Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 7

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

Semiblock my user page

After comments like [1], [2] and [3] I would like to have my user talk page blocked for IPs. Thanks! // Liftarn (talk)

I don't know if it's necessary as they haven't made any new attacks since the protection expired 5 days ago, however, I gave it a month more protection just in case. Rocket000 (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. // Liftarn (talk)

Template:Flickr-change-of-license, Template:Flickr-change-of-license/lang and Template:Flickr-change-of-license/en

As with No source since/en and Copyvio, having {{Flickr-change-of-license}}, {{Flickr-change-of-license/lang}} and {{Flickr-change-of-license/en}} under permanent full protection despite never having been the target of vandalism seems a little over the top. Please unprotect or at least reduce to semiprotection. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I have semi protected and will watch the templates, so if (a big if) any vandalism is done it will be reverted and protected. Bidgee (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm watching them too. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Teresa of Ávila

Teresa of Ávila seems to be a target of blanking vandalism and nonsense edits at the moment, particularly by the TOR proxy 80.58.205.107, who made over 50 nonsense edits yesterday, perhaps to cover up the blanking by 80.32.234.28/80.32.234.58/83.60.180.216/Carmelo Seglar. I suggest semiblocking the page for one or two weeks. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Rocket seems to have blocked the IP but they have not stopped - page semiprot for a week and we will see how it goes. Thanks for the info. Regards --Herby talk thyme 11:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Minameisalexa

Special:Contributions/Minameisalexa need some speedy, see where are the pictures used and see user page--Motopark (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ Gone thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WSU

Why can't I upload this image? I've spent hours trying to make this article for my friend, and I need the image to upload before I attempt to make this article public. The picture is from Washington State University's official athletic site, so I seriously doubt I've violated any copyright laws since it's already in the public domain. Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompsona-12 (talk • contribs)

Hi. I don't see why an image from the website would be in the public domain - these things usually aren't. Public domain here has a very specific meaning - it means that it is under no copyright restrictions (eg from age, author release, etc), not merely that anyone can access it. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Videostrada Cyfra+ menu with Canal+ channels.jpg

For some reason, an IP (range) insists on removing comments from this page. Could someone revert and semi-protect it? Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 16:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep - sorted - thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of Brazil.svg

I'd like to request the unprotection of the file above, because I've found the official file from the Brazilian government here: [4]. I think that it is always preferred the official version than the one made by users. Thanks. Tonyjeff (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: This file is according to its source information already based on a version found at the government site. Please discuss any changes you propose at File talk:Flag of Brazil.svg and, if necessary, upload alternative versions under a different name. An unprotection requires consensus for a new version. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Boerchert, according to the history of the file:

  • the first version was from Open Clipart
  • the second version was made by a WP:EN user (en:User:TigerTjäder)
  • the other versions were corrections done on the second version
  • according to the description of the file, the supposed source is this one, a page that no longer exists.
  • the version I intend to upload is from the same source (brasil.gov.br), but an accessible one, with no modifications.

I am going to try the consesus, but note that the source of the file is no longer valid, and the file I want to upload is the current one on the government's site. Please, think about this. Thanks. Tonyjeff (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tonyjeff, as you've seen it worked out fairly quickly to find a consensus at the talk page, didn't it? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Sockpuppet

As with No source since/en, Copyvio and Flickr-change-of-license above, having {{Sockpuppet}} under permanent full protection despite never having been the target of vandalism seems a little over the top. Please unprotect or at least reduce to semiprotection. The template used to be multilingual until it was overwritten with an English-only version from Meta. I'd like to return it to multilingual glory, in line with {{Sockpuppeteer}}, but to do that, I need to be able to edit it. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course if you were to get back your rights...:) Anyway - semi-prot for now. I see it as a potential target but there are a stack of templates that are just that and protection varies. Mostly vandalism is by new folk/IPs so sp is probably adequate. If anyone feels strongly it should be fully protected at least let LX return it to its full glory first! --Herby talk thyme 11:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! All done and watchlisted. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Add Portuguese description for Gadget ZoomViewer

Hi! Could anyone add the following translations?

MediaWiki:Gadget-ZoomViewer/pt
{{gadget-desc|name=ZoomViewer|Visualizador interactivo de ''zoom'' para imagens grandes.|talk=MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ZoomViewer.js}}
MediaWiki:Gadget-ZoomViewer/pt-br
{{gadget-desc|name=ZoomViewer|Visualizador interativo de ''zoom'' para imagens grandes.|talk=MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ZoomViewer.js}}

Thanks. Helder 13:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Jafeluv (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Image permission/layout

Please reduce the level of protection of Template:Image permission/layout to semiprotection. It has been the subject of vandalism on a single occasion, but given that the vandalism took place less than 17 hours after the vandal created their account, semiprotection would have sufficed to stop it. The template needs to have {{LayoutTemplateArgs}} added to it for in-place autotranslation with argument passing to work correctly, but I can't add it because of the excessive protection. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Chechen Republic.svg

Please protect this page from anonymous. [5] [6] --SkоrP24 17:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Geagea (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Bee on yellow flower

Hi, I am trying to nominate a picture to be a featured picture. I had edited my image, so I decided to renominate it. Some guy told me that I was not allowed to renominate it for whatever wacky reason, and added all previous votes, and locked the page. This didn't happen the last time that I renominated a picture so I am a tad confused. Could somebody please sort it out so that I can nominate the image Bee on Yellow Flower Thanks for your understanding in this confusing mater, Thomas888b (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am some guy. You might like to read my wacky reason to see what it was. I locked it because once a vote is finished, it is finished, and you kept trying to restore it. It didn't happen last time because nobody noticed this edit, except the FP-closing bot which got mightily confused by an open nomination that had been around for ages longer than it should have been. There is nothing to sort out, if you really want to renominate it for a third time, you need to make a new nomination page. However, you should not do that. Your nomination failed the second time with 2 support (one yours) and 5 oppose votes Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Bee_on_Yellow_Flower.jpg, which means it is extremely unlikely to succeed even if you renominate it, you would just be wasting the community's time. Please just accept that this one will not be featured, and go and take more great educational photos. --99of9 (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, if that is your wish, that is your wish, I will respect that. Other people appreciate my picture, so I will let them appreciate it. I also apreciate that people have made it very difficult to nominate a good picture. Thomas888b (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say I don't appreciate it. The voters just don't think it's featured standard. That is a very high bar indeed, a long way above "good picture". Nomination is not that difficult - you managed it the first time. Renomination is a little harder, but in general is not necessary. --99of9 (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice: user banned

Hi. I banned User:Gire 3pich2005 recently. I guess he believes he should not be banned. Maybe he's right, but I don't think so. I post a notice here because he's unlikely to come here and question the block, so if some other admin wants to have a look and check whether this block is ok... Honestly, I don't want to deal anymore with this user. However, I did block him for objective reasons (I hope), not just because "I've had enough". --Eusebius (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd ban him for the way he typed his userpage. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
He has minimal english, so there could be a few misunderstandings. Do we have any admins or knowledgeable users who speak farsi? --99of9 (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Mardetanha (talk · contribs) and Mmxx (talk · contribs) speak farsi, at least. Jafeluv (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Protecting Some Files

Hello,I'm one of Persian wikipedia sysops,some of files,that placed in commons, has been used very highly and vandalism on this files will have very bad effect on our wiki.we locally protected it but if it's possible please protect files directly that listed in here than we delete local version of them.Thank you so muchAmir (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Most were protected already, those which weren't now are. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect request

Please unprotect the State Flag of New York (file:Flag of New York.svg). I can't think of any reason why this flag would be protected, it hasn't been subject to vandalism or heavy edit conflict. It also requires a correction. Fry1989 (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed it to semi-protected and added to my watchlist. File was also not subject to heavy discussion as far as I see, so I dont expect disputes. --Martin H. (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Fry1989 (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Please edit Template:Potd/2010-12-04 (en) to link Category:Inkerman monastery instead of Wikipedia.  Docu  at 04:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Scorpion pics

Picture deleted in http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tityus_serrulatus. I try update but it's blocked. A imagem foi deletada do endereço acima, tentei atualizá-la mas a imagem está bloqueada.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.25.141.89 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence that such an illustration ever existed. File:Tityus-serrulatus-1.jpg was added to the article in June and promptly deleted.[7] I find no evidence that it was ever uploaded. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please protext a map

Please protext a map File:Biogeographical provinces of Finland.png, see history--Motopark (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done -mattbuck (Talk) 15:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection request

Please unprotect uncontroversial Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/mld. Page needs to be converted to template. No recent vandalism for such blocks... Rehman 02:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"Edit" was semiprotected. I changed "move" from admin-only to semiprotected. Please post when you are finished since it is probably best to reprotect it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! The move is complete. The new title to reassign the protection is {{Administrators' noticeboard lead translations}}. Kind regards. Rehman 07:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
My pleasure. I changed "move" back to admin-only. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Spam only account?

User:ESC21 seems to be a spam-only account. Needs blocking? Rehman 15:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotect Commons:Upload/sv

Please semiprotect Commons:Upload/sv indefinitely. It keeps getting vandalized by IP addresses and vandalism-only disposable accounts.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] The page has had no constructive contributions from IP addresses or newly registered users to date. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Jafeluv (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Name Change for Attribution

There is a photographer named Curtis Neeley who has contributed some of his work to Commons, who is blocked right now due to potential litigation with the Wikimedia Foundation. I've spoken to Mr. Neeley and we have come to a possible resolution of his issues. He would like to alter his CC-BY-SA license so that attribution goes to the "CN Foundation" rather than to Curtis Neeley. Mr. Neeley is the president of the CN Foundation. He is happy to have his images included in Commons and supports the Wikimedia Foundation, he just doesn't want his photography (many of which are classical nudes) to show up so prominently in search results for his name. This kind of change in attribution is permissible. I have directed Mr. Neeley to address this issue to Village Pump, but wanted to bring it to the attention of the admins. Please let me know if there is someone else I should be directing Mr. Neeley to. Thanks. -Michelle Paulson WMF Legal (talk)

Note that the above is the first and so far only contribution on any Wikimedia project from the WMF Legal account and that CurtisNeeley on English Wikipedia is currently blocked there (though not here on Commons) for making legal threats. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I can confirm that the above account is the interim legal counsel for the WMF. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
He can not revoke the granted license and its conditions, he can only add alternative attributions. --Martin H. (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
He doesn't want to revoke the license in any case. --Dschwen (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done This is now resolved. Kaldari (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Upload protection of padlock icons

Below are icons used in templates indicating page protection on many projects and are an avenue for vandalizing pages that would otherwise have protection on them to combat this. Some of them are updated, accessibility-oriented versions of existing icons that are fully protected (such as File:Padlock.svg) or upload protected (such as File:Padlock-silver-medium.svg), and others are ones I found that aren't protected out of the old protection icon set.

– Adrignola talk 03:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Done for highly visible images, not done for non-highly used or unused images.
Action performed by: – Kwj2772 (msg) 03:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Please block User:SieBot until problem is solved

User:SieBot adds additional interwiki links when they are already there see for example this and that. I posted a message on the user page of Siebrand, but did not have a reaction yet. Checking the contributions of the bot shows that this is not the only case. I would ask to block the bot till the problem is solved and the undesired changes are reverted. Wouter (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for bot malfunctioning. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Damn, I guess someone screwed up interwiki's in pywikipedia. I'm afraid more bots are affected so please keep your eyes open. Multichill (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
No idea where this comes from. I have updated pywikipediabot to the latest version just now and will lift the block. I'll review the first 50 or so edits of the same kind as the incorrect ones. Siebrand 20:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
It's still broken. I've stopped the bot. Siebrand 20:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
What happens if you revert these edits (locally) and run again? This change is also a good target. Multichill (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Should be fixed in r8784. Valhallasw (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Things were broken on 2010-12-04 and are no fixed. SieBot was restarted. Thanks for looking into this, Valhallasw. Siebrand 22:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
A smaller bug appears to be remaining. This causes interwiki entries to be duplicated. I've asked valhallasw to take a look at that, but I think the issue is not severe enough to stop the bot for. example. Siebrand 23:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Should be fixed now, too. Hopefully I did not break all interwiki bots, now... Valhallasw (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
IS NOT FIXED 100%. Continues to add interwiki's where there are already. See this and this and that. Wouter (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
PLEASE BLOCK AGAIN. The problem continues on 23 December. See for example this. Wouter (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Emmawilliams

en:user:Emmawilliams has been blocked as a vandalism-only account. Probably a good idea to block Emmawilliams (talk · contribs) here as well. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I was about to block the account. Following the block on en.wp I did it now. --Martin H. (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Mcowkin

I spent quite some time today dealing with this user's files. In the process, I left a number of DR notices, and a personal note that he should stop using {{PD-AR-Photo}}, since he was using it for Russian non-photos. His contributions since that point have been File:Кibalchich 1.jpg, File:Perov-150.jpg, and File:Kizhevatov-10.jpg, all Russian non-photos used under PD-AR-Photo, and File:Makarov62.jpg, created with {{Nld}} in place at creation. He has neither replied on his talk page, nor any of the DRs, or anyone else's talk page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate username: User:Reachrecords

I presume spam/promotional/company names are considered inappropriate on COM much as they are on EN, despite the lack of formal username policy. In addition, the editor appears to be using WP/COM to promote the company and the artists the company represents. Rrburke (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It probably would've helped to add that the company is http://reachrecords.com
Rrburke (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
On Commons and for me, it is the behaviour of a user that is the issue mostly. This user appears to be making no effort to promote their business here (a pleasant change compared to some!). The logo looks like it is not properly licensed and would probably require OTRS anyway. If the en wp page goes it is likely "out of scope" however the rest of the images might be deemed useful so there does not seem to be an issue here to me. Others may disagree of course. --Herby talk thyme 13:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Herby. As long as the user does not aggressively promote their company, I don't see any issue with the user name. I do, however, think, we should get OTRS verification, that this user is really a representative of this company. All of their uploads look like promotional shoots, which they did probably not create by themselves, but for which they are (probably - assuming they really are employeed by this company) entitled to release them under a free license. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotect File:Collection extension createur livres.png

Please semiprotect File:Collection extension createur livres.png, which keeps getting vandalised by new and anonymous users. It has been vandalised 13 times since November 2009. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] It has had no constructive edits from new or anonymous users (one edit was neither destructive nor particularly constructive[29]). —LX (talk, contribs) 14:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done--Jarekt (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

GeographBot

Please see discussion at Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph#Categorisation. Basically, GeographBot (talk · contribs) is uploading (some) UK files into completely unrelated categories - an extreme example would be photographs of the UK being placed in Category:Melbourne. Bot-op has said words to effect of I will not recompile uploads [to prevent this]" [30]. As this incorrect behaviour is continuing I've now blocked it.

