Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Template:Skiptotoctalk

Shortcut: [[:]]

Is there a convenient way that I can run a mass speedy deletion? Long story short, I uploaded PNG page scans of a 400 page book, then someone pointed out that they were rubbish quality, so I came up with another source/processing stream for the scans, and uploaded much higher quality JPGs. Now I've figured out how to cram all those pages into a DjVu file < 20Mb. Thanks to my page scan processing newbness, I now have ~800 redundant images :-( Hesperian 01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dump them with links at User:Maxim/d. I have a script that can easily do that. Maxim_(talk) 01:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or just a plain list... I think I might be able to make those into links more quickly with a spreadsheet... Maxim_(talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. It will take a few hours for me to get the DjVu sorted out and uploaded.Hesperian 02:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always e-mail it to me, and I should be able to delete all of it tomorrow morning. (EST). Maxim_(talk) 02:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this message was a bit premature, as I also have to move the corresponding Wikisource pages onto the DjVu. I probably won't have a list for you until tomorrow. Happy to email it if you'd prefer it that way. Hesperian 02:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are these all in a category or group of categories? If so, that would make it really easy. Rocket000 (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are all in a category; but not quite everything in the category is to be deleted. Hesperian 02:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that wouldn't be so easy then. :) Rocket000 (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also have tried LicenseToKill in the greek wiki with good results, but that was about a year ago (i.e. dunno if still compatible with current mediawiki version). It's only for Windows tho, but the happy thing is that you can choose which files to delete - Badseed ^talk 10:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Maxim, others, I should have got back to you on this before now. I did the job with LicenseToKill. It is a bit flaky, but it works. Hesperian 22:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over a recent block of someone who had been confused in a different language, I noticed the block message was a generic note written in English. And not the most simple English either (see MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown for the block options and MediaWiki:Blockedtext for what a blocked user sees when trying to edit).

I'm thinking we should set up a few basic templates to use as block reasons, rather than what is currently done. For instance, we could have one for "Uploading unfree files after warnings" ({{UnfreeBlocked}}), which would be used as the block message. The advantage of this would be that the blocked user, as well as seeing the default English message they currently get, would have translation links, in their own language, to their language (hopefully - translation is sometimes slow but we get there). This would obviously help in cases of confusion, I feel. The other advantage is that if an admin knows a user speaks a certain language, they could use that specific language as the block message; eg. {{UnfreeBlocked/fr}} for French.

The English Wikipedia (w:MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown) currently have some template block options, so it's definitely possible and we have a decent example to copy off. ;-) What are others' thoughts on this? —Giggy 09:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, those are deliberate redlinks for now; it's mainly the page title that is being used as an example.[reply]

Much as I hate doing anything en does, I have to agree this is a good idea. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any other thoughts on this? —Giggy 00:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Admins, can you please delete the first version of the image Oejendorfer_See_01.jpg? It was a wrong file. In the 2nd Version I uploaded the right one.

THX Wikiman7002 (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Gnangarra 14:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Should be awarded for excellence in cultural sensitivity, new user Nazimonder. Eventually his real name is Nazim ONDER [1] and he is the father of en:Kaan ONDER, a 11-year old kart racing driver from Istanbul. He has the same username on :en[2]. --Túrelio (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to create the account Jakob S., but i can't because it is to similar to User:Jakobs. This user didn't edit anything yet. So I think it would be okey to get the account User:Jakob S., the same one I have in the German Wikipedia. Thanks for helping me! --85.177.142.244 10:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons-user User:Jakobs account was created 2 years ago and never had any edits, uploads or deletions. Also, I didn't find an account User:Jakobs/Benutzer:Jakobs on :de or :en. Therefore, it shouldn't be a problem. Ask a Bureaucrat (see the few ones on the list in Commons:Administrators) to do it, or better, got there Commons:Changing username. --Túrelio (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--85.177.142.244 10:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a month since I nominated the images at Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Think outside the box for deletion, and they have not yet been deleted. I tagged them as speedys but that was removed by others and a mass deletion request filed by user:ShakataGaNai, and now no one is responding to me on that page. I asked user:ShakataGaNai about this on July 1 2008 but he ignored me. I would appreciate if someone would please delete them quickly, per the reasons I have given at the deletion page. Think outside the box 10:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted those not in use on other projects. Shakata can handle the rest if necessary. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can somebody help me to delete some pics, because there are wrong name in the picture Image:Ariheikkinen1.JPG Image:Ariheikkinen2.JPG Image:Juhalitmanen.JPG thanks--Motopark (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done In future you can use {{Badname}} (click that link for more information) or {{speedydelete|uploader request}}. —Giggy 04:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've reason to celebrate (see Special:Statistics), but I think the finishing touch would be a press release :) →Christian.И 12:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

