This is anarchive of past discussions.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.

During discussionCommons:Categories for discussion/2010/01/Category:Barracks of the former Austro-Hungarian army until 1918,User:Erwin Lindemann emptied all discussed categories. Thereby he damaged categorization of many related files by location, by type of object (barracks) and by Austro-hungarian origin. He appears to have long-term trouble with understanding of categorization principles. Could somebody communicate with him and repair hundreds of his related edits? --ŠJů (talk)14:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The"and repair" is something you will not find an administrator to do ;) --Martin H. (talk)15:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a deja-vu asyou can see here. I think that the best way to handle this problem with a user that is learning incrementally and is not listening very well, is to let him do (provided he creates only additional categories) and once he seems to be satisfied with what he achieved, then propose a rename and restructure as needed. In the past, renaming or changing things while he was working made him move all the time in "his" categories. --Foroa (talk)16:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Promotional username matching the title of a deleted advert on en.wiki (seew:Onyxtel). User has uploaded a copyvio,File:Onyxtel.JPG, with an obvious intent of promoting an entity. -FASTILY06:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for cross-wiki spamming and deleted the copyvio. Thank you,Tiptoety^talk06:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Foroa frequently ignores theUser_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Warnings, when processing category moves with SieBot throughUser:CommonsDelinker/commands, e.g.this edit processes a request I previously removed fromUser_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands and asked to be done through{{Move}}.

Given that Foroa is aware ofUser_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Warnings, it's preferable if Foroa avoids doing any category renames in the future. -- User:Docu at10:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Foroa, but I can affirm that. --High Contrast (talk)11:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Foroa is very active in working in our category system, and from all I saw so far he acts there in a neutral way to harmonize and clean up the category system without following his personal preferences. If you prefer Transportation about Transport you may request rename, but not blame one editor for harmonizing the category system to the established naming convention. For evidence see"transportation in" versus"transport in" and see e.g.Template:Place/main, which builds on Transport in... and not Transportation in.... --Martin H. (talk)11:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Foroa didn't do any work on this.
It's not important if you prefer one or the other, it's just that the Foroa shouldn't be using the tool that way.

Besides that, all categories already had the move templates. -- User:Docu at11:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment You can't stop Foroa from using the delinker unless you would deadministrate him. Having said that I have for a long time been criticizing that a lot of people misuse the delinker. The delinker is clearly only for non-controversial moves. To me if a request is removed from the page it is apparently not non-controversial. Imho request should always at least be processed through{{Move}} and a cool-down period of at least two weeks should be waited to give other people a chance to voice their opinion. Foroa only transfered the request from the talk page, but what is even worse are admins likeUser:MPF who post their moves directly violating the two eye principle. --Cwbm (commons) (talk)12:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Foroa didn't just transfer the request from the talk page. -- User:Docu at12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

[1] --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Martin H here. Foroa does good work and doingthis request is perfectly acceptable.Multichill (talk)13:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Cwbm, I'm not sure if you read my initial post. The request wasn't on the talk page anymore when Foroa processed it. -- User:Docu at14:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously, if people agree that we can do potentially controversial requests without using{{Move}}, I think we should just update the description of the process and do that. -- User:Docu at14:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

AsMartin H. pointed out above, I did just a harmonisation move. Strangely enough, when I executed part of the transportation/transport move requeststhree days agoo, nobody objected. I fail to see why there is suddenly protest if I move the remainder of the request. Just to keep discussions going I guess. --Foroa (talk)14:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Harmonization, unless it's 90 % of the categories are already plural so let's move the other 10 % as well, should be discussed before hand as should have been transport versus transportation because that's a matter of contents. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• QCdude(talk ·contributions ·Statistics ·Recent activity ·block log ·User rights log ·uploads ·Global account information) (assign permissions)

I've recently completed acontributor copyright investigation for a user on English Wikipedia who can be verified to have violated copyright in images for years. This case was opened in November after the Wikimedia Foundation received a complaint. The conclusion of this case resulted in a great many images being deleted as probable copyright infringements. I also opened a deletion case for those images that have been transferred (seeCommons:Deletion requests/Images of Akhenaton06).

Within minutes of the completion, a newly registered user began busily uploading the images deleted on English Wikipedia to Commons.File:Spartanburg square.jpg was recently deleted asen:File:MorganSquare.jpg.File:ColonialCenter.jpg was recently deleted asen:File:KeenanFountain.jpg.File:HistoricHamptonneighborhood.jpg was recently deleted asen:File:HistoricHamptonneighborhood.jpg. There can be little doubt that this is the same user (I'm blocking on en wiki as a sockpuppet once I complete this listing). I believe that unless swift action is taken, a good many images that are quite probably copyright violations will be placed on Commons. This contributor's talk page on En Wiki speaks volumes:En:User talk:Akhenaton06. --Moonriddengirl (talk)19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked this user to prevent them uploading any more images whilst I look into this issue in more detail.Adambro (talk)20:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl, do you know or could you tell us, whether QCdude's contributions[2] are the same that have been deleted as copyvios on :en? --Túrelio (talk)20:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

They are indeed. I've blocked the user indefinitely and deleted their uploads except those from the Sony DSC-W7 since there seems to be some suggestion that those might be legitimate.Adambro (talk)20:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was about to answer but didn't get through in time. :) I was digging for the OTRS ticket # of the complaint that brought this long-term problem to light. (It'sTicket:2009111810050214.) Many of the images deleted aten:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Akhenaton06 were deleted presumptively (although not all; we found plenty of cause for additional concern) in accordance withen:Wikipedia:Copyright violations after being listed aten:WP:CCI, which is our equivalent of a "mass deletion nomination" for copyright infringement. The only ones retained were those where permission was properly verified or those showing consistent exif data suggesting that they were made by the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk)20:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Would someone other than me also please take a look at the contributions ofAtahidepum (talk ·contribs)? I recently had to rebuke him (on his talk page) for attempting to remove a discussion where I'd nominated one of his images for deletion as a likely copyvio. Looking now at his other contributions, I find them all a bit suspicious in terms of whether the work is all by one person. -Jmabel !talk00:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

All images are clear copyright violation, with the exception ofFile:Percurso corrida de reis 2009.png that may be indeed "own work" --Justass (talk)02:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Esi.us1(talk ·contributions ·Statistics ·Recent activity ·block log ·User rights log ·uploads ·Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Esi.us2(talk ·contributions ·Statistics ·Recent activity ·block log ·User rights log ·uploads ·Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Esi.us3(talk ·contributions ·Statistics ·Recent activity ·block log ·User rights log ·uploads ·Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Esi.us4(talk ·contributions ·Statistics ·Recent activity ·block log ·User rights log ·uploads ·Global account information) (assign permissions)
• Esi.us5(talk ·contributions ·Statistics ·Recent activity ·block log ·User rights log ·uploads ·Global account information) (assign permissions)

Copyright violator with multiple user accounts keep uploading images which taken from other websites, some are copyright violation and some of them doesn't have any source.  ■ MMXX ^talk 10:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Careful, maybe a school or university project related towikiversity:es:Departamento de Ingeniería de Materiales,EscuelaSuperiorIngenieros de (Universidad de)Sevilla maybe. However, writing an educational or scientific text and using images from some sources is common for students but not possible here. The chemical structures are pd-chem, the rest maybe copyvio. --Martin H. (talk)10:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

University project or not, I'd suggest to block Esi.us 1-5. All of these accounts keep on uploading copyright violations, material of dubious origin and stuff being out of our project scope. --High Contrast (talk)22:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

This user doesn't seem to be interested in, or perhaps capable of, contributing usefully to the Commons. His/her contributions history shows only part of the story; his/her talk page reveals that many other contributions from this user have had to be removed as well. He/she was also blocked late last year for a few days but even that does not seem to have had a significant impact.Powers (talk)18:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the copyright violations and the pages that were outside the projects scope. I also blocked the account for one week for continuing the same pattern of behavior that got them blocked in the first place.Tiptoety^talk18:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Could someone besides me take a look at my exchange withUser:Dhilung on histalk page, and possibly have a look at his uploads? As I've said to him, I am doubtful of his claims of "own work". -Jmabel !talk00:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The claims look quite legit to me. The exif data matches up (Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi in August 2008 and a Canon EOS 40D in August–November 2009 is a natural step, and the exif data also references the uploader's name) and does not appear to be doctored. When asked, the uploader was responsive and provided higher-resolution photos without watermarks and greater level of detail. The photo from caltech.edu that you reference as identical toFile:Cahill Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics ( Caltech).jpg is not, in fact, identical (or even vaguely similar apart from depicting the same subject).—LX (talk,contribs)11:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he got back to me, and you are entirely right. My bad. I was overly suspicious because he had not replaced the watermarked images he promised to replace. I've apologized to him. -Jmabel !talk18:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

This user appears to be nothing but a sockpuppet for SPAMming. Can they be blocked?76.117.247.5522:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bang and the dirt is gone. Thanks for the heads up.Adambro (talk)22:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Please blockMinutejo(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user for the following reasons:

• Repeatedly uploading copyright violations in spite of warnings
• Repeatedly recreating previously deleted copyright violations
• Persistently making fraudulent claims about copyrighted works
• Flickrwashing
• Repeated hostile blanking of legitimate talk page comments
• Repeated blanking of speedy deletion tags from own uploads in spite of warnings

Please take care ofCommons talk:Questionable Flickr images as well. Thanks!—LX (talk,contribs)11:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked them and deleted the image in question.Bidgee (talk)12:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This user continually overlapping (de facto deleting) my images.

In the first case, he uploaded similar image over mine, and then dispute the "factual accuracy" of his image:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voivodship_and_Serbia.png

In the second case, he uploaded image totally different from existing one and also from the name of the file:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Serbian_expansion_1913.png

There is absolutely no need for doing this, because he could upload different image under different file name.

This user also stubbornly uncategorising my images before discussion ends:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASerbian_greater_expansion_1913.png&action=historysubmit&diff=34072883&oldid=34059815
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASrpska_osvajanja_1913.png&action=historysubmit&diff=34056088&oldid=34052453
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASrpska_osvajanja_1912.png&action=historysubmit&diff=34054953&oldid=34052645

and many more...--Mladifilozof (talk)21:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please somebody help me here. I am constantly attacked by user:Mladifilozof who behave like an internet troll. Images that he showed here were originally created by me, so he constantly uploading outdated versions of my own images and stopping me from improving image quality. Also, he posting false info about image origins, see this as example:http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Serbian_expansion_1913.png&oldid=33935968 - he wrote there that image is derivative work of image "Serbia1913.png" and that author of that image is user:Electionworld, while from original page of this image it is clear that I am author:http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Serbia1913.png&oldid=3845769 (Quote: "This map has been uploaded by Electionworld from en.wikipedia.org to enable the Wikimedia Atlas of the World .Original uploader to en.wikipedia.org was PANONIAN, known as PANONIAN at en.wikipedia.org.Electionworld is not the creator of this map."). And it is not the only image where he posted such false info about author. He also insulting me (he calling me and my work "Greater Serbian", while I have no any wishes for expansion of Serbian borders and I even do not opposing independence of Kosovo from Serbia, so calling me "Greater Serbian" is a big insult). He also ignore any arguments that I presented on varios discussion pages and he have strong anti-Serb ethnic agenda and want to present that all Serbs are war criminals and ideologists of Greater Serbia (just check his edits, especially those on English Wikipedia, to confirm this), so that is why he adding images which show historical territory of Serbia into "Greater Serbia" category. He clearly want to push his political agenda here and therefore his behaviour damage this Wiki project. I am willing to hear some opinions how this problem could be solved. As for info in image "File:Serbian_expansion_1913.png", he basically uploaded modified version of my image (with false claim about its author and origin) and I uploaded new improved version of that file with all info that is contained in "his" version and with much more additional info, so I have no idea why he reverted that to "his" version when there is no doubt that my improved version is better. He also blanked a list of references from map page:http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASerbian_expansion_1913.png&action=historysubmit&diff=34276440&oldid=34242174 (as I understand, every work in Wiki projects has to be referenced, so how would you people describe this action of reference blanking and reverting to map version with less info and with no references?). Also, I made many maps for Wiki projects and I released them into public domain because I believe in Wiki idea about free knowledge available to everybody, but as every artist I may not be satisfied how some of my early works (or in this case maps) are made, so I believe that I have right to improve quality of my own images here (the fact that I released them into public domain does not deny my right of improving image quality). However, behaviour of user:Mladifilozof (who do not let me to improve quality of my own images) will force me to release my future works with some more protective licence and the true victim of that will be idea about free knowledge.PANONIAN (talk)21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from uploading new versions of a map on top of a file description page that was started by an opponent. For readers, unstable images are confusing, it makes discussions difficult. And the repeated reversions not promote the peace. You can each have your own map. Comments can be ventilated on talk pages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk)22:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that "he does not have his own map" in this case - I never touched or changed any image that he created or uploaded independently from images created by me. I only object that he upload outdated versions of my images and not allowing me to improve them. How can he have more right to edit and change that image than me who originally created it and who released it into public domain? (please explain me that, since it is against logic). I asked him here a question why that image "should show only 1913 expansion, not entire one from 1817 to 1913":http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Serbian_expansion_1913.png - so, I hope that he will answer, so we can have a full idea about this problem.PANONIAN (talk)22:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

