Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Disputes noticeboard/Archive 4

< Commons:Disputes noticeboard
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT removes “move” templates

On July, 27, I have added “move” templates to most categories of provinces of Belgium (in particular, because “province” is misspelled). User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT have removed these templates, arguing I had to discuss before putting the templates in the pages (see User talk:Juiced lemon#Category:Provinces of Belgium, in French), without further explanations:

Adding a “move” template is the standard procedure to request a move and open a discussion about it. So, I request the restoration of the templates. User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT didn't discuss in the talk pages of the concerned categories, and he is not allowed to order that the issue doesn't grant discussions with other Commons users. --Juiced lemon 11:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

New removal of template by User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT :

--Juiced lemon 12:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

  Support for Jean-Pol GRANDMONT.
  • Adding move-templates to a category - as juicedlemon did - is fine.
  • Also adding an explanation on a take page would have been nicer, but it not necessary.
  • People could even live with an obvious premature move, as long it is not entirely controversial i think; even without prior discussion. People do assume good faith, and are open for obvious improvements.
However:
  • juicedlemon dit NOT just add a move template (which may make sense, or they may not, that's to be discussed). He also already created the new proposed target category; which are - until now - duplicate. So far so good... not such a problem.
  • However, then he went on to make the existing categories a subcategory of the target category. As in [5], [6],[7],

[8], [9], [10], [11] effectively hiding and unlinkg the existing category, which are still in use for now , away under their duplicate targets. This also messes things up badly. In the process, some contained information was silently removed as well. This is NOT the standard procedure anymore. This is exactly what the standard procedure wants to avoid.

Can you still follow what is happening ? I can't really follow the whole mess anymore....
juicedlemon DID make a mess of it, so I'm not surprised people want things back to their original state, and start from scratch. That way, we can look calmly what's wrong with the current situation, and what can be improved.
To give a simple example. Assume a wrong category:North america exists ("america" with small a). This is rather evident, but assume one uses the {move}-template procedure. Well, in that case, you put the {move} template; start a discussion on the talk page; and watch the outcome. You do NOT create category:North America, make category:North america a subcategory from category:North America, unlink the existing category, and leave it all in big mess. Now repeat the same thing for 10 other categories, and you get the point.
So, if people can't get informed first and do proposal without introduction of wrong trees: full support for people like JP Grandmont trying to keep clearly ordered.
Disclaimer: 99% chance, juicedlemon will reply below, claiming he's innocent, claiming we're not working in a community ("community" being synonymous for "juiced lemon", and claiming Jean-Pol GRANDMONT is such a bad guy, etc... Tell me if this prediction turns out wrong ;-)
By the way, Jean-Pol GRANDMONT is one of the most valuable contributors I know on Commons [12] . Great collection !
Regards --LimoWreck 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I put the “move” templates on July,27, so you had a week to say that there was a categorization problem. On August,2, you edited Category:Liège (Province of Belgium), but you didn't restore the previous categories. So, don't tell us that you have just discovered this problem!
Note also that I complain about the removal of the “move” templates, and nothing else (see also User talk:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT#Category:Provinces of Belgium).
When you create new subcategories, like Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Liège (province), it's more convenient to categorize it directly in the target category, assuming the move is non-controversial. If the move fails, the new subcategories will have to be renamed. --Juiced lemon 17:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make much sense to keep discussing on this subject. Personally, I have a couple of comments and a conclusion.
  • Jean-Pol has been on holiday or picture hunting for several days
  • A lot of Flemish people will rarely do significant changes on the Walloon side without prior agreement. If the case of the Walloon region was not so urgent (justifying reverts), I would never have voted for deletion before agreement with the Walloon side, even it that would mean a pretty much annoying asymmetric solution in Belgium. So don't be surprised if LimoWreck did not react on the Liège move.
And as a conclusion on this last, lets say Flemish, part of the discussion (We still hope that we will have a reaction from the Walloon side as they have the last word in their region):
  • I rarely have seen LimoWreck, after such a big anger, replying with such a long detailed explanation in such a calm way. Only the end needs still some fine tuning, but overall, not bad Limo
  • The answer of Juiced lemon was much less defensive or aggressive than what we anticipated. Not bad Juice lemon
--Foroa 23:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, after having taken a look around here, it would be a bit pointless of GRANDMONT, LimoWreck or Foroa to make a remark on Juiced lemon's talk page. He would revert (is there a 3RR on Commons?) to keep the wrong situtation, accuse people, not listen, and list them on these administrator pages without self reflection... So I agree with people trying to save something. I'm also afraid we migth loose people like GRANDMONT (with hundreths and hundreths of great pictures) by the actions of someone with 0 uploads. Is there something like fr:Wikipédia:Comité d'arbitrage/Arbitrage on Commons to resolve such structural problematic behaviours in a consequent way ? --83.134.142.103 16:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • @83.134.142.103. Now you are not assuming good faith. It appears in this discussion that Juiced lemon is trying a bit harder to be civil and while he may not have any uploads, he certainly does have alot of contibutions to the Commons. --Digon3 talk 16:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

When you look from Jean-Pol's position, he is 100 % right, because the renames are unnecasarily and not logical: some provinces with (province), others with (Belgium). If you look at a broader perspective, then the logic becomes more clear. We are mostly beginners in a beginning project and trying to build an international and multi-cultural community. Sadly enough, we are all working too much and have no time to look much around us. It is equally sad to state that we need crisises to stop working like a mule (fr: "le nez dans le guidon") and think a bit deeper and harder to improve the organisation. And that improvement, I think, will slowly emerge. An arbitration comité might be needed some point in time, but in the first instance, we have to try to make a cooperation and community without too many administrationa and comités. All suggestions, especially constructive ones, are welcome. If somebody wants to express themself in French, this is possible too; we will try to translate. --Foroa 18:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT would be 100 % right if our policy was to use misspelled names. As I indicated in the reason of this move request (other cases are similar), the name Category:Liège (Province of Belgium) is misspelled, that is it doesn't comply with our naming conventions, which widely repeat English spelling rules. “Province of Belgium” is not a particular province named “Belgium”, but any administrative division of Belgium at the province level, that is a common noun. Therefore, a correctly spelled category name would have been Category:Liège (province of Belgium).
Therefore, as I already said before, the renaming of this category is mandatory, because misspelled names are unexpected in any Wiki project. There are also causes of mess, because people usually add correctly spelled subcategories to them, but in an inconsistent manner.
User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT would be 100 % right if the Commons Community had granted him ownership over some part of the topics structure. So, he would have the right to chase away the unwelcome users and to despise them.
In fact, User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT have just scorned our procedures and was completely satisfied about that. In my opinion, such behaviour is not compatible with communitary work and would not be tolerated. --Juiced lemon 21:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Timeshifter destroys interwiki links

This user reverts my edits in order to destroy correct interwiki links (to Wikipedia articles, according to the current Commons custom) and conceals the discussions in his talk page (see this diff and recent history).