I would be happy for the bot to be unblocked if either:

  1. The upload lists are sorted to avoid it adding "blatantly" wrong categories in the first place. (preferred option)
  2. A concrete method of detecting and removing the incorrect cats (by another bot) is functioning, not merely under discussion.

Until we either do not have Geographbot making these errors - or at least get them "fixed" promptly, Geographbot should not upload files - hence the block.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nilfanion, I'm really unhappy with your behavior. We were discussing this, but you're not answering my questions. What's the error rate? This bot uploaded over 300.000 images and you can just point out a couple of mistakes. Some errors are part of the process, that's why all images are tagged with {{Check categories-Geograph}}. I really don't like the way you're selectively citing me, this should be the quote: "I'm not going to recompile them, but I am going to apply some logic to see if it's possible to hunt down the images not under Category:United Kingdom but I am going to apply some logic to see if it's possible to hunt down the images not under Category:United Kingdom." Why did you leave the most important part out? This error only happens when categories are not disambiguated (like Category:Boston or Category:Melbourne). There are two options:
  1. The category hasn't been disambiguated yet: A human has to to do disambiguate the category and split out the images. No way the bot can make a distinction before this has happened.
  2. The category isn't disambiguated on purpose: Sometimes people think one location is more important than another location. Some bot images will end up here. This practice is not very commons on Commons and could easily be covered with a blacklist for Geograph
So in short: This bot is not malfunctioning, it's just a user wanting a feature and abusing his admin tools to force this in. Multichill (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was a misquote sorry. However, continuing the uploads whilst the issue is under discussion isn't helpful either. I'm just asking that you do not upload more files until the issue is resolved (the block isn't really that relevant). Bear in mind that continuing to upload files with a known problem (if minor), but no solution for the issue (or even saying WONTFIX) is not really productive either. I can't really give you an exact error rate, though (clearly) it is going to be quite low. At present there are 13 files in Category:Melbourne, 4 in Category:Farms in New York etc.
Incidentally, I'll give feedback on a more general situation on the upload page.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh and the bot could make the distinction for a non-disambiguated category, the same way a human can, by looking at its parent categories. Reason I haven't supplied figures is the difficulty of obtaining them, I've just run catscans across the Canadian provinces and found 82 files in Canadian categories.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh for what its worth - a fuller block rationale would be something like: "Bot is miscategorising files on upload, the issue is under discussion with bot operator, bot is continuing to upload files with same problem, blocking to prevent further errors until existing ones are fixed and a method to sort future errors is in place." That's not quite the same as "malfunctioning", but the bot has continued to upload past the issue being raised without a fix being implemented. I have no objection to block being removed, but please wait to get the bug (its not a feature request but a bug fix request) sorted before carrying on with the uploading.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the block. I think blocking is mistake and totally unneeded. Multichill has allready told you that a lot of work is being done to fix categorization both before and after files has been uploaded.
The ration "blocking to prevent further errors until existing ones are fixed" is stupid. Once a solution is found Multichill can start a bot and it will fix the problem and bots do not care if they have to fix 2, 200 or 20.000 files.
We have a lot of bad categorization on Commons and Multichill is one of the users that does most to fix it. I can't see the problem in having some bad categories for a short time (the time from upload to a bot comes by and fixes it).
I have no reason to doubt that Multichill will fix problems that is reported. But in many cases locating and fixing the problems are much easier when the files are uploaded. --MGA73 (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Unblock - this is really not a big issue. We have lots and lots and lots of miscategorised files, uploaded by regular users as well as bots, simply because they don't have complete knowledge of a subject. The solution is to get someone who does understand to do it, not to block people/bots for well-intentioned behaviour. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Multichill does do a lot of useful work I agree (I don't think for one second he should be penalised here). I am not convinced the errors reported at Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph are acted upon promptly (by a tweak to blacklists or whatever). For example I reported miscategorisation of files of Category:St Agnes, Cornwall into Category:Saint Agnes in February - long before the current batch was prepped. That begs the question as to why File:Wheal Coates - geograph.org.uk - 264295.jpg is in that category. Fine its a minor but its a problem that was reported months ago.
There are more fundamental issues with the automatic categorisation I've raised on the batch upload page: I'd class myself as "someone who does understand to do it" regarding the location categories and I find that I'm ignoring the bot-supplied category a lot of the time. I thought the whole point of the smaller scale batches was to find problems, not upload the whole whack in one go and then spend months of editor time fixing things that could have been sorted pre-upload?
On the issue of the block, I have no objection to block being removed (and will do so myself if requested).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
So you're able to point out some errors. That's easy giving the fact the bot uploaded over 300.000 images and used a fuzzy categorization algorithm. Say 99% of all categorizations is correct, that means that 1% is incorrect. That sounds like a pretty damn good error rate to me, but that still means that 3000 images are mis-categorized.
And even if some images are mis-categorized, there's still {{Check categories-Geograph}} to inform the user of the fact that the images was categorized by a dumb bot.
Categorization goes in waves, Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph/split and Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph/cats to clean up are examples of that. I'll now continue to upload the batches I have in queue. Fixing the Boston's and Melbourne's afterwards shouldn't be too hard, you already pointed out catscan, put it to use with {{Intersect categories|Images from the Geograph British Isles project|Melbourne}}. Multichill (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
That is still a lot better than the hundreds of thousands of images that are uncategorised, probably much better too than the "manual" categorisation of many uploaders. If people would use proper disambiguation, error rate would be even better. --Foroa (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The current categorization problem sounds like a deja-vu. Maybe one should go through the various issues raised during the initial upload and demonstrate how and if they were fixed. --  Docu  at 20:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
You can always find bad categories and edits made by other users. Should we block all users that makes a few bad edits? I really really hope we could all agree not to do that.
If a user uploads 10 images and makes 2 bad categorizations should we block? That is 20 % bad! What if user uploads 1 million images and make 10.000 bad? That is only 1 % bad. So why should we block that user?
Users that does nothing makes no mistakes. Users that makes a lot of work makes more mistakes. But which user is best for Commons?
My suggestion is: We should not block users that work but (help) fix the errors. If someone thinks they can do better than Multichill please tell how or simply fix it. --MGA73 (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you might be confusing blocking a bot and blocking Multichill. Bots with an error rate of 20% shouldn't operated in the first place. As we told Multichill how to fix his bot numerous times, could you ask him to confirm he fixed it and make sure it works? --  Docu  at 07:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I consider these unfounded accusations (suggesting my bot has an error rate of 20%) trolling, please stop it. Multichill (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The comparison was made by MGA. If your only contribution to this discussion is adding accusations of trolling and abusing your administrator access (by unblocking your own bot), I think you are missing the point of this thread in the first place. --  Docu  at 08:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
We should block bots if they malfuncktion or does bad work. This is not a malfuncktion but some minor problems that is hard or impossible to eliminate 100 %. Some problems can be and has been fixed before upload, some can be and will be fixed after upload and a tiny portion needs human assistance.
My argument was that this bot funcktion way better than some users and this block in overkill. Bots are operated by users and if we block the bot we prevent the users from doing their tasks. --MGA73 (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
That's the point. It is feasible to stop this "minor problem" on 100% of occasions by the following rule: If location category X is not a sub-category of Category:United Kingdom (accounting for the Former colonies of the United Kingdom), don't add it. A dumb bot could follow that just as well as a dumb human. Overuse of disambiguation should not be presented as a substitute, because disambiguation is about making life easier for the "readers" of Commons not contributors to Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Well if it is as simple as that ... But if it is not simple to do I'm sure it is simple to do a querie on toolserver when all files are uploaded to find files from Geograph that is placed in a Category that is not a sub-category of UK. But that requires that we all have a little patience and can wait for upload to end and a bot to remove the non-UK categories (or to move them to the right category). Personally I do not think it is a big issue if some files have a wrong category for a short period. --MGA73 (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The bot has to search several levels up to find out if one of the parent categories happens to belong to Category:United Kingdom. Easier said than done. And when the test fails: no category then ? --Foroa (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think the bot would need to look up at most 2 levels and see if a UK country or county category is a parent: This would identify a "subject in city" category as being a subcategory of a county category (a list of a hundred of so county cats to check against). Checking the 3rd level and against the country categories would also work, and may be more efficient. If done after the fact, this would generate a list that humans could use to correct the bot. A task we cannot do without knowing where the problem is exactly.
And removing the incorrect category is not altogether unreasonable, especially if its reported on-wiki. I'd be surprised if that meant the image was completely uncategorised - it will probably have at minimum a "subject in the United Kingdom" category too. Fixing the categories by bot will not be easy, the incorrect category may correspond to multiple places in UK/Ireland (Boston and Boston for instance), but identification of the error is a necessary first step. Any procedure established may then work within the UK to tackle the much more frequent error of mis-categorisation to the wrong county.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
If it was so easy Multichill would implement it. If you have an idea how to fix it before upload you could give Multichill a working code. If not we have to decide if we want the images or not. If we do I think we can live with a bad category on some images for a short time.
Another option if you have a way to fix it is that you just run a bot just after files is uploaded and fix the problem. No need to block a bot if you can fix the problem ealisy yourself. Otherwise I suggest we have patience a short time and wait for the upload to finish and the bots end their work. --MGA73 (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
If Category=="Melbourne" Then Category="Melbourne (disambiguation)" ? --  Docu  at 04:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
That's basicly the blacklist idea. I'll open a page to do some matching. Multichill (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Unblock please. I've been working on the Wales geograph files for a year now and although problems have occurred it never crossed my mind to ask for the blocking of GeographBot because of this. Enough arguments for immediate unblocking have been given above so I won't add any other than to give my opinion that this is quite unneccesary and counterproductive and is a poor reward for all the hard work that Multichill has put into this project which has completely transformed our Britain and Ireland geography categories. I know how much that is appreciated on wikipedia projects such as the Welsh-language edition. So some mistakes are made? Seems even bots are human. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotect File:Firma e data.png

I ask to semiprotect File:Firma e data.png, as it's used in it.wiki's user welcome template; so far, there have already been 4 vandalisms in 6 months. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 17:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. ZooFari 23:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Village pump archives

Hey. Per this discussion, most of the VP archives are now renamed, except the older pre-2007. I intend to arrange them in month-order too, bot most of them are edit protected. Could someone temporary unprotect them (all of them before 2007)? I will notify here once I finish the cleanup. Rehman 12:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't. This just breaks links to the archives. --  Docu  at 05:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood; the change would be mere reshuffling of contents, and page renaming (with redirects); same as what already happened to the contents of COM:VP/A. This action is uncontroversial and harmless, and will only make navigation to older archives easier. Rehman 01:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
This part is different from what you suggested on Village pump. (changing from 2010Nov to 2010/11)
How do you think a link like Commons:Village_pump/Archive/12#CC-ND_and_CC-NC would keep working? --  Docu  at 03:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The funny thing is that there is only 5 links to the archive you mention [31] and 1 is the one above and 3 are via a redirect. So I doubt it is a big problem. But if they are important they can be fixed. --MGA73 (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, the same applies to all other archives and you can't really fix external links. Funnily, if you don't break it, you wont need to fix it. --  Docu  at 09:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
And obviously, every improvement comes with a price: fixes and modifications. Rehman 09:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Please check if there is a need to fix incomming links. --MGA73 (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You broke it, so you need to fix it. --  Docu  at 09:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, MGA73. I will now perform the cleanups and necessary fixes, and will inform here once I am done. Happy holidays! Rehman 09:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Rehman, there is no consensus for the re-organization you plan. Please refrain from it. --  Docu  at 09:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Why did you revert? What makes you so powerful that you overrun your single opinion with the two opinions above? Where is the consensus here? And what happened to "You broke it, so you need to fix it"? Your behaviour here is very disruptive. You may be blocked if this continues. Rehman 10:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I asked you to refrain from doing it. If you feel it's important, you can start a discussion about this re-organization. --  Docu  at 10:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
This and the VP are the discussions, and you are the only one opposing it. What makes you so powerful that you can revert just because you don't agree? Rehman 10:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The only person who opposes this change reverts because there is "no consensus", how odd.
Rehman: Please do the cleanup so we have a nice findable VP archive. Multichill (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I will attempt to restart cleanup in a few hours, in good faith. If User:Docu comes up again and reverts, I will humbly leave this to the administrators. I hope that is ok. Rehman 10:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Rehman, I'm not sure if I like your rhetoric. Everybody can revert. It's a standard MediaWiki feature and practice. VP would be right forum for such a discussion. You are on the right track. You could bring it up in a new thread or in the thread about "2010Nov → 2010/11" where you wrote three days ago that it's done. --  Docu  at 10:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
@ Docu, just because MediaWiki allows you to revert does not mean you have to.
@ Rehman, just go ahead. If you encounter problems just leave us a note and we will assist you. Also leave us a note when some archives are done so we can restore the protection. --MGA73 (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
MGA73: If this it to be re-organized, it needs to be discussed at COM:VP first. If you use page protection to protect a version you favor, you are misusing your administrator access. --  Docu  at 11:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It's now at Commons:Village_pump#COM:VP_archiving_style. --  Docu  at 11:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It has been discussed. The original suggestion was "How about sending a bot to cleanup all this by renaming all archives...". This has nothing to do with what I favor. When a decision has been made it can be implemented. One of the jobs admins have is to make sure users do not obstruct the decisions that have been made. --MGA73 (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure you are up to that task? --  Docu  at 12:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Up to what task? He is doing his job as an admin, and am doing mine by helping wherever I can. You are the only one in between. Rehman 12:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Per "Apparently some disagree: On December 28, Rehman stated "most of the work is done" and none of these had been changed". With all due respect, would you then stop whining and let me finish the task? What I mean by that was that another user has performed all the necessary tasks except on the protected pages. Rehman 12:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done, for 2004. Rehman 13:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done, for 2005. Rehman 15:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done, for 2006, and thus for all. Let me know if I made any errors. About 20 mins for the New Year where I live, so I'll be off now. For all reading this: I wish you and your loved ones a very happy a prosperous New Year! Warm regards. Rehman 18:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Protection has been restored again. Archives for 2006 10 + 11 + 12 should perhaps be reearanged. Happy New Year from Denmark also (even if there is a few hours untill 24:00). --MGA73 (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Speedy