These are free maps. You made them, but you released them for anybody to use and modify, for any purpose. If your opponent uploads a file, it would be better if you left the image on that file description page as it is. Feel free to make comments on the talk page. You can also link to new versions. But please leave the image as your opponent wants it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk)22:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

But if I released images for "anybody to use and modify" that mean that I have right to modify them as well, including file version that another user uploaded, right? I cannot leave that image "as my opponent wants it" because as an artist (if you consider map drawing a kind of art, anyway), I really hate that an outdated bad version of my work exist in this way. There are also painters who would destroy some of their old pictures and paint them again, so it is part of my personality, and as long as I do not violate Wiki policy with that, I will improve quality of images crated by me or their derivative works.PANONIAN (talk)22:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, may I propose that if user:Mladifilozof do not want me to change of modify image which show expansion of Serbian borders in 1913, he should create it from his own map:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Srpska_osvajanja_1913.png or from any other source that he prefer. I do have a quite fair personal policy in map drawing: I do not change maps created by others (I only notify authors of such maps on discussion pages if something is wrong in any of the maps), but I am much concerned into what maps created by me will evolve (and I also change such maps by myself in accordance with every good faith suggestion of other users). Problems would emanate only if somebody do not have a good faith.PANONIAN (talk)22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can modify the maps you have made since you released them into the public domain, the same applies toMladifilozof (talk ·contribs) but you should never upload a modified map or image over the original, even if it is also a modified map/image. It is best to upload it under a whole new file name, even if you just add(modified) to the name.Bidgee (talk)23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is that I did not uploaded completelly different map over another one. This is original file:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Serbia1913.png and this is another modified file:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Serbian_expansion_1913.png - so, what I done here is uploading improved versions of both files (not completelly different new files) with more cities shown in both maps, with borders of neighbouring countries shown in first map, and with wider info about historical development of territory of Serbia in the second one (it is same map with aditional info, so I do not have idea why user:Mladifilozof reverted that).PANONIAN (talk)23:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

While I can see you're trying to make improvements but uploading a new work (whether it's to make it look better or more features) you should upload as a new file not over a existing file. Only time you should upload over an existing file is to remove a typo(or mistake) or image corrections (say colour, balance, sharpness ect) but in this case it should be as a new file. Also further up you called the other editor/uploader aninternet troll, please refrain from making bad faith/personal attacks at other editors or you will face being blocked.Bidgee (talk)00:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, man, I am trying to explain to you that "I am not uploading a new work here" neither it was my intention. My sole intention was to improve existing image with expanded info, the new version of the image might look different from the original, but it is not a new image! However, since you obviously do not understand what I try to explain here and I am tired of "talking to the wall", I will upload improved version as a new file, but I will also make and upload another improved version of file "Serbian expansion 1913.png" showing at least more cities if not more historical info, which I believe will not be disputed by anybody. Finally, I did not said that user:Mladifilozof is an Internet troll but that he behaving like one, and you can see that from his edits in English Wikipedia where he is involved in conflicts with several users:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MladifilozofPANONIAN (talk)09:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(PANONIAN) It is new work nor does it look anything like the original. Saying they are behaving like one is like calling one a troll and Wikipedia drama does not belong on here unless it's a cross Wiki issue (which is not).Bidgee (talk)13:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, show me Wiki rule which say how much improved version should be similar to the original and we can have serious discussion about that. Regarding troll issue, I will not use that word in relation to user:Mladifilozof anymore, but your behaviour towards me and the way in which you treat me and my actions or arguments is also not nice, you know...PANONIAN (talk)15:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

At least in case ofFile:Voivodship and Serbia.png, I'd say that PANONIAN made significant corrections to color. The original colors were eye-hurting.

One more thing that I believe should be mentioned in this discussion is that Mladifilozof has somewhat lax understanding of copyright. For example, I have a hard time believing thatFile:Raspored stecaka.jpg is drawn by him. Also,this.Nikola (talk)08:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly should be uploaded under a new name also as it's more then just colour edits. As for the other images you have linked to, if feel that this isn't there own work then list it as an AfD and plead your case.Bidgee (talk)06:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't list it at AfD since I can't find original images. But IMHO it shows that PANONIAN is rightfully irked by Mladifilozof's misattribution of the images.Nikola (talk)11:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to find the originals if your argument for the concerns you have with them are strong. PANONIAN has wrongfully acted as they released the images into the public domain which does not require attribution unlike Creative Commons licenses but Mladifilozof has given attribution by linking to the original and its author (PANONIAN).Bidgee (talk)12:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We still have the same problem, becausePANONIAN again has overlapped this map before prior discussion. I just want him to follow procedure, and to suggest his "improvements" on talk page before upload it over existing image.P.S.Nikola, thanx for good words on me. I assume your good faith.--Mladifilozof (talk)22:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But I suggested that with uploading compromise version and you did not wrote a single word on image discussion page is that version OK for you or not. And again: IT IS NOT "YOUR MAP" - It is map that I made in Photoshop using layers and the fact that you changed colour and added one line does not make this map "your". Map is a public property, but I contributed to its creation much more than you. In fact, most of files that you uploaded to commons are parts of maps that other people created or another versions of such maps with few changes. You are just a plagiator, not author of anything.PANONIAN (talk)22:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You see what I am talking about:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kosovo_Vilayet_1905.jpg - this is latest upload of user:Mladifilozof and I do not see what is a reason of cuting a piece of bigger map and uploading it as a separate file?PANONIAN (talk)23:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And also this that user:Nikola presented:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:League_of_Prizren.jpg - user:Mladifilozof uploaded that image with false licence claiming that copyright of that image expired but in the same time not knowing author and date of creation of the map?!!!. It is tragic that admins here are so much concerned about my upload of improved version of one file (and there is no any doubt that such version is significant improvement of that file), but they are not concerned at all about user who uploading images with false licences and false claims about authors.PANONIAN (talk)23:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Panonian's statement was: "this is compromise version based on statement of user:Mladifilozof from discussion page that image should be "focused on balkan wars, not on entire history of serbia", so it does now focus on that only and I hope that nobody will have more objections." As I already suspected, this was not really true. I will revert to Bidgees latest reversion. Panonian's actions are not acceptable, and maybe he should be blocked for a day for preventing disruption. /Pieter Kuiper (talk)22:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not true? How so? Do you see that only objection that user:Mladifilozof presented on image discussion page was that image should be "focused on balkan wars, not on entire history of serbia" and I fully respected that in my proposed compromise version:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Serbian_expansion_1913.png Would you be kind enough to elaborate what else might be wrong in my proposed compromise version? You discredit yourself as serious participant in this discussion if you revert image without real reason for that. Of course, it is easy to block me but how hard can be for you to elaborate and justify your own latest revert of my proposed compromise image version? What is really wrong with that image? You do not like colours, letters, what exactly?PANONIAN (talk)22:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said upload it under a new file name and not over another an existing image. Your version of the map is largely different to Mladifilozof's version, it would be like me taking a photo of a building, uploading it on Commons and a year later taking another photo of the same building with large modifications done, then uploading over the photo which was taken a year before. I've protected the image page for 1 week due to the edit warring, continue after that or on any other image and you will be blocked for disruption.Bidgee (talk)06:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, as an admin you was not fair towards me at all. Is that because I have bad temper and because I am rude? Yes, I am, but that is just my personality and that is not reason for you not to treat me equaly as you treat other users. If user:Mladifilozof opened this case here that does not automatically mean that he is right (in fact cases where a criminal report his own crime to the police to renounce suspition are well known). I am reasonable person and I can always try to solve problems with discussion, but you do not helping me here: I do not see where you get idea that I want to be involved in revert war or disruption regarding "Serbian expansion 1913.png" image: I reverted that image only 2 times and only before you suggested that I upload my improved version as separate file, which I done. Then I tried to upload compromise version of file "Serbian expansion 1913.png" in very good faith hopping that such version would be acceptable for everybody and I really do not understand why such good faith action from my side was seen as a "disruption". I very well know the rules of the web site, so please correct me if I am wrong about these rules: if an image is a public property then every user here has equal right to upload new version of the file if he thinks that old version is wrong in some way. If there is a dispute between two file versions then proper place for resolving that dispute is image discusion page and in the case of revert war proper action of an admin is to protect the page without supporting the protected page version (which should be any version that was current in the time of page protection, not the selected version of an user). But what you done here was reverting page to selected version of an user which is a clear discrimination against other user (in this case me) knowing that user whose version you selected to support did not proved his case on discussion page. As user whom you have to treat equally as all other users, I have objections to the image version that you selected to support and I will elaborate them on the image discusioon page:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Serbian_expansion_1913.png Also, regarding your claim that the map that I uploaded "is largely different to Mladifilozof's version", I do not see that there is a Wiki rule that say how much improved image version should be similar to older version. I also do not understand your latest actions here:http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AVoivodship_and_Serbia.png&action=historysubmit&diff=34327671&oldid=34202186 - I clearly stated on discussion page of that image which are problems with it, but you just reverted to older version. I do not see why you behave like this and treat me like shit completelly ignoring my arguments for anything.PANONIAN (talk)14:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've been completely fair, I could have blocked you for disruption but I didn't. Also this isn't a police investigation, it is just a dispute between two editors. I have said over and over that all you have to do is upload under a new file name and have said why you shouldn't just overwrite someone's work (even if they base it on your work and have released it into the PD).Bidgee (talk)12:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pananian, I'm backing up Bidgee on this one. It's not an unreasonable compromise. --J.smith (talk)19:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bidgee's actions on this matter. They are in line with our usual and customary responses to disputes of this sort.Walter Siegmund(talk)19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What compromise you speak about? - you 100% supported one side, so there is no even 0.1% of compromise here. What about arguments that I presented on image discussion pages regarding accuracy of images uploaded by user:Mladifilozof? You will just leave everything as it is no matter of arguments against accuracy of these images? Finally, why you do not use same criteria for user:Mladifilozof who also uploaded an image over another image created by another user:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_Serbia_in_Yugoslavia.png or why you do not examine false licences that he posted into these images:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bidgee#And_other_files_with_problematic_licences_uploaded_by_user:Mladifilozof - I just examined his contributions and saw that he uploaded a dozen of images in which he posted licence PD-old ("life of the author plus 70 years"), in the same time not knowing author and date of creation of these images.PANONIAN (talk)20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And see this too:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Homogena_Srbija.gif - he uploaded that image claiming that it is his "own work", but it is obvious that he took image from here and just modified it a little:http://www.leksikon-yu-mitologije.net/files/Velika_srbija.gif - it is very questionable is that image free for use.PANONIAN (talk)21:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please seeCommons:Deletion requests for how to handle images that may not be properly licensed. But, please don't bring content disputes from other projects to that forum.Walter Siegmund(talk)22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So, I should propose these images for deletion? LOL - If you do not care, why would I? In fact, I lost enough of my free time on this page and you know what: I will not touch any more any image uploaded by user:Mladifilozof. Are you satisfied? Let him have these two images here, let him have uploaded a dozen images with false licences and let him upload a dozen more. I once left Wikipedia and I did not edited it for 2 years and you people gave me a good reason to think to do that again. Thank you very much...PANONIAN (talk)22:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you think a file may not be properly licensed, a deletion request is the best response.Walter Siegmund(talk)02:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User

• Fujurcitook (talk ·contribs)

Hi, I'm sysop from Spanish Wikipedia and report about the actions of this user in Commons. The past week, Fujurcitook was blocked indefinitely in Spanish Wikipedia because spam and harrasment about some users (I'm included), and previouslyhad many blocks for the same reason. Few daws later, he created two sockpuppets in Spanish Wiki:Nefilim andSardukar85, but were expelled.