best bet would probably be to poke the wikimania mob they will probably be kicking out some press stuff this week. Geni (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which user uploaded the 3,000,000th item? Can a developer check that? - Face 11:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion about this at the Commons Village Pump. Kelly (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a press release. Now you need to add to it and translate it. Find it at Commons:Press releases/3M. Anonymous101 ^talk 20:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not wise in the ways of Commons (or even en:wiki, some might say), and I am looking into Image:James_May.jpg which was deleted as uncategorised per here. If it was non-free, fine, but otherwise is it possible to restore and fix the category? I'll do it myself if necessary. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry but we can't restore that file since it's marked as "All rights reserved" on Flickr. The author should send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org including all needed information (see Commons:OTRS, consider using Commons:Email templates). Thanks for your efforts. →Christian.И 15:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see there's a long list of correspondence on the image page, so if you just forward that to OTRS, I'd think it would be fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I couldn't see the page since I'm not an Admin here. I'm sure there's a free image out there somewhere, but thanks for looking into it for me. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted the picture. Looks like everything was on auto pilot. Bot tags incorrect flickr licence, gets tagged with no permission and seven days later (after no reponse) the picture gets deleted. Multichill (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted the other two, and sent an email to the uploader asking him to forward the permissions to OTRS. why the hell OTRS can't just look at the page I don't know... -mattbuck (Talk) 22:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's always better to have it archived in the ticket system to avoid possible confusion ;) →Christian.И 14:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS is often quite backlogged; mattbuck, you should volunteer (m:OTRS) to help out - you'd be good at it. —Giggy 23:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record. I am not a bot. Contrary to popular belief. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 03:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you were just programmed to think that. Then one day, when the time is right, your robotic nature will assert itself and you will commence the enslavement of the human race. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got annoyed with the number of people who commit a copyvio before they even get the {{Welcome}} message, so I created a new template, {{Wcv}} which adds a copyvionote and the welcome to a talk page. Enjoy. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's useful. Good idea. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there's now {{Wdw}} which does derivativenote instead of copyvionote. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the category inside the noinclude section and removed the Image: prefix to remain consistent with the usage of {{Copyvionote}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh on the category, but I preferred it with the Image prefix. Not as if there's anything else around here to copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but then both {{Copyvio}} and {{Wcv}} should be changed, so you don't have to remember which one works which way. Personally, I triple-click the filename at the top of the page before deleting and paste that in later, so I prefer not having to make a partial selection, but the main thing is consistency. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image looks like a copyright violation of a Getty Images picture [3].

Getty Images reserves the right to pursue unauthorized users of this image or clip. If you violate their intellectual property you may be liable for statutory damages up to $150,000 (USD).

I have tried to tag this image twice, and the tag just gets removed. What gives? DrKiernan (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

twice is nice :-). First you have placed a product of your fantasy (+ speedydelete), secondly you have deleted the anonymous template (+speedydelete). Two big no-no's on commons and elsewhere!

In fact both sites ([4] and the mother site of jamb pictures) have no idea who was the author (English Photographer versus Photographer: Hulton Archive, LOL) and claim now to be the copyright holders :-). Might be interesting, whether we can find some more self styled copyright holders of this pic Mutter Erde (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter the reasoning for the PD claim is invalid UK law doesn't work like that.Geni (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or to be more exact it sort of works like that but has a higher barrier to unknown that the photo comes close to meeting.Geni (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly easy to determine whether this is {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} or not. Just check The Sketch of 9th December 1936 and see whether a photographer is credited. The Wikipedia article gives the names of several Sketch photographers, and the magazine's drawings seem to have been credited to the artists. If I had to guess, and without seeing the original that's all it would be, I'd guess that the photographer would have been credited by name or pseudonym. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. There's no artist listed here: http://www.ilnpictures.co.uk/ProductDetails.asp?ProductDetailID=84068. DrKiernan (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. Unfortunately I will not have as much time available to spent on Commons as I would want to. Therefore I am resigning my Checkuser tools. I am confident that we have enough competent checkusers to deal with all the requests, so there will be no need to elect a new checkuser in the nearby future as I see it. It has been a pleasure to serve the community as checkuser. I will of course stay around as admin here :) (I'm not going into the blackhole of checkusers ;) -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that sucks. Thanks heaps for all the work you've done in every aspect here, Bryan. —Giggy 09:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded on the sucks, and on the thanks. You've been invaluable in the role, and maybe in future, time permitting, you could take it up again. ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work you've done already!  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life is life... But thank you for doing the job! --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started to put things that I asked for deletion on my watchlist and the first few times thanked the person doing the deleting.