Template:Speedy is a commonly-used redirect to Template:Speedydelete. Although "Speedydelete" is fully protected, "Speedy" is totally unprotected; could it be fully protected as well? Nyttend (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't overuse full protection. There is no history of vandalism of this file by established users. Semiprotection and watchlisting should be more than enough (for both the template and the redirect, actually). —LX (talk, contribs) 21:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done, semi-protected per above. Rehman 13:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Angle.jpg

This is a very generic name: please protect it in a manner similar to File:Logo.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done --MGA73 (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Licensing tutorial zh-hans.svg

Hi, please protect File:Licensing tutorial zh-hans.svg as it is part of the MediaWiki software and localization is complete. Thanks! Hydriz (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, semi-protected for now. Will full protect if there is any Vandalism. Kind regards. Rehman 13:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of Australia.svg

This image is protected by cascading from File:Oyster Cutter as banner.jpg. Please, can you unlock Flag of Australia by taking away the cascading option from the other file ? Maybe, "edit=autoconfirmed" is a well solution. Antonsusi (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason as to lowering the protection as it is a very highly used image, even with the cascading protection from File:Oyster Cutter as banner.jpg (which will no doubt be temporary [while it's in use]), also it (File:Flag of Australia.svg) has been protected since March 2009. Bidgee (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of Morocco.svg

Hi, please somebody change the 'FROM' section in the flag-infobox from 1956-03-02 to 1915-11-17 and add this source (Moroccan royal decree of 1915-11-17) to description. thanks --Flad (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Ihatecolecruz

Can someone block Ihatecolecruz under Commons:Username_policy? He's uploaded a picture of person he hates, so there's no arguments about not being a personal attack.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Just wondering, shouldn't we first discuss this with the user (and show them CHU), and at least give them a week? Just a question, not objecting... Rehman 00:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
They knew the name was inappropriate when they chose it. It would be better for them and us for them to walk away from this account and come back with no connection to it if they want to make a non-vandalism account.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You're right. Since the user made literally no edits, it is unnecessary extra task in changing the username. If they want to rejoin, they could do a clean start. Thanks for explaining. :) Rehman 12:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done blocked and image deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Brandbureau - name of PR corporation

I'm an admin on the English Wikipedia. Recently we were alerted to a Wikipedia username policy violation. User:Brandbureau represents Brand Bureau Inc. (http://www.brandbureau.com), a public-relations company that exists to promote their clients via a variety of means, including, evidently, writing articles about them on Wikipedia.

Brandbureau is blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia for writing a promotional article about one of its clients on Wikipedia, and that article will likely be deleted for failing to meet requirements for a biography of a living person. Brandbureau has also uploaded a picture of this client here.

I know the username policy on Commons is still in draft form, but I wanted to alert administrators here of a possible violation. Anachronist (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh - it is the behaviour that matters here rather than the user name mostly. In this case I'm inclined to agree however, for now, I've deleted the image based on your comments about the page and warned about project scope. They tend to become disinterested at that point from my experience. --Herby talk thyme 17:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Update: Brandbureau has appealed the block. S/he seems to have intended to edit in good faith. Brandbureau is still indef blocked on Wikipedia, but I have changed the user's block settings to allow Brandbureau to create a new Wikipedia account that represents only that person, and not the employer. Anachronist (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Brewzkey - another corporate account created for promotion

Similar to my report directly above....

User:Brewzkey uploaded File:Key-shaped-brewzkey-bottle-opener.jpg to Commons for the purpose of promoting the Brewzkey company on the w:Bottle opener article. The user has been blocked on Wikipedia for violation of Wikipedia's username policy and for using the account for promotional purposes. -Anachronist (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  • It has nothing to do with COM:AN/B. If you think that the picture is out of scope, you are free to nominate it for deletion (while I don't really think it's out of scope). If you see some copyright problems with this picture you can tag it with {{tl:npd}} template ("No permission" in Tools menu). Trycatch (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Silhouette-personne.jpg

This file (File:Silhouette-personne.jpg) should be semi-protected. See version history. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me - ✓ Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Matheus Camcho

This user continues to post files in violation of copyright law, after End copyvio template was added to their talk page. MorganKevinJ(talk) 22:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nuked his uploads. One of the Spanish admins should leave him a note in Spanish explaining him the situation. Multichill (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
✓ blocked by ZooFari. MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

File:10piece-blank-L k.svg

Please fully protect, will likely be used on Wikipedia MP. Cenarium (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Not being used on Wikipedia. --ZooFari 01:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
But it will be ... axpdeHello! 08:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I protected it, because I see it on the mainpage. Please revert if this is a wrong move. Regards. Rehman 08:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
We uploaded it locally since it was not protected in time. Cenarium (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of the President of Austria.svg

Could PLEASE someone block this "more-than-once" reverted file, as-to version 16:19, 13 January 2011 == 13:05, 25 October 2010 and possibly delete all former versions? I'm aware that such is possible.

I have an official statement from Austrian president's office (in German), declaring that the "original" upload cannot have been in use since 1984 = since the last version of Austrian "Law on Flags". They complain that they tried more than once, but unsuccessfully, to have that version removed from WP (note how many wiki-projects use it!), and furthermore note that the "original upload version" is even unknown to them.

The originally uploaded shape nevertheless shows up on some webpage of Austrian Army, where it is declared to be of size 1×1_m (!), which means that if-ever at all, it could not have been used but on a boat or on a ship. However, Austria does not have a navy for several years ;)) Responsibles for the Army webpage in question do not answer on this issue since 2010-11.

user:Gryffindor, whose de-admin I had supported a while ago, for good reason, "of course disagrees" on my edits and arguments.

Im allowed to forward President's office's statement to an appropriate address, if required.

IMO it might be an intelligent solution to convert (and fully protect) this file name into a redirect to File:Flag of Austria (state).svg

Thanks, [w.] 17:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC) + [w.] 17:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's in use on many pages, and hence should not be materially changed. It's not unattested, so this is an issue to be dealt with on a Wikipedia level, not here. And you say that "Austria does not have a navy for several years ;))", but one site I found claimed the Austrian navy was shut down on August 30, 2006, after many years of patrolling the Danube.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Just in case you did not read "file talk": During 2nd republic, which is after WW_II, there were few boats patrolling th Danube. The last two of them were taken out of service on 2006-01-16, see http://www.marineverband.at/veranstaltungen/lissa_07.htm
Nevertheless, any possibly existing "former version" of Austrian president's flag is I.L.L.E.G.A.L (I repeat: I.L.L.E.G.A.L!!!) since Austrian law of 1984-03-28 (Flaggengesetz 1984). So, W.H.Y_P.L.E.A.S.E should such bullshit have to be kept? And is spread to the rest of this planet? ("Because 'we-THE-wikipedians' ALWAYS do so???") [w.] 19:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing illegal in displaying an old flag in an educational and/or historical context, in a collection, a book or an article. The various WF projects should replace it in templates which refer directly to the current President and Government of Austria. SV1XV (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
If you don't want to work in a consensus based environment, then Wikimedia is not the place for you. Commons is especially bad, becaue our rules say that even one use on one Wikipedia project can force us to hold a free image. And any illegality is a non-copyright restriction, and Florida has no such laws, so it's a non-copyright restriction we don't need to worry about.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Beloved "user:Prosfilaes", I absolutely disagree on YOUR seemingly "consensus-based-environment", vs. "some by-some-mob propagated plain bullshit". Sorry to have to say so. [w.] 13:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Call Wikimedia whatever you want, but it is what it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to solve this Gordian knot, so could both side please shortly state their point of view, no personal attacks or alike, just facts! Regards axpdeHello! 09:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a free file in use on Wikimedia projects. Therefore it should not be deleted or materially changed. All arguments to the factual existence of the flag are irrelevant; we leave those to the Wikiprojects.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 Agree, with Prosfilaes. Also, User:W. shouldn't have uploaded the current flag as a new version of this file... If preferred, we could also delete all the reverting from that page, and restore how it was before the uploads/reverts, just to remove that huge clutter. Rehman 00:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's what I did:

  1. I cleaned the history of File:Presidential Standard of Austria (-1984).svg back to the version before the edit war began.
  2. I added some information to clearify it's a former stander of the Austrian president and a todays stander of the Austrian armed forces.
  3. I added the link to the official webpage of the Austrian armed forces to document the actual usage.
  4. I protected the file.
  5. I redirected File:Flag of the President of Austria.svg to File:Flag of Austria (state).svg (as it's the actual flag of the Austrian president as well, AFAIK).

I hope now things will calm down, if some error is left please note. axpdeHello! 15:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we keep this current delinker command (User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands: Replace File:Flag_of_the_President_of_Austria.svg with File:Presidential Standard of Austria (-1984).svg) left over from the move to the current name or directly let Delinker replace the old inclusion with the new state flag? I do not know if Delinker should do such things (as I mentioned secondly). However, if we assume that Commons should not make editorial decisions of other projects then the new redir File:Flag of the President of Austria.svg is wrong currently. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I asked for assistance at de:Bundespräsident (Österreich), the only proved usage is by the Austrian armed forces. IMHO if some project wants to show the "Flag of the President of Austria" they should get the state flag, so it makes no sense to replace the redirect with the old file rather than the actual one. axpdeHello! 08:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess it would be okay to put in the file name of the state flag but I am not sure. However, the alternative filename should be given in the delink edit then so editors can use this instead if the state flag is not okay. As the discussion (e.g. about the file name of the old version is not decided I have removed the delinker command for now ({{universal replace|Flag_of_the_President_of_Austria.svg|Presidential Standard of Austria (-1984).svg|reason=[[Commons:File renaming|File renamed]]: Federal flag ([[:File:Flag of Austria (state).svg]]) should be used in it's place (according to an email from the Presidential office, the old flag is no longer used. I can forward that email to whoever desires it)}}). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Unblock User:Btr and User:Btr/add-on

Hello, can someone unblock User:Btr and User:Btr/add-on, please. I have to change (and protect) my mail adress, because the spam-flood is so much. --Btr 15:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. ✓ Unprotected per your request. Rehman 15:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you! --Btr 15:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem :) Rehman 15:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

File:India_location_map.svg

Please semi-protect this file. The map is used in over 6000 pages. The colors of Kashmir are a result of some discussion on de:WP and should not be changed without a new discussion. Uwe Dedering (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Rehman 02:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Uwe Dedering (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Rehman 14:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Eminem performing live at dj hero party.jpg

Hi, could this be semi-protected for a while? It's one of the primary prictures of Eminem used on several wikis and the edits since mid-July last year where consistently vandalism that had to be reverted. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Semiprotected for 6 months. Kameraad Pjotr 22:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Wiolin96

Please check User:Wiolin96, see contibutions. --ŠJů (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Restored to original versions, and upload-protected for a week... Rehman 08:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hugochiva93

Hugochiva93 (talk · contribs) has been continuous uploading copyrighted images after warnings. Sdrtirs (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like only a single upload since last year. Lets consider blocking if this continues more frequently... Rehman 10:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

File:UK Royal Coat of Arms.svg

I was trying to recat the file, but was unable to, as it was protected years ago. Is it still necessary to have complete protection on this, or can it be moved to semi-protected mode or something more milder?-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello?-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. I guess semi would do for editing. Full protected for moves and uploads. Rehman 00:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of the Czech Republic.svg

Same situation as above, apparently total protection was supposed to be temporary, according to the summary. Is it still necessary, or can be downgraded to semi-protection?-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello?-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. I guess semi would do for editing. Full protected for moves and uploads. Rehman 00:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong MIME type

Wasn't really sure where to post this, but when I tried uploading my latest pictures it says "wrong MIME type" for them and won't upload. They are all jpgs. An example file-name is "2011-01-16 16_48_44 1705.jpg" (2.5MB file). They have all been edited in GIMP and taken using a Canon EOS 500D DSLR.