Now this user comes to Commons and continues the harrasment to me andSonsaz (talk ·contribs), and is possible that uses more sockpuppets in Commons. --Taichi (talk)20:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

SeeUsuario Discusión:Fujurcitook andes:Usuario Discusión:Sardukar85 for more details about the level of harrasment, he abused the unblock petitions and many Spanish sysop intervened in this case. --Taichi (talk)21:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I cant speak spanish, so I can not go into this, but concentrating only on Commons I see him asking for help and posting some kind of open letter defending some original research on the help desk withSpecial:Contributions/88.2.234.12 and removing the letter minutes later while logged in withSpecial:Contributions/Fujurcitook. Sometimes users blocked elsewhere come here to communicate, as long as the postings are communication likethis (if google translate is not completely wrong) I dont see the abuse, so we should not inflame a conflict on Commons too.Be generous and ignore the help desk post, self revert. --Martin H. (talk)21:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This user is persistent offender. The message that left to Taichi is similar to other that has left other users for e-mail and discussion pages, earlier and after blockades:[3],[4] and[5] are three examples. After every blockade and of each pardon, returned to reoffend in the same infringements to policies of Wikipedia in Spanish (spammig, autopromotion, attack to other users, blockade evasion... for example[6],[7] or[8]). That is, it has been proved that the regret of this user has been false.Sonsaz (talk)00:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yo solo pido arreglar este asunto, sin llegar a mayores conflictos y reproches. Mi dirección de correo y páginas de discusión son conocidas por todas las partes implicadas. Mi utilización de este foro, gracias Martin, es sólo para pedir ayuda. No creo que sea conveniente que tenga que ser un usuario ajeno al conflicto quien tenga que poner, igualmente, mis mensajes con buenas intenciones. No podemos centrarnos sólo en nuestros errores, sino tener en cuenta, ante todo, nuestra intención de colaborar con la Wikipedia y evitar conflictos posteriores. Acoso??? ninguna de sus acepciones es sinónimo de "pedir ayuda". Evito seguir la discusión en estos términos "destructivos" y me centro en la "construcción" de una solución.Gracias y perdón por las molestias.--Fujurcitook (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Añado esto a lo escrito en la "discusión de Sonsaz".--Fujurcitook (talk)09:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Noticed some verypointy edits by this user (who is clearly annoyed byCommons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa).Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Dubai is a bit extreme. Given the anon a warning, but worth keeping an eye on. Also, I'm not sure what to do about the edits. That "Images of Dubai" DR is silly, butCommons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Dubai is actually relatively sensible.--Nilfanion (talk)00:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I regretfully and unintentionally left the source file name of this image intact, as I uploaded it. I intended it to be titled "File:Norwich-Vermont-Bragg Hill-Autumn.jpg." --HopsonRoad (talk)22:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done by the way, this page is for reporting a problem with some user.  ■ MMXX ^talk 16:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Megistias proposed my map for deletion and also posted tag that "file should not be used" until accuracy issue is resolved:http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AIllyria_and_Dardania_Kingdoms.png&action=historysubmit&diff=34967701&oldid=34894890 - is that a valid tag for usage in such circumstances or not? and if it is valid, under which terms this tag should be posted or removed?PANONIAN (talk)18:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is: should there be some hard evidence for usage of such tag since user:Megistias that posted that tag on the file page did not presented any such evidences on the file discussion page. As you can see, his claims against this file are only rhetorical and based on personal statements:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Illyria_and_Dardania_Kingdoms.png And not to mention his strong POV political agenda:http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3AAhtum_sermon01.png&action=historysubmit&diff=34967529&oldid=34896488 So, can I remove that tag in existing circumstances or not?PANONIAN (talk)08:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also note that I speak about "doubt" tag that user:Megistias posted on file page, not about "deletion" tag, for which I am aware that it remains on file page until deletion voting is complete.PANONIAN (talk)08:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You are the one being rhetorical. You even claim that random googled sites are proper sourcesMegistias (talk)12:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You even outright lie about sources in thedeletion andtalk page. Why the subterfuge?Megistias (talk)13:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, Megistias, refrain yourself from unproved personal accusations against me. Here, we discuss proper usage of "doubt" tag, so you should address other questions to proper discussion pages.PANONIAN (talk)17:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The wording in{{Doubt}} should be changed. I propose to remove prescriptive language like "file should not be used". Noting that there is a dispute is good enough. /Pieter Kuiper (talk)08:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with removing of that part of the tag - in that way it would be acceptable for usage.PANONIAN (talk)17:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This user, who's neither anadministrator nor areviewer, has been flickrreviewing his own uploads (so far I didn't see any big problems, except forFile:Michael Jackson with the Reagans.jpg which was tagged with a more restrictive license). Still, someone (with Japanese skills) should inform him of the proper procedures. Thanks in advance. –Tryphon^☂11:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I remembered an Japanese User related to Michael Jackson and Flickrwashing -User:Tozanka - speaking only from the scope they edit and the camera they use, DMC-FX35, they are the same users. --Martin H. (talk)12:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just noted that someone else already made the same finding onUser_talk:Osakaosaka#Osakaosaka is Tozanka, if this become worser I will run checkuser. So far I suggest indefblock one account, block the other some time (or indef?), mark the flickr images for flickr review, delete those images not coming from that camera. --Martin H. (talk)12:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

One of many examplesfile talk. 2nd book does nowhere write what user is claiming (that Ulpiana was illyrian and founded prior to Roman conquest but just mentions the WORD once and thats itUlpiana in given book), but user continues whistling away and pretending that all is fine whennothing of what he claims is written there. Using travel and commercial sites as if they are reliable sources and continuing denialtalk and odd stance.

• There is no communication or interaction whatsoever.Megistias (talk)12:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to discuss with this person, but he claim that every source that I present to him is "unreliable" or "trash". I asked him several times to present or quote data from his sources, but he refused to do that and he just repeating over and over his statemens against accuracy of my map or sources presented by me without giving or presenting any source that would support his statements. I cannot simply take that his statements are correct since he do not provide any proof for them. As forthis source, here is what source say: "Appian and Strabo mention by name no settlements of the Dardani"..."Ptolemy (iii 9, 4), however, besides Naissus and Scupi mentions Arribantium (identity unknown) and Ulpiana (Lipljan)". The page does not mention to which century this statement refer to, but these web pages say that these cities existed in pre-Roman times:[9] and[10] andthis source contains a map of pre-Roman Dardanian state with cities Ulpiana and Scupi.PANONIAN (talk)15:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Again Travel sites and Commercial sites.You have no concept of the reality of what is a source.Megistias (talk)16:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Answer ishere but user has serious issues regarding undestanding of basic facts.Megistias (talk)16:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And again, repeats the same pattern, using non-sources as sources trying to outweigh history books with TRAVEL SITES and the such.continuedMegistias (talk)17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is nice that you started to quote some sources by yourself, you have my answerhere, and by the way, according to which Wiki rule or guide we should consider that tourist web sites are unreliable sources in general?PANONIAN (talk)17:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Comment We don't adjudicate content disputes here. They are best dealt with on individual projects where persons who are knowledgeable and interested in the topic and who read the relevant languages participate. If a file is demonstrably incorrect, and not useful for any educational purpose, it may be deleted, but it is unlikely that a file that is in use on other projects will be deleted. Usage on other projects is de facto evidence that it is useful for some purpose. In any case, little purpose is served by bringing a content dispute here. Please useCOM:DR. I would admonish editors to refrain from calling sources "trash". That may be hurtful. "Unreviewed" or "not scholarly" is better and more precise. That said, montenegro.travel would not be considered a reliable source by most editors for information about history.[11]Walter Siegmund(talk)19:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pannonian stop using and claiming tourist and commercial sites as well as random googling as sources.You have made all attempts at interacting with you a frustrating feat.Megistias (talk)19:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And you stop harasing me. What ever source I present to you, you claim that it is unreliable (one tourist site is only a bottom of the whole problem). Things are simple: for you, the source which claim what you like is reliable and the source which claim what you do not like is unreliable, that is the only criteria that you use and who ever see your posts on various discussion pages will see that I speak the truth. I tried to propose several compromise solutions but seems that you just want to disrupt my work. My work is made in good faith where I wanted to create maps which would reflect histories of various peoples of the Balkans, but obviously I have problem with a man whose only goal here is to prove that Macedonia and Albania belong to Greece.PANONIAN (talk)20:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

These look like copyvios to me however given the naming and de contribs they may have a promotional intent. --Herby^{talk thyme}16:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Deleted all as copyright violations; also out ofscope for being promotional, but we only need one reason, right? –Tryphon^☂17:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"One" was always good enough for me :). Thanks --Herby^{talk thyme}17:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This editor has recently been indeffed at a sister wiki for extensive image copyright violation.[12] The other project is deleting all of this user's image copyright uploads. I have already deleted one image that was tagged for speedy deletion there but had been transferred to Commons (and had already been proposed for regular deletion here). The user also has an account here and has done a handful of uploads. Plus they're checking whether anything else of his got transferred here. This looks pretty clear cut: any objections to nuking?Durova (talk)18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to an indefinite block.Walter Siegmund(talk)22:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Proceeding to delete contributions. Due to the relative shortage of responses here at the admin board I've invited the editor to discuss the block if s/he wishes to do so.Durova (talk)01:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth,Softjuice (talk ·contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Alohahell.Tiptoety^talk06:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The user just keeps uploading obviously copyright material and marking it public domain. It gets deleted and then they do it again a while later. Latest ones areFile:Anyuangelov1.jpg andFile:Bulgariansoldiers.jpg . Not sure what correct procedure is -SimonLyall (talk)10:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I will handle this case, thank you.→Spiritia16:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

ECEstats (talk ·contributions) appears to be a representative (orrepresentatives?) of theUNECE, and back around July/August 2008 was active on en.wp as well as uploading some images to Commons. On Wikipedia, they were blocked indefinitely due to a promotional username, but their contributions appear to have generally been left alone. Here on Commons, they tagged their images gfdl-self/cc-by-sa, which I find somewhat problematic given that (a) there's some ambiguity in who the "self" is given that the author is listed solely as UNECE, (b) I'm not sure where those images might appear on the UNECE website, and whether the licensing is listed there as well (and theblanket copyright notice on their website is clearly not free). Given that the contributor hasn't been around for a couple of years, I doubt they're contactable, although they do have e-mail enabled on their Wikipedia account (but not this one), so I don't know what the best way of dealing with them is.ConMan01:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:ECE weekly 235.gif is from theUNECE.[13] However, since it is simply a bar graph with little original or creative content, it may not be protected by copyright.COM:DR is the place to bring suspected copyright violations.Walter Siegmund(talk)02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please asap review this flickr washer (January 13 upwards) and do somenuke? I found this by incident (see deletion request linked on talk), I first thought the uploader is trying to fix a problem but I found someone else massively flickr washing. Additional the uploader of that fileFile:Gorgeted puffleg.jpg and this flickr washer are not related from Checkuser evidence, although they both come from hu.wpif Patko erika here ishu:User:Patko erika there, I dont know. I still can not believe this. --Martin H. (talk)18:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

striked something, I now know. --Martin H. (talk)18:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we (= sysops at hu.WP) have become aware of Erika's case viaUser:Teemeah. Teemeah have written Erika an email asking her to clarify these strange coincidences. Erika is a 15 year old girl doing doubtlessly valuable contributions on huwiki, her edits were insofar perfectly OK. We beg your patience & understanding until T. can sort this mess out with her in her native tongue. We'll get back asap.Bennó (talk)22:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. From expirience I know that actions on Commons are often ignored, so I asked Teemeah to explain the issue in native language on hu.wp to the user. Though that will not help to save the images as everything from that flickr account is clearly copied from elsewhere, it toke me 15 minutes to find 30 of the images beeing copyright violations, not cherry-picked images but images in their order of upload. For me the issue is not to not deletethe images but to prevent this issue occurring again in future from 2 sides: 1) the flickr account, at best that account will be deleted 2) hu.wp, a user blocked on Commons may continue on another project. --Martin H. (talk)22:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, and 3): A user blocked on Commons can not make good edits in future. We are better with all three: No bad flickr account, no bad things on other projects and good, not blocked users here ;) --Martin H. (talk)23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Martin, I exchanged a few emails with Erika. Just as I thought before, she was watching the flickr account (subscribed to it). She was not aware that the photos are stolen from elsewhere, she just knew the CC licences are valid for Commons, and that's it. I guess CollinEdwards should be reported @ flickr for abusing the account by posting copyrighted photos under cc. By the way, this whole treatment of hers here made Erika promise she will never again upload anything to commons, not even own photos.... I think people should be treated with more care, and inquired in a bit more friendly manner, before shouting their heads off and accusing them with things they haven't done. I acknowledge your efforts to keep Commons clean but if we lose contributors because of mistreatment that won't help the project. The thing that happened to Erika (uploading CC photos from flickr in good faith and then bumping into the wall of accusation) can happen to any of us who transfer photos from Flickr. We are all exposed to the fakers of Flickr, please don't forget that. Thank you, regards --Teemeah (talk)13:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Teemeah +1. With all due respect, I think you should ask first, and only then put users before the firing squad... Assume good faith? Examining the circumstances? Maybe there is a good explanation. Asking a few questions without hurried accusations surely won't hurt anybody. :)Bennó (talk)14:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just answered the same posting on my talk. I hold up my claim, Patko erika = CollinEdward, evidences are clear. The account on flickr was created for nothing else but flickrwashing. Of course hurried is a good point, but by all evidences I was shoked how someone can act so deliberately bad just for a bunch of photographs. --Martin H. (talk)18:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ECEstats (talk ·contributions) appears to be a representative (orrepresentatives?) of theUNECE, and back around July/August 2008 was active on en.wp as well as uploading some images to Commons. On Wikipedia, they were blocked indefinitely due to a promotional username, but their contributions appear to have generally been left alone. Here on Commons, they tagged their images gfdl-self/cc-by-sa, which I find somewhat problematic given that (a) there's some ambiguity in who the "self" is given that the author is listed solely as UNECE, (b) I'm not sure where those images might appear on the UNECE website, and whether the licensing is listed there as well (and theblanket copyright notice on their website is clearly not free). Given that the contributor hasn't been around for a couple of years, I doubt they're contactable, although they do have e-mail enabled on their Wikipedia account (but not this one), so I don't know what the best way of dealing with them is.ConMan01:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:ECE weekly 235.gif is from theUNECE.[14] However, since it is simply a bar graph with little original or creative content, it may not be protected by copyright.COM:DR is the place to bring suspected copyright violations.Walter Siegmund(talk)02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Last evening I had removedcategory:Images by Lilyu from a bunch of 19th century photographs.Esby (talk ·contribs) rolled back my work, see edits likethis,this, andthis for examples. Please take away his access to the admin tools. /Pieter Kuiper (talk)18:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It would be good to remind that you tried to pass in force hereCategory_talk:Images_by_Lilyu. Those image are categorized under the current policy. If a few extra-categorizations you did during those actions were lost during your category waring, you have to blame yourself for it first. Your closed-minded attitude does not help much here. The current policy do not define some sort of censorship on the user category, it just tells that the user category must be categorized properly and possibly hidden.Esby (talk)19:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no way in whichcategory:Images by Lilyu applies to those images. Restoring that category is poor judgement on your part. Using admin buttons to do it is abuse of your powers. Your even undoing the work that I put in to find categories for images that had never been properly categorized is your responsibility. That was vandalism. /Pieter Kuiper (talk)19:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the category description is perfectly clear:This category is for images i created, edited significantly or uploaded.--Lilyu (d). Who did upload (or requested a bot to upload) those images? Someone else than Lilyu? Is this against the current policy? No. Is it necessary? Yes. So stop arguing and trying to look like you acted correctly here.Esby (talk)19:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edits linked by Pieter, I would agree that they aren't constructive and have served to replace useful categories that he added by somewhat less useful categories. I don't consider removal of admin rights is appropriate though, merely a suggestion that Esby takes more care when using rollback and avoid using it except in the circumstances described inCommons:Rollback such as to remove vandalism. I trust that Esby will ensure he is familiar with that guideline and act accordingly in future. I do think perhaps it would have been helpful if, whilst the Images by Lilyu category is being discussed, Pieter didn't remove it but only added relevant categories.Adambro (talk)19:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well technically speaking, I should have added again the category to each image with hotcats. That should have been longer, since I was about to sleep, I ended useing rollback, I noticed after it that he had added categories at the same time. So I reverted a few of my rollbacks before going to sleep.[15][16][17]... sorry but I could not take the luxury of checking all of his edits to check what he had added or removed at this point.Esby (talk)19:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

