before, and he's been investigated in en:WP:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1. I've discussed this previously in PierreSelim's user talk page; he can't do anything about it yet. --George Ho (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I just tagged the photo for DR. We hope (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Uploads by User:Arszsahar

I've seen some 25 uploads by this user. All his uploads are personal pics, and hardly any notable or worth learning content in them. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC).

I nuked them all. Some copyvios, all the rest were poor quality personal images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

While I disagree with "Some copyvios" as probably all pics are personal pics, but I support 'nuking' as there is no other educational value in the pics other than posting pics with the uploader in them. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC).

User 텅스텐 카바이드

Please see diff, requesting block on this user please. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/TungstenCarbide. -- Cirt (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Jameslwoodward (talk · contributions · Statistics). Érico Wouters ^msg 23:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the update, Érico Júnior Wouters (talk · contribs), and thanks to Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs) for the actions taken! :) -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Тарасенко Вячеслав Михайлович (talk · contribs)

The user is systematically uploading images from other sites as their his own work. --Evil Russian (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for 3 days. Érico Wouters ^msg 17:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Look2See1

I fear that we need a block for Look2See1. Despite lots of warnings on his talk page, he continues to cause categorisation problems, and his high edit rate on vastly different topics makes it much more difficult for someone to notice the systematic nature of the problem and to fix everything. He's continually rearranging the categories, ending with the result of pages having both parent and child categories; a recent example can be seen here. Meanwhile, on category description pages, we learn that a category of a building is only suitable for a few images of that building taken by a specific person at a specific time. At other times, he actively decategorises various images. We also get inaccurately added categories; there's nothing about these images to suggest this categorisation, and the edit summary gives no reason. To compound the problem, he never uses helpful edit summaries; every single edit that I've ever seen him make to a file is simply "link". By using edit summaries that are so far from the truth, he's making his disruption even worse because we can't understand what's going on. Nyttend (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a warning asking him to stop editing, and discuss before doing any changes. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As someone who does a bit of categorization work myself, I concur with the problem description here. I randomly stumble across obviously erroneous categorizations, persistent over-categorization, circular categorization and other weirdness unexplained by edit summaries or other means and find that Look2See1 is behind them at intervals that I would characterize as remarkably frequent.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] When you consider the size of Commons' category system, and that I only do limited work here, I think that says quite a lot about the scope of the problem. Look2See1's peculiar categorization habits are also generating confusion and sparking questions on our help desk. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 19#Look2See1, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 19#User:Look2See1 (2nd), Commons:Disputes noticeboard/Archive 4#Are courtyards gardens?, Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/11#Sorting, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 23#User:Look2See1 - 4th. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Harassing editor

User:Fête, banned this week from fr.wiki and fr.wiktionary for harassing editors to provide pronunciation of words, is currently repeating the same patterns over at en.wiki.

I was too quick to help and provided 6 voice clips today before realizing this user's behaviour, and now wish to delete these unused voice clips. I have tagged them as per CSD G7, but the user removes them. If he continues harassing on en.wiki he'll be taken to AN/I there, but for here, all I want is for those 6 files to go... Salvidrim (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Links:

1. File:Avocat Pronunciation Quebec .ogg
2. File:Avocat Pronunciation Quebec (formal).ogg
3. File:Caisse Pronunciation Quebec (formal).ogg
4. File:Caisse Pronunciation Quebec.ogg
5. File:Treize Pronunciation Quebec (formal).ogg
6. File:Treize Pronunciation Quebec.ogg

Salvidrim (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The files were deleted and there is both a thread at AN on enwp and on a Steward's talk who handled this case so far, User:Quentinv57. Salvidrim! 18:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

User warned. Block not necessary for now. Érico Wouters ^msg 23:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Chillar123

This user has uploaded a load of files to be used in en:Prayag Jha, some are blatant copyright violations (e.g. newspaper scans), the rest are likely also unfree and unlikely to have encyclopedic use. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

New account, same problems with Flickr uploads

User:MaybeMaybeMaybe was a sockpuppet of User:RafikiSykes. They uploaded thousands of images from Flickr which required a fair amount of community time to clean up. See their talk page history for evidence of the problems. It was my understanding that MaybeMaybeMaybe had agreed to cease mass Flickr uploads. Instead they have created a new account and resumed uploads. Their latest incarnation is User:Princess Mérida and the same issues seem to be recurring. The user has uploaded dozens of images from Flickr user "Muscle Dominator" which all appear to be copyright violations. See for example File:Captured (6447490331).jpg. They have uploaded dozens of images from Flickr user "Heather Moreton-Abounader Photography" which have a prominent watermark running diagonally across them. See for example File:Afternoon yoga (2743121958).jpg. Can something be done to prevent more of the same? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Damage control mode activated: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/RafikiSykes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wearing my Checkuser hat I have acted against the RafikiSykes. However, I do not see a problem with

"They have uploaded dozens of images from Flickr user "Heather Moreton-Abounader Photography" which have a prominent watermark running diagonally across them. See for example File:Afternoon yoga (2743121958).jpg"

The Flickr account is CC-BY and appears to be owned by the photographer Heather Moreton-Abounader, so these doesn't seem to be a copyright problem. The cited image is a nice cat shot. It is true that the watermark is a nuisance, but watermarks are easily removed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The images from this account may be correctly licensed but hardly usable in articles due to the prominent watermark which is almost impossible to crop-out withlout losing a lot of image quality. --Denniss (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are not the only use of Commons photos. If the image is legit in license terms and has possible educational use, it can be hosted here. - Jmabel ! talk 18:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The user appears to have uploaded the complete works of Flickr user Marcus Quigmire (Category:Photographs by Marcus Quigmire) which includes many images which I assume are personal family photos. File:Catherine (3015561059).jpg is a lovely image, but there is no evidence of permission from the child's guardian. Mass uploading of Flickr images seems to be a problem when done by the wrong people and we are making no attempt to limit the use of such tools to the right people. Surely it is time to put some controls on bot uploads? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Santy29

Santy29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) continued uploading copyvios after warnings. --Ralgis^talk 18:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done by INeverCry. --Túrelio (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Alejandro Arias

Alejandro Arias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) keeps uploading copyvios even after one block and several warnings. --Ralgis^talk 20:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked for 2 weeks. INeverCry 20:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Checho19

Checho19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) keeps uploading copyvios even after two blocks for the same reason. --Ralgis^talk 20:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Blocked for 6 months. INeverCry 21:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha

Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been blocked on English Wikipedia for over two years for a number of problem behaviours, some of which he continues to pursue here, as evidenced by his block log and recent behaviour. He appears uninterested in genuinely resolving issues (eg removing my three suggestions for moving forward with the most recent dispute, still on this page) and instead repeatedly inserts [22] irrelevant comments into discussions closed by multiple administrators. As this recent revision of his user talk page shows, he is basically here to confirm his belief that no good can come of talking to others on Commons. In the face of this professed belief, continuing to pursue irrelevant commentary is by definition disruptive. I'll leave to others to judge what is to be done about this. Rd232 (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done I just blocked Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs) for a month per a previous warning. odder (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Cosmic Articulation

(This again from user:Foroa's talk page)
Hello. I've seen you've deleted Category:Vladimir Putin on 31 December and moved the files to Category:Vladimir_Putin_on_December_31. Is it not just cosmic articulation rather than any real value addition? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

It also makes little sense given our day categories are "(day) (month)" not "(month) (day)". -mattbuck (Talk) 19:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Except that Category:Vladimir Putin by day has several different forms. Is there an agreed convention written down somewhere? (If so, Commons:Categories doesn't mention it.) Rd232 (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

My friend Foroa is a senior contributor and I would like to avoid words such as "censure" for him (used by Jim for him in the previous section). We all err and we learn from our mistakes. My only submission is to caution my friend Foroa and for this purpose I posted a message on his talk page which (s)he didn't respond to. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

It's true that Foroa didn't respond to this issue at User_talk:Foroa#Cosmic_Articulation, and obviously should have. It's also true that you should notify users of discussion at this board. I've done so now. Rd232 (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not move the files, I just deleted the category redirect. Date format is not in line with most used date formats such as in Category:Days in December but as far as I know there is no such formal Commons standard, and obviously, Category:Vladimir Putin by day uses mostly another date notation. I prefer not to waste my time on false claims of me moving categories or on discussions on my talk page concerning "Cosmic Articulations" date formats that are not standardised nor respected. --Foroa (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussing admin actions (like deletion) is not an optional "waste of time"; for example you could have cleared up the confusion about the moving of the files. And if the date formats are not standardised, this would be an opportunity to consider standardising them (at least to note somewhere which of several forms is acceptable). That would reduce the likelihood of confusion in future. Rd232 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Rd's got a valid point and eagerly await to see that put into action. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC).

Well there's no need to hang about on discussing standardisation, and it doesn't belong here, so Commons:Village_pump#Format_of_dates_in_category_names. That leaves Foroa's lack of engagement, which wasn't good, but maybe there's not much to be done about it now, and hopefully he's reminded of the importance of discussion. Rd232 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I too hope so. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

Closing Deletion requests/File:A1.jpg

Since the file is deleted, I request closure of DR. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC).