I haven't done that recently even though my deletion requests are fullfilled within hours usually.

The first standout for me about this collection of images when I first started poking around to see what was here and what was going on, was the actual collection of images. More than a year later or a year since my first real bookmark or whatever I have that marks the beginning of my experience here and I would like to thank the administration for the fact that the image collection is still the standout here!

It is a difficult balance, I think. The fact that it is still a simple thing about the license and not the quality of the appeal. And on a personal level, I think that there are images that need review that I personally do not want to look at and that there are people who do this (either by willingness or by feelings of duty) and the collection maintains a high degree or percentage of integrity from the people who do this.

I do not think often enough about these things. This is a thank you and not too much else. It is nice that there are actual people driving the software, and it shows. -- carol (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something strange happen when this image got deleted. The image is gone but the description is visible.--Jarekt (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recreated the image page after the file's deletion, but didn't upload another file. I've deleted it. —Giggy 00:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to change my user name to User:Jerrch because of privacy issues and consistency with other projects. Thank you.--Jerrypp772000 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to COM:CHU and ask there. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some may not be aware that Carol is using Commons to try and score points since she has been banned from Wiki.

See below User:CarolSpears/English wikipedia contains Sarah makes an administrative action and also pads their personal edit history and this Image:2008-07-22-selfserving.png. Bidgee (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon for users to come to Commons after they have been banned on their local wiki's. It is one of the few projects that is multi lingual. As user space is user space. As long as users aren't being disruptive, and aren't building pages on commons to attack others - I don't care. As of right now, the page you point out is just documentation, maybe not the best suited place... but User space is still User space. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably missed the first image Description as it (the image) was deleted as it contained the Wiki logo. Bidgee (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I saw it. I even went in to see what the original image was. It was a screen shot of Wikipedia like 100 others. Most people don't realize that while Wikipedia is the "Free Encyclopedia", the logo isn't free. At the same time, Commons still hosts the logo. Most people don't realize that screen shots of WP pages are no no's. Hell, I don't even think we've got an consensus on that one yet. Regardless, one deleted image does not warrant AN attention IMHO. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Szczepan1990 (talk · contribs) has mass deleted ~200 photos of bottles, without prior discussion[5]. When I and others ask him to stop, undelete the images and open a proper deletion request (see his talk page), he simply responds “no”[6]. Could somebody help explaining to Szczepan1990 that his actions were inappropriate, and help undeleting these images? --Kjetil_r 14:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second this: actions like this appear to be a total disregard and violation of COM:D. Once again, the damage has been done, because the CommonsDelinker has already delinked the images. This kind of actions is what makes normal users quite mad at Commons-admins. The images should be restored and a proper explanation has to be given for the deletion of the images. --Tuvic (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is a derivative work for which the original is copyrighted. Commons can't host copyright violations. --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:14, 23 July 2008 (GMT)