SeeUser talk:Esby#Roll back your rollbacks. You refused, and you put the burden on me to undo the damage that you had done with your admin tools. /Pieter Kuiper (talk)19:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest to Esby that there was no real reason rush to reinstate "Images by Lilyu" if that meant to do so would mean you didn't check the edits as closely as necessary. "Images by Lilyu" may be considered useful by some but I would hope everyone would accept that the priority should be categorising content by subject, rather than who uploaded them. It would have been preferable to simply readd the "Images by Lilyu" category using Hot Cat when time allowed.Adambro (talk)20:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Adambro that removing the categories added by Pieter was not ok, but on the other side Pieters edit removing the users maintenance category was also not ok. Regarding the whole discussion: I suggest to changeCommons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories (a subpage of the policy pageCOM:PS) to be more clear here: Users are allowed to collect files in (usernamespace) galleries or categories as described inCommons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy. But categoriesMUST be hidden as they are obviouslyPrivate image or other file collections of no wider educational value (Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories#Non-allowable user page/gallery/category content) and therefore not in scope and not allowed to be mixed up with Commons educational content. The whole discussion on this particular user category is completely odd, it is only turning about the words "must" and "should" inCommons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy, and the discussion completely lost its conection to the Commons aims - its more about vanity and not about improving the project. --Martin H. (talk)19:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So we do censorship our user category instead of solving the technical issue behind the initial decision?Esby (talk)20:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there an analogue toGodwin's law for thereductio ad censorship/censoring? --Túrelio (talk)20:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what was wrong with removingCategory:Images by Lilyu fromthis NASA photo? Has Lilyu been on the moon? /Pieter Kuiper (talk)20:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone block me or Pieter Kuiper before it get's too late? I mean I am tired of reading idiocy like that one. This guy can't read the category description. Thanks in advance. My request is serious. (If you block me, i ask for a hour block.)Esby (talk)20:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am glad somebody, but me has noticed the "idiocy" ;)--Mbz1 (talk)17:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Support for Martin's proposal. However, we might need a sort of formal vote for that, I fear. --Túrelio (talk)20:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

decline technical issues should not lead to editorial decision.Esby (talk)20:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Its nothing technical, its a question of scope and Commons aims. --Martin H. (talk)20:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It is technical, images in user category won't get detected as not categorized because they are in a visible category for instance. The _hidden_ keyword is used here to treat the visible category of an image. You have the same problem for licence based template, maintenance template (which are meant to be hidden) and featured template.Esby (talk)20:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but what exactly has this to do with separating educational content from content without educational value? --Martin H. (talk)22:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Because you think that images by a given author are not educational if the author is not 'known enough'? I mean, if some of the image are educationnal, linking them together is also educationnal, what ever being their notability. You are only thinking to the direct usage of the categorisation: to descend from top to bottom. But you can also navigate in transversal direction, and the images made by an user will have an educationnal value in this context, not to everyone of course but who can estimate this value for sure? I'd rather keep this information visible rather than i'd offuscate it. This is simply commons sense, we must allow them because they allow and stimulate content creations, we must show those categories because users default settings are to display them, resulting in that most of them ignore they exist. After all, we don't know what the user who come on commons is searching. We are not on the wikipedias, we are on commons. If we want people to participate in our activity, we must show the way clearly from start: So either we put an hide keyword on all the user category and set the default option for all users as 'show hidden category', so users can hide them if they want, either we find another solution that involves saying to the user and reminding him/her continuously (because they tends to forget which settings should be enabled or disabled) that some category are hidden and their displaying can be shown/hidden easily(which is not the case for now), and with possibly making more type of hiding. ( hide_user ; hide_maint; hide_by_camera etc.)Esby (talk)23:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you still not got the point. We have much, much better ways to collect the educational or potentially educational value from such categories with appropriately named categories without leading to a category that collects random images, is potentially biased and placed outside the collaborative nature of Commons. See this example: The category is visible but the user don't like something removed from the category that not belongs to it by the category name. Is that what a wiki is for? Ownership on content??

Collecting similar maps or illustrations with similar design is educational, see e.g.Category:Locator maps of districts in Bavaria which is sorted by color scheme and that I think is best practice. We also have galleries, collect similar files there. You can add "other versions" to the file descriptions as done inFile:2008 South Ossetia war en.svg with the various languages. You can also create a user gallery and collect all similar content you created in it to show your related works to others. So there are various, much better ways to catch the potential educational value of a user category or what you mean with transversal navigation. So no need to present something as educational that is (potentially) not educational, that is potentially biased, outside the community controll or vague in its description. --Martin H. (talk)12:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been so far in this discussion the only ones who pretended that Lilyu claimed ownership on contents. The whole issue here was triggered by a simple fact: Trying to force an user to comply to a non-existent policy. The policy is not mentionning any lines that a category must be or even should be hidden. There is just a sentence that says that a template can be used for that, while obviously (funny isn'it?) hiding the fact it adds the _hide_ keyword. I am sorry, but I can't deny the right for an user to deny something that do not exist, especially when people do the following actions: * adding the template without discussing. * invoking a policy that do not exist when the user revert this action. * try to convince the user by all mean that all the burden on the situation is on him/her while the situation is obviously linked to the way the actions are performed, lacking consideration and respect for the user. You simply won't convince anyone by forcing them into your rules, what ever you think how good your rules may be, you must have people freely accept those rules. Finally, this section was opened for my supposed abuse of rollback, so stick to it or create an appropriate section somewhere else.Esby (talk)23:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You mix my position with someone else position or you not read my comments. Owner claim or not, thats irrelevant. I never accented that im disturbed by some ownership claims here. My only concern is to separate educational from non-educational content. Furthermore my concern is to allow for user maintenance categories, but make them hidden to comply with theCommons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories#Non-allowable user page/gallery/category content policy. You are correct with your last sentence. Im simply so convinced by all arguments now listed here that I dont want to spent my time and crack my brain in proposing policy adjustment for something that is self-evident. --Martin H. (talk)23:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please roll back Esby's rollback that reinstated "images by Lilyu" on Civil War photos? Even Lilyu agrees with that now, it seems. SeeUser talk:Lilyu/grr for the list. But Esby is still refusing. He should not have those admin buttons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk)23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone block pieter for his last action and request? You can check thisdiff and see that he is lying and not mentionning the fact that Lilyu expressed conditions (*delete files, then reupload*) that Pieter did not respect at all.Esby (talk)00:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

1) It was improper forEsby to use the rollback button to cancelPieter Kuiper's initial edits,but only extremely marginally so. It changes nothing whether Esby cancels the edits by hand or uses the more convenient rollback button. It is absolutely no ground to extreme measures like de-adminship.

2) I do not understand why Lilyu does not want her user category hidden. I understand less why others make such a fuss about it. Lilyu is not required to do anything, the matter is trivial and unimportant, the benefits of the removal of this category are null, and the unnecessary annoyance of a valuable contributor is a certainty. As far as I am concerned, the balance goes way against removing the category.

3) Lilyu does not seem to have agreed to simply removing her user category from images listed atUser talk:Lilyu/grr. Before stating that she did, one should provide a quote to that effect. Esby's quote atdiff shows Lilyu not agreeing to this at all.Rama (talk)14:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

re 2) @Rama, as had already been pointed out in the longCategory talk:Images by Lilyu by me and others, the potential problem results from the combination of her non-hidden user-category plus the name of that category. This problem would be only minor or even disappear if the category name was "Images uploaded by Lilyu". However, as of yet there are quite some images, not taken by Lilyu, but openly categorized as "Images by Lilyu", thereby suggesting some claim of (a non-existant) ownership that may anger the original photographer. Take for exampleFile:Airvault église clé voûte (4).JPG,File:Sarahpalincrop2.jpg orFile:Bee sting infection2.JPG. So, apart from the original start of this thread, removing this cat isn't the issue at all, but either hiding and/or renaming it. --Túrelio (talk)15:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to comment your examples:

• File:Airvault église clé voûte (4).JPG was requested by the photographer, you can check it herefr:Wikipédia:Atelier graphique/Images à améliorer/Archives/Août 2009#Retournement d'image de clé de voûte.
• File:Sarahpalincrop2.jpg is a tricky case since the photographer is on Flickr. The categorization reflects that the image was edited by Lilyu. It has nothing to do with copyright status. By the way I see a template saying the image was retouched? Do we must forbid image editing because some photographer could be angered or upset by having their work altered or retouched?
• File:Bee sting infection2.JPG is a retouched picture byUser:Otourly. I am going to ask him to put his opinion if he feels angered by seeing this category here. I suppose this work was either requested by Otourly or either known by him and accepted as it is.

I feel that most people who are over-reacting are forgetting that user category are not necessarily ought to exist as category of photographers. They can also be category of editors. The name of the category should not be judged here since the description is kinda without any ambiguity.Esby (talk)17:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To me it seems that labeling uploads from flickr likethis one as "by xxx" where xxx is just an uploader is a violation of the terms of the CC-BY license. To me, it feels as a violation of the original author's moral rights. The "by Lilyu" category is fine for here own art, but not for crops or contrast changes. It would be like granting creativity to RotateBot. /Pieter Kuiper (talk)17:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an image uploaded by Lilyu. This is not about originality or anything related. I wish you would you understand that the categorization has nothing to do with the licence status (I am excluding the maintenance categories for that task of course). The author of this image is attributed correctly, the original licence is specified and was verified by a bot, you'll notice the original author on flickr changed the licence, he is probably angry now that this licence is here under the same original licence. . Finally this image is labelled 'File:Sandwich press for panini-1.jpg' I don't see any 'by xxx' in that title. You are, again, mixing things together.Esby (talk)18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary "bah"?? It is difficult to discuss with this admin.

Whatever the file description says, the categorization "images by Lilyu" creates the impression that Lilyu made this photo. That is what I had assumed until I saw this inher list of uploads. And it seems to me that also Billinghurst may have been misled when he didthis revert. /Pieter Kuiper (talk)19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty much with Rama here. While I appreciate the passion and good works of the participants, these participants seem to be going straight to punishment because they haven't like the others actions. It all seems a little churlish. There also seems to a concatenation of the actions ofrightingtheir wrongs, makesmy behaviour right.. Come on people, surely there is a maturity that can be exhibited here.

• Users having a category of their files should be considered acceptable, and another user removing them without consulting with the first person, should not considered an acceptable practice.
• Where users having a personal category, then the principle of our operations would indicate that it should be hidden; that it hasn't been captured in a procedural rule is a weak argument, and not one that feel is appropriate. The principle sets the process, and is supported by the convention. That would indicate the discussion should take place about the category, not simply removing the categories from the files.
• Rolling back the removals, was inadvisable, and maybe a lapse of judgement, and one that every admin can reflect upon as a learning exercise to why we we undo, and also why we should take a conversation to a talk page.
• The parties were combative, and I would hope that it is demonstrable to both parties, about how easily it gets out of control, and how it solved nothing, and has caused more than a little grief.