Please see Help_desk MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


User:RussBot/category edit requests

Please see the above. --  Docu  at 11:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --  Docu  at 12:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

User Ninostar (talk · contribs) already uploaded numerous files straight from external websites and without any permission. The user was already blocked for 1 day because of this. Because of the latest upload I contacted them here and on their Dutch talk page, after which the user stated on my talk page that they "don't care what I say". In other words, the user doesn't give a thing about copyrights and will not alter their behaviour. This calls for a longer (if not indefinite) block of the user account.

Best, Erik1980 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the one logo which was deleted, all their recent uploads are PD-TEXT. Older photos aren't obvious copyvios. I don't think we should block someone when they haven't really done much recently. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Porno

Ich stelle an dieser Stelle rein sachlich fest, dass User:Saibo sich an der "Optimierung" verkommener, schmuddeliger pornografischer Fotos unter Commons aktiv beteiligt (hat): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wife_marija_33.JPG - Dies erklärt imho auch zumindest, warum es unter Commons keine "Ehre" mehr geben darf - und ehrwürdige Paul Bocuse Bilder durch diesen User in die Lösch-Disk gestellt werden. Ich verweise hier auf den § 184 StGB nach (u.a.) deuschem Strafrecht http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184.html und erwarte, dass User:Saibo wegen "Optimierung" ehrloser, schmutziger - und handwerklich zudem grottenschlechter (!!!) - Porno-Bilder unter Commons unverzüglich gesperrt wird!--Neulich im Roxy Kino (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

a) Nonsense, revanche foul. b) Please have a look at the contributions by user:Bobo80 instead, who apparently confounds commons with a private porn photo album. -- smial (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted; out of scope. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Schade, schade, dass du es nicht verstehst, was Löschanträge bedeuten und du statt dessen auf diversen Seiten in Commons und Wikipedia mich nun einer Straftat verleumdest nachdem du mich schon in der Löschdiskussion des Vandalismus beschuldigt hast. --Saibo (Δ) 12:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Dein widerärtiger und grottenschlecht "optimierter" Porno-Müll ist "out of scope"; - "Porno-User", wie du, sind unter Commons imho schwer zu ertragen. EOD --Neulich im Roxy Kino (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Lesetipp: de:WP:PA. Danke. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 16:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Lestipp II. (Commons-Fotos sind keine Wichsvorlagen): http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184.html --Neulich im Roxy Kino (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Reiß dich mal etwas zusammen. Erstens gibt es keinen Grund, nur weil File:Wife marija 33.JPG von Saibo als quellenlos markiert wurde (was völlig richtig war, augenscheinlich ist Bobo80 ein URV-Account, zu sehen auch an seiner einzigen Wikipedia-Bearbeitung), Saibo der Verbreitung pornographischer Schriften anzuprangern - eher ja wohl im Gegenteil: Saibo beteiligt sich daran, dass, wenn wir hier schon nicht zensiert sind, wir wenigstens frei bleiben von irgendwelchen Pornoserver-Kopierern. Zweitens gibt es keinen Grund auszurassten nur weil Saibo den Maßstab freier Inhalte auch in anderen Bereichen anlegt. Jeder andere Benutzer hätte jedes der beiden Bilder bemerken können, die Verbindung die du hier zur Beschimpfung heranziehst beruht auf dem reinen Zufall dass Saibo beide dieser Bilder bearbeitet hat. Kurzum: Deine Argumentation ist kompletter blödsinn. Ferer möchte ich dir als Lesetipp III de:Wikipedia:Sockenpuppe mitgeben. Ich gehe recht in der Annahme, dass du auf Wikipedia nicht mehr erwünscht bist? Du bist drauf und dran dies auf diesem Projekt auch zu erreichen. --Martin H. (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


Close my account, please, as requested. --Neulich im Roxy Kino (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I say it again: Close my commons-account, as in de.wp requested !!! : http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administratoren/Anfragen&diff=85204405&oldid=85203942 --Neulich im Roxy Kino (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done abf «Cabale!» 12:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Gerard Way.jpg

For some strange reason, that description page has been the target of much vandalism, from IPs and new accounts. I suppose it could use some sort of protection for a while. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done for one month. --ZooFari 20:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Two notes:
--Martin H. (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect Panorama POTD

Please unprotect Main Page/pano and Main Page/std per Talk:Main_Page#Panorama_POTD_(2011-02-15). --  Docu  at 07:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

To update the main page for the panorama POTD, please update it per Talk:Main_Page#Panorama_POTD_(2011-02-15), preferably before midnight GMT today. --  Docu  at 12:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH

Template talk:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH#Please add a new version of this template (with translations). Kobac (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done abf «Cabale!» 15:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy/lang

Please add: 

<!---->[{{fullurl:Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy/ru}} {{#language:ru}}] |

Thank you. Kobac (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done abf «Cabale!» 14:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army/lang

Please add: 

-->[{{fullurl:Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army/ru}} {{#language:ru}}] | <!--

Thank you. Kobac (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done abf «Cabale!» 14:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-CIA-WF/lang

Please add: 

-->[{{fullurl:Template:PD-USGov-CIA-WF/ru}} {{#language:ru}}] | <!--

Thank you. Kobac (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done abf «Cabale!» 15:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Congress

Template talk:PD-USGov-Congress#Please add a new version of this template.
Thank you. Kobac (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done abf «Cabale!» 16:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Nuvola apps bookcase.svg

Please semiprotect File:Nuvola apps bookcase.svg, which has been the target of vandalism by anonymous users on five occasions since 2009.[32][33][34][35][36] —LX (talk, contribs) 08:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 08:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Messivillaxavi

Block User:Messivillaxavi that after been warned and blocked for uploading unfree pictures continues to do so. -- Tegel (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked and deleted uploaded files. Rehman 10:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mgkhgkh

Please block Mgkhgkh (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is yet another Fark sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Else1211

see uploads Special:Contributions/Else1211, same type of pictures than previous blocked users--Motopark (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fark. Bulgarian-Spanish troll 1) uploading pictures of pornstars with strange sources to random (unfree) flickr pages that show some other images but not the image he uploaded or that claim beeing derivative works of files from Commons which they are not 2) Vandalizing images of porn actresses with deletion requests 3) impersonating users who contribute to this field. User blocked. I left a note at the Checkuser log and blocked a range. --Martin H. (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Maxwarrior

Please block Maxwarrior (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and previous blocks. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Doneabf «Cabale!» 18:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Lepota

Please block Lepota (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who keeps uploading copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Doneabf «Cabale!» 18:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Calcetines

Please block Calcetines (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again. Apparently, they learned nothing from their previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ping? Still not blocked. Please see the block log and upload log. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --Admrboltz (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

MayronWF

Please block MayronWF (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations and recreating previously deleted copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 20:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Welcome/doc‎

Can someone miniprotect template, see history.--Motopark (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 20:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Coekon

Please block Coekon (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. Recently, they have also turned to Flickrwashing. (The source link on File:Bibi Jones.jpg shows that TerryFung==User:Coekon, and File:Japanesemelody.jpg was also Flickrwashed.) Please also see my edit request at Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images#asukatpc and TerryFung. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Medeiros/Medeiros26

Please block Medeiros (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) and Medeiros26 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for abusing multiple accounts and continuing to upload spam (and inserting it into English Wikipedia) in spite of warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and for uploading copyright violations as well. Take a pick, really. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Blocked the possible sock, deleted the uploads. Bloddy spam File:Nba.JPG, isnt it enough that I have this trash every day in my email inbox already? --Martin H. (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Time to block the main account too. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 08:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ам Шегар

Please block Ам Шегар (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who continues to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 08:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

AntonyEZuiker

Please block AntonyEZuiker (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is yet another Paulinho15 sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 08:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Csilasvegas

Please block Csilasvegas (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is yet another Paulinho15 sockpuppet. Please also see my edit request at Commons talk:Questionable Flickr images#CSI PRODUTIONS (sic!). —LX (talk, contribs) 21:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And please take care of 187.22.206.61 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  while you're at it. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Good finding, Paulinho got a new flickr laundering account https://www.flickr.com/photos/59956092@N03/. I will check User:Csilasvegas just to make sure, and to refresh the information I have about him. LX, if only you were an admin I would ask you to run for Checkuser. This project has not enough people patroling the recent uploads and not enough people careing for such people like Paulinho. --Martin H. (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Martin. It would also really help if the good people at the Portuguese Wikipedia would be a bit more diligent in taking out the trash from their project, which would reduce the incentives to upload copyvios here. pt:George Eads is now semiprotected because of Paulinho, but they've happily let him play around long enough with his pt:User:Tucuruvi26 puppet that it's become autoconfirmed. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Please add User:AntonyEZuiker to the list of Paulinho15's sockpuppets. --Denniss (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Jasper gabriel seems to be one more sockpuppet, User:Thisisitit is another candidate. --Denniss (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
AntonyEZuiker is blocked by Herby, for the others see below Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Jasper gabriel.

✓ Done (new requests in new postings please) --Martin H. (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

T.harte

Please block this vandal. I have warned him. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/T.harte 78.55.63.74 12:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no vandalism (come to that I see no warning)? --Herby talk thyme 15:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I think Seven Eight Five Five Six Three Seven Four means the edits on Creator:August Gaul, Creator:August Kraus, Creator:Adolf Brütt and Creator:Louis Tuaillon and by "warned," I think Seven Eight Five Five Six Three Seven Four means their edit summary (which isn't really a good way to carry on a dialogue). —LX (talk, contribs) 22:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Cobrats65

Please block Cobrats65 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done by Herbythyme. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yaredad

Please block Yaredad (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Admrboltz (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please protect

Please protect Template:Image permission/doc, see history--Motopark (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, expires 3 months later. – Kwj2772 (msg) 04:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Jasper gabriel

Please block Jasper gabriel (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is yet another Paulinho15 sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done, from checkuser I can say that this is someone else and that he already has his own sockpuppet User:Thisisitit. Judging by language this is supported (en.wp, not pt.wp), looking for the users ability with images[37] this it is more supported. --Martin H. (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, wow. I guess misery really does love company. Thanks for looking into it. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, but sure I would not have checked them if I not first thought they might be socks, therefore: thank you for the report. Hope that Jasper gabriel makes better in future. --Martin H. (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Kel mejia

Please block Kel mejia (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 13:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikiatila

Please block Wikiatila (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and two previous blocks. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

ManausAmazonas

Please block ManausAmazonas (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload unsourced files in spite of multiple warnings and for continuing to overwrite quality images such as File:Belém Brazil panorama 01.jpg with low-resolution versions in spite of warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - the website as source (skyscrapercity.com) would appear to be copyrighted material from a quick glance? Have we not had copyvios from there from someone else? --Herby talk thyme 15:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok forget that to some degree as it is a forum. However personally i think those images should go as being very dubiously licensed? --Herby talk thyme 15:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep, skyscrapercity.com is one of the prime sources for copyright violations uploaded to Commons. Pretty much the whole purpose of the site is for its users to create long forum threads consisting of no actual discussion but just pages and pages of photos – mostly other people's photos. Most users don't mention where they got the photos from. The forum doesn't actually store any files themselves – it's all deeplinks to other servers. If you put the full or partial URL of the images into Google, you can usually get a bit more context from the actual hosting site. Sometimes it's Flickr, but most often it's photobucket.com (which is of course notorious for gladly hosting tons of copyright violations).
Skyscrapercity.com usually ranks high on image search engines, and South American copyright violators seem particularly fond of it. We have definitely had other users upload copyright violations depicting the city of Manaus sourced from skyscrapercity.com in the past, but it's actually too common an occurrence to raise any solid suspicion of socking.
Feel free to speedy the uploader's files. We are – rather obviously – not going to get any valid source and licensing information for them. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Vasko444

Please block Vasko444 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ekaterinaaaaaaa

Please block Ekaterinaaaaaaa (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who keeps uploading apparent copyright violations (none of the uploads have a license tag, and the source of all uploads is stated as "Own workSome Other Person," where Some Other Person is a range of different names) in spite of this and other warnings. Please deleted the uploads as well. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done abf «Cabale!» 14:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Derek caldana

Please block Derek caldana (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who keeps uploading copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. LX, PLEASE apply for adminship again! abf «Cabale!» 14:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I wish I felt that was an option. Sorry if it seems like I'm flooding the place with requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Why won't you? ;) You could do all this stuff on your own again. ;) abf «Cabale!» 15:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag/Archive 1#A little more on PD-Art —LX (talk, contribs) 18:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-NPS

Template talk:PD-USGov-NPS#Please add a new version of this template.
Thank you. Kobac (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done abf «Cabale!» 20:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Puppadance

The user is a vandal who uploaded here some pictures in order to create fake articles on italian wikipedia. Some of them (or even all) are surely copyright violations. Please block this user indefinitely. --Cotton (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've notified Puppadance here. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 02:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Aram-van

Please block Aram-van (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who continues to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Yeah thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
They have continued to upload copyright violations after the block expired. Please re-apply the block. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-scan

As with No source since/en, Copyvio, Flickr-change-of-license and Sockpuppet, having {{PD-scan/layout}} and {{PD-scan/en}} under permanent full protection seems a little over the top. Please unprotect or at least reduce to semiprotection. {{PD-scan/en}} was the target of vandalism a single time while it was unprotected for two years, and semiprotection would have been enough to prevent that. I have also watchlisted the templates. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I  disagree, the templates are to heavy in use. Full protection is standart for those. abf «Cabale!» 12:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Note that I'm not asking for unprotection of the main template, only the subtemplates which are unlikely to be found by vandals. I was hoping to introduce layouttemplate use for in-place translation and parameter passing as well as preventing the rather clunky use of of two copies of File:PD-icon.svg when the first parameter is used. But I guess it stays the way it is. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

W0295

W0295 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) is continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a recent one-week block. Please block again. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, doubeled the last one. abf «Cabale!» 15:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Systemic overuse of full protection

I think my request above and the requests linked to from that points to a bigger problem, which merits separate discussion. Commons currently has 838 templates with indefinite full protection. The vast majority of these have never been the target of vandalism and would never be the target of vandalism if left unprotected or semiprotected. The level of protection is not at all proportional to the risks.