I request assistance in order to obtain correct linkage for Category:Graph_theory and civil attitude from this user (I consider the systematic removal of my messages as offensive). --Juiced lemon 21:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on Juiced lemon's talk, but it seems this dispute is about alternate workarounds for a weakness in the software, and perhaps would be more appropriately discussed on the Village Pump. --SB_Johnny | PA! 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:rtc wants to delete all GFDL-1.2-pictures (done)

This request Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:GFDL-1.2 by User:rtc intends to delete many pictures under the 1.2-license by deleting the template at first. Perhaps we should watch this tricky projekt carefully. He contributed no media to the commons:

--Mbdortmund 20:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No media? - Rocket000 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to discuss this here. It’s the user’s right to propose a license template for deletion and he doesn’t need a certain amount of uploads to do this. --Polarlys 00:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm thinking that that activity should be prevented in future. These discussions always degenerate into bad faith, and a more complex strategy is required than merely "delete it!". I've kept template, but encourage further discussion of the template at a more appropriate location. COM:L, the VP and the template's talk page seem sensible (I've copied the debate there).--Nilfanion 16:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
A request for deletion is the right way to discuss such issues. Rtc did so before and whenever a lot of people reacted in an inadequate way (euphemism of the day!), sooner or later these requests were closed and we figured out how to coordinate these deletions (thousands of files, BTW). Without this request, nobody will care about progress in this matter. --Polarlys 17:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
What Polarlys said. COM:DEL has a lot of visibility (more than, say, template talk pages) and no admin in his/her perfect mind will rush to close a template deletion request without a clear consensus anyway. Patrícia msg 17:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I know this. However I feel COM:DEL can never deal adequately with these contentious templates. Here's why:
  1. Debate occurs on whether the template should be kept or deleted.
  2. Admin determines which better represents consensus.
The problem with this is these templates need more than delete or keep. Administratively, we need a strategy to deal with the images. By handling them as they are on COM:DEL at present, if the result is "delete" what exactly is the admin supposed to do? That needs to be discussed prior to closure of the discussion, but as they are done at present on COM:DEL prevents that from taking place. I'm aware that the template talks have low visibility, but these discussions should start there, in many cases a rephrase of the template will be sufficient. Saying COM:DEL is high visibility is not exactly true either, important template discussions like this one can and will get swamped in the numerous image discussions. I will note these debates are highly prone to trouble, and the fact it is a deletion request seems to agitate the users who want to keep the template (think the Italians for PD-Italy, the Russians for PD-Soviet etc. If we have a page, such as Commons:Licensing/Templates, specifically to discuss (not "request deletions of") these templates, we might be able to reduce the wiki-drama at the source.--Nilfanion 22:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Or a Commons:Request for comments? Not a bad ideia. I understand your point of view and agree that the matter transcends a simple Delete/Keep decision. But the fate of the tagged images is usually taken into account when deciding what to do with a template: some may just need relicensing because they were abusing a wrong template anyway, some need to be deleted or tagged for deletion. Taking those discussions out of COM:DEL will reduce wikidrama, absolutely agree with you on that point too, but I don't think that the visibility is decreased for being one in many hundreds of deletion requests: such requests are typically open for several weeks/months in order to, in the end, do "the right thing". There's no rush :) Patrícia msg 22:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree there's no rush. The reason why I say there is low visibility on COM:DEL is this. This discussion should be linked from many places, once it slips off the COM:DEL main page it would have been very hard to come by (if not for this thread and the likely escalating drama). Doesn't help that in this, and most similar discussion in the past, no attempt to put a deletion notification on the template occurred.--Nilfanion 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral naming and descriptions

I have had some disputes with some editors regarding some primary source images regarding Baha'i history, and the anti-Baha'i polemics which go on in Iran, specifically relating to the person of the Báb.

The dispute started with the uploading of Image:Seyed Ali Mohammed Bab.jpg. This image is found in an early 20th century book by Nicolas. There are multiple more recent sources that state the image in Nicolas' book is incorrectly identified. One of them is Balyuzi, H.M. (1973) The Báb: The Herald of the Day of Days, Oxford, UK: George Ronald, pp. p. 16 ISBN 0853980489 and another one is Effendi, Shoghi (1973) Directives from the Guardian, Hawaii Bahá'í Publishing Trust, pp. p. 7 Older sources in multiple cases are wrong, and are not as reliable as newer sources. Take the case of the en:Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition which "some of its out-of-date content makes its use as a source for modern scholarship problematic" and in many cases can't be used in in Wikipedia. So, while Commons does not have a verifiability policy, the accuracy of the images is important.

The dispute regarding that image was with user User:Mardetanha‎, and after posting to the Administrators' noticeboard, we agreed upon a compromise where the image would be renamed to Image:ImageinNicolas.jpg, and that was totally fine.

Two days later, another editor, User:Senemmar, uploaded a larger version of the same image at Image:Báb Image in Nicolas.gif. From that image page, the user kept removing the description from the Balyuzi reference which stated that the image was not of the Báb, but of Siyyid Kazim.

He's uploaded also another primary source document Image:Báb's repentance in E.G. Browen's book.jpg‎. This is a document where the Iranian authorities claim that the Báb renounced his claims. A scholarly study has published that the document was never signed, and that it was prepared by the Iranian authorities as a way to discredit the Bab, and that it is ficticious. I have placed that description and the reference on the page, but the editor keeps removing it.

So the dispute is regarding a couple things.

  1. The naming of the images: Given the reliable sources dictating that the image names are incorrect, or at least not-accurate, I had asked on the administrators' noticeboard that the images be renamed to Image:ImagefromNicolas2.jpg, and Image:ImagefromBrowne.jpg, which administrator User:Rocket000 agreed was a good compromise. The other user does not want to rename the images to something more neutral.
  2. The description on the pages: The user keeps removing descriptions from the pages that I have added, which are quotes from scholarly publications. I have not removed his descriptions, but he at every point removes my descriptions. I can see no reason by the cited descriptions of the document should be removed.

I'm posting this here, so that someone can come and hopefully mediate this issue. Regards, -- Jeff3000 21:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Referee needed on request moving category John Bosco to Don Bosco

This discussion needs a Neutral Referee:

  1. First record.
  2. Second record.

The users involved:

  • User:Albeiror24: Category "John Bosco" should move to "Don Bosco", because it is the international name.
  • User:Evrik: "John Bosco" is the English name, so it should remain like "John Bosco".

AlbeiroR24

Closed. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 01:01, 15 May 2008 (GMT)