The solution would seem to be

• Undo/rollback the category removals
• To discuss with the user that normally personal categories are hidden, and there has been no evidence produced why there would an exception in this situation
• That the user and the admin didn't handle it especially well, especially for their experience on wiki, and that we have the expectation that they would both entertain use of talk pages in the future to resolve situation and start with the premise of good faith.
• That we get back to normal programming and continuing to improve the site. —billinghurstsDrewth15:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

... And formally document that user categories (and non-topic categories) should be hidden, while documenting that they are visible for all the people with the right setting (that should be the default) --Foroa (talk)15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Foroa, I think that we make it even simpler, a policy state would state that all MAINTENANCE categories be hidden. STOP at that. Then separately we define maintenance categories to include user defined categories. This way the PRINCIPLE with the policy is more settled, and the community can manage a smaller part that may need more active management. —billinghurstsDrewth23:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, I would say there are basically Topic and non topic categories, but if we don't manage to make a proper definition, the discussion will start allover again and again. --Foroa (talk)09:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

On the subject, I started working on this javascript gadgetUser:Esby/usercat.js. This basically displays hidden user categories in the visible category sections. It is working under firefox 3.5, untested on other browsers. There is no widget interface yet to disable/enable the effect for now.Esby (talk)09:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In the discussion aboutCategory:Images by Lilyu Esby wrote[18] thatFile:Bee sting infection2.JPG is a derivative (derivated work) ofFile:Bee sting infection.JPG. While I totally admit, that the retouching by Lilyu largely improved the original image, I’m rather unsure whether the improved image version constitutes a derivative (which has a legal status on its own). ReadingWhat is a derivative work? on COM:DW only increased my doubts that by cropping and retouching of an existing image one creates a derivative. I think that rather falls under „minor variation of a work”. (Just to be sure, I do not consider this question as important for the above discussion, but IMHO it’s important that at least we admins are sure about what is a derivative and what not.)Any expertise or opinions? --Túrelio (talk)17:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

An example would be restored photos likeFile:Egyptian camel transport3.jpg. That is a lot more "sweat of the brow" than cropping or changing contrast levels. But it does not generate new copyright in my opinion. And the restorer seems to agree with that: it is still tagged as PD-1923. /Pieter Kuiper (talk)18:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the question is irrelevant. As soon someone modify a work, this persons enters in the list of the authors. This is true for even slight modification of a wikipedia article. This is how attribution works. The licence for the new version must be compatible with the old one. This where the derivative question is important: When you are taking a photograph of something that is not under a free licence: exemple: someone made a statue, you photographied the statue. Depending the conditions, you might or might not be allowed to release your photo. Because you must ask the original author for the authorization. Now When you retouch a picture under a free licence, the question becomes irrelevant because you are allowed to modify the work by default, so there is no need to ask the original author. The real question should be: should the new version replaces the old one or create a new file? You are debating on an image with changes performed by the french graphical workshop here. The policy to avoid usage problems (eg: detouring pictures) is usually to create a new picture in this case, even if it is slight alteration, simply because you are not sure that the alteration you perform will be accepted if you replace the images on commons while it is used by several wikipedias projects, this is especially true when the change is not performed on behalf on the original uploader (and possibly the person behind a usage of the image on a wikipedia project.Esby (talk)18:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that my "question is irrelevant". --Túrelio (talk)19:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Quoting the link you gave: "In short, all transfers of a creative, copyrightable work into a new media count as derivative works." A new file is a new media, Even if it replaces the other one on Commons. The derivative works status comes from the fact it derivates from another work, not from the fact it is original.Esby (talk)19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, we have two questions:

1)Túrelio's technical question as to whether some degree of difference is needed for a derivative to qualify as "derivative work". This appears to be a US-specific question, and it seems to be inherently such a blurry line that I think that as far as we are concerned, the question is intrinsically irrelevant (because as a website, we will never come up with an authoritative opinion on the matter. I doubt that a court could come up with an authoritative opinion that wouldn't be appealed anyway.).

2) the question of whether "category:images by Lilyu" somehow claims "ownership" of all the files therein. As the files of the category have a clear documentation stating the filiation of work, it is clearly not the case. This is a non-issue.Rama (talk)08:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please asap review this flickr washer (January 13 upwards) and do somenuke? I found this by incident (see deletion request linked on talk), I first thought the uploader is trying to fix a problem but I found someone else massively flickr washing. Additional the uploader of that fileFile:Gorgeted puffleg.jpg and this flickr washer are not related from Checkuser evidence, although they both come from hu.wpif Patko erika here ishu:User:Patko erika there, I dont know. I still can not believe this. --Martin H. (talk)18:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

striked something, I now know. --Martin H. (talk)18:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we (= sysops at hu.WP) have become aware of Erika's case viaUser:Teemeah. Teemeah have written Erika an email asking her to clarify these strange coincidences. Erika is a 15 year old girl doing doubtlessly valuable contributions on huwiki, her edits were insofar perfectly OK. We beg your patience & understanding until T. can sort this mess out with her in her native tongue. We'll get back asap.Bennó (talk)22:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. From expirience I know that actions on Commons are often ignored, so I asked Teemeah to explain the issue in native language on hu.wp to the user. Though that will not help to save the images as everything from that flickr account is clearly copied from elsewhere, it toke me 15 minutes to find 30 of the images beeing copyright violations, not cherry-picked images but images in their order of upload. For me the issue is not to not deletethe images but to prevent this issue occurring again in future from 2 sides: 1) the flickr account, at best that account will be deleted 2) hu.wp, a user blocked on Commons may continue on another project. --Martin H. (talk)22:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, and 3): A user blocked on Commons can not make good edits in future. We are better with all three: No bad flickr account, no bad things on other projects and good, not blocked users here ;) --Martin H. (talk)23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Martin, I exchanged a few emails with Erika. Just as I thought before, she was watching the flickr account (subscribed to it). She was not aware that the photos are stolen from elsewhere, she just knew the CC licences are valid for Commons, and that's it. I guess CollinEdwards should be reported @ flickr for abusing the account by posting copyrighted photos under cc. By the way, this whole treatment of hers here made Erika promise she will never again upload anything to commons, not even own photos.... I think people should be treated with more care, and inquired in a bit more friendly manner, before shouting their heads off and accusing them with things they haven't done. I acknowledge your efforts to keep Commons clean but if we lose contributors because of mistreatment that won't help the project. The thing that happened to Erika (uploading CC photos from flickr in good faith and then bumping into the wall of accusation) can happen to any of us who transfer photos from Flickr. We are all exposed to the fakers of Flickr, please don't forget that. Thank you, regards --Teemeah (talk)13:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Teemeah +1. With all due respect, I think you should ask first, and only then put users before the firing squad... Assume good faith? Examining the circumstances? Maybe there is a good explanation. Asking a few questions without hurried accusations surely won't hurt anybody. :)Bennó (talk)14:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just answered the same posting on my talk. I hold up my claim, Patko erika = CollinEdward, evidences are clear. The account on flickr was created for nothing else but flickrwashing. Of course hurried is a good point, but by all evidences I was shoked how someone can act so deliberately bad just for a bunch of photographs. --Martin H. (talk)18:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User posted a comment atthe helpdesk, I then left a message on hertalkpage requesting more information about the images she was uploading. An IP user answered there saying the images were from a copyrighted yearbook & left the below message on my talk page. Today he added another comment to it, which relates to wikipedia more than to here. As I do not know what the best course of action is, I hope someone here can help. --Deadstar (msg)15:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Sarah did not take those photos with her camera. They are from a college yearbook. Sarah W. (Woroniecki) is the daughter of an American preacher notorious in American media for his negative influence on Andrea Yates. Sarah W. says she is working on an article in which she intends to use all these photos. If I were you, I would keep an eye on her upcoming edits to the wiki articles on Andrea Yates and her father Michael Peter Woroniecki. I think she is planning a major overhaul of her father's public image, especially on Wikipedia.71.251.184.15214:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

She created a page in Spanish Wikipedia under the pseudonym Reporterared that is not encyclopedic. The article is biased in defense of their father Michael Woroniecki, and circular logic is used to back up their claims. For example: They say they don't ask for money from people they preach to, but there is no other source to verify this claim except from their own mouths. Many of the articles they list as a reference source contradict their biased point of view, but in citing them, it leaves the impression their many claims are sourced, when they are not. Their point of view in the articles is information THEY told reporters. She asserts her father is not to blame for the trgedy of Andrea Yates, but there is no counter argument presented. The article reads like it's an advertisment for their religious movement. When a comment was placed in the discussion page noting the bias and sourcing that claim, Sarah under the pseudonym reporterared deleted it (vandalism).72.64.34.10515:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:PANONIAN and i have had our disagreement on a few issues, here and in en:wiki. I begun a deletiondiff, most likely should not have as this is not en:wp (but the source quoted was that of a screenwriter and i jumped in).

• diff, "I will tell you this: stop disrupting my work related to Albanian history or I will start to produce maps related to the history of minorities in the territory of present-day Greece (Albanians, Slavs, Turks) and, beign an hard Greek nationalist, you will not want to see any of these maps. You have no idea whom you trying to fuck here."
• diff, "Please do something else and do not insult intelligence of people who visit this page, we are not guilty because of your empty social life, so find other place to heal your frustrations..."
• diff, accusing me and 2 other editors for conspiracy.
• diff, "so if you compare yourself to me, you are nothing.", "It is well known that southern Albania has an ethnic Greek minority and that Greek nationalists claim that "southern Albania is Greek", so being a Greek by yourself, it is obvious that you have a political goal to prove that southern Albania was "always" Greek and never Albanian. If you sincerely believe that spread of such propaganda in web sites such is Wikipedia would result into future event in which southern Albania will become a part of Greater Greece then there is a big problem, with your inteligence level."
• diff
• diff

Megistias (talk)00:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done I blockedUser:PANONIAN for 1 day for intimidation and harassment. This is completely inappropriate behavior.Walter Siegmund(talk)03:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DresdenBell transferred thefile from de.wp to commons. He changed the filename and description and did not give the original source. The old file wasthis.

I corrected the description of the picture. He reverteddif without comment. I changed againdif and asked in the comment line, why he insists on his questionable version. He reverted without any comment.

I asked him on his talk page (dif) about his edits. He just deleted my question without any comment.

I dont want to run an edit war at thefile. But don't know what to do? --Bezur (talk)10:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've got a fairly strong suspicion thatTUBOS(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user is a sockpuppet ofMike09(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user – also known asAbyz(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user from previous sockpuppeteering.

• Abyz wasblocked on 22 January
• TUBOS wasregistered on 24 January
• All accounts have a pattern of uploading "wrestling"-related copyright violations.
• TUBOSremoved a problem tag from a file uploaded using the Abyz account.—LX (talk,contribs)11:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I will go into this tomorow evening. --Martin H. (talk)15:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, it isConfirmed that TUBOS = Abyz. Mike09 is stale, so I cannot compare the first two against that account. Also, seeing as Martin is far more familiar with the specifics of this, I would appreciate if he would review the results. This guy operates on a pretty large range, and there are a number of other users active on it. Might be a good idea to go through them and look at the behavioral evidence.Tiptoety^talk18:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be editing anonymously from189.153.177.57 now.—LX (talk,contribs)23:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked -Tiptoety^talk02:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tiptoety, so this is done. I cant say any more to this as that the sockpuppetry was blatant in the past and as per the Checkuser of July 6 (CU log). --Martin H. (talk)20:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

...though unrelated to the ones above. WhenSilvz93(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user was given a final warning to stop uploading copyright violations, mainly related to AC/DC, they switched over toBigSilvz(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user to continue to practice.—LX (talk,contribs)10:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• BlockedBidgee (talk)11:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed. In the future try,COM:RFCU. Cheers,Tiptoety^talk19:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thought it was a bit of a duck to be honest, so I was mainly just looking for the block. Thanks though.—LX (talk,contribs)20:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

All Files of this user are probably copyright violations as the user has been banned until yesterday due to copyvios and uploaded this bunch of pictures today. Please delete this pictures and block the user (or is he really the author of these pictures? We would need a permission in any case, then.) Thanks,Yellowcard (talk)22:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask you if the following kind of behaviour is appropriate in a collaborative project or if a warning is to be issued.Here User:Jollyroger replies to my vote with a typical "ad hominem" charge, intentionally depicting me as a POV user, which one could consider as a personal attack. Four days later anotherreply seems inadequate because of wording and spirit. Thesame kind of intervention was against another user. Thank you.Avemundi (talk)03:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What he's said might be slightly out of line, but so, I think, is your suggestion that these images are illegal in their very existence. -Jmabel !talk05:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

86.182.117.62 (talk ·contribs) is throwing a rather personal and hostile tantrum over a one-day block ofGwyddgwyrdd over at English Wikipedia and now appears to need some assistance with keeping their promise tosay goodbye. (Seetalk page.)—LX (talk,contribs)16:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Add86.176.140.248 (talk ·contribs) to that. Please address this sooner rather than later, as their behaviour appears to be escalating to more or less direct threats (At least that's how I would interpret"You have an untamed tongue that could one day land you in trouble.")—LX (talk,contribs)21:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 Bloked This user really need time to cool down :) --Justass (talk)21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers.—LX (talk,contribs)21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of removing your slanderous and libelous comments about me from this page. I know very well about the leftist agenda of Wikipedia and Wikimedia and you are merely attacking me to further your authoritarian desire to appear to be "in control." You have no right to judge me. And when I said, "your untamed tongue may one day land you in trouble" I meant it. It was not a threat. It was wise counsel. Take it or leave it. Further, your accusation that I threw a tantrum just doesn't wash. Your purile finger-wagging and baseless accusations only serve to strengthen my resolve to rid this world of idealistic, perfectionist, communistic, authoritarian satans like you. Do you honestly believe your reverse psychology will work on me? I tell you, you have a cheek writing about me behind my back on this page without ever giving me the opportunity to respond to your remarks. Your faceless, judgmental nitpicking exposes you as unreasonable, pernicious meddlers who go out of their way to cause trouble. You think you police the internet? Well then I shall blame you for the vile, sickening nature of the web as it stands today. Judge me and God will judge you using the same measure. JESUS CHRIST IS LORD! LONG LIVE THE BRITISH EMPIRE! GOD SAVE THE QUEEN! And should anyone remove this paragraph may they henceforth be known as a BIGOT! HOW DARE YOU DEFAME ME!— Precedingunsigned comment added by109.155.180.13 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC (UTC))