Problem is: I can't check that any more: he just deleted some 200 pictures with the mere comment 'derivative work'. I think it's highly questionable that a regular beer bottle (most of the pictures, I guess?) is a work of art. Further, the guidelines don't allow these derivative work to be speedy deleted, because it's not a clear copyright violation: check the talk page of Szczepan1990 (talk · contribs): nobody get's it. It's a one-man-action with no basis, no consensus, no talk, no discussion. It's one user who can dictate the law, thanks to his admin rights and he even thinks he can be non-communicative and blunt about it. --Tuvic (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each image is an individual case and he deleted images of originals that had no threshold of originality, without any discussion. See my comment and others on User_talk:Szczepan1990#Beer_and_other_deleted_stuff. This is called abuse of power. --Euku:^⇄ 15:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Tuvic about the no talk. Szczepan1990 should give a better answer then just "no" and should inform the uploader for why it was deleted. Most bottles are patented which means they're a copyvio and then the labeling is also questionable (Since it's trademarked and copyrighted also it's open for debate). Bidgee (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patents are not copyrights which are not trademarks. You might want to call Amtrak; you need a ticket for the clue train quite urgently. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated on User talk:Szczepan1990 The image of mine which he deleted of the 'Image:Yorkshire Warrior Beer Bottle 03.gif, was not a derivative work, I created the original image used for the label and the photograph of the bottle. No opportunity to contest the deletion was provided. This is clearly an infringement of the deletion process and an abuse of admin rights. The talk he claims gave him the right to delete was less than 19 hours old before it was closed with no comments of any kind included in it, let alone any voting consensus; See:- Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Żubr beer.JPG. Why it was closed in that was is also something that should be questioned. I feel this admin should have his ability to use commons delinker removed until he has been given some guidance in its use and understands the process better. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommonsDelinker automatically activates when any image is deleted. If you would like to contest this deletion, please see Commons:Undeletion requests. --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:48, 23 July 2008 (GMT)

I'll make a request on that page, then. I still object to the misuse of admin powers and lack for following the proper deletion guidelines.

@Bidgee: I don't think every bottle is patented. Trademarked, maybe. (I'm guessing you meant to say that) But most bottles are basic things, around for a very long time. Because of that, I'm still doubting copyright on them. --Tuvic (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say every bottle but most. I know that some well known soda/softdrink, spirits and even water bottles are patented for the design. Bidgee (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a design patent for a beer bottle. But in most cases of this deleted images, this does probably not apply. And since there's so much discussion, images should be undeleted and properly requested for deletion. --Tuvic (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible for them to be patent since not all beer bottles are the same but I'm not going to dig though along list to find it (Take me sometime :(). Bidgee (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info for Copyright/ patenting regarding bottles see:- Derivative works. Richard Harvey (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. So it's fine with the bottle so I guess the label should be ok? Bidgee (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:O: Your comment was about as useful as “Commons can host free images. The explanation is Commons:Project scope.” --Kjetil_r 16:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only unconditionally second Kjetil_r and Tuvic. This admin is going mad with deletions and IMHO should be blocked before he further harms Commons and other Wikimedia projects using our images. --ALE! ¿…? 16:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, obvious things don't need any discussion. EOT for me --Szczepan talk  16:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, you even deleted images were no consensus was found before, like Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Stella Artois Dielectric.jpg. If you delete more images like these without proper discussion, I'll block you (if nobody else does that before me). Obviously there is need for discussion or do you think that people here just have nothing better to do? --ALE! ¿…? 16:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conclift) Thanks, Szczepan1990, you just made it clear you don't care about discussion or guidelines. You obviously don't care about other opinions or arguments. As long you think you're right, it's ok. You just proved the point and are looking more and more like an admin gone rogue... --Tuvic (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is time for a de-sysop request? Making a honest mistake is one thing, but refusing to discuss it after numerous users have pointed out that he shouldn't have deleted the images is completely unacceptable. --Kjetil_r 16:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Szczepan1990 has gone about it (deletions and unwellingness to discuss with other editors) the wrong way. Bidgee (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you. --Euku:^⇄ 17:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, see also Reprimand_User:Szczepan1990. I gave him the nickname "Offline-Szczepan" (because of his talk-page) Mutter Erde (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of them are casus of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Żubr beer.JPG. What do you propose then? To discuss each of them separately (how many do we have?) ? Or maybe create the list and "tick for deletion" cases, which are 100% similar to the given example and discuss just the rest of them? Maybe Szczepan should discuss it, but he acted in a good will - basing on previous such examples. BTW, AFAIR, presenting certain trademark products (as a main object) is according to laws of most countries "fair use", which is agains the Commons guidelines. Masur (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have looked at a random sample of the deleted images and all the ones I saw were obvious violations of the copyright in the printed label. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are those labels copyright images or trademarks? note:- Licensing - Simple design. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't checked them all but the ones I saw are certainly complex enough to be copyright designs (a printed design may be both a TM and also have copyright protection, though it's only the latter that we care about). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note my Undeletion request statement Which should cover the image of mine that was deleted.  :) Richard Harvey (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see good will in this comment --Euku:^⇄ 17:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not an ideal approach, I agree. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the biggest problems here at commons. Stuff gets deleted without proper discussion. Maybe he's right this pictures are derivative work, but he should have made a deletion request like every other user. This is a clear misuse of admin rights and the reason why many wikipedia users *hate* commons and dont want their pictures transfered to here. Desysop Szczepan1990, undelete all pictures, give commonshelper a kick to restore the picturess and start a deletion request to have a proper discussion at the right place. Multichill (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: actions like this really make the Wikipedia-users furious about Commons. Szczepan1990's unpolite (to say the least) reactions are only making users more mad. About the casus: it's one image, that we can't see, deleted after 18 hours, without discussion. Not quite concensus, not really a good argument: only 'derivative work'. And somehow this is used as a casus? Quite unacceptable to me: you can't use one uncheckable example as an excuse to delete some 200 images, just because you think it's ok. Furthermore, he didn't look at anything: Richard Harvey's undeletion request statement proves that: no arguments, just blind deletion based on what Szczepan1990 thinks is clear. --Tuvic (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can get as angry as they like; although perhaps we should have the decency of dispatching a waaaaaaaaaaaaambulance to aforementioned furious Wikipedians. Commons is not a game where we play "media repository". Commons is a media repository with legal obligations just like any other. Copyright violations have the potential of real-world consequences. As such, they are a cancer on Commons and Wikimedia, and should be executed without trial and with extreme prejudice. If that causes a few Wikipedia drama-whores and crybabies to throw their toys out of their pram, then so be it. Screw them. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 18:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are casus of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Żubr beer.JPG. What do you propose then? To discuss each of them separately (how many do we have?) ?