and

This sysop abused of his sysop status by deleting   and   againt the commons wikimedia communauty advice. Why people can't pushing Belgium public edifice ? I want the undeletion of these image. -- Bertrand GRONDIN → (écrire) 19:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion requests are not a poll, the arguments for deletion had stronger weight than the arguments for keep. Mattbuck has not abused his sysop-tools, if you want to request an undeletion you may do so at COM:UDEL. Regards, Finn Rindahl 19:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I fully admit that I am a new admin, and that there are many things I need to learn. Heck, a few days ago I thought that freedom of panorama was a universal right. However, that is what is being argued about here. In Belgium, and in fact in many EU countries (Britain not included thank goodness), if you take a picture of a public work of art, sculpture or building, unless the monument is sufficiently old, you are not allowed to use the pictures for commercial purposes. The point of the commons is to provide images which are free, and that includes the right for those images to be used commercially. Images of modern Belgian statutary are not allowed to be used commercially, and thus they are not suitable for the wikimedia commons.
And might I make a request in future - if you have an issue with something I do, please do me the courtesy of telling me about it on my talk page. Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you take me for the village idiot ? WHY PERSONAL PHOTOS ABOUT BELGIUM MONUMENT ARE FORBIDDEN IN COMMONS. I persist. IT IS A VIOLATION OF SYSOP STATUS.-- Bertrand GRONDIN → (écrire) 20:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
USING CRUISE CONTROL DOESN'T MAKE YOUR POINT ANY MORE VALID. Mattbuck's actions on these deletion requests were entirely appropriate in this case. These discussion are NOT a vote; administrators should weigh one good argument more than they would a hundred bad arguments (or "votes", for that matter). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Bertrand GRONDIN Please be mellow, and do not shout. --Kanonkas(talk) 20:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's follow Matts example and be mellow all of us, and avoid SHOUTING with big letters. To Bertand Grondin: as I mentioned above: If you feel the images were wrongly deleted, please post at Requests for undeletion to get second opinions on this issue. This discussion does not belong here. Mattbuck has given his response, and there is no reason to accuse him of abuse of sysop rights. Regards, Finn Rindahl 20:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
To Kanonkas, block me if you want ! I leave this project permanently. You can know delete my User and Talk page and subpage.-- Bertrand GRONDIN → (écrire) 21:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Grondin, I regret that my actions have caused such upset with you. To Kanonkas, I would prefer it if you would not threaten to ban people who are making a legitimate request. Grondin, I agree that the law is exceptionally stupid, but it is the law unfortunately, and we are bound to follow it. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Pardon Grondin. --Kanonkas(talk) 07:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Je te donne mon absolution. L'incident est définitivement clos. Bonne continuation.:-)-- Bertrand GRONDIN → (écrire) 07:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
«if you take a picture of a public work of art, sculpture or building, unless the monument is sufficiently old, you are not allowed to use the pictures for commercial purposes.» I think, this is wrong. regards --Mbdortmund 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not the exact wording, but it's certainly true in belgium. See COM:FOP#Belgium -mattbuck (Talk) 22:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's what I wanted to know. The French and Belgium laws debility are responsible of that. I cancel what I've written. -- Bertrand GRONDIN → (écrire) 06:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Regards, Finn Rindahl 07:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether there is a request for comment on Commons, so I hope this will suffice. There's a dispute at Template_talk:PD-textlogo regarding the addition of a disclaimer I believe to be patently false. I've reverted once, and that is my limit. The disclaimer is asserting that the {{PD-textlogo}} can only be used for "off-the-shelf" typefaces. This is an assertion contrary to relevant case law (e.g. Eltra Corp. vs. Ringer) and was added with no discussion or statutory/adjudicated support. The discussion, obviously, is at that talk page. The impetus for the concern was Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Facebook.svg, which was initiated per the inappropriate verbiage. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This place isn't watched very well (I think), you might get more eyes at the admin noticeboard in future. That said I've commented. giggy (:O) 23:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If Elcobbola would deign to offer some constructive suggestions for the rewording of this very necessary warning (instead of merely unconstructively deleting it without bothering to offer any suggestions for its improvement), then there would be no dispute... AnonMoos (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Please restrict discussion to the template's talk page. giggy (:O) 03:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Silesia edit warring

 
Map of Silesia

User:LUCPOL brought this to my attention. There is a dispute on whether this category should be categorized as region in Poland or as region in Europe. According to this map it largely lies in Poland with some parts in Germany and Czech. What would be the proper categorization? My opinion is that the best option is to put it in all three categories, Category:Regions of Poland, Category:Regions of Germany and Category:Regions of Czech. There is also something on Category talk:Silesia. I brought it here so that it can receive wider attention. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tiny part of Silesia (several square miles, neighbourhoods Čadca) lies also in Slovakia :p What now? We will add next category -> Category:Regions of Slovakia? Additionally: Silesia has ethnic problems - part of peoples from Silesia recognises for separate nation and hates Poles & Poland. And also comes into being silesian separatism (autonomy or independence of Silesia) - exist Silesian Autonomy Movement (Ruch Autonomii Śląska), Alliance of People of the Silesian Nation (Związek Ludności Narodowości Śląskiej) and other. Every arguments are for Category:Regions of Europe. This category is ideal for such regions, regions which lie on terrain several states and have own cultural distinction. PS. To 1919 exist also en:Austrian Silesia in Austria, to 1945 almost whole Silesia was in Germanys (en:Province of Silesia, except en:Autonomous Silesian Voivodeship). On Coat of arms of Liechtenstein exist silesian coat of arms (see: en:Coat of arms of Liechtenstein). Silesia this unusually varied European region. LUCPOL (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Till now, all areas are categorised in the wikipedia according to the country and its government. There are many regions in the world that cross more than one country, for example the Kurds, berber, .... Our whole category system is based on that country scheme. In that scheme, regions can coexist with a little bit of goodwill without too much problems as Bryan suggests. --Foroa (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If even Silesia can not be in Category:Regions of Europe, why exists this category? This category is ideal for non-administrative and controversial regions which lies on terrain several states. LUCPOL (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Because the category Regions in Europe compromises regions of the different countries of Europe, but not all regions of Europe directly, this would bust this category. '[a] part of people[s] from Silesia (...) hate[s] Poles & Poland.' Dear LUCPOL, do you realy want to make this argument? Some people would consider its author a racist, as it shows the hatred of its author towards a group of people based on their racial and ethnical backround. Concerning especially the recent German-Polish history in context of the Second World War this sounds realy bad. And I do not know if Wikipedia is a place to foster such attitudes. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.242.18.51 (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Mr IP 136.242.18.51. Your option (only Category:Regions of Poland) nobody takes seriously. Your edits (01:05, 26 July 2008) is vandalism. You lead blind edit-war still. Again. Requests (type "discuss first, not reverting") did not give anything: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. You should get blockade.
Exist are two options:
  1. write Category:Regions of Poland, Czech, Germany and theoretically Slovakia
  2. write only Category:Region of Europe
LUCPOL (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem classifying Silesia as region in Europe. However, as long as there is no clean synthetic explanation somewhere how Silesia is actually structured in the /countries/voivodeship/districts (and where they are classified) ... this discussion will never end. Commons is not the place neither to fight for independence and autonomy, so please stick to the facts. --Foroa (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Lucpol, I think that your comment 'your opinion nobody takes seriously' is not an argument. You can not prove this. You just can say that you do not take it serious. Here, I would agree. But this does not say if it is right ot wrong, just that you disagree. You have the right to disagree as I have. The question is what should be in the Category Silesia. Should there be Görlitz? In my opinion no, because this city should be put in the category Saxony. Should Ostrava be there? In my opinion, also Orawa belongs in an other category, Silesia-Moravia. In the category Silesia only these cities should be included that are in Silesia in the meaning of the present Silesian Voivodship. The category Silesian Voivodship should be merged into Silesia. There is no sense in having both. And Silesia today (and that is what matters for the category) is a voivodship in Poland. Everything from the past should be put into a subcategory of History of Silesia, or History of Poland, Czech Republic, Austria, Prussia or Germany. There is no need to write in the categories after each Polish voivodship 'Voivodship'. This is neither done in Germany (Bundesland) nor in the USA (State), nor elsewhere as far as I can see. So why not call Silesia Silesia instead of Silesian Voivodship. Most people do not know what a voivodship is and it makes life more difficult for them to search for medias from this regions. And the category system should help them. Besides this Voivodship can also be written Voivodeship, which causes even more confusion. Only where the name of a voivodship is the same as the name of a city, like in Lublin, Opole and Łódź, the term voivodship should be added in brackets to avoid confusion. The same is true in Germany - Bremen (State) or the USA - New York (State). Let us have an organized Wikipedia with uniform standards. So let us accumulate in the Category Silesia only cities etc. from Silesia understood as the present day voivodship (region, state) Silesia in Poland. Let us put together cities etc. from the voivodship Lower Silesia in the category Lower Silesia, from the voivodship Opole in the category Opole (Voivodship) and in Saxony, cities from present day Saxony (even if they were for some decades considered to be part of Lower Silesia), and in Silesia-Moravia, cities from Silesia-Moravia. It is not about politics, but about senseful categorizing. And last but not least, stop offending me. I do not offend you and I also require that you do not offend me. User:136.242.18.51 04:54, 29 July 2008
According to my experience, regions are very often debated as there is a sensitive political, national(ist) and historical context. To avoid further discussions, and to remain coherent with the other Wikipedias, I think that we better keep the same regional definition as defined in en:Silesia, being a region that crosses several countries. After all, commons has to serve the wikipedia's, not the other way round. --Foroa (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear IP 136.242.18.51. Categorization of Polish regions you should discuss with different users and not edits (modify) without discussion. Discussion was already among many users. Official administrative division (voivodships) won, historical region in "all-states" categorize independently. I be base on this consensus. I repeat, Poland categorize according to official regions - voivodships. LUCPOL (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
One more revert edit and this will get protected due to edit warring, please discuss changes instead of just reverting each other. --Kanonkas(talk) 08:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
No. Now only one person still restores him version - IP 136.242.18.51 [20], even now - when lasts this discussion. Requests and warning do not help [21]. Instead blocked article, block him. LUCPOL (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Categories are supposed to be convenient tools which help users find quickly what they need. Clearly, as over 90% of Silesia is today in Poland, obviously there will be many users who will be looking for that region going through Category:Regions of Poland. I can see no harm in helping their search by including Category:Silesia in that category. Whether including Silesia in Poland is historically or geographically correct is besides the point. Arguments like this have no place on Wikimedia Commons, in my opinion, and should be avoided as much as possible. balcer (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Taking silence as agreement with the point I am making, I have added the relevant categories. Hopefully I have not jumped the gun here. balcer (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
BANG
Common sense, yes. Back to normal work guys. --Foroa (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the only criteria we need to use is whether within borders of today's "Poland, Czech, Germany and theoretically Slovakia" exist region that citizens of that country call "Silesia" (or equivalent native language name). Otherwise we will have Spain in category:Regions of Turkey and Alaska in category:Regions of Russia. --Jarekt (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos promoting biased POV on a politically sensitive image