I should say that this habitual protection does have some support in Commons:Protection policy, but I think that the policy is wrong and should be changed. The provision for indefinitely full-protecting "frequently transcluded templates" (whatever that means) was introduced three years ago (ironically in the same edit that the link to meta:Protected pages considered harmful was introduced). As far as I can't see, this was not discussed beforehand. I'm not liking the result, and I think it's time to rethink this practice. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think most license templates listed on the page you linked should stay protected. But, I do agree a big chunk of them is nonsense protection. {{Pokémon}}?!?! The template is never even used and is only a redirect! Rehman 16:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Far from all of those are license templates. And what about sub-templates, which are unlikely to be found by vandals? We have 45 /layout templates with indefinite full protection (out of about 700) – far too many for my liking, but certainly not enough to make it a standard practice. Examples:
Many of these are in dire need of updates to use proper in-place translation with layouttemplate. Systematic overuse of full protection prevents that. At best, it will redirect vandalism to the unprotected templates with a similar or higher profile (a vandal proficient enough to find a /layout template could certainly find an unprotected one). There is no way that leaving these templates semiprotected and dilligently watchlisted could invite more harm than is caused by locking the wiki down for admins only. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
If the main template is protected - and that protection is correct - then all sub-templates of that template, such as the layout templates, should also be protected. If the sub-template is unprotected, that defeats the point of the protection. A vandal who wants to damage the template can easily find the sub-templates: They are not hard to find (if you try to edit a protected template the interface tells you what sub-templates it uses). The inconsistency between layout templates is unfortunate. It might be sensible to set up an unprotected list somewhere, so users can work on developing the templates centrally then ping an admin when done, as opposed to needing to use {{Edit request}} a billion times.
BTW - It really isn't surprising {{Pokémon}} is unused, its a redirect to a speedy delete template and is a rather obvious copy vio :)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
High-risk template protection is slightly different to what the essay on meta is on about (its focus is content pages). Templates that are very heavily used, such as license templates, should be full protected IMO. The current list includes things it shouldn't, and also doesn't include things it should, but the underlying concept - heavily used templates get full protected - is sound; I don't see a systemic problem here. We just need to define what we mean by "high-risk" :)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

JimmyDarmodyRules

User:JimmyDarmodyRules is still uploading copyrighted images after warning. Block? Evalowyn (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done 3 days. --Dferg (talk · meta) 00:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Contributor was advised of copyright policy on 22 January (here), but has continued uploading copyright content without verifying permission. (I'm afraid I'm not sure how many; I tagged several images as blatant copyvios for speedy deletion, and I know some of them were very recent, but I don't know how many postdate that notice. I presume you Commons admin types can see that in the deleted contrib log. :)) I wanted to bring it to your attention in case admin action was deemed appropriate. I'm heading back to en wiki. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Final warning done --Herby talk thyme 09:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

ManiacKilla

Please block ManiacKilla (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and previous blocks and for deliberately falsifying Flickrreview tagging. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 09:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Paplininimax

Please block Paplininimax (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who keeps uploading copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 09:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Lyes L

Hello, I request for this user to be blocked for a long time or undefinitely. All his contributions history is composed of copyvios for which he has been blocked twice (see his discussion page). Now that his last block is terminated, he just loaded a new copyvio. He does not understand what copyright means and leads to a permanent monitoring. Thanks for your consideration! Moumou82 (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, blocked user for two weeks. We can consider extending to indefinite if they continue this behaviour. Rehman 13:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Süm16 and Süm17

Please block Süm16 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) and Süm17 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who are today's Xraykan sockpuppets. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done abf «Cabale!» 10:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Baronluigi

Please block Baronluigi (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who keeps uploading copyright violations and recreating previously deleted copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done abf «Cabale!» 10:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-3.0-es

Please protect like the other cc-by license-templates. Lymantria (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, widely used. --Dferg (talk · meta) 21:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection against ja:LTA:MIKI

Please semi-protect these file pages and categories, as they are repeatedly vandalised by sockpuppets of a long-term, cross-wiki abuse user, ja:LTA:MIKI.

Please note that File:Saoirse Ronan cropped.jpg is already semi-protected for 3 months due to the same reason. Yassie (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems fair. I am going to protect the images for one month each. abf «Cabale!» 12:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Flags of Berlin

Ich bitte die Dateien File:Flag of Berlin.svg, File:Flag of Berlin (state).svg, File:Standard of senate of Berlin.svg, File:Flag of Berlin (banner).svg, File:Flag of Berlin (hanging).svg zu sperren. Ich habe die Flaggen entsprechend den Mustern im Gesetz und den Farbvorgaben des Landesarchivs Berlin hochgeladen. Dennoch lädt Benutzer User:Fry1989 sie immer wieder in anderen Farbtönen hoch. Hierbei stört ihn weder die Angaben in der Beschreibung der Dateien noch ein Hinweis auf seiner Diskussionsseite. Auch die beiden Dateien File:Flag of East Berlin (1956-1990).svg und File:Flag of Berlin (1934-1954).svg werden von ihm in einen falschen Farbton hochgeladen. Diese Dateien bitte auch sperren. Danke

I ask the files File:Flag of Berlin.svg, File:Flag of Berlin (state).svg, File:Standard of senate of Berlin.svg, File:Flag of Berlin (banner).svg, File:Flag of Berlin (hanging).svg to block. I uploaded the flags according to sample in the law and the color specifications of the State Archive Berlin. Nevertheless, User:Fry1989 uploaded this files in different colors always. In this case it does not disturb the information in the description of files, a word to his discussion page. The two files File:Flag of East Berlin (1956-1990).svg and File:Flag of Berlin (1934-1954).svg are uploaded by him in a not correct color. These files, please also blocked. Thanks --Jörg (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can say the colors are correct in your version. I added one or two of the files to my watchlist and hope that Fry1989 will not reupload the wrong version again. --Martin H. (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The red is wrong. Look at the actual flags of Berlin. Fry1989 (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

David C. S.

David C. S. (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) keeps uploading copyright violations and recreating previously deleted copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. I know that Zaracay.png was deleted before and I'm pretty sure I recognise Vista de Tena.png and Ciudad de Tena-Napo.png as previously deleted copyright violations. The user's other 50+ uploads may also need a review. Probably best to block the uploader until that's done to keep them from adding to the backlog. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and some deleted - other images could still do with review though. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please protect Template:Lang-Sig

[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎ (used on an important policy page / uzata en grava regulpaĝo / используется в важной странице правил)

Usage here: Commons:Signatures

Thanks --RE RILLKE Questions? 15:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that is necessary. Template is used on 2 policy pages and pages themselves are not protected. --Jarekt (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok. --RE RILLKE Questions? 15:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Problem, Officer?

Please block Problem, Officer? (talk · contribs) for uploading File:Problem officer.jpg which was used several times for vandalism on de-wiki (see speedydelete on the file). Thanks, XenonX3 (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done and thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Süm18

Please block Süm18 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is yet another Xraykan sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
...and Süm19 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log). —LX (talk, contribs) 10:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. Any guesses what the next sock will be called? Jafeluv (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
A handy thing about Mediawiki is that you can watchlist a talk page before it exists. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
...and Süm20 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), unsurprisingly. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. Rehman 09:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Commons protected edit requests

Seems like none of the persons over there likes doing them and don't think they should get done either.

I suppose some can wait, but if someone would look into this one, I would appreciate. --  Docu  at 07:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, all of those "persons over there" are volunteers to the project, and they do whatever they can whenever possible. Perhaps if you reduce your sarcasm, people would be more willing to help you. Rehman 08:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
About 6 weeks ago you wrote "My OS is currently being reinstalled; currently accessing via mobile. Will look into that as soon as that is done, if no one has done so by then.", but you haven't done any edit requests since (neither mine nor anybody else's.). --  Docu  at 08:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Did you, or did you not understand my reply? What does that have to do with anything I said above? Rehman 09:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not the only persons making protected edit requests. Maybe you could show me a diff to an edit request of someone else done by any of the "persons over there"? --  Docu  at 09:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The thing about volunteer projects is that you can't make someone work on something. Asking nicely usually helps, though. Jafeluv (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually go one step further: I ask to do them myself for others. Somehow this seems to escape to admins who aren't even active in the field though. ;) Some even feel it "disrupts" them from (whatever else they are doing) --  Docu  at 17:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Apimash

Please look at User talk:Apimash — as far as I can tell without the ability to view deleted contributions, all of this user's contributions have been deleted as copyvios, except for the two most recent, both of which (1) were just uploaded, and (2) were just tagged as copyvios by me. Is a block in order, or is that going too far? User notified. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio contributions

Hello,
I wanted to draw your attention on the contributions of Hamzaelrey. All the pictures he recently downloaded are copyvios taken from various Web pages. Already two of these images were deleted for the same reason yesterday. Could you please take appropriate measures to ensure these pictures are deleted and this user warned or blocked? Regards Moumou82 (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted and warned. --Martin H. (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Just to let you know another one has been loaded. Moumou82 (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Baronluigi again

Please block Baronluigi (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations and persistently recreating previously deleted copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. Previous entry: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 7#Baronluigi. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Ahmed II and Manceron.JPG

Hello, Can I ask for the latest version of this picture to be deleted? This is the exact copy of the original one. Moumou82 (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Rehman 09:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

User:La33

Please block La33 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . He doesn´t stop to upload copyright-violating content, although I requested him twice to stop this behavior. Now I think it´s time for a block. --FalconL ?! 16:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If this is about File:03.04.jpg, the description in the source page actually says it's from the beginning of the 20th century so I don't see how it's a clear copyvio. The copyright notice you refer to in the speedy nomination is about the copyright of the website, not necessarily every image that is displayed on it. I haven't looked at the other contributions, though -- will get to it later today. Jafeluv (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It wasn´t me who declared File:03.04.jpg as a copyvio. I watched this user since his first upload and today noticed he had uploaded another file which was declared as copyvio (File:03.04.jpg), so I decided to report him here. --FalconL ?! 17:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I just assumed it was you based on your post here. Jafeluv (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Took a closer look, and deleted the earlier contributions as copyright violations. None of them had a specified license; two were directly from Panic at the Disco's website, and one was a copyrighted album cover. I gave the user a short block with an explanation. Meanwhile, it looks like File:03.04.jpg has already been deleted -- I'll have a word with the deleting admin about whether we could actually keep that one. Jafeluv (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Guillaume305

Guillaume305 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) needs some assistance with not uploading copyright violations. Please help. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done; User:Guillaume305 is now blocked. Thanks, High Contrast (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

David Furty

David Furty (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) unfortunately didn't take the opportunity to read COM:L during his last block, so he's going to need another enforced break from uploading copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done, thanks. Rehman 01:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Profbond07

Profbond07 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth), which I indefblocked when I was an admin, has requested to be unblocked. A sysop should examine his request. Thanks in advance! --Eusebius (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently ✓ Done. --Eusebius (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Revert and protection

During my edits on serbocroatian wikipedia I have discovered that Croatian Historical coats of Arms has been vandalised long time ago. After looking situation on commons I have discovered that this very popular coats of arms is used on many, many, many wiki projects and that in beginning has been OK, but latter has been vandalised by banned user Rainman [38] aka Imbris [39] aka Bugoslav [40] and now my change has been reverted by newly created account user Starčevićanac. I know that question if first square is white or red is funny for users outside Croatia, but inside difference is very great because coat of Arms with first white square is symbol of Independent State of Croatia puppet state of Nazi Germany and on other side first red square is if we will believe to Croatian government site Croatian Historical coats of Arms + coat of arms of modern Croatia [41].