Reverted the removal of comments, however I added this user's comment back to the page.sısɐuuǝɔıʌ∀ (paroli)00:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

diff "Megistias works full time to assert these tribes as ancient Greek tribes, but in fact they were Illyrian tribes." ,diff "Greek nationalist POV pushing" can someone just tell this user about POV in the commons and to not accuse people of conspiracies?Megistias (talk)17:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism inApple. --4028mdk09 (talk)19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Warned. Only one edit so no need for any further measures right now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk21:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Would someone remind this user to avoid doing her tests outside the sandbox. The users indiscriminately pastes stuff into category descriptions[19],[20] and keeps reverting users[21] that want to have this discussed first. According to the comments on talk[22] the edits are done "for demonstration purposes" in some unrelated field and aren't really meant to further the use in this category, violating "en:WP:POINT". -- User:Docu at12:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This user is trying to impersonate and discredit me with his choice of name and marking my uploads as copyright violations. Thankfully, AdminPill already cleared some of the vandalism in the german wp and confirmed it was no password breach. I've reset my user pages but the affected filesAnch.png &BBAE.jpeg are already gone (Undeletion request is on). From the edits I suspect 151.1.143.116 is behind this user (it had been blocked in the past for the same reason), but I can't prove it. So it would be nice if someone had a look into this. --Nachbarnebenan (talk)13:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I just trapped into this atUNDEL (stable link), two last postings. Would anyone disagree to check the impersonator "Nachbanebenan" and share the result with a de.wp checkuser? Maybe we find something. --Martin H. (talk)14:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Misuse is obvious in this case. I've blocked the impersonation accounts here on Commons and on de.wikipedia (and deleted their userpages) therefore, see also151.1.143.116. I can't say anything about the copyright status of the files in question, though.--:bdk:22:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: Nachbanebenan (without "r") is also globally blocked now. --:bdk:22:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So Done here, @Nachbarnebenan, please report any new incidences. --Martin H. (talk)00:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Turbodexel (talk ·contribs)

Please watch out for his conributions, we have already had a lot of problems with him in huwiki with awful quality drawings and copivio photos. He also has another account at huwiki under the name Picturedexel, already blocked. Have to note that he is a10 year old boy (hu:User:Turbodexel,huUser:Picturedexel)... So you might have issues communicating with him in English.

Should you need help in communicating with him please refer to the Hungarian village pump of Commons or contact me directly, orUser:Grin.

Also, if you have experience in how to deal with so minor contributors, your comments would be highly valued, this is the first time we came across such a minor (in age) user, and are basically helpless what to with him....

Thanks a lot. --Teemeah (talk)15:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The image found here[23] (Wikimedia here[24]) is a copyright vio taken from here[25]. Although the Greek site allows some use - it explicitly requires attribution and limits commercial rights. It is not an appropriate listing here, attribution being outside the standard for wiki images. As to the retention of commercial rights, I don"t know how that squares up.99.151.172.17014:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. In the future, please tag such images with{{Copyvio}}, instead of deleting the page content. Thanks. –Tryphon^☂15:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a typo in their banner, PIGS is written PIIGS ;) --Martin H. (talk)15:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Martin: Just a question of whether Italy is included. -Jmabel !talk16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Blurpeace is part ofUser:Durova's set. I posted information about why I've stopped contributing, which involve Durova harassing me.

He blocked me for having posted it. He claimed it was for "reinstating personal attacks after multiple warnings." Checking my user page history will show no warnings whatsoever. In fact, I restored it after being told that it had been removed.

In short, his block reason was made up, he is an involved user, and he has stated, on my talk page, after the fact, an intent to continue such behaviour if I attempt to discuss the harassment again.

When you're harassed due to your actions on Wikipedia, the only way I can return is if others are aware of the harassment, so that if the harassment continues, it can be stopped. This is particularly necessary when the user is Durova, who is deeply ingrained into commons.

I would ask that my block log be annotated to note the block reason was invalid, and Blurpeace be warned that he should not act in order to suppress information about harassment by his friends.

Furthermore, he claims that a fair-use discussion of Durova's actions, quoting a section of my conversations with her for commentary and analysis, hosted off-site, is copyright infringement, making this an example of copyfraud-by-proxy as well. (For link, see page history)

The reaction to reports of harassment should not be for the user's minions to step in and continue the harassment for the user.Adam Cuerden (talk)16:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no one has commented on this one for a while. I think that's because its not cut and dried what the right thing to do here is. If there were a way for you and Durova to work out your differences instead of using Wikimedia wikis to comment about each other, that might be a better way forward. Sorry if that's not very helpful. ++Lar:t/c18:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Durova, I would like to repeat what I have said on English Wiki on already. Please do consider an apology. Just think what is on stake: the case would be closed for good in a flash, Adam will feel better, many users, who care about both of you will be very happy, and I believe yourself will feel better too. I understand that with my own reputation around here :( I might be not the right person to give advises, but on the other hand I believe I might be one of the best persons to understand what Adam feels. Thank you, Durova.--Mbz1 (talk)23:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please check behaviour of this user:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VízPart - he was registered one day ago and he removing maps from the atlases and reverting my edits. I tried to discuss the issue with him on discussion pages, but seems that there is no use. Also, at first I reverted his map removals fromAtlas of Slovakia andAtlas of Hungary and after that he also started to revert my other edits as some sort of "personal revenge" against me.PANONIAN (talk)23:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

These pages are in question:

• 1.http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_Slovakia - removal of several maps without any explanation:http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atlas_of_Slovakia&action=historysubmit&diff=36272781&oldid=36272762
• 2.http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_Hungary - same as in Atlas of Slovakia:http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atlas_of_Hungary&action=historysubmit&diff=36272482&oldid=36271943
• 3http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Central_balkans_1373_1395.png - this was no part of his original edit, but he reverting this file as a sort of "revenge" to me - this is a file that was created by me where one other user uploaded new file over my work and I reverted these edits, but user:VízPart now reverting my edits there.
• 4.http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Principality_of_Serbia,_12th_century.png - here another user uploaded his work over existing file - I reverted that and suggested that he upload it as new file, but user:VízPart reverting my edits there without explanation.PANONIAN (talk)23:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

PANONIAN a POV pusher reverted my edits without any explanation on three different pages. If you check these pages carefully you will see that in all Atlases, I made the first edit and PANONIAN followed me around in all of them (he followed me to Atlas of World War II as well(see his edit following me here.) PANONIAN should stop his aggressivity and stop edit warring with multiple users. He edit warred with [user:Ajdebre] as well.VízPart (talk)23:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of images from the atlases is example of vandalism, so explanation for reverts of such removals is not necessary - it is you who have to elaborate and explain why you removing such images. Also, I am not in revert war with user:Ajdebre - he uploaded his map over my own work and I reverted that (accorind to the policy of this site, he should upload his work as new file, not over my work).PANONIAN (talk)23:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

He also insulted me claiming that I am "chauvinist POV pusher" and that I "push extreme POV":http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtlas_of_Slovakia&action=historysubmit&diff=36273118&oldid=36272794PANONIAN (talk)23:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not an insult if it is true, you are indeed a POV pusher, as seen on your talk page. Various maps proposed for deletion for extreme POV in them. That is fact not insult.VízPart (talk)23:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You see - he insulting me right now too. Would any admin please do something about that behaviour?PANONIAN (talk)23:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For example first edit from talk page link to deletion "[26] quote "On map are Serbia borders which has never been international accepted. Hungarian territory under Serbia occupation is shown like Serbian territory. Part of territory under occupation will be given to Romania, part will stay with Hungary and greatest part will be given to Serbia with peace agreements 1919/20. Simple speaking this map which show borders on 26 november 1918is false so it must be deleted. More about that on talk page. "Creating false maps is in fact POV pushing.VízPart (talk)23:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss about that map, please go to discussion page of that file, but for your information Hungary was not recognized state before 1920 and no country or international organization did not recognized any part of Serbia from that map as "Hungarian territory". There is nothing false or POV in that map.PANONIAN (talk)23:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hungary was not recognized state before 1920 " Typical extreme chauvinist POV thank you for proving my point. Hungary existed and was recognized long before 1920 (since 1000 AD) therefore your argument is POV to the extreme. De Jure ownership of territory can not change by occupation only by international treaty. Therefore attacking Serb bandits and marauders do not mean that the parts they pillage is part of Serbia from the time they attack it. A lesson well learned in Bosnia and Kosovo and Croatia and many parts that Serbs attacked looted and where they committed mass murder such as in Srebrenica.VízPart (talk)23:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I had enough of this. I appeal to the admins to stop these personal insults against me and to force this user to behave civilized.PANONIAN (talk)23:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Also please note that PANONIAN was recentlyblocked for intimidation and harassment I feel he is trying to do the same with me, I uploaded my first map just recently made a few edits and he immediatly attacked me reverted all my edits, called me POV pusher, vandal, attacked and harassed me all based on a few edits. I tried to defend myself best as I could but it seems he does this routinely as he didnt even try to discuss anything with me when he thought he can harass me away with pure reverts on all 3 pages I ever edited. All my edits done on march 7 were gone when I came back later to upload another map I find that my edits are systematicly destroyed.VízPart (talk)23:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So? I was blocked for one day because I insulted one user in one discussion. It is not even close to this bulk of insults that you adressed to me.PANONIAN (talk)00:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's make one thing clear, you came to me, attacked me, called me vandal, and POV pusher, harrassed me by following my edits, before I just as much as spoke 1 word to you.[27][28][29] Clearly you have a problem with agressively attacking other editors when you dont like an edit. I just tried to defend myself. I didnt go to you.VízPart (talk)00:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Let make this clear: you registered your nickname yesterday, deleted files from the articles and changed descriptions of some files in nationalistic way (for example, changing Vojvodina to "south Hungary") - clear examples of vandalism and POV pushing.PANONIAN (talk)00:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know Vojvodina didn't exist before 1920 so I changed to title to be more appropriate. Vojvodina was created from several regions in Hungary and even from Croatia and never existed as a territorial unit before. If I was wrong I will apologize but as far as I know this is correct and there is no such thing as a Vojvodina before that time just as there is no Soviet Union in Roman times or the Middle Ages.VízPart (talk)00:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

title is not "appropriate" - term "delvidek" (southern Hungary) was invented by Hungarian fascists after 1920 and was never used for Vojvodina in history. Contrary to that, name Vojvodina is used for the region since 1848 (and it certainly existed as territorial unit before 1918/1920, so please read some history book before speaking about history).PANONIAN (talk)00:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In another words, you use a name that was used by fascists. That is simply not acceptable.PANONIAN (talk)00:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"Southern" in this case Hungary is an English term used to describe you know the south-ern part of a country. I think anyone who speaks a little English can say the same. And it is more appropriate because Vojvodina includes part of former Croatia after Croatia was invaded. True or not? Vojvodina is a big region made up of multiple territories if you only want to speak of Hungarian lands in for example 1880 you can't say Vojvodina as that means +Croatian lands as well. And I didnt remove Vojvodina from maps depicting a map when Vojvodina existed. But such maps like of "Soviet Union in the age of Augustus, 14 AD" would be very strange to me the same as other fantasy maps.VízPart (talk)00:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In 1848, Vojvodina included Srem, Bačka, Banat and Baranja regions and since then name Vojvodina is used for these territories officially or unofficially. Also, there was no country named Hungary from 1526 to 1920 - country of which Vojvodina was part was Austrian Empire and then Austria-Hungary from 1867. As I said, term "southern Hungary" was invented by fascists and therefore it is not acceptable for usage as much as it is not acceptable that we use picture of Adolph Hitler as symbol of this web site. Can you understand that simple fact? If you do not like name Vojvodina, then we can use description like "Hungarians in Bačka, Banat and Srem", but we cannot use terms invented by fascists.PANONIAN (talk)00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Vegg (talk ·contribs),Category:Sockpuppets of Vegg

Starting from the ugly copyright violationFile:Daniel Diges.png and some coincidences related to that image (CUs seelog for reasoning and all following checks) a Checkuser brought some concerning evidences. Fortunately I can summarize all the wrongdoing with presenting only one account:User:GMcF Uploaded 2 images,

• File:Her Majesty The Queen.JPG (uploaded 21 December 2007) is a blatant copyright violation (EXIF)
• File:PM and Prime Minister Zapatero.jpg (Uploaded 21 February 2010) was a copyright violation, licensed NC on Flickr.

Summarizing: One user created tons of accounts and uploaded stolen images over a time span of >2 years in bad faith! (as you can see cearly from the Queen image as well as the latest fileFile:Daniel Diges.png). A list of 100% related accounts is presented below, how to proceede?