 Done INeverCry 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please help

I have been trying to abide by all of wikipedia and wikimedia's rules but am not making any headway. I can't seem to get it right and am tempted to give up. I have asked for someone to tell me point blank what needs to get changed without success. Now I am receiving a notice that the image I uploaded "death by a thousand cuts" which was published in the miami herald need written authorization. Does a newspaper article need permission? Isn't this considered public domain? Please let me know. At this point, I am ready to give up as I am having a difficult time navigating through this system. Thanks. -- 23:33, 8 January 2013‎ 98.219.80.193

You should actually ask this on Commons:Help desk or Commons:Upload help. But you should know that something published in a U.S. newspaper isn't automatically out of copyright unless it was published before 1923. Material published in 1923 and afterwards can sometimes be out of copyright, but you have to know what you're doing legally, because it can be complicated... AnonMoos (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I guess this relates to File:Death by a Thousand Cuts.pdf, which presumably means you are User:Tinacornely logged out. If you are, then I understand your frustration at not being able to upload a photo of your sculpture. But the copyright in a photo is entirely separate from the copyright in any photographed objects; you can just make out in the scan that the photographer is "Carl Juste/Miami Herald". So the file is a copyright violation and will be deleted. If you want to upload a photograph of your sculpture, it would be best to take a new photograph yourself. If this isn't possible, you'll have to consider other ways to get a photo - you can't just use published photos (unless they're freely licensed, which newspaper photos normally aren't). Hope this clarifies. Rd232 (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

User:LongLiveRock

Has apparently been uploading Flickr images with reckless indifference as to whether CC licenses claimed for images there are at all plausible for over three years. Was clearly warned on "05:18, 24 July 2010", but it didn't have much effect. Seems to need a more official or attention-getting warning now... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

While I do not dispute with AnonMoos' concerns, I suggest a better articulation in reporting a discussion here, rather than "Your somewhat tiresome Flickr-washing abetting tendencies are under discussion there" posted on this user's talk page. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC).

That user has received a number of politely-worded and informative messages in the past, and already knows or should know what the issue is (unless he has decided to just not care about any of it). AnonMoos (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As I see the history of talk page, many files are nominated for deletion and done away with. Jacklee cautioned the user about uploading a few images already on Commons, Motopark did ask for some license of a file. But have you or anybody passed a note about what is fundamentally wrong in his/her approach? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC).

Did you look at the message of "05:18, 24 July 2010" which I already mentioned?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

On this history page I see links to your following posts: 1, 2, 3 and 4. It covers the period 2013-01-09T06:28:51‎ to 2010-02-28T03:10:37. Where is the link for the post you are quoting? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

It's not my message, it's User:Trycatch's. Go to User_talk:LongLiveRock and search down the page for "05:18, 24 July 2010"! AnonMoos (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

Help requested on User talk:DrTrigonBot

Hello!

Sorry for bothering but I need your help. Could somebody with more advanced diplomatic skills than I have please take care of User talk:DrTrigon/archive#Your bot and User talk:DrTrigonBot#What the heck is this bot supposed to do?? since I do not think anymore this discussion will come to a good end or stop at any point in time... I kindly appreciate any useful input and help here. Thanks a lot --DrTrigon (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"What the heck is this bot supposed to do??" seems a valid question (though tone could be improved in the discussion). Commons:Bots/Requests/DrTrigonBot suggests that all the {{FileContentsByBot}} stuff to do with colour (which is what AnonMoos is primarily objecting to I think) is in order to enable image mosaics like the Wikimedia logo mosaic?? That seems dubious to say the least. (Face recognition and the like seems more obviously useful.) Rd232 (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure DrTrigon has some worthy goals (though I'm still not entirely sure what they are), but I've come across enough file description pages manipulated by DrTrigonBot to know that in a significant number of cases it doesn't do any good, but instead dumps a load of useless numerical data on the page, and categorizes the image into the meaningless and useless category Category:Graphics. (In fact, that's all I've ever seen DrTrigonBot do, and DrTrigon has not pointed to any single specific instance in which his bot has actually done something worth doing.) I really don't understand why DrTrigon can't see that the numerical-gibberish-spamming-plus-Category:Graphics treatment serves no useful purpose, but it seems quite indisputable to me. So far, it's only moderately annoying, but if his bot does the same thing to other images on my watchlist in future, then that will be quite annoying... AnonMoos (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• IMO Category:Graphics is better than Uncategorized (if they really are graphics). However I don't think the colour data is very meaningful, and pollutes the edit page for humans, so I would consider removing this and only leaving the template behind when you detect faces or people. Surely another bot could just work out the colour data itself (esp. if you gave it your code)? One clear problem is the category Category:Exif which is somehow appearing due to a template you're adding? --99of9 (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Graphics is an extremely vague category which is supposed to be mainly a container for other categories, so adding an individual image to the category accomplishes almost nothing, and leaves all the real work up to somebody else. AnonMoos (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The work was already up to someone else when it was left uncategorized on upload. It is fractionally less work for the person doing the job if they don't have to separate the photos from the graphics. I agree that it's not amazingly helpful, but it's better than nothing. --99of9 (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If adding "Category:Graphics" is an improvement at all, it really does not seem to be enough of one to balance out negatives like the number dump... AnonMoos (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but they're two separate questions. We could ask for the category but not the numbers. DrTrigon, can you explain why you think the colour data is valuable enough to fill the edit page with numbers? Why can't a later bot work it out for itself? --99of9 (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, thanks for your participation! I'll try to answer all points:

• "What (the heck) is this bot supposed to do??": (despite the tone) is a valid question, indeed! That's the reason why I did not delete the rude comment directly without answering it (please note; the first comment on User talk:DrTrigon/archive#Your bot was the first time ever AnonMoos contacted me - unfortunately with the same tone).
• Considering "the color thing": this was much-talked about during bot flag request. The categorization depending on color data was permanently switched off. The "mosaic" comment was related to Template:FileContentsByBot/ColorAverage and meanwhile a new info giving more "resolution" called Template:FileContentsByBot/ColorRegions was included. In fact this is quite a long story since I had several talks with a colorist (honestly; my father ;) in order to give a proper a scientific valuable description of colors and "closeness"/"distance" between them. I'm happy to discuss this topic further - but I am not sure whether it is related to the main topic here.
• "I've come across enough file description pages manipulated by DrTrigonBot": I'm not sure what you are talking about, on User talk:DrTrigonBot#What the heck is this bot supposed to do?? you mentioned about 5 files out of (as I mentioned) about 5000. This (sorry!) is clearly not "a significant number of cases"! That was the reason why I suggested just to ignore them.
• "load of useless numerical data": this is depending on your point of view, e.g. MediaWiki:FileContentsByBot.js does quite impressing and (IMO) useful things. You have to click on the "View them!" link/button on a file page to see this. You have also to do this to see the data the bot added, thus in default page view you should also not get annoyed by them (so they should be easy to ignore).
• "meaningless and useless category Category:Graphics": as explained on User talk:DrTrigon/archive#Your bot earlier, in this context this is meaningful here because of the fact that this image is e.g. not a picture containing faces. In more detail it is an image having only few colors and color gradients, which you can see in detail from the additional data the bot adds.
• "DrTrigon has not pointed to any single specific instance in which his bot has actually done something worth doing": this simply is not true (sorry!) but I pointed e.g. to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:FileContentsByBot/Faces which lists all images on which face recognition was performed with positive result. AnonMoos never did a statement related to this, were they not "worth doing"? Are they all bad? (please look at the recent ones too, since the bot was further developed meanwhile)
• "I really don't understand why DrTrigon can't see that the numerical-gibberish-spamming-plus-Category:Graphics treatment serves no useful purpose": AnonMoos is the very first one with this opinion. In fact during bot flag request this was asked for and (as I understood) I was not the only one thinking this is a good idea. Thus the bot design was made such that it heavily depends on it (sorry!).
• "Category:Graphics is better than Uncategorized (if they really are graphics)": is exactly my point of view - noting to add! ;)
• "Category:Exif": is included in the face template and is clearly not the best solution. It is added because also exif face data are extracted by the bot. This data are ignored by the mw api and thus not listed on the page, even thought present in the image. This is something we can talk about and improve, indeed!
• "Category:Graphics is an extremely vague category which is supposed to be mainly a container for other categories": then we can use another category like e.g. Category:Graphics (DrTrigonBot), Category:Non-Photos or else (any idea?). That way it would become more meaningful. Basically I wanted to use what we already have and not introduce even more categories (from which nobody knows exactly what they are used for... ;).
• "DrTrigon, can you explain why you think the colour data is valuable enough to fill the edit page with numbers? Why can't a later bot work it out for itself?": First; because of like all other data, there is no reason to make a difference since the basic philosophy of this bot is to provide "as much useful information as possible" - they have tags to be machine-readable and are used e.g. by the amazing java script mentioned and might get used more in future by the bot itself and others, infinite possibilities - but it is very hard (may be impossible?) and not clever for a java script to do this "on-the-fly", the same for other bots - the idea is to enhance the data provided by the mw api already). Second; a lot of the libraries used in this color recognition are let's say "special". Some of them written by me (as already mentioned) and open-source but badly documented and pure python or from other people (e.g. JSEG project) and with self-written python/wrappers and, and... This can clearly be done by another bot to but is not that simple as you might think (thought not hard too - once you know how - which is not documented yet, except in the bot sources).
• There is already a lot of documentation about the bot, but it's still just a small part of what could be done. Did everybody find all the template docs, the java script, the docs on enwiki? (everything linked from User:DrTrigonBot) Or are they hard to find and bad promoted?
• Basically the bot works as we agreed during the flag request. Honestly I am proud of it, because it uses numerous complicated and sophisticated libraries and they can do an amazing job - if used well - and thus I am always open to any constructive comment on how to improve the bot - it is under continuous development. It is clear that the additional data (except the category) it adds is not useful to any human being (it needs at lot of reading docs, that's true - but I'm afraid that's a hard topic) and that's the reason why they are hidden. If editing the page you can simply skip that part, that should be possible - I hope.