For this reason I am asking administrators for revert and protection of this Coats of Arms on commons. --Rjecina2 (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. You are absolutely right. I have reverted to the version with the beginning red square. This file has been protected for one month. --High Contrast (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
User Rjecina2 is lying. The Croatian coat of Arms with the first white square was in use in Croatia ever since 1851, almost a century before the WWII. Therefore, the Coat of arms with the first white square is a historical Croatian coat of arms. Aside from that, it was a symbol of the first Croatian democratic government, a flag with that Coat of arms was raised by Croatian president Franjo Tuđman on 25.07.1990 before the Croatian parliament. The file Croatia, Historic Coat of Arms.svg was vandalised, true, but the vandal is Rjecina2. No one said anything against the Coat of arms with the first white square for three years, and then suddenly, Rjecina2 claims that it represent "croatian fascist regime". Yeah, right. If someone wants to use the Coat of arms with the first red square, there is such file. But the first Croatian Coat of arms in 1990 had the first white square, not red. Therefore, I'm asking administrators to revert the file Croatia, Historic Coat of Arms.svg to the version with the first white square, and to protect the file from possible future vandalizations by Rjecina2.--Starčevićanac (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag map of Navarre.svg

Please protect my file File:Flag map of Navarre.svg, it's currently under an edit war by user:Miguillen who is splitting hairs because I chose one version of the Flag of Navarre over another, and he has some sort of impression that it's not ok to use the one I chose, which is nonsense. I'm tired of reverting, he's given no valid reasons to change it, and I've had enough. Fry1989 (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think my reasons are sufficient in a banner displayed the coat of arms painted or embroidered and embossed never making it adsurdo use shadow effects, also in my version using a shade of red as the colors of the FIAV. The file name must be correct to the image (I see it as if I would use the shape of the map from another site) and I've proposed that by wanting to keep that version up with another name. Greetings. miguillen (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Why should I upload it as another name? It's my file in the first place and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's not meant to be an actual flag for production, it's just a flag map, a graphic, it's not real, nor does it have to be! Fry1989 (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Not your file is a contribution and as such can be improved or corrected if erroneous another contribution of this attitude repeatedly assert that it is my file and that no change me I think is not correct I think that right should prevail over what wrong and in this case that version is not right with that name, because if is the map of Navarre but that is not the correct flag. I'll let the matter is resolved.miguillen (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • First, both of you stop edit waring and start using the talk page. User:Miguillen please read Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files. If you think that the file is incorrect you can ask DR on a base of out of Project scope. If you think that the file incorrectly named please use {{Rename}} and explain it in the talk page. This file made by User:Fry1989 so it will include Fry1989's version. You can always upload your own version to new file. You can also try to convince Fry1989 to made the changes you mentioned in the talk page. Please remeber that further edit waring might bring to your block. Geagea (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Miguillen tried to talk with Fry1989 but he deleted the message Ezarateesteban 22:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Although, the comment deletion by Fry1989 is not very collegial or polite, users have the right to delete comments from their own talk page unless it a warning tag. Miguillen can discuss in the files talk page. Nobody will remove this comment. He also can upload his own file and nominate this file for deletion as I explain above. Geagea (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
For now I chose to upload my version with a new name. File:Wikiproyecto Navarra.svg Although the issue is that I hung up the face of a future normalization of filenames. As I have said is intended that all flags bear the name normalized to facilitate its application in articles and templates, and although this is not the case because only a map filled with the flag felt it was best left with a standardized name. But the issue is discussed at the moment you arrive with more ease and in a different scenario. Sorry. Greetings.miguillen (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

RostyslavZvanych

Please block RostyslavZvanych (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth): He is only uploading clear copyright violation, and does not show to comply with our policies. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Joaocarlospatricio

Please block Joaocarlospatricio (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who keeps uploading copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --High Contrast (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Nobel Peace Price Concert 2009 Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith with children1.jpg

Excessive vandalism. Please protect to prevent IP edits. Thanks -- RE RILLKE Questions? 22:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Ian Somerhalder.jpg

Excessive vandalism. Please protect to prevent IP edits. Thanks -- RE RILLKE Questions? 12:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done One vandalism is not excessive, there's no need for protection. odder (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

JuanPabloPerezA

Please block JuanPabloPerezA (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who keeps uploading copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

72.14.194.49

Please block 72.14.194.49 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who keeps adding spam and nonsense to pages. Looks like someone at Google is running a broken spambot, open proxy, or Turing test experiment. See also the other Google IP edits to the Galician village pump. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - I've set a one week block for starting. If it is indeed a proxy or misconfigured server/zombie computer let me know so I can raise the block for more time. Thanks, --Dferg (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Windsurf101 and Special:Contributions/Dumdum

I have the feeling that they are socket puppets vandaling on Commons. Rollbackers, please help to undo the changes made by these users. Thanks -- RE rillke questions? 19:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked and contribs reverted. Thanks for reporting. Jafeluv (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Speedy delete contest button.png

Please protect fully and indefinitely. This file is now massively high use and very sensitive--it is used in w:template:db-meta which all of the speedy deletion templates on Wikipedia transclude, as well as in all of the speedy deletion warning notices (and more). This is part of a new speedy deletion format in use as of today on Wikipedia (we have gotten rid of use of {{hang on}} tags).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Semi-protected the description page and fully-protected against moves and uploads, both indefinitely. – Adrignola talk 02:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No subject

sreejith kulamgarath from O.T.R.S. commission asked me today to raise this issue here.

it is concerning 'my talk':

today i have placed the following message in there:

"zur kenntnisnahme: USER MARTIN H. HAT MIR 2010 UNMISSVERSTAENDLICH MITGETEILT, DASS DIES MEINE DISKUSSIONSSEITE SEI, ICH ALTE DISKUSSIONEN DAHER HIER VOLLSTAENDIG LOESCHEN DUERFE; die O.T.R.S. KOMMISSION, AUFGRUND DER NEUERLICHEN AUFSCHALTUNG MIT KOMMENTAREN ANGEGANGEN, HAT MIR DIES IM FEB.2011 NOCHMALS KLAR BESTAETIGT.

das file "wetten das schweizer volk lässt sich entwaffnen" wurde nach dem 'deletion request' (5 minuten nach aufschaltung!) im jan. 11 O.T.R.S. approved, und ich bitte die kommission seit 13.2.11 (abstimmungstag über waffenverbot), aufgrund des wahlausgangs, das file zu löschen, habe allerdings zuvor noch eine objektive beschreibung reingehängt, und all die, welche mich nicht nur gerufmordet sehen wollen, sollen sich mal das file mit der neuen beschreibung ausdrucken, lesen - ich habe die wette gerne verloren! mvart4u"

and deleted all old discussions.

and i hope that you can now agree, that old discussions, due to O.T.R.S.-approval on all of my works published in w.commons can be deleted, rather then stored... for whatever purposes.

many thanks and best regards, mvart4u

ps: if a file is approved as described above OTRS) within a certain category, i do as copyright holder not understand, why my wish is not respected: eg there are works which i clearly do not expect to be moved into my own category, because out of context, they could be contraproductive. - that i am censored can be easily proofen (please also see current works 8 and 9 in my own category), confirming what i just indicated above. you find on: http://www.google.ch/images?q=mischa%20vetere&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=de&tab=wi&biw=1280&bih=550 since a while image 3 and 4 - due to this i created a chain of files on theses; surprisingly you will see that it is not the current version which is shown and the works not even belonging to my category, therefore nasty programming! i have subsequently asked O.T.R.S. to delete the first version in the file history of said files (on feb. 13, repeated today) and look forward to learn what happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvart4u (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Since I do not understand the request I asked for clarification on his talk page.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know what violation occurred such that you deleted my school logo. I operated fully within wiki copyright rules. Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmay1001 (talk • contribs)

Hi Mattmay, and welcome to Commons. As is explained on your talk page, the file was deleted because you did not indicate a license for the image. Commons only accepts freely licensed media, so you have to be able to demonstrate that the image is either in the public domain or has been released under a free license. If the logo is copyrighted and not freely licensed, it may still be possible to upload it onto Wikipedia under fair use. Hope this helps. Jafeluv (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Rodrigo Oliveira Santana

Resolved

Please block Rodrigo Oliveira Santana (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User blocked for a month and images deleted. Bidgee (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Guigó

hello i would like to insert a picture of the guigó in this page. we have a multimedia and interdisciplinary project here in sergipe, brasil called "projeto guigó de sergipe" and would like to collaborate in the building of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.151.188.118 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussing blocking of users and protection of files. Illustrations of Brazilian monkeys would be out of place here. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Jshj8

Please block Jshj8 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ldpersun

This person has uploaded 4 copyvios here and even more on en-wikipedia. I am not sure what the procedure is to deal with this sort of thing. cheers --Guerillero 12:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no will to constructive work ... axpdeHello! 09:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

SirgermanI

Please block SirgermanI (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Blocked - indef next, thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Weedhead420563 (done)

Please block Weedhead420563 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is a sockpuppet of blocked vandal Highheeltobluto'snutsack (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log). —LX (talk, contribs) 16:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Weedhead420563 blocked with an expiry time of infinite. Reason: Vandalism-only account. --Dferg (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fernando perfect1.0 (done)

Please block Fernando perfect1.0 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. --viniciusmc (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fernando perfect1.0 blocked with an expiry time of 1 week. Reason: Uploading unfree files after warnings. --Dferg (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Block file File:123.jpg

According to the deletion log] of that filename, I suggest to block the file once for all. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. I've set an infinite sysop protection against recreation. I've tryied to set upload restrictions too, but the software rejects them when doing so via the protection form. I think they're already included with the current settings. Best regards, --Dferg (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
A recent case showed that the upload protection isn't working for nonexistent files; the log only shows create protection. Compare that with another log for a file I deleted, then created a page of the same name for with {{Protected}}, and then changed settings for once a page existed. Now it appears on Commons:Database reports/File description pages without an associated file, though. But it was demonstrated that an upload to the name will bypass creation protection for the page itself. – Adrignola talk 12:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the infos. I've recreated the page with {{prohibited name}} and protected the file again, as can be seen in the protection form of the file. I hope it works now. I thought that this kind of titles were title blacklisted. Regards, --Dferg (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Joffre eupe

Please block Joffre eupe (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

✓ Blocked for a week. Bidgee (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

unprotect or reduced level protection on Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2010

hello;

was going to do a minor edit on this page Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2010 & found, to my surprise that it has been "protected" to the level of "admins-only".

NOT clear why this was done (april29); there was NO discussion about implementing any "protection" on the talk page (started a new topic for it there, just now).

nominally, i could understand making the page "registered users only", as a "pro-active" measure; though good form would still dictate at least having a discussion about it (and/or waiting until there was a problem).

BUT "admins only" seems like overkill, especially when i can't find any place where poty even discussed doing so.

unless the outcome of open discussion at the page clearly favours it, am requesting that the protection be either removed, or reduced to a more moderate level.

we are still a wiki after all 

:P

Lx 121 (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It was mentioned on the preparation page and was not something for discussion as it was requested by the committee. Admin protection is needed for cascading protection to be in place. This is an extremely high traffic page with advertising for it on multiple mailing lists and a global site notice across all Wikimedia projects. It is a vandalism target and so is every template included upon it. Thousands are descending upon Commons with this as the landing page and so this is not a page to be treated lightly. – Adrignola talk 02:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


ok so i've been all over the poty2010 preparation page, & i can't find anything about it there either? link me please? Lx 121 (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2010/Preparation#Shall_we_begin_tomorrow.3F. "... protect all landing pages with cascading protection, and we'll begin". – Adrignola talk 04:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Camiga

Please block Camiga (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Blocked by Herbythyme.   ■ MMXX  talk  19:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Carrousel

Primero que nada, pido disculpas por romper mi bloqueo, pero con urgencia dada las circunstancias, necesito comunicarme con un administrador, o especialmente con el responsable de mi bloqueo: User:Dferg. Acabo de ser bloqueado (tengo entendido), por dos motivos, Subir unas imágenes sin licencia, y archivar mis mensajes. Hoy edite las licencias de las imágenes, para que coincidan con el caso en el que corresponden, y las imágenes consideradas como violación de licencia, Fueron reemplazas por los originales, me encontraba justamente en esa labor, subiendo las imágenes originales, (ya que tras recortarlas para subirlas en sus versiones anteriores habían perdido los metadatos), Cuando recibí la notificación de bloqueo. El usuario Taichi, me había avisado de las posibles violaciones, y yo le había respondido que pronto subiría los originales, pero hecho, no fueron revisadas, solo verificaron que había quitado el letrero. Y sobre ciertos logos, en sus casos correspondientes yo NO quite los letreros, solo modifique las licencias, para que se estudie su validez, siendo aún que yo mismo había creado las imágenes a partir de fuentes (me refiero a fuentes de textos), libres, y mis modificaciones están siendo revertidas injustamente (por eso necesito hablar con él a la brevedad, ya que las imágenes borradas, estaban siendo re-subidas por mi mi mismo, en sus versiones originales). sobre los mensajes de mi pagina de usuario, llevo un régimen de archivarlos cada un mes, no rápidamente, como me dicen. Si alguien puede atender mi caso, o al menos hacer llegar este mensaje al usuario que me bloqueo, le estaría muy agradecido. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.110.155.132 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC) (UTC)

(In English for general info) - You were not blocked for archiving your messages but to continue with the license laundering and copyvio in spite of multiple warnings; those who you inmediatelly archived when received. See also this another thread related to you. It is not the first time you do this. You've posted an unblock request on your talkpage which I watch. I'll leave another administrator to review this, of course. --Dferg (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
conozco las circunstancias, pero como me he explicado anteriormente, los letreros los quite tras subir las imágenes originales, al eliminar las fotos, el bot las elimino de las paginas en las que estaban en otras wikis, y al re-subirlas tendría que volver a hacer ese trabajo en cada pagina, esa era principalmente mi preocupación, pero viendo que el bot ya lo hizo, ya no queda otra alternativa. Respetaré mi bloqueo y para evitar problemas futuros, al momento de subir algún archivo, permiteme dirigirme inmediatamente a tú discusión para verificar si hay algún error ¿te parece?. Saludos. 190.110.155.37 16:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Respondo en la discusión, sigamos allí si le parece / I reply on your talk page. --Dferg (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please protect Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Eligibility

There is excessive vandalism on this page. Consider blocking User:Bappadasgupta (log - contribs) - it seems to me (assuming bad faith) he only registered to contribute vandalism to commons. -- RE rillke questions? 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason not to protect; it contains only templates. The translations will be still editable. --RE rillke questions? 15:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Bappadasgupta (talk · contribs) blocked for 3 days. Page semi-protected. --Túrelio (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Meliniki/User:94.209.255.110

Hello. Can you please block for a long time one nationalistic user that has got destructive edits? He edits with his account and his IP address and that can be realized by the contributions of both (both accounts edit the same pages and spam the Wikipedias, ::here and here). This request is as a result of the following reasons:

  • he does not want to accept the fact that his maps are totally imaginative and irrelevant and nominated for deletion, so he vandalizes the pages by deleting tags and other important information. Look here, here, illogical reverts here and here
  • he deletes other users' comments, one example here and here
  • offenses addressed to whole Macedonian nation, one nationalistic comment can be seen here
  • creation of original research maps, where he presents non-existing data and he purposely offenses the Macedonian nation calling it Bulgarian, the language Bulgarian and the country Vardarska or FYROM, which are two nationalistic and irredentistic terms that Greeks use to humiliate the Macedonians. Plus, even though his two maps are not accepted by the whole community involved (see here) he goes on each Wikipedias and spams the articles with his maps. Overall very, very bad and useless editor. See his contributions here.
  • personal attack here (the last sentence) and here. Thanks--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Martin1978

Bitte Martin1978 (talk · contribs) sperren. Das ist eine Sockenpuppe von Jerry Dandridge. Ich bin der "echte" Martin1978 von deWiki und empfinde dieses Vorgehen von Dandridge als Riesensauerei. Ich versuche sein getrolle seit der ersten Minute zu unterbinden und das soll nun wohl so etwas wie eine Racheaktion werden. Die Bilder (Logos) habe ich nicht erstellt und würde so eine URV auch nich begehen! Gruß --141.90.2.58 05:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC) (Martin1978 der deWiki)

✓ Done matanya • talk 06:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thx! --141.90.2.58 06:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hallo echter Martin1978, was meinst du konkret mit "so eine URV"? Stell bitte mal ein paar Hin-/Beweise für die Sockenpuppen-Eigenschaft des "falschen" Martin1978-Kontos zusammen. Bislang hatte sich Martin H., der auch CU-Rechte hat, um den Fall Category:Sockpuppets of Jerry Dandridge gekümmert. Er ist aber seit ein paar Tagen off-line und keiner der anderen CUs spricht deutsch. Vermutlich musst du warten, bis Martin H. wieder da ist, oder halt ein CU-Verfahren beantragen (Commons:Requests for checkuser), was auf Commons weniger dramatisch ist als auf :de. Ohne das Vorwissen von Martin H. wird die Usernamensaneignung auf Commons (Commons:Changing username/Usurp requests) wohl nur durchgehen, wenn der falsche account als SP identifiziert ist. --Túrelio (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Zuersst war ich nur stutzig, dass mein Benutzername hier verwendet wird. Dann habe ich mir die Edits angeschaut und ein typisches Muster von selbst gescanten oder von Amazon kopierten Logos entdeckt. Ganz klar wurde die Sache, als ich dieses Miau (Meow) auf seiner Benutzerseite gesehen habe. Das sind alles typischer Dandridge Aktionen.
Zunächst möchte ich auf diese Liste von Benutzer Nirakka der deWP verweisen, in der alle Sockenpuppen und ein großer Teil der IPs verzeichnet sind, unter denen Dandridge bis jetzt editiert hat.
Hier und hier exemplarisch zwei typische Beispiele für sein Miauen.
Wer sich die Mühe macht und die Accounts und auch die IPedits durchgeht, wird feststellen ,dass Dandridge weder durch mich, noch durch Nirakka oder XenonX3, in irgend einer Weise zu einer produktiven Mitarbeit zu bewegen war. Er wollte immer mit dem Kopf durch die Wand und seinen Willen durchsetzen.
Ich sehe es als erwiesen an, dass Dandridge hiermit versucht hat meinen (Benutzer)Name in der deWP mit in den Dreck zu ziehen. Ob diese Anhaltspunkte hier für ein Checkuser ausreichen weiß ich nicht. Eigentlich hat er ja auch nur einen freien Benutzername erkannt und besetzt, da ich kein globales Konto besitze. Die Absicht dahinter ist eine andere Sache. Gruß, --141.90.2.58 10:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Ps.: Weil ich hier nicht regelmäßig vorbeischaue haltet mich doch bitte auf meiner Disk auf dem Laufenden.

Ich möchte an dieser Stelle einmal darauf hinweisen, dass es sich bei Jerry Dandridge in der de-WP wirklich um einen akuten und einem Großteil der Admin- sowie Userschaft bekannten Troll handelt, vgl. den Eintrag in unserer Troll-Liste: de:Wikipedia:LSWU#Jerry Dandridge. Vor einiger Zeit hat er denn ärgerlicherweise begonnen, seine Trollereien auf Commons auszudehnen – ärgerlich deshalb, weil er hier noch ein vergleichsweise unbeschriebenes Blatt ist und seine URV noch einzeln untersucht werden müssen. Beste Grüße, --Nirakka (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Confirmed sockpuppet, for Checkuser: this range checked. For Martin1978: I suggest to rename impersonator Martin1978 to another username to give you your name back and allow you to create an account under the name Martin1978. --Martin H. (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate username: User:ゲデ子の巨乳を揉む夢を見て抜くヤッシー

Meaning "Yassie musterbates by dreaming to fondle Elene Gedevanishvili's large breasts", it is obvious sexual derrogation towards Ms. Gedevanishvili as well as me. Also, it may have been created by a long-term, cross-wiki abuse user, LTA:MIKI. Pleaser block it as an inappropriate username. Yassie (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Blocked by Chatama. --miya (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ozkithar Salas

Please block Ozkithar Salas (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 1 week. Lymantria (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

CriSC

Please block CriSC (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of CriciumaSC (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , who also uploaded similar copyvios of the same Brazilian city.-- Darwin Ahoy! 06:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 12:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Neogeolegend

Please block Neogeolegend (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. – Adrignola talk 12:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Serega2363

Please block Serega2363 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done by Axpde, for one day. Let us know if there is yet another violation. – Adrignola talk 12:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ballstoyou2323

Please block Ballstoyou2323 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), a vandalism-only account with an inappropriate name. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. Apparently a fan of Ray William Johnson's YouTube channel. – Adrignola talk 18:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Licensing tutorial en.svg

I think that this file should be protected as part of the software interface.--Trixt (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done – Kwj2772 (msg) 12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Morocco (orthographic projection).svg

I request protection of this widely-used file if possible. --Flad (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wislacanpack

Please block Wislacanpack (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for forging EXIF data to continue to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As there are two open DRs and user already commented on them, we should let them to defend themself.   ■ MMXX  talk  12:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert and Protection Morocco (orthographic projection)

Recently this file has been reverted probably because ideology by users from Morocco. That's why this image needs to be reverted to the 19:28, 9 May 2011 version according to the orthographic projection project's parameters based by the United Nations resolution (UN resolution) [42], [43], [44] United Nations-sponsored ceasefire agreement in 1991 most of the territory has been controlled by Morocco. The design and description of this file are incorrect but the users Omar-Toons or Flad are reverting all the modifications. Its description says "Locator of Morocco and it's disputed territory Western Sahara", and designed without borders between territories and using the same green color can be misunderstanding that Western Sahara "is part of Morocco with illegal disputation". It seems that the user Omar-Toons can't understand how COMMONS works because the user says that I can't modify it and suggests me to upload "my version" see user talk. Besides, this file is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Thank you. --Eddo (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

STREZA

Please block STREZA (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), a sockpuppet of Beleiutz (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), for abusing multiple accounts to circumvent their block and continuing to upload copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done   ■ MMXX  talk  09:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Their uploads should be deleted too. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. Jafeluv (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Adnen1985

Hello, I would request the blocking of the user Adnen1985. All his contributions history is only but copyvios. He has already been blocked for 3 days and 2 weeks but continues to upload unfree files. It definitely looks like he will not contribute positively to our project. Regards Moumou82 (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, independently from this request. --Martin H. (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Herjherrera

Please block Herjherrera (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations (over 50 in total over the course of nearly two years) in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month. Kameraad Pjotr 08:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo protection

Consider protecting File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal edit.jpg, clearing its history, and indeffing this user. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This was done by Mattbuck.[45] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
On en.wiki, I would indef block that user (and maybe those who contributed after - it is deleted now). Materialscientist (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Both indeffed. Jafeluv (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

IXsess

Please block IXsess (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload nothing but copyright violations (over 20 files over the course of two and a half years) in spite of multiple warnings and a previous block. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Batallon de Castigo.jpg

  1. This is a file of a neo-nazi Spanish concert, uploaded the 2007-08-23 by Rocker2007. Uploader have only one media file uploaded on Commons, this file (and no activity not related to this file).
  2. He were contacted on es. by the group manager to delete the picture and so (i) launched a DR (ii) uploaded a blank picture, so the image doesn't appear anymore on es. and pt. articles during the DR. I then reverted to the correct version.
  3. The DR were closed with a kept decision.
  4. Right now, I see in my watchlist the same blanking action.
  5. I forgot DR were closed and put a 3 months sysop protect I intended temporary during the DR.

What should we do in such a case? I'm not really willing to let the picture protected on a long term basis and wish to find an alternative solution. --Dereckson (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there the slightest chance that Rocker007 will get realworld problems (harrassment, getting threatened) for the publication of this image? --Túrelio (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
My analysis of the situation, based on the elements we've on Commons. and es. is:
  • There is a treat against Wikipedia (and not directly against Rocker2007) by the group on the es. article talk page
  • There is no visible element linking Rocker2007 to his real world identity.
  • The treat doesn't seem serious on a legal basis (no precise law points quoted but a blur mix of penal/administrative/privacy policy stuff).
Now, you ask a good question. Maybe he's afraid to be identified because he think people know whom have taken this picture. And as you suggest, maybe there are realworld issues we don't know. --Dereckson (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that legally the image is likely not a problem for us, since hardly anybody is recognizable; though I don't know spanish personality rights. However, if the uploader really is the photographer (otherwise anyway a copyvio), somebody might recognize/remember him, as the crowd wasn't that large. If there is any danger in that direction, I would surely support deletion of the image. --Túrelio (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense. --Dereckson (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you contact Rocker2007? I didn't find the account on :pt, where the image was added by somebody else, or on :es where it was added by an IP. --Túrelio (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
According SUL util, the account has only contributed to Commons, and the mail feature haven't been enabled. But cs:Speciální:E-mail/Rocker2007 seems to work. --Dereckson (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I've sent him an email. --Túrelio (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

URGENT Template:2010POTY/Button

Hello, Template:2010POTY/Button needs to be protected, because it´s very important template. (please see edit history for details) --Olli (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done by Elya. --Túrelio (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
See this and that Merci ! Danke schön ! Thanks ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Fpsindonesia

Promotional username and userpage, uploader removed speedy-tag--Motopark (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Medisysinfo

Promotional username and userpage, uploader removed speedy-tag--Motopark (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotection needed

Please semiprotect File:Escudo Torrejoncillo.jpg and File:Bandera de Torrejoncillo.jpg. There is an editwar going on there. Greets, Trijnstel (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Protect File:Licensing tutorial gl.svg

I need a protection over File:Licensing tutorial gl.svg because it's part of Upload wizard, see. Thanks, --Elisardojm (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Ezarateesteban 00:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2010

Hello.

I can't vote on any image on this page : For example, when I want to vote of this image, I can't vote because there is this message "Cette page est actuellement protégée, et ne peut être modifiée que par les administrateurs de Commons." --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It had been protected this morning[46] (see the edit-summary). --Túrelio (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Mohammad Shabaz

Mohammad Shabaz has repeatedly been uploading images that violate copyright rules and claiming to be the copyright holder despite several warnings. The user has not engaged in discussion and IMO needs to be blocked as the problem continues (upload log). Nev1 (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Nev1 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Marchaplmarihuana.jpg

I ask protection to this file: Marchplmarihuana.jpg that has been marked for "copyright violation" when I clearly am the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwalko (talk • contribs) 16:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The only edits to the file since the deletion discussion was started have been 190.19.238.139 removing the template pointing to the discussion (and which clearly states "do not remove this tag until the deletion nomination is closed") and User:Banfield restoring the template (because the deletion nomination has not been closed yet). That doesn't seem like it's enough to justify protection (unless 190.19.238.139 prematurely removes the template again, or something). —LX (talk, contribs) 20:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The protection is based on the fact that this delete request has been asked in the context of an edit war in Wikipedia as it is described on the entry "User:Banfield". On that context in wikipedia, User:Banfield allegued that this:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150194363781443&set=a.398141661442.182212.198244671442&type=1
was the copyright owner and then proceded to remove, when it is crystal clear at that link the following: "© Mwalko - Wikipedia"
So this facts proves by itselfs. He continued to act as if being unnoticed about the nature of the author, thus my claim of vandalism. And by the way, the vandalism towards the Partido Liberal Libertario has already been noticed at Wikipedia.
What other prove is necesaary other than the author itself saying his creation belongs to him and the link provided as "prove" on the contrary, claiming the exact thing? --Mwalko (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

KIZENKOV

Please block KIZENKOV (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations (over 70 files deleted in just over a year) in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Blocked for 1 week. Lymantria (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Vladislav735

Please block Vladislav735 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) again for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings and a previous one-month block. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Blocked   ■ MMXX  talk  14:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Leandro Parodi

He has uploaded many files in copyright violations after warnings. Francisco (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

✓ Blocked   ■ MMXX  talk  14:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Banfield

User Banfield is clearly on a vandalism act (for political reasons) asking to delete a file ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Marchaplmarihuana.jpg ) for which I have the copyright and continues this behaivoir alltough I already have clearly told him about the nature of the file.

This comes in context of editing war at: http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Partido_Liberal_Libertario&action=history as User:Banfield is trying to "prove" the non-relevance of that entry for the Partido Liberal Libertario , and this picture is part of the prove of the relevance of that newly created party that seeks legal authorization from the local government.