I have an issue with User:AnonMoos about the image Bay-of-Piran maritime-boundary-dispute.jpg which portrays a sensitive political issue between Slovenia and Croatia clearly in favour of Croatia (see also image's description). I tagged the image with {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} in which AnonMoos keeps changing my description from "NPOV issue" to "abstract lexical semantics" (I'm not sure what political issue isn't "abstract"). I feel I made a point why this image is POV on its talk page (further demonstrated on the english talk page linked there), but the author doesn't seem to acknowledge it. I don't want to appear obstinate with a third revert, which is why I'm asking the community to judge on this issue. Thank you. --Yerpo (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever -- Yerpo is trying to sneak an allegation into the "disputed map" tag which is simply not supported by the relevant talk pages, since at Image talk:Bay-of-Piran maritime-boundary-dispute.jpg and en:Talk:Gulf of Piran there have been absolutely no remotely credible allegations whatsoever of "NPOV", in any usual or accepted meaning of the phrase. Instead, there have been only semantic hairsplittings over the possible speculated hypothetical potential implications of asymmetrical wording (even though I have explained in great detail that the aforementioned asymmetrical wording has nothing to do with me supporting Croatian or Slovenian positions, but is solely due to Croatia currently being the status quo power), and the use of an exonym. All the disputes are abstractly terminological and metaphysical, and have nothing to do with me advocating any particular position in the dispute between Croatia and Slovenia.
And even more importantly, according to the official policy Commons:Scope#.22Neutral_point_of_view.22 , it is generally not the reponsibility of Commons to adjudicate such matters. Obviously, an image which is being used to spread blatant falsehood can be deleted for that reason, but where there is a legitimate content dispute (some which are a hell of a lot more "POV" than anything involved in the Piran image, such as maps showing the status of Kosovo or Western Sahara), then it is not the role of us here on Wikimedia Commons to make decisions which the individual language Wikipedias can and should make for themselves... AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a note: but is solely due to Croatia currently being the status quo power - do you have a source for this? Because it seems to me that this is a core of the problem. My sources say otherwise - that the border was never fixed. Both countries' police forces enter the disputed area (yes, also Slovene) which is for me a further proof that they don't recognise each other's exclusive authority over it. And this is the only thing I request: to change the wording to the neutral "disputed". You are constantly trying to downplay the issue and I'm beginning to think that you're not as neutral as you claim to be (as well as because of the fact that the only exonym you used was for a Slovene city where Croatian towns on the map have known exonyms as well). --Yerpo (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Superficial approach to image vandalism makes admin think it's a content dispute

  ResolvedConsensus gained on the image talk. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

OK I will not throw a pile of text at you just sheer facts because I have bad experience with an admin who superficially looked at an image that was vandalised and thought it must be content dispute so I am afraid that writing too much of text will scare away other admins. Image in question Image:EU on kosovo independence.png shows the status of EU states regarding Kosovo independence. The image often changed as the situation changed but it has stabilised since all the member states expressed their views.

  • User:Mareklug came in and painted Slovakia and Greece to yellow from red without providing any source for that edit
  • I reverted him and posted three quotes which show the position of Slovakia and Greece and you can see them on the image file (Slovak PM: "..I do not exclude the possibility that Slovakia will never recognize Kosovo. Kosovo is not some independent territory, it is an integral part of Serbia.." and the Greek MFA "..Greece did not recognise Kosovo and does not recognise the secessionist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia") and I wrote in the edit summary that I will report him for introducing deliberate errors to this article.
  • Admin Kanonkas comes in and superficially decided it must be a content dispute ("oh look a revert - it's definitely a content dispute" kind of approach) and reverts to the version of Mareklug which despite still standing quotes on the image file has Slovakia and Greece as completely neutral countries that have postponed their decision regarding Kosovo
  • I asked Kanonkas whether it would be, for an example a content dispute, if I would keep on painting Norway as an EU member but he did not respond (of course it wouldn't be a cd, it would be pure vandalism)

There is no content dispute here as you can see and there can't be any useful discussion on that talk page either. It would be like discussing with someone whether Norway is an EU member or not (my earlier example) while knowing the one who keeps adding it is not actually having a lack of knowledge but has too much free time to add little vandalism on Wikimedia projects.

I am asking for an admin which will take more than one second of thoughts (the "oh look a revert - it's definitely a content dispute" approach) on this issue. When an admin decides to take part in some dispute of any kind he has to act all the way not for one second and then drop it. I told Kanonkas it's not a bad thing to make a mistake but it is bad not to correct when someone points it out.