Sorry for the long text (and any mistakes), hope I could answer all your questions. Thanks a lot and Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I find the categorization images by their content into categories like "unidentified people", "portraits", "graphics", "bar codes", etc. very useful and quite remarkable. The categories are very broad but it is much better than no categories. However, I can not imagine the use for the metadata which is added to the files. It is useful for debugging your bot, but i do not see other use for it. --Jarekt (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The java script needs it to show the nice boxes around the region (annotation). Does not work without the data, needs to know where to place the box e.g. Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Somebody added two unrelated categories to this page which I've just removed. One of them was Category:Graphics (DrTrigonBot). Hindustanilanguage (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

Sorry seems I forgot leading colons... Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wish you the same, DrTrigon. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

Though I've only encountered about five image description pages manipulated by your bot, since the same thing was done to each and every one of them (dumping a load of useless numbers and categorizing into the extremely vague meta-category "Category:Graphics", which is almost useless for individual file pages), therefore I have a sufficient sample size to conclude at least that your bot commits "collateral damage" against a significant minority of files. (I don't think any of the files contained faces to be recognized, by the way.) Sorry if you didn't like my tone, but I took it as self-evidently obvious that spamming numerical gibberish and adding "Category:Graphics" was something not worth doing, and wondered extremely how this behavior could arise as an off-shoot of something that actually was worth doing. As for "Pages that link to Template:FileContentsByBot/Faces", I really don't feel like sifting through some lengthy automatically-generated log trying to stumble on something, but if you could point me at a specific file where your bot has done something worth doing, I would certainly examine it with interest.

To summarize -- 1) As far as I can tell, your bot seems to have some delusions of being a general classification bot, but in fact it is only useful with a limited range of images, and therefore should be run accordingly. 2) Assembling a general image color database might or might not be a useful project, but dumping undigestible chunks of raw numbers onto individual image description pages is far from the ideal way to implement this, for a variety of reasons. If you want it to be a real database, then implement it as a real database, using proper database software, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"therefore I have a sufficient sample size [...] significant minority of files" once again; that is not correct - e.g. in the specific case of "computer vision" an algorithm doing 80% correct is already amazingly good, so as "rule of thumb" you should at least have 20% of a representative sample, as far as I understood you looked basically at svg only.

"your bot commits "collateral damage"" this is something I really can't understand, please list any function of wiki commons that gets broken by the bots data output. How exactly does it hurt you - if you would had explained that to me once, then I could may be of some help to you. In fact this is a serious accusation since a bot must not break any functions or do any harm so if you cannot prove this - then please stop claiming it!

"Sorry if you didn't like my tone, but I took it as self-evidently obvious" that not related to each other; does not matter how obvious it is or should be - in future I will just delete statements with such a tone. You like me to do something, so please ask in an appropriate tone - I'm not your slave. Anyhow I accept this apology!

"I really don't feel like sifting through some lengthy automatically-generated log trying to stumble on something" I just don't know how to answer to such a statement. If you are not willing to inform you to at least to the minimal extend needed in order to have a profound debate/discussion about this topic how shall we continue? Again; it is a topic that needs some background and thus reading. In fact you are disqualifying yourself with that. If you do not want to help - I cannot force you. But then this discussion has finished for my part.

"but if you could point me at a specific file where your bot has done something worth doing" how should I know what you think was "worth doing" - that's why I gave you the complete list - it is 1 click more you have to do...

"your bot seems to have some delusions of being a general classification bot" that's the final goal we are working towards - the bot is under continuous development - I never claimed it is perfect nor finished. "in fact it is only useful with a limited range of images, and therefore should be run accordingly" which it is - it does already now process a lot more information than you will ever see and it could also output more - in fact I always reduced the output to a minimum.

"[...] is far from the ideal way to implement this, for a variety of reasons." please list them - that would be helpful.

"If you want it to be a real database, then implement it as a real database, using proper database software, etc..." that is something I did consider already. Reasons against it are; How to give others access to this db? Why split metadata between mw db and a private bot db? How to access them from e.g. a javascript that want to use them? Commons is a db why building another one (again)? - If you can help here - please step forward!

Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Aimeefern8

[23] is block-on-sight behavior, I believe.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Gone. --Denniss (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And  locked now as well + IP globally blocked for 6 months. Trijnstel_talk 17:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Questionable uploads

User:Wikiwatcher1's recent uploads look to be problematic. The most recent Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hoffman and Byrne - 68.JPG is a repeat of issues from August of 2012, for which he received a month long block. The talk page is full of DR notices again, and the user seems to have learned nothing from the earlier block We hope (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Am I confused? I thought his court case: "...decided on July 5, 2011, the court recognized that the "publicity material images for the films [that] were distributed directly to the general public through newspapers and magazines" were public domain because..." settled the matter as it pertains to commons. Basically, if the copyrights are not registered in the Library of Congress with their search function then they are public domain. It seems that some image companies are trying to claim copyright on images that are public domain.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't that apply only to pre-1978 US images (before the US joined the Berne Convention?) - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I see; this one is from 1968. - Jmabel ! talk

• Comment from uploader. My reply to the above Hoffman and Byrne photo tag is posted and pretty much sums up my opinion. The extreme irony is that We Hope again makes note of my earlier block, which, if anyone takes the time to review the background and replies to, may wonder why I was ever blocked. I have always stated that I fully support and try to go by the "precautionary principle." Yet, when another editor, User:Fae, posted some images as a "test case" for UPI's photos, he also relied on the same rule: "This file has been challenged as there may be significant doubt as to its copyright status in line with the precautionary principle." After the block, when there was no support for the deletions, the same editor, User Fae wrote:

"I note that the block log states "Until we sort out the mess you have created" which implies that the block is intended to enable a period of review by others, however for the six deletion requests I created above there has been no comment apart from feedback I copied from Wikiwatcher1 from their own talk page, despite it being 5 days since these were created."

The result is that I was blocked for reasons that were never fully supported or justified, and We Hope continues to add rationales to images for the same non-reasons. And, presuming that few will take the time to make sense of any of this, again notes the unexplained block. From the first, even after the copyright investigation was started, I have tried to explain things and have always replied to questions. One admin wrote per the investigation itself:

"After seeing what Wikiwatcher1 has said here and reviewing some of the deleted images, I think most of their images are probably okay and were deleted too hastily, if indeed they thoroughly reviewed registration records to ascertain that they were not registered or not renewed. All their arguments here appear to be cogent."

User:Fae acknowledged as much:

"A 1 month block here does appear a heavy first action. Wikiwatcher1 appears to be prepared to take part in deletion review discussions in good faith to help reach a consensus on how to interpret copyright requirements, where copyright notices have not been found for photographs they have uploaded."

FWIW, I honestly feel the process of allowing anyone to tag images for any reason, even nonsensical ones, should be looked at more carefully. The "precautionary principle" is simply being ignored, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Extra background details: Here are some extra legal aspects re: We Hope's Corbis and UPI rationales: In Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (1999), an important case which started the whole "copyfraud" terminology, it states the issue clearly,

"Bridgeman Art Library possessed a large library of photographs of paintings by European masters, as both transparencies and in digital form. The copyright terms on the paintings themselves had expired, but Bridgeman claimed that it owned a copyright on the photographs. It licensed copies of its photographs for a fee."

The following is from the book Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law, (Jason Mazzone, Stanford Law Books (2011) p. 15):

Seemingly undeterred by its loss in court, Bridgeman Art Library continues to assert copyright in reproduction of the Mona Lisa and other public domain works. . . . The Bridgeman Art Library is not alone in claiming copyrights in digital reproductions of public domain art. Corbis, founded by Bill Gates, is a digital archive of art and photography. It makes available through licensing for professional and private use more than one hundred million images, including many images of two-dimensional public domain works. . . In a similar way, ARTstor and Art Resource, major digital libraries of public domain art, claim copyright in the images they supply and impose restrictions on how the images may be used."

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You're playing in a delicate area of copyright law, where certainty is hard to find. It is hard to verify that the type of works you upload were published, that their original form did not have a copyright notice, and that they weren't renewed. You can't be outraged when people question such things.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment The reason of your block is extremely simple, you are the first user allowed to have such a ratio of deleted contributions with so many warnings without ending block. Usually with so many warning users get indef blocks. As you were not willing to listen others concerns you got block (and as far as I remember no admin overturned this block). --PierreSelim (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The ratio aspect has little value when I had over 50 photos "machine gun" tagged and deleted on two occasions by the same non-admin who was warned about such activity. I'd guess at least that many have since been removed because of We Hope's "Corbis" rationale. I doubt if you can find one instance of over five years of editing and adding images where I was "not willing to listen to others." On the contrary, I always listen, and respond fully, as in another recent DR. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth I wouldn't treat any copyright claim from Corbis as credible - they have as many false claims as Getty. The speedy deletion of File:Queen Elizabeth II - 1953.JPG by User:Denniss on the basis of NPG UK's copyfraud was out of process and absurd - we all ought to know by now that NPG claims rights to every image in their collection (and to add insult to injury they templated Wikiwatcher with {{Copyvionote}} like a newbie). I did a review of all the deletion requests associated with files uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 since they were unblocked, and although I was hoping to see a pattern of recklessness, I honestly have to agree that an uncommonly stringent standard is being applied to these works. We usually reasonably assume that a work was published sometime near its date of creation, and unless this is a class of works that is not normally published, I don't see any special reason why that wouldn't apply here - even when the date of creation is unavailable their creation can be dated roughly by the apparent age of the subjects. Certainly Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brigitte_Bardot - Mexico - 1965.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Sellers and_Ringo - 1970.jpg should have been deleted, given that is was unlikely these works were first published in the US at all, but others I'm not so sure about. Arguing that we need to see the flip side for a copyright notice is reasonable enough. But when we begin to argue that {{PD-US-no notice}} should not apply because "1) some omit notice, while many other copies bear notice; 2) registration within five years after publication; 3) omitting a notice may violate copyright claimant's written agreement to always bear notice" (from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kirstie Alley - 1988.jpg), we get into a realm of paranoia that even my usual strict standards wouldn't entertain. If we allow that someone may be omitting notice in violation of an agreement, {{PD-US-no notice}} could never be used at all. On the behaviour side, neither party in this dispute has been uniformly civil. It's not helpful that We hope repeatedly nominated files (e.g. File:Martin Landau - Barbara Bain 1968.JPG) with no justification other than a statement from the Copyright Office simply recapitulating familiar US law. When someone has made a claim why an image is PD, a nomination for deletion should argue why that claim is invalid, not simply say "copyright status not known" or "Still having doubts about the copyright (or public domain) status of this photo" (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ann Margret-publicity2.JPG).