• Alfredo_Dueñas (talk ·contribs)
• Alfredo_Garrido (talk ·contribs)
• Álvaro_Conde (talk ·contribs)
• Amargau (talk ·contribs)
• Castellferreño (talk ·contribs)
• Diplomatiko (talk ·contribs)
• Gabriel_Irigoyen (talk ·contribs)
• Germán_de_Asturias (talk ·contribs)
• GMcF (talk ·contribs)
• Joaquín_Abla (talk ·contribs)
• Juliolmo (talk ·contribs)
• Lázaro_Oloriz (talk ·contribs)
• LocEsp (talk ·contribs)
• Miguelabril (talk ·contribs)
• Pawebmaster2 (talk ·contribs)
• Tarragonés (talk ·contribs)
• Veggggggggggg (talk ·contribs)
• Vegggggggggggggg (talk ·contribs)
• Withead (talk ·contribs)
• +Granadino anti-andaluz (talk ·contribs)
• +Jesús Illán (talk ·contribs)
• +Joaquín Irigaray (talk ·contribs)
• +Jose Suärez (talk ·contribs)
• +Juliooo (talk ·contribs)
• +Luis M. López (talk ·contribs)
• +Oty (talk ·contribs)
• +Veguero (talk ·contribs)

--Martin H. (talk)22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC) (later added marked with +)

I have been tracking some other accounts for years, besides the above ones: the first one detected wasGranadin (talk ·contribs), thenGabri-co (talk ·contribs),Gabri (talk ·contribs) andSatesclop (talk ·contribs) all of them used to upload copyright violations or steal images, as well as some other controversial contributions. It is clear this user does not have any intentions to collaborate positively respecting Commons rules. Several of his accounts have been blocked indefinitely but he keeps on creating new ones. What else can be done?.Anna (Cookie) (talk)00:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Regretably not much. I not started "fishing" for him on random IP ranges, I only checked those IP ranges I know he was on. And I dont want to start with more, it will only put users from spain (think thats no secret) under general suspicion and increases the probability that good users become suspected or blocked just because of this users bad acting. The bad thing is that he also uploads maps. Generally a user can do copyright violations but his maps will never be deleted, deleting them is some kind of taboo on Commons (although it might be justified, he dont name original sources for the maps). The answer, why his maps are not deleted is simple: It would only damage Wikipedia, so keeping this abusers name as "author" is the lesser of two evil. Maybe thats the only two options: 1) Deleting everything, including the maps to finally disappoint him from working here and to clearly show him that his contributions, good or bad, are not welcome here. 2) Trying to contact him (email?), ask him about the reasoning, ask him what exact part of the words 'derecho de autor' he not understands and why he is vandalizing Wikipedia in such a bad way. Maybe both options will finaly disburden Commons from him, of course the second option requires some minimum of cooperation and rationality by the user. --Martin H. (talk)00:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a real pitty as he can be very productive too. Probably only Spanish speaking and a dialogue via email should certainly be tried. As I sometimes recognise his signature, is there an easy way to report a new "incarnation" when I suspect it ? --Foroa (talk)07:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes,COM:RFCU.Tiptoety^talk07:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dialogue is useless, this user was collaborating in wikipedia ases:Usuario:Gabri-gr-es with the same bad behaviour and no response to any dialogues. In the end, after several blockages, he was blocked indefinitely, as can seehere.Anna (Cookie) (talk)00:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Anna. As you have a lot of patience and goodwill, I have to conclude that this is a problem that we cannot settle by dialogue. --Foroa (talk)06:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, my new kid was born one month ago and I don't have much time available (an ArbCom case in the en.wikipedia has spent all my remaining time). I must agree with Cookie. This user has been behaving in the same time for years. Sockpuppetry is a usual tool both in the Spanish Wikipedia and in commons, so the only solution is the obvious: block and deletion. --Ecemaml^{talk to me/habla conmigo}14:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The more I see the more I agree. --Martin H. (talk)21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(moved fromCommons talk:Community portal)

I notify here that all thecontributions byUser:Serainavlaer are in violation of copyrights since artists like Miquel Barcelo or Clemente are still alive and reprodutions of thier paintings are not in the public domain. Thanks for deleting, asap--LPLT (talk)16:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Done.Blurpeace21:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A user here has been repeatedly calling another user "magyarized one", "brainwashed and magyarized one, unfortunately" "nationalistic vandal" offending his nationality and dignitydiff,diff,diff,diff.Megistias (talk)14:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I warned the user and watchlisted his/her talk page.SlovenskoSlovákom (talk ·contribs) is a party to theVízPart (talk ·contribs)/PANONIAN (talk ·contribs) dispute.[30] Thank you, Megistias.Walter Siegmund(talk)16:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank thee, a wise motion.Megistias (talk)16:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute from enwiki that has spilled over into Commons.[31] There is an active RfC atwhich maps are relevant that references Commons. I think the parties would be well-advised to try to exploit the enwiki RfC mechanism to resolve their dispute.

I warned VisPart about his/her edit summaries and talk page usage.[32]Walter Siegmund(talk)17:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad english:

File:Galegos de soa.jpg is a derivative work and the licence is PD-self.

1. Two of the images of the derivative work are mines and GFDL or Cc-by-sa-3.0. Others images are Cc-by-sa-2.1 and...
2. There aren't names of the authors in the credits.

The image is a copyvio, butCommons:Deletion requests/File:Galegos de soa.jpg. The image must be deleted.

See alsoUser talk:Zscout370#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Galegos de soa.jpg ([33]). Thanks--Lmbuga^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo}17:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If the license Cc-by-sa-3.0 is not the same of GFDL, al my images GFDL must be deleted.

Español: No acepto otra licencia diferente a la que yo he colocado en las imágenes. Es una imposición que no comparto (supongo que borrar unas 2000 ó 3000 imágenes no va a tener consecuencias en el proyecto, pero si se borran por ese motivo, pediré compensación por el tiempo perdido y por medio de los medios que considere oportunos

--Lmbuga^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo}20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? You want your images deleted because someone reused your GFDL work with cc-by-sa material? Isn't remixing one of the main purposes of free licenses? That's a good thing, right? Why don't you like it? Of course, you should be attributed. I feel like deleting that image simply because whoever wrote the information was so adamant about the licensing part, but not actually doing anything the licenses say... kinda missing the whole point there. But that info can be added.Rocket000 (talk)21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Very inappropriate to tag this for speedy deletion, seeCommons:Deletion requests/File:Galegos de soa.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk)22:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Español: No comprendo la actitud de los administradores. Ni siquiera soy mencionado adecuadamente en la imagen. Es una obra derivada y en los datos principales de la misma debe aparecer mi nombre, no en una subsección (NO APARECE EN NINGÚN SITIO). ¿Tengo que ponerme en contacto con un abogado para que no se actúe como ha hecho conmigoUser:Pieter Kuiper sin dar explicación ninguna [[34]]. OJO: NO SE HA DIGNADO NI SIQUIERA A DIRIGIRSE A MI

--Lmbuga^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo}02:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Español: Sí, si en Commons se va a permitir atentados contra los derechos de autor como este (ni siquiera se me menciona y no se respeta la licencia (pues es GFDL y no Cc-by-sa-2.1), solicito que sean todas mis imágenes borradas, tengan la licencia que tengan. En ese caso no he debido nunca colaborar con ustedes

--Lmbuga^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo}02:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Español: Pero tal y como van las cosas creo que voy a tener que hablar con mi abogado--Lmbuga^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 02:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC

Español: Evidentemente yo no deseo que se borren mis imágenes y deseo seguir colaborando en el proyecto Wikimedia, pero todo tiene un límite. Atiendan, respeten las políticas, si no las respetan, yo sobro. Y se de lo que hablo, por algo he sido burócrata en este proyecto

--Lmbuga^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo}02:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Les sigo rogando que borren la imagen. Es la única posible solución, mis imágenes no son compatibles con las licencias de las otras imágenes de esa obra derivada--Lmbuga^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo}02:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No legal threats please. If I add your attribution would that solve the problem, or do you simply do not want people making derivatives of your work with (possibly) incompatible licenses? This doesn't feel much like a conversation, you're just saying things (in multiple places) and not really responding to anyone, so sorry if I can't be of more help.Rocket000 (talk)02:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand. What is "threats" in spanish?

Español: No es suficiente con la atribución. Lo digo, lo expreso, por si alguien ha simplificado hasta ese punto la situación. Si se me hubiesen pedido que cambiase las licencias,las habría cambiado, pero nadie me lo ha pedido y no lo voy a hacer ahora

--Lmbuga^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo}03:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want people with derivative works if this derivative work it is not GFDL--Lmbuga^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo}03:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

--Lmbuga^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo}03:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Español: Me he cansado de su ineptitud. Mañana procedo a hablar con mi abogado para denunciar lo que aquí está ocurriendo. Yo he sido burócrata en este proyecto y habría borrado la imagen sin dudarlo lo más mínimo. Pienso que representan ustedes la máxima ineptitud que puede haber en este proyecto en especial en lo que respecta a usuarios y políticas

--Lmbuga^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo}04:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Español: Sigo hablando porque no acabo de salir de mi asombro: Estoy increíblemente asombrado con su ineptitud. ¿Deciden ustedes cambiar la licencia de una imagen que no es suya sin siquiera dirigirse al usuario (cosa que yo sí he hecho). Han cambiado dos veces la licencia para complacerme y solamente han conseguido que considere que su ineptitud raya con lo indecible. Solamente falta que me bloqueen por decir lo que pienso de la mejor manera que puede ser dicho--Lmbuga^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo}04:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No es lícito, al menos no es decoroso, cambiar la licencia de una imagen sin ponerse en contacto con el usuario que la ha creado, ¿realmente son ustedes administradores? --Lmbuga^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo}04:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've done a heavy edit toFile:Galegos de soa.jpg[35] to do the following:

1. Provide attribution to authors of the originals.
2. Correct the licensing: The composite can only under a cc-by-sa license (3.0 unported being logical choice). I've also changed the permissions (on this page) of the originals from GFDL to cc-by-sa-3.0 as they can be used as aresult of the relicensing.
3. Simplify the text somewhat.

The page is now in line with the licenses of the originals (I think). Bear in mind all the cc-by-sa licenses allow redistribution under asimilar license so it is fine to use a cc-by-sa-2.1-es image under cc-by-sa-3.0 unported. In response to Lmbuga's concerns about the GFDL, your images (and the others) were uploaded before August 2009 with the license "GFDL 1.2or any later version". When GFDL 1.3 was released, the images were also licensed under that new license.GFDL 1.3 allows for migration to cc-by-sa.My only concern about this image is the number of "unknown" authors for the PD files, some of themmay still be in copyright but I cannot verify.--Nilfanion (talk)12:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nilfanion. Hopefully that will solve the problem he has.Rocket000 (talk)14:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I owe you one Nilfanion.User:Zscout370^{(Return fire)}17:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

--Lmbuga^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo}21:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Español: La licencia que tienen mis imágenes no es compatible con Cc-by-sa-2.1. De eso estoy seguro

--Lmbuga^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo}21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone give advice on how I should deal with the comments this user has left on my talkpage?9carney (talk)12:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly by participating in the Commons under the same account you use to comment on policy? Or giving some indication on the user page of that account why you have an account to participate in policy discussions when you have no apparent contributions? -Jmabel !talk23:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For a second there I thought you were condoning ad hominem attacks.As we all know, anyone can edit any file on this project, subject only to technical constraints and the rules and principles of the project. That applies whether a user has one edit or a million.That principle is sacred. Comments like "Your account is single purpose and I flat out deny you to contribute to policy issues for this very reason." and "You are not welcome to discuss policies on Commons" have no place here. As it happens I posted here a little prematurely because I found what I wantedhere. If he chooses to contribute to any further discussions I will engage him in a friendly and welcoming manner and look for the same in return.9carney (talk)20:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

During the course of a talk page discussion regarding posting translation requests to village pump pages, h-stt has engaged in personal attacks:User_talk:H-stt#Air France 447 - He seems to have a general idea that people should be confronted and insulted. This needs to stop immediately.WhisperToMe (talk)11:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please block74.63.93.191(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user (resolves to fdcservers.net, so probably a compromised web server acting as anopen proxy) for blanking tags informing of an ongoing deletion discussion in spite of warnings, for edit warring (revert 1,revert 2,revert 3) and personal attacks:

• "are your mad, or just nacionalist?" (sic)
• "dont by a fool, bitte" (sic)
• "dont by a fool, bitte" (sic)
• "are your mad, or just nacionalist?" (sic)
• "you are stupid or can not read?"
• "are you blind or what?"
• "Listen, you have a problem with reading or what exactly is going on?"
• "abolutly idiotic" (sic)
• "your nacioalitic fanatic" (sic)

—LX (talk,contribs)22:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User hasnow started discussing on the talk page; no reason to block. /Pieter Kuiper (talk)22:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The last two quotes are from our open proxy-using friend's contributions to the deletion discussion, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they qualify as discussion. If that's the tone they intend to use, they don't need to be editing here.—LX (talk,contribs)22:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 3 days harassments / vandalism, despite warnings --Justass (talk)22:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Xav47x(talk ·contributions ·Statistics ·Recent activity ·block log ·User rights log ·uploads ·Global account information) (assign permissions)