I would propose to

1. open a deletion request and list all the images he thinks should be deleted for the same reason; then people can look through them and discuss whether that reason applies for all or some or none. Not being able to see the images makes an informed discussion rather difficult.
2. be a little less rash. Image deletion is not a race, neither a holy war; unless the Foundation received a takedown notice, there is no reason why deleting a possible copyright infringement couldn't wait a week. There are, on the other hand, several reasons why it should wait: due to the activity of CommonsDelinker, deletions are hard to undo, and the annoyance caused to users is even harder to undo. Not going through the proper channels (setting up a deletion requeset, which would cause CommonsTicker to post a warning) bars people who are not Commons regulars from participating.
3. try to have real discussion and real consensus before starting to delete images with a new reason. Two people agreeing with each other, without giving anyone else a chance to comment, is neither consensus nor discussion. Is either of them a legal expert? The scope of copyright is not an obvious question, even when you don't consider that non-US laws could apply.
4. use an informative deletion message, including a link to the deletion request at the very least.
5. be less condescending to others. Playing the crusader of free content protecting Commons against the unwashed masses might feel good, but it isn't very adult, and unless you are a copyright expert, you have no reason to shake off the opinion of others without even listening to it. Also, hurt feelings and lost confidence are harder to undelete than images.

More specifically, I would propose to undelete at least a sample of the images so we can see what we talk about, and try to find some sensible criteria for an image of an object being a derivative work. It is not even clear what constituted the original work for the deleted images (the labels or the bottles themselves?), and Szczepan1990's refusal to communicate certainly doesn't help. --Tgr (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

presenting certain trademark products (as a main object) is according to laws of most countries "fair use", which is agains the Commons guidelines

Not that Commons doesn't try to respect the law of all countries, which would be quite impossible; for example, pma 70 images are considered public domain, despite some countries having a longer copyright period. Commons respects the US copyright law (because that's where the servers are) plus it's own consensus about what constitutes a free image. That consensus seems to be that it should either have a free license or be public domain in the US or be public domain in the place where it has been first published. Thus the laws of the country where the bottle has been manufactured should be taken into account too. --Tgr (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh boy, the trademark red-herring. . Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons consensus, the copyright laws of the source country and the United States. . --O (谈 • висчвын) 21:37, 23 July 2008 (GMT)