I'm not nomming any of these images for undeletion, since I may be misunderstanding something about the situation, but both sides in this dispute definitely have issues to deal with. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment This may be a good use for a new tag I have mentioned before. "Although commons accepts this image as free licence the status may change in the future. Avoid use in printed material that you cannot 'take-down' easily." Re-users of content could be linked to a page explaining the mess, WMF would be CYA and could easily pull them with an office action if someone does file a writ on them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

pls change my username

I am having threats from some people and i am afraid i use my real name and surname on wikipedia projects, commons and meta. I have already retired but they will still know my name and also i have many photo uploads on commons. Pls i want to vanish completely from commons. Also i want my name deleted from my uploaded photographs. Thank you. Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read Commons:Changing username and follow the instructions there. --Denniss (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean removal of the name Ismail Karsalan from the files? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC).

Problematic User on Kelly Rowland lead wiki-page

Hello! I wanna to signal as problematic the User:0z for this reason:

• User doesn't converse in constructive way, despite has twice looked for in pacific way to talk to him in the personal talk. Contrarily he doesn't answer, and it acts before a comparison inserting with some tags for disputes.

• Does you take the right to attribute words as "of success" or "of not success" (of thing? of charts? of sales? of criticism? in US? in Uk? In other countries of Europe?) sending forth therefore a judgment I don't objectify;

• it discredits reliable datas (all verifiable ones with sources inserted in the body of the page) concerned sales of albums and peak of chart, that I have replaced his personals and arbitrary adjectives concerning success or failures.

• He defines style from "blog / fansite" all edit that differs from his style of writes and that doesn't meet his personal point of view.

• It also results "closed in dialogs" in the edit of other user (as you can be seen in Rowland's "view history" for example)

sorry for my very bad english language, and thanks for your attention.--Music&Co (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

About which user are you talking? There is no User:0z on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

O.k., just found out, you are talking about en-Wikipedia-user 0z. Here on Commons we can't do anything about that. You should try to find the appropriate sub-board at en:Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Túrelio (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Cplakidas and Greek government seals

This issue is over 3 files: File:Proedros.png, File:Seal of the Presidency of Greece.svg and File:Dimokratia.png (Cplakidas has not edited this one as much).

Cplakidas constantly adds a Fictional tag to these three seals, which says they are fake and only the proposal of an artist with absolutely no official use. He and I have argued over this for ages, most recently as can be seen on my talk page. However, as part of these arguments, Cplakidas has provided two sources ([24] & [25]) contradicting himself showing that File:Seal of the Presidency of Greece.svg does exist and does have official use, as well as several other seals in the PDF. His problem is that the SVG file (as with the other two) is colourized. He claims that it's only ever used as a stamp, that we would never see a colourized version, as we often do with the Presidential Seal of the US. I've attempted to make it absolutely clear on my talk page there is a difference between inaccuracy (which a colourized version may be), and being fake (which his own sources prove is NOT true). I also said that he has the options to either change it himself or as a graphic artist on Commons to do so on his behalf. He himself admits to considering doing so, but that he would rather just keep adding the fictional tag than do anything proactive.

Can I please get some common sense people here to reiterate to him the differences between inaccuracy and fictionality, and make him stop adding the fictional tag to something that clearly exists and has government-sanctioned use? Fry1989 ^eh? 19:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Seems to me that if the colors are not part of the definition of the seal, then the colorization makes this precisely as fictional as (for example) sticking a tricorn hat on a picture of President Obama or inserting Woody Allen as Zelig in a picture of a Nazi rally. Whether the distinction is made with a tag or otherwise, if Cplakidas is right then the image descriptions should certainly call out the colors being an artist's arbitrary choice. - Jmabel ! talk 20:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that makes it inaccurate, there is a huge difference. Inaccurate means it is the symbol of what it represents, but it doesn't look exactly like it for whatever reason. Fictional means it's absolutely 100% not real, never was, never will be, has no use or any semblance of official sanction. This is the former, not the latter. And the issue is not just that, the issue is that Cplakidas refuses to do anything positive to correct the inaccuracy, but instead chooses to add a fictional tag which does not apply, and will edit war to get his way. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I really really don't understand Fry1989's objection: as far as I can see his problem boils down to the fact that the tag is called "{{Fictional}}", and not, say, "{{Inaccurate seal}}". Well, unfortunately for him a) the latter doesn't exist and b) the tag description does not, in fact, include the word "fictional". All it does is label the file as an inaccurate, unofficial emblem. It is true that these seals are variants of existing patterns, but that is precisely the point: they are variants, artistic re-interpretaions (or rather mis-interpretations) of the actual seals.

The sources I have provided clearly show these seals used as rubber stamps, nothing more, and as I have explained over and over, these are not used in Greece in colour nor meant to be used as insignia (which is these files' apparent purpose). Σφραγίς in Greece means "seal", but in the sense of the actual object or the imprint, not in the sense of an escutcheon or insigne. The legend around the seal is merely the approving authority that has stamped a document, which is why you will find the same pattern everywhere from the military to public kindergartens. Fry1989's persistent refusal to accept that the situation I am describing is a fact is vexing in the extreme: I would not presume to challenge a German on the use of German government seals or doubt his experience when backed by documents, but apparently he knows better. Exactly how he acquired expert knowledge on the intricacies of Greek government paraphernalia is left to one's imagination. --Constantine ✍ 22:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I see now that Foroa (talk · contribs) has kindly changed the tag name to "{{Not official}}". Perhaps this silly dispute can now end. --Constantine ✍ 22:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it has not ended, because that is not a solution. Either they're real or they're not. Sources YOU provided prove they are real, the only issue here is if they're coloured or if they're black & white. If they're the latter, we have the responsibility to reflect that accurately, so where-ever the file is used on Wikipedia it is an accurate representation of the symbol. The childish behaviour you have been pulling for years now on these files needs to be addressed, the fact that they're real, the fact you knew they were real, that you self-admittedly chose not to change them to black & white but instead edit war to add a tag that does not and can not apply, all of that needs to be dealt with. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The answer is simple: these particular files, as created and uploaded at Commons, are not real. They do not exist in real life, outside Commons. They misinterpret the originals in both form (their composition is inaccurate per the law's prescriptions; why should be clear if you can read Greek, if you can't, then please stop arguing on an issue you obviously know nothing about) and intention/usage. As to your presumption that i have an obligation to correct them, I have given you an answer, in full, at your talk page. Just for completeness' sake, here's the discussion at enwiki that prompted me to tag the files again, and my original query to the creator of the first versions of these files, back in 2010 (it remained unanswered). --Constantine ✍ 22:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My "problem" is they're real and you keep adding a tag saying they're not. I don't care if the files are coloured, black and white, purple, green or the whole rainbow, as long as they accurately match their source. Just because a source says something is blue, and a user has made it in red, doesn't make it fake, it makes in inaccurate, a problem that is easily solved by simply changing it to blue like the source. You have given this file the runaround for years claiming it's fake when you had sources showing it was real, and you knew by your own admission that simply changing it's colours accordingly to the source would be the simplest of solutions and you chose not to exercise it. I never said you had an obligation to change it, but that you had sources showing it was real and still chose to add a fictional tag to it in spite of that makes you an unhelpful and counter-productive user. You could have posted the sources and asked me to change it, you could have posted the sources and asked ANYBODY to change it. You did neither and left everyone in the dark about the fact it really did exist. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The easiest thing you could have done was either by your own hand, or by asking another user, have the file changed to be like File:MaThra-Seal.svg. I don't see you repeatedly adding a fictional tag to that file, so obviously it meets your exacting standards on accuracy. I have the exact same standards on accuracy as you, I'm just common-sense in dealing with them. I don't claim something is completely fake when I know there's only minor accuracy problems that can be easily and quickly fixed. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My Greek is rusty, but a clearer text version of the 1975 decree can be found at http://www.thessalia.gov.gr/mediaupload/KEDY.pdf and the information is on page 49 of the PDF. There are some things that the seals need working on, such as the mark at the bottom needs to have six rays and not five. As for the color issues, my suggestion is as since we got the decrees in black and white and the initial emblems are Greek flag blue in color, it should be switched over to that main color shade (to not only match what I am finding but also just to solve this issue). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the seal being redone like File:MaThra-Seal.svg, infact I would support it because then it would resemble the seal as illustrated in the PDF, as well as having the other ones in there made too. This whole thing came this far only because Cplakidas insisted on repeatedly tagging it as a "fake" instead working on it being corrected, because it's clearly not fake at all, our SVG just doesn't look the same. I hate reading the riot act, but his obstinance in acknowledging that the image is infact real forced me. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but when you upload something as "Seal of the Greek President" that does not actually match the seal of the Greek President, then it is "fake", "incorrect", "unofficial", etc, the exact name does not matter. For the life of me I can see no wrong in identifying and marking it as such, that is what the problem tags are for. And Fry1989's demand that I correct them, it is his personal view on what I should have done; it bears no relation to any rule or guideline I know of. I'll repeat what I told Fry1989 before: IMO these seals have no illustrative value since they are only ever used to stamp documents with, therefore I did not (and do not) see the value of "correcting" them, and there is no obligation that we fix any incorrect file we find on Commons...