I have one final request, I would like only for admins who actually read everything I wrote to respond. Other admins who skimmed through and thought it would be nice to direct me to some talk page, please do not post that because honestly speaking I am tired or superficialness.--Avala (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Like a have told you. Kanonkas reverted to the original version. when i had seen the editwar i decided to protect the image. I told you to come to a solution on the talkpage of the image. When a admin see that the most people agree with a version a admin can make sure that version will be used. A editwar is never the way to get your version of the image. Please go to the talkpage and give your opinion there. When all involved has done so whe can choose the version. So please go to the talkpage of the image. Sterkebaktalk 12:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I rv back to Marklug's version (I was supposed to rv to this rev, and I told you to go to the talk page & solve it. I am in no way "vandalizing" any image, I'm just doing what I thought would be best & that is you two discussing it on the talk page, I've seen you two having a prior history with edit warring, see their block logs. --Kanonkas(talk) 12:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
He did not revert it to the original version but to Mareklug's unsourced version from the other day. And this just shows superficialness again. How can you revert a map to an original version when a lot of things changed since the original image was uploaded? The number of edits you see are not edit wars but updates but that's another issue of superficialness, you see a lot of edits and think oooh what an edit war without realizing it was constant updates due to changing positions of countries that map is supposed to reflect. And I didn't say you were vandalising - it was Mareklug but your superficialness endorsed it. And you again didn't address any of the issues, you just keep on directing me to the talk page without realizing this is not a content dispute (you would have realized that if you read what I wrote because I tried to be very straight to the point). See the block log where my block was removed and Mareklug's lengthened after I pointed out to admins that it wasn't a content dispute back then and pointed them to see the salvo of insults from Mareklug directed at me beginning with comparing me to a horse to calling me obtuse. But again I am having troubles with superficialness, I handled it well the last time when I contacted some more thorough and hardworking admins and I am trying to do it this time too. Admins who give out blocks to fellow admins because they think "oh I can't be bothered to spend 2 minutes on this, I will just deal with this based on my instincts, and my instinct tells me it has to be a content dispute" should not deal with this issue. The fact that proves you didn't read what I wrote is that you didn't answer to any of the questions, you just kept on repeating yourself. Anyone can copy/paste their comments from before but not anyone can deal with an issue the right way. For an example an enough reason to warn Mareklug not me would be to look at who edited the image description by adding quotes and sources and who just blindly vandalized the image. If you can't be bothered to spend more than a few seconds on some issue then why do you begin doing it. Let someone who has more will or time to do it. --Avala (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Give your opinion on the talkpage of the image not here. On the talkpage whe can discuss the protection and the version. Sterkebaktalk 12:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If I painted Norway as an EU member would you suggest locking the image file until that "dispute" is resolved? I've got nothing against copying the content of the image description to the image talk page and I will do it in a moment but somehow I am not sure if that will have any effect. I am afraid no one will read it.--Avala (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Later today i will give a message to all people involved to join the discussion on the talkpage. So everybody can give there opinion. The are more than 1 people involved in the editwar so there are more than 1 opinion. If i act on wat you say and don't read what other users have to say it would not be fair to the other users. So i wan't a discussion on the image talkpage. So i can read all opinions and act on that. I have already read your opinion. But i won't act if i only read one side of the story. I am not intressted in blocking. I want a solution. Sterkebaktalk 13:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You are forgetting that Wikimedia projects are not supposed to reflect the POV of editors but to reflect the reality in NPOV manner by sourcing it's content with verifiable external references. Otherwise we could have the GWB article that would say that he is a war criminal, because some think that he is. Or we could add to Hitler article that he was a hero, some probably think that too. The situation here is clear, only one editor provided sources for his edit per wiki rules and that would be me. Other editor or editors just uploaded new version of the image without any normal explanations let alone sources.--Avala (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly where you are wrong, see COM:NPOV and your other opinion well we've got a project scope to cover that. --Kanonkas(talk) 13:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that those mean "let's make images with deliberate factual errors". For an example "change the colours of the French flag to orange-pink-green and it is perfectly fine by us". No that is not what those rules mean.--Avala (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
No that's what our project scope stops. --Kanonkas(talk) 13:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes i know about npov. But i wan't to know if other people also has sources. If they have we need a discussion. If they don't your version will be put back. Avala i would say give it some time this will not be solved today or tomorrow. I would like to ask you to stop here this discussion. The talkpage will be the main place for the discussion. And you can trust me. I have read wat you had to say. Now i am waiting for other people. I have no site i am still neutral. Thank you Sterkebaktalk 13:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your commitment so I can agree to put this request here on hold for 2 days or so until when I hope the issue is to be finally resolved.--Avala (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in the U.S.

I am currently in sort of a dispute with User:Wuzur over his understanding of freedom of panorama in the U.S. Basically, he deleted two images based on what I think was a faulty understanding of this matter; the images weren't particularly important, but the principle is. If his interpretation stands, then hundreds, perhaps thousands, of images would need to be deleted.

I've started a discussion at Commons:Village pump#Public space (clarification needed for U.S.) and requested his comment there. It has been several days and he has not replied. I am placing this notice here simply because I don't know what else to do to move this forward. Given that he is an admin and I am not, and that I believe that he is "enforcing" his own misunderstanding of us law, I feel a bit powerless about how I am to proceed here.

Again, I really don't care about the two images, but I care enormously about the policy question. I have no problem with us conforming to copyright law; I have an enormous problem with being subject to someone's arbitrary legal extrapolation, based on nothing in statute law and contradicting case law. - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

License compatibility

I am not sure if this is the right place, but I see little action here Commons:Village_pump#Freesound_Sample_plus_license Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Blank map europe.svg has minor revert war over Kosovo

I was looking for a blank map of Europe earlier this week and stumbled upon a minor revert war over this file. At some point, the file was branched off into this version with Kosovo and another without Kosovo: File:Blank map europe (Kosovo as part of Serbia).svg. However because of the reverts, these files are now duplicates. Perhaps the easiest solution will be to rename both, but I do feel that both files need to be available on the commons, and I don't want a third file put up without solving this dispute. Thanks for your help!--Patrick «» 17:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank for spotting that. I hate it when this happens. I reverted this file to a previous wrong version and protected it. Samulili (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help!--Patrick «» 17:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

user:Yann

user:Yann is having a strange behavior. I am using my right of appeal (COM:DEL#Appeal) on Commons:Undeletion_requests and Yann reacts with a threat : (diff)

He writes in French "o[u] je devrais prendre des mesures moins sympatiques" which means "or else I should take less friendly measures", which is an indefinite threat, aimed at intimidating me so that I renounce to use my right of appeal. Teofilo (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I read French and I've reviewed the relevant context. User:Yann disagrees with recent deletion requests you've made, which he views as spurious and intentionally disruptive. In fact, I believe your deletion requests, including the one he specifically cites, is of merit - even the ones that were kept were rarely clear-cut. Yann appears to give very little weight to the copyright of designers, whereas you give considerable weight to it, and this is the crux of your conflict. As long as you are not repeatedly nominating images for reasons that have been explained to you as invalid in previous deletion discussions, there is no issue. I advise Yann to assume good faith, and strongly advise him against closing deletion discussions with no discussion such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kite festival Vung Tau 2009, 01.jpg. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I made two more appeal applications on Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current requests#Appeal of Commons:Deletion requests.2FFile:Clydon.jpg and Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current requests#Appeal_of Commons:Deletion requests.2FFile:Kite festival Vung Tau 2009.2C 01.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

License Permission Dispute

I uploaded five images from a corporate website whereby the public relations department offers, as a courtesy to the press, a media kit for public domain use with the intent of allowing any media professional (such as a press reporter) to publish in their own publication any of the material contained in the kit. That is what a media or press kit is for, it is released material for media consumption. However, Wikimedia has rejected the intended purpose of a media kit by questioning and refusing to acknowledge expressed statements in the corporate website pages describing the free offering of these images in their kits.