Due to the United States law all images not considered as fair use are shown also at Polish Wikipedia where are certainly fair use. That's nonsense and make Polish users idiots as well :P Why? So tell me what I should tell, as an admin, other wikipedians in a problematic issue: "Don't download this photo on pl.wiki, but if you do so on Commons everything wonna be ok"?! No, everything won't be okay at all! Have your cake and eat it, too - quite funny but not fair. Either all Wikimedia projects contain only free media or we accept globally fair-use. EOT for me. Patrol110 dyskusja 08:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite follow your logic, Cleric... Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 08:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that different countries have different law in fair-use matter. Patrol110 dyskusja 08:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's split out the discussion about the content and Szczepan1990's actions. I propose that any content related discussion is done on an (un)deletion request. I find Szczepan1990's being unwilly to discuss the issue absolutely a problem. Actions and attitude like this are absolutely damaging to Commons and should not happen. I am not really sure what to do now, but I would propose a request for de-adminship if it happends again. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose a request for de-adminship, because it happens again. As you can see above there was a big mistake by Szczepan1990 four months ago. He still has learned nothing from the former discussion and is/was not willing to talk about it. He is not willing to talk about anything. Instead of that he reacts with this. --Euku:^⇄ 09:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm not at all impressed with how Szczepan1990 refuses to participate in discussions following his controversial actions. His “reply” (i.e. “i maded you a piksher – but they deleted it”) is plain and simple childish. --Kjetil_r 15:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that desysop may change the situation because Szczepan will continue to contribute Commons and take into consideration all cases of implicit fair-use violation :/ About the content discussion: imagine the situation that some user watching page of Image:Abtbier12.jpg have read the license which this photo was published under, and she/he released that is able to "modify this document under the terms of the GNU FDL". Okay, everything is well till now. Unfortunately that person copied this photo, cropped the bottle and publish again, only the label on Wikimedia Commons, of course under the free license :P In certain it's fair use but how you will explain the whole situation to a newbie. In contrary, I have a big collection of old beer labels and I wanna publish it at Commons, but it'll be fair-use violation. So now, as a good cheater or well-informed Commons user, I will add the bottles to my photos only to make the background. And now it won't be fair use :P In the way like is now I will take photos of my TV screen (during watching cartoons or tv serials) in order to add some extra media to their articles in Wikipedia. Yeah, that's nice idea and I will use only free licenses :/ Bullshit at all. Patrol110 dyskusja 20:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning makes no sense. Of course we allow what you call «implicit fair use»: We have images of Burger King restaurants, Apple hardware, Mercedes Benz cars and so on. One may not necessarily crop these images and publish certain parts under a free license, but the images are not copyright violations themselves. --Kjetil_r 07:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that Szczepanhasn't behaved according to the basic savoir-vivre rules (sts called the netiquette), by which I mean avoiding proper discussion, being simply rude and so on. But desysoping Szczepan won't solve the main problem, which is now the uncertain status of those photos! And according to some of us (when reading the discussion above), they are violating "free" pictures rules. It cannot be, that one can apply democracy (i.e. voting or looking for consensus) to solve such not straight situations - the answer is likely to be one: unfortunately, most of them needs to be deleted, cos uncertainity has to be interpreted to Commons disadvantage, to avoid potential law-breaking. A simple binar system: OK or WRONG. Going back to Szczepan's situation - one can judge his behaviour in two planes: was he right as an law interpreting admin (in my, as well as in other people opinion he was) and was he bahaving well while facing that problem (most of us say no. He could manage it better). And the solution: is desoping Szczepan going to fix the problem with those graphics? Or is Szczepan going to be the Commons' scapegoat and the good opportunity not to talk about those uncertain graphics anymore and forget about all situation? Law and rules vs. good mood of Commons' society? Masur (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See problem is that as far as I can tell no one has brought up wikisource:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc. which is of some significance to the issue.Geni (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits seems to be extremely relevant. Quotation: “We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. Indeed, Skyy's position that photographs of everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects are subject to analysis as derivative works would deprive both amateur and commercial photographers of their legitimate expectations of copyright protection. Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole--a useful article not subject to copyright protection--and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works.” --Kjetil_r 10:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images are restored now. Already a few days, actually. Currently, there's a deletion request for one of them, at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Aecht schlenkerla rauchbier.jpg. Some more opinions are always welcome. What has to be done with the other images, is something I don't quite know what to do with. Maybe someone could list them somewhere, so they can be judged on an individual basis, since they're not all the same kind of images. About the other subject: I don't think I'll trust Szczepan1990 (talk · contribs) again soon. --Tuvic (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten deletion request. --Jarekt (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, for the record. —Giggy 04:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/San_Jose_de_Cocodite that came to my attention while looking at Special:Contributions/Weezing -- I perhaps am limited by language to deduce what is going on here; maybe someone who speaks es can determine if this situation needs attention? -- carol 01:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the images Image:Paraisotropical.jpg , Image:DuasCarasLogotipo.jpg and contributions of the user who uploaded. Thanks. --Fabiano ^msg 02:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I deleted one, the other was deleted by Badseed. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 16:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Can you take a look at the contribution history of Oparuparu (talk · contribs)? This user is very disruptive. I intended to request for deletion on Image: K o w t o w_ k o r e a n . JPG (due to "spam filter, I insert a space between each alphabet) for dubious copyright status like the below reason. {{delete|Very dubious copyright status. It does not have any EXIF information that other images have. It looks like a copy-scanned image from books published in 80s or 90s or somewhere. Its pixel is very blurred. The uploader [[User:Oparuparu]] is [[:en:User:Pabopa]] that uses it in bad faith. The image itself has programmed with "spam filter" for preventing it to be deleted.}}