I could argue, Fry1989, that you removing a problem tag because it could be corrected, without actually correcting it, is rather more problematic behaviour. Why did you not correct these files, since you have edited them yourself already, and evince such a great interest in them? If you knew the files to be incorrect, why did you remove the tags that marked them out as such? Why am I guilty of "laziness" and "childish behaviour" and get dragged to AN/U and not you? You can see that there are two sides to each argument. So, instead of perpetuating this sad dispute, let's end this as Zscout370 proposes. -Constantine ✍ 08:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Constantine. Just tag it with unoffial, ... and try to spend your time on productive things. --Foroa (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Constantine. User:Fry1989 must read No personal attacks. Takabeg (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Takabeg, go read what personal attacks are, I've done nothing of the sort, just like the last time you accused me of attacking you. Stating facts are not attacks. Cplakidas, there's several reasons why I haven't changed the file yet. FIRST being I didn't even have that source that you clearly had been holding on to for some time until a few days ago. Second, once you finally posted it, I've been too embroiled in dealing with you. I've made clear the difference between "fake" and "inaccurate", I'm not gonna keep trying to bash you over the head with it if you can't understand the concept. Third, I am nto sure if I have the ability to change the image myself, I'm still playing around with it to see if I can do it satisfactorily. Did you ever consider that?? Of course not, you just think I removed the tag and moved on. Lastly, I have never demanded you do anything, so I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. What I have done is lay out what you should have done, the path of least resistance and which would have been the most productive, and that you repeatedly chose to take the harder and unproductive path. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting to see what it feels like when the other party in a dispute does not assume good faith and accuses the other of laziness and prejudice, isn't it? I perfectly well understand the distinction between "fake" and "inaccurate", just as I understand that a tag can be called "fictional" and its content be simply a warning that a specific file is not official (and the design represented is not. If' and when it is fixed, it will be, but now and for the past two+ years, it hasn't been). As for your not-too-covert insinuations as to the sources that I have "clearly" been holding on to (and hiding, perhaps?), why, yes, it obviously means that I have been engaged in a deliberate cover-up for two years now, whose sole aim was to keep these files tagged out of sheer pig-headedness. Under no circumstances does it mean that the original uploader failed to make proper research, and of course the blame is all mine if the files are inaccurate, not his. Do you want me to admit being responsible for not fixing global warming, while we're at it?

As to thinking that you removed the tag and just went on, funny you should say that because that is precisely what you have done, all the way back in June 2011,September 2011, and October 2011, without an explanation in the first two instances, despite my use of edit summaries to explain my action and elicit a response. On the third time, you graciously responded with "suspicious only to you", and that was that. The "path of least resistance" as you put it, would have been to inquire if possibly, just possibly, this guy who tagged the file knows something you don't... But no, you know better, despite not having, by your own admission just now, access to any verifying source at the time. You clearly had no idea what you were doing and never even bothered to check up or consult anyone. So spare me your sanctimoniousness, I've had enough of it. I will no longer communicate with you, I have better things to do. --Constantine ✍ 00:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If you think by being snarky you're giving me "a taste of my own medicine", you are sadly mistaken. It's already well-established the actions we both have taken regarding these files. I removed a tag that does not and can not apply, because these seals EXIST, that would mean they are by definition NOT FAKE. You on the other hand, held knowledge about the seals I did not have, and knew they did exist, chose NOT to alter them (that's yoru own admission on my talk page) to correct their accuracy problem, and instead kept adding a tag claiming they were completely and utterly fake, which they aren't. That's right, I removed the tag and did nothing to change the files in the three edits you have linked. WHY? Because I didn't have that PDF you had, I didn't know they looked different, and therefore I couldn't possibly have known to change them. But YOU DID, you had that PDF, you knew about it, you had the ability to change them, you chose not to. I'm not lazy because I didn't have the knowledge at the time. You did, you chose not to act upon it. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate user pages

Mostly I can work these things out for myself but the past few days has thrown up a couple that I am not sure about.

Firstly there is User:Abyssadventurer. This really seems quite promotional given the links. However it appears to be an alternate account of User:Marco Busdraghi. When I originally looked at this user the user page was not the same as the newer one but I see it now is. Personally I think only one account is appropriate here and for me the external linkage is excessive. Thoughts welcome?

Today I came across User:Stonemonk and in this case there are no contributions here. Equally I am not sure that someone sells apps using Wikivoyage content needs to be advertising it here. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

In case of User:Stonemonk we might ask a user/admin of the original Wikivoyage, whether Stonemonk was an active user there. If not, the userpage is a mere ad and should be deleted. If he was active or contributes now to Commons, the link to PocketEarth should eventually be removed from his userpage.

I've asked User:Abyssadventurer directly whether he is a second account of Marco Busdraghi. --Túrelio (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Second mystery solved: alternative account[26]. --Túrelio (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I had worked that out however I still don't think it is appropriate to have two promotional user pages for one user. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've asked him[27] about the necessity of his 2 accounts on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment Stonemonk -- I'd delete it for now. We do generally allow professional photographers to post images on Commons with a link to their web page. If we had a contributing user who sells a piece of software useful to our constituency, I think that might barely be OK to link from a user page. Barely. However, as an ad with no contributions, it should go.

As for User:Abyssadventurer, I think that the account should just redirect to User:Marco Busdraghi, particularly since he shows a gallery of "his" images that actually belong to the other account -- that's going to confuse people. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fatzael archaeological site

This is my first time that I ask for administrators help and I am sorry that I have to do it, but I need your help with Category:Fatzael archaeological site. This Category includes sub categories about archaeological sites in the area of Fatzael stream in Jordan Rift Valley in Israel, and it should be linked to Category:Archaeological sites in Israel. Orrling insist to remove this link and he did it twice. All the pictures were uploaded by me and I also created the sub categories. I also wrote the articles in he:wiki that use this categories.

I know orrling very well from the he:wiki where he was declared as a troll and I know that there is no way to reason with him. I guess that he did it because of his political agenda, I hope that I am wrong. Can you please undo his last edit?

By the way, the Category:Fatzael archaeological site was opend by orrling with wrong name, It should be Category:Fatzael archaeological sites. Ther are several sites there. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

While you might be right about Orrling, cat:Fatzael archaeological site is via cat:Antiquities in the West Bank actually already a sub-sub-sub-cat to cat:Archaeological sites in Israel. So the removal of latter is o.k. per our cat-policy (see File:Over-categorization.svg). I've now created cat:Fatzael archaeological sites. --Túrelio (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You can add more sub sub sub... The purpose of the categories are to help find pictures not to hide them in sub sub sub sub political wrong categories. what kind of name is Category:Antiquities in the West Bank for archaeological sites? This category should be deleted. The name West bank is a political name it is not a name of a geographical region in Israel. There are lots of archaeological sites in Israel and it need to be devided by geographical regions and not by political names. I organized all of them by geographical regions in he:wiki you can see here. Category:Fatzael archaeological sites should be a sub category of Category: Archaeological sites in Jordan Rift Valley and this should be sub category of Category:Archaeological sites in Israel Hanay (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, as Palestine is now an independent state, it should have its own categories on the same level as Israel. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no consensus about the fact that "Palestine is now an independent state"...--Jebulon (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what consensus you want here. Some people may not like it, but it is a fact. Yann (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to involve political issues with geographical issues. If someone wants to categorize by political category I am not going to say anything about it, but to deny me to categorize by geographical regions, it is not a good way to build encyclopedia.

I am sorry to see that someone saw my request as opportunity to add the sentence "Palestine is now an independent state", but in any case this area is not governed by Palestinian Authority and not part of it. I ask the administrators again to help me with this matter. thanks Hanay (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I put a lot of effort to organize the Category:Archaeological sites in Israel by geographical regions. I created Category:Archaeological sites in Jordan Rift Valley and many others. I added Category:Fatzael archaeological sites to this category. I did not finish to organize and I hope that Orrling will not interfere. If he will interfere I hope that there will be administrator that will do something about it. I am administrator in he:wiki and I know that it is not easy, but this has to be done. Hanay (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Direktor

User Direktor wrote this message on my talk page after I left him message asking him not to overwrite existing files, according to commons guideline Commons:Overwriting existing files, but he should upload a picture with another name, and cause was one more his overwrite of my photographs which are changing its essence. As author of photograph I think I'm credible both to say that his cropping of some of my images is causing essential information to be left out of picture, and to fact that mirroring some image so somebodies bust would look to right or left is distorting reality. Such edits were damaging this project even before guideline "Overwriting existing files" came to power, but after all the talk about guideline I simply find it unbelievable.

Unfortunately, he overwrote my photographs in more occasions, and when I found such distortions I kindly asked him to not do it, but his only reaction was deleting my messages from his talkpage. Once again, I left him messages because he: overwrited my photographs and changed colour of photo, mirrored pic right/left, see for yourself:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Hrvatski_skolski_muzej_Petar_Kresimir_IV_300109.jpg&action=history
• File:Ivo Sanader Svecanost podizanja NATOve zastave Zagreb 67 crop.jpg
• File:Vladimir Nazor Z Car 0907.jpg etc.

Finally this passive-aggressive message of him is utterly inappropriate, as Commons is common project of all its users and talk pages purpose is communication, and I only followed a guideline of this project and message stated in that guideline. Cause to my last message was overwrite of my photo File:Grb Frana Krste Frankopana zg katedrala 210209.jpg dated 12 January 2013‎, where he 3 times overwrote my photo and after that I gave up and left him a message. After that he uploaded my photo under a new name:

• File:Coat of Arms of Fran Krsto Frankopan.jpg

where he mentioned my photo as source, but he wrote he is an author of photo, which is violation of Creative Commons license:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

"Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)."

Having in mind his passive-aggressive attitude where he posits himself as victim and myself as person that is "damaging this project" (his words), which is as far from reality as it can be, I saw no other way but to ask you for help, as to my knowledge he is doing similar vandalism also to photos of other users and they complained, but till now he always managed to continue his wrongdoing thanks to his passive-aggressive attitude and debating skills. Thank you for your help. --Roberta F. (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:PaulaRamírezVEVO

She has uploaded a lot of copyright violations, low resolution pictures of famous people to ilustrate the Spanish Wikipedia. I think they should be mass deleted. Kind regards.--Ileana n (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Images deleted as obvious copyvios, and user warned. INeverCry 21:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of an orphan talk page

Since our friend Foroa has deleted Category:Hemavathi water suppy after moving the files to a better category based on the Category talk, I request the deletion of the orphan talk page. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC).

 Done moved to new category talk by Foroaji. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC).

Juancho1994

Juancho1994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) keeps uploading copyvios even after a lot of warnings. --Ralgis^talk 21:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. User blocked and most of the Beyoncé Knowles uploads nuked as copyvios. INeverCry 21:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

AhmetcanY97

I have blocked AhmetcanY97 (talk · contribs) indefinitely "on the spot" after I found that not only all of his uploads ever were copyvios, but that he also used a Flickr-washig account[28] (likely created by himself) after he had already been warned not to upload copyvios. --Túrelio (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Martín Nicolás Ormazábal Palma

Re-uploaded image after it was previously speedy deleted (see here, "File:Alfred E Neuman.png" is very closely derivative of work by en:Norman Mingo), needs a more emphatic warning. AnonMoos (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked for three days, warned not to repeat, deleted his most recent copyvio uploads. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

File:17 year old penis.jpg

user: Maxe12 has this file as his only upload on Commons. He claims that the pic showcases his very own penis. My question is: Is there any age limit of the uploader (age of consent or whatever you call it) to accept this type of picture from an uploader? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC).

Others can comment on the age however as it is (was) truly lousy quality it is out of scope and gone and user advised. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

USA law prohibits knowingly advertising or distributing "an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct". Note that this prohibits any sexually explicit image of any minor (real, fictional, cartoon, anime ...) if it is obscene and any sexually explicit image (obscene or not) of an actual minor. I would call an image of an erect penis "sexually explicit", but I don't know if a USA court would agree. Age 17 is a minor in the USA. See Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_States#Section_2252A for more information. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Iamlatin

Iamlatin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) still uploads copyvios besides warnings and block. --Ralgis^talk 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Extremely stale. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio by Ivanimedio

Ivanimedio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) keeps uploading copyvios after warning. --Ralgis^talk 13:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Érico Wouters ^msg 16:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Not sure where this should be reported. Commons:Requests for checkuser says it should be reserved as a last resort.

User:Deng xiaoping appears to be a block-evading sockpuppet of User:Cn223. The user's uploads are being used on the English and Chinese Wikipedia by the local user Cn223 on each Wikipedia.[29][30] --Paul_012 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocking based on the behavior and noting that his username matches an alias the that Cn223 used on his userpage. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Likely sock. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Tnays20

• Tnays20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has not taken a hint from previous warnings and blocks. This user has contributed nothing of worth to the project, literally. Please block him/her indefinitely. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Extreme however agreed and  Done thanks. There are some who simply will not understand --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no other way to make the behavior stop. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

To me this is promotional

Related discussion at VP/Proposal to apologise to Dmitri1999 and restore his list of awards

and VP/Proposed guideline for self-promotion on commons. Penyulap ☏ 09:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Message From Dmitri

I can see there's a lot of anger so I've decided to delete any "promotional" material so that it would not even be here. I am sorry(I really do) it had caused so much anger in some people towards each other. Life is too short,lets just move on. Source. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC).

User:Polarstern - userpage issues

I know that the "locker room" policy proposed by User:Fæ and Sue Gardener was rejected, but I'm not sure where the Commons community stands on userpage content these days. User:Polarstern's userpage contains at least a dozen images of his genitals, an image of a man defecating, an image of a woman masturbating with a vibrator, an image of a woman masturbating with a banana, an image of a man vaginally penetrating a woman, and several images of naked women. User:Warze was blocked as a sockpuppet of Polarstern in May 2011. User:Tänzer appears to be another sockpuppet (although perhaps I mean to say "alternate account") that has received similar warnings about exhibitionist uploads. Is the userpage acceptable? Is there a guideline? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say it's not acceptable since the user hasn't done anything other than alter the images of naked women on his userpage since last October, and hasn't done anything unambiguously helpful to the project for rather longer, and Commons isn't Facebook (among other things). But I'm a brand new admin and I wouldn't be comfortable getting involved in something so divisive so soon after my RfA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted the page, that's not the way a userpage is intended to be used for. --Denniss (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, as long as there is no guideline other than Commons:Userpage. User:Polarstern's page was showing his interests and as long as the images are legal on commons, he may present them there also. Fiddling with other user's pages is IMHO not the best behaviour. --Funfood ␌ 13:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd have some sympathy for that argument if it weren't for the fact that all he had done for around six months was tweak his userpage. Userpages are for people who want to contribute to our aims, not for people with little interest in our aims to display needlessly offensive material. The same would apply if the images were of kittens or fluffy bunnies (though it probably wouldn't end up here) because Commons isn't Facebook. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Sherilynne 55

Based upon the user's edits, I'd say this is a sock of the blocked Roadsign12, who in turn was a sock of other accounts all tied to one person. Should be blocked immediately. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction, it's also a very obvious sock of User:Sherilynne 15. Both need to be blocked indefinitely. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done I think (not by me) & thanks. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Spammer user:Saturn Supplements

LART please.

(And should COM:SPAM be a live and useful page by now?) Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done and lock requested on Meta - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989 uploaded Arms of the House of Savoy

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Eleassar and Yann are strongly advised to give each other some space for a while in order to de-eseclate the interpersonal conflict aspect. Other users can handle the copyright issues without them. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

---

User:Yann

I am sorry to have to request a review of comments and actions by User:Yann. His closure of this request has been recognised as incorrect by another administrator; see [32]. Comments like [33] or [34] are hostile and uncivil, therefore not an acceptable behaviour. I demand an apology. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't drag me into this. I frequently disagree with other Admins, including Yann, and we generally work it out without this sort of action. Yann's comments are a little edgy, particularly for this multi-lingual project where misunderstanding is easy, but I don't think they are hostile or deserve this treatment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? I don't know which copyright rules you use, or which world you live on, but I can't see anything to get a copyright here: File:Strežaj1.JPG, File:Vezilja1.JPG, File:Kolovrat1.JPG, File:Hojca1.JPG, File:Graščak1.JPG. The face is too blurry and too small part of the picture anyway. I am not even talking about the hands... Yann (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not in whether these images are free or not, but the answer that you provided when asked for the explanation[35] .. As said, please understand that this is a multi-lingual project where misunderstanding is easy and you can't talk to all people like they would be your friends from the 9th grade. Unless you're willing to read the accusations, which will eventually have their consequences. Regards, --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the real problem here are your copyright paranoia DLs and also reopening them when they don't go the way you expect. (just the latest: 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) --Sporti (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd 2nd that last statement. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You may agree or disagree with my nominations, but this is no apology for obscenities and incivility. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I support Yann for the relatively civil comments he made. I've quoted a few stray remarks I've seen in this very forum in the preceding section. Also, you should know that admins don't say "sorry" - so don't expect one and move on - there's plenty of sunshine after a dark night. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC).

@Hindustanilanguage, your admins don't say "sorry" is a completely false generalization. Admins are individuals as are other users. Sure, some admins may find it harder than others to say "sorry", which you will also find among non-admin users. Adminship has little to do with this. --Túrelio (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it has a great deal of merit in my experience. I have seen many many many times when admins have made an incredible spectacle of themselves as a result of not being capable of a simple genuine apology. The other strong generalisation is that some admins cannot under any circumstances admit they are wrong even when there is a huge consensus and logic and commonsense against them. When it's just an non-admin it doesn't blow up into such a public spectacle. Penyulap ☏ 22:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Eleassar does not want to learn, and continue his non-sense croisade, even after it was shown that the rules for FOP in Slovenia are wrong. I request another admin to warn him, and block him if he does not stop this. Yann (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you present your opinion about why I'm wrong at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Slovenian edit war. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This one has purely nothing to do with the FOP question. Instead, one could ask if de minimis applies. I'd say: it does. --A.Savin 21:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have closed the deletion nomination. I strongly advise that Eleassar and Yann don't go anywhere near each other for a few days/weeks, and let the multitude of other users already involved sort this out, since it's clear that Eleassar and Yann being together isn't working out very well. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User Orrling - Blocking

I am sorry that I have to complain again on Orrling. I ask for your help on 21 January 2013, see here. As I wrote there, Orrling has a political agenda and he insist to pose it on Categories in Commonns. I put a lot of efforts to Sub categorize Category:Archaeological sites in Israel by Geographical regions. Category:Archaeological sites in the West Bank is political name not Geographical name. Orrling removed Category:Archaeological sites in Jordan Rift Valley, Category:Archaeological sites in Samaria from Category:Archaeological sites in Israel and add to them Category:Archaeological sites in the West Bank and he also add it to Category:Archaeological sites in Judea. He even did not bother to check that those categories included sites that had nothing to do with the west bank, for example Category:Capernaum, Category:Ein-Hemed and more. Only part of those geographical regions are in the west bank.