The five images in question are: [22]; [23][24][25][26] and can be found together in my talk page. The company has dedicated a webpage to each of these images for downloading. In these webpages the company states: "This information is intended for media professionals"...and "Courtesy of Medtronic, Inc"....and "The following images are made available to provide reporters with visual resources...". These statements can be found in the "Source" link (URL) of the Wikimedia file. I would like to publish these "visual resources" in Wikimedia as they are, as public domain material.

A discussion can be found here User talk:High Contrast#File:Minimed_Paradigm_RT_522-722_on_torso.jpg. Please help resolve. Henry Delforn (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Being made available to the public (or the media) is quite a different thing, legally speaking, than something being released into the "public domain". Media kits and press releases are not, by any means, by default, "public domain". We have to assume, unless there is an explicit notice otherwise, that the copyright is still retained by the publisher. Unless there is a statement saying "these images are in the public domain" on the official website, we cannot publish them on the commons as being PD. Sorry. Without further evidence of license or permission, we cannot accept these images. -Andrew c (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Images have been deleted as having been tagged for over 7 days with no permission. -Andrew c (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

edit war

Hello, I would like to announce edit war between user:Kevmin and user:Snek01. Further information Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Fossils vs. Fossil vs. Extinct and later section. --Snek01 (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, talk about tl;dr. Would you mind summarizing a bit for us? Tiptoety talk 19:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a very long discussion that started 2 month ago, but results of discussion are not evaluated yet. Because I am impatient so I made "my" interpretation of concensus from discussion and changed some categorizes and recategorized few hundreds of files, which was few times reverted "There and Back Again". An independent experienced user who is familiar with categorizing is welcomed to make an summary (if there is concensus, if there are any applicable results of discussion, ...). --Snek01 (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, if that is the case and you did jump the gun then you should stop reverting until there is consensus. That also goes the other way. The other party reverting your changes does not have consensus to back up their edits (instead they have the fact that your edit was done on the lack of consensus, which could be said of their edits too). Reverting back and forth doesn't get anybody anywhere. Instead it will result in a block, so please...just keep talking it out on the talk page. Tiptoety talk 20:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. It will THEORETICALLY result in a block of any of reverting parties. But nothing happens meantime! That problem was already announced a month ago and was ignored! Your advice will help a little. But there are still some things to solve: 1) If there is not clear what the concensus is, then there is possible to do nothing with files. If the discussion is about more thousands or more files, then there is possible to do nothing with such large amount of files. One of administrators in the discussion said, that it will be solved in few years or something like this. If this "doing of nothing" is not respected by someone, then his/her edit can be reverted to neutral state. Then there would not be able to categorize some files (new files), but it does not matter. 2) If some party THINKS that there is concensus and other party THINKS that there is not concensus, who will decide it? Especially if there are very few people in the discussion? You know, that "defeated" party tends to say "No, there is no concensus yet." 3) When will you block reverting parties. I have showed you, that both are guilty in reverting. Will you block an user or users another day after revert or when? --Snek01 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The section of the current dispute between Snek01 and several other editors is here. With side comments here, and not also the entry here. Summarized, the dissuasion on ToL agreed that the Category:Fossil structure was valid, but had been expanded to far, by me, and thus should be reduced back to the higher taxon levels. Snek01 and one other user think that the fossil categorys should be done away with completely but this idea has been rejected. Not satisfied with the slow pace and lack of support for his/her proposal, Snek01 has started to implement it anyways on the category structure. He has been asked to stop by both me and user:FunkMonk but in his comment on the linked ToL discussion section, states he will not work with anyone who will not agree to his version of restructuring.--Kevmin (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Also note that despite the request made by Tiptoety on this page to not revert one way or the other Snek01 is removing fossil xxx cats from newly uploaded media see here, here, hereand here to list a few.--Kevmin (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Snek01 blocked for 24 hours, and you have been warned. Please see your talk page. Tiptoety talk 23:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Understood, I have replied re my warning on my talkpage.--Kevmin (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

← Like I said on Kevmin's talk page, I am going to attempt to read over the discussion and determine consensus if it is there. That said, it would be great if another administrator could step in as well to ensure I make the right judgment calls. Also, it would be greatly appreciated if a neutral party (does not have to be an admin) take a look at this issue too and give their opinions. Currently, the people who have voiced their thoughts on the matter are pretty involved. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 23:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

While Tiptoety is trying to sort things out, I think it would be helpful for the involved editors to refrain from editing the affected categories. In particular, CFD tagging at this time tends to fragment discussion and may delay resolution.[27] Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I am pretty involved by now, since I use the fossil categories and think they are valid, but I'll say what I think is the main problem here, which is that quick, rushed solutions are being implemented by Snek without any sort of consensus, and several files and categories are being affected by it in a way that makes it quite hard to navigate, due to lack of standardization. Snek has stated many times that he does not want to wait for a consensus, and that is quite problematical. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


  • This is not really a TOL structural matter. The TOL project often wants to take responsibility for any categorisation related to plants and animals. But pulling fossil animals into that structure makes no more sense than trying to fit baby animals or green animals into the taxonomic structure. Fossils of xyz species should go into the taxonomic tree in the appropriate place (as an example of that species) and into an independent fossil tree (think as though fossil is instead the word baby or green).
  • Also Fossil, Extinct and Artist impression are all separate, independent category trees. --Tony Wills (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Alvesgaspar repetedly delete my comment in a talk page

For background check here: File_talk:Big_Ben_2007-1.jpg. Basically User:Alvesgaspar is too protective about a distinction (Quality Image) given to an image he contributed! I wrote in the talk page of the image that it doesn't deserve this distinction and he keeps on deleting my comment everytime I undo his blanking of the talk page. Two points here: 1) I am intitled to my own opinion and I wrote it in the talk page, didn't touch the file page itself. 2) In any discussion relating to the evaluation of a user's contributions, the user in question himself/herself should refrain from interfering in the evaluation and leave that to others, people automatically shy away from praising themselves or their own work not be as heavy handed as to wage an edit war against somebody critical of their work. Mike876 (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  • The talk page of a picture is not the proper place for making this type of comments. Why not here? Anyway I found quite weird (to say the least) that a user is created with the sole purpose of attacking a picture. Maybe a hand from of an admin is needed here. Unless this is a joke from a regular, of course! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I would have thought that an edit war on the topic was not warranted. Both users should have tried actually talking to each other when it was obvious reverting endlessly achieves nothing. There is no delisting option built into QI so no great fear of the image loosing its QI status. The arguments about quality tagging would of course be more sensible on the QIC talk page or perhaps the QI talk page. Perhaps Mike876 would like to make his suggestions there. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Smartcard2.png

I am a bit worried about File:Smartcard2.png; it currently contains the Wikipedia logo in it, meaning that it should be labeled as {{CopyrightByWikimedia}}. I don't think this is necessary, but two users have already attempted to remove it, causing a slow-moving edit war. It also has a logo with a striking resemblance to en:File:MasterCard Logo.svg, which is very much on the edge in terms of copyright (I could conceivably seeing Mastercard's lawyers making an issue out of it if another company used it, though doubtfully in this situation). Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that's recognizable as the logo even though the full ball isn't used. I also agree that the logo design chosen is very close to Mastercard's logo; given that this is on a card of the type Mastercard makes, it probably would have been best to go for something not at all like any card logo in existence. Shell babelfish 00:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion of file Anna Timiriova 1954

Some time ago I loaded the file Anna_Timiriova_1954. The picture was taken by the Soviet KGB and has been taken from the convict's file. According to the Russian copyright law pictures of official documents are not subject to copyright.