Hi. :) I'm not an admin on Commons, but I work extensively with copyright on English Wikipedia, so when I went to place a copyvio template atUser talk:Xav47x forFile:CaseyLaceyJames.jpg, it raised some flags. I saw that in 2008 he was given a serious "keep this up and you'll be blocked" warning:User talk:Xav47x#Copyright violations 2. A look at his contribs shows that in the last day he has uploaded 13 images fromAmerican Idol, all of which areundoubtedly copyvios as this one is. I haven't done the legwork of tracking down the originals, though. Given his history, I thought it might be appropriate to bring it here. --Moonriddengirl (talk)10:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That are blatant copyvios, Ill nuke them. --Martin H. (talk)10:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked them, They have been warned about copyvios since 2007 with two final warnings.Bidgee (talk)11:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go do the cleanup on the English Wikipedia side. --Moonriddengirl (talk)11:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Watermill333 is affiliated with Watermill Express does commons block in these circumstances?Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk)19:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Usually we only block spammy names like urls. Unless, the representation is false, I see no problem with it.Rocket000 (talk)21:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Alexlanes13(talk ·contributions ·Statistics ·Recent activity ·block log ·User rights log ·uploads ·Global account information) (assign permissions)

This user keeps uploading copyright protected images, some of them were deleted in the past. I don't know how this is handled. Perhaps another warning would be appropriate?—Totie (talk)13:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the uploads have stopped. I'd say the next bad one should result in an immediate block.Wknight94^talk13:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I know this is technically the wrong place, but just wanted to alert any Commons admins to the contributions ofthis fellow. I don't believe for one moment any of those images are free. Thanks,Aiken♫22:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This was placed onen:WP:AN. Since I agree that it was "technically the wrong place", I thought I'd put it where it belongs, so you guys can do with it as seems best. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk)10:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nommed the 4 files found in contributions for deletion, as they all have shaky provenance (at best). ++Lar:t/c12:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Three have been deleted since they are blatant copyvios, the fourth photo hasn't as I've been unable to find it but is likely a copyvio.Bidgee (talk)13:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

moved toCommons:Village pump#Download A .SVG File?—The precedingunsigned comment was added byEditor at Large (talk • contribs) at21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

PerCommons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Estrilda (October 2009) andCommons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_19#Advice_required_I_think (February 2010), a notification was placed on theUser:Estrilda page that the account had self-identified as the wife ofUser:Lycaon.[36] This notice was placed because checkuser had determined the strong appearance of double voting at featured picture candidacies, and it was affirmed by consensus at the checkuser discussion in December and at the Commons admin board in Feburary. Alvesgaspar was active in both discussions. On 6 March 2010 Alvesgaspar removed the notice from the Estrilda user page.[37] I restored the notice on 6 March with the note "Please seek a new consensus before removing again."[38] On 23 March 2010 Alvesgaspar reblanked the notice with an edit summary which stated that he did not acknowledge consensus.[39]

It doesn't seem appropriate for the minority side after two consensus discussions to override consensus by waiting a few weeks and then quietly implementing a different outcome. So opening this for community input.Durova (talk)02:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the archive, it seems to me the consensus was that a crosslinkis not necessary at the present time, but may be required in the futureif the there is double voting from these accounts. That was Lar's proposal, to which just about anyone participating in that discussion agreed, you yourself included. Has there been double voting by these accounts since then? If not, there's no need for a crosslink.Lupo07:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• That is also my view. If there were a consensus on a matter so relevant as putting a crosslink on some user page (against his/her will), that should be explicitly referred to in the conclusion of the discussion. Which was not. On the contrary, it was concluded that no action should be taken against the two users envolved. The same goes for the discussion in the Admnistrator's noticeboard. It is really time for this war to have an end.--Alvesgaspar (talk)08:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Durova seems to confuse her own opinion with community consensus. /Pieter Kuiper (talk)08:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was that a cross link from at least one direction was necessary, due to the history of double voting. No one removed that link when either of the consensus discussions closed. If that is mistaken then the way to resolve that is to discuss it openly. In future, Alvesgaspar, please hold dialog on user pages and/or open up a community discussion. It is not acceptable to wait a few weeks and then act unilaterally.Durova (talk)15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Basically, what Durova is saying is that if the crosslink was not removed from Estrilda page immediately after the discussion, then it should stay there forever or only after a new threath were open to re-discuss the issue. In other words, that 'truth' or 'the right thing to do' prescribes after a certain time. Please respect other people's intelligence! If I did not correct the situation immediately is because I didn't notice the note was still there (but that is not your business, for sure). BTW, we are still waiting for some hard evidence about the consensus you keep talking about but are unable to prove. --Alvesgaspar (talk)16:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Actually that is not even remotely related to the basics of what I am saying. This unfortunate episode was discussed extensively by the community twice, and a conclusion was reached. It is inappropriate to repeatedly attempt to implement a different conclusion weeks later without seeking a new consensus. Please seek a new consensus without personalizing the discussion.Durova (talk)21:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, I completely missed this episode. With great surprise I read the archived discussion and frankly I'm at a loss for words. I considered Lycaon a valuable and trustworthy contributor and I am not willing to throw away this trust just because of an accusation which can easily be explained. In fact I find the Glenn-Beck-rethorics that some participants used plain sickening: "Lycaon did not deny having made up a wife to cheat in voting", well so it must be true. Are you out of your minds?! What is going on here? --Dschwen (talk)16:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• I perceive the consensus in the same manner as Alvesgaspar. If I had noticed Estrildas crosslink was not blanked I would probably have done that too without seeing it as something which is against consensus. --Slaunger (talk)01:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Well, if a new consensus has arisen then of course that's worth respecting. My understanding of the previous discussion was that a cross link was necessary in at least one direction if both accounts were to remain unblocked. Alvesgaspar, if any misunderstanding like this arises in future please discuss instead of reverting.Durova (talk)02:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You take this to here without any discussion with Alvesgaspar, but he's the one in the wrong for not discussing it.Adam Cuerden (talk)03:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • How can this be anew consensus? Apparently there was noold consensus in the first place. It seems inappropriate of you to close this of by lecturing Alves about proper wiki-manners. On a side note: it may be the distance from not being involved and reading the whole thing after some tme has passed, but it just looks Kafkaesque to me. At one point in the discussion a participant actually accused Lycaon ofwasting the communities time by essentially refusing to answer to his inquisition commitee. --Dschwen (talk)03:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Durova, what would you like to achieve here? I don't mean what you think the consensus is or what your understanding of some previous discussion was, but what doyou personally want to achieve by bringing this issue here? Do want the crosslink restored? Page protected? One of the accounts blocked? Alvesgaspar punished? I don't see what the big deal is with this crosslink, if he doesn't want it on his userpage, why push it? The information's out there. People know. Maybe I'm missing something, but it just seems like a lot of unnecessary drama.Rocket000 (talk)04:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • No, Rocket; this was procedural. Obviously I wasn't going to edit war with Alvesgaspar. During the two previous discussions Lar had stated that he considered a notification on at least one of the two user pages to be the minimum acceptable response, and previous consensus had appeared to agree with Lar. As stated above, we can consider this matter resolved now.Durova (talk)06:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That didn't answer the question what you wanted out of this (procedural, sure, but something still motivated you), but if it's resolved, that's all that matters. I was just trying to understand more than what it appeared to be.Rocket000 (talk)08:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
      • There was no need to say more; the question asked something which was fully answered in my previous post. It isn't easy to respond to a question that refuses to take yes for an answer and makes accusations of drama. Will chalk that up to good faith miscommunication, though. There doesn't appear to be any more need for discussion here.Durova (talk)15:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

        • It's not a yes or no question. "Yes" what? And feel free to assume bad faith, that's entirely up to you (I can handle it). I was asking what you hope to achieve here because it's not clear. The only thing I'm left with it you're doing it just for the drama. Assumption? Not really, it was an honest question. If you wanted something like the link restored or some account blocked that would explain things. I wasn't asking for reason, I was just asking what you wanted. Is that so hard to answer? There must be a motivation (and I pass no judgement on whatever that may be, even "for the drama" is a perfectly acceptable answer to me).Rocket000 (talk)21:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

        • It worries me that you seem to try to suppress any discussions about your conduct here. Some of thatgood faith that you now generously assume could have prevented this so calledUser problem from spinning into this discussion (and the initial discussionabout Lycaon could have used some of it too). --Dschwen (talk)17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
          • If you'll forgive me hijacking this a little, the reason I left here for 5 months was Durova attacking me because I pointed out the obvious problem inFile:Raven_Manet_E2.jpg. She claimed that politely questioning its obvious upside-down state was trolling through original research.

A lot of the incidents I could discuss, since I was driven off for five months, are either old or on en-wiki. I'll let people decide what they preferAdam Cuerden (talk)18:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Try refreshing your browser cache, the thumbnail wasn't updated for me.Rocket000 (talk)23:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Dang. Edited. She still lies about there being no problem, but it's much harder to prove.Adam Cuerden (talk)00:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a crosslink is needed in at least one direction. I don't think we ever reached a consensus to remove the crosslinks in BOTH directions. But as long as there isn't double voting I'm not going to push the matter. It's just not worth fighting about any more. I have no idea what Durova's trying to achieve by raising this now, but I'm not sure I care. ++Lar:t/c16:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please delete the two latest uploads byuser:Mdb10us (w:User:Mdb10us) and consider blocking. Refer to[40].Cenarium (talk)15:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Done and done.Wknight94^talk16:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please block188.75.128.2(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user. The IP address is used to circumvent the block ofLe chatea(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user, which in turn is blocked for circumventing the ban ofFredy.00(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user.

Diff confirming the relationship.Diff confirming knowingly circumventing the ban.

A thorough review of the edits made from the account would also be good. I've reverted a few instances of notifications of ongoing deletion discussions being removed. This habit, along with the user's hostile and argumentative tone andthis edit of a comment made by74.63.93.191(talk ·contributions ·Move log ·block log ·uploads ·Abuse filter log) block user, also establishes the link to that account.—LX (talk,contribs)16:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Mbdortmund deletes files that are in discussion in deletion requests too quickly. As far as I know a deletion debate must be open minimum for 7 days unless it is an apparently case of copyright violation or something like that - what is definately usefull. But here (recent case):Commons:Deletion requests/2010/04/01 andCommons:Deletion requests/2010/04/02 he closed some discussion that are - in my view not that obvious - within one or two days. Here are some examples ([41],[42],[43]) of debates that are worthy of even be opened for 7 days because the reason contains a little specualtion where other opinions with more valid arguments could enrich the discussion. Carla 14:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked at all three examples and endorse the deletions 100%. There was no point leaving those open. Would you have voted keep in any of them?Wknight94^talk14:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I cannot know if I had votedkeep ordelete because the images were removed too quickly. So I and surely many other users did have no chance for voting. And I think especially that was the point to invent this 7 day rule, that as many as possible people can bring themselves in the discussion. Carla 15:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

For these, there was about 0% chance of keeping, so all is well.Wknight94^talk15:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought "turbo deleter" was the honorific title of an another administrator. The one who deletes most stuff I tag. -- User:Docu at05:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Some DR's should be speedied. /Pieter Kuiper (talk)06:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem with this user, that should be handled by a Japanese-speaking admin. Contrary to our policy, this user has created and re-created several non-english categories, such asCategory:マジックリン,Category:ねこ andCategory:いぬ, even though he was asked not to do that. In addition he uploaded scores of low-res (480x360), medium-quality cat & dog images, all with nonsense-filenames such asFile:D2ca50e6.jpg,File:Hitachi 031.JPG orFile:9e9fcbcb.jpg. 15 minutes after I had tagged one blurry low-res cat image (File:765af7bc.jpg) for speedy deletion, in a sort of retaliatory vandalism he put delete-tags (resulting in incomplete DR) on several images of other users:[44],[45],[46],[47],[48]. As 3 of his uploads were easily identified as copyvios (File:Mcl bath wall plus 00 img l.jpg,File:Mcl bath bubble 00 img l.jpg,File:Mcl bath deodorant plus 00 img l.jpg), I suspect that the animal images may also be copyvios. He may be a cross-wiki vandal, seehere (Japanese).
I've blocked him for 1 day to avoid more damage. But a native-speaker should look into this and try to communicate to him/her. --Túrelio (talk)08:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

See alsohttp://toolserver.org/%7Evvv/sulutil.php?rights=1&user=おれ –Krinkle^talk12:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

User Quahadi reverts some{{No license}} templates instade of putting the appropriate licence tags, please see this:

• [49]
• [50]
• [51]
• [52]

Also, as far i can see, he claims that the files are cc-by-sa, but there is clearly visible copyright watermark on the image, for example[53]--Ex13 (talk)19:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It may, but not necessarily. If it was published elsewhere, it needs an OTRS tag. The uploader needs to email the permission to the OTRS team. You should tag it with{{No permission since}}. -- User:Docu at19:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I asked Quahadi about this and he told me OTRS was pending. Hopefully he won't remove no-permission tags.Wknight94^talk19:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Then{{OTRS pending}} would be the better tag. -- User:Docu at19:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, then I ask some admin to do that, because he reverted that again. --Ex13 (talk)08:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done (non-admin) -- User:Docu at09:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Two users,User:CatJar andUser:TheCuriousGnome are reverting several images back and forth, it looks like they have taken their editwar from en wiki to Commons. Files affected are image compilations by decade likeFile:1980s decade montage.png. This needs some admin attention. --Denniss (talk)21:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done forFile:1980s decade montage.png. (non-admin) -- User:Docu at23:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Precautionary protected for 1 day. --High Contrast (talk)23:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)