I am going to undo his mistaken Categories, and I ask the administrators to warn him to leave those categories. I saw that he just return from blocked period. It seems that he need another period. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 2 weeks. --A.Savin 10:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Hanay (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

what exactly IS commons<wikimedia policy on naming conventions for this region? because, with all due respect to the original complainant, using terms such as "samaria", judea", etc. can be considered just as political as "west bank", "palestine" or "occupied terrtories" (& rather obviously, including sites in the occupied territories as "archaeological sites in isreal" is not only a political statement, but also legally & technically incorrect).

the cited categories don't seem to be era-specific; that is to say, the categories don't seem to be exclusively for sites from the judean-period, or the era when the region was known as "samaria". are we going with "bible-names" here? or what's the basis? Lx 121 (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The combined term "Samaria and Judea" as an amalgamated euphemism for the West Bank is politicized nonsense (especially since the ancient regions of Samaria and Judea were hardly confined to the West Bank!), but the term "Judean desert" is completely respectable in archaeology, and the words "Judea" and "Samaria" could be used separately and distinctly as descriptive terms in certain cases when the context is suitable. Unfortunately, Orrling has a history of aggressive unilateral maneuvers accompanied by an unwillingness to discuss them, which overshadows whatever kernel of valid and useful insight there may be in some of his changes... AnonMoos (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

See also: Commons:Requests for comment/Palestine and Palestinian territories. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Case closed. Creation/modification of the credit templates satisfied all needs. Attribution request is clearly visible, otherwise buy and wear glasses. --Denniss (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

---

User:Ralf Roletschek

There were already discussions about him for putting links to his homepage on the description pages of all his uploaded images, which was deemed more or less acceptable. However, this person is now also adding links to his employer's website on the description pages, and that is in my opinion absolutely unacceptable. These links clearly only follow a commercial interest, they are not necessary for attribution purposes at all, and they undermine the concept of freedom Commons adheres too. To show you how many images are affected, I refer you to this search. This is, in my opinion, a clear case of spam, and it should be dealt with accordingly by blocking the user. He is reverting any edits which remove the links to his employer, and a discussion on the German Wikipedia's Village Pump did not change anything. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

And he is in full right to revert any changes of the attribution line by other users. Only the author (licensor) of a work is entitled to specify the content of the CC-required attribution or credit for his works. Besides, the discussion on :de Wikipedia did not result in any definite consense. CC license terms do expressedly allow to name an attribution party, besides of the author him/herself (example for credit w. attribution party). It is up to the Commons' community to decide which kind of attribution might or might not be acceptable on Commons.

In addition, it should be mentioned that user:Liliana-60 (aka Prince Kassad) choose to start his/her campaign against Ralf on his birthday, of which he/she was well aware.[36] --Túrelio (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion (“campaign”) was a) started today by another user (Conny) and b) started elsewhere (community budget discussion) some days ago. --Polarlys (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No, discussion is discussion. "Campaign" refers to Liliana-60's todays requests for a global lock and blocking the user. --Túrelio (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about licensing terms, this is solely about Commons (and WMF) policy. Any new user adding these links would be blocked on sight, but as always, admins apply a double standard to long-time users so they can do pretty much whatever they want. And birthdays, pfff.... who cares? His fault for fully protecting his own user talk page right on his birthday. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The advertising claim "Knowledge Management with Wikis" (German "Wissensmanagement mit Wikis") is not the "name of an attribution party". This is an advertisement. --TMg 21:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"... is not the "name of an attribution party" - your opinion. Of course, the name of an "attribution party" may always be considered as advertising, but it will still be an attribution party. As I wrote already in my initial posting, it's up to the community to decide what kind of attributions are acceptable and which are not acceptable — and whether the community is prepared to pay the "price". Instead of singling out one user, open a rfc. --Túrelio (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I am singling him out because he is the only person who has abused Commons' good faith to such an extreme extent. Note that on German Wikipedia, there is unanimous support that these links are spam and should be removed, contrary to what you have stated. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

IMO: the "Twoonix" links should not be tolerated, as they link to a commercial company website and may be considered as advertising. However, we should allow RR to use "fahrradmonteur" signature, as it's his private page and we don't have a rule on using privat user homepage links in file descriptions. --A.Savin 22:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not ok in my view. He can use his name or fahrradmoneur as a slogan. For the german Chapter he is not fahrradmontiör, he has done the work as Ralf Roletschek... Content on description pages should be easy to read, reuse and to understand. Using a link is not so good for reusing the image f.e. in print (but thats another discussion). Users can use their userpages for links to the private homepage - anything other is spam. The homepage btw, is full of brand service and has also advertisments. I posted him some minutes ago also a list of links from Wikipedia-Articles to fahrmontör showing, that he uses his page as a source for Wikipedia facts. It is better to include these content than aiming to a page with GoogleAdwords. Conny (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC).

Just feel free to start a proposal to disallow Commons uploaders linking from files to any web pages. But for now we don't have such a policy and I cannot really follow what's the difference to other private userpages used in file descriptions, like for example this one. --A.Savin 23:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Placement in the author field is a bit strange, I would have expected them in the credit line of the license tags (for attribution). I see not a single problem with his own site, addidition of the Twoonix tags was explained as work for hire for twoonix thus he tagged them this way. User:Liliana-60 should be a bit more careful in choosing his/her words. These wordings from above sound more like harassing a user, especially with "abuse" and the block threat.--Denniss (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion serves no purpose other than angering contributors. There is no harm or damage done to the project. As was already pointed out, the author can choose whatever attribution he likes. And a link to a bycicle themed homepage is certainly no reason to go on a reverting rampage and effectively change the attribution data. Someone keen on using hyperbole might call that a violation of Ralf's license and his author rights. P.S.: It is a f..ing joke that User:Reinhardhauke deleted the link to the bicycle page on 30 images of bicycle seats. --Dschwen (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree to Dschwen! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, altering the creditline of other auhors work could be considered a violation of an authors rights as only the author is permitted to do this. --Denniss (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If you read the lines Dschwen, than you understand, that Ralf is using Wikimedia Projekts to guide people on commercial content or content he is using to make money. Nobody talks about harming the project in the first instance. The author has to use his name, NOT whatever he likes. There is sence behind, that attribution defines a person. If there are no guidelines for this jet on Commons, than they have to be created and all the touched content has to be corrected. The Author or Urheber can not be a webpage, tell me what you want (never seen a webpage taking a photo). So stay for the project and think about that! Conny (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC).

We do not have a policy that mandates that your personal homepage has to be ad-free. It is Ralf's choice if he want's to offset hosting costs by using ads. Ralf has listed plausible reasons for his choice of attribution notice here. I have not yet seen a plausible argument against it. --Dschwen (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It is very interessting to hear the thinkings of a bureaucrat of Commons. But back to topic: Attribution is the dedication of cause and effect. It is not my homepage or my employer's website - it is a person. You know surely, that there are also lifetimedates and laws binded on the dead of this person, the author. A homepage has no end of life f.e. So let us all please be consequent and use this so. Not for advertisment, not for jokes, not for signs - just for the aim it is created for. Ralf not does, and is not willing to understand, like you did. So we have to bear the consequences of you both... And no, beause others also do it wrong, it becomes not right! Conny (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC).

The CC license is deliberately vague about how an attribution should look like. It mentions at some point URLs to "profile pages" as an example on what to include in the attribution. There is no need to make up new definitions about "lifetimedates" and lifetimes for homepages. I puzzles me how anyone can get so upset about Ralf's attribution line. Why on earth would this drive anyone so mad as to go on an an editing spree, stir up numerous administrative discussions, and come up with such contorted arguments. --Dschwen (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

@Liliana-60, @Conny, @Reinhardhauke & Co: es ist einzig und allein das Recht des Autors seinen "Namenstag" so zu wählen wie er es mag. Wer das nicht möchte oder damit nicht einverstanden ist, der muss, als einzig mögliche Konsequenz, die Bilder meiden. Den Namenstag der Urbers zu ändern stellt eine Urheberrechtsverletzung dar! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Genau das ist das Problem. Wie soll ein Nachnutzer begreifen, dass er verpflichtet ist, die Zeile "Ralf Roletschek (Diskussion) - Fahrradtechnik auf fahrradmonteur.de - Wissensmanagement mit Wikis" als angebliche "Namensnennung" zu komplett wiederholen? Tut er das nicht, begeht er eine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Das stellt dann sehr wohl einen Schaden für Commons dar. --TMg 00:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ich könnte Dir schon mal auf Anhieb einige Seite aufzeigen die noch nicht einmal "Namensnennung" verstehen! Geschweige denn Lizenzeinhaltung, z.B. das und das, usw. Im Original hier zu finden. Einmal Google Suche anwerfen und die "korrekte" Nutzung bestaunen?!? Die Diskussion hier ist vergeudete Zeit. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Das ist noch lange kein Grund in der attribution rumzupfuschen! Ich hab da neulich ein paar uploader gesehen die so komische Krickelzeichen in der Namensnennung hatten! "中华人民共和国" abzutippen kann man Otto Normalnutzer doch auch nicht zumuten. Sollen wir das mal flugs in "China Mann" umaendern?! --Dschwen (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hier geht es schon lange nicht mehr um sinnvolle Entscheidungen, hier geht es um Klüngelei. Schön wie du sinnvolle Anfragen lächerlich machst und vom Thema ablenkst. Conny (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC).

Das ist nicht richtig Alchemist-hp: Ein Urheber ist: ...jemand, der etwas verursacht oder veranlasst hat, ein Anstifter, Initiator, Verfasser oder Verursacher ist (im Sinne allgemeiner Handlungsautorenschaft). Man kann hier nichts wählen wie man mag. Man kann einen Künstlernamen oder einen Benutzernamen wählen, wenn er sich auf eine Person eindeutig abbilden lässt. Conny (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC).

Conny, es ist im Rahmen der Lizenz erlaubt. Bitte in der Lizenz (en) unter 4c,ii nachlesen. Deckungsgleich in der dt. Variante der Lizenz. Die Diskussion um diesen Punkt ist also müßig.

Was nicht heißen soll, dass eine Diskussion unangebracht ist. Sehr wohl stört auch mich der durch die Bildbeschreibungsseite hergestellte Zusammenhang zwischen privater Werbung und Wikimedia Foundation. Ferner sehe ich das Autorenfeld nicht als maßgeblich für die Namensnennung an, also nicht als 'verpflichtende' Kopiervorlage. Begründung: Ich werde nicht darauf hingewiesen, dass ich diese Firmen mitnennen muss, es ist sogar eher abwägig, da eine gedruckte Namensnennung "Ralf Roletschek (talk)...etc." nicht gewollt sein kann sondern eher eine Sammlung von Links zur Person ist. Mangels eines Rechtevermerks, mangels Nutzungsbedingungen und mangels einer Zuschreibung an Dritte in angemessene Weise ist eine Namensnennung zu wählen, die den Urheber nennt. --Martin H. (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment Ralf Roletschek hasn't been notified of this discussion ... :( --PierreSelim (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There is my Template: User:Ralf Roletschek/Lizenz2, who you can read: "Als Urheber wird „Ralf Roletschek“ genannt." (engl. as author you have to note Ralf Roletschek), nothing more, nothing with a Link to my Page. My Error is, that i haven`t a template to attribute me so as the most of photographers here, i only have a textlink. I will build one and get it here to discuss and to protect. --Ralf Roleček 07:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I now have a template: User:Ralf Roletschek/Autor to include as Author in the uploads. Under the template are (noinclude) relevant examples of other photographers. --Ralf Roleček 09:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is a picture as example for the new templates. My license-template i have today shorter, because many is written in the template of author. Question to the Admins of Commons: is this ok so? --Ralf Roleček 10:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ich finde es so traurig und gleichzeitig vielsagend, dass dein Kasten (auch unabhängig von der Zweisprachigkeit) doppelt so groß, bunter und werbender ist als jeder andere Kasten, den du finden konntest. Der Werbespruch, zu dem du dich trotz mehrfacher Nachfragen nicht äußern willst und den ich nur so deuten kann, dass er einzig und allein der Suchmaschinenoptimierung dient, ist nahezu unverändert drin. --TMg 10:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Falls du mit Werbespruch den Websitetitel "Fahrradtechnik und Fotografie" meinst, finde ich den akzeptabel, weil er sich eben auf Ralfs eigene, nichtkommerzielle Homepage bezieht. Klar, ein Spruch wie "Nichts wäscht weißer als Weißer Riese"(TM) wäre nicht akzeptabel. --Túrelio (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

@TMG: Meinst du, je öfter du "Werbung" sagst, umso eher wird dir geglaubt? das Meiste habe ich von User:Lviatour/credit übernommen, ist genauso groß. Ich muß das ja nicht neu erfinden. Im Übrigen habe ich weit über die Hälfte der Fahrradartikel der deutschen WP angelegt und sehr viele Illustrationen stammen auch von mir, weltweit verwendet. Beim Thema Fotografie ist es nicht so viel aber im Ansatz ähnlich. --Ralf Roleček 10:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Das ist nicht der Titel der Website. Das ist eine Google-Bombe. @Ralf: Wieder keine Antwort auf meine Frage. Machst du das absichtlich? Lviatour hat seine Website übrigens nicht einmal verlinkt, falls du es nicht gemerkt hast. So viel dazu. --TMg 10:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Der Link beschreibt den Inhalt meiner Homepage, nicht mehr und nicht weniger. Luc hat seine Seite ebenso verlinkt, soviel dazu. --Ralf Roleček 11:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Es ist das gute Recht eines jeden Fotografen, der hier hunderte Bilder freiwillig und kostenlos beisteuert (oder auch nur eins), selbst zu entscheiden, was der Nachnutzer unter dieses Bild drunterzuschreiben hat. Auf was soll man eigentlich noch alles verzichten, um dem großen Ziel und dem Gemeinwohl ohne Anerkennung und Entlohnung dienen zu können? Sicher gibt es Grenzen, sicher muss Werbung nicht sein - aber in diesem Fall: Lasst doch bitte mal die Kirche im Dorf und schaut euch im Internet um, wieviele Bilder von uns genutzt werden - durchaus auch kommerziell - ohne dass auch nur ein Hinweis auf den Urheber dabeistünde. Das ist doch wohl ein größeres Problem als der Umstand, dass ein seit Jahren sehr aktiver Beitragender gerne hätte, dass man einen Hinweis auf seine Seite anbringt, wenn man gratis auf seine Fotos zurückgreift. -- j.budissin^+/- 12:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Viel schlimmer sind ja die Links zu diesem Wiki-Unternehmen, das mit solchen SEO-Maßnahmen Geld verdient. Commons für so etwas zu missbrauchen, ist sehr krass. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Much is said. Ralf did not react on the point, that his pictures link to pages with commercial interests, my discussion btw startet at de:wp (beside some others I realized after getting some mail later). As a reaction Ralf deletes my please to delete linkspam to his personal homepage from many Wikipedia Articles, creates a box with 4 links to his homepage in his new author box, answeres with yes of the question if its ok, that a company hireing him for photos earn the right to get more that 1000 Links to their companysite. I'm not so deep in law and CC details integrated, but I feel for the project, so I get in rage. Thank you, please stop linkspammers, Conny (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC).

Fully agree to Conny!--Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Guys, your strategy in this discussion seems to be plugging your fingers into your ears and singing lalalala. The point of link to pages with commercial interests has been addressed. You still don't see that your mass edit of of another author's attribution line was inappropriate? --Dschwen (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. All those links are still there. And they are used solely for Search engine optimization, as these two Google searches prove. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wenn mein Arbeitgeber die Entstehung der Fotos bezahlt hat und genehmigt, daß sie nach Commons geladen werden, dann kann er auch genannt werden. --Ralf Roleček 15:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Liliana, the linked Google searches only prove that google indexes wikimedia sites. Search engine optimization would require his website to show up on searches for those terms. Furthermore you included the operator "site:wikimedia.org". If you leave that out nothing Ralf-relates shows up in Google. Again you are contorting yourself to fabricate an argument. --Dschwen (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

example

Question to the Administrators her: I have now 2 Templates:

• User:Ralf Roletschek/Autor for the Infobox
• User:Ralf Roletschek/Autor2 with additional Informations

Is this ok so? Is the english version understandable? Can i use this templates so as in example? --Ralf Roleček 11:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Without the product placement (Rohloff) and the external Link it seems ok. --46.115.119.159 12:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good. I hope the "link is appreciated but not mandatory" clause will calm the waves here a bit. This is in the spirit of the CC attribution, which gives the re-user quite a bit of flexibility on how to attribute (reasonable for the medium, makes only core info mandatory, such as author's name etc.). --Dschwen (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The Photo right is a exemptet version of a "quality image" from me, i want to have in the template a photo in context Photo and one in context Bicycle. The left is product placement of Nikon, all parts of bicycles are products of a brand. --Ralf Roleček 21:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your author templates do look good − I appreciate the fact that you use a 'simple' (/Autor) for the author field and keep the extra fancy one (/Autor2) out of it.

That said : « Please credit the photo with […] in the immediate vicinity of the image. » → Such a requirement is not possible with the CC licenses. Please make it clearer that you would appreciate it this way, but that it is not mandatory.

Jean-Fred (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Please give my name near the photo or at a location that is common in your publication. - better so? --Ralf Roleček 09:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@Jean-Fred, "Please credit" surely doesn't sound "mandatory".

Anyway, an alternative wordings might be "I prefer a credit ..."

@Ralf, "or at a location that is common ..." may give too much leeway to re-users. I have found quite some uses of my images, where I did only find my username mentioned in the impressum, but wasn't able to actually locate the use of my image, and vice versa. When using such a term, you might consider adding something like "while preserving the association between image and credit", as this association is really important and is the author's moral right. --Túrelio (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I changed everything again. Now, however, the English version is probably totally messed up, please correct. Ich möchte endlich Ruhe in der Geschichte und Bausteine, die abgesegnet sind. Ich verlange ja nichts Unmögliches oder Weltfremdes...--Ralf Roleček 11:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Warum widersprechen sich die beiden Versionen? Der Kasten verlangt "Ralf Roletschek / http://www.fahrradmonteur.de" als Namensnennung (warum eigentlich so umständlich lang, warum nicht fahrradmonteur.de), die Kurzform enthält statt dessen nach wie vor einen Werbespruch anstelle der Domäne. Entscheide dich mal bitte, was man hinschreiben muss, um deiner geforderten Namensnennung zu genügen. --TMg 16:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Langsam ist es aber mal gut, die Angelegenheit war schon vor Deiner Nachtreterei als Erledigt anzusehen. --Denniss (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Was ist gut? Ich würde gern wissen, welche Art der Namensnennung Ralf wünscht. Oder dürfen sich das die Nachnutzer selbst aussuchen? Was ist so unmöglich daran, da für Klarheit zu sorgen? --TMg 13:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Túrelio: It is indeed not “assertive”, but it does sound a bit like mandatory to me − just like in airplanes they say « Please shut down your phone » and you do not have much of a choice − as a non-native of course.

Anyway, looks very good now. Thanks Ralf. Jean-Fred (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.