User:Taichi has protected the Partido Liberal Libertario entry in Wikipedia for reasons of vandalism in the context of an ongoing "editing war" and I am asking to protect Marchaplmarihuana.jpg for this same reasons here at Wikimedia Commons as the copyright allegations are a false statement that can only be understood in this context and on the other hand it can be easily noticed on the link to the Partido Liberal Libertario source in its official Facebook chapter that User:Banfield itself provides as "prove", the following: (c) Mwalko Wikipedia as means from Partido Liberal Libertario authorities to recognize the author of this file and that there is no copyright conflict between them and Wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwalko (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please mellow out a bit. Try not to bring conflicts from other projects here, and try not to call established users political vandals. People will take you more seriously if you don't jump to conclusions about their motives.
It looks like Taichi protected es:Partido Liberal Libertario after Banfield made an edit to remove the file in question, you reverted that change three times[47][48][49], and Banfield reverted your reversions twice.[50][51] The protection referred only to the edit war. There was no mention of any vandalism in the protection reason. Banfield has made no other edits to es:Partido Liberal Libertario, so I see no basis for your claim that Banfield is trying to prove that the article lacks relevance.
Sorry about this particular point, I forgot to mention that he uses his own copyright claim as "probe" on the relevance discusion of the page: "No son un partido, son una agrupación. No participaron de ninguna elección y no tuvieron ninguna aparición publica sino hasta hace apenas pocas semanas, cuando escasos medios los mencionaron de forma tangencial. Como señaló el usuario anterior, la relevancia la tuvo la marcha de la marihuana, no vuestra agrupación, que por cierto no fue la organizadora. Algo más; la foto del artículo, subida a commons, fue copiada de Facebook (ver ergo fue nominada para ser borrada y eliminada del artículo. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 02:58 23 may 2011 (UTC)" http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:Partido_Liberal_Libertario
Doesn't this look like some sort of "Gaming the System"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system --Mwalko (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
But again, let's not bring conflicts from other projects here. The deletion discussion will be dealt with in due course. Present your arguments there, and they will be considered before the deletion discussion is closed. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
But once again, the fact is cristal clear. The author can't be an infractor to whis own work and this has been informed to Banfield very clearly. His probe is this:
   https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150194363781443&set=a.398141661442.182212.198244671442&type=1
and there it clearly says: "© Mwalko - Wikipedia"
So the author was not who brought the Wikipedia conflict into Wikimedia Commons by alleging unfundamented doubts on the author. --Mwalko (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Please present your arguments concerning the file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marchaplmarihuana.jpg – not here. The arguments in the deletion discussion will be considered before it is concluded. Spreading the arguments out over multiple pages does not help your cause, so please keep them there. There is no need for protecting any pages or blocking any users at this time, in my opinion. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
But here I am not defending the copyright of the picture. I am informing about the vandalism intentions towards a picture in Wikimedia Commons from User:Banfield and that unfortunately that behaivior comes from another project into this one and NOT because of my will precisely. --Mwalko (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, please be mellow. Don't call established users political vandals. "Vandal" does not mean "someone who disagrees with me." Try to assume good faith. Bringing up one file for deletion discussion in good faith is not grounds for getting blocked – even if the file ends up being kept. There is no need for protecting any pages or blocking any users at this time, in my opinion. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Good faith wasn't assumed when this link: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150194363781443&set=a.398141661442.182212.198244671442&type=1 was introduced as "prove" against the author, when there it clearly says: "© Mwalko - Wikipedia" . Why is there no good faith assumption for Mwalko as the author then? Good faith is being asked after good faith was put in doubt. If the good faith principle is a guideline, then it has been broken on the allegation itself and it continued to be broken after a clear answer on the particular. --Mwalko (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Really, Mwalko, stuff like that happens all the time, there's no need for you to be worried about. If there is not a copyright issue, the file will be kept. Don't worry about the disputes in the other wikis, this is a peaceful corner of the wikiuniverse (most of the time, at least :) ). Just present your arguments in the deletion request discussion, as LX said, and let it go.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Witchhunt should also be a concern.
The argument is implicit on the "prove" against the file:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150194363781443&set=a.398141661442.182212.198244671442&type=1
Ain't that ironic? --Mwalko (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
He seems to be confusing "Mwalko Wikipedia" with something like "Copyright by Mwalko only for Wikipedia" (which is not what is there). Don't worry, it probably will not be an issue, and we have to assume good faith on others misunderstandings.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I told him clearly about his confution on the first place in Wikipedia and decided to continue as if noone had told him. So that is why I repeat, I agree about the good faith assumption, but it wasn't me who didn't follow such a guideline. So this seems more like a Witchhunt situation, one such that migrates from one platform to another. Why wouldn't then say I something about it? --Mwalko (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Chatama's userpage

Please semi-protect a userpage User:Chatama indefinitely, for it has been vandalised repeatedly by sockpuppets of ja:LTA:MIKI. Chatama is an autoconfirmed user and a sysop here, so semi-protection will not influence his editing his own userpage. Yassie (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Any idea which of the recent versions is the correct one? --Túrelio (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Revision as of 04:42, 31 May 2011 by User:ゆいしあす is the correct one. Yassie (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done, though I doubt that it will help, as none of the recent edits was performed by an IP. --Túrelio (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Comfirmed the protection. Thanks. Yassie (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Dodoimortall

Please block Dodoimortall (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) , sockpuppet of Dodoimortal (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  already blocked for 1 week for uploading copyvios, engaged in the same activity again.-- Darwin Ahoy! 07:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User has been warned and copyvios uploaded by him got deleted. --High Contrast (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe he should be blocked right away, since he is using this sockpuppet to by pass the block he has on the other account.-- Darwin Ahoy! 07:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:2009 12 10 1033.jpg

Hello! I posted a picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2009_12_10_1033.jpg. Im new around here and I didnt know it has to be named right. I want to changed the name to 'Instytut_B61_Ewolucja_Gwiazd_SOFA.jpg' but I have no rights. How can i do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instytutb61 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Commons. You can request renaming by putting a {{Rename}} template on the file description page. I've moved your image to File:Instytut B61 Ewolucja Gwiazd SOFA.jpg. Jafeluv (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


THX:)!! Instytutb61 (talk)

User:Rodenatorpro

I've just booted this spammer of en.WP. Their username is obviously representing a corporation, and they have uploaded several clearly non-free promo images here. They also socked over there, so be aware of that as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Any chance someone will respond to this? It's a pretty cut and dried case of an account created for promotional purposes... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The images they uploaded have now been deleted, but the account with an obvious corporate name is still there. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Username policy has not been promoted to policy and therefore there is no grounds to block, despite a link to this page being present as one of the reasons to block in the drop-down menu. – Adrignola talk 18:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Map Serbia Blank .png

Protection of this file is urgently needed, as vandalism continues. This image was already protected, as vandals from Serbia tried to altered it, obliviously angry because of political situation there. File is used mostly in bs.wiki and hr.wiki, in articles about towns in Serbia--CERminator (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Protected, for a month. Rehman 03:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
User misrepresented the situation, and i ask for solution. File:Map Serbia Blank .png should include Kosovo, while file File:Map Serbia Blank (without Kosovo).png shoudn't as you may see from file name. As you may see from this nationalistic post, user CERminator's neutrality regarding this question is disputed, and as user reverted this image 5 times in the past, i ask for admin assistance. Per wikipedias agreement, and WP:ARBMAC solution on en wiki, users may use file that need, with or without, but removing both images? It looks that its not me who is vandalizing, and even asking protection for that act... --WhiteWriter speaks 12:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The map started without Kosovo and does not have Kosovo in current state. I think this is correct since that was the map our clients (different language wikipedias) picked. If they needed map with Serbia they would have chosen File:Serbia location map.svg. Based on the amount of edit waring, I think the upload protection should be extended to forever. --Jarekt (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
But what about name? Edit warring was mostly done by one editor. They should use file they need, but that file is File:Map Serbia Blank (without Kosovo).png. Like this is violation of wikipedia agreements. And other file was created in order to stop edit warring. Image content must not be NPOV, but titles must, as far as i know, as it can be misinforming? Official Serbia (per Serbia and majority of the world) include Kosovo, while for the rest it isn't so. And image is seen only in the article space, but name should follow guidelines. --WhiteWriter speaks 12:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Without taking sides as to whether or not a map of Serbia should or should not include Kosovo:
  • Administrators always protect the wrong version when dealing with edit wars ;-)
  • The original (orange) version of the file by Toni bs did not include Kosovo
  • According to Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files, major alterations of a file should be uploaded under a different filename
  • There was edit warring throughout 2009 between versions with Kosovo, without Kosovo, and with Kosovo marked as disputed
  • In 2010, beige versions with and without Kosovo were also introduced into the edit warring
  • SVG maps are preferable to PNG maps–ceteris paribus
  • The version introduced by those who want Kosovo included is merely a raster version of File:Serbia location map.svg
Arguably, File:Map Serbia Blank .png should be reverted to its original revision, but that still does not include Kosovo. If you need a map of Serbia including Kosovo, use File:Serbia location map.svg, which is technically superior to any of the revisions introduced to File:Map Serbia Blank .png. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I  Agree to revert of file to the original version. That is only neutral way. Bravo, LX. --WhiteWriter speaks 13:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, did a little something. Comments? Let me know if you want the other version deleted too. Regards. Rehman 14:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
But file is still not reverted to its original form created by Toni. We (and i) agreed to that. To the first basic orange map. This image is not original file from 2009, and like this is duplicate of already existing File:Map Serbia Blank (without Kosovo).png. --WhiteWriter speaks 15:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The second version is only different from the original by means of colour, and not borders/etc. And from what I see, the colours used in the second version is the standard colouring used in almost all location maps in the Commons/Wikipedias. For that reason, and your agreeing to keep the original, I have kept both versions (instead of one). No offence, but I am only following the standard colouring.
If at least one other admin voted against me, I would revert to the original (or they could revert, whichever comes first). Rehman 03:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need two identical PNG files of the same image. Either revert to the original or get rid of Map Serbia Blank (without Kosovo).png as a useless duplicate. Besides, last time I checked admins had no special authority over content issues. Jafeluv (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, restored to the original version. What version to keep may be discussed at the file talkpage. Rehman 08:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
This is done, if you ask me. That is exactly what i asked for, and now, users can choose which version will use. Great job, Rehman! :) (And others, sure...) :) :) --WhiteWriter speaks 12:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
No worries. :) Rehman 12:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Monsterkillu

Please consider blocking Monsterkillu (talk · contribs) for disruptive DRs. The user seems to be a sock puppet. --Leyo 22:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Has already a thread on COM:ANU. --Túrelio (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I started the thread before that… --Leyo 13:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
True (first author rights), but inadvertently the other got more attention. --Túrelio (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Plaque.jpg

Could someone please delete and protect File:Plaque.jpg? I'd simply use a {{duplicate|File:QuentinCompsonPlaque.jpg}} tag except for the protection request, which I make because it's such a generic name. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also a different file in file history, probably uploaded there by mistake, due to the generic name. Is it also a duplicate as well?-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC) - It is: File:Plaque from ramsgate railway station.jpg.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Insignia Hungary Army History (from 1940 Transylvania).svg

There is an upload-edit war going on. Please fully protect this and at least warn the users. A block seems like an appropriate solution, too. Hekerui (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The war seems to have died down sometime back; the original uploader reuploaded the file, here. Rehman 03:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Bitzwshop

Please block Bitzwshop (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations in spite of multiple warnings. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for notifying. --High Contrast (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Nizam jewel

Nizam jewel (talk · contribs) ‎has been repeatedly uploading images that violate copyright rules and claiming copyleft in situations where it is not applicable despite warnings. The user has not engaged in discussion and IMO needs to be blocked as the problem continues (upload log). Nev1 (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've left them a final warning. Jafeluv (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

HelitonEsteves

Please block HelitonEsteves (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) for continuing to upload copyright violations with fraudulent authorship claims in spite of multiple warnings. See also: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/CriciumaSC. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for notifying. --High Contrast (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

File:India location map.svg

Hello! Unfortunately the Indian state of en:Nagaland is missing in this map. I would like to upload a corrected version of this file. I won't touch anything concerning Kashmir which was the reason for the protection. Thanks, NNW (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Any response would be better than no response. NNW (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, just to be clear, you want the protection to be temporarily removed so that you can upload a new version? Rehman 10:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
That's right. After that it should be protected again. The update will bring Nagaland onto the map (no editwar about it) and won't touch Kashmir. NNW (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Let me know once done. Rehman 11:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It's done. Thank you! NNW (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay :) Rehman 11:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Category Protection Request of Jun 7 2011

Please semi-protect these following categories, for at least a year, or indefinitely. These categories were once semi-protected for a month, but still keep vandalized again and again and again, by a same cross-wiki, long-term abuse user, ja:LTA:MIKI.

--Yassie (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, protected against all new and unregistered users, for 6 months. Rehman 10:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed the protection. Thanks. Yassie (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Rehman 11:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yatsko

Yatsko (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log) has previously been caught repeatedly uploading copyright violations and blatantly lying about it. Now they would like us to believe that File:Polskikh.jpg was taken with a Samsung i8510 phone camera (though the counterfeit EXIF data says it comes from a Canon). The actress it depicts was born in 1939, and the Samsung i8510 was announced in 2008, so we are to believe that the actress in question is at least 69 years old in this photo. Please delete all their uploads and block the account. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

SueñaConmigo

Please block SueñaConmigo (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), who is yet another Paulinho15 sockpuppet. Also delete their uploads and block 187.22.204.114 (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · upload log), which is their current IP address. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed SueñaConmigo, and three others. --Martin H. (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_7&oldid=358265992"