Though this has been explained and I had a detailed discussion with Mr. Martin H., he insists that police files are not official documents and therefore are subject to copyright. In any case this is not valid for Russia, acoording to the Russian copyright law. I also have doubts that the even in other countries the copyright of police files is transferred from the photographer to the agency who has ordered the pictures taken. I have not been able to identify any law which indicates this for the case of police files.

I have requested that, if he did not agree with my interpretation, Mr. Martin H. contact a specialist in Russian law in order to settle the dispute. However, without any further investigation, Mr. Martin H. has chosen to delete the uploaded file.

I object to the unilateral decision regarding this matter, which should have been settled by a discussion, and request the reinstatement of the file. Afil (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You can propose the undeletion of the file at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests.
If you want to base your request on something that can't be found, e.g. on Commons:Licensing#Russia_and_former_Soviet_Union. It would be helpful if you would provide a source for that. -- User:Docu at 03:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Rokarudi forcing Hungarian names on places in Romania (now on Commons)

User:Rokarudi is forcing Hungarian names on places in Romania (galleries) and after talking with him there is no sign of stopping [28]. The galleries with problems are:

Many others... If needed I will present then too.

And in some instances broke the 3RR :

And :

Apparently wiki-hounding me and continuing his "project" on Commons now. I have checked the naming policy on Commons with an Administrator a while ago before proceeding with my edits [29]. I would like to propose for this user to be banned from editing Romania-related galleries for a while since his campaign has no signs of stopping. Iadrian yu (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved the content from Category:Gheorgheni/Gyergyószentmiklós to Category:Gheorgheni in line with Commons:Categories. If someone wants to move any content open a {{Cfd}}. Multichill (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
What Commons:Categories says about names of settlements which are inhabited mostly by a national minority? --ŠJů (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Nothing at all. Multichill (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to this user that his actions are inappropriate and consider the possibility of a ban on Romanian-related articles since this is his 3rd time forcing Hungarian names in various instances.Iadrian yu (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As Multichill warned me not to revert what he had approved for Iadrian yu as being in line with Commons rules, moreover, as he has already used admin tools (robot) to enforce his opinion, in order to avoid misunderstandings, I would like to request Multichill to clarify to what extent he shares the views of Iadrian yu as to the compulsary appearance of Romanian (official) placenames on Commons with respect to places in Transylvania inhabited by ethnic minorities. Notably, please let us know, do you hold the view that with respect to such settlements both category and gallery titles (1) must be under Romanian name, or (2) may both be under Hungarian name if local majority is Hungarian (3) or category title must be Romanian while gallery may be in both or bilingual like Bruxelles - Brussel or Bolzano - Bozen or Aosta - Aoste, or this latter practice is only applicable for Western-Europe. Just in brackets: I uploaded and transferred dozens of Transylvania related pictures and I almost always added a Romanian translation, so I simply refuse uncivil statements as to my being impatient in this respect. Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevant discussion happened here talk page where I provided examples for further clarification on this matter. What Rokarudi is trying to show with Brussel(French and Dutch) and other examples he provided like South Tyrol(high level of autonomy) is invalid because in every case he have provided there is a country/autonomous province (not as Romania with no autonomous areas at all) what Rokarudi intentionally tries to forget/change virtually constantly comparing Romania with inappropriate examples (bilingual countries or even disputed regions(Kosovo,Palestine)), even if this is explained several times on EN Wikipedia in similar instances where he also tried to elevate alternative names to the status of official ones. Iadrian yu (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


I'm afraid there's a bit of misunderstanding here. Category names are in English (or most commons name in English, see Commons:Categories for details) and gallery names are in the local language (Commons:Galleries for details). So in the case of Brussels we have Category:Brussels (English) and Bruxelles – Brussel (French and Dutch, Belgium is one big language war). Gheorgheni is the name used in English so Category:Gheorgheni is the suitable name at Commons for the category. If this is not correct you're welcome a {{Cfd}} (instead of edit warring, what you guys were doing). Multichill (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Understood. Thanks. Rokarudi(talk) 21:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Burned israeli flag - 27zapata.jpg

A slow moving edit war over the issue if burning a the flag of Israel is antisemitism or not. // Liftarn (talk)

I reported the user Liftarn here. Thank you. Kordas (sínome!) 11:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I invite people to join the discussion at File talk:Burned israeli flag - 27zapata.jpg#Antisemitism?. Multichill (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Kurdish-inhabited area by CIA (1992).jpg

File:Kurdish-inhabited area by CIA (1992).jpg has an edit war going on. If it's a CIA map, it should be left as the base map, and if others want to add new information, they should create a separate file.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. It must be reverted to the 2007 upload and protected for some time. SV1XV (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  Done Reverted to original upload and protected for 2 weeks. If there are edit wars after that time, it must be protected indefinitely. SV1XV (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Docu

(moved from the Administrators Noticeboard)

Hi. I'd like to report the above user who inappropriately reverted my edits without consensus, twice. In the first revert on July 24th, he undid a small portion which was later restored. Then, after disappearing from the discussion for a week, he returned today by directly reverting the entire bulk of work I did; with a ridiculous "restore per talk" edit summary, when clearly no consensus was ever reached. Please see this discussion for the original details. You may notice that the discussion is not that of a controversial topic, rather the user, without knowing the real facts, wants to stick to his own preferable format of categorization. I am looking forward to third-party comments so that a proper consensus can be reached to revert Docu's work. Rehman(+) 13:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: I did a little research on the topic; the "entire scheme" is sometimes also called the Cleuson-Dixence Complex (which includes the Cleuson Dam and its reservoir). User:Docu has the option of agreeing with moving Category:Grande Dixence to Category:Cleuson-Dixence Complex, or agree to the above fact. Either way, what this user is enforcing is clearly wrong. Rehman(+) 15:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: If no one (including User:Docu) shows no further objections here in the next few days, I will carry out the above plan; structuring the the following categorizing format:

--Rehman(+) 08:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good plan! Amada44  talk to me 08:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Please continue on the relevant talk page (Category talk:Grande Dixence).
For the purpose of this noticeboard, one should just mention that Rehman, once again, restored the disputed structure without prior discussion. Thus I requested to reverse his unilateral actions.  Docu  at 11:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
No, if you want to keep your personal preference, discuss it here, at the disputes board so others may see. You had your chance of replying here before the move was made, but you simply removed without comment. Rehman(+) 12:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I responded to your comment at Category talk:Grande Dixence. 99of9 replied to your earlier when you posted the same thing elsewhere. No forum shopping here, sorry.  Docu  at 19:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: 99of9 was simply commenting on the wrongful venue I posted the comment on, and the view from both sides. He does not comment on the categorization. And for your information, I did respond to him, contrary to your "you didn't even bothered to respond to 99of9". Also, didn't you notice the blue "moved from the Administrators Noticeboard" on top of this section? Stop deviating from the subject.
For your "accusing people of "vandalist behaviour"", I have already explained to you in good faith that it was very wrong of me to say that; you don't have to bring that up over and over again. Rehman(+) 03:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Us-ca-sf.png and deletion request "edit war"

I am currently engaged in an edit war with User:Bastique. Bastique keeps removing the deletion tag before the deletion request has closed. The file has since been replaced, but old file remains to be hosted by Commons. I think the DR still should remain active and the notice remain till the DR is closed for the orginal file.--Svgalbertian (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't gone through well, but IMO, the tag should not be removed until the deletion discussion is over. Rehman 01:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
He is now claiming that images listed in the "File history" cannot be subject to deletion requests, is this true? I am getting very frustrated talking to him because he keeps getting more and more upset about the issue.--Svgalbertian (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've closed the deletion request, and removed the original version from the file history (as a derivative work). 99of9 (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Are courtyards gardens?