However, Oparuparu (talk · contribs), (same as en:User:Pabopa) programmed the image not to be deleted or to be requested for deletion. It can't be even linked. It can't be editable anyway. It is very bad faith edit. Could you look at it and fix the problem? I think it is beyond of image policy here.

Well, the image was a scan I agree (and thus deleted), but the name was fine, and deleting it gave no problems. Possibly you should check your own PC for spam filter problems. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you edit the page? Did you test the image page? I can't edit the page or link it to anywhere with the name. I have not set up any spam filtered.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could follow Oparuparu contribs to the page, and saw that Mattbuck has deleted the image. Gnangarra 05:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me why the heck the word "kowtow" is blacklisted? If you put it into a page and hit save right now it says:

The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: Kowtow 

I'm only getting away with it because I'm breaking up the word with hidden tags. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the note above, but this does relate directly to the topic above. I don't care about the image though since that has been deal with. Just why we have this work blacklisted and where this blacklist is. I checked MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, and it isn't there. So... Where it is? --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try checking meta's blacklist. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the configuration files for the wiki. http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/InitialiseSettings.php.html (which is probably not completely up to date) includes that word in 'wgSpamRegex'. A system administrator is needed to remove it. /Ö 09:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone asked the devs about this yet?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asked JeLuF, no response yet. I suspect that was added in response to a vandal spree, but given that it was 2006 I don't know that it is still needed.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested to know if the word cowtow was allowed so I thought I would type it here to see :) -- carol (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JeLuF removed the entry just now.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timeshifter has renamed Category:Infographics overnight on his own to Category:Information graphics, claiming this first was a bad name. The thing is that both names are common good. I think changing the one to the other should be talked about first? Isn't there a procedure here? Could soembody take a look at this? Thanks you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is COM:CFD. --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:04, 26 July 2008 (GMT)

Thanks. I am not familiar here. Does this mean, this should have been proposed at Commons:Categories for discussion, and still has to be. On the Dutch Wikipedia in this situation the original situation should be restored first, to give others an impression what the original situation is, which has to be altered or not. Is this correct here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter here. CFD here works either way. --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:15, 27 July 2008 (GMT)

Sorry I not familiar here. Do you mean I can start the CFD procedure here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:26, 27 July 2008 (GMT)

Ok thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Kogo deletes cats and other stuff from the description pages of his uploads. I don´t know if there is any reason for this. He even deletes license tags: example. There are still some edits to be undone..--D.W. (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone asked him about this on his talkpage or talkpage of one of the images? Cirt (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not, as he has blanked both his user and his talkpage on July 4. May be, he wants to leave Commons. Nevertheless, if he repeats his deletion frenzy, he should be blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/ Túrelio (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, expert Túrelio (talk · contribs) revenge for my contributions on [7]--kogo (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think all this users uploads are copyvios, I deleted already two images Special:DeletedContributions/Kedotanto that were screenshots. I think the others are too. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 02:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree & deleted. User has been warned and will be blocked if this continues.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coronellian appears to want to delete images he originally added. He has given no indication of why he wants to delete the images. He appears to have marked the images in question as copyvios, but as far as I can tell they were his own work and he uploaded them releasing them with the usual licensing.

For some unknown reason he sought help from me and seems angry that I can't somehow make this happen. I did my best to explain policy as I understand it, because I was asked. As far as I can tell, that just made him angry. I was wondering if someone else can step in, preferably an admin, since presumably an admin would know Commons policies in more detail than I do. - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already being handled at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#User:Pérez (header was User:O) --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:09, 28 July 2008 (GMT)