  •  
    Is this a garden? - YES
  •  
    Is this a garden? - NO
  •  
    Is this a garden? - YES
  •  
    Is this a garden? - YES

Note: previous concerns regarding User:Look2See1's edits in conflict with Commons:categorisation were raised here and here.

Now Look2See1 insists that courtyards are a subcategory of gardens. --ELEKHHT 05:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Courtyards are architectural elements according to en:Category:Courtyards. Look2See1 should have a strong justification for not following the example of enwikipedia especially considering his/her judgment has been questioned by several experienced editors. I would ask Look2See1 to refrain from adding categories unless s/he is confident that other editors will agree. Generally, s/he will be well-advised to defer to the judgment of other editors. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


Response
I will hereon follow the editors' consensus, and only add, on an image basis, Category:Gardens of place] to Category:Courtyards of place] for images that have a significant landscape component. The warm climate regional and cultural considerations used for several subcategory into category inclusions, such as Category:Courtyards in California, do make sense on the 'local vernacular' level - but wikimedia is global. I'm sorry for any distress or problems my perceptions caused. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and on you go doing the same again. I am very very tired of this. --ELEKHHT 01:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


Response
Re; Elekhh's 'Patios of Spain' example link mistake.
Patios (which are not courtyards), is a term of Spanish language origin, used in Spain, Mexico, the U.S., and other latin/non-latin countries/cultures - for a garden or landscape park 'terrace' element. Not all outdoor terraces are patios. Not all gardens have plants, nor all patios.
No courtyards were hurt in the process, even with your Patios of Spain example link, so the same is not going on, you made a mistake and are wrong.
Please try to be more accurate before jumping on something, as using your quote from 01:46, "I am very very tired of this".—Look2See1 (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 
A garden in Sweden
Yep, there's a huge mess to cleanup in Look2See1's wake going back several months. Everything is a garden. Apparently, gates are gardens, too! —LX (talk, contribs) 16:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


Response
 
Garden gate in Sweden.
Well, some are, and can be individually labeled Category:Garden gates & Category:Gardens in Sweden. I do not recall putting all a country's gates cat. into their gardens cat. since the June postings above. Oh, everything is a not a garden, you do exaggerate.-Look2See1 (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Bellini selfportrait.jpg - portrait may be inverted

User:Oursana claims (on my talk page) that the image is inverted. This portrait is facing left, while at the same source site the portrait is facing right, in this gallery. Also the source provided by the user. --Sdrtirs (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Problem of Impoliteness and Indecency with SpacemanSpiff

I have a peculiar problem with the Commons User SpacemanSpiff. He (I may be be excused if I got the gender wrong) has responded to my humble queries with regard to editing and postings on Wiki Projects in a highly arrogant manner by:

  • Calling my contributions as "junk" even when I proved the running utility of my uploads.
  • Referring me as someone who does "not understand the scope of Commons" even when I am plainly discussing an issue with him with an open mind.
  • Claiming a personal victory over his supposed success in getting some of my uploads deleted.
  • Accusing me of treating Commons as my "Flickr Account".
  • Accusing me of "sitting on a high horse".
The above accusations pertain to the postings by this user on his Common's talkpage and English Wikipedia talkpage.
I request the intervention of an admin to take corrective measures so that this user does not resort to any unhealthy and indecent language in future and laments for what he already done. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC).
This is again another example of a holier than thou attitude from Hindustanilanguage. As you can see from the link [30] he referenced above, he comes to my talk page and complains about me supporting the uploads of one random user when I have done no such thing, and then added that "Else, like Flickr we are giving scope for all sorts of image file posting." to which my absolutely correct response that he's the one treating Commons as his personal Flickr account (see some of the deleted images). As far as referring to him as not understanding the scope of Commons or an encyclopaedia, I stand by it -- he keeps adding random kids playing with toy gun vidoes to the Indian Navy page on en.wiki and so on and it is plain frustrating. There's a very large discussion on en:WP:BLP devoted to this users uploading of images to articles, so I'm not the only one frustrated. And then, once images get deleted from Commons as copyvio, he goes and uploads the same image on en.wiki with the same PD-Self tag. This is an utter waste of time given that he doesn't seem to listen, I've asked him before to keep the relevant discussions at the DR pages and not on my talk page, yet he comes back and accuses me of supporting "honeymoon images" and such nonsense when I have done no such thing. Sorry, but this is an utter waste of time and I have no interest in interacting with this user except when I file a DR and on the DR pages.—SpacemanSpiff 10:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

* I presume Commons to be an open forum forum for all constructive contributions. Yes, I erred on occasions and a few of my uploads were deleted. But that's it. Many of my uploads are of immense value. Take the case of of Death certificate of Bhagat Singh or A poor boy's picture showing a monkey in action highlighting Child Labour and Cruelty to Animals or the autographs of Dinkar, Kofi Annan, T S Eliot, Milton Friedman, etc. This guy can be no judge of my uploads as he is an admin only on the English Wikipedia.

  • Politeness and courtesy are prerequisites in all forums.
  • As regards to the uploaded video, it aims to highlight a tradition in India - Defense personnel train their kids to be recruited to serve the country just like them. This video is just intended to highlight that same - that a navy personnel father is seeing his son being trained to shoot- even if it is just a toy gun. So the issue of "adding random kids playing with toy gun vidoes" does not arise. However, as an admin he has a right to dispute the inclusion of this video to the article and I was never averse to its removal.
  • The issue of others being frustrated with me does not arise on any Wikipedia. There was an issue over inclusion of autographs, especially of living persons on the en:wikipedia article on BLP noticeboard. However, many of my autographs are forming part of en:Wikipedia articles with the images included by others and this is no issue of discussion here. If spiff has time, he can remove even these images - something which I did not edit on en:wp.
I have no interest in interacting with this user but he owes me an apology for his uncivil and impolite language and over exaggerated statements about me and my volunteer work. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Note to the admins: I request no action to be taken against spiff. Striking indicates this.
To Spiff: I forgive all your factually incorrect, highly exaggerated and arrogant remarks in the true spirit of Christmas and new year. Wish you a Happy Christmas and a Prosperous new year. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Neanderthal animation of evolution.gif

I'd like more people to weigh in on this discussion, because the image in question is pro-evolution and I don't want it deleted for that reason.--Camocon (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The witchhunt continues....

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Disputes_noticeboard/Archive_4&oldid=